Reasons for Marriage

[glass half full]

Back in the 90's the older men at work gave me hell for dodging my "responsibility as a man" by not getting married.

I'd like to choke the living shyt out of those fvcking baztards now. Really I would.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

OK, bringing the discussion back to OP’s topic, “Reasons for Marriage.”

We have shown that there are universal laws that operate irrespective of our beliefs and opinions (i.e. the moon will revolve around the Earth, the Earth around the sun, etc.). It is well settled that the perpetuation of our species is within Nature’s agenda, as Nature’s laws have unequivocally promoted our survival (i.e., the circular exchange of oxygen/carbon dioxide with the plant kingdom; the ideal temperature and gravitational forces as not to freeze/melt/implode/explode; etc.).

Accordingly, Nature’s agenda (in part) includes:

The survival and perpetuation of our species.

“Marriage” is a man-made construct. One does not need to marry to procreate, although social conventions have indoctrinated most to believe children are healthier if borne from marriage, there is no supporting evidence (that I am aware of) that demonstrates that the perpetuation of our species is contingent on married couples procreating as opposed to unmarried couples procreating. Accordingly, absent irrefutable evidence to the contrary, “marriage” would not fall under Nature’s agenda.

Marriage is entirely a social construct; thus, an individual decision.

Ideas to chew on:
1. It could be argued that the greater amount of couples that remain unmarried will in time render the current “divorce rape” case law ineffectual, thus altering case law to support marriage; ergo, supporting marriage today is a form of anti-marriage and contrariwise.

2. A greater question that arises is does divorce compromise the perpetuation of our species? Not directly, but maybe collaterally, if children were psychologically compromised in the divorce process and resultantly elected not to have children themselves—or parents, who were psychologically compromised, elected not to have more children. Accordingly, although marriage was a propitious social construct, Pro-Nature, at one time, in the current environment, it may run contrary to Nature’s intent.

 

[samspade]

Back in the 90's the older men at work gave me hell for dodging my "responsibility as a man" by not getting married..

A lesson for all men. Don't do something simply because somebody else says it's what you should do. (Including family.) Only the individual can know for sure what's best for him.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

A lesson for all men. Don't do something simply because somebody else says it's what you should do. (Including family.) Only the individual can know for sure what's best for him.

Then by this definition, if a person thought suicide was best for him, s/he should commit suicide and ignore the antagonists?

 

[samspade]

Then by this definition, if a person thought suicide was best for him, s/he should commit suicide and ignore the antagonists?

That's up to him, not me. He can listen to whatever information he wants. It's still his decision.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

I would try to stop him and advise him of more lucrative options. See being a "white knight" isn't all that bad as long as the intent is not self-serving as (on a deeper level, behind the facade) most white-knights' intentions are.

 

[Tenacity]

Then by this definition, if a person thought suicide was best for him, s/he should commit suicide and ignore the antagonists?

Depends on the situation. I know if this were the 1800s and I was born into slavery, I would damn sure be looking at committing suicide than to live/endure that bullshyt.

I think this thread has gone into all sorts of directions because you continue to make the argument about what a man "HAS" to do for the "good of all mankind". I wonder when the day will come when society will start shaming women into doing what's good for mankind?

You can start by shaming women into stop pro-creating with thugs/criminals/ex-convicts, bringing children into the world by these pieces of shyt, and raising them in single mother households. Stats show that kids who are raised by single mothers, have a higher likelihood of going down all types of wrong paths in life.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Depends on the situation. I know if this were the 1800s and I was born into slavery, I would damn sure be looking at committing suicide than to live/endure that bullshyt.

If all slaves committed suicide, the "slave" race would be extinct or if only few slaves remained many would not have been present to promote the abolishment of slavery.

I think this thread has gone into all sorts of directions because you continue to make the argument about what a man "HAS" to do for the "good of all mankind".

I promote that a man's convictions should be aligned with Nature's laws. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that include the good of all mankind? To the extent it promotes perpetuation, yes.

I wonder when the day will come when society will start shaming women into doing what's good for mankind?

I hold women accountable for ALL their behaviors. Don't you?

