GENIUS FORUMS

Did you see the married lesbian they want a baby have a family, sound nice you agree?
so yes somehow pregnant only one, baby growing all excited also her mother waiting, seem like nice to me (without thinking), BUT then what happen next is baby born! Turn out boy baby, a male! So two days in hospital all four go home, breatst feed also, they talk about how "precious" is little baby, they say "we so happy", all look good, BUT, inside me, feeling like "something is wrong with this picture", that my feeling, I begin to think, wait!..... this is a BOY a male baby but there is no male daddy, parent, whatever. Moe I think more feels wrong, maybe they have male friend that speend 2% time with little boy when he grows, BUT...more I think more I say not enough, this baby not will get enough MAN in his life.
Lets be honest, no, THEY be honest not us, let THEM be honest- Do they believe or understand that important, very important to have regular adult male for baby? Answer (if they honest, if you could read minds of lesies) answer is "fuck, WHO CARES if our baby is influence by daddy figure! truth is we really believe our boy is MUCh better off NOT to be influence by ANY Men, men suck, and will only be worse for our baby to be near to men.
WE will mold baby how WE want him to be, to learn 98% from US and our lesie friends. The thought of a man being with our baby scare the shit out of us, always potential for violation at any moment with dirty men. NO, we will pretend to let males raise our baby boy, but we watch and control activity very carefully when grandfather visit, when any men with our little boy. We pretend to trust men who must be near our child, but inside we know and keep secret how little we trust ALL men, how fearful we are they influence our boy, and how diligent we protect him all his life. Keep him close and safe always, make him loyal to us and always reduce male influence."

So Yes I know just by looking this couple how they will feminize this poor child. How they will ruin him. Make him see God=Mother (women), never will he learn truth, brainwashed.
First I feel how nice they have family, but now I think "how can this be alowed by our society?", sure a baby girl MAYBE, but a baby boy born to no father?
The more I see in this country of Americans the more worried i am.
Maybe I wrong, but in my gut seem terrible. In past remember why marriage is, because force father to remain after copulation because they learn impoertent to have man with women to raise all children. But now some people throw away what ancestors have learned and passed to us.
I think I know what kind of man 2 female parents make, but hard to say with words.
I see them sometimes acting on tv, one young man Im thinking I dont know his name but he is mid 20s thin good smile gentle bearded I see him at night on HBO show, very close to mother, dont think he ever have father. Seem perfectly normal well adjusted, quiet, not very shy really but reserved, everybody like him, very likeable but you (I) can see something missing in him. Hard to explain.
Kind of man who "have trouble fight himself out of wet paper bag" as they say. I want to say passive but not exactly right. Maybe you know the actor I mean. They make movies on the show, dont know the name but on HBO I think. Really I dont know much of his past, think he lost father early mom grew him up.
Regardless, hope to hear from others so to help me figure out if my negative feeling is reasonable or just Im shocked because newness of manless family.
"enough said!"

mansman,

How is this lesbian family any different than the millions of families who have one mother and no father, either because he never was in the picture, or because they got divorced? You should face it: in our society, women usually raise children on their own.

What Shah said.

Mother and father both being present is an ideal. What happens instead is real life. Your "negative feeling" is understandable. Too bad if real life hurts your feelings.

Girls need fathers too.

Hear hear, Iolaus.

Biological parenting is necessary, but only secondary as it more important in a certain context that the child is influenced by wise thinkers. And usually the mother and father are not reliable sources of wisdom anyway, so the children must look elsewhere if they are interested. And that is where resources such as GF come in. A philosopher is the true and only father of humanity.

Romantic couples are not adequate sources of wisdom for a spiritual thinkers development.

Any young person with enough potential for wisdom has no need for a role model, be it parents or anyone else, to look up to. A person with potential for wisdom will extract information from all different aspects of society, which can include parents, friends, movies, books, history, politics, science, and philosophy. With this information one then applies the sharpest logic they can muster and form the wisest ideal to live up to, instead of a role model. Of course their may be certain individuals who have a greater influence on them than others, but what really matters is living up to the ideal, and not the actual individual(s) who influenced them.

All a child needs is a healthy, sane parent who can think for itself, meet the child's living needs, and hopefully be a role model for reason-loving cooperation.

It doesn't really matter what the parent's sex is.

Ideally, if there are two parents, they can share the child-caring job and are equal in rational faculties. In reality, one leads, and the other obeys (and it isn't always the sane one who leads).

Mansman's post does point to a scary phenomenon: lesbians are typically homosexual for political reasons. Given that contemporary feminism is basically "punch the living daylights out of men, then rob them blind while they're still in shock", a lesbian household is likely to give children a poor example of humanity.

Nick,

Any young person with enough potential for wisdom has no need for a role model, be it parents or anyone else, to look up to. A person with potential for wisdom will extract information from all different aspects of society, which can include parents, friends, movies, books, history, politics, science, and philosophy. With this information one then applies the sharpest logic they can muster and form the wisest ideal to live up to, instead of a role model. Of course their may be certain individuals who have a greater influence on them than others, but what really matters is living up to the ideal, and not the actual individual(s) who influenced them.

