Happy Easter.

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

How is that out of context, I didn't even shrink the sentence, you said it and have implied it throughout the thread. Don't take your anger out on me.

Context isn't just sentences. It involves things like paragraphs, whole chapters, sometimes even entire threads. :eek:

FrostyJack wrote: »

Very good, you have abviously never taken part in actual research because then you would know you have to get sound bites from people not sit there for the whole day and listening to everything that they did through out the said event.

Yes I'd imagine that must have been a difficult questionnaire.

Were you attacked/murdered/raped (y/n)

Do you not think that things like police and emergency services reports were taken into account as well? Or that hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Japanese citizens were individually interviewed, or needed to be? Maybe it was all an optical illusion caused by spending too much time on the internet and believing some survivalist whose next survival challenge will be the triple bypass.

Its pointless even discussing this with you since you haven't even bothered to read the report, despite my taking the trouble to post it all online.

FrostyJack wrote: »

With only a quick search I found this, according to your logic you believe this too, as it is official, and that is your basis of you belief system as it is written on the internet.

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/psychicdetectives.html

I'd say Marc cares as much about your opinion on the matter as I do.

Now, its fairly clear at this point that you are arguing for its own sake, so unless you've got something better to add than threadcrapping and denying science, good luck.

FrostyJack

Context isn't just sentences. It involves things like paragraphs, whole chapters, sometimes even entire threads.

Yes and the WHOLE thread you have said he is a Burt Gummer type and even said it in a very clear sentence, then you denied it, saying it was out of context. Back track much?

Its pointless even discussing this with you since you haven't even bothered to read the report, despite my taking the trouble to post it all online.

I just read it, and I glad you went at great lengths to hand write it for us to read, or did you just copy and paste it? Again it doesn't say that everyone helped everyone else and it was a real love fest, so you have been hoist by your own petar. It states there was looting, even police got in on the act in one scenario. It says as a whole people were good citizens, but there was a bad element. This is the same at every event, whether it would be a rock concert or funderland. There will be crime. Also all the report does not cover every scenario, just a few natural disasters and power outages, no nuke attacks, pandemics, famine, drought, you know the TEOTWAWKI stuff we are actually talking about. I am not saying the results would be much different but scientifically speaking to be a full report they would have to be included. I mentioned the London riots which you chose to ignore and went back to defending the report.

Now, its fairly clear at this point that you are arguing for its own sake, so unless you've got something better to add than threadcrapping and denying science, good luck.

You have been doing that for the last 3 pages arguing points that no one has even said or believe. Examples "warcrimes" when nobody said anything shooting hungry people, when asked what you would wear to pull off the amazing intidating look you said "A black metal helmet and black sweeping cape, it also helps if you breathe loudly". Then you declared victory "The argument was only going round in circles till I came across that report, at which point the argument was over." which does nothing of the sort as stated above, all it does is open the conversation further. As for denying science that is laughable if you knew me.

Maybe it was all an optical illusion caused by spending too much time on the internet and believing some survivalist whose next survival challenge will be the triple bypass.

When I first read this I thought you were referring to Ron Hood but I realised you wouldn't even stoop that low. Your hatred of "US Survialists" is quite clear as you mentioned it at least 3 times, I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet over them, the late Ron Hood is an example a great practical survival in normal conditions and TEOTWAWKI. I wouldn't class him as a Burt Gummer, he was just an ordinary guy who wanted to look after himself and his family and help others do as well, whether on holiday or during a riot. Also he was pretty funny.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Doc Ruby;78174757]Ah now you're getting rowdy at this stage Grizz, its your threat display that would participate in escalating an otherwise cordial discussion into a flamewar, all because something you believe in fundamentally has been proven wrong.

Says you...but WHO made YOU an expert on anything???? Pulling up a load of paper reports and saying they are right and everyone is wrong and then going Nanana I told you so is beyond childishness!!

