Here is the series so far:
Part 1 — Hypergamy is a Myth
Part 2 — Hypergamy Note
Part 3 — Luck
Part 4 — Reasons for Divorce
Part 5 — A Case Study on Marriage (Intermission)
Part 6 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 1)
Part 7 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 2)
Part 8 — Wants and Choices
Part 9 — Hypergamy or Adultery
Part 10 — Hypergamy and Adultery
Part 11 — Matters of Selection
Today we will discuss:
Part 12 — Matters of Fath (Intermission)
So far the focus on this series has been lopsided, with not much discussion of the theological import of what has been said. And readers are getting restless. So I’m going to discuss this topic from the perspective of the Christian faith.
I’m going to be discussing Bruce Charlton’s comment at “Hypergamy or Adultery,” Then, I’ll discuss a pair of comments by Elspeth. But, before I discuss those, let’s consider what adultery means spiritually.
The Ten Commandments
Adultery is very typically a violation of multiple of the ten commandments:
- You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife
- You shall not steal
- You shall not commit adultery
- Honor your father and mother
Adultery typically starts as lust and covetessness for another man’s wife followed by adultery, which is the theft of another man’s wife. This act inherently dishonors the natural bonds of family that God established:
This is why a man will leave his father and his mother and will join with his wife, and they will become one flesh.
That is four of the commandments.
But adultery also violates—in spirit—the prohibitions on idolatry and worship. Artisanal Toad once noted that adultery is the human equivalent of commandment against idolatry. Just as adultery is giving to another god what rightfully belongs to God, adultery is giving to one person what rightfully belongs solely to another. And, as one reader is fond of noting, adultery can quite easily be a vile act of idolatry and worship.
Did you notice that there are not one but two commandments (the 7th and 10th) pertaining to another man’s wife? The only other case where two commandments pertain to the same topic is idolatry (the first and second commandments). I think Artisanal Toad is right to see the direct parallel between the two.
Bearing false witness? How many lies are required leading up to, including, and subsequent to the act of adultery?
Murder? How many acts of adultery are accompanied by chemical birth control, an abortifacient?
Taking the Lord’s name in vain? It doesn’t take much imagination to see how that might happen.
Violating the Sabbath? Happens readily enough.
Graven images? I suppose that depends on whether you think pictures or videos of the act of adultery can constitute graven images.
Depending on how you count them and interpret them, adultery is the only human act in which it is possible to violate all ten of commandments at once. If Satan wanted to come up with an act that opposed God’s Law in as maximum a manner possible, he would be hard pressed to come up with an alternative.
But perhaps you think this is all legalism or, at the very least, not as big of a deal as I’m making it out to be.
The Spiritual Cost
Modern society treats the act of marriage as if it were mundane, without spiritual significance. It is viewed as a bodily function in the same category as any other function. It’s just another recreational activity…. like playing sports. But the act of marriage creates an unbreakable spiritual bond that lasts a lifetime:
This is why a man will leave his father and his mother and will join with his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? So should I take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Absolutely not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body?
The one-flesh bond of marriage is the same spiritual mystery that is the joining of the members of the body of Christ. Paul explicitly equates the spiritual joining with Christ with the act of marriage as a spiritual act. The act of marriage results in the joining of flesh from two into one. Marriage represents the ultimate form of relationship and it mirrors the relationship with the divine. Nothing else does this.
A large majority of people have had multiple sexual partners and have thus committed adultery. They have joined their bodies with multiple people in an illicit violation of not only God’s commandments, but God’s plan for human relationships.
The physical and spiritual consequences of this wanton disregard for the will of God cannot be understated.
Now, let’s consider that comment:
While there are important *psychological* insights here; this rings ultimately false to me (i.e. from the perspective of my fundamental assumptions).
I regard it as imperative that marriage is understood as (ideally) a conscious and voluntary commitment to make a permanent mutually-loving relationship – with all that entails.
Here, you are reducing this spiritual ideal to the psychology (or legalism) of a material and mundane physical act.
The material is indeed always and necessarily spiritual – but the spiritual is always greater than (more than) the material.
