"Honor Killings" Not Always Muslim

[dubs]

As far as Eurocentric thinking, I don't think you guys realize how deep the rabbit hole goes.

The concept of "crime" is rooted in the concept of individualism.

If your fellow tribesman slaps you in the face you probably deserved it, in the west you'd go running for a policeman to charge him with something.

Before about 200 years ago there was no "cop" anywhere, but we're told that without law enforcement everyone would just murder each other.

Well no, they'd just be more dependent on each other for survival, people would be forced to form closer bonds.

Before refrigeration, food was shared.

Because it's better to buy someone's goodwill with a piece of meat, you might need him later.

Over time resources became more fungible, people could sell things and hoard the money.

And so people became more selfish and individualistic.

Wealth collected with the very few (and continues to do so even more extremely.)

The tribal system at that point was gone.

Your fellow villagers weren't your kinsmen.

Crime became a thing.

Taken to the extreme, even families became a thing of the past.

Now everybody just wants their bigger slice of pie.

And still people blather about the wonders of "property ownership" and "contract law."

That's the problem with mediocre-IQ, people know just enough to think they know what they're talking about, but still dumb enough not to realize the trap they're in.

Fine, we get it, collectivism is DoA.

It's just not happening in the west, people aren't smart enough or advanced enough.

But let's not pretend there's anything "enlightened" about the West, not even its strong suit such as economic wealth, is beyond reproach.

IQ doesn't measure cognative ability, IQ measures the level of adherence to western thought-processs and educational norms, it measures how well you can remember and regurgitate the value of pi.

I'm sure the newer "common core" methodology of teaching math renders alot of the IQ tests from the 70's moot.

Does that mean people got dumber?

No, they just have a different way of doing math now.

I don't think the west is terrible.

I just don't think it's the be-all-end-all.

I think there's lots of valid and very advanced cultures out there that we could learn from if we weren't so convinced of our own superiority, or inventing bullshit metrics like IQ to pat ourselves on the back.

For good or ill, I think the rest of the world have already adopted the most useful bits and pieces of western culture, and are gaining on us, while we sit around smug.

[Iggy]

Wait a moment.. crime didn't exist before money? I am not following the train of thought here at all. Perhaps you can speculate (or find sources to back your claim) that tribe-on-tribe violence was rare for some reason due to the risk of social ostracism, which was the near equivalent of death. However there was certainly violence between tribes.. of the most horrific kind imaginable. So perhaps a small tribe with limited resources can co-exist for the majority of their 23 years of life... the lucky one's that lived to 23. I'd hardly call that the standard to strive for. I notice the use of a computer in your responses.. I am assuming you have lighting, some kind of shelter from the elements via heating, cleared roads, no predators lurking in the nearby bushes.. you know.. all the joys of Post-civilization non-tribal life.

IQ is not a measure that has anything to do with adherence to western values... unless you think talking, solving puzzles, hand-eye coordination, maths, engineering... are 'western' traits. Your are talking out of your ass when it comes to knowing what General intelligence (ie: IQ) testing is all about. Do some research before you type things, it will make you look less of a fool. IQ absolutely measures cognitive ability.. as well as other mental and physical functions.

And quit re-stating the same non-arguments... IQ is not an end measure of worth... I've never claimed otherwise... so pull your head out of your ass and actually read what I already wrote or I will assume you are not worth the effort and save myself the time.

The only one here projecting superiority.. particularly moral superiority.. is you. Be aware of that, because it only undermines your usefulness in this conversation. Western culture is superior in process, proven by the tools you are using to argue with and also proven by the massive flocking of human beings from places that do not have these tools to the places that do have these tools.

And the term 'western culture' is probably worth arguing that is is not the best descriptor, and that may be my limitation and shortcut. I am specifically talking about self-ownership, property rights... who owns yourself and the products of your labor. That is not specifically a 'western culture' thing, but they were the first to try to codify it into a state system of restrictions based off those inalienable rights... rights that could not be superseded by another human being or a 'state'... which is something distinctly unique to what we call 'the west' today.

And in regards to mid-range IQ... there is an effect called the "dunning kruger effect", which certainly clarifies why central planning and other state 'solutions' tend to always fail spectacularly.

This is a question of fundamentals.. what is the ultimate unit.. where do the fundamental rights belong. Do they belong to a collective (tribe/religion/state) or an individual. That is the starting point. Afterwards.. anyone with an IQ over.. lets guess 65... (which is the vast majority of humans today) and is not suffering some other form of brain damage... they will be smart enough to understand the difference between theft and charity... and can be held morally accountable for their actions in committing theft or assault/murder/rape.