You can start by shaming women into stop pro-creating with thugs/criminals/ex-convicts, bringing children into the world by these pieces of shyt, and raising them in single mother households. Stats show that kids who are raised by single mothers, have a higher likelihood of going down all types of wrong paths in life.

I think this is a dynamic prevalent in the black culture. I don't see it present in the women I date. But if you date strictly black women, by all means.

 

[samspade]

I would try to stop him and advise him of more lucrative options. See being a "white knight" isn't all that bad as long as the intent is not self-serving as (on a deeper level, behind the facade) most white-knights' intentions are.

I wouldn't call that being a white night. I also believe all actions are self-serving. But anyway if you try to convince a friend not to kill himself, you're presenting a different outlook for him to consider. Nothing WK about it. He can choose to accept or reject your arguments; either way it's not your fault. His decision is his alone.

I know it sounds like we're off-subject but that's the way I see everything. No matter what anyone says - family, society, God - you still have to accept those arguments or reject them and make your own decision. Deciding to get married because someone else says it's what you should do is, in my opinion, not selfish enough. A lot of people do this and often end up even more unhappy because they weren't following their own desires. (Not always.)

Or as the man once wrote, to thine own self be true.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Legend,
Choosing cultures which are supportive of pairbonding and permanent family households is a prudent decision when compared to choosing to marry under the umbrella of a culture which attacks those structures.

Choosing to go counter culture just for the sake of the difficulty is imprudent. There quite simply is nothing extra to gain other than additional risk.

Embracing challenge is not to be confused with making short-sighted, ill-advised decisions or creating new problems that at best could be overcome by Pyrrhic victories.

I agree.

I also believe all actions are self-serving.

... if you try to convince a friend not to kill himself, you're presenting a different outlook for him to consider.

Samspade, the first quote contradicts the second, unless you have a personal interest in keeping this friend alive.

He can choose to accept or reject your arguments; either way it's not your fault.

Never feel blame for others' decisions, but this doesn't mean we couldn't try to influence others who were making imprudent decisions.

you still have to accept those arguments or reject them and make your own decision.

Correct.

A lot of people do this and often end up even more unhappy because they weren't following their own desires.

True, but as you have directed this to me, don't confuse my argument to mean that you should do what others tell you to do. I simply stated that one should align their convictions with Nature's laws. Whether others, yours, all, some, or no rules align is where shrewd discernment is needed.

Or as the man once wrote, to thine own self be true.

Living by platitudes can be dangerous friend. Does not the pedophile believe he is being true to himself, as he is acting upon his desire? I think a more accurate axiom would be:

To thine own self, live in truth.

 

[Tenacity]

If all slaves committed suicide, the "slave" race would be extinct or if only few slaves remained many would not have been present to promote the abolishment of slavery.

You are presenting these points as if they would be a bad thing?

I promote that a man's convictions should be aligned with Nature's laws. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that include the good of all mankind? To the extent it promotes perpetuation, yes.

The issue though is that your aspect of "nature's law" is just another religion. It's just as if a Christian got up here and said spinning plates, fvcking before marriage and doing anything lustful period doesn't make you a "real man" based on the principles of the bible...as "real men" (based on the bible) wait until marriage.

You basically are presenting some "moral compass" that YOU happen to subscribe to, but other men don't subscribe to. You are shaming men based on a moral compass YOU have, but we don't have. But who is to say your moral compass is right? What if based on MY moral compass, your moral compass promotes what I deem immorality?

I hold women accountable for ALL their behaviors. Don't you? I think this is a dynamic prevalent in the black culture. I don't see it present in the women I date. But if you date strictly black women, by all means.

Yes, it's a major problem in the black community but, are you saying not to date black women? Weren't you the one that just got done promoting this aspect of "remaining in the fight and not running away from challenges"? If I stopped dating black women due to the issues within the group as a whole, wouldn't that go against your stance of staying and fighting the good fight lol?

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

If all slaves committed suicide, the "slave" race would be extinct or if only few slaves remained many would not have been present to promote the abolishment of slavery.

You are presenting these points as if they would be a bad thing?

