[lbo-talk] Marx as Essentialist; contra Foucault

Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com
Thu Apr 28 15:56:04 PDT 2016


I think that means that you're still subscribed. There are reasons why the moderator seldom posts here anymore,

Jim Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant http://www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math

---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Lenin's Tomb" <leninstombblog at googlemail.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Marx as Essentialist; contra Foucault Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 15:29:02 +0100

Really, I unsubscribed from LBO Talk some time ago, but I’m still getting Charles Brown’s bigoted bullshit. Please take it away.


> On 28 Apr 2016, at 14:53, Charles Brown <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> For our species to continue surviving, the human line could not lose its sexual instinct until it was possible for reproduction to be relatively assured without it. And this was only possible after humans had first found a benefit in producing offspring (realizing that children could provide care and protection in old age), and then discovered what caused reproduction (linking heterosexual intercourse to it). The tremendous insight required for both discoveries was only made possible by a sufficiently high intelligence level.
> ///
>
> Human species never lost its Herero-sexual instinct.
>
> Nothing in either discovery the article mentions would cause selection against hetero-sexual instinct (!). Lack of hetero-sexual instinct would continue to have a much lower Darwinian fitness than having heterosexual-sexual instinct , because those with Herero-sexual instinct would have a much greater number of fertile sexual acts than those lacking it. It is patent that Differential fertility between having and lacking heterosexual instinct would be enormous .
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 13, 2016, at 2:48 PM, magcomm <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All:
>>
>>> . . . for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman.
>>
>> Philosophy, poetry and (you forgot to add Charles) transphobic nonsense (except to the new breed of toilet monitors who are emerging below the Mason-Dixon line).
>>
>>> . . . humanity is essentially non-essential."
>>
>> Buddhist thinkers arrived at the same conclusion a few hundred years prior. Correct then; correct now.
>>
>>> So, Foucault took license to erase the scientific fact of heterosexual instinct from anthropology and the philosophy of human nature. Foul deed ! Anti-Marxist big lie !
>>
>> This article from the Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association explains about the lack of sexual instinct. The author does note that "the instinct requiring the largest compensating intelligence level before it can be lost is the sexual instinct." I hope other list members will join me in wishing Charles swift attainment of just such a compensating intelligence level.
>>
>> http://www.humansexualevolution.com/index.htm
>>
>> Brian
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk ____________________________________________________________ Better Finances New Rule in Local Area http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5722954bbaaeb154b6ae7st03vuc



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list