Are women tougher than men?

[Devin]

Just now, Jonas Long said:

Somebody still has to work at Starbucks, or whatever you invest in.

Exactly, teach them responsibility and the system implodes.

[Jonas Long]

@Devin btw, the reason it's good for women to be independent is so they don't get trapped in an abusive marriage which they can't escape because they are dependent on their husband/provider.  

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, Devin said:

Exactly, teach them responsibility and the system implodes.

You need to make money in order to invest it.  You'll need to expound on this a lot more for it to have any hope of making sense. 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Jonas Long

[Devin]

20 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

You need to make money in order to invest it.  You'll need to expound on this a lot more for it to have any hope of making sense. 

 

What would it look like if everyone were "financially responsible", what does that mean to you?

 

Now imagine society to that level of development, what is society doing, and who decides the direction/what society does?

 

Is there no longer exploitation in this "financially responsible" society, like the leadership or whatever, whoever decides what's right and wrong, moral, whether we should develop Mars, beat men, etc.

 

And at this stage, think if there would be another level of "financial responsibility" to reach.

 

 

This goes on ad infitum,

 

until......you figure out it's all b.s., until ultimately "financial responsibility" means not needing to work, and you figure out you already don't need to work and I mean this in the literal sense. The world is already our oyster.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Devin

[Jonas Long]

3 minutes ago, Devin said:

 

What would it look like if everyone were "financially responsible", what does that mean to you?

 

Now imagine society to that level of development, what is society doing, and who decides the direction/what society does?

 

Is there no longer exploitation in this "financially responsible" society, like the leadership or whatever, whoever decides what's right and wrong, moral, whether we should develop Mars, beat men, etc.

 

And at this stage, think if there would be another level of "financial responsibility" to reach.

 

 

This goes on ad infitum,

 

until......you figure out it's all b.s., until ultimately "financial responsibility" means not needing to work, and you figure out you already don't need to work and I mean this in the literal sense, the world is already our oyster.

I really don't grok your logic here...

 

To me, an ideal society would include ubi and people wouldn't be required to work, or not to work very much in the way we think of it now.  More automation and people having the freedom to live how they want and explore their own interests.  There would still be schools, or education in some fashion, they would just offer much more diverse teachings, like spirituality, art, philosophy, anthropology, anything and everything.  Ideally people would work in areas that are fulfilling to them not because they have to but because they want to.  Education would be free, so it would not be about exploitation whatsoever. 

[Jonas Long]

@Devin you said you saw women being hurt by believing in the idea that they should be independent and that they don't actually want a man to provide for them.  I'm curious whay exactly you saw that makes you think this.  You obviously see that women get trapped in relationships and marriages that are abusive but they can't leave because of their dependence.  That's how the idea of "women want/need providers" hurts and literally kills tons of women.  So, what exactly was your counterpoint to this?  How are they hurt by wanting independence? 

[Phil]

@Devin

It sounds like your connotation of financially responsible is more along the lines of financial independence or freedom and includes an aspect or caveat of inheritance. Nothing wrong with that, or anything or any connotation of course, but that’s different than what most people generally and thread wise, connotation wise, ‘hold’ financial responsibility to be or mean (I presume). In a way there might be some conversational confusion around that, as most probably find your connotation to be more in the ballpark of opposite, than the same, as theirs. Maybe there’s a slight subtle difference between ‘you already don’t need to work’… and the work (also purely connotation) is most often necessary, while there is no ‘you’ of ‘you’ already don’t need to work. 

[MetaSage]

Depends on which individuals, settings and activities we are talking about. Sex might be secondary here.

Edited October 2, 2023 by MetaSage

[Devin]

1 minute ago, Jonas Long said:

Education would be free, so it would not be about exploitation whatsoever. 

I'm not talking about exploiting by charging for college. I mean the workforce is exploitation. And in your scenario exploitation would be less about the workforce and more about free will and the environment actually.

 

2 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

 

 

To me, an ideal society would include ubi and people wouldn't be required to work, or not to work very much in the way we think of it now.  More automation and people having the freedom to live how they want and explore their own interests.  Ideally people would work in areas that are fulfilling to them not because they have to but because they want to.  

 

So do you recognize the similarities between this logic and saying things are good and bad? "Not to work very much in the way we think now", " work in areas fulfilling, they want to"(another Disney lie). It's relativistic right?

