Why did so much of this start in Europe? — darthbarracuda

Why did Europe get a head start on everybody else? According to Jared Diamond, (Guns, Germs, and Steel) Europe, India, and China all had a head start, like...10,000 years ago because of agricultural developments in the Fertile Crescent of western Asia. Grains and domesticated animals could move east and west on the same parallel quite easily. The climate was suitable in both directions for grains, grazing, and domestic animals. So the first and later, maybe greatest civilizations arose in these places.

Agriculture, grains, domesticated animals, et al did not move well north to south. As one moves toward the poles, the climates change a lot. A grain that would grow in Egypt would not grow as well in a very arid climate or a very wet climate. Cattle bred to thrive in moderate climates don't do well in very hot, very dry, very cold, or very wet climates.

Why didn't the Western Hemisphere develop? It had great soils, terrific resources, etc. #1, the north/south problem, again. A crop that was developed in what would be Washington and Oregon probably wouldn't do well in what would be southern California or northern Mexico. Besides that, the Amerindians brought no domesticated animals with them, and didn't find any animals suitable for domestication. Cattle, for instance, are calm herd animals. Buffalo are very nervous, defensive herd animals. Cattle were easy to domesticate (relatively) and buffalo were impossible to domesticate.

Without traction animals (like horses and oxen) there was no point in developing wheels. No wheels, no industry behind basket weaving and pot throwing, etc.

It's basically geographical determinism.

"I prefer Western values" might be seen as "I prefer white male values", — darthbarracuda

So what? Philosophers in the West have generally been white males. Surprisingly, philosophers in China have generally been Asian males. Philosophers in India have almost always been Indian males. Odd how that worked out.

is it racist to believe one's values are better than others'? For example, is it racist to only study historical white philosophers who lived in Europe? — darthbarracuda

Of course it's not racist to believe one's values are better than others. One can guiltlessly think the values of the West, as developed in Western Asia, Europe, and the north coast of Africa by Semitic, Greek, Roman, and the hash of tribes in Europe are very fine, and their arts, technologies, sciences, religions, philosophies, and literature are world class, second to none.

Now, the people to the far east of Europe are entitled to think their own cultures (China, SE Asia, Japan, Korea, Tibet, etc) are very fine too, world class, and second to none. Africans and Amerindians are going to think their cultures are very fine as well.

I don't think Africans, the Amerindians, or the ancient people of Australia produced the same high quality of civilization that Asia and Europe did. This isn't a racial fault -- it's part of geographical determinism again.

What is racist is thinking that white people, black people, Asians, Amerindians, or Australian Aboriginals are inherently inferior, or inherently superior, compared to some other human group. There may be small differences between the racial groups, but remarkable superiority isn't the possession of any of them -- as people.

Cultures, on the other hand, can be superior. All people have had cultures sufficient to enable them to survive and flourish, at least for a while. Every culture meets that standard. Some cultures have had much greater success in developing resources and the various arts and sciences. European cultures were much better at that than Amerindian cultures. Asians were better at it than African cultures.

Around the world, people are pretty much alike. Their environments are not.

Amerindians, for instance, did some pretty terrific plant breeding with some very unprepossessing plants, like the tomato, potato, corn, at al. People had to see potential in the very small, unimpressive cereal plant called corn. They didn't find big tomatoes as they explored the western hemisphere. What they found were tomatoes the size of small blue berries.

A lot of the world's menu was invented in the Western Hemisphere:

corn, potato, tomato, bell pepper, chili pepper, vanilla, tobacco, beans, pumpkin, cassava root, avocado, peanut, pecan , cashew, pineapple, blueberry, sunflower, petunia, black-eyed susan, dahlia, marigold, quinine, wild rice, cacao (chocolate), gourds, and squash.

I'm not sure what high culture African cultures were good for, apart from the Egyptians, but we had best not criticize them too much, since we are all Africans by long term heritage.

There may be some argument for dialling back PC in some of its guises but you seem to be saying little more than you should have the right to verbally trample on whomever you so wish because it amuses you. — Baden

Ha ha.

Fuck you, darling.

Ha ha. — unenlightened

I worked for a US company for awhile with a US manager and once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. He called me over and said I couldn't say that to a woman. — Benkei

Benkei's experience of being reprimanded for complimenting Ms. Dutch on her dress illustrates where these finicky rules about behavior end up.

I don't know whether it would be a good thing for us all to spend an Encounter Weekend together or not. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of leaping to conclusions on the basis of posts which can't be judged in the context of people's actual behavior.

For most adults, the place they spend the greater part of their day is at work. Work has always been a socializing site as well as a place of drudgery. As much as bosses would like to suppress that function, work is the place where a lot of people look for and find friends and mates. Friends and socializing is one of the few things that humanizes many work places.