This maybe true on principle, but if you examine human nature, especially that of younger males, they tend to use and need role models in their development, as they jump from role model to role model until they discover how to abandon the role model altogether. However, many humans need idols their entire lives, whereas the rationalist is the only one who learns how to abandon idols altogether.

Moreover, the rationalist as a teacher can consciously tap into the youngster's need for a role model, but only as a means to eventually prepare him to abandon all role models.

Shar and others, I was reading article and author was saying that THIS here "phenomenon" in America of "women raising the kids" is at the very root of the countries many greatest problems, weaknesses, etc. Can you believe that!
Said the gays are growing because of THIS. Said the men are not appreciated are not respected because of THIS. Said we make many soilders and often war because of THIS.
Have many women fail as wife and need much therapy and "intensely dissatisfied with life" all because of THIS, where THIS=extreme influence on kids both girl and boy by feminine man-disrespecting (not liking) persons plus little to no balance of masculine influence, even if dad present because author said children from very begining learn (from moms attitude, tv, whole country!) that even fun-to-be-with dads are second class citizen and always second to women in importance and leadership and who to listen to. So idea is that whether lesbians, or single mom family or regular family with mom and dad, dont matter, in all cases THIS "disease" has been in country so long now and so everywhere that almost all children are "doomed" to doom their own kids to THIS ........way of operating.
Said consequenses are many many, dont remember all but remember this one- male child learn to think low of himself and often wish was a girl when he "realize" he was born inferior gender, this cause different mental emotional problems especial with poor self esteeme and there is much clinging to mother so when she die he become very sad a basketcase till the end.
Also the little girls amazing how they talk to their fathers I see on tv, its shocking the disrespect but unbelieveable fathers not even flinch so used to it, so girls grow up thinking how superior (more important) they are to the men and become shocked if ever learn how much smarter and capable and important to society man can be than most women. Seriously, how can marriage survive with these conditions, when wife disappoint soon man get replace with another! She never learn long-suffering and neither will kids.
Said also not really feminisim that root of problem because this "personal and political" and can be fine without negative efffect on kids in balance honest house. No, root of Americas ills he said is misguided women with emotional problems having huge negative influence on kids making them worst than themselves making country all sick and fat and unhappy and ready to pick a fight and kill men who disagree or complain. Thats general idea my words not accurate of course. THIS disease (I name it "THIS" so easy to talk about later on) whatever you define it article said IF "THIS" is cured that America would turn around in huge positive way and many many problems then reduce. All he recomend is "true gender equality" not political but in our hearts and minds, said that many decades to correct this, if possible.

Thoughts?

I think many children would be better off being raised by wolves then by two lesbians, considering that many lesbians are very confused psychologically. Many of them have the best and the worse of feminine and masculine characteristics operating simultaneously.

With all we know about early childhood development, we could probably create machines specifically specialized to provide early infants with all the motherly care they need.

Many mothers are not fit at all, as they are caught between wanting personal freedom and raising children. That is why you hear of all these stories in the news of women throwing their infants down stairs, or punching them, or leaving them in dumpsters, or drowning them in bathtubs. Women are caught between two contradictory impulses – The desire for personal freedom, and the mother impulse. And some women malfunction totally when confronting with both of these strong desires.

That is why men make such poor parents because men have no desire to sacrifice all their freedom for the sake of another being. Most men make good role models in small doses. It is the natural impulse of ‘father’ to rarely be there, but when he is there, he is supposed to be a force of wisdom. However, most men fail in this regard as well. Their 'father' presence doesn't usually provide the child with much intellectual inspiration, especially in regards to reason.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:With all we know about early childhood development, we could probably create machines specifically specialized to provide early infants with all the motherly care they need.

You mean like machines that would love the infants? Because a child raised without loving touch is not going to thrive especially well. I believe studies have shown this.

You mean like machines that would love the infants? Because a child raised without loving touch is not going to thrive especially well. I believe studies have shown this.

Yeah, sure. They have already created affectionate robots programmed to provide comfort for people. Why not create a motherly robot that could care for many infants all at once in a sort of development facility or compound, you could have specialized centers that raise infants with robots, and a few human supervisors could oversee the projects.

Ryan is not ill, he is the star student down here at GF forums. He's just telling it like it is, the pure. rational 'truth'. I'm surprised that you don't just see it.

My solution, to avoid the sanity that these dudes wield, and to remain shrivelled up in my nutty self, is to take refuge in old Gospel Tunes.

dejavu,

Are you ill?

Why do you prefer that women remain the child-like slaves that they presently are? Evolution has caused women to be slaves to child-rearing, don’t you desire women to be free from such hellish responsibility? Have you ever read feminist theory? Freedom ends at parenthood, especially for women.

Its not like an infant would know the difference, as long as it gets the feelings that a mother provides, it doesn’t matter either way, and then when they reach a certain age, they could be upgraded to another compound, one with more specialized robots designed to provide the stimulation they need at that age level.