 

So consider yourself there and think if there could then be an argument made for "better financial responsibility education", "not work as much", " work in fulfilling areas".

 

It goes on ad infititum, it's not a 'solution', it's actually a 'problem' if you look below the surface.

 

 

 

Now consider exploitation in this future, is there exploitation? Consider as socialist as you like, only robots do manual labor, everyone's just musicians, etc.. if you want a consumeristic society, everyone in future 2.0 drinks Starbucks, ....

 

So now, who decides the direction of society? Mars jumping, beating men, or even just what we can and can't mine or manufacture, or consume, (how we live)? I assume you'll say it's collectively decided, which sounds benign enough, but is it?

 

This is the free will part from the beginning of this post, the voting minority does not get to live how they want, therefore there's still exploitation, still unhappiness lack of freedom(what Orb is trying to dispel right?)

 

 

 

 

 

So, this kind of covers Phil's comment too, it can really keep you from seeing what I'm saying actually, something many people in the u.s. don't understand, it's how easy it is to live 'outside the system', the world is so built for us, it's so easy, we don't need factories, or farms even. So if you pair this with what people ultimately want, then "financial responsibility" ultimately, if you take it to the end of happiness and freedom, get's society to a point of no money, not in the socialism sense but the consumerism sense, the ultimate lesson of "financial responsibility" is that you don't need anything, therefore the system collapses, you don't need school, you don't need money to be responsible with, you don't need any of the 'system'. But if you don't go to the end, then it's still just a charade, a house of cards, exploitation, even in your future 2.0 scenario for the reasons already given.

[Orb]

7 minutes ago, Devin said:

I'm not talking about exploiting by charging for college. I mean the workforce is exploitation. And in your scenario exploitation would be less about the workforce and more about free will and the environment actually.

 

 

So do you recognize the similarities between this logic and saying things are good and bad? "Not to work very much in the way we think now", " work in areas fulfilling, they want to"(another Disney lie). It's relativistic right?

 

So consider yourself there and think if there could then be an argument made for "better financial responsibility education", "not work as much", " work in fulfilling areas".

 

It goes on ad infititum, it's not a 'solution', it's actually a 'problem' if you look below the surface.

 

 

 

Now consider exploitation in this future, is there exploitation? Consider as socialist as you like, only robots do manual labor, everyone's just musicians, etc.. if you want a consumeristic society, everyone in future 2.0 drinks Starbucks, ....

 

So now, who decides the direction of society? Mars jumping, beating men, or even just what we can and can't mine or manufacture, or consume, (how we live)? I assume you'll say it's collectively decided, which sounds benign enough, but is it?

 

This is the free will part from the beginning of this post, the voting minority does not get to live how they want, therefore there's still exploitation, still unhappiness lack of freedom(what Orb is trying to dispel right?)

 

 

 

 

 

So, this kind of covers Phil's comment too, it can really keep you from seeing what I'm saying actually, something many people in the u.s. don't understand, it's how easy it is to live 'outside the system', the world is so built for us, it's so easy, we don't need factories, or farms even. So if you pair this with what people ultimately want, then "financial responsibility" ultimately, if you take it to the end of happiness and freedom, get's society to a point of no money, not in the socialism sense but the consumerism sense, the ultimate lesson of "financial responsibility" is that you don't need anything, therefore the system collapses, you don't need school, you don't need money to be responsible with, you don't need any of the 'system'. But if you don't go to the end, then it's still just a charade, a house of cards, exploitation, even in your future 2.0 scenario for the reasons already given.

I'm not an intellectual admittedly so I have no idea what you're trying to say no offense. 

 

I'm talking about teaching a kid how to manage his/her finances. Like imagine you have a child and you're gonna give them money advice. 💰 

[Jonas Long]

8 minutes ago, Devin said:

I'm not talking about exploiting by charging for college. I mean the workforce is exploitation. And in your scenario exploitation would be less about the workforce and more about free will and the environment actually.

 

 

So do you recognize the similarities between this logic and saying things are good and bad? "Not to work very much in the way we think now", " work in areas fulfilling, they want to"(another Disney lie). It's relativistic right?

 

So consider yourself there and think if there could then be an argument made for "better financial responsibility education", "not work as much", " work in fulfilling areas".

 

It goes on ad infititum, it's not a 'solution', it's actually a 'problem' if you look below the surface.

 

 

 

Now consider exploitation in this future, is there exploitation? Consider as socialist as you like, only robots do manual labor, everyone's just musicians, etc.. if you want a consumeristic society, everyone in future 2.0 drinks Starbucks, ....

 

So now, who decides the direction of society? Mars jumping, beating men, or even just what we can and can't mine or manufacture, or consume, (how we live)? I assume you'll say it's collectively decided, which sounds benign enough, but is it?

 

This is the free will part from the beginning of this post, the voting minority does not get to live how they want, therefore there's still exploitation, still unhappiness lack of freedom(what Orb is trying to dispel right?)

 

 

 

 

 

So, this kind of covers Phil's comment too, it can really keep you from seeing what I'm saying actually, something many people in the u.s. don't understand, it's how easy it is to live 'outside the system', the world is so built for us, it's so easy, we don't need factories, or farms even. So if you pair this with what people ultimately want, then "financial responsibility" ultimately, if you take it to the end of happiness and freedom, get's society to a point of no money, not in the socialism sense but the consumerism sense, the ultimate lesson of "financial responsibility" is that you don't need anything, therefore the system collapses, you don't need school, you don't need money to be responsible with, you don't need any of the 'system'. But if you don't go to the end, then it's still just a charade, a house of cards, exploitation, even in your future 2.0 scenario for the reasons already given.

I honestly cant make heads or tails of any of this.  Whatever though that's not really what this thread is about, how about addressing my other post?

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Orb said:

I'm not an intellectual admittedly so I have no idea what you're trying to say no offense. 

 

I don't think it's you, I think it truly is garbled nonsense.

[Jonas Long]

1 hour ago, Jonas Long said:

@Devin you said you saw women being hurt by believing in the idea that they should be independent and that they don't actually want a man to provide for them.  I'm curious whay exactly you saw that makes you think this.  You obviously see that women get trapped in relationships and marriages that are abusive but they can't leave because of their dependence.  That's how the idea of "women want/need providers" hurts and literally kills tons of women.  So, what exactly was your counterpoint to this?  How are they hurt by wanting independence? 

@Devin hmmm?

[Devin]

1 hour ago, Jonas Long said:

@Devin you said you saw women being hurt by believing in the idea that they should be independent and that they don't actually want a man to provide for them.  I'm curious whay exactly you saw that makes you think this.  You obviously see that women get trapped in relationships and marriages that are abusive but they can't leave because of their dependence.  That's how the idea of "women want/need providers" hurts and literally kills tons of women.  So, what exactly was your counterpoint to this?  How are they hurt by wanting independence? 

Not that women should be dependent, or are dependent, or need providers.

 

I've seen a few problems, you know how people just parrot beliefs and don't fully embody them? That sometimes happens with this, our traditions are very ingrained so people can have some cognitive dissonance where what they say and do aren't aligned, like the woman will say... all that independence stuff... but she will unadmittedly resent the man which manifests in a lot of different ways.

 

And then there's the corporate ladder woman who tries to be mom of the year and employee of the year, and a decent wife and homemaker.

 

There's a point where independence doesn't work in a relationship for obvious reasons

 

 

 

[Devin]

Wanting a provider of a man doesn't mean sugar daddy, just someone that CAN take care of the family, comfort, not that she won't contribute.

[Jonas Long]

32 minutes ago, Devin said:

Not that women should be dependent, or are dependent, or need providers.

 

I've seen a few problems, you know how people just parrot beliefs and don't fully embody them? That sometimes happens with this, our traditions are very ingrained so people can have some cognitive dissonance where what they say and do aren't aligned, like the woman will say... all that independence stuff... but she will unadmittedly resent the man which manifests in a lot of different ways.

Lol, ok, this doesn't seem like the problem you were making it out to be earlier.

32 minutes ago, Devin said:

And then there's the corporate ladder woman who tries to be mom of the year and employee of the year, and a decent wife and homemaker.

So?  Men don't also do this?

32 minutes ago, Devin said:

There's a point where independence doesn't work in a relationship for obvious reasons

 

 

 

Actually I disagree.  The alternative is codependency, which is not healthy.  In a healthy relationship both people remain independent to an extent. 