How are men and women supposed to assess their co-workers romantic potential if they can not engage in the normal female/female. male/male, or male/female interaction that spawns friendship, romance, and marriage?

The preliminaries to asking someone out involve flirting, touching (and I'm not talking about running a hand up a woman's thigh, or down a man's trousers, here), banter, and so on. I consider it meet, right, and salutary that people should pursue personal goals like friendship and romance at work.

Granted, many people at work are already married or already partnered. Some people are all business all the time, and can't be bothered by frivolous socializing. No profitability in that! But still, all that has to be sorted out in a group--who is available and who is not.

You already know that I have no understanding of millennial women (so strange a species, unlike any generation before) so you will understand why I don't quite understand how they are ever going to get laid by anybody--male or female, let alone find a husband and have children (Gawd, what a pathetic patronizing patriarchal thing to say--total insensitivity!!! Get married and have children? What cave did he crawl out of???) if they can't find a way to interact more enthusiastically with men. Look, you know as well as I do that this discourse applies to on-campus and post-campus socializing as well. It doesn't apply ONLY to the work place.

sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself — ProbablyTrue

Presidents, elder statesmen , and high ranking army officers are always proud to declare their Faith. — charleton

Yes, it's a disgusting performance.

But when it comes to Christians taking responsibility for what they do in the world they are happy enough to point the finger at Islam but want to avoid responsibility for their own actions. — charleton

That's true, but then, which religious/ideological power block actually does take responsibility for their actions?

Christianity is the dominant ideology in the West. — charleton

It is certainly one of the tap roots of western thinking, going back to the Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Whether it is still the dominant ideology of the west is doubtful. I think capitalism and a soft-peddled authoritarianism is a competing ideology.

And the West seems to thrive on warfare. — charleton

The West has certainly been warlike enough, but really, warfare is endemic in the species. EVERYBODY wages war, when what they want can't be obtained by other means, and there is no territory on the face of the earth free of local warfare.

If you disagree with what I am saying then why the fuck do not so-called Christians do something about it? — charleton

I find quite a bit of truth in what you are saying, but I am not responsible for the so-called Christians, who will have to decide to do something about it -- themselves. I am more of an apostate/heretic/heathen. The problem with many believers (Christian, Islamic, Hindu...) is that they have come to believe very deeply in their own bullshit. But then, so have a lot of atheists. Belief in one's own bullshit is probably the one TRUE faith.

Who started the last 50 wars on earth??? Christians. — charleton

Christians have plenty to atone for, but it's a very tired canard that religion is the cause of war, or that Christians are unusually war like.

War is far too expensive to be justified by religious interests. There is usually a quite earthly reason to go to war: political expedience, economic resources, failed diplomacy (war is diplomacy carried out by other means), control of resources, power, and so forth. There have been some wars which have more religious roots. One example would be the Peasants War of 1524.

"Reformation preaching, changing economic conditions, and a history of revolts against authority also likely played a part in the rebellion’s initiation.

The rebels were not rising against the Holy Roman Empire, which had little to do with their lives in any case, but against the Roman Catholic Church and more local nobles, princes, and rulers."

The expansion of Islam out of Arabia was kind of war-like. The Crusades were kind of war like. Do you think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are enemies over different strands of Islam? Some, but mostly it's about regional control, politics, and power.

People may confuse "religious people being in charge of a war" with "war being fought for religion".

The brain has what is known as neuroplasticity — Agustino

Yes, yes, of course, but neuroplasticity does not over-write the basic design of the brain. The limbic and hormonal systems (where our basic drives and emotions come from) are ancient and not given to convenient remodeling.

So broadly defined that it doesn't mean much anymore. — Agustino

Libido was always a term describing a strong, vital, but blunt urge, that could be redirected by the will into the sort of constructive activities which you describe in your own life. Or, it can be channelled into debauchery and dissipation, or into a great quest, scholarship, and so on. And, of course, it includes the specific "sex driver".

And so on. People are very different, we don't all have the same dominating instincts. — Agustino

This is one of the great watershed questions: Are people all alike, or are they all different. There's no proving it, one way or the other -- it's like an article of faith. I hold the view that people are all alike. There's nothing wrong with thinking that we are all different, because people behave the way they behave, either way.

Other people are driven by deep piety and devotion to God, and they seek to deepen their spiritual understanding, reach closer to God in this life and so on. All instincts then become subordinate to this one.

Others are driven to build something in the world, to make a mark, to leave something behind. This is also a form of reproduction, albeit not a sexual one. — Agustino

Quite right. That's the result of sublimation, a very noble process where we redirect our most basic, organic drive into sometimes very etherial. That's how civilization get's built.