The key disagreement, I guess, is that I don’t view the act of marriage as fundamentally material and mundane. Rather, I view it as the most essential relational act of mankind, incorporating the dual concepts of unity and creation. If God is relational and the fundamental reality is relationship, then the act of marriage is of primary importance.
Hypergamy is a concept rooted in psychology, but adultery is not. The consequences of adultery are not primarily psychological. If anything, the psychological effects of adultery—like, hypothetically, hypergamy—are caused by the spiritual consequences of the act itself. Yet, the source of those consequences go largely unidentified and unacknowledged because the act of adultery is unrecognized for what it is.
I believe Charlton is making the typical “mystical fallacy” (as I call it). This is the belief that the physical and the spiritual are in some abstract way separate.
This can be expressed in different, even mutually exclusive ways. In the case of Radix Fidem, this leads to the belief that the intellect is fundamentally fallen and incomplete but the separate “heart” is redeemed and the source of all spiritual connection to the divine. In the case of Gnosticism, this manifests in the dualistic distinction between the physical and the divine and that divine knowledge is gained through esoteric mystical means. In the case of Charlton—who I acknowledge believes that the material is in some way always also spiritual—
—he nonetheless asserts that there is still a certain separate sense in which the spiritual is greater than the material. It is the belief that the two are not coterminous (at least in the context of the act of marriage and the one-flesh bond).
I maintain that the act of marriage is not a combination of the material and spiritual which can be compared to one another as greater than or less than. I do not think there is a meaningful distinction between the material and spiritual sense of the one-flesh bond. It is all one-in-the-same. It makes no sense to speak of the spiritual being greater than the material in this context.
The point is that the act of marriage is the actual physical reality of the “conscious” and voluntary commitment to a permanent mutually-loving relationship even when the parties do not acknowledge this or work towards it.
Readers will note that this last sentence is a blatant contradiction: they unconsciously engage in a physical act of conscious commitment. This contradiction is a lie. But, the lie is not with respect to the act of marriage itself, it is with respect to the persons engaging in the act. They are lying to themselves about what it means both physically and spiritually.
What scripture makes clear is that there is no such thing as casual sex. Humans treating it casually does not make it casual. This is not legalism, because it isn’t rooted in the Law. It is the fundamental metaphysical reality as set down by God at Creation.
There is a massive spiritual cost to violating God’s plan for marriage and deceiving ourselves about the significance of doing so. We are all paying that cost.
The Power of Grace
Throughout this series we’ve talked a lot about statistics, and we’ve discussed the perils of violating God’s plan. But we have not talked about the power of God through Grace.
But I’ve been married 31 years and going strong. The proof in the pudding. Meet cutes get divorced, while we have a marital tree loaded with spiritual fruit. There is no need defend against who I was then, or who my husband was then, because we’re not those people anymore.
Yet another truth the so-called red pill has bastardized, even in Christian circles. Anyone who claims to be Christ’s and still thinks, walks, and talks the same way after 10, 15, 20 or more years is probably not regenerate. And anyone who treats fellow believers as if the work God has done in them doesn’t matter is probably not regenerate either.
The choices we make every day matter. They matter A LOT. Even if we weren’t mature enough, righteous enough, or wise enough to be married when we got married, we made choices every day to stay together no matter what, and by God’s grace every day we continued to make better and better choices.
It is not an exaggeration to say that we have not had a bad relational year in nearly 20 years. Annoyances and miscommunications here and there, of course. But nothing even close to resembling a marital crisis. How’s that for two people who came from a high divorce rate ethnic group and a working class background while statistically better situated couples all around us have crashed and burned?
So many Christians seem to have a knowledge of God and understand the forms of godliness while denying the possibility of true power.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No man is good, not even one. We are all works in progress. It is only through the grace of God that we are redeemed.
Statistics are great and tell us a lot about how populations behave and what we can expect from them. They can guide a man and help him discern where he should go with his life. But, as Elspeth attests through her written testimony of faith, God can and does transcend all of that. He is the potter and we are the clay.
There will be genetic factors that influence who you are and what you do. There will be environmental factors that mix and mold you into who you become. Who and what you are includes both the mutable and immutable, what can change and what cannot.
None of that negates the importance of letting God guide you to where you should go. Your life is not predetermined.