Technology mostly raises children now anyway, with the internet and television. Why not just take it one step further allowing women to be totally free from the burden that we put on them just for the simple fact that they have vaginas? Moreover, if you program technology to raise infants perfectly according to all their developmental cues, I bet robots could do a much better job than women anyway who are usually clueless about parenthood.

Carl,

You mean like machines that would love the infants? Because a child raised without loving touch is not going to thrive especially well. I believe studies have shown this.

They have done these studies, with monkeys. It would be inhumane to do them with humans, of course. The studies also showed that if given the choice between food and no love and love and no food, the babies would choose the latter, which of course meant starvation.

So Ryan's idea that robots would do a better job at raising children than women is complete bullshit. But then, most of us here do not expect him to speak any truth.

-

Shahrazad wrote:Carl,

You mean like machines that would love the infants? Because a child raised without loving touch is not going to thrive especially well. I believe studies have shown this.

They have done these studies, with monkeys. It would be inhumane to do them with humans, of course. The studies also showed that if given the choice between food and no love and love and no food, the babies would choose the latter, which of course meant starvation.

Inhumane as it may seem, I seem to recall reading of tests that were done using human babies, perhaps in an orphanage/institution setting some time ago. I'm on my way out for the day, so no time to research now.

So Ryan's idea that robots would do a better job at raising children than women is complete bullshit. But then, most of us here do not expect him to speak any truth.

True. I guess I'm going to have to downgrade him, possibly to moron. I had been holding out hope that he would progress, but I think I'm beginning to see that his co opting of QRS philosophy is no more than a device on which to hang his radical personal and not all that logical bias, like a handy coat hanger on which to put his pants.

Shahrazad wrote:The studies also showed that if given the choice between food and no love and love and no food, the babies would choose the latter, which of course meant starvation.

So Ryan's idea that robots would do a better job at raising children than women is complete bullshit.

There's no reason why robots can't give children what they think is love.

Adults do the same to each other all the time.

It seems the Skinner Box babies did pretty well later on in life. Presumably, they all had real parents as well.

We need more artists as philosophers.

dejavu wrote:Kevin:

There's no reason why robots can't give children what they think is love.

One reason is that it would be a stupid waste of resources.

A mother who would want and allow this should not conceive a child.

A mother who would want and allow this could easily pay some financially strapped young coed to conceive the child via in vitro.

dejavu,

One reason is that it would be a stupid waste of resources.

A mother who would want and allow this should not conceive a child.

It wouldn’t be a waste of resources if the world population was much lower (maybe 500 million to 1 billion) and we only brought into the world enough children to keep the population at stable and sustainable levels.

The biggest problem with the world currently is that a large majority of the 6.5 billion humans on the planet believe it is their right to have offspring, despite the fact that all our resources are quickly running out.

That is the selfish gene at work – humans feel it is more important to achieve personal happiness than to do what is right for the planet and the species as a whole.

.



Alex Jacob - Ryan is not ill, he is the star student down here at GF forums.

-tomas-
Yup, the teachers pet.




-Alex-
He's just telling it like it is, the pure. rational 'truth'.

-tomas-
He's one truly bizarre fellow.




-Alex-
I'm surprised that you don't just see it.

-tomas-
Who else but Ryan, can invent a Philosopher's self-rating scale of 1-10. He rates himself an 8.

The boy has a lot of spare time on his hands.




-Alex-
My solution, to avoid the sanity that these dudes wield, and to remain shrivelled up in my nutty self, is to take refuge in...

-tomas-
Guess he sees himself turning into some sort of robot-clone. Perhaps he watched Star Trek reruns once too often.

Gosh, to go through life without ever again glancing at a woman...

Sheer lunacy.


PS - Be careful, Alex, he just may try to marshal support (from Cory, Diebert, Carl, Foresta Gump etc.) and get you kicked off Genius Forums...


.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:This maybe true on principle, but if you examine human nature, especially that of younger males, they tend to use and need role models in their development, as they jump from role model to role model until they discover how to abandon the role model altogether.

Humans don't want to abandon their attachment to role models because that would mean they have to become the role model, which actually scares the shit out of them. It demands far too much responsibility from the average human. Instead they trick themselves into believing they are living a noble life style simply because they talk about how great their role model is, e.g. Jesus and Christianity.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:However, many humans need idols their entire lives, whereas the rationalist is the only one who learns how to abandon idols altogether.

Which is basically my point, except that anyone with real potential for wisdom, meaning they can actually turn that potential into actual wisdom even though humanity is standing in their way, is unlikely to ever have a need for role models in the first place. Humans who have potential for wisdom but still require a role model to get them over the hump are unlikely to turn that potential into real wisdom in this world, and the chances of them being reached in time is probably less than winning the lottery. So for now the only wise people we are likely to see emerging are those who are essentially destined for higher consciousness barring some major interference such as severe illness and death, regardless of whether they have truly wise role models helping them step by step from a young age.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Moreover, the rationalist as a teacher can consciously tap into the youngster's need for a role model, but only as a means to eventually prepare him to abandon all role models.

I agree, but like I said, this method is not likely to succeed in our present state of circumstances.

I don't know why Carl gets lumped in with the wise ones here. I think much more of him than that.