I liked some of Asimov (like A for Andromeda) and nothing by Heinlein. Arthur Clark, of course, and Frank Herbert.

Nancy Ray Gun consulted astrologists before and during her time in the white house. Whether President Ray Gun was able to understand his daily horoscope or not, don't know. Probably not.

Speaking of broken pussies, there was a episode on Gray's Anatomy in which handsome consultant Mark Sloan - otherwise known as McSteamy - suffered a fractured penis after indulging in sex in the on-call room with Lexie Grey. (This was in 2009)

According to the search engine Google, two of the three most searched terms at present are "penile fracture" and "broken penis". Again, 2009.

Yes, it is possible. The tough lining of the spongy tubes that erect the penis can rip, with a distinct "crack" noise. One has to be engaged in pretty strenuous sex for this to happen. It's very painful, as one would expect.

Appropriately, nobody stalked off to HR to complain about having his or her virgin ears pierced.

Maybe I have beaten this dead pussy long enough.

I doubt there was ever a time, po-mo or no, when most women appreciated jokes about their "broken pussies" — Baden

asked her ... if the xray was of her broken pussy — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Of course, the X-ray was of her cat-pussy, not "her" pussy. I pointed out earlier in the thread that this joke is built into the language. Pussy has been a metaphor for genitalia or cats, since the 16th and 17th centuries. according to the OED.

?a1560 in T. Wright Songs & Ballads Reign Philip & Mary (1860) lxxiv. 209 Adew, my pretty pussy, Yow pynche me very nere.
1583 P. Stubbes Anat. Abuses sig. Hv You shall haue euery sawcy boy..to catch vp a woman & marie her... So he haue his pretie pussie to huggle withall, it forceth not.

1699 T. D'Urfey Choice Coll. New Songs 7 As Fleet as my Feet Could convey me I sped; To Johnny who many Times Pussey had fed.

"Pussy" has been used in print with varying frequency, with a peak in 1870 and 1920, then a steady increase from a low in 1960 to a new high in 2000. I'm guessing it's pre-1940s meaning was more "cat" or term of endearment for a very pleasant woman (as used in Uncle Tom's Cabin) than "genitalia". I doubt very much that there was a surge of "Pussy = genitalia" in 1870 and 1920 in print

The 1960-2000 surge in pussy in print probably refers to genitalia, as much as anything else.

Many people are humor challenged, and any sort of double entendre, even one as ready-made and as old as "is that your broken pussy" offends them.

The lady with the broken pussy needn't have looked up pussy in the OED, of course. But one would think that most people would be at least vaguely familiar with the double pussy/pussy metaphor on which the joke here depended.

It's like you take pleasure in being completely ignorant in terms of what women feel about this kind of thing. Odd to watch. Have you ever spoken to a woman of the modern age? — Baden

Well, I spoke to a woman this afternoon -- but she's 63 years old, I suppose a dinosauress. I had lunch earlier this month with three former co-workers who are now in their late 40s. They were in their early 30s when I worked with them. A good friend at Church is in her 30s.

Now, I get that young women (and young men) in the allegedly totally novel millennial generation have a special set of highly refined sensibilities. I don't mix a lot with this age group. I'm not just 71, I look sort of like Santa Claus. They definitely see me as "not one of them".

I get that the young tend to be more finicky and touchy than us jaded old folks. They are also more likely to be extremist in their views. So was I when I was their age. They were educated under the baleful influence of post modernism, and that has left a mark on their generation that previous generations were mercifully spared.

It would be like telling Bitter Crank not to act like a dinosaur who still thinks it's the 1950s. — Baden

It's not the 1950s? When did this happen? Why was I not informed at once?

Actually, If you followed my example in real life, and not as I write here (in the 1950s vernacular of antiquated dinosaurs) you would never get into trouble.

I don't recollect ever calling a woman a pussy as a cliché, a slur, or a joke. I never touch women inappropriately, (really, not at all), and behave quite respectfully toward other people, both males and females.

The question is what is legitimate interaction between men and women in the workplace (and elsewhere). I am well aware of what will fly, and what won't in 2017 -- but I disapprove of the map of appropriate behavior boundaries.

It reminds me of a "Rosie the Riveter" kind of story from a WWII documentary about when many women took up male occupations in factories. A machinist told his new female assistant to go to the tool room and get him a bastard file. She objected to the bad language he used. ("Bastard file" is a term of art, having nothing to do with the file's parentage.)

Even in 1945 (never mind 1955, or 2017) there was no reason for a woman to object to the term "bastard", whether it referred to the file or the foreman. There is a long string of words to which anyone might take (and has taken) objection.