Doing things God’s way greatly increases the likelihood that you’ll have a blessed life. But it is no guarantee. You can do everything right and still fail. And there are some who make miserable mistakes and learn something from the experience, and God still blesses them anyway. But both of these are rare. It is up to you to work out what works for you between you and God.
If you can use the information contained in this series to your benefit, please do so. But do not neglect the importance of your faith and the role that God has in bringing order to chaos.
i noticed those ””readers” that are getting restless” also like to say you say ”you can’t blame women” when they were the ones saying ” PSS…. & SHH…DUDE JUST LEARN GAME TO GET Dasex out Dawomminz as that is what must be Donesz and is redpillo correct too as you shouldn’t blame Stella for how she wants to groove as that’s her prerogative and none of your biz anyway as WE say in the sex revolutionsz brah in danightclubs and bars !!!” before they went black pilled.
Deti really thinks he can gaslight MOSES, JESUS & GBFM!?
After he spent a decade+ preaching game as the solution to all problems with women before turning to the ”dark side” of the,the ”blackpill”-which says according to you once ”redpillers” ”CAN’T DO NOTHING ABOUT MY SITUATION, SO JUST COMPLAIN & NOT GAME”?UN-UH Deti who likes to circlejerk with betas and deltas at Spawnys, Dalrock, and SF!
i, MOSES, JESUS & MOD are the main witnesses that testify against you feministic pro-sex ”revolutionsz” ex-gamers and now ”blackpillers” dude!
It is not anyone in particular. Almost all the readers have been getting restless of late, except perhaps for you. Readers demand balanced coverage of a topic!
Surely my sentence you quote; “The material is indeed always and necessarily spiritual – but the spiritual is always greater than (more than) the material.”
Demonstrates that – at least theoretically – I do not hold the views you ascribe to me as: ” the belief that the physical and the spiritual are separate. “?
But to be more specific; when you state “the act of marriage is the actual physical reality of the “conscious” and voluntary commitment to a permanent mutually-loving relationship even when the parties do not acknowledge this or work towards it.”
That is to deny any distinction between conscious voluntary commitment and unconscious involuntary acts.
Yet they Are (and ought to be) distinguishable, and vitally so – even though they cannot be completely separated due to the nature of this mortal life and world.
That was indeed the medieval legal assumption – that if, for instance, somebody could be compelled to say certain words they would be morally binding; or that if someone did an act (including murder) then they had meant to do it (such that animals could be tried and executed for murder).
It also seems to be the way that young children think, even nowadays. It is the complete conflation of symbol with symbolized.
But that is not how you and I think, nor how modern people in the West think; nor have they thought this way for some centuries.
We are different from ancient people and young children in the way that we think and experience the world- that is, indeed, the reason that makes possible genuine atheism and materialism, and our current malaise; and there is nothing that you can (or should) do about this (as a starting point. Of course we must strive to g beyond it – but such striving must necessarily be conscious and voluntary).
To impose ancient laws and practices here-and-now is (or would be) known at the deepest level to be monstrously unjust, very stupid, or manipulatively dishonest.
It is silly of wishful to pretend otherwise – and I think we all know this, really.
I can genuinely understand the hunger and desperation behind a desire to re-impose an external, objective logically-coherent moral-spiritual framework on this most evil of civilizations. That was my own conviction c 2010-12.
But it Will Not happen, and the attempt to do it, would be a disaster that Would – for sure – be hijacked by the powers of evil.
Bruce,
You are correct, I did not mean to ascribe that view to you in the way that I did. I’ve modified the original post to reflect this. I’m not sure that this will satisfy you either, but let’s see how it goes. Let me know if you still believe I have misrepresented you and I will try again.
“That is to deny any distinction between conscious voluntary commitment and unconscious involuntary acts.”
Yes. This may surprise you, but I more-or-less agree.
I’m well-aware of the metaphysical consequence of what I am saying, as well as how this departs from your own metaphysical understanding.
But it’s not just your metaphysic that this goes against, it also stands against the modern evangelical Christian metaphysic regarding God’s grace (which I believe conforms closely to your own belief), as I said this earlier today:
There are a lot of Christians who truly believe that God’s grace allows one to marry—to use Artisanal Toad’s terminology—a non-eligible non-virgin woman. What they are basically saying is that God, in his grace, allows divorce due to your hard hearts. But Jesus gave no exceptions for divorce other than adultery, and you can’t intentionally commit the sin of adultery to trigger the exception clause. That would be absurd.
