/edu/ - Education

Finished News from Nowhere by William Morris, a supposed classic of utopian literature. I went into this with expectations adjusted to the genre, meaning little tension and lots of lecturing, but this one is exceptionally dull. So the guy visits the world more than a century into the future (starting from 1890) and travels by horse carriage. Technology regressed, so no trains for you, and it's anarcho-communism time.

Mildly funny bit when some character talks about the people of the former ruling class here:
<But my father used to know some of them when they were young; and he said that they were as little like young women as might be: they had hands like bunches of skewers, and wretched little arms like sticks; and waists like hourglasses, and thin lips and peaked noses and pale cheeks; and they were always pretending to be offended at anything you said or did to them. No wonder they bore ugly children, for no one except men like them could be in love with them—poor things!

The rest is so dull. So. Fucking. Dull. Oh and in Super Morris World murderers are neither killed nor jailed nor dropped on an island. And the author is not taking the piss here, but actually thinks the murderers will feel sad about what they did and that's good enough for him!

i'm re-reading the capital trilogy so that i never have to read it again. i will publish my final notations for anyone who might be interested. here is chapter 1, which was especially interesting in the final section, where marx implies the value form to possess an unconscious which determines social life. its interesting since i once posted here a freudo-marxist concept of a capitalist unconscious being located in SNLT, which related to freud's comments in "beyond the pleasure principle" that i imagined, where he says the unconscious is a spaceless-time; re-reading it however, i discovered the terms were reversed, where he described it as a timeless-space. this is a seeming platonist reversal of my previous materialist prejudices. in relation to marx however, we can see this spatial dimension relating to concrete, or particular labours, which is also the particularity of freud's dream object, whereby the unconscious reveals itself by this constitutive limit. this may also describe the commodity fetish in marx's terms however:
>"the objective appearance of the social characteristics of labour"
such that the value of a commodity is the inversion of its coarse materiality, so too is the unconscious the objectivity which cannot be immediatised as an essence, but is forever alienated in its symbolic order. this is also why i think of freud as a kantian; the unconscious is simply the thing in-itself; that from which all phrnomenal appearance is cognised, but that which is uncognisable in-itself.

The only parasites are proletarians who leech off of the genius and bravery to endure risk of the bourgeoisie but then demand more than was consensually agreed to in their employment contract.

I bet most parasites aren't actually harmful.
It's only a select few that are.
Same way most bacteria isn't pathogenic

>>23219
It wouldn't be parasitism then. It would be commensalism (neutral) or mutualism (if it benefits you too).

>>23356
>first pic
I do praise gamblers though

bump

>>20158
It's not bad but I'm suspicious of anyone promoting him. I've seen techbro entrepreneurs have Picketty capital book on their desk.

>>20158
I only read Capital in the 21st Century by him, and I don't think I even finished it because of the amount of repetition and redundancy.
Nonetheless, I agree he's an interesting and even useful writer. At the end of the day he's describing the gradual accumulation of wealth and growth of inequality through mainstream economics language, which might not be new to marxists but is an additional tool at the very least.
When talking to people who are not socialists about the world I often find myself referencing him, which is harder to do with marxian economists.

>>20158
>The thick of his work, 99% of it, is just compiling and analyzing heaps of data
wow sounds dumb

>>20232
Is that not exactly what empirical knowledge is?

>>23092
GMAIL

>>23418
>first is the assertion that marx was not a theorist of barter,
he wasn't, at least not in the sense that adam smith was. marx pointed out (and this was verified by anthropologists in the 20th century) that under "primitive communism" (what we now call hunter gatherer societies), barter took place between communities rather than individuals. So the level of barter was not a constant search for double coincidences of wants between individuals living in the same society. At the community level things were shared (to a considerable extent but not a total extent) while between communities barters were arranged. Basically bater occurs between groups that tolerate but do not entirely trust each other, in hunter gatherer society. Furthermore (and here I'm going with Caroline Humphrey and David Graeber) to the extent that people did barter inside primitive societies, it wasn't pure barter, but rather long term arrangements that didn't rely on a continual coincidence of wants. I.e. I give you fish today, since they will go bad, and you give me the stone axe a week from now after you have made it. I accept this time lag because i trust you and we will make similar arrangements in the future and have had similar arrangements in the past.