Lets look at this for a moment:

On the contrary, I said you had probably been fed lots of delusional information by these types, not that you were one.

How the FUK do you know what I have been fed or what is delusional??Your arrogance is breathtaking!!And dont try to worm out of it you are implying with your smartarse jabs at american survivalists at every opportunity is well noted.

Now these two statements contradict one another. You either think people will mostly help one another, or you don't. You don't, but unfortunately for your worldview, you're quite wrong.

Says you....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And just to go into the latter comment, if you don't like the products of academic work you may as well turn off the internet, hand in the keys to your car, and go live with the Amish, because that's all the product of academic work as well. It beats me how someone can sneer at academia when it doesn't suit them, while enjoying the results of academic work. The subtext that a "real man" would have no truck with such doings is particularly funny.

Back onto strawmen arguements and taking things completely out of context again are we??:rolleyes:

Like most people Grizz, of course I assume I am right, up until I am proven wrong. Maybe you could take a lesson or two from that point of view

I dont need the likes of you to teach me anything thank you very much!!
As there is little or nothing I think you can teach anyone apart from being totally arrogant!!To Assume that quoting a bunch of reports makes you an expert and then to crow about it that you are "right " and everyone else is wrong is beyond good manners and stupidity!!



Anyways thanks for all the chuckles here people IM DONE with this group!!!!!.
Hope it all works out fine and and dandy for you all.
See you all on the other side,where all our theories and arguements will be put to the ultimate test.


Grizzly 45

Doc Ruby

FrostyJack wrote: »

Yes and the WHOLE thread you have said he is a Burt Gummer type and even said it in a very clear sentence, then you denied it, saying it was out of context. Back track much?



I just read it, and I glad you went at great lengths to hand write it for us to read, or did you just copy and paste it? Again it doesn't say that everyone helped everyone else and it was a real love fest, so you have been hoist by your own petar. It states there was looting, even police got in on the act in one scenario. It says as a whole people were good citizens, but there was a bad element. This is the same at every event, whether it would be a rock concert or funderland. There will be crime. Also all the report does not cover every scenario, just a few natural disasters and power outages, no nuke attacks, pandemics, famine, drought, you know the TEOTWAWKI stuff we are actually talking about. I am not saying the results would be much different but scientifically speaking to be a full report they would have to be included. I mentioned the London riots which you chose to ignore and went back to defending the report.



You have been doing that for the last 3 pages arguing points that no one has even said or believe. Examples "warcrimes" when nobody said anything shooting hungry people, when asked what you would wear to pull off the amazing intidating look you said "A black metal helmet and black sweeping cape, it also helps if you breathe loudly". Then you declared victory "The argument was only going round in circles till I came across that report, at which point the argument was over." which does nothing of the sort as stated above, all it does is open the conversation further. As for denying science that is laughable if you knew me.



When I first read this I thought you were referring to Ron Hood but I realised you wouldn't even stoop that low. Your hatred of "US Survialists" is quite clear as you mentioned it at least 3 times, I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet over them, the late Ron Hood is an example a great practical survival in normal conditions and TEOTWAWKI. I wouldn't class him as a Burt Gummer, he was just an ordinary guy who wanted to look after himself and his family and help others do as well, whether on holiday or during a riot. Also he was pretty funny.

Well that was...interesting. Aaaand, ignored.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Says you...but WHO made YOU an expert on anything???? Pulling up a load of paper reports and saying they are right and everyone is wrong and then going Nanana I told you so is beyond childishness!!

This is surreal.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, nor have I ever done so. My specific claim was that it was my "gut feeling," right up until I researched it and got confirmation.

I am claiming that experts were responsible for the facts unearthed in that report, which go against almost every single hysterical armchair psychobabble laden media dramatisation ever.

This reference to "paper" reports is exactly what I'm talking about, though.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

How the FUK do you know what I have been fed or what is delusional??Your arrogance is breathtaking!!And dont try to worm out of it you are implying with your smartarse jabs at american survivalists at every opportunity is well noted.