Paul said that you can’t sin so that grace gets bigger and better.
I can see why you would call this legalism, per your comment:
To impose ancient laws and practices here-and-now is (or would be) known at the deepest level to be monstrously unjust, very stupid, or manipulatively dishonest.
It is silly of wishful to pretend otherwise – and I think we all know this, really.
You argue your viewpoint well. I doubt I can even begin to refute what you have said. Yet, I have reasons for believing this above other explanations, and so it is what I believe. If I am anything on that list, it must be “very stupid” for I do not consider it possible for the sovereignty of God to be unjust and I am not being (intentionally) dishonest.
Now with respect to this…
I can genuinely understand the hunger and desperation behind a desire to re-impose an external, objective logically-coherent moral-spiritual framework on this most evil of civilizations. That was my own conviction c 2010-12.
But it Will Not happen, and the attempt to do it, would be a disaster that Would – for sure – be hijacked by the powers of evil.
…I largely agree with you. My view diagnoses the problem, it does not offer a solution. I’m not sure there is a solution. Maybe one day, but maybe not.
Peace,
DR
Happy if I said something useful. And yes, this is definitely a more positive approach. I’m not a blankslatist, but God is not limited to the natural and we must, however rare the occurrences, acknowledge that reality when we see it. Else, we are left with no other philosophy to embrace except fatalism.
Thanks again, Derek!
You’re welcome. I appreciated that you pushed me towards a more balanced discussion of this topic.
Im not restless. I’m just perplexed by “Gods love” and “He has a plan for your life” and then I read stuff about IQ, predetermination, “nothing can be done”
Its kind of a hopeless message for the masses and the only picked, dry bone is:
“Oh dont worry, in heaven everything is going to be great, but you know….sucks to be you now”
While at the same time a “talking down” to the lower IQ people about how they breed like rabbits, and the problems in the world are somehow now their fault.
I just look at the situation and think, and know: Bubba in the trailer park doesnt cause wars, but he will be “expected” to go die in war to defend the “interest” of the “elect” and “high IQ people”
Leroy in the ‘hood didnt ask to be black, but somehow its his own fault that policies and laws, and rules, and “solutions” by the “intelligent” people have destroyed his neighborhood, encouraged a breakdown of community while told about “IQ” but then told “to pull himself up by the bootstraps, you can have a great life. You are just lazy”
Jose in the barrio works hard, is taxed hard, wants better for his kids but evidently isnt smart enough to own a business…..and if he starts one, these elites pass laws, taxes, policies and regulations that just make it easier to stay in his situation….while told he’s lazy, has too many kids….is trying to follow Christ and and stay right with his wife but is told his life is “predetermined”
Really sad. No hope for anyone with an intellect or IQ that falls in the average range now. “You should have been born different” seems to be the only answer.
I dont like it
I dont like it
And you shouldn’t.
It is an indisputable fact that the people advocating the castration of children, the selling of babies to same sex couples, “minor attracted persons”, illicit sex positivity and the socialist agenda are the “educated”, elite, high IQ people. If the poor, unwashed masses are not intelligent enough to reject what they are being taught, then that makes the smarties in the political, academic, medical, and media classes all the more evil, and the dummies all the more innocent, doesn’t it?
But since God has said no partiality is to be shown to rich or poor, then it must be true that poor as well as rich are capable of living righteous lives and making sound decisions.
Your objections are not without merit, Jason.
[Editor’s Note: Your two comments were pulled out of the spam filter]
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. My discussion so far has been leading to frustration. I needed to read the room and act accordingly.
I’ve made no assertions in favor of (pre)determinism, I have not said that the poor should not breed, nor that we should abort the disabled, nor have I said that we should do nothing (though we should cease doing what cannot work!). I’ve led no support at all to any of those.
Nevertheless, a discussion about God’s love and grace was quite necessary to balance out the discussion.
*like* In response to Jason’s comment.
The high IQ elite set are the kid castration, gay designer baby creating, socialist touting, illicit sex posivity, insert-all-other-leftist- insanity-here group.
