 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
As to my initial experience with the new book I see a need to restate a specific observation and this is necessary because a vague observation leaves way to much room for misunderstanding.
I have a very hard time listening to anyone who publishes data where the message can be interpreted as an apology for torture and mass murder, war, aggressive wars for profit, crime, etc.
The apology includes messages that cover-up the crimes perpetrated against innocent victims by the people who run The Federal Reserve scam.
Your message on that subject is uncharacteristically absent supporting data.
I got past that false advertisement campaign, for all I know you need to publish the false stuff so as to avoid being blacklisted.
As to the affect the book already has on me I have asked questions and have now a working theory on the answer to the questions inspired by your book (and I have yet to read past the part where you tell the story of your corporate music experiences).
My question restated (or my question asked in other words):
What is the function of crime in the evolutionary process?
Hypothesis: Victimization is a process of reproduction because new beings victimize their parents. The problem with that last sentence is a word problem; since the word “victimization” is inaccurate, insufficient, or easily misunderstood in context.
New beings (complex beings) require costs spent by the beings that create new beings, for no certain return on those costs expended.
Why, for example, would any being expend all the costs necessary to reproduce in a situation where scarcity is severe or where resources that are necessary for survival are only sufficient for a few beings, not sufficient for more beings?
I hope that question and hypothesis conveys meaning sufficient to inspire refutation or agreement; rather than ignorance.