The Glade 4.0

Who cares about dicks?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Well, lots of people. But a better question is "Who cares about flaccid dicks?"

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

See, your response here indicates to me that, at a minimum, you're not thinking this through.

Consider dogs. Purebred dogs, many of them, were bred over time for specific traits, so that they could excel at specific tasks. And they do - a sheepdog is wildly superior to a husky at controlling a herd. However, this has come at enormous cost in many cases to the animals. Purebred dogs are susceptible to many diseases that mixed breeds do not suffer from. Diluting the gene pool (i.e. creating mutts) weakens the bred skill (generally) but increases the animals resistance to disease and, generally, survivability.

Now, let's look at humans. We evolved to better adapt to our environments, I agree. This is no longer important. Your fair skin is not particularly an issue in the tropics (buy sunscreen). We are no longer subject to our environment, we adapt our environment to suit us. Moreover, people are no longer staying in their evolutionary homeland. A superior individual in today's global economy has the ability to survive reasonably comfortably in any environment (in other words, he has tanned skin, brown eyes, brown hair, etc.). He may not be the BEST at surviving in Canada, but he can survive there, and Africa as well. He is therefore superior for the world in which we currently live in, where travel is more frequent and we adapt our climates to suit our weaknesses.

All humans are capable of surviving in almost all environments on earth. Given preparation, that's been possible for thousands of years. However, that does not mean everyone is as well adapted to all environments. Despite the best efforts of my freckles banding together, and diligent use of SPF50 sunscreen, I tend to get burned every time i spend time in the tropics. I'm still alive, of course, but I am not well adapted to the warm weather I love so much.

I wouldn't say it is "no longer important." I'd say it's certainly less important than it was.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So what you're saying is that you travel, and suffer as a result because you are not well adapted to the new environment. If you stayed put in Canada, you'd be highly adapted to your environment. However, you (and everyone else) travel. That puts you at a disadvantage over people who are moderately adapted to all environments. Those little technological advancements are enough to make them highly adaptable to any environment, while you still suffer in some.

Mutts for the win.

Minor suffering isn't really a natural selection issue, though. The "disadvantage" she suffers in a tropical environment is relatively trivial.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Talya:

_________________

It would be selected against though, given time. Not that it'd stop me from living in the tropics, but increased rates of melanoma would make an isolated group of pasty-skinned gingers like me less healthy in the Dutch-Antilles Islands than an isolated group of africans.

However, we're not isolated. We'd mix. I have no problem with that, but I'm also fairly sure the resultant children would be better off than the pasty-skinned gingers like me, but not as well off as their african ancestors.

The big difference is we can travel easily now.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You are missing the other side of the travel coin Talya, yes we can now go to environments we weren't "designed" for but the flipside is that diseases we have no natural immunity against can now go international as well. Mixed race children would have the potential for a broader spectrum of immunities.

_________________

I don't believe racial differences are that extreme that we have different disease immunities. White blood cells are pretty much the same no matter the color of your skin. I've long held that biological racial differences are pretty insignificant. We haven't been spread throughout the earth long enough for any major evolution to take place, and no sooner are we in every corner of the globe than we started interbreeding again. The few minor differences we have are rather specific, small things, that don't impact survivability - yet. A black person can survive in North Atlantic Norway, while a red-headed irish girl could conceivably make a living in the rainforests of Brazil. The adaptations give advantages, but they are not required. Contrast a grizzly bear trying to make a living in the arctic tundra - which will fail. The Polar Bear has no such difficulties.

My point of travel, was more of a concession than an argument -- IF a person travels a lot, then mixed blood is probably to their advantage - being less specifically adapted and more generally capable is an advantage if you don't live primarily in a specific environment.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Tell that to the Native Americans...

_________________

That's not about race. That's about exposure.

The natives weren't more susceptible to those viruses genetically. They simply had no antibodies because those diseases had never been in North America before the Europeans visited.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

But not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26860/

_________________

That's good. You provided a link about how antibodies work. Antibodies ARE genetic, but not in the sense you're thinking of. They aren't part of your genetic code. They are a library of partial genetic codes of every virus our white blood cells know how to fight. While you can "inherit" some of them specifically (and only) from your mother, that's nothing to do with your own genetic code or your race, but instead an adaptation that allows for a mother's immune system to supplement the developing fetus's immune system.