In principle, I prefer people have few limitations on what can be said, and I also prefer that people not prepare knee-jerk reactions to a selected word list. In principle, I side with the free-speech prerogatives of the speaker, rather than the sensitivities of the hearer.

A lot of women have no difficulty calling every other male they deal with a "jerk" or "asshole". That's fine, speak freely -- but don't flip out if somebody calls you a bitch.

The free-speech prerogative goes for my own sensitivities as well. I know that a lot of people don't like socialists and homosexuals (It's difficult for some people to settle on which one is more loathsome) and in referencing my political and sexual orientation, they aren't going to be especially complimentary. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I want to be able to speak freely too.

We peeps, and you, perp, as well, are products of evolution. It wasn't my idea to install the sex driver as the key unit in the operating system. Mother Nature set up the hardware and wrote the operating system. Neurotic Mother Church has screwed up Sacred Mother Nature's work, what with all the stuff about "sex should repulse unless it leads to results" and so on.

But, as it happens, that is the way we work, Sex, or more broadly, libido§ is what drives our personalities, and minds as well. One may not buy a single word of Freud's theory, but it seems pretty clear from experience that the sex driver is pretty central in the operation of our systems. We do have options: We can repress our libidinous drives (which leads to obstreperous neuroticism) or we can sublimate libido, which (Freud says) leads to the production of Civilization.

Whether we choose the Grand Neurosis (which I think a lot of peeps are suffering from -- female peeps in particular -- or the Great Civilization (which not enough people have tried), the broadly defined sex drive is still running the show.

§Sigmund Freud defined libido as "the energy, regarded as a quantitative magnitude... of those instincts which have to do with all that may be comprised under the word 'love'." It is the instinct energy or force, contained in what Freud called the id, the strictly unconscious structure of the psyche.

We literally know only what Tiff told us, and maybe she made the whole thing up. Douché touché.

But I am quite certain she didn't make it up. Tiff is pretty straight arrow.

If I had a rooster with a broken leg, and somebody said I had a busted cock, I would not be offended. I would offer to show them just how operational my cock was, and would laugh along with them. My cock may not be Brazzer-worthy (never heard of them before), but it is eminently satisfactory. It has undergone extensive field testing. Most people's genitalia are, if not splendiferous, at least perfectly adequate.

Neither the lady with the injured...pussycat nor I would be injured in any way, shape, manner, or form by going along with jokes like this -- or even more raucous, guffaw-inducing jokes.

My guess is that leaking radiation from the warehouse probably fried her sense of humor.

You never know what others are bringing to the experience they have at work and it is a place that has to be safe sexually, including but not limited to sexual banter. It can sour in a heart beat and no banter is worth ending your career over. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Jokes about "pussy" are built into the language. The word references cats, female anatomy, and plants (pussy willow). It can also reference squeamish men.

If a workplace can sour in a heartbeat because someone makes a joke about a broken pussy, (an injured cat) then that workplace has some serious problems, all right.

Social media inveighing social justice by a viral mob — Cavacava

Yes. There is the "pile on" effect, and also the effect of widening the definition of "powerful", boundary crossing, and assault. And i readily acknowledge that power differentials are real, boundaries are crossed, and assault occurs. Power differentials are everywhere, and have frequent disadvantageous consequences for the less powerful (even with no sex whatsoever involved). The boundaries around our persons fluctuate, and become more or less porous. Assault has a range of definitions.

Kevin Spacey's interaction with a young guy -- buying him more drinks at a bar than the 18 year old could manage, then groping him, with perhaps other plans, depending... is an unambiguous violation. In a different context, say a cruisy gay bar where the 18 year old was buying his own drinks and Spacey was chatting him up, and then groped him, the act would be routine and inconsequential.

If your response to a campaign to show just how widespread shitty sexual behavior in society is is to wrangle over definitions, you've completely missed the point. — StreetlightX

Definitions matter, though, and not just "legally". "Widespread shitty sexual behavior" and "the extent and pervasiveness of the creepy-as-fuck things that men have done - and continue to do - to women" is carte blanche for a witch hunt. "Shitty behavior" -- in sexual and in all other categories -- is endemic. So are "creepy as fuck" things, and these also cover a broad range of behaviors, executed by men and women both. As you say, it's pervasive.

People aren't nice, when you get right down to it, and shitty, creepy behavior is going to be a fixture in human relations -- across the board -- for a long time to come.

After we have eliminated everyone who ever behaved in a shitty, creepy manner, who will be left? You?

Fabulous response. Thank you so much!