Well if it quacks like a duck, or indeed comes out with the same nonsense practically verbatim, and all that...

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Says you....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And for the what, fifth time? Says the expert researchers.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Back onto strawmen arguements and taking things completely out of context again are we??:rolleyes:

See above.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I dont need the likes of you to teach me anything thank you very much!!

The likes of me? Have we met before? I appreciate you're upset with the whole dog-eat-dog-world thing being overturned, but people are not dogs.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As there is little or nothing I think you can teach anyone apart from being totally arrogant!!To Assume that quoting a bunch of reports makes you an expert and then to crow about it that you are "right " and everyone else is wrong is beyond good manners and stupidity!!

Again, surreal.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Anyways thanks for all the chuckles here people IM DONE with this group!!!!!.
Hope it all works out fine and and dandy for you all.
See you all on the other side,where all our theories and arguements will be put to the ultimate test.

Ah well. Hey did you not quit the zombie forum in a similar huff a while back as well? I can give you a handbag to give the toys throwing out of the pram a little extra impeus if that will make you feel better. I mean what, I already said I respect your skills and made a genunine attempt to have a cordial discussion. It just happens you were wrong in one regard.

FrostyJack

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[
Anyways thanks for all the chuckles here people IM DONE with this group!!!!!.
Hope it all works out fine and and dandy for you all.
See you all on the other side,where all our theories and arguements will be put to the ultimate test.

Grizzly 45

Dude I wouldn't let him get to you, he has shown his true colours, something I suspected early in the thread. They are 2 a penny on the internet. Just ignore like I intend to do in the future.

bonniebede

Doc Ruby wrote: »

A century and a half of suffragettes wince. Do you think that modern technology has levelled out the differences in western gender roles?

I'd be wary of generalisations that involve half the species, as a rule.

I think gender roles might reverse to the earlier western standard. It all depends on a wide variety of factors, I don't think such behaviour is hardwired though.


QUOTE]

Suffragettes...hmm like I care.:p Thanks for the vote, and all, pity there's no one worth voting for. THe agenda of modern feminism is not at all pro-woman in my opinion.

Generalisations about half the species... well why not? Its an old argument, nature versus nurture, and I think any balanced reading of the area has to come to the conclusion its a bit of both. Of course human behaviour is very plastic, our specialisation as a species is in the learn and adapt area, so we are good at that. ...BUT, men and women do have lots of different hormones sloshing around, even to the ones that make our brain differently hardwired in the womb. Be stupid just to ignore that completely. Only useful model, I think, is over lapping tendencies and broad spectrums of behaviour. But both the same ? never. Vive la difference!:)

Modern technologies...well it depends what you mean. Someone said recently that the washing had done more to liberate women than the pill.

However since the post -apocalypse discussions centre around a time when powered artefacts might not be so abundant, it makes sense to presume that the anatomical differences which are smoothed out by modern technology will again make more of a difference.

Also there is no getting away from the reality that being pregnant and breastfeeding for extended periods of your adult life would influence the construction of gender specific roles. This is not a problem, in fact it is a smart way of adapting to reality.

I agree that different cultures reserved different things to male/female, again evidence of our flexibility, but what has never been found is a primitive or traditional culture which did not practice such differentiation. What was gender assigned is variable, the fact that certains of work are gender assigned is universal. We are the first culture that has ever tried to change that, and so far I am only minimally impressed.

Of course I would not give up the freedom I now have to study and work at anything I like...but the same modern culture has very little respect for the role of motherhood and child rearing. That seems like quite a cultural dead end to me.

@Grizz. Chauvinist? Me? Never. Single young men often turn into nice older, married, compassionate men. Whats not to love? It's like thinking you dislike everyone just because changing nappies isn't your favourite human interaction.

Doc Ruby

bonniebede wrote: »

The agenda of modern feminism is not at all pro-woman in my opinion.