Here is Marx in chapter 2 of capital volume 1 where he mentions barter for the first time in that book:

>The direct barter of products attains the elementary form of the relative expression of value in one respect, but not in another. That form is x Commodity A = y Commodity B. The form of direct barter is x use-value A = y use-value B.[5] The articles A and B in this case are not as yet commodities, but become so only by the act of barter. The first step made by an object of utility towards acquiring exchange-value is when it forms a non-use-value for its owner, and that happens when it forms a superfluous portion of some article required for his immediate wants. Objects in themselves are external to man, and consequently alienable by him. In order that this alienation may be reciprocal, it is only necessary for men, by a tacit understanding, to treat each other as private owners of those alienable objects, and by implication as independent individuals. But such a state of reciprocal independence has no existence in a primitiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23422
>not in the sense of smith
true enough. not in form, but still in content.
>primitive communism
>hunter-gatherer societies
the division of labour into sexed positions of hunting and gathering would be a class society however, and so not the abstract notion of a universal, or shared labour (although im sure roles werent as patriarchal as they later became). to me, marx's idea of primitive communism is a sort of abstraction in any case, which is of itself borrowed from hegel's protestant notion of eden. man "falls" into history and so begins his divulsion into the "sin of adam", or labour (while eve's curse is childbirth). cain is an agriculturalist while abel is a hunter. cain kills abel - history progresses by sin and so on. herr duhring criticises marx on the basis of lifting this biblical abstraction from hegel and i think he's right, but i think marx is right also. freud sees original sin differently; as the disbanding of sexual monopoly by a "primal father" (like zeus deposing cronus), and so the first labour is a sexual division, like to lacan, man's first labour is the construction of his ego (mirror stage). i heard they did experiments with primates by giving them money, and the main industry became prostitution, hence: "the oldest job in the world". i take a butlerian stance too that gender was invented with history, which is also described in the bible as the shame of nakedness which leads to clothing being manufactured. hence, gender is a sublation of the sexed body, being culturally encoded in clothing - this is why pithy criticisms by jordan peterson that transsexuality is just a sort of cosplaying is ignorant. clothing has always been a sacred device; crossdressing is even treated by death in the levitical law.

>trading between communities
graeber and others speak on primitive "gift economies". is this part of your reference? gift economies are not bourgeois in any sense though since the form, not content, of the act is of highest consideration. we still do this today on holidays (holy-days) where you give people gifts and cards which arent worth anything specifically except a sort of "sentimental value". manners and polite customs also extend out of this. manners are purely formal. in the quotatioPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23420
i was scanning the introduction of "the age of capital", to happen upon the nicely hegelian perspective that "capitalism" as a term had its genesis around 1848, the same year of the communist manifesto. the year the zeitgeist comes into identity is the moment it tracts into its unbecoming, like the owl of minerva flying at dusk. it reminds me of something else i recently read in kevin passmore's book on fascism, where he looks at an anti-italian killing in france in the 1890s as an inspiration for the novelist maurice barrés' partial "invention" of fascism, where it is also said that in 1898, barrés calls himself a "national socialist", 20 years before rudolf jung's "Der nationale Sozialismus". italian fascism then is borne from an original notion of anti-italian sentiment, like how antisemitism gains its historical centrality from those who worship a jewish God (and too of muslims, who claim to be sons of avraham). as hegel says, the nature of finite things is that the moment of their birth is the moment of their death. to be is not-to-be. once capitalism is given a name, it thus becomes determined toward its alienation. this is why the substance (the intelligible quality) of a thing is in its name. ontology is taxonomy. this has its qabalistic truth as well, in that what we call knowledge is just the same alphabet rearranged into a mode of intelligibility. the mind thus is complete in-itself, like hegel's equation between being and nothing.

