%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |
Chilled energy fixes me incomplete; writhing without sleep, I live an unfinished lie.
|
|
Chilled energy fixes me incomplete; writhing without sleep, I live an unfinished lie. Here my thoughts and holes. Fill them in, please. I can't finish on my own. ** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only ** |
| If the economy rewards people for doing things that others want them to do, then maybe it's a better benchmark to tie school funding with job success instead of college entrance. Since the economy operates organically, demand for a job falling when the labor market is saturated, the rewards for teaching to those talents would also fall, leaving incentives free to migrate toward new avenues and back again as necessary. |
| Someone reviewed one of my short works. She nailed it. She was disgusted by the simplicity of voice and the "narrow vision" portrayed. I had to respond, I was so happy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haha. Well, I'm glad you understood it. In fact, you understood it completely. Your response is exactly what a real persons' should be. I rather think I succeeded, then. Mm. I wish good sex were a byproduct of a relationship. My learning has proved otherwise as there are certain biological motives for increased pleasure with transient partners (more on the male side than the female, mind). I do think most people, not just men, are self-serving and that humans have developed behavioral patterns with adaptive attitudes to go along with their biological goals. The sex thing: it is all about the sex. Not necessarily good sex, or bad sex, but the fact of needing sex to spawn the next generation (whether insemination be in a tube or the good ol' way). I don't believe humans have escaped their biology in any capacity, only that the demands of our society have layered a myriad of complex behavioral patterns to enhance success -- the capacity of the next, next, next generation(s). So, no, I can't handle it by myself. The counter-gender will be required if I want kids. So, yeah, all about sex. I think it's funny how much people believe men to have grown in this last millennium. In the year 1012, men violently competed with each other for access to pools of females. Genetically, we haven't changed much since then. We live too long. It takes a few more generations for such substantial change as to think the same primers for aggressive tendencies and physical competition would fade. Honestly, I hope they don't. Otherwise, women would have no way of doing what they do best, putting men in their place based on their worth in the success of a child. Physicality, brutal masculinity, beautiful symmetry, all have a very important place in selecting men for their inherent strength, the heredity that the new children will bear. The same is actually true for women, but there is less variety in the less risky sex. Men are prone to not care. In fact, when we smell certain things, we can't tell the difference between beautiful and unattractive women. I think individually we are very shallow and that's very alright. It's in realizing how many opportunities their are to increase capacity, to enhance the likelihood of finding our best mate, that men even bother to display the complex behavioral patterns most describe. We still have wicked tunnel vision. Believe that. Mm. It's funny, but the answer as to what precludes my having more sex is in the title. Being very male, approaching every woman as a possible lay, is actually the best way to develop adaptive behaviors to get women in bed. Being 'that guy' works. Otherwise, he wouldn't exist. Hah. Thanks for your honesty. I do wish I could be that guy. Training and other goals don't permit it, though. Time. All in time. Cheers, -Vince |
| I was speaking with a nurse the other day. She said, "You can't help delusional people with facts." She never told me how to help them, though. I tell ya, I think it's a little hilarious that Romney can drive a Canadian car and praise American manufacturing. I think it's funny that Republican Lies count as much as Democratic Truths to a horde of failed critical thinkers. The best, though, comes from a comment during the Republican convention a few weeks ago. A man said it didn't matter what the candidate really believed (speaking about Santorum and Romney), but that he wouldn't lead in a vacuum. I find it amazing that Republicans would knowingly support radical, pretentious, unfit leaders because they know there are enough moderate conservatives to keep them in check, but fear to screams and cry a moderate, progressive, intelligent Democrat. It makes me know we're a Republic for a reason -- it just so happens to be to keep the current Republican rancor from destroying the fragile progress we've made. |
| In order for America to the the America of our founders, we would need a frontier. The old conservative reforms were wrought from pitting the germs of European civilization against the primal challenges of the West, evolving character and leaving the American Morality in its wake along with boarding houses, infrastructure, schools, and law. In contrast, the conservatives of today have nowhere to look but a conquered land, and nothing to evolve except the status quo that bred their success. It's not that the state of mind isn't necessary or doesn't breed competitive efficacy in existing systems, but it will forever be stunted in its selective capacity as long as there is no frontier to face, no environment to strip the civility from man and make him primal. I think, now more than ever, we need to build a new frontier for humanity to unleash the socio-evolutionary potential of our conservative brethren. To test our progress throw them to the fire and breed a new generation of success and reform instead of watching, pitifully, as they run around shooting themselves in the foot pretending to be cowboys. |