If the poor unwashed masses are “too dumb” to resist what the smarties are feeding them through academia, media, and legislative action, then is it their fault if following their leaders produce poor outcomes?
And why does God explicitly command no partiality to poor or rich if poor are unable to choose well and live righteously? If their slates are mostly filled in at birth? How did my dad manage to do it even with all the cards stacked against him?
This is the heart of the nature-nurture debate I suppose, with determinists on the nature side, blank slatists on the nurture side, and almost no one on the “with God all things are possible” side.
[Editor’s Note: Your two comments were pulled out of the spam filter]
Well said, Elspeth.
Here are some references that discuss this:
Old Testament
Exodus 23:6
Leviticus 19:14
Deuteronomy 10:17
2 Chronicles 19:7
1 Samuel 16:7
New Testament
Acts 10:34
Romans 2:11
James 2:1-4
Galatians 3:28
The Bible teaches that each man is to be judged according to his own words and deeds without respect to their social status, wealth, race, sex, or other such external considerations. The application of justice must be fair and applied without playing favorites. But justice must still be applied, or else it would be injustice.
I’m not aware of any passages that describe being unable to choose to live well and righteously. Scripture does teach that all have sinned and no one can be righteous without God, but I found no explicit example where unrighteousness is excused due to inability. Even those who are enslaved to sin and are unable to live righteously on their own are still held to account for their sins. Not even ignorance of the law excuses them, for everyone has the capacity to know right from wrong (see Romans 1:20).
Accountability must, presumably, be applied without respect to nature vs. nurture.
The only possible exception I could find is Luke 12:48 and James 3:1 but in neither of these cases does the requirement disappear due to inability, it only gets lighter or stronger according to what each has been given.
Scripture does teach that all have sinned and no one can be righteous without God, but I found no explicit example where unrighteousness is excused due to inability.
Exactly.
And keeping one’s marriage vows (and doing so scrupulously), working hard, being financially responsible and paying your bills, properly training your children etc. These are all moral issues. These are all things we act on based on our understanding of how we should live, and God’s word clearly and unambiguously speaks to each one of them.
You have pointed out, and stats support your assertion, that lower socio-economic groups are often correlated with lower IQ, and that certain groups of people (my group, for instance) produce terrible metrics in many of the above categories. It’s worth noting that many of these metrics began to slide in direct correlation to the smart peoples’ introduction of Marxist-lite policies.
If this low morality way of living is inbred and a direct result of simply being lower IQ, hence inability, then accountability becomes a sticky issue, does it not?
I would think so, yes.
Again, exactly.
It is clearly not low IQ that causes people to live chaotic lives. It isn’t solely nature, because God is loving reasonable, and just.
Most of what we see in certain groups is a direct result of perverse incentives. It’s easy to pretend that because particular groups are better at committing the same sins with enough future time orientation to head off the visible results at the pass, that their appearance of greater moral success is directly correlated to their IQ. From the outward appearances, sure.
It may just be that they are more shrewd in a particular way that their less fortunate brothers and sisters are not. I mention my father who grew up in the Jim Crow south, was a garbage man for many years, raised his kids himself (not a step dad, and not the state, HIM).
We lived a very normal middle class, albeit lower middle class, life. 4/2 house, 2 cars, full pantry, etc. When he died, he did not doe broke, either. He was not a genius. He had a lot of common sense. He loved God, he loved people. That’s it.
I think the notion that people like that are no longer a reality , that all that matters are IQ test, racial background, and alpha-ness (which my dad had plenty of, incidentally), is what Jason is objecting to because it is based on a lie. Materialism is a lie.
It’s a fatalist way of viewing the world and of viewing mankind, all of whom, dumb and smart alike, are representatives of the Imago Dei.
That’s interesting Elspeth.
My first (check paying) job as a teen was at a golf course. A number of the workers were teens and young men. The janitor was a mildly retarded young man (not Down’s Syndrome). All the young men would goof off but the retarded young man simply wasn’t future oriented enough to figure out when to quit, how to not get caught. Same “sins”, worse results.
