Questions about vintologi thread

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#1
You mention certain desirable traits in females, such as D-cup breasts; what about pussy characteristics? Some girls have nicer, tighter pussies than others, for instance. I'm not sure how we'd quantify that, though.

Maybe what should be done, is that men should be lined up to have sex with a set of girls, and then each should rate those girls on their pussy quality. Then the genetics of the girls with the best pussies could be analyzed for similarities, perhaps using pattern recognition software. In this way, perhaps we could figure out how to develop the elusive snapping pussy. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=elusive snapping pussy

While we're at it, we might want to try to figure out if there's a way to breed chicks who lack a gag reflex.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#2
This illustrates that the more totalitarian control we implement over females the more able we will be to breed desirable characteristics.

Female sexual selection can be maintained even if they are under totalitarian control.

The actual problem with totalitarian control is that we will no longer be able to see how successful females are, thus a better policy might be to let females be free except we will hit the more privileged/successful ones with baby quotas, baby quotas will have the additional effect of making society more equal by reducing cis female privilege.

While we're at it, we might want to try to figure out if there's a way to breed chicks who lack a gag reflex.
The gag reflex makes abusive deepthroating more fun so there is no need for that, it may actually be a bad thing.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#3
The gag reflex makes abusive deepthroating more fun so there is no need for that, it may actually be a bad thing.
What if she throws up, or do you only feed her as a reward for a good blowjob (and thus her stomach would be empty while she's choking)? Or is throwing up desirable so she has something to lick up.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#4
> The defendant and prosecutor can ask jury members to appeal the verdict if they are not happy with it.

How does that process work exactly; like what's an example scenario and how might that play out?
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#5
"The defendant and prosecutor can ask jury members to appeal the verdict if they are not happy with it."

How does that work exactly; like what's an example scenario?
If all jury members vote the same it's probably a correct ruling and thus there will be no need for the senate to look into the verdict, thus it make sense to require to require the approval of a jury member to appeal.

The senate (ruling elite) will only have limited time and thus they should focus on cases they are more likely to overturn.

Another factor to consider is the severity of the punishