Commentary on Commentary

A little more from John -

# John said, June 5, 2006 at 5:54 pm · Edit

Lol! I do seem to have hit a sore spot, haven’t I? I’m not going to waste my time attempting to deal with all of the falsities in your comment, since I don’t believe anyone who thinks that a particular group is superior to another based upon an accident of birth is really open to rational debate, but I did want to mention one thing.

Sore spot? Not likely. I just like to pick apart people's pathetic pseudo-arguments.

Any animal trainer can tell you that behavior is heritable. Aggressive dogs bred together will produce aggressive puppies. Animals with gentle temperaments pass them on to their offspring. And we are, of course, animals.

Behavior is a survival characteristic. People with certain behaviors were more likely to have produced surviving offspring in the past, which would result in them passing on these behaviors to their own offspring. These behaviors remain evident in the general population, irrespective of their relevance to modern society.

What behaviors are characteristic of males and females in the human species? Well, females will attempt to find a male who will stay at home to help her care for her young, thus increasing their chances of survival. Males will tend to attempt to keep a female under control at home in order to assure that she will stick around and raise his offspring, thus increasing their chances of survival to adulthood, while at the same time, he will attempt to sire as many more offspring by other females as possible, leaving the job of raising them to those females. Their chances of survival without a male in the wild might not have been great, but his investment was zero.

But we're still talking about historical times. Let's look back hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, when our behaviors were taking hold of us.

Humans and pre-humans settled an inhospitable world sparsely. In fact, a lone human bereft of a tribe might not have run into another for years. To increase the chances of successful procreation, nature provided that whenever a male and fertile female met, he would be ready for mating.

Think of what this means. Your testosterone levels are so high that you're ready for sex at the drop of a hat. You think about sex every eight seconds. Tops. And you'd do almost anything for sex, even if it's risky. So the male would take great risks to get to the female for sex. The female did not take risks, as her breeding potential was much more important to the survival of the species than the male's.

Its funny that you pick Sweden as your example of successful socialism, since it is not in ‘fact’ socialist. Sweden is a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. Privately owned firms account for approximately 90% of industrial output. Privately owned means capitalism, not socialism.

Ooh, Sweden not a socialist country. News to them. Maybe we should try...Finland, where all public fees are based on your income level, so that a traffic ticket may cost you $50,000 if you're rich enough.

It sounds like what you are saying is that there aren't any socialist countries, and your argument is a red herring. Or are you planning on picking the most poverty-stricken and miserable country and assign it the classification "socialist" based on its poverty and misery quotient?

No doubt posting this was a waste of time, but it was a slow night anyway. And at least I had a good laugh reading some of the truly ridiculous inferences you made about me. Of course it’s my own fault, if I’d read your blog a little more carefully I wouldn’t of (sic) posted anything in the first place. Trying to discuss something rationally with you, would be like trying to have a reasoned debate with a member of the kkk, a waste of time. You both only see things through the twisted prism of your own ideology.

Though I have to admit people who hold the kind sick views that you do , hold a certain fasination for me. I mean, how do you come to the idea that some arbitrary grouping of people is better than another? Whether this grouping is based on race, nationality, or gender; this seems patently ridiculous to me. How can you judge someone just on the way they’re born? Whether it’s the color of thier (sic) skin, or thier ethnicity, or thier (sic) genitalia as seems important to you , it’s no way to judge a person. It’s the individual and what they do that matters, not the group they’re a part of.

I love people like this. If there were a god, it would have put them on earth to amuse me. It is so politically convenient to say that all people are exactly the same except for their own motivation. This makes it easy to take credit where none is due, and then to blame others for that which you are at fault. You see, there is no free will. You are controlled by your sex drive, typical sex-linked behaviors, and chance. You play out the roles of your ancestors, out of place and out of time. In another era you might have been killed and eaten by bears.

[In fact, there are quite a few politicians who I'm sure would be killed and eaten by bears within minutes if we released them into the wild...]

The pointless competitiveness of males is demonstrated in this very exchange. You have come to this blog to challenge my views because I don't agree with you that you are worthy, and you don't even know who I am. I challenge your perception of reality, and you must strike back, threatened by a woman who won't give you respect that you haven't earned. You see, you think you deserve adulation and respect of women because you have genitals. You take this as you badge of honor, like all other men, thinking that your genitals set you apart from other men. This is not something you are programmed to think deep thoughts about. In fact, you have been educated not to examine the bases of your beliefs.

The question of who I am and what kind of blog this is makes it all the more humorous that you have come here to trade arguments with me.

Since you obviously didn't notice, I'll clarify. This is a female superiorist femdom phone sex blog you are commenting in, and it is at least partly fiction and partly tongue in cheek. One of the blogs I keep was even started for the sole purpose of keeping track of a slave of mine.

Now for the news. I actually found an article in a science journal about a study demonstrating male bonding behaviors in lizards, my favorite reptile.

Male side-blotched lizards with blue throats stake out territories next to each other, and will protect each other against bigger, more aggressive orange-marked side-blotched lizards, even though doing so is very risky to them, and even though they are not related.

Think about this. Previous research has shown that individuals in many species will risk their lives when the lives of blood relatives are at stake. How far lizards have come in developing this particular behavior, a behavior which is, of course, inherited from their parents, just like the behaviors I discussed above.

Curious, this male behavior.