zedvictor4

Slavery might or not be better for the slave.

That would depend upon the slave owner.

Do you think that today, slavery is better for the young girl who is forced into prostitution by Eastern European thugs.

Not all slaves were black.

And not all slaves were/are put to work on sunny sugar plantations by jolly slave owners.

Josephus would seem to have the same credentials as Jesus.

A bloke that probably existed 2000ish years ago.

Though all accounts are second-hand, exaggerated, embellished and unverifiable.

For sure.

We record the past.

And reassess such data from time to time.

But memories fade.

And in fact, most human memories from WW2 will soon be extinct.

And some will be inspired to place more significance upon past events than most others will.

Really all depends upon how intensively we condition our kids.

Though, if WW2 becomes no more than a brief history lesson, then that is all that it will eventually become.

Perhaps one of my ancestors died during the English Civil War, but that would be no more than briefly interesting.

No sleep lost.

No sorrow.

Yes.

Please point out the irony, as it might help to clarify things.

My contention as ever, is that humans are prone to take base instinct and apply conceptuality and therefore apply socio-psychological modifications to decisions.

Read through my posts and you will see that I always try to temper such arguments with the understanding that all such modifications are nonetheless natural derivatives of base instinct. Human evolution if you like.

So, in simple terms base instinct was/is see it fuck it.

Whereas today, we apply the see it, think about it, might or might not fuck it approach.

So based on that simple assessment I would conclude that a response is no longer based solely upon an instinctive reaction but is always subject to a certain level of conditioned socio-psychological influence.

So, to put that in simple terms, we see, we think, and we decide what is or isn't attractive.

Exactly.

King Put says off you go and off they go.

My apologies.

#85

Slavery was.

And then now,

And then the future.

People of lower intellectual ability are easily conditioned to behave collectively.

Probably sexually active.

Though seemingly carries a certain weight of socio-psychologically accrued baggage.

Therefore, could be prone to cognitive dissonance.

So perhaps not to be relied upon.

#87.

You asked the question.

I responded.

All current and relevant worth was contained within that exchange of data.

Exactly what I meant about cherry picking.

So, such and such happened and everything else is temporarily irrelevant.

It's like saying that heavy snow brought down the power lines, but because you are cold and without power now, it's the fault of the power company for not fixing in quickly enough. The cause of the problem is conveniently forgotten and therefore irrelevant.

Well, the head is centre of operations.

Soon the "holocaust" will be a forgettable page of human history.

So, to what degree did the "holocaust" change social thinking?

Good morning.

I will read and reply later.

And yep, the Lord of the Rings trilogy we great fantasy novels. 

And Jackson's film trilogy was excellent, albeit somewhat edited.

Though I found subsequent Hobbit films disappointing, so much so that I only watched about half of the first one and didn't bother with the other two.

People keep confusing Brits and English.

And also keep forgetting that modern "White" American ancestry is founded in the same past as "White" British ancestry.

And please, I use the term white only as a point of reference.

#28 Good thoughts.

Yep, the baying masses have always loved a good neck snapping.

Nope, banning just creates resentment.

Ideology will evolve slowly.

Though what the masses are conditioned to think and do is perhaps somewhat irrelevant in terms of evolutionary progress.

Nonetheless it would be foolish to suggest that the greater society is not essential to that progress.

In evolutionary terms your scope of reference amounts to a nanosecond.

In so much as, you cherry pick the bits of very recent history and human social development that you have been conditioned to cherry pick.

I wouldn't say that testosterone is a problem.

Just a naturally occurring chemical that we all produce.

My quip was more of a reference to the inevitability of the human condition and its uncivilising consequences.

You now seem to be focusing on sexual attraction, rather than physical attraction. Ultimately one and the same perhaps. Though to suggest that social manipulation of the latter does not affect the former is a ridiculous position.

And with regard to our interaction, it was you who initially addressed my argument, and if I do not necessarily agree with your arguments you have every opportunity to try again.

Such is the mental stimulation I get from responding to your commentary, so that is why I bother.

This is not www.onemustalwaysagreewithaveryart.com.

Yep, I know what albinism is. Though I still don't know what you are trying to say, because as I stated previously, albinism affects people of all racial sub-groups.

We all set our own standards for what we find appealing in others, relative to how we discriminate, relative to conditioning,

Socially contrived standards are generally marketing tools, and how we market health and appearance is ever changing relative to social change.

So lighter skinned people are likely to have once set standards relative to social conditions and social conditioning, just as darker skinned people would have done the same in a separate social environment.

Social interaction between sub-groups defined by skin tone has moved on a tad, though for sure there are still places where this will be significantly less so.