Depending on the flavour, yes the original equality movement could be said to have been co-opted by some unpleasant influences. However the original idea has become deeply embedded in most of western society now.

bonniebede wrote: »

...BUT, men and women do have lots of different hormones sloshing around, even to the ones that make our brain differently hardwired in the womb. Be stupid just to ignore that completely.

I'm coming at this more from the organisation of labour than from a philosophical perspective here. The group that makes full use of all of its members will be more successful than the group with labour divided along gender lines.

The specifics utterly elude me now but there was some Classical General who won victory after victory by using the slaves in a non-traditional manner, allowing them to battle the elite soldiers rather than one another, to the outrage of his friends and enemies alike. Didn't bother him much, he still won, purely by breaking out of traditional roles.

bonniebede wrote: »

Modern technologies...well it depends what you mean. Someone said recently that the washing had done more to liberate women than the pill.

As the deadly granny illustrated I hope, the only technology that anyone needs to worry about in terms of equality is the gun, and that's a genie that's never going back into the bottle. This really is a key point here. A woman or child is just as capable of pulling a trigger as a big warrior man, as we unfortunately see in numerous African conflicts. Not advocating child soldiers of course, but woman warriors, sure. Plenty of them around today!

If the men of one group are ready to fight while the men and women of another group are ready to fight, the first group is outnumbered even if the groups are the same size.

bonniebede wrote: »

Also there is no getting away from the reality that being pregnant and breastfeeding for extended periods of your adult life would influence the construction of gender specific roles. This is not a problem, in fact it is a smart way of adapting to reality.

This is true, no babysitters in emergencies.

bonniebede wrote: »

what has never been found is a primitive or traditional culture which did not practice such differentiation. What was gender assigned is variable, the fact that certains of work are gender assigned is universal. We are the first culture that has ever tried to change that, and so far I am only minimally impressed.

Ah now say what you like about the problems in our culture, the fact is it's an awesome, ridiculously powerful hegemony of humans that has achieved feats which even a century ago would have been unimaginable. Maybe that's linked to female liberation and maybe it's not, but I think it goes back to the optimal use of labour.

As regards primitive or tribal cultures, there's no reason why society should reset to zero, forgetting the lessons of the past, particularly since women are just as likely to be armed as men.

Obviously what might happen is speculative, but in terms of strategy I'd be fairly egalitarian in handing out work and passing on skills.

bonniebede wrote: »

Of course I would not give up the freedom I now have to study and work at anything I like...but the same modern culture has very little respect for the role of motherhood and child rearing. That seems like quite a cultural dead end to me.

Ah it depends on the circles in which one moves. Some people are crazily gung ho about "modern ways" but the world ticks over just fine despite the disproportionate airtime these seem to get.

bonniebede

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm coming at this more from the organisation of labour than from a philosophical perspective here. The group that makes full use of all of its members will be more successful than the group with labour divided along gender lines.

Hang on, the point is that labour is already divided on gender lines, women go into it and men don't, followed by a further feeding period which only women can do. From this primary and unchangeable division of labour all other division of labour stems. In a system which demands a lot of heavy labour to produce food (peasant farming, amish type living, post teotwawki) there is an inbuilt bias towards division of certain types of labour.
Now just because I might not want to plough the field while giving birth at the same time:eek: doesn't mean i want to give up my voice in the decision making, but it does mean that the thing will run more smoothly if I'm ok with letting women and men do different tasks.
THe usual corrollary of that i think is that people enjoy mastering a task and feeling skillful in an area, coming to regard it as their area of expertise, so even though there may not always be a necessity to divide the labour along gender lines, it is probable that it will settle that way anyway.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

If the men of one group are ready to fight while the men and women of another group are ready to fight, the first group is outnumbered even if the groups are the same size.

Of course, and I am totally in favour of teaching women how to fight for self defence purposes.