Those who ... wilfully ignore the self-evident facts of human nature whenever they conflict with the false rhetoric of their political doctrines, are doing the cause of women’s safety no favors at all. — Lexa Frankl

See, this is a succinct statement of the problem. Men and women BOTH pursue sex, personal self-fulfillment, physical gratification. It is absurd to think that political doctrines like "no sex without affirmative, explicit permission" are going to become the new norm, and that only rapists will have sex without getting the written permission first. Are there power differentials? Of course, and there have been since before we became a modern species. Are there power meters which can tell us how much power we have, how much power others have, and how much power other people think we have? There are not.

It would pass "miraculous" if every claim to being disadvantaged by someone who had greater power was actually legitimate. "Power" like "goodness" can be assigned without any necessity of providing proof. Just because someone says "C.K. is a powerful comedian" doesn't mean that C.K. actually had any power which could be exercised over some other person. The boss who can fire you has some power. A cop who can arrest you for indecent exposure or look the other way has some power. A professor who grades your essay as trash rather than gold has some power (just a teensy bit).

Human nature can be shaped some, limited a little. Mostly not. Policing sex effectively takes a police state, and even then...

How many people like to have sex out in public because they like being watched. — Sir2u

According to our records, the world population of people who like to have sex in public while being watched is about 94,360,953. Unfortunately, not all of them are totally awesome.

Ugly, wrinkled up old people are advised to not have sex in public, unless they wish to overthrow the established order. If a few hundred thousand ugly wrinkled up (but mobile) old people were to go to Washington, undress, and begin having group sex on the Capital Mall, and elsewhere -- on the Capital Steps, in congressional office anterooms, in Abe Lincoln's lap, National Public Radio's studios, and all around the White House, etc. and vowed not to stop until Trump had been impeached, I would guess it would be the fastest constitutional crisis in history--Trump would be out of there before the weekend.

PR stunt. — Sir2u

That's what I thought. PR experts have worked out fairly detail routines for dealing with public scandals. One of them is "Step right up and admit you were wrong, and are just terribly sorry for all the harm you did during the previous x number of years... yada yada yada."

Why would software which helps prevent losses from criminal behavior NOT be ethical?

It is probably the case that ethical software (used to prevent criminal activity) will have at least less ethical applications. For instance, many companies seek to profit from knowledge gained about individuals through data mining of information produced in ordinary consumer behavior. Is that ethical or unethical? How much? Some people don't think XYZ Corp. has a right to profit from information about them, without their consent. Gathering this data, then selling it might be considered unethical, and ditto for the necessary software.

when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It's a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.

Being famous as a comedian doesn't confer power over any or every other comedian unless you are in a position to exercise power over them. The two women who came to C.K.'s hotel room weren't compelled by any "power" to stay and watch. Further, he didn't have power over them as comic performers. As far as I know, he didn't own a large chain of comedy clubs from which he could deny them access. He didn't own a large booking company who could refuse to take them on as clients.

No matter the scale on which the analysis is conducted, there will always be an uneven distribution of power between people. "More powerful" might or might not have any effect. Individuals have to be in a position to exercise said power. People who have less power can also be very consequential -- positively or negatively. The difference is what people do, not whether they have more or less power.

I'm not a big fan of C.K. He's not my cup of tea, most of the time. Recruiting casual acquaintances as an audience for masturbation is not criminal, and if you agree to watch, it isn't an assault either. It isn't an exercise over the audiences career. It's a fetish; a personal kink. Who one can recruit will depend on how attractive (fame, body, money...) one is. This is all in bad taste as far as polite society is concerned, but then polite society has found even non-missionary-position sex in bad taste.

Hey, I have to attend to a shelter meal, just right now. That will take the rest of the afternoon to get ready. Shelter meals help destitute, homeless people not die under their bridges. People hate it when that happens.

So I guess a question is, besides not having children (what I think to be the only real solution), how can people not fall into being just a utility for landlords/banks/investors/consumers/workers (emphasis on workers as that is the largest amount of time for the most people, even if in more white collar jobs)? — schopenhauer1

They can't. The large scale systems we need to live together in large numbers require us to perform certain roles. We can't have a large scale system that enables people to live as if they were hunter gatherers. Only the folks at the top of the heap can live however they want, which is made possible by their vast wealth accumulation. And even the super rich have to drive on the correct side of the road, not try to defy gravity by stepping off of their 80th floor penthouse balcony, and not antagonizing other people too much. After all, a bullet will go through a rich brain as well as a poor brain.

Granted that what you say is true, is there anything that can be done about it? Well... maybe, but probably not.

I don't think that people are inherently, naturally, able to live together in very large groups without developing large scale systems. 25 hunter gatherers, sure. They can live together simply. 250,000? 2.5 million? 7.3 billion? No.

People just aren't that nice, for one thing. They don't just naturally follow the rules that everyone agreed to. There are lots of people who don't see why they should not change the oil in their car over a storm drain that leads to the lake or river everyone gets their water from. There are factory owners who don't see why they shouldn't let toxic sludge drain into the river. There are people who don't see why they shouldn't just slash and burn up the forest so they can plant crops for 2 years, after which the poor soil is exhausted and they have to slash and burn some more. There are people who don't understand why elephants should not be killed for their tusks.

It goes on and on.

People seem to adapt to large scale systems quite well. They have managed this for the last several thousand years. However, "the system" has to work reasonably well.

Periodically, the large scale systems start breaking down, and with it individual behavior starts becoming more destructive, less responsible, and so forth. As it says in a Biblical passage, "In those days, there was no king and every man did as he pleased." The system had broken down.

We seem to be in a time and place where the large scale system is breaking down, besides which, the large scale system was not prepared to deal with world problems like global warming, environmental degradation, extinction of many species, and so on. Human kind appears to be on a consumption gradient that rules out a solution to global warming, adequate food supply, and so forth.

The good news, so to speak, is that Nature bats last, and our current problems will be resolved -- not necessarily in our favor. Nature may reduce our population. Life could once again be nasty, brutish, and short. One way or another, carbon dioxide emissions will be cut way back -- possibly by eliminating a good share of the emitters, which would be us humans with our consuming lifestyles. The wild African elephants will probably disappear before we do.

Should we not reproduce, then, if this is even somewhat true?

Plants and animals reproduce. We all really don't have much choice. It's just set up that way. We can decide not to marry, we can decide not to enter into relationships with the opposite sex, we can do various and sundry things. But often enough, sperm will find an egg and a child will be born. Reproduction happens.

One individual can decide to not reproduce. Actually, there are more functional antinatalists than you might think. Women, for instance, who have decided they just don't want to bring a child into this world. Men, the same thing. Plus, some people just can't get laid, so...

Without granting your usual conclusion that "therefore, not having children is the best response", then yes, all this is true.

Marx, for instance, spells this out clearly. One of the tasks of the working class is to reproduce society, so that capitalism can continue. In the heyday of industrial capitalism, most people worked in factories, farms, and allied businesses. Some -- women raising children at home, teachers, religious, doctors, librarians, musicians, volunteers in civic organizations, etc. reproduced society and contributed directly to the transmission of culture.

The working class in Marx's day didn't consume that much (not by choice, but because of their low incomes).

Factory production as a share of work has dwindled, and providing services has greatly enlarged. Also enlarged is the working class's role of consumer. The task of reproducing society is still there, however, and it hasn't changed much. Have children, raise them to be stable, functional, productive people, and transmit the culture.

Various groups have tried to escape the system. Some hippies tried living in communes. Some of them succeeded, a handful of these efforts continue, but they have about zero effect on society. Today, much larger group have escaped the system by becoming destitute and homeless, living under a bridge to escape the hot sun and cold rain. This approach works in warmer climates -- it doesn't work very well in cold, northern climates. A bridge is no protection from sub-zero temperatures.

I tried to escape the system for a while by working as little as possible. That approach works until one runs out of cash, then one has to go back to work.

So far only 4 organizations have put rockets into space - the USA, China, Russia and SpaceX. Do you realise what this means? — Agustino

It means you are overlooking the European Space Agency, France, UK, Israel, Iran, India, and North Korea. See here

I think that you are applying to me what other people have said. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Could be. Sorry, sorry about that.

I asked why it takes mass murder with guns to get people angry about violence and condemning violence when violence is abundant in many other forms. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

True enough, violence appears in a variety of forms--some of it non-fatal but thoroughly demoralizing, and some of it resulting in corpses.

One reason for people's reaction is that mass murders are out of the ordinary. People get shot and killed practically every day in Chicago; a gun death or two (or three) is not out of the ordinary. One day this year 12 people were killed in Chicago -- just not all at the same place. Again, pretty bad but within the range of "normal". 26 people getting killed in church, and another dozen being severely injured is abnormal.

Look, I don't like it -- that people consider one or two killings a day normal, and I don't like it when jack-in-the-box dingbats living in the White House come out with "Guns are not the problem." or worse, "Now is not the time to politicize the issue."

As for the pervasive corrosiveness of authoritarianism, it's like the air people breath. It just isn't noticeable as an unnatural phenomenon.

this creation called civilization — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well informed civilized people keep their expectations for civilization suitable low. Anyone working with the public (in the wild) know that that the people are revolting a good share of the time.

America might seem more violent than anybody else, but remember North America was colonized by Europeans, who, as it happens, have had a rather bloody history, locally and around the world. Are Americans violent? Sure we are -- just like everybody else. We have given ourselves far more convenient, cost-effective means to actually carry out our violent urges than most other people have.

