The Progressive ideology exposed

[Calandale]

Is THAT what all those words in so many posts are for?

[Walkie]

I'll have to admit that I, too, wondered how Walkie could possibly think that your opinion was the same as everyone else's here.

oops, well,  I have to confess-  I was  skim-reading a lot of the  conrtibutions cos it was coming across  like a bit of a puch-and Judy argument, not exactly  :

My only explanation is that she fell asleep halfway through one of your longer posts. In which case I wouldn't blame her.

sorry to have to pass up that highly tempting get-out, but it was more like falling asleep partway down a somewhat tedious page. Can't put all of it on  Al!   

Anyway, in this instance ,I was going by a handful of preceding posts, and not reading those attentively enough, I guess. Or my brain was misfiring, or summat, because my
impression was that -iirrespective of their ovwerall opinion on Milo-  most people here were defending his right, and the right of all  victims of sexual abuse,  to talk about their own trauma in any way they damned well chose.

I should note here : that was the only point of general agreement that I saw (or imagined I saw) though.  Shoulda made that clear in my post.

Could you please re-read what I said and indeed what El has said about this and then contextualise that in respect to these quotes?

Might re-read El's post later . Actually I only came here  for a quick catch up! But couln't decently pasd over  this one.  I already read your post  2-3 times before plussing, Al ,so I do believe I got the gist of it OK,...unless you tell me otherwise?

But given your reply Odeon's reply, and your quotes , I'm happy to stand corrected re. my reading of other people  on those bases alone. And I do  apologise to anyone who might have taken offense

[Al Swearegen]

I'll have to admit that I, too, wondered how Walkie could possibly think that your opinion was the same as everyone else's here.

oops, well,  I have to confess-  I was  skim-reading a lot of the  conrtibutions cos it was coming across  like a bit of a puch-and Judy argument, not exactly  :

My only explanation is that she fell asleep halfway through one of your longer posts. In which case I wouldn't blame her.

sorry to have to pass up that highly tempting get-out, but it was more like falling asleep partway down a somewhat tedious page. Can't put all of it on  Al!   

Anyway, in this instance ,I was going by a handful of preceding posts, and not reading those attentively enough, I guess. Or my brain was misfiring, or summat, because my
impression was that -iirrespective of their ovwerall opinion on Milo-  most people here were defending his right, and the right of all  victims of sexual abuse,  to talk about their own trauma in any way they damned well chose.

I should note here : that was the only point of general agreement that I saw (or imagined I saw) though.  Shoulda made that clear in my post.

Could you please re-read what I said and indeed what El has said about this and then contextualise that in respect to these quotes?

Might re-read El's post later . Actually I only came here  for a quick catch up! But couln't decently pasd over  this one.  I already read your post  2-3 times before plussing, Al ,so I do believe I got the gist of it OK,...unless you tell me otherwise?

But given your reply Odeon's reply, and your quotes , I'm happy to stand corrected re. my reading of other people  on those bases alone. And I do  apologise to anyone who might have taken offense

Well I disagree with the opinions of others here and their seeming want to stand on the moral soapbox of disgust in paedophile apologia to ironically blame the victim of paedophilia. It just grates on me a little. A lot of what Milo says is bloody stupid and a lot very apt an insightful and I more than suspect the only reason they choose to do these mental gymnastics is an ideological difference and a want to have a gotcha moment to tarnish him with paedophilia no matter how ridiculous and yes I believe immoral it is to do so. But that is only my opinion and in the grand scheme of things neither here nor there.

[odeon]

OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.

[Al Swearegen]

OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.

Ignore? I do not know how you could possibly say that? I have not let his remarks float on by. I have heard them, processed them, contextualised them and made defence of him saying them? That is like the complete opposite to ignoring it.

Whenever he said shit about Father Michael, I did not laugh. There was nothing to laugh about. It was cringy but more than cringy. It was sad. Proper kind of sad. I pitied him. You know that adult that laughs off physical abuse in their childhood and creates a narrative of that is how things were back then or that it was good for them because it toughened them up or that they were really naughty and deserved it? Or that little kid who has a group of friends that all treat him like absolutely shit all the time an dhe still hangs around them thinking wrongly that they are all mates and they care and respect him? Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?

That is the kind of thing I see with Milo. Him laughing and trying to normalise NOT others experiences BUT his own experience. He is okay. He is NOT a victim. He wanted it and it was fine with him and he was not taken advantage of. He is fine. Sometimes it is okay. Because it was okay with him. It must be if he is not a victim. Have another laugh. Make another self-depreciating joke.

But he is a victim. I do not know what he was more scared of. Recognising it himself or other people to clue on to the fact that he was a victim. I suspect the latter. He was a victim. Always was. It does not detract from other stuff he says necessarily but in these things it is pretty easy for anyone to contextualise exactly what happened and be able to NOT accuse him of paedophila apologia. That would be ignorant at absolute best and immoral at worst.

So, no, I far from ignored what he said.

[Calandale]

Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?

An interesting take, and a construction certainly supported by the society which you and I grew up in,
but why single out the female?


What motivations should we attribute to the male who acts in the same manner?

[odeon]

OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.

Ignore? I do not know how you could possibly say that? I have not let his remarks float on by. I have heard them, processed them, contextualised them and made defence of him saying them? That is like the complete opposite to ignoring it.

