It's a whole new ballgame.

New perspectives...new objectives...and new subjectivity.

I am floating on the perimeters, and looking for anything that looks familiar.

When I say 'familiar', I am referring to anything that even resembles reality.

Getting harder to find....

We're ALLOWED to discuss things outside AR's philosophy.
And men should take some responsibility for what happens when they get between someone's legs too. That was my point. BambiB was blaming everything on women (I mentioned he made some points), but in some cases it takes men getting involved in the mix with these women and their messes. Believe you me, I am not excusing ANY of them from anything. Idiots...all of 'em.

As beautiful as that sounds, I wouldn't want to live without men. (I'm ASSuming that's what the book is about.) (BambiB not included)

yea, well I'm ready to lop off my left boob to prick bambi's butt

I thought that was someones political campaign theme. Am I wrong? If so, it should be.

awesome

Khalling: I apologize if I sound like I'm placing or assigning any type of fault. What I was trying to say was that the socialist/communist system was, throughout all but the last few years of our race's evolutionary development and history, essential to the well being of the reality of the family unit in that the resources needed were typically brought to the unit by the man, hunting and exploring for new resources for protein necessary for our brains evolution, while the woman with child had to spend a significant amount of time closely caring for that child, typically 10 to 12 years, and the others that came. In a socialist/communist system, I understand it to be one in which resources are available to and spread between all involved regardless of effort or skill expended to obtain those resources. In the family unit thought to exist, with a few exceptions, for the vast majority of our race's and our ancestor's evolutionary development, such a system was essential to the survival of our race.

I in no way wished to imply that it's OK for women to be irrational as long as they stay in some kind of role or that a 'proper' role for women led to irrationality on their part. I don't think it's OK to be irrational for any human being, except maybe a small child. I also believe that any and all humans ought to be able to strive for any role or activity in life that they want. My father passed when I was 51/2 leaving my mother with 5 stair-stepped boys to raise. I can certainly remember watching her come out of her irrationality and become a very solid rational human, but it took her about 10 years. Though not extensively educated, she was a very sharp lady, but still had to struggle mightily. But I do think that there exists sufficient evidence to show that men's primary roles throughout the race's history has selectively evolved, in general, to certain innate biological characteristics and abilities and even restrictions that, again in general, require them to perceive and analyze planning and problems in a more expanded nature than women. There does exist identifiable, measurable, and certain physical and biological differences in the female and male brain and perceptions.

One of those is the numbers of rods and cones active in the female eye compared to those in the male eye. That difference allows women to perceive many more shades and hues of color than do men. Evolutionarily, that is explained by the typical role of women doing much of the plant and herb searching and gathering, while men were primarily required to search for and identify prey at distance and in camouflage. Both were essential components to the race's survival and were selectively evolved by survival.

Another is the connective tissue between two halves of the cerebrum of the brain, the corpus callosum. In females it is much larger than in males. It is apparently why females, again in general, are better at language and many other societal interactions than males. It's also why men are better at envisioning and analyzing spacial relations than are women. I'm not going to list here all of the accepted, much less those proposed advantages to one sex or the other. I'll leave that to those wishing to research such. It looks like BambiB has much of that detail readily available. It's just factual that these differences exist and are well studied in evolutionary, biological, and psychological science. These particular differences have even been identified in gay and transgender individuals and it's believed that the expression of certain genes result from a misapplication or mistiming of sex hormones prenatal and postnatal. As for your bottom line, yes particular individual women and men are genetically capable of rational self interest, but I'll maintain that certain genes' expression not only are turned on biologically, but also from external stimuli. Thinking and practice. And with this thread, I've certainly learned that there are women on here that are expressing. LOL

Now, as you say, to black breeding for certain genetic traits. I fear that our Southern ancestors took slavery and the management of slavery to heights that hadn't really been explored or reached prior to then. It's little discussed, but much of the wealth of a plantation owner/operator was vested in his slaves and the purchase of new slaves was a costly expense. Large southern landowners didn't have as much cash available as the northern manufacturers and bankers, so it was even more of a problem. The solution for most was to therefore put more effort into maintaining their 'stock' of slaves and breeding themselves for not only replacement of their own 'stock', but also as a source for sales for cash. Selective breeding of human beings is a horrible, Nazi-like practice to think about, but the successful plantation owner was good at it. Many slave owners even made it their sole business including raising 'studs' and brood 'females' with pedigrees as well maintained as those for horses and dogs. Slaves from those breeders were sold at premium compared to a newly enslaved individual. Breaking in the new slave was a speciality that most plantation owners didn't have or want.

And as I've mentioned in the discussion of the evolutionary differences in the 'normally' expressed genes of men and women, particular individuals will differ. One of the major roadblocks in any discussion of this type remains the differentiation of the general vs. the individual.

I agree with you that bussing certainly had some impact, but I maintain that the 'forced' concentration of particularly black families into urban project housing added to significant increases of Aid for Dependent Children programs has been the major contributor to what I feel has been the outright destruction of that particular community's economic gains, educational advances, and societal acceptance in Northern and Western parts of the nation that had been gained by the mid 20th century. While it's true that only small areas of the south had made comparable gains by than, similar programs were employed in that region as well, with comparable results. Most throughout the nation were taxed out of their property and homes rather than 'taking advantage' of urban housing.

While it might be easier to sensibilities to think of the cause as just inept or bad urban planning, I'm afraid that the word evil comes more to mind for me. I agree with your 'Hells Kitchen' example, remember that most of those immigrants were Eastern Europeans and that the majority of Americans at that time were Eastern and Northern Europeans, but your point remains that the 'phenomenon can certainly go across all race lines. But it has happened in different places, again throughout our race's history and it's always turned out the same for the affected minority. I would think that any 'urban planner' knew that history and I wonder ...

But thank you for your response. I will certainly give more thought to opening a thread, but again, I'm new to the site and not terribly familiar with the process.

KYFHO