As a species, human beings are inherently violent, so it is only natural for us to behave violently. We can, however, control our violent tendencies both individually, and collectively. "Control" doesn't mean "eliminate". It means manage, focus, reduce, or enlarge the range of our violent behaviors.

Violence has swarmed out of Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. If violence was contained within Africa and the Western Hemisphere, it was because the internal distances and geographical barriers were too great. Violence is human, not European, not African, not Amerindian, not Asian.

Are guns the problem? Of course they are. They are excellent devices for killing animals -- including homo sapiens. Put a gun within reach of every citizen and you will have excess deaths owing to gun violence. If poisons and explosives were as easy to get as guns, then we would have high rates of excess death from those causes, and would that not be lovely.

According to Stephen Pinker, in his frequently referenced work, The Better Angels of Our Nature, we used to be MORE violent in the late stone age than we are not. Creating the cultural institutions of centralized government reduced violence significantly.

We are rational, intelligent, reflective beings -- when we want to be, yet we are perfectly capable of going berserk, as a strategy, and laying waste to targets.

Applying scientific theory and performing calculations isn't the same as thinking. Engineers do think (or at least they are supposed to, but I think many of them don't either) - technicians don't. — Agustino

I'll take that as a "no". — Galuchat

Agustino, it's absurd to say that "apply[ing] scientific theory... isn't the same as thinking". It's not even wrong.

I could say "Agustino wasn't thinking when he described the differences between engineers and technicians." but that would also be absurd. You were thinking, even though the results were--to use the vernacular--cheesy. Cheesy means you wished there was an obvious distinction between people who operate on your superlative level and everybody else, but there isn't.

I'm limiting application of these disparaging remarks to your posts in this thread.

One of the reasons for having teamwork is to combine creative engineers or designers with "plug and chug" types.

Sometimes you get both in one person, but that's something of a rarity.

I agree with Rich, above, "Happiness just happens". A lot of things in life just happen. We don't plan them, desire them as either the ultimate goal or the greatest tragedy, or do anything to achieve them. People wake up in the morning feeling everything from positive to negative, with many stops in-between. People discover they have fatal cancer. People slip on ice and shatter bones. People even slip on ice and die. People meet others on a street corner and they fall in love. The pick up a book in the library and it turns out to be the best story, or the greatest bore, of their lives. Life doesn't operate according to a plan. You may have a plan, but life may do nothing to help you fulfill it.

You are, just guessing, happy some of the time. Sometimes you are unhappy. Hey, you crazy fool, that's life.

2. There are more reasons to be sad than happy

I don't know whether there are more reasons to be sad, or happy, and you don't either. I wouldn't trust you to count the reasons, because you probably would overlook reasons to be happy and double count some reasons to be miserable.

A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. ...countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings.

That seems odd, because...

Suicide is the second-most common cause of death for Americans between 15 and 34, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Across all ages, it is the 10th-most common cause of death, and caused 1.6 percent of all deaths in 2012. — New York Times, 2015/18/Oct Upshot

Not all suicides employ guns, of course, but most do. I am assuming that suicide represents a mental health issue, at least.

http://www.academia.edu/10621580/How_the_British_Gun_Control_Program_Precipitated_the_American_Revolution — Thorongil

The article is by David Kopel, who has an interesting history.

David B. "Dave" Kopel[1] (born January 7, 1960) is an American author, attorney, political science researcher, gun rights advocate, and contributing editor to several publications.

He is currently research director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado, associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute, contributor to the National Review magazine and Volokh Conspiracy legal blog. Previously he was adjunct professor of law, New York University, and former assistant attorney general for Colorado.

Kopel earned a B.A. in history with highest honors from Brown University, and won the National Geographic Society Prize for best history thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.[2] He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

Politically he is a lifelong registered Democrat but a confessed small government libertarian at heart who voted for Ralph Nader.[3] He voted for Ron Paul in 1988.[4]

In 1996, he and former Illinois senator Paul Simon wrote an article published in the National Law Journal criticizing the practice of mandatory minimum sentence.[5]

Kopel opposes gun control and is a benefactor member of the National Rifle Association. His articles on gun control and gun violence have been cited in the Opposing Viewpoints Series.[6] In 2003, Kopel wrote in National Review "Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people.[7]" He recently contributed an article to the 59th Volume of the Syracuse Law Review entitled "The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller's Lesson for the World."[8] He is a critic of Michael Moore and provided a list of what he characterized as Moore's "deceits".[9][10] He appeared in FahrenHYPE 9/11, a film that disputes the allegations in Fahrenheit 9/11. Kopel's Independence Institute received 1.42 million dollars of funding for its activities by the National Rifle Association.[11][12] — Wikipedia

Amending the US constitution is possible but is neither quick nor easy. Congress must first pass an amendment, and then 38 of the 50 state legislatures must vote in favor of the amendment. (The POTUS does not figure into the process.) That's 39 campaigns -- first to get the congress to pass an amendment, then 50 campaigns in the states.