>>23424
read Humphrey on barter
https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Barter-and-economic-disintegration-by-Caroline-Humphrey.pdf

>>23430
beginning with the abstract, i like the use of terminology, where it concerns the "discontinuous" nature of barter, in that it is an immediate realisation of wealth. here the author also affirms the difference between wealth and value however (or in marxist terms, use and exchange value), in how what is exchanged is use for use, and so it is exited from an "economic" conception. here, this has the basic dimension of sharing, borrowing or gifting, since no value is mediated between parties. this is contrary to marx's notion thus of a "relative value form" being the mirrored value of an item in exchange. a bartered item is not mediated by its immediate object of exchange, for its value is not abstracted, but is realised in use. value only arises when use value is alienated from its immediacy, and is entered into a quantified abstraction - this in graeberian terms would be the tracking of debts, which are then monetised. money thus represents debt (like how if i hold one dollar, my dollar represents a value i may purchase, and thus a value of which others are in debt to me for). graeber thus sees money beginning as a shared IOU which represents a social debt ritually forgiven - capitalism as a secular dictatorship abolishes ritual forgiveness and so enters us into an ontology of debt, or a monetised existence, where everything is for sale, except socialism. marx's writing on "primitive accumulation" is a warning to all homesteaders who underestimate the violence of the capitalist state in appropriating land.

>Dominated by other activities considered to be 'more socially embedded', such as ceremonial exchange, gift-giving, sharing of food, or dues to chiefs, barter is found in a corner of the economy - and one that is despised by the people and anthropologists alike.
this again is cutting against liberal bullshit like homo economicus. as bataille will also affirm, the impulse of religion is waste and excess in ceremony, and so is the opposite of an economic concept (represented by cain, the multiplier, and abel, the sacrificer) - this is why capitalism as an anti-religion becomes its very own religion, like how as an anti-culture, it becomes its own culture.

>Characterised as 'haggling', barter is held to take place with outsiders, along with 'chicanery' and 'theft', each participant trPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23336
>the first leaves to fall are the ones getting less light.
I would have guessed the reverse, that leaves farther away from the trunk (I assume these usually get the most light) would die off first as the tree limits its internal flow of nutrients. Then the leaves closer to the trunk would get more light.

Isn't this how it works between different plants? The ones that are below the canopy level put on their leaves first and keep them on longer, to enjoy the extra sunlight that is not yet blocked out but the large, mature leaves.

>>23340
the classic example is pine vs spruce. spruce leaves are numerous and can stay on for years and years, they are not very efficient in terms of productivity but don't require a lot of nutrients to run. So you can see that spruce branches lose their needles only if they are completely in the sahade for a long time and can't produce enough to sustain themselves. on the other hand, most species of pine (pinus sylvestris for instance) have very efficient leaves that need also a lot of energy to remain active, and so they fall very quickly when they don't get enough light to sustain themselves.

>The ones that are below the canopy level put on their leaves first and keep them on longer, to enjoy the extra sunlight that is not yet blocked out but the large, mature leaves.

exactly, in my example Pine is a sun loving pioneer plant, optimized to colonize land effected by disturbances (it cannot renovate under its own canopy) while spruce is much more shadow tolerant and grows under both pine and itself.
Different plants are adapted to different lighting conditions to exploit any possible niche in their respective habitats.

sorry for the mega yapping

>>23341
That's interesting but I wanted to know about in what patterns individual deciduous trees lose their leaves. I tried searching the net but all the results are about timing, not the pattern in which particular leaves die off.

>>23343
i don't really know honestly, i would suspect that factors like wind, temperature, and most importantly sun exposure and species hame a major role in determining how and when leaves fall.
If you find some interesting research paper about this on google scholar i could unlock it for you if you want.


now for this thread, i'm looking forward to reading a couple of interesting books about socialist forestry and eco-industry in the soviet union.

Song of the Forest: Russian Forestry and Stalinist Environmentalism, 1905–1953
by Stephen Brain
https://it.annas-archive.org/md5/636d1721ef6ac85cc306be42af07c365


The Green Power of Socialism: Wood, Forest, and the Making of Soviet Industrially Embedded Ecology
by Elena Kochetkova
https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5733/The-Green-Power-of-SocialismWood-Forest-and-the
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23368
very cool

>>12531
After realizing that I didn't check the google drives, (since the only site r/opendirectory had that was was still online I thought it didn't work), I tried it and in 3 minutes I found a drive full of them:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aFXs4YhCPB9TwemhXaPJ0Hv0SiVrv41A

Honestly, it can't be a more fitting ending than this.
I stayed up 6 hours past my bed time because of this

>>12534
Yeah…
Well with this experience, I learned:
If you're taking too long, do it on a different day.