Let me rephrase: If all blacks committed suicide during slavery, blacks would be extinct. Are you not black? LOL

The issue though is that your aspect of "nature's law" is just another religion. It's just as if a Christian got up here and said spinning plates, fvcking before marriage and doing anything lustful period doesn't make you a "real man" based on the principles of the bible...as "real men" (based on the bible) wait until marriage.

I like this discussion.

The distinction between religion and Nature’s laws is Nature’s laws will operate independent of our opinions and assertions. The Earth will revolve around the sun. And the human race will continue to perpetuate. Conversely, as I have found, religion(s) contain bald assertions that cannot be reconciled.

Example:

The Jewish religion (and Christianity which incorporates the old testament of Jewish text) state that the Earth and universe were unequivocally created exactly 5,776 years ago. Scientists, through radiometric dating, have identified dinosaur bones to be millions of years old. How do you reconcile the two?

Further, the fundamental understanding of astronomy teaches you that when you see a star, you are viewing it as it were, not as it is. Accordingly, when you view a star one million light years away, you are viewing the star as it were one million years ago because it took one million years for the light from that star to reach Earth and your sight. There are billions of stars more than 5,776 light years away, and thus these stars have a proven existence greater than 5,776 years. How do you reconcile that with the Old Testament’s claim that the Earth and universe are exactly 5,776 years old? If there is one inconsistency of fact, you must discard all, as in truth lies no discrepancies.

Whereas a law of Nature such as how the Earth revolves around the sun is identifiable and factually correct.

One is based on bald claims, the other on fact.

Yes, it's a major problem in the black community but, are you saying not to date black women? Weren't you the one that just got done promoting this aspect of "remaining in the fight and not running away from challenges"? If I stopped dating black women due to the issues within the group as a whole, wouldn't that go against your stance of staying and fighting the good fight lol?

Great question for you to ponder on, and I do believe based on your previous recurring posts and complaints, that this challenge may very well be in your cards. The question I have follows:

Qualify the scope: Your challenge is binary, specifically for you, and does not conflict with perpetuation of the species with either choice (e.g., you can impregnate a black--or--white/Asian). Nature's law of perpetuation is not offended either way. As well, you encounter a challenge with either choice: (a) Finding a black girl that meets your criterion; (b) Saddling with a white or Asian that meets your criterion but you are not sexually attracted to. Are you with me so far?

This is difficult, heh. I'm sweating. Which is the greater challenge, a or b? Which is the challenge that you must embrace? Ready for the answer?

...

...

…

…

…

<Drum Roll> Have you embraced both challenges (a & b) to understand the merits of both?

 

[yuppee]

most people are in dead end jobs, anyway You can get this done in 2-3 months, not 6. you can take a semester's loan from college to fund the trip, but you'll need another such 6k loan to get her here. Be sure to get one who is a nurse, computer engineer, dentist, or MD, etc, so she can make good money the first month that she's here, Immigration law gives you at least a 3 year, probably a 5 year "warranty" on her. With a US gal, you can have trouble immediately. With the asian nurse, she'll have given you 100k, and if you know what to do, there will be another 1/4 mill that you can take and she'll have to pay for it. I'm not posting it here, tho.

 

[glass half full]

l_e_g_e_n_d,

While I totally understand your theoretical solution with this topic, I think it best to stay within the bounds of reality. I'm not trying to start trouble here (really, I'm not...), just saying...We need to learn how to adapt and overcome what is really happening in our present-day times. Marriage is a good concept, because it is best for raising a family in America, at least. And guessing at least a third of the rest of the world. Some countries have other means for dealing with a family concept (for example, tribes in Africa). Our old American ways worked here for a very long time...

It is a well known fact that communities where parents are split and kids are emotional towards each other is not conducive to sufficient human upbringing (my family being an excellent example). It leads to a bad culture. The kids lack empathy, respect for parents and others in general. Look at the bad climate of emotions in our inner cities for example. Who can change it? Only the people who live amongst it all. One very good example of this is the change in America between the 1950's, and today. The crap that goes on now is basically a society run completely amuck, because a bunch of people decided that thousands of years of decency was all wrong, boring, lacking freedom, etc.