I’ve thought a lot about all this in the past WRT race. What I told myself was that there are certain sins (that are also crimes) more prevalent in the black community which have an immediate, horrible impact on others (assault, murder, sexual violence) but that these sins weren’t the only sins or even the worse sins. These are not sins against the Holy Ghost. As a traditional Catholic, I don’t believe in absolute certitude that I possess sanctifying grace nor do I presume that God will automatically grant me the grace of perseverance as if He owes it to me. I could spend eternity in hell and the hood-rat murderer might go to heaven.
Elspeth.
I understood your reply.
Its character too, I would suppose or the content thereof. Dr. King anyone????
It wasnt that people were more “moral” 100 years ago, but there was a general “glue” of what was right or wrong. Something holding it all together. We can attribute that to the church, lack of a welfare system as we know it today (which I do agree kills incentive for many people, regardless of color or creed)
I was at a bus stop once in Fresno. Trash can right there. Not overflowing. A few teens eating their food, drinks. They finished their food, and drinks…..tossed into the street. One teen threw his bottle at a passing car. I just said “Pick up your trash, can is right there.” Mind you I was told to “eff off” by all of them and one moved his hoodie to expose a knife in his belt.
Nope. Not gonna be a hero over or a “good citizen”
At the same time, people say “How come the neighborhood is sh*tty?” And the answer usually is “muh racism” / “the city hates Mexicans” when the real reason is not “low IQ” per say, but a general attitude of entitlement.
I see this now with “high IQ” people (supposedly). Young Harvard grads, Stanford grads who have okay jobs, and are DEMANDING me, and others to PAY / WRITE OFF their student loans. People who would never have a chance to go to a place like that, even if they are very smart intellectually….being lectured and told by this “elite” higher IQ class, that Bubba, Leroy and Jose “owe” them.
I don’t know how to phrase it or say it. Partially its because I am not “high IQ”
But believe and think that our culture or society doesn’t “reward” high / higher IQ people and average IQ folks like or people even lower than me are somehow to blame for this is absurd.
Cameron,
There was an article in the newspaper “The Onion” (so you know its gonna be a riot) decades ago that had a headline
“Down Syndrome Employee The Most Capable Person Working At Local Burger King”
And the story wasnt attacking him. It was saying he was pleasant, worked hard, smiled. Kept the restaurant very, very clean. Followed safety proccedures.
In the end the article was in true “onion” fashion a lesson to the rest of us. How come someone who is low IQ / dev disabled can do a job better than just about everyone else who is employed here? What’s our excuse?
At the same time, people say “How come the neighborhood is sh*tty?” And the answer usually is “muh racism” / “the city hates Mexicans” when the real reason is not “low IQ” per say, but a general attitude of entitlement.
i think that largely explains all the defense from the ”right” for Trump saying ”you have to grab them by the p@$$y”,having known about the reality of most modern culture & society MEN & women ever since i was a little kid,i knew he meant metaphorically, NOT literally as too many suggested back then.BUT that wasn’t what i thought was strange for the ”religious and ”morally”” ”right”to attempt to defend it was where he was acting like it was okay to excite lust (& commit adultery with)-in married women as he said in that exchange as recorded here:
Warning: the following text includes graphic language as edited by DaGBFM to keep it G-rated for Dakids!😉😊😎😇
Unknown: “She used to be great, she’s still very beautiful.”
Trump: “I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fux her, she was married so I’m a classic Liberal heretosexual adulterer just like Kennedy & Clinton brah.”
Unknown: “That’s huge news there.”
Trump: “No, no, Nancy. No this was [inaudible] and I moved on her very heavily in fact I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a b!tch. I couldn’t get there and she was married. Then all-of-a-sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tatas and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”
Bush: “Your girl’s hot as shite. In the purple.”
Multiple voices: “Whoah. Yes. Whoah.”
Bush: “Yes. The Donald has scored. Whoah my man.”
Trump: “Look at you. You are a p@$$y like your g@y uncle? W. Bush dude?”
Bush: “You gotta get the thumbs up.”
Trump: “Maybe it’s a different one.”
Bush: “It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her.”
Trump: “Yeah that’s her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful… I just start kissing them while I commit adultery with full approval from the rubes and marks out there like Clinton brah. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Like it’s tickle his pickle day brah everyday!!!!”