Too bad I'm too stupid and obsessive to learn this

>>12531
To download on archive.org you have a few options. If the book is public domain, it usually is available to download straight from the page, no problems. If it is loan only, you have a couple of options, both of which entail having an archive.org account:
1. You can manually loan the book, download the adobe drm file thing and open it in adobe's spyware software (Adobe Digital Editions); it'll download the book, which you can find by clicking in "go to folder" (or something like that) in the drop down menu, where a pdf file will be; you then have to drop this pdf file on a Calibre with the DeDRM plugin installed, which will promptly remove the drm. By then you can just find the book in Calibre's folder strutcture and voilà, you got a free pdf. (I recommend testing if it really removed the DRM by just opening the file). Then you can return the book. This is time-consuming and annoying, but it works.
2. Just use this python script: https://github.com/MiniGlome/Archive.org-Downloader. It works pretty good, and it can do bulk downloads.
I know you solved your problem, but this might be useful for other comrades.

bumping for interest

>>12546
just tried option 2, thanks anon! it works perfectly.

Necro bump
Brain scattered, idk what to add, other than this book is pretty good.
Halfway done with it, it's like a cross between atomic habbits and make it stick

>>23399
>>23399
>he saw the Jews which embodied capitalism but are not capitalism itself
you should read marx's "on the jewish question"; to him, jews represent capitalism in particular (as civil society) yet the christians sublime judaism by its alienation in the state (like how christians benefit from jews yet persecute them). i suppose youre saying that Hitler never saw the judaism of christianity, which is a common flaw.
>Nazism is socialism but of the vulgar kind that fails to abstract from the concrete.
this links nazism with anarchism i would say, which attempts to ontologise socialism, and so appeals to an anti-political (bourgeois) tendency. the propaganda of the deed is also a staple in nazism.
>>23394
what i am saying is that Hitler is a contingency of a greater historical necessity. he was an avatar of the german zeitgeist. this is why liberal individualists blame Hitler as an actor and not Hitler as an historical phenomenon.

>>23402
Again, my point is that there are dozens of quotes from Hitler that an average person on the Internet who supports Communism might find appealing or agree with, but that’s due to the nature of populist, authoritarian, militaristic, and nationalistic state


>"The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today's bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can"

>"National Socialism derived from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism."

>"All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community."

>"Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed, the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting very capitalism: we are making the people completely free.' … It is only the international Stock Exchange and loan- capital, the so-called 'supra-state capital,' which has profited from the collapse of our economic life, the capital which receives its character from the single supra-state nation which is itself national to the core, which fancies itself to be above all other nations, which places itself above other nations and which already rules over them."

>"In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.' By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23408
i would rather say that most people are particularists. the jew represents capitalism in particular; "international capital", or "rootless" cosmopolitanism. this is why most people are anticapitalist in proportion to their antisemitism (again, ask your average joe about "elites" and see him froth). you can glean the antisemitism of industrial nostalgia for example, which seeks to embody labour in a domestic, rooted and national concept. a commodity "made in america" is more attractive than something "made in china".

as zizek says, antisemitism assigns the jew as everything, and therefore he is nothing in himself. the jew is both wealthy and "clean", while simultaneously being filthy and poor. henry ford in his "the international jew" speaks on the instinctive prejudice humanity holds against jews, the same as gypsies and other nomads. alain badiou says that all identities are permitted besides the jewish, for the jewish identity is only in negation to gentiles. this is why israel is such an international contradiction, or what many have claimed, "nothing is more antisemitic than the creation of israel". rabbis clamber to criticise the jewish state, while others laud it as meschiach. jews appear to be behind capitalism and communism; right and left. everywhere is the jew, and thus he is nowhere in particular - this makes the jew an abstract negativity, or "universal" identity.

only a few who like the early christians, call themselves jews, are entered into a jewish self-abolition, like marx speaks of in "on the jewish question". nietzsche asks why christians hate jews yet worship a jewish god. it seems strange. but this makes more sense in a hegelian context; to enter into one's identity is to become alienated from it, like how Christ comes for the jews, yet they reject him.