Yes I am here for the same reason many are...I'm learning the facts of how to enjoy the sexual freedom I plan on having the rest of my life, because after all, the boundaries are down, so fvck it! I had to keep my marriage til my girl was 11yo, because of State Law, before I could get custody. I have taken the Red Pill, I fought it off trying to save family but it's too obvious how our culture has become. It's not right, but if I have to move overseas to be treated like a man should, I will (after I save enough money to go.)

Most male/female relationships in America are good for six months, tops. (For Men, anyway.) Fvck that shyt. I was not put here to pander to women. And if kids are involved...(eyes rolling here)...I have friends who have a he!! of a time with this one too. Society is all f'd up from this very problem.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, just sharing my idea about it all. I'm 51yo (although my sig won't change for some reason it says I'm 48...hell I'll take it!) I don't want to waste anymore of my one life supporting a system that supports men being treated as "meatsack atomatons" by bytches.

 

[Tenacity]

Let me rephrase: If all blacks committed suicide during slavery, blacks would be extinct. Are you not black? LOL

Ummm...all black people were not slaves, in fact there were some black people who owned slaves.

The distinction between religion and Nature’s laws is Nature’s laws will operate independent of our opinions and assertions.

Yeah but you've been making assertions and speaking on behalf of "Nature" this entire thread, for example you said this:

1. Nature doesn’t care about our beliefs;

2. Nature doesn’t care about our convictions; and

3. Nature doesn’t care about our ambitions.

Nature does care that we “embrace challenges” as to evolve, hence the purpose of our existence.

For one, who the hell is this "Nature" that you are referring to, and how in the hell do you know what this "Nature" wants for mankind? Your idea of "Nature" is basically just another religion, so what makes your religion the truth and the other 1,500 plus religions in the world a lie? Who is to say that whatever or whomever this "Nature" entity is, that we are even supposed to give a flying fvck what he/she/it has to think about how we should live our lives?

The Earth will revolve around the sun. And the human race will continue to perpetuate. Conversely, as I have found, religion(s) contain bald assertions that cannot be reconciled.

Your preaching of "Nature" is a religion as well, I don't know how you are separating your preaching of "Nature" as if it's separate from any other religion. It's a man-made belief system, this aspect of "Nature" I guess would be a Legend-made belief system.

Great question for you to ponder on, and I do believe based on your previous recurring posts and complaints, that this challenge may very well be in your cards. The question I have follows:

Qualify the scope: Your challenge is binary, specifically for you, and does not conflict with perpetuation of the species with either choice (e.g., you can impregnate a black--or--white/Asian). Nature's law of perpetuation is not offended either way. As well, you encounter a challenge with either choice: (a) Finding a black girl that meets your criterion; (b) Saddling with a white or Asian that meets your criterion but you are not sexually attracted to. Are you with me so far?

This is difficult, heh. I'm sweating. Which is the greater challenge, a or b? Which is the challenge that you must embrace? Ready for the answer?

<Drum Roll> Have you embraced both challenges (a & b) to understand the merits of both?

Again, Legend, you are promoting a religion based on this entity called "Nature" that we are all supposed to follow and listen to, even though it's not even clear what "Nature" wants us to do because at least the Christian God has a book/bible, where's Nature's bible? And even said Christian God's book/bible is FULL of contradictions, misunderstandings, inconsistencies, and the whole nine yards, to where you truly have no damn CLUE what's being said, promoted, pushed, or whatever.

This is the problem when men, who are supposed to be free thinkers, are shamed into some sort of man made belief system which is designed to control their supposed "free will" in making the "choices" that the people who setup the made made belief system WANT them to make, rather than making decisions that the individual wants to make.

Legend first you talked about the man-made religion/belief system of "doing what's best for your country", then you talked about the belief system of "doing what's best for your community", now you are talking about the belief system of "doing what's best for Nature".

