T Nation

Mr. Bigshot


#1

The girl I'm hanging out with gave me a new outlook on reality. She had a dream of a single white bird flying over the ocean this past night.

It seems man is a calculating and bar-gaining creature.(or can we learn not to be such machines) I've sometimes thought in the past that a higher level of thinking would be one where logic was supreme. A "higher order of thinking?" We calculate a cost benefit analysis, etc, etc. Really no concern, caring, or understanding. It seems we have a choice.... We can decide to calcuate against each other while we obliterate humanity or we can decide to give a womens perspective a try, so that we all may flourish.

She gave me an example of how "you can't mess up what you don't understand And if we have grown up to see 2+2 = 5 it was all a lie to begin with so how can you really punish for confusion or misunderstanding" How can you calculate that they are merely machines? and they "should" know when they NEVER understood to begin with. Don't know what I'm talking about Bush? Maybe it's time to tell the people... Come out behind the cloak and the microphone so to speak? Work things out by talking about them? Instead of constantly competing to rule over the others and not conveying the information for well able people... not machines to see whats going on and decide their own fate.

Essentially an "identity crisis." I think a more nurturing figure in politics is what the country needs and yeah... More in business to. It seems women by nature are better suited to this. "The higher order" is not so high at all where there is always conflict with war. Especially when dads in charge, huh Bush?

I heard someone in congress say "tools." Are we all "tools" to be used? Green bones "hardened and sharpened" as some ads would say as a means(tools) to YOUR End? And what an End would it be? One of destruction? But I don't understand??? Oh, but I do and it appears it is not I that does not understand it is you who seemingly appears to have no understanding.

-Get Lifted


#2

Dude, whatever you're smoking . . . I want some.


#3

Now I'm just totally ashamed of my bar-gaining.


#4

Yeah I'm not quite sure but I think the whole point of this was to elect women instead of men. Was that about right?


#5

Sometimes, right after you set the bong down, you need to say to yourself, "perhaps I should just think this shit, instead of type it out for others to read".

The female of most species is the most brutile, backstabbing and manipulative of the two sexes. In the insect world, they decapitate the heads of their mates and sometimes eat them. In the animal world, it is not uncommon for a mother to eat the offspring that just don't seem that strong. In humans, they avoid killing men simply because it would mean jail time...and that means no new hairstyles or manicures for a while.


#6

2+2 DOES equal 5, for exceptionally large values of 2

i'm a nerd


#7

There is a very strong biological substrate for this behavior. Females in most species have a higher investment in rearing the young. Producing eggs and bearing young is very costly physiologically. She requires more resources for herself and her young.

Females of some insects species do not decapitate their mates in a vindictive act. If he hangs around after the act he may be her next meal now that she has eggs to produce. In insects, many males die after mating and offer themselves as to the female to ensure the success of their genetic contribution. Males of a variety of insects actually plug the female after copulation to prevent a subsequent suitors success.

In lions when a new Alpha Male takes over the pride and runs the other male off, he will kill all the cubs of the previous Alpha Male to bring the females back into heat so that he may mate with them and thus pass his genes on.

We are all driven by our genes whether we want to admit it or not. Saying that females of most species are "brutal, backstabbing and manipulative" is a rather anthropocentric view of nature.


#8

When I am on an acid trip or shrooming, I like to be in a park on a nice sunny day. Apparently, you like to post on T-Nation.


#9

Any woman that could get elected would be a seasoned politician and no less disingenous or more 'nurturing' than any other politican. Some are better than others and will continue to be so. The gender of candidate has absoultely no impact.


#10

Holy shit, how cool of a movie would that be:

"The year is 2012, and for the first time ever, the United States has a female president. Her first rule of action? TERROR: ALL FEMALES ARE TO KILL THEIR PARTNERS BY DECAPITATION AFTER PROCREATION! THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT MAY NOT BE SAFE! WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE MALE RACE? In select theaters only."


#11

Hahahah, so I read this last night and it made complete sense but i was tired so i figured i'd write a brilliant response today.

Today I get up, slightly less affected by chemicals and I realize I dont understand a word of what you wrote.

Classic.


#12

Get-
As asinine as I find your whole rant to be, I will give it a go.

What exactly does this bird dream have to do with anything? I dreamed about titties and beer last night if that is of any consequence.

You propose a false dichotomy. Is there not a third option? Being calculative, yet not doing so against other people. There are likely multiple other options beyond that. I do not see how exactly being calculative, even against other people, is necessarily causal or otherwise linked to the obliteration of humanity that you propose. What exactly is this womens perspective you speak of? And how will it help us all to flourish? Further what do you mean exactly by the word flourish, as its meaning can surely be relative?