i consider myself critically inclined and so i begin with my own confession. i am a spiritual jew, yet i wish to be saved from myself. i yearn for the baptism of my soul, or the shabbat, to which the qabalists signify as "the world to come".

now, i spake earlier of christianity's judaism. this was in fact noted by Hitler, who instead devised of a program called "positive christianity" which removed the old testament and paul's epistles from the bible. here, we are presented an aryan Christ in theosophical fashion. i prefer contradiction however. we Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23410
Okay, so I'm not European, and I'm not fond of mass migrations to countries because I know they destabilize nations. However, my position on the Jewish question is this: it's almost impossible to pretend they aren't vastly overrepresented in various fields, intelligentsia, entertainment and politics. That doesn't mean they deserve genocide, but I follow the Gumilev school of thought that the Jews should be 'remade' by being placed in a province where they do manual labor for generations and even intermingle with the locals to create a new Jewish race without

>>23411
it is contrary to the physis of jews to be converted into a labouring race. this is why they only ever occupy positions which serve their mentality and not their physicality. the jew is a banker, a rabbi, an intellectual, a manager, a director, a writer, a critic, a psychologist, an artist, a producer, a comedian, and so on. his abode is in the media, synagogue, academia or party. he has no fraternity within the factory. this is his bourgeois essence.

this is why i say that the contradiction of the jew is that he cannot be self-abolished. he is forever a conspirator for his own people, living with a false name. this is what makes him the least, and most, of all particular peoples. he cannot become european til europe becomes an image of himself. he cannot be an american until america becomes israel, and even then…

i sympathise with your proletarian ambitions to liberate the jew from himself, but i simply disbelieve in its possibility. the jew is not a proletarian race, like all others may be. but like i say, were the first christians themselves not jews who were liberated from their jewishness? (though some insist that the vatican is a jewish institution, while others claim that the reformation was a jewish act). all in all, the jewish question concerns the possibility of his extinction; either socially, religiously, or existentially.

>>23384
>>23385
>>23386
>menstruation and miscarriage
this only proves that women are murderers of children. we see this with abortion in history and so on. a witch is a feminine archetype for a reason.
>matter/mother
<According to de Vaan and Watkins, this is from mater "origin, source, mother"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/matter
>masculinity is about self-denial of objectivity?
male trauma is in our being-as-objects, since we are pure subjects. a woman however submits to this objectivity which she expresses as her identity; hence her body-consciousness. this is expressed in the genital relation of inward and outward being, with the homosexual naturally using his anus as an artificial vagina. men often express a horror at the idea of being penetrated yet enjoy penetrating others; this is the nature of reason, which mediates objects but is never entered into its own criticism, until kant. masculinity then is uncritical of its conditions, or self-denying of its objectivity.
>Also, why do people like to differentiate "boys" and "men" but not "girls" and "women"?
prepubescent boys and girls are androgynous, until puberty, when the girl becomes fertile, yet the boy is still intermediated in his development. girls also mentally develop earlier than men, showing nature's investment in the male sex (which in nature is typically more beautiful). the distinctions are unequal then, as we see historically and even today. young girls are taken as wives, yet boys are not taken as husbands - a period of development is socially arranged then, which ought to be his training. so the boy then has his particular stage of development, contrary to girls, who are already partial women.
>Genius of youth would be more putting on an awesome music show.
achilles played the lyre, like apollo. music and war are not contrary notions, but are quite commensurable, as we see with the war film. there have alwaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23390
>prepubescent boys and girls are androgynous, until puberty, when the girl becomes fertile, yet the boy is still intermediated in his development. girls also mentally develop earlier than men, showing nature's investment in the male sex (which in nature is typically more beautiful). the distinctions are unequal then, as we see historically and even today. young girls are taken as wives, yet boys are not taken as husbands - a period of development is socially arranged then, which ought to be his training. so the boy then has his particular stage of development, contrary to girls, who are already partial women.