Higher IQ people are not MORE moral.. and superiority in potential is not superiority in life. Smart people can be horrifically immoral and inferior to the progress of reducing unnecessary suffering. Whatever chip you have on your shoulder is significantly effecting your ability to articulate ideas and research those ideas. Either drop the straw-man arguments or retire from the conversation.

[polite_disagreement]

My own opinion, and I am not trying to convince anyone else of my view, iq is sort of a potential thing. Physics Ph.D's have an average iq around 155. People of lesser iq might well be able to do it, but the study programs assume students who can learn at that rate. so, slower learners are simply left behind.

People with iq of 155 will probably not last too long flopping hamburgers or candling eggs.

Most iq folks in the world work as manual laborers. Opportunity too often involves social class issues or money.

[MatrixTransform]

Historically, most people of Mensa level i.q. work as manual laborers. There isn't much commercial use for high i.q. persons.

People with iq of 155 will probably not last too long flopping hamburgers or candling eggs.

Mesna is as Mensa does

[Manalysis]

... the case you mentioned about killing unfaithful wives. They are all considered honor killings though, which by definition are the murder of a relative - mostly female - due to their committing actions that are considered shameful.

That definition is history-blind, then.
In European law, there was a period when "justified anger" was a mitigating circumstance - killing your wife when you found her in bed with another man was a so-called crime of passion.
The reason this was considered a mitigating circumstance was due to the period level of psychological knowledge. The theory said thart there were characters that were criminal, people who would always react "criminally" to any given stimulus. For the, there was no pardon - they would never improve. But the in flagranti situation was cnsiderd to be unique in a person's life, there was no risk of repetition, such persons were not criminals by character or habit. And so, society needed less protection against this type of perpetrator, and so their punishment was less. That has got little to do with 'honour'.

Honor killings are not a Muslim practice, nor is it a Christian one, Jewish, or any other religion, which is why I initially described it as tribal. It is a tribal act committed by different people of different religions due to having stronger affiliations with the tribe and/or private community than that with the state.

A number of religions demand the death penalty for adultery. Honour killings are "informal", but they are supported in scripture.

M

[dubs]

The word "crime" is purely social in meaning.

If I kill you, and there's no community or institution enforcing that, then what code was broken? You can't say it's "illegal to murder." Illegal to who? Hell it could be the Duke who didn't like your mouth and ran you thru, who's going to enforce that?

Or if the Duke does want to enforce that, then it's "crimes against the crown" or something like that.

"Individual rights" need a collective to enforce it. So it becomes "a collective of individuals," so you're back to square one, being part of a collective. That's called a "Paradox."

Computers aren't "western" any more than medicine is egyptian and guns are chinese.

All of these things built on prior knowledge, usually cross-cultural, like arabic numbers and math to form binary, in fact almost %100 of computer hardware design, engineering and production these days happens in Asia.

According to your own glorious "western science" there are about 10 or 12 different types of "intelligence."

I don't know if that's true but it would certainly put the kibosh on "hurr durr IQ is the measure of cognative ability."

TL;DR the west is no longer the gold standard and that's fine.

Life goes on and fears of being forced into the Kekistan tribe are unfounded.

No one wants you in their tribe, and broadly speaking no one gives a shit what you do.

These are western fears and projction.

[Iggy]

China/Japan/Korea/Taiwan: 104-106 IQ average. You keep making my point.

Western values is not a race thing, its a concept, and assignment of a particular set of values that produce results that have, so far and historically, unprecedented reductions in human suffering. Tens of thousands of people per week are being lifted out of poverty, particularly in places like China and India... and the principal reason is the adoption of western concepts.. the free market.. individual and property rights. That is not being matched by any other system on earth... and if you think it is, produce evidence of it. Your thoughts are not evidence.

You don't need a collective to enforce individual rights, you need a collective to destroy them. Individuals innately own themselves... it takes a concept like 'greater good' to create the false moral justification to violate the rights of individuals. No "paradox"... tossing in terms does not an argument make.

Having prior knowledge does not advance anything very far if the individual contribution is is stolen and 'redistributed for the greater good' of others, which is why things like computers and advanced engineering did not appear till after the concept of individual rights (ie: western culture/values) took hold.

And the bit of sophistry on the term 'crime' avoids the moral underpinnings of my argument... and again proves my point. It does not matter if a figurehead representing some kind of false moral authority or if a group recognizes a crime... it is still immoral. Appeals to power as a moral system is an anti-western ideology, and human suffering increases when morality is based on an appeal to power.

If you don't know if IQ measures cognitive abilities than for the love of God go do your research before you pretend to know something about it. Its an important thing to get right, otherwise you are just talking out of your ass and 'feelings' again.

And the last four lines you wrote are just plain gibberish. Statements are not arguments, and your proving yourself ill prepared to have a conversation about theses topics.