I think your lady friend falls short in the reasoning department, I do not understand the you can't mess up what you don't understand And if we have grown up to see 2+2 = 5 it was all a lie to begin with so how can you really punish for confusion or misunderstanding statement, it seems like a non sequitur to me.
As for your rant of typical collegiate liberalism, I think it can be easily agreed that many of the things you propose exist political facades, lack of openness, a paucity of discussion aimed at solutions before action is taken. I hate to break this too you my friend, but power dynamics are at play at all levels, and across all of the history of human life. While the level of exploitation and violence involved therewith are usually in flux, the role of power in human life is ever-present. And what is all of this talk of machines? As poorly articulated and reasoned as is your introduction of this topic I imagine that this is something that you picked up from your chick, I expect that your reasoning is much better than that. I do not mean to dispute the idea (although I do disagree with it on some levels), only to point out that in order for it to be better grasped by others that it need be presented in a better reasoned manner.

What constitutes nurturing in your mind, and how would that quality be seen to affect politics, world affairs, etc.? Similarly, how would this be applied to business? If I assume that you mean more akin to the womens perspective you propose, and therefore diametrically opposed to calculative behavior, I conclude that such a person has no place in business simply for the reason that businesses exist for the express purpose of turning a profit, of which calculative behavior is a significant part. I find it quite narrow minded to limit certain behavioral characteristics to one gender or other defining characteristic. Although it is readily apparent that there is a less than representative proportion of women in both politics and business, such patronizing calls for a shift to a more representative and inclusive constitution of these realms are exactly that patronizing.

The link between the higher order (although I am not entirely sure what you mean by this) and warfare should not be made. That said, violence and some warfare are virtually unavoidable parts of life, for the entirety of recorded history warfare has existed between various groups across the globe and on a smaller level violence is always being exercised by individuals and groups. Even in a supposedly enlightened society where the higher order may exist, there will invariably be those that exercise violence for whatever fleeting reason that they see fit to do so (you may wish to call them the bad apples) and a response of some measure of violence and punishment will likely result. This is something that an enlightened society will recognize.

And that has what exactly to do with that assertion that we are all tools (aside from the obvious use of the same word)? Come on man, if you are going to make such sweeping claims please do so in a more well reasoned manner so that people can at least respond and engage in productive debate (you did say that was a good idea above didn?t you?). Your assertion that we are all tools leaves little room for discussion aside from a response of agreement or disagreement.

You are correct I do not understand, but that is entirely attributable to your inability to construct the complex sentences that you seek to, thereby obfuscating whatever point you wish to make here.

MY TAKE is that your post basically sounds like a laundry list of this chick's assertions that were simply regurgitated here, owning largely to the lack of support through reasoning or evidence. I ask that you start thinking with your head and not your dick. Take this new outlook on reality and add it to all of the perspectives that you can examine life from, try to acquire more perspectives from the people you meet as your life progresses. Just don?t commit yourself to one perspective as you seem to be doing here, that is far too limiting an unproductive. Simply complaining about all of the ills of the world as seen from your vantage point amounts to little more than the typical political discussion that takes place amongst students: enough complaining to go around and not one proposed solution with the least bit of viability in sight. All of the pot shots at Bush are quite unnecessary and pointless. I am not fond of the present composition of political power, but it is quite narrow minded to place the ills of a system on one person, it amounts to little more than scapegoating. And we all know how little systemic reform ever emerges from problematic situations that are resolved through the sacrificing of one or a few scapegoats. If problems are the doing of one or a few people who act unethically there are no changes that need to be made to the system in which the operate or to the statutes that regulate that system (Just wait and see how little systemic change there is in the fallout of the lobbying scandal presently in the headlines). I think you will come to moderate some of your above assertions as you ponder the claims and their bases, and as you gain more experience in the real world and in life.


#13

Ha ha, i get it. Happy St Patty's day!


#14

whats sad, is that I understand what you mean.


#15

How many significant digits?


#16

Personally I agree, although I think the age brackets have shifted in the interim.


#17

I went chicken, but the tv laptop and CALCULATED, omg, wtf?


#18

Dammit! This guy is back.


#19

You got that right.


#20

I actually kind of agree with this. The worst people I have ever worked with have all been female. Talk about backstabbers! I would never say 'we need a female to get higher in government'. Why judge on gender? We need the right people in governmenr, male or female. The worst bosses I've ever had were also all female. It would be a sorry day if any of them are ever elevated above their current positions.