Species evolution is slow and might be getting less slow, relative to concurrent technological advances, and if we are being realistic, we shouldn't really expect any more or any less.

In evolutionary terms, blaming lighter skinned people for everything, has always been a counter-intuitive compliment dressed up as criticism.

And so, in a few thousand years, the generally swarthy hominid occupants of planet Earth might look back and stick two fingers up at their lighter skinned predecessors, but their lighter skinned predecessors will not care because they will all have long since died.

Nonetheless the generally swarthy will not be able to deny their genetic inheritance.

And presumably albinism will still occur.

And hopefully we will have evolved to become more tolerant. (Yep, seems like a big ask)

More so, those that stand to gain advantage from perpetuating the myth.

Yes, I certainly accept the case for the historical Jesus character, first mentioned as such, sometime around the 12th century.

One couldn't really avoid it, as one was force fed Jesus' tales throughout one's early school years.

Fortunately, my father was a devout atheist and kept me on the straight and narrow.

Ok.

I get it.

And being an apolitical Brit, I don't have the same political allegiances that some Dart users might have.

Your definition of attractive is very narrow.

Nonetheless, carbon copy models, is a perfect example of contrived social expectation.

No idea what you're getting at.

Sexual attraction has come a long way since the see, fuck and procreate era.

Nowadays all sorts of concepts and social pressures overbear instinctive sensory attraction.

How do rich past-it old men attract 30-something bimbos. It's certainly not their physical and sexual prowess.

Nope, it's a conscious decision relative to expectation.

See the OP.

Know it's the parrot.

@Tarik.

Semantics.

Your word is your agreement.

Your agreement is your word.

"One's word" is a sincere pledge.

Unless one is being insincere of course.

Fat thin or ugly, see fuck reproduce is the basis of human procreation.

Everything has evolved from that point onwards relative to intellectual development/overthink.

Overthink creates expectation and so on.

I will show my British ignorance here.

Presumably American speak, what is the "Catheter and Chief"?

Couldn't find any other definitions or references for catheter, other than an up the dick tube.

Yep, 3RU7AL would be good.

I'm pretty sure I said that last time.

Yep, as I stated Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua is/was a character recorded in historical narratives and we know roughly where he was said to have lived, there's no denying that.

And that's about all one can say for certain.

And yep 1632, that's the point I try to get across. All is made up after the event.

In so much that we are conditioned to discriminate.

That is to say, taught that there is a difference between ugly and attractive.

If you were blind, how would you know the difference unless someone told you.

Albinos are albinos.

And the colour scale darkens from there on in.

Interestingly there are black albinos, which is to say, people who are racially black who display albinism.

Which sort of puts the old black white issue into perspective.

So just for example, let's look at the current social pressure we are put under to accept that overweight women are attractive.

Or the current trend in body disfigurement with ink.

Both socially contrived expectations required, of both the observer and the observed.

And make up. If attractiveness is subliminal then why the need for a multi-billion-dollar facial cover up business.

And then there's cometic dentistry, another socially contrived expectation, where anything less than perfect white teeth is not good enough.

Cosmetic surgery. 

The list of expectations goes on.

You've only been a member for 3 months.

What would you know about RM's credentials?

Jesus, fictional, mythical or otherwise is undeniably a historically recorded character.

Whether the accounts of his life and activities are vaguely true or not, is impossible to know.

Though I would suggest that most interpretations are embellished and exaggerated, such that we can only regard the biblical tales as myth or fantasy. 

For instance, would Jesus have been his given name?

Nuuk.

The whole Airmax presidential thing was a nonsense from start to finish. Which I did try to suggest.

Some guy rocked up from nowhere, took a lot of people for fools and then disappeared just as quickly.

I propose RationalMadman for president. His dedication to Debateart is consistent.

Well, look up the definition of charisma and decide if you fit the bill.

You need to be able to charm the whole audience. Do you think you can do that?

Also, it's easier to present a written narrative than it is to deliver a fluent narrative.

Thoughts don't always flow from brain to mouth consistently.

Nope, 24mins of video too much.

And the subject matter doesn't interest me at all.

No criticism, just a British thing.

No women in heaven.

A bit of an eternally gay orgy then.

To debate publicly one needs to be knowledgeable, eloquent and have a certain amount of charisma.

If Badge is Irish, they were probably raised as a Catholic and therefore will know all about predatory behaviour in the vestry.

Just saying.

There was me thinking that you were a 92years of age Polynesian academic, and here you are hanging out with Kanye and the boys.

Pressure from the over-sensitive is as just another form of tyranny.

Moderacy came good in the end though.

Stalin, who wasn't even Russian, was a previous Soviet ideologue who succumbed to the same mental illnesses that Putin now suffers. Namely megalomania and paranoia.

As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.