| A young dashing man; a tool, a cock, muscles, and handsome face up late, a waste alone, baking bread for the next week. How did I get so alone? Why don't I care to call anyone? |
| Believing women don't have the final say is one of the primary fallacies of a male-biased (male biased philopatry for evolutionary psychology nerds) society. Men, biologically speaking, were never supposed to have a say. We, as men, have no mechanism to stop a woman who deems us unworthy fathers or the couple as poor parents. She is making the most visceral decision anyone could ever make in deciding whether or not the child will be successful. Women are the gatekeepers to stronger generations in that way. Appease your girl, jackass. Get a better job. Stop beating her. Or, get a girl who will give you the blessing of a child. The fact is that coercion is the only method of which men may control the woman's choice (there are worse methods than back-alley abortions, and it's criminal to ask women to suffer like that -- which they will do if that's the only option. Get over it). Let me tell you a story about how we used to live. One man, someone tall, handsome, brave, strong, and trained, would walk around competing with weaker men for harems of women. Having control of plentiful resources and having eliminated needless competition (genetically inferior men probably). That men had a lot of sex. The women looked at him in admiration. Other men came for his women, and he killed them. They loved him more and raised his children to be brave warriors. The family became royalty and their namesake persists to this day. Guess what, women made the choice to find the best possible mate. So, like I said, get over yourself guys. If a woman decides she doesn't want your baby, realize there is very likely a reason for it. Also, let me tell you about being a heathen. Heathens believe they can challenge the power of God. How dare you deign to pray to Him and believe any human act is capable of destroying an immortal soul. That is heresy. The women suffer to bring us vessels. Men seed those vessels as deemed by God in the makings of our sexual race. No act of men could ever keep a child from the Holy gates, and hence no choice of a mere woman could keep the savior from returning. So f*** off, or I'll burn a cross in your yard. |
| And I said, "No. No, little birdy. You're drunk. You have a boyfriend. You don't know your heart. Your mind -- That's the problem." How do you teach someone that instincts are so often wrong? There's a whole generation of people out there that believe, wrongly, that alcohol and drugs 'free' them; that the killing of social inhibitions brings them back to a 'truer' self. How do stop the hurt in her eyes when you have to let her down? I tell them of the shame they'll feel and the secrets they'll have to keep. I tell them social creatures like us humans are manipulative, that the competition of wills allows some to prey on the weak and that's what you're asking me to do: to prey on you, to take advantage of you, to help you come to the wrong conclusion. How do I explain the fallacy of false confidence? How do you tell these beautiful little songstresses that their hearts are the least of their problems, right then. It's not like I can explain in thirty seconds how inhibitory signals from the brain aren't being processed in the frontal lobe properly and your action/consequence chain is broken. I can't tell them they're throwing themselves and the futures they really want -- the one the makes them proud of themselves -- out the window. The poor dears think they have so much more choice than they do. She tells me, "It's my decision," when she doesn't know what a decision is and how the very system that builds the perception of resolve is broken. I can't tell her my eyes, how they grind, how they droop and pour over her dress, are of some beastly intent. I can't make them understand honor in honing that. They just sit, hurt, and wake, and never apologize. Instead I get wrath! I earn the wrath of the refused for all my gentility! Dear Lord, how do I tell them there are men who would wish to be where I was, to take advantage of a moment's weakness without care, without a touch of feeling for the future it could destroy. When I can't beat the heathen little s***s at the bar, pull the pompous pricks from vomit couches and fury against their dishonorable intent, pound their proper place into them, because of civility, how can I control the boys who don't know themselves and would on instinct take so much from those I care about? Dear Lord, even if I were to do so, I'd forever have the wrath of two instead of one. Sometimes I think it easier to take their lust and quash it then to take their men and beat them for all their worthlessness. I've spent too much time with too many men. War and Peace should be required reading if only to detail the multitude of indiscretions and obstinate personae with which to navigate. How do you tell those that would still believe in a coming-together of the sexes, that we are, and forever will be, out of biological necessity, at war in sex, in marriage, and life; that getting ahead, and getting what you want from people, requires turning them, and that turning the weak is no show of power, but a tactic of the weak themselves. I want dueling to come into vogue again. Some little bitch boys and bitchier s*** old men who'd pass Lord knows what onto my little ones need a good white glove across the face and big jagged knife to tie the knot in their bosoms. Civility is such a crutch sometimes. |