30 minutes ago, Devin said:

Wanting a provider of a man doesn't mean sugar daddy, just someone that CAN take care of the family, comfort, not that she won't contribute.

This sounds pretty weak sauce compared to what you were saying before.  I can go back and quote you if you need.  So this is what the big bad scary neo feminism movement represents as its danger?  

Edited October 2, 2023 by Jonas Long

[Devin]

55 minutes ago, Orb said:

 

 

I'm talking about teaching a kid how to manage his/her finances. Like imagine you have a child and you're gonna give them money advice. 💰 

Yeah, so who decides how people should manage their finances, there's obviously contentious and vastly different opinions on that, who decides what they should be taught? People are very impressionable and that has far reaching effect.

 

Republicans; work 40hrs, save 10%, get 30 year mortgage, work till 80, stay with same employer, never go to college.

 

Democrats; go to college, get union job, quit anyone that doesn't appreciate you, apartment so you can move to better job easier, social security and pensions should take care of you!

 

Devin; you don't need any of this crap, but invest everything you make in stocks and live on nothing. Here's a book on wild edibles, dandelions are more nutritious than anything in the grocery store, pilgrims brought them over, they're not native, they brought them as a famine fall back, now they're 'weeds' we spray chemicals on, all these other 'weeds' in your moms garden are edible too, this is wild carrot, Here's how to make a Quinzhee, here's how to do the hand drill, try not to use credit cards unless you pay them off monthly! Go to community College instead of taking on a lot of debt.

 

Hipsters; screw it man, buy whatever you want, you only live once!! You don't have to pay it back after you're dead!!

 

Trump;Debt!!,  Bankruptcy!!

Edited October 2, 2023 by Devin

[Orb]

7 minutes ago, Devin said:

Yeah, so who decides how people should manage their finances, there's obviously contentious and vastly different opinions on that, who decides what they should be taught? People are very impressionable and that has far reaching effect.

 

Republicans; work 40hrs, save 10%, get 30 year mortgage, work till 80, stay with same employer, never go to college.

 

Democrats; go to college, get union job, quit anyone that doesn't appreciate you, apartment so you can move to better job easier, social security and pensions should take care of you!

 

Devin; you don't need any of this crap, but invest everything you make in stocks and live on nothing. Here's a book on wild edibles, dandelions are more nutritious than anything in the grocery store, pilgrims brought them over, they're not native, they brought them as a famine fall back, now they're 'weeds' we spray chemicals on, all these other 'weeds' in your moms garden are edible too, this is wild carrot, Here's how to make a Quinzhee, here's how to do the hand drill, try not to use credit cards unless you pay them off monthly! Go to community College instead of taking on a lot of debt.

That's true actually. There are many different opinions on that. The good news is everything is okay already! 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Orb

[Devin]

22 minutes ago, Orb said:

That's true actually. There are many different opinions on that. 

Like what's your curriculum?

 

-anything over 5% interest is usually something never to be considered, credit cards can really pile up!(show example)That college loan is pretty pricey! Community College get's you the same job!

 

-save, invest, buying a home helps retain some of your purchase amount, a 30yr mortgage you pay double the sell price, 

 

Like anything more than a flyer would be problematic unless it's not an education "system" wide thing, like local schools teaching however they want, which is closer to the parents teaching them.

 

I think if you're not taught personal responsibility enough to look this stuff up on you're own then you're screwed no matter what school teaches, which must be taught by a parent role. Who pays attention in school anyway?

 

Edited October 2, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

1 hour ago, Jonas Long said:

1 hour ago, Jonas Long said:

Lol, ok, this doesn't seem like the problem you were making it out to be earlier.

So?  Men don't also do this?

Actually I disagree.  The alternative is codependency, which is not healthy.  In a healthy relationship both people remain independent to an extent. 

This sounds pretty weak sauce compared to what you were saying before.  I can go back and quote you if you need.  So this is what the big bad scary neo feminism movement represents as its danger?  

So?  Men don't also do this?

 

Why would someone that satisfies all their own needs(independent) seek a relationship? That's the kind of neo-feminist cognitive dissonance I was referring to earlier.

 

For loooove!? 

 

 

 

🤣🤣

Edited October 2, 2023 by Devin