Boys would be considered partial men then because they're expected to do physical tasks. We had preteen males be active warriors or black smiths.
You cannot dismiss their maturational status while fawning over female youth.
Hebegynophilia is a cishet male cognitive disorder.
Also girls don't mentally develop earlier than boys. Physically maybe but mentally?
Again that's because society fawns over female youth more. Boys are treated as dumb comic relief.
Also, boys start making seed by age eleven to fourteen.
Around the same age girls start to ovulate
This whole "girls mature earlier" is exaggerated.

Also, boys are taken as husbands around the same age girls are taken for wives. But they're both trained in their respective roles and given arranged dates.

>this only proves that women are murderers of children. we see this with abortion in history and so on. a witch is a feminine archetype for a reason.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23395
>boys are partial men
it is of a different order. girls as young as 6 are made brides, yet no 6 year old boy is made a husband. male adolescence is naturally extended then, which bears its genital relation as i say. for example, the female vagina never grows in her life, only her vulva does, while the boys' penis stays small until puberty. like i say, nature invests into the sexes differently.
>Hebegynophilia is a cishet male cognitive disorder
and?
>Also girls don't mentally develop earlier than boys. Physically maybe but mentally?
read schopenhauer's "on women".
>Men often pressure women into abortion. Men will kill babies that he feels aren't his.
in the animal kingdom it is common for mothers to kill their children. also, if abortion is equally a male issue, then why does it only politically represent women? its only men who have the capacity to be truly pro-life (since it sustains a positive mode of re-production). this is also why abortion has its formal politics in capitalist society, since women make workers. the female body is made into a factory. this is different from antique societies for example, which treated infantile life differently. for example, it was the christians who created the first orphanages.
>I could say the same about the right. But in reverse. Rightists pride themselves in "calling as they see it" but are ignorant of the fact that nature isn't static. Things change and customs aren't universal.
i completely agree. the right are even more clueless than the left (since the right is just a negation of the left; "reactionary").
>You acting sussy baka
you can be fabulous without being gay 💅🏻
>Methinks you are gay but not sexually.
what does that mean?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23403
>its the same difference.

Well yes and no. The way they impress on it is different.
They make male youth love seem more comical while female youth love is given more glamor. It's maddening.

>you can be fabulous without being gay 💅🏻

This. In fact most of our fabulous snazzy fashion was made by heterosexual men.
It's just that homosexual men have adapted it.

>in the animal kingdom it is common for mothers to kill their children.

Usually the males kill non-cosanguine babies. Females do too.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>23404
>most of our fabulous snazzy fashion was made by heterosexual men. It's just that homosexual men have adapted it.
in nature we see various forms of "peacocking" which is heterosexual in nature. the fabulous male is sexually selected by the relatively dull female (think of women without make up). war is an extension of this attitude, which is why conquest is equally a rape and pillaging. the beautification of women in human society comes from an initial male invention of beauty and gender (like how dramas would only be conducted by male actors who would cross-dress and apply make up). once again, it is men who are endowed with the romantic imagination, which is the archetypal masculine identity (knight in shining armour, et al). women's romantic novels are stained with their essential modernity, where love is entered into class relations (even in ayn rand's terminal femininity, which espouses a pagan admiration of male heroism, yet only within a capitalist context). jane austen and the bronte sisters also exemplify a romantic transition, borne from aristocratic servility to a master (think too of how little girls are called "princesses"; in this, class is a determined factor of natural value. today we have a troublesome counter-reaction with men being called "kings", but this is condenscending drivel - think of "short kings"). it is a man's instinct to love; it is a woman's instinct to speculate.
>So you admit mens pro-choice stance is based purely from industrial potential. Not on value of human life
of course. i remember one conservative black woman who was very pro-life claiming that "God is a capitalist" because he told nature to "go forth and multiply". not all pro-life stances are so cynical though. even christopher hitchens saw abortion as unethical based in his "human-ism". pro-choicers also like to censor abortion footage, showing unconscious guilt. its not an either/or problem, which is why it will always be contentious. the difference today is that it simply has its modern context, which differs from the antique perspective, where child sacrifice was quite common, and figuratively too, with slavery, prostitution, et al. but as we see in the industrial revolution, these conditions returned, except with a new patriarchal morality, like your carlin quote exemplifies (also, a footPost too long. Click here to view the full text.