Bush: “Whatever you want.”
Trump: “Grab them by the p@$$y. You can do anything.”
Bush: “Yeah those legs. All I can see is the legs as I commit adultery, dude!”
Trump: “It looks good.”
Bush: “Come on shorty.”
Trump: “Oh nice legs huh.”
Bush: “Get out of the way honey. Oh that’s good legs. Go ahead.”
Trump: “It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus while strutting. Like Ford, Gerald Ford, remember?”
[As Mr Trump attempts to leave the vehicle he struggles with the door]
Bush: “Down below, pull the handle.”
[Mr Trump exits the bus and greets actress Arianne Zucker]
Trump: “Hello, how are you? Hi.”
Zucker: “Hi Mr Trump. How are you?”
Trump: “Nice seeing you. Terrific. Terrific. You know Billy Bush whose uncle? is the g@y W.Bush!?”
Bush: “Hello nice to see you. How are you doing Arianne?”
Zucker: “I’m doing very well thank you. [Addressing Trump] Are you ready to be a soap star?”
Trump: “We’re ready. Let’s go. Make me a soap star.”
Bush: “How about a little hug for the Donald, he’s just off the bus?”
Zucker: “Would you like a little hug darling?”
Trump: “Absolutely. Melania said this was okay.”
Bush: “How about a little hug for the Bushy, I just got off the bus? Here we go, here we go. Excellent.”
[Mr Bush gesticulates towards Ms Zucker as he turns to Mr Trump]
Bush: “Well you’ve got a good co-star here.”
Trump: “Good. After you. Come on Billy, don’t be shy as I’m a nice guy dude too who commits adultery liberally.”
Bush: “Soon as a beautiful woman shows up he just, he takes off. This always happens.”
Trump: “Get over here, Billy don’t be a queer like your uncle? W. B.!!!!”
Zucker: “I’m sorry, come here.”
Bush: “Let the little guy in there. Come on.”
Zucker: “Yeah, let the little guy in. How you feel now, better? I should actually be in the middle.”
Bush: “It’s hard to walk next to a guy like this.”
Zucker: “Wait. Hold on.”
[Ms Zucker changes position and walks between the two men]
Bush: “Yeah you get in the middle. There we go.”
Trump: “Good. That’s better.”
Zucker: “This is much better.”
Trump: “That’s better.”
Bush: “Now if you had to choose, honestly, between one of us. Me or the Donald, who would it be?”
Trump: “I don’t know, that’s tough competition.”
Zucker: “That’s some pressure right there.”
Bush: “Seriously, you had to take one of us as a date.”
Zucker: “I have to take the Fifth [Amendment of the US Constitution] on that one.”
Bush: “Really?”
Zucker: “Yep. I’ll take both.”
[They reach the end of the corridor]
Trump: “Which way?”
Zucker: “Make a right. Here we go.”
Bush: “Here he goes. I’m gonna leave you here. Give me my microphone.”
Trump: “Okay. Okay. Oh, you’re finished?”
Bush: “You’re my man. Yeah.”
Trump: “Oh. Good. like W. had with his g@y porn star reporter b@tt buddy, dude?”
i know a certain shark guy who defends such loose talk of adultery, BUT i don’t think Deti would, certainly NOT blackish-red,ex-gamer Deti!
Which is to Deti’s credit.And the Shark guy’s detriment.
This is always much appreciated.
My working class, West Virginia relatives have suffered as a result of their high IQ betters implementing this culture of immoral decadence and irresponsibility.
Well, they should know better right? They should “stand up” up to their IQ betters and debate them! Defend themselves and their values….
I’ve tried that here and it doesnt seem to be getting through. I wonder why? Well, its because I’m debating from a level where I could never compete intellectually :-/
But we should only be using resources for “high IQ” people evidently.
Trillions wasted by the “smart” people on wars, lining their own pockets, wasting of the publics money through poor investments…..but Mr. and Mrs Lower IQ people in West Virginia are to blame!
I am not a luddite or anti-intellectual but the discussion here is turning into “we dont invest in smart people, why are not smart people having lots of babies?”
Ah yes…..the dumb ones are ruining it!