However, what about the need to include men in the civilising process of letting them see themselves as defending and fighting for something, in its most basic sense to defend their wives and children. Men to whom society gives the idea that they are no longer needed may be less constructive than those who are bought into the system. (and women too, but women often just have a baby to fulfill than inbuilt need for significance)

no babysitters in emergencies.

Well, no, thats what grannies are for.

Ah now say what you like about the problems in our culture, the fact is it's an awesome, ridiculously powerful hegemony of humans that has achieved feats which even a century ago would have been unimaginable. Maybe that's linked to female liberation and maybe it's not, but I think it goes back to the optimal use of labour.

But is it?
The populations of modern cultures are shrinking not growing, and that trend is also embedded in the culture. There is no reason to think that at any particular point men and women who have been brought up to believe that chid rearing is a burden to be released from are suddenly going to switch tack and start having replacement size families.

So the future already belongs to those who are committed to reproducing, not just numerically but also who sucessfully rear their children to remain at some distance philosophically from the culture which teaches that reproduction is not desirable.

I should add that I do think what we have achieved technologically is amazing, and also believe that people are able to solve a lot of our current problems. (Me, I praying particularly for the success of the development of fusion). I am not a believer in writing it all off or wishing that al the technology disappeared, even if I do believe in prepping. Who could wish for some civilisation disabling event, and all that that would bring?

Obviously what might happen is speculative, but in terms of strategy I'd be fairly egalitarian in handing out work and passing on skills.

No argument there, but at the same time, on a small survival team wouldn't you get people doing what they are best at? Not just all doing an equal bit of everything out of some egalitarian principle. what if women and men tend to excellence in different ways? Or are driven to excellence in different ways when the biological division of labour is taken into account. Then it would be smart to allow for a gender based division of labour. This does not have to be absolutely rigid, just supportive enough for people to have an increased motivation and sense of satisfaction and approval within their culture, while at the same time loose enough to allow for individuals to express themselves and their talents.

Doc Ruby

Let me just see if I can clarify whats going on, if I've picked this up wrong please correct me - from the earlier comment about a woman's strategy being to find a big strong man to protect her, I'm assuming you are thinking of a complete reset of society to zero and some sort of primal hierarchy arising, where the men do the hunting/fighting and women do the cooking.

As well there appears to be concern with the idea of developed societies spurning childbirth for whatever reason.

My general angle on the other hand is that society isn't going to reset to zero and people aren't going to forget the lessons of equality. Someone saying in an ongoing emergency "I can't do that because I'm a woman/man" is not an optimal arrangement, and this was the situation for a long time across all societies.

As well as that we have the great equaliser, the gun, which completely negates any advantages men might have in terms of physical prowess for hunting or fighting, and there will always be guns no matter how bad it gets.

On the childbirth thing, that's a whole complex set of issues right there. If you wanted to look at it from a hard nosed financial perspective, more children in developed societies means more drains on personal resources, since you can expect no financial returns. In less developed countries, more children means more workers and a pension fund, as children are expected to contribute back to their family.

This also might go some way towards explaining why poorer people have more children even in developed societies, as they receive more government support for each child they have.

That's only one way to view it, and not the entire picture by a long shot, nobody sits down and thinks "children are too expensive", but it does basically cover a lot of things. Set against this you have the loony fringe who are actively against having children and view humanity as some sort of plague on the "natural world". These malthusian muppets thankfully are a self solving problem since they will ultimately breed themselves out of existence.

Incidentally on fusion I'm more confident about the solar satellites being developed by JAXA combined with the extremely low cost to orbit technology being developed by the Star Tram team. Combining these two entirely doable technologies means endless supplies of unlimited energy for the whole world; it would take 4 of them to supply Ireland with all the energy it needs for example. Just as cars supplanted horses, solar satellites and electric cars will supplant fossil fuels.

bonniebede

@ Doc...aaaargh, I posted a long and considered reply full of wit and erudite wisdom but the darned computer ate it. I'll try again anon.:rolleyes: