Talk-Polywell.org

The quote I was told about Muslim homosexuality was "Women are for making babies. Men are for fun."

If sexual/social stress is a concern, imagine the shortage of women in China due to the single child policy.

djolds1 wrote:

TDPerk wrote:@djolds1

That's exactly what I mean. I doubt their religion is flexible enough to permit to regard the destruction of Mecca as being just a part of God's plan.

The inflexibility can be used. Convince them that you will slaughter the clan or pave Mecca in glass, and they will back down. Strength is respected, weakness held in contempt. Of course, the West does not have a reputation for such ruthlessness these days.

I believe that was the kind of thinking that got Japan a couple of gifts that ended the war. Pushed we can be more ruthless.

jmc wrote:Of the people I've known, I've found those at the tail end of promiscuity (i.e. the ultra-promiscuous sex addict types) tend to be less happy and more restless on average than those of a more moderate disposition. They also tend to be more manipulative and deceitful in their various ruthless quests to satisfy their craving.

I reckon it's the other way around. Unhappy and restless -> compensate with sex, manipulation, etc.

Marriage and sexual moderation are traditions common to a wide
number of different cultures and are as old as civilisation, we throw the norms and institutions away at our peril.

Usually because it's a 'good enough' simplified rule of thumb, like most other cultural traditions. Problem is one-size-fits-all is uncomprehensive and will never fit/please everyone.

djolds1 wrote:

TDPerk wrote:@djolds1

That's exactly what I mean. I doubt their religion is flexible enough to permit to regard the destruction of Mecca as being just a part of God's plan.

The inflexibility can be used. Convince them that you will slaughter the clan or pave Mecca in glass, and they will back down. Strength is respected, weakness held in contempt. Of course, the West does not have a reputation for such ruthlessness these days.

Except it's a completely unrealistic and uncomprehensive (and unfair) solution.

"The trouble is you can only destroy Mecca once."

I tend to agree with MSimon. Destroy it and you have a heck of a lot of people with nothing to lose. So:

1. Their belief system might shatter, and anarchy and a power vacuum from North Africa to central Asia and Indonesia will ensue. You'll find yourself sucked into the vacuum in competition with Russia, India and China... and a lot of the people in the vacuum won't like you very much, because you are perceived as the ones who destroyed their way of life.
2. They have nothing to lose and want revenge. WWIII happens: The West, or at least the U.S., vs. the Muslim world. I would expect the West to win, but hundreds of millions of people (mostly in the Middle East) would be dead. As a result, the West would have psychologically brutalized itself exactly the way the Roman Republic did with the destruction of Carthage and other competing groups (like Celts in northern Italy). The stage would be set for the conversion of the American Republic and its close allies (Canada, Western Europe, Australia and N.Z.) into a totalitarian empire.

It's not too different an argument from the 1950s: was Curtis Le May right, should we have used the bomb while we had the upper hand? Personally, I prefer the way we won the Cold War to the alternative.

There were low points. The 70s, after Vietnam, was one. The U.S. Army was demoralized and disorganized, the other NATO armies were weak, the Western economy was weak and bedeviled by stagflation, the Soviets were successfully backing various insurgent movements around the world.

Expect a 40 to 50 year struggle... we're about 10 years in now.

Of course, if the West was pushed far enough, we would end up using the bomb. If the situation ever gets that bad, it will happen, come what may. But we shouldn't paint ourselves into a corner where that will happen without it being absolutely necessary.

If it is absolutely necessary, democracy will preserve more moral legitimacy than if it is perceived as having forced the issue. Of course some leftists will always claim that the West was the aggressor... but I'm more concerned about preserving moral legitimacy in the minds of the majority of the population.

As Winston Churchill said: "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind." Or as they expressed it more simply in Vietnam: "Hearts and Minds."

Betruger wrote:

djolds1 wrote:The inflexibility can be used. Convince them that you will slaughter the clan or pave Mecca in glass, and they will back down. Strength is respected, weakness held in contempt. Of course, the West does not have a reputation for such ruthlessness these days.

Except it's a completely unrealistic and uncomprehensive (and unfair) solution.

Slaughtering your enemies is a very comprehensive and successful method of victory with a history back to Troy and Carthage. That it would also make us upchuck our cookies is incidental. Such slaughter is in fact the default method of ending human conflicts throughout history. The West has been trying a new, more artificial and high-maintenance model ever since the Peace of Westphalia ended the wars of religion; but that settlement has been breaking down ever since World War 2 endorsed irregular warfare via the European Resistance.

"Psychopathic traits are geneticaly inherited."