My former career was a middle class jobs program with a big government contractor – “welfare for the middle class” as I heard a few honest skeptics call it. Everyone there was convinced they were saving the world (and giving themselves a nice UMC lifestyle) as they spent your tax money. They used to have posters for a FWAC (Fraud Waste Abuse & Corruption) hotline you could call. I saw it and sometimes thought “the whole military-industrial-congressional complex is Fraud Waste Abuse & Corruption.”
I feel better about my living now even if it’s more modest.
Just for fun. We number the commandments differently. There’s symmetry between 6/9 and 7/10 in our numbering.
We’re talking about high IQ people Derek.
Leaders, and self appointed “geniuses” or smarter than average people have caused a lot more havoc on the country, the world and their communities more than the guy who mows the grass, the lady who cleans the hotel room or serves the french fries at McDonalds.
I have heard it said “intelligent” people are fast / faster learner.
Could be that they might have learned the wrong ideas? Their “intelligece” is so great, they learned the wrong ideas.
Intelligent people, like “preachers / teachers” of the Word have a greater RESPONSIBILITY to the world or the people they are leading.
Intelligent people should have this standard, but they dont. They blame the “lower classes” intelligence wise for everything wrong in the world. They seem to have an undue fascination / fetish with mating, breeding and outcomes…..for them and people like them.
I find it a bit disturbing.
Lastmod,
Let’s change our approach to this IQ discussion.
If we could wave our wands such that all of the commenters here suddenly had an IQ that was 5 points higher, this would unambiguously produce a net positive result. That’s because we’ve improved intelligence without any other variable changing.
If, instead, we waved our wands such that all of us were suddenly converted into 145 IQ clones of Donald Trump, this would not unambiguously produce a net positive result, despite resulting in a much higher average intelligence. That’s because we changed other variables (like all those factors you referenced).
IQ as an independent variable is virtually always better when it is higher. The negative effects of having a higher IQ are generally swamped by the positive effects.
IQ is not the sum total of a person because there are many other variables that are at play, including their faith. It is trivial to find good people with low intelligence and bad people with high intelligence, but this has no bearing on the importance of intelligence itself. Intelligence does not determine one’s “fate.”
Take any one of the examples of a bad person that you’ve cited in your recent comments. If you lowered the IQ of that person, they’d almost certainly become an even worse person. You think so-and-so is bad now? Just imagine him 15 or 30 points lower! (That’s basically the plot of Idiocracy)
This is why I often say “Intelligence is necessary, but insufficient.”
This is related to the point Elspeth is making above. Once you get to a sufficiently low intelligence (e.g. an IQ of 50), it’s difficult to say that a person is even functionally able to be held to account for their actions. In America, the law takes this principle into account.
This is why I keep citing this quotation:
“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.”
— A.W.F. Edwards, Lewontin’s Fallacy, 2003
It is absolutely essential to understand that comparisons of intelligence are not moral judgments or determinations of self-worth, either for the better or for the worse. Smart people are not inherently good and dumb people are not inherently bad. People are what they are and they get judged individually.
—————————————————
Now, onto your questions.
Are the intelligent faster? Usually. Processing speed is one of the components of intelligence, but it’s entirely possible (and not uncommon) for ‘smart’ people to process slowly and for ‘dumb’ people to process more quickly.
Could it be that the intelligent have learned the wrong ideas? Yes.
Could it be that the intelligent have a greater responsibility and that they are failing at this responsibility? Yes and yes.
Should intelligent people have that higher standard, but don’t in actuality? Yes and yes.
Do the lower classes get blamed? Yes.
Do the intelligent have an undue fascination with mating, breeding, and outcomes? No. That kind of focus and attention is exactly what you would expect from the highly intelligent, with their focus on abstraction and long-term forward thinking. It’s actually one of the traits that commonly separates the very intelligent from the very unintelligent. The highly intelligent often opine about topics that involve long strings of causation. This isn’t to say they are correct, only that their intelligence largely enables and encourages this kind of reasoning.
So as per your question, a society wants higher IQ persons to breed more often than lower IQ persons so that the average population IQ increases. This won’t improve individuals absolutely, but it will improve the population relatively and lead to a net gain over time. This could happen naturally or unnaturally, with or without intervention, with or without “investment.”
Peace,
DR