Whenever he said shit about Father Michael, I did not laugh. There was nothing to laugh about. It was cringy but more than cringy. It was sad. Proper kind of sad. I pitied him. You know that adult that laughs off physical abuse in their childhood and creates a narrative of that is how things were back then or that it was good for them because it toughened them up or that they were really naughty and deserved it? Or that little kid who has a group of friends that all treat him like absolutely shit all the time an dhe still hangs around them thinking wrongly that they are all mates and they care and respect him? Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?

That is the kind of thing I see with Milo. Him laughing and trying to normalise NOT others experiences BUT his own experience. He is okay. He is NOT a victim. He wanted it and it was fine with him and he was not taken advantage of. He is fine. Sometimes it is okay. Because it was okay with him. It must be if he is not a victim. Have another laugh. Make another self-depreciating joke.

But he is a victim. I do not know what he was more scared of. Recognising it himself or other people to clue on to the fact that he was a victim. I suspect the latter. He was a victim. Always was. It does not detract from other stuff he says necessarily but in these things it is pretty easy for anyone to contextualise exactly what happened and be able to NOT accuse him of paedophila apologia. That would be ignorant at absolute best and immoral at worst.

So, no, I far from ignored what he said.

Reread what I wrote.

[Jack]

Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?

An interesting take, and a construction certainly supported by the society which you and I grew up in,
but why single out the female?


What motivations should we attribute to the male who acts in the same manner?

Have understood the accepted motivation for men being sluts is to impress other males. Either that or it's excused as some uncontrollable innate evolutionary biological drive to produce as many offspring as possible.

[Calandale]

Have understood the accepted motivation for men being sluts is to impress other males. Either that or it's excused as some uncontrollable innate evolutionary biological drive to produce as many offspring as possible.

Shallow generalizations are just that. Sometimes true, of course.


But, especially where societal effects are in play, they do not suffice even as generalizations
during times of change.

[Jack]

Have understood the accepted motivation for men being sluts is to impress other males. Either that or it's excused as some uncontrollable innate evolutionary biological drive to produce as many offspring as possible.

Shallow generalizations are just that. Sometimes true, of course.


But, especially where societal effects are in play, they do not suffice even as generalizations
during times of change.

How does the current understanding of reproductive instinct not suffice as a generalization? What makes evolutionary psychology credible is certain behaviors are universally prevalent in any society.

[Calandale]

Biological behavior is not constant.

[Al Swearegen]

OTOH, it seems to me that you'd very much like to ignore his, um, cross-age relational remarks because you agree with other things he says.

Ignore? I do not know how you could possibly say that? I have not let his remarks float on by. I have heard them, processed them, contextualised them and made defence of him saying them? That is like the complete opposite to ignoring it.

Whenever he said shit about Father Michael, I did not laugh. There was nothing to laugh about. It was cringy but more than cringy. It was sad. Proper kind of sad. I pitied him. You know that adult that laughs off physical abuse in their childhood and creates a narrative of that is how things were back then or that it was good for them because it toughened them up or that they were really naughty and deserved it? Or that little kid who has a group of friends that all treat him like absolutely shit all the time an dhe still hangs around them thinking wrongly that they are all mates and they care and respect him? Or perhaps the girl who screws any male that shows interest in hoping to form an emotional attachment and believing that these guys would see her as easy actually like her?

That is the kind of thing I see with Milo. Him laughing and trying to normalise NOT others experiences BUT his own experience. He is okay. He is NOT a victim. He wanted it and it was fine with him and he was not taken advantage of. He is fine. Sometimes it is okay. Because it was okay with him. It must be if he is not a victim. Have another laugh. Make another self-depreciating joke.

But he is a victim. I do not know what he was more scared of. Recognising it himself or other people to clue on to the fact that he was a victim. I suspect the latter. He was a victim. Always was. It does not detract from other stuff he says necessarily but in these things it is pretty easy for anyone to contextualise exactly what happened and be able to NOT accuse him of paedophila apologia. That would be ignorant at absolute best and immoral at worst.

So, no, I far from ignored what he said.

Reread what I wrote.

I did

[Jack]

Biological behavior is not constant.

It can be accepted as constant in present tense, considering how long evolutionary changes take. It's also consistent enough to support generalizations. It's not believed biology controls psychology, but is accepted human psychology has a biological source. Some people lack appreciation for certain fields of study, because it's impossible to be an exact science. Is that where this is going? Or is this leading to a discussion of souls and free will?

[Walkie]

 What makes evolutionary psychology credible is certain behaviors are universally prevalent in any society.

The same observation is frequently cited in support of transpersonal pychology; and is consistent with most schools of psychology.  . So , no, it doesn't "make evolutionary pychology credible"  not unless you view through the lens of confirmation bias 

[Calandale]

Biological behavior is not constant.

It can be accepted as constant in present tense, considering how long evolutionary changes take. It's also consistent enough to support generalizations. It's not believed biology controls psychology, but is accepted human psychology has a biological source. Some people lack appreciation for certain fields of study, because it's impossible to be an exact science. Is that where this is going? Or is this leading to a discussion of souls and free will?

Not evolution. Environmental impact. In particular, regarding breeding rates.