I don't subscribe to these religions, belief systems, or prescribed ways of what a "real man" is supposed to do. I have a limited time on this Earth, I might see 85, I might only see 70, hell....I might only see 50. If I live to 85, I only have 53 more years left on this Earth which really isn't a lot of time. I'm going to enjoy my time here, have some fun, then once my heart stops beating I'll either go live in some paradise, I'll be thrown in some pit of fire, I'll go into a state of "non-existence" like I was before I was born, or something else will happen that either way I more than likely will have NO conscious awareness of.

 

[Yewki]

How do you guys care enough to write essays back and forth to each other?

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

For one, who the hell is this "Nature" that you are referring to?

Who is this apocryphal "Nature” I repeatedly recite?

Let’s look at "Nature" from a scientific perspective:

It is well settled that matter comprises atoms, and the atoms comprise 99.9999999% empty space. Studies show that the elementary particles (“the “Particles”), which comprise .0000001% of the atom, behave and look like particles, but are not solid forms. The Particles are fuzzy waves of potential existence, with no certain location, direction, or defined shape (the “Waves”).

What is a fuzzy wave of potential existence even mean?

In accordance with the “double slit experiment” in quantum studies, the potentiality the Waves will “choose” is contingent on the presence of a conscious mind, which, by observing and intending to define or measure a particle, determines the aspect and location in which the Waves take form to create the Particle. Accordingly, objective measurement is impossible (the “measurement problem”). The measurement problem demonstrates that the Waves appear in a specific place only if you measure it; otherwise taking no identifiable form until a conscious observer looks at it. Thus, the very act of observation changes the Waves’ form and location. And so without directed consciousness, there would be an ever-expanding superposition of possibilities with nothing definite actually occurring.

Accordingly, a type of consciousness exists "outside of us" (seemly outside and thus quoted) that is aware of and responds toward our consciousness (observation). This outside consciousness is what I define as “Nature." The paradox is if this same Nature has physical laws which operate irrespective of us (i.e., gravity), then why does it respond to us on the quantum level?

More to follow hopefully tomorrow. Don’t have much time now.

 

[Tenacity]

Who is this apocryphal "Nature” I repeatedly recite?

Let’s look at "Nature" from a scientific perspective:.

Legend, I'm not disagreeing on the existence of "nature" from a life sciences or physical sciences framework.

You were NOT using the concept of "nature" prior from a life sciences (biology) or physical sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) framework, you were using it in a "psychological belief system" framework which is one founded more on man-made characterizations of "faith" which have no testing, no studies, and no scientific research behind it.

You were telling men what they "ought to be doing" and using "Nature" as the foundation for your reference point. When the only "Nature" I know of is that in relation to life sciences and physical sciences, in which said "Nature" has nothing to do with the individual free will of man relating to how they choose to date, relate, etc., with women, their country, their community, etc.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Legend, I'm not disagreeing on the existence of "nature" from a life sciences or physical sciences framework.

So, by this definition, you agree that Nature exists from a science perspective. Is this Nature you acknowledge aware; does "it" hold consciousness? If not, (a) what is this Nature then; and (b) how do you reconcile its lack of consciousness with Post 183?

 

[Tenacity]

So, by this definition, you agree that Nature exists from a science perspective. Is this Nature you acknowledge aware; does "it" hold consciousness? If not, (a) what is this Nature then; and (b) how do you reconcile its lack of consciousness with Post 183?

The definition of consciousness is to be "awake" and "aware" of one's "surroundings."

- I would consider a plant a part of "nature", but is it awake and aware of surroundings?

- I would consider a star a part of "nature", but is it awake and aware of surroundings?

I would say no, I would even go as far as to say that consciousness in and of itself might be an illusion. Think about it, mostly everything we see is made of dirt and dust, which means once it's destroyed it no longer resembles the form that it had during the stage of when someone would have bene "aware" of it's existence, to add to such "surroundings".

In my opinion, nature is just a word scientists use to generically and broadly describe a group of organisms. I don't believe that "nature" in and of itself, has some sort of moral authority to call the shots for how someone should individually live their life.

Someone told me that Pook's writings were to reflect men back to how "Nature" wanted them to live, but the question then still remains, who the hell is this "Nature" that's been referred to, and why the hell should I care how he/she/it wants me to live my life?