None of it refutes my statement, though. The natives had all the capabilities of making the same antibodies as the europeans already. They just had never been exposed, so the antibodies didn't exist yet. A native american that survived chicken pox, measles, mumps, etc., was every bit as immune to it later as a European.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Not sure what you are saying here.. You posit that the gene snippets recombined in B Cells are "inherited" from the mother genetically but aren't in fact genetic?

_________________

Certain antibodies can be "inherited" from your mother, yes. They aren't part of your genetic code. NO antibodies are part of your genetic code. You also don't get to KEEP them.

During the third trimester, a developing fetus does receive some antibodies from its mother through the placenta. These are NOT part of the fetus's genetic code, but antibodies passed directly from the mother's blood, through the placenta, into the developing baby. Antibodies are proteins with small pieces of genetic information in them, but they never become part of the nucleus of the baby's cells.

For example, if the mother has had chickenpox, her developed immunity to chickenpox will be passed to the baby.

This immunity does not last. It starts to decrease after the first couple months. Breast milk also contains antibodies, which can extend the passive protection. This is why kids still need to get vaccinated - their mother's antibodies only provide very temporary protection while they are at their most vulnerable, but after that, they need to develop those immunities themselves. A (non-premature) newborn can't get chickenpox if its mother ever had them, but a 2 year old most certainly can.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

^ Neat

_________________

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

If "open letters", especially those from 12-year-old girls, "restore your faith in humanity", you're doing something wrong. The problem with this young girl isn't that she's being told by older women that if they're too smart or successful they won't get a boyfriend - they're worried about getting a boyfriend because of their hormones; the same reason those 12-year-old boys are worried that if THEY are too smart or successful (because in both cases we're talking about academic success, since these are pre-adolescents) they'll be considered nerds and won't get a girlfriend.

This girl is 12 years old and talking about how Schalfely doesn't know what women of her generation are about. Well, unfortunately Schlafely almost certainly does know better than a 12-year-old, who is not a woman at all, of any generation - she's a child, not even a teenager yet.

"Open letters" are a **** tactic in the first place; they're even more so when we start pretending children are in a position to lecture their elders just because what they say appears superficially insightful. I actually have my doubts a 12 year old wrote this at all, but if they didn't whoever faked the letter just made themselves look pretentious and snotty.

As for the problem of not being able to attract a man, when men start rejecting marriage, feminists ***** about that too:
[url]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvMAS_20K4[/url]

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE -- are you actually saying you agree with anything that Phyllis Schlafly has to say on the matter? Seriously???

This twelve year old is far wiser that that stupid old bint. You're criticizing a 12 year old who wrote a respectful and extremely well thought out letter as a response to a self-hating mysoginist of a woman who thinks women are somehow less valuable than men, -- that our only value is to on the arm of a man, in the kitchen, or pumping out babies for them.

Seriously, I have little use for traditional feminism at all, but let's not go in the opposite direction.

My only criticism for this 12 year old girl's open letter, is it's wasted respect. Schlafly doesn't deserve anything other than a nice "**** you, *****."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No. I'm saying that Schlafely is being misinterpreted as saying women should not be paid equally for equal work, when that is A) not the issue on the table and B) is not what she's saying. What she's saying is that women should not seek to earn as much as men in the first place, presumably by not seeking the sorts of employment that pay that much.

While rather silly on her part, the fact is that women already do this to some degree - many hard, but high-paying jobs such as oil rig workers are jobs women habitually avoid. Schlafely is old, out of date, largely irrelevant, and has misguided priorities - but MSNBC is still misrepresenting her.



This 12 year old is not wiser than Schlafely, her letter is not well thought out, nor is it respectful (the first paragraph dispels any notion of that) and this idea that Schlafely is either self-hating or misogenist is total nonsense - that's exactly the sort of victim-politics crap that liberals espouse almost all the time.

Aside from the fact that this letter is either a fake or representative of a 12 year old of absolutely colossal arrogance. (I'm leaning towards the former, but not by much) Young girls do not try to attract boys because they are "told" to; they do it because they're adolescent heterosexuals. Young girls are lead down this ridiculous path that they are only interested in boys, dating, and being attractive because of nefarious social influences, and they believe it because they are impressionable kids, but the fact is that sex drive is sex drive, and young girls should not be ashamed of wanting male attention, any more than boys should of wanting it from girls. It's just another way of controlling people's sexuality by telling them they wouldn't want to act on it if someone weren't "controlling" them or some ****.