Yes and no. From what I've read, it seems to fall out this way:
1. A predisposition towards being a psychopath can be genetically rooted. Usually it is related to some kind of biologically driven lack of empathy.
2. The parents of a psychopath can be perfectly nice people. It can be a recombination of recessive alleles, or a random mutation in the germline that leads to a "psychopath" phenotype being expressed. It doesn't necessarily pass as an obvious trait.
3. Usually some sort of environmental stimulus triggers it or drives further development of the trait. Repeated childhood sexual abuse is a common example, but it could be something else.

Sometimes you seem to have a genuine psychopath who just happens anyway, without any stimulus. A relatively normal person can probably also be modified into a near-psychopath through the right combination of repeated traumas.

CaptainBeowulf wrote:"The trouble is you can only destroy Mecca once."

.

Wrong. (sort of)

We still have Medina, the Dome of the Rock, and hundreds of minor targets.

I'm not saying it's the best option, but escalation is quite possible.

The afore mentioned polywells do offer a very nasty possibility. One craft, nearly unlimited flight duration, and enough energy to power any number of airborne defensive and offensive laser systems.

I really don't need radiation if I can systematically incinerate targets at will and park over any location on the planet I want in two hours.

A good metaphor would be like parking a Nimitz class carrier in the Roman Mediterranean. Those who you oppose would have absolutely no way to effectively stop you.

Even if... and it's a big "If"... they found an asymmetric plan, you have the option of simply retreating and "throwing rocks". He who controls the top of the gravity well, rules the world below.

We have 5th generation warplanes... short flight duration... dependent upon massive infrastructure... and relying upon stealth to even approach land targets defended by kinetic energy weapons. (guns) I don't see an F22/T50 doing much to stop something that can incinerate it from NEO.

But, how ruthless can you be, when you can do it with impunityand truly surgical precision?

djolds1 wrote:

Betruger wrote:

djolds1 wrote:The inflexibility can be used. Convince them that you will slaughter the clan or pave Mecca in glass, and they will back down. Strength is respected, weakness held in contempt. Of course, the West does not have a reputation for such ruthlessness these days.

Except it's a completely unrealistic and uncomprehensive (and unfair) solution.

Slaughtering your enemies is a very comprehensive and successful method of victory with a history back to Troy and Carthage. That it would also make us upchuck our cookies is incidental. Such slaughter is in fact the default method of ending human conflicts throughout history. The West has been trying a new, more artificial and high-maintenance model ever since the Peace of Westphalia ended the wars of religion; but that settlement has been breaking down ever since World War 2 endorsed irregular warfare via the European Resistance.

Kill anyone that concretely supports extremist groups; that makes sense. Mecca's an inanimate object. It's the same as hitting WTC or kicking a bee hive instead of targetting the bees. Which is a bad analogy because extremist non-diplomatic groups aren't as microscopically and erraticaly difficult to target.

... Nuking Mecca before killing Bin Laden is no metric but it is a symptom of the failings of 'war on terror'. Forget building nations.. If they're stuck in the middle ages, it's their own problem. Too bad. A whole nation's people don't have the stones to do something about the status quo and continually elect losers like Chavez? You get what you deserve, tough luck.
I'm not against absolutely going right up the influence lines all the way up to top level puppet master govt officials in other countries (Iran or whatever). But nuking Mecca is just stupid, IMHO. It's as crass as suicide bombing markets. The biggest badest leanest military force in the world and you nuke Mecca. WTF?

"permit to" /= "permit them to"

I can't imagine any scenario where it'd be a good idea to Nuke Mecca. I often wondered, as a thought experiment only, what the political and religious ramifications would be if the meteorite was lifted out of the Kaaba and take to Kansas. What percent of the Billion Moslems would reorient the direction of their prayers to Wichita? Would Mosques all over the world be rebuilt? What would happen if you moved it again?

BTW, That Meteorite is housed in a pretty weird mount. It looks like a prop we'd see on an old "War or the Worlds" flick: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ ... Mecca&only Go down Midpage. You have to get past "Men wearing togas". Sheesh. What's the matter with these people?

Brain Difference in Psychopaths Identified by DT-MRI Tractography
http://medimaging.net/?option=com_artic ... 37&cat=MRI

Psychopath MRI - Let's See the Scan [Video]
http://tamagawariver.blogspot.com/

In interesting (if provacative) would be a similiar MRI study of fanatics and suicide bombers.

but that settlement has been breaking down ever since World War 2 endorsed irregular warfare via the European Resistance.

Actually the model used since WW2 has worked quite well.

You cause trouble - USA takes you out - builds bases, helps you get on your feet economically.

It is a slow strategy for pacifying the world. Keeps the uproar to a tolerable level.