Outrail posted:

As dumb as it looks the biologist in me thinks that actually makes some sense.

cinci zoo sniper posted:

du -hast

Absurd Alhazred posted:

No fractions, 2/10.

du -hast posted:

Yes, you called?

InediblePenguin posted:

ChickenOfTomorrow posted:

FrozenVent posted:

Axis are inverted, cat is always the independent variable.

Aschlafly posted:

I saw a variant of this chart that went something like:
authoritarian left: BDSM
libertarian left: orgy
libertarian right: masturbation
authoritarian right: three minutes of missionary, male orgasm only

Platystemon posted:

Better:

Platystemon posted:

Better:

Platystemon posted:

Better:

lifg posted:

Now I want to know what a free-baby market is.

quote:

Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge. This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous "shortage" of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.

goose willis posted:

goose willis posted:

Hemingway To Go! posted:

i was hoping this was an except from a modest proposal before i read it, it would've been less disturbing

goose willis posted:

HardDiskD posted:

the loving gently caress

goose willis posted:

You say that like libertarians don't think it's a great idea

HardDiskD posted:

the loving gently caress

ToxicSlurpee posted:

I've heard libertarians unironically explain that it's totally OK for a person to sell themselves and their offspring into slavery because in a truly free society somebody with wealth would never, ever (ever ever ever!) rig the game in a way that ensured there were people so poor they'd be required to sell themselves into slavery just to survive.

Indentured servitude was a totally OK thing that was never abused at all!

_{just ignore literally all of history tia}

Carbon dioxide posted:

Wait, does this mean that if I make many babies, I can get rich soon without any responsibility?

I'll put in the ads that I have strong genes.

goose willis posted:

1000 words of wtf

quote:

Human mortality rate has been stupidly high for most of their ~200,000 (minimum) years on earth. For the most part, people didn't make it into their twenties, but those that got to their thirties often lived to their sixties or later. This was why the average life expectancy in ancient Rome was ~35, people weren't living to 35 and randomly dropping dead, but most of the citizens were dying before what we would consider adulthood.

Now think about how history is tracked in the Bible and other ancient texts. Its always "someone begat this person who sired so and so who had a kid named Noah who actually did something." My bet is most of those unimportant people mentioned in the bible didn't do much else beyond living basic tribal lives, having tons of kids and dying young. This leads me to believe that the "important" people of note in ancient times were those who chose to stay and guide the youth amongst a collective.

It is also interesting to mention how children are naturally good at useful, repetitive tasks such as brick making or basket weaving. It makes sense to me that society and infrastructure can be created through the influence of one person, and those structures can be maintained by mostly children for a very long time (brick making, fishing, hunting, and basically all tool making up until metal work). The conclusion drawn from this is that human oral traditions were mostly made and maintained by the youth, and the few adults that remained served only to correct for variation over time.

Okay, so how do pedophiles work their way into this? Well, what if civilization has collapsed multiple times, but the only people who became capable of refounding it were those that had strong predilections towards children? So far I've only really established how oral history and infrastructure could have been maintained by children, which accounts for rudimentary society, but not for the development of stable oral and written languages.

It's my bet that due to flawed generational associations, ancient languages were kind of like the game telephone, where the youngest learned from the next-youngest, and so on and so forth, to the point where an elder may even lose the ability to communicate with the youth. What's cool about this is that history can be maintained for generations amongst the youth, while the language used to communicate it continually changed. Only people that kept taking an interest in children, and kept talking with children, and kept associating with children on a regular basis would be able to influence and maintain a language effectively over time. These early founders were pedophiles. These were the first people to maintain grammar and language amongst eachother meaningfully from generation to generation, these were the first people to agree upon grammar, to invent written languages, to found the church and eventually create the entire global order.

So the Greeks knew what was going on. They didn't have public schools, but they did have academic males that took an interest in younger, soon to be academic males. They had a sense that society had fallen at some point, but had been rekindled. Furthermore, they had the allegory of the cave, in which children are chained up from birth and forced to call out predetermimed names for shadows on a wall as a part of a rudimentary society. When one is forcefully brought outside into the light it is described as a truly terrible experience, but they soon recover and realize that those shadows they saw on the wall were mere representations of real object with values in and of themselves (forced symbolic language). Its almost like they knew that society had collapsed multiple times, and every time it had been rekindled by essentially pedophiles who in the most blunt terms possible chained up kids in caves and forced them to learn written languages. I'm not religious, but I think that the prophet Mohammed and other "prophets" of old did this too, rounding up a large population of youth and forcing language upon them, this is why it is said that the letters in arabic were "forged from fire".

The founders of society became the founders of the church in order to help the youth overcome the grief of death and associate more with each other into adulthood, who then became the governments in order to capitalize on those associations in order to industrialize. The global elite worship pedophiles and the public death of children because that lead us to where we are now, and globalism just failed because we can't achieve utiopia without putting pedophiles and thus global elite on a cross (and why I prefaced this with "I don't want to die or anything"). The associations have always existed, but few have ever suspected that the chicken came first.

It is entirely possible that those who really run the show are still raised in caves naming shadows on a wall, where they first learn a perfect language which then makes them more than capable or manipulating those who speak the degraded languages and common tongues the world over. I believe the difference between our languages and their language is that the shadows for their language are cast from a single complex object, possibly a snake, that allows for a firmer grasp for the spacial associations that language makes use of in the brain. The only reason I think this is that it fits the creation myth, in which the snake (language) convinces eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (history) and thus be cast from the garden (no longer amongst all the other animals). The snake was never cast from the garden, but was instead the devil in disguise: a mere representation of the snake.

lifg posted:

This.... is real?

MacheteZombie posted:

It's from the Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, 1982, iirc. That or an article about that section of the book.

Ramos posted:

Hoooooooooly cow, what a rollercoaster ride. Did not expect to go from high mortality rate to pedophiles to ancient Greeks are pedophiles to world wide language conspiracies.