Well, we aren't. Don't take MSNBC's word for Schlafely's position. She's among the most hated figures in liberal ideology despite the fact that her day is past. She's really not even relevant anymore, and the only real reason they're reporting on her comments is to denigrate her personally due to leftover liberal animosity from losing the ERA battle.

Also, watch that video. The woman who made it, Karen Straghan (SP?) is a mens rights activist who is bisexual, a divorced single mother, and "slightly genderqueer" (according to her). She also happens to be Canadian, and is one of the very rare atheists that demonstrates some intellectual honesty in that regard (although relevant to the video I linked).

She discusses in there the almost total lack of advantage and significant disadvantage men suffer from marriage and why more and more men reject it - and more importantly, that while people react indignantly at the idea that women should make an effort to attract men, when men say "ok fine" and reject marriage and all the attendent avenues to have their resources confiscated - that we still get complaints that there is something wrong with men.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Suggesting women shouldn't seek high paying jobs is just as bad or worse as suggesting we shouldn't be paid as much for equal work. She's the Women's rights equivalent of an uncle Tom house-nigger and has exactly that much respect from me.



Different issue. I believe marriage is an anachronism anyway. I'm only married because I figured it worth the hassle to preserve some measure of peace with my parents. Church or government approval doesn't make love more valid, and I am not breeding stock.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It is fairly well thought out, and fairly respectful. And, assuming it is from a 12 year old, I'd say much more so.



The 12 year old girl is suffering from colossal arrogance, followed by a 40 something? man explaining why 12 year old girls are interested in boys? If I were interested in why 12 year old girls like boys, I would not defer to you. And furthermore, she's not making the argument that you suggest. She says, if you read the letter, that the old bitty's statements are contributing to the problem, and that they encourage young ladies to hide their intelligence. She does not suggest that the desire for boy's attention has anything to do with anything other than hormones.

Except that she isn't, mainly because women are not and never have been in that position in the first place, unless they were by virtue of some quality other than being female. While women in the past lacked the same rights as men, they also lacked male responsibility, and the idea that they had no power is mostly "well duh. Almost no men had any power either". Women who were attached to men with power certainly had it covertly, in some cases overtly, and if past systems had really been about the power of men, rather than of one's country, fiefdom, whatever, you wouldn't have had Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great (for example).



It isn't about you, what you believe, or what you want, and while it's a different issue, it's related. Schalfely is addressing this in backhanded and backwards way, but she's addressing it. Men are not going to be that interested in relationships with women where they can be dispensed with at any time, at considerable loss to themselves - marriage or otherwise, once children come into the picture. Men are going to be more interested in women that are economically advantaged by being with them, because those women are less likely to take their kids and money and run, whereas a woman who makes as much can take his income and his kids to supplement hers with no downside (outside, obviously, of the emotional issues generally present in ex-relationships)

Men are not "breeding stock" either, but that's how our legal system treats them, and it does little good to complain about marriage if we're also going to retain a bunch of alws that give males all the issues of marriage, without the actual marriage any time they have a kid.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except that it's neither, unless you accept feminist assumptions about the world at face value, and even then its still far from respectful:





Except that she does. Furthermore, I happen to be A) not 40 yet and B) know perfectly well, just as practically everyone else on earth who is not just ignoring the blindingly obvious to score internet points, that 12 year olds of both sexes are approaching puberty; the point at which their sexuality and sexual awareness begin to mature into their adult forms. If you are actually going to take issue with the idea that preadolescents are interested in the opposite sex because of the point that they are at in their physical maturation, try to do it on something less obviously ridiculous than my age and gender. Then again, taking issue with that is so colossaly stupid, that any better reason is almost certainly nonexistent anyhow.

Right here is where she talks about what girls "should" be doing other than looking for a boyfriend:



In other words, having a boyfriend is at odds (somehow) with being free and independent, and getting boyfriends is something they supposedly do at the expense of being "free, independent, etc." - and that they wouldn't do so if people weren't telling them boyfriends were so important.

Finally we get this gem at the bottom:



Out of those, the only one with any business being applied to a 12 year old is "student".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."