| I have a theory based on competitive markets that I need disproved, or proven, or something. It's ramifications are incredible. God may very well exist, but religion mayn't have anything to do with him. The theory goes: It is impossible to sustainably surpass base accuracy when predicting movements in a competitive system, because any such prediction would evolve the system beyond the model used in prediction (if the system incorporates the model itself). That's kind of vague isn't it. Originally, I used the word 'market' instead of 'system'. But, the same should hold true in any competitive landscape. If someone gets a leg up (and this does happen), competitors will pattern the tactic and replicate or exceed it's efficacy (the accuracy, length, and breadth of prediction). Knowledge is power, yeah. I had thought of this as a means to say economists can't prevent collapse of economies, but may buffer chaotic downfalls when the event occurs within the window of their best predictions. There is a battle, however, to keep that window open, as complexity in the system requires exponentially more resources to create a prediction. Competition will drive 'actors' to surpass the accuracy of the prediction which requires some denominator of the resources used in creating the prediction. Basically, the harder we try to predict what we're going to do, the smarter we become and the harder it gets to predict. So, more resources are required to model the system, which the system adds to its complexity almost immediately. The only disconnect is if ONE such actor had a predictive capacity that was NEVER acted upon, as any interference would introduce information into the system that would destabilize it requiring more resources to capture the new patterns created. In other words, there could definitely be a God. There's no reason for me not to think our Universe was created by a sentient being capable of analyzing our past, present, and future. But, if that entity were to pass any information to a competitive species (maybe even into the universe itself), the 'actors' would pick up on it and try to best the interference. God, in other words, can not create miracles without turning us into beings capable of the same power. So either you believe in a God that does interact, and that we are 'meant' to have those powers at some point in order to relieve its liabilities, or that he hasn't ever spoken to us and we're on a path wholly our own, evolving ourselves through the competitive landscape of life's limitations. So interesting... .... The biological pathway of shock-sustainability might be better utilized than the idea of smoothly increasing GDP in making economic policy. Oh, well. The god thing is way more interesting, now. What am I saying? |
| I wonder if investors should ever figure to collude with political/industrial entities to force acid debt to be tied to equity and then shift management to venture capitalists (the Romney approach on all of Greece). I'm sure Macedonia wouldn't mind a few new factories - they'd probably fund a mass buyout of companies below 0.8 P/B or so, and then outsource client services and production until the new facilities come online. In fact, couldn't a really connected, smart, person simply buy the client lists and sell them to competing companies at a profit, then drop the real-estate and wait for mass depreciation only to buy it back and generate REIT income? Why can't bondholders force the EU to manage income generating assets to pay back at least principle and then turn them back over to the PIIGS when enough has been recouped. That would be nice enough, I think. I'm just wondering what's stopping an economic war to gut the irresponsible. Outside of Greece using their military to prevent outsider liquidation of hard assets and nationalizing foreign interests in real-estate, I'm not sure they could stop it. I mean, how much would it take to buy say 40% of Greece's GDP and then sell it at slim margins to Turkey, Macedonia, France, and America (I am a patriot, after all). The only big issue would be maritime assets, but they only account for what..6-10% GDP. Once real-estate bottoms out, you could start start vicious cycles of commercial stops to depress land values and take over tourist assets, too. I mean, I'm just wondering why no one is trying. |
| On another note, I had a dream about a seminar I attended. I think we are close to something. I read somewhere, that human knowledge has always grown in jumps, preceded by the small discoveries of unappreciated genius. Insight, they call it. Wired wrote an article stating that complex systems are distressing researchers due to too many variant interacting modules. Bulls***, I think. We're just waiting for insight. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to plot the occurrence of such events? How often do we drag, and step bit-by-bit ripping through seemingly unnecessary, specific, hypotheses, until intellectual revolution? Have these periods been contracting or expanding? How would you even measure that? What am I saying? |
 Log in to Leave Feedback |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