Calling a constitutional convention would be another way of changing the Constitution, but there is a huge risk in doing so: At this meeting, the present constitution could be junked and a very different, less felicitous, document could be presented to the states. I don't think anyone wants to take that risk at this point.

Besides, it isn't necessary. We arrived at our present state through normal political processes. We can get out of this state by employing the same normal political processes.

So why the hell don't we do so, then?

Reason number 1 is that the number of people who believe in the rights of Americans to own guns, and actually own guns themselves, is more than a small minority. In 1959, the Gallop Poll found 60% of Americans were in favor of banning hand guns, except for the police. In 2017 the Gallop Poll found 28% were in favor of banning hand guns.

Reason number 2 is that pro-gun voters are more militant than anti-gun voters. People vary in how strongly they hold opinions. Pro-gun opinions seem to be more strongly held than anti-gun opinions.

Reason number 3 is that banning any type of gun seems to be pointless, because there are so many guns already in the hands of citizens -- something like 100 million, with more being manufactured and imported every year.

Reason number 4 is that many jurisdictions have laws regarding guns, and unless a class of laws (like segregation law) can be found unconstitutional and suppressed all at once, the battle would need to be fought state by state. (that is my understanding; maybe I am not correct on this point)

Reason number 5 is that there is some logic in the idea that guns are not the problem. I don't accept this logic, but a lot of people do. Ban guns and deranged people or terrorists will find other means to kill: bombs made out of certain fertilizers combined with aviation fuel, trucks or cars, poisons, sabotage of gas lines, and so on.

The action that can and should be undertaken.and is entirely practical even if not easy, is a major, focused effort by a broad coalition of people to first change the way we think about guns, and secondly to curtail access to new guns, suppress the manufacture or importation of ammunition, and the manufacture of guns. This might be a decades long effort. The #1 idea that can be promoted is that GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.

Your describing it as "unlikely" is equally mere speculation. By the way, I never prefaced the pragmatic reasons I gave by saying that they were indubitable facts, since we're talking about possible future events. — Thorongil

Thorongil, I was responding to this post by Michael in which he quoted you. Green Alert: You are not under attack.

Did you read what I said in context? Thorongil said that if a ban on guns were to happen then it would lead to something of a civil war. It didn't happen in the UK or Australia. So if, in the face of a ban on guns, "armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns" — Michael

I posted your statement, rather than quoting his use of your statement. It was to Michael that I was directing the statement "isn't a statement of fact. It's speculation about an extremely unlikely event."

You are right, my statement about a seizure of guns and civil war is also speculation.

Yes, I read it in context. Thorongil is a thoughtful, well informed, intelligent fellow, but

"armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns" — Thorongil

isn't a statement of fact. It's speculation about an extremely unlikely event.

Is the United States fundamentally different than the UK or Australia? No. Are there differences? Yes.

Had the United States limited private gun ownership in, say, 1935, with an exception for ordinary hunting rifles, antique gun collectors, clay pigeon-shooting aficionados, and the like -- such a law would probably have been possible. (This is speculation, too.)

If the UK and Australia had a history similar to the US with respect to gun manufacture, and with a post-1970s NRA devoted to torturing a relatively minor piece of your constitution into a blanket right for everyone to be armed with whatever gun they so chose, then in 2017 you would have problems like ours. (This is speculation, not fact.)

Why would you have problems like ours? Because our societies are not fundamentally different.

The New Yorker

A combination of lust and trust? Maybe? Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly certainly faked it well.

's something very wrong with American society. — Michael

There is probably nothing wrong with American society that is not also wrong with other societies. If we are different, it is that some of our problems are more extreme than most other G20 countries.

Neoliberalism has left hefty percentages of our population without access to social services when they need it most. There is no "nanny state" here, there is mostly a punitive system that takes a harsh approach towards people with problems. Our culture promotes quite unreasonable expectations for financial success. (Like people who are sure they are going to get rich; they just have an embarrassing lack of cash right now.) Under the pressures of lost jobs, falling wages, and higher costs of living, a lot of people have been driven into the ditches of permanent poverty, with the consequent dysfunctions in family life.

A huge difference is that lots of people already have guns, and those who don't do not have to look far to find one for sale. People get frustrated. In the ghettos guns are routine. In the mainstream society they are mostly used for suicide. Guns are a preferred vehicle for mayhem -- and they probably would be in any country, IF they were as easy to obtain as they are here.