Up your game, you have the wealth of the worlds knowledge at your finger tips and instead of taking advantage of it you are doubling down on some concept that is derailing your ability to make rational arguments. I expect you to be better than this, and I cannot learn much from you until you start bringing facts and arguments instead of feelings and statements. If you are not here to help me learn something I can use, then why are you bothering to type anything at all... unless it's to reinforce your own beliefs... and if that's the case this conversation is a giant waste of my time and the time of everyone who reads your responses.

[dubs]

I love these Anglo-Exceptionalists who think "property rights" is this unique thing.

Like people don't have property rights in Dubai, they just spot an empty house and move in.

The best thing my family ever did was pack my bags and put me on a plane to travel and see the world.

Otherwise I might have spent an entire lifetime believing that people wanted to kill me for my freedom.

Instead I learned that most westerners are trapped like rats, working crazy hours to service debt, pay exorbitant taxes and make everyone else rich.

The average American can't even scrape together $800 to buy an iPhone without a payment plan.

He certainly isn't "free" to do much of anything except maybe committ suicide.

Maybe %3 of the population achieve some level of success, own a home or two, or invent some app that goes viral.

That's really who the west is for, the top %3, they live pretty good.

Also the people who are smart enough to work the system, apply for grants, get a nice section 8 or council apartment, EBT cards, the works.

Those are the smart ones, the ones who retire at 30, get on disability and move to a better country.

[Manalysis]

I love these Anglo-Exceptionalists who think "property rights" is this unique thing.
Like people don't have property rights in Dubai, they just spot an empty house and move in.

Well, property laws as an administrative system are well developed and workable in most of the West.
The less they are, the harder it is to e.g. invest or start businesses - you can't buy anything because no one knows who owns what.
Of course it is not a Western concept that one can own something, but the West has fairly effective property and trade laws.

The best thing my family ever did was pack my bags and put me on a plane to travel and see the world.
Otherwise I might have spent an entire lifetime believing that people wanted to kill me for my freedom.
Instead I learned that most westerners are trapped like rats, working crazy hours to service debt, pay exorbitant taxes and make everyone else rich.
The average American can't even scrape together $800 to buy an iPhone without a payment plan.
He certainly isn't "free" to do much of anything except maybe committ suicide.
Maybe %3 of the population achieve some level of success, own a home or two, or invent some app that goes viral.
That's really who the west is for, the top %3, they live pretty good.
Also the people who are smart enough to work the system, apply for grants, get a nice section 8 or council apartment, EBT cards, the works.
Those are the smart ones, the ones who retire at 30, get on disability and move to a better country.

Well said, and, as it were, right on the money.
But it won't make a difference, most people are hypnotized by the dangling carrot.

M

[MatrixTransform]

no law ever stopped the thief

[Manalysis]

no law ever stopped the thief

You don't know how many thefts the law has prevented. Could be some, you know.

OTOH the law makes the thief in the first place.

M

[MatrixTransform]

Sapere aude

[MatrixTransform]

the law makes the thief in the first place.

and the thief therefore, made the magistrate

[polite_disagreement]

How long will the dark ages last this time?

Interesting viewpoint with a lot of good points. But, the reason the West is going bust is not anything i.q. or genetically related. it is because all great civilizations inevitably give women the right to vote, and their incessant demands for more benefits and protections to the detriment of men, who are still today paying the bills for everyone, destroy the entire society.

The only question is for how long will the light be out this time?

My son and I have argued this at length. He thinks the Dark Age will be more than a thousand years this time.

I think there are enough clever men to maintain basic science. I can see where I might be wrong, of course. But, it is hard to keep a really good man down. And, all it would take would be for several of them to find each other, out there wandering around.

Still, the same bullies who help destroy good men, and to disrupt free communications on the Manosphere will be out there trying to stop any return to technology, and there are so many of them. So, perhaps my son is correct.

[Manalysis]

My son and I have argued this at length. He thinks the Dark Age will be more than a thousand years this time.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. The West is in decline, but that's not the end of the world, only of the world as we know it.
Only, the torch is passing ot the global economic powerhouse, China; and there will be a Dark Age until they, too, get humanism and individualism.

I think there are enough clever men to maintain basic science.

If you're thinking kind of "Aftermath" ...
Basic science, perhaps, yes. But there will be a threshhold level of critical mass. Below this, knowledge will not be extended, perhaps not even maintained.

And, all it would take would be for several of them to find each other, out there wandering around.

Umberto Eco posited that it would happen in a future version of monasteries.

Still, the same bullies who help destroy good men, and to disrupt free communications on the Manosphere will be out there trying to stop any return to technology, and there are so many of them. So, perhaps my son is correct.

Question: is there an ideal level of technology, or does the pig principle - "if 1 carrot is good, then 100 carrots is 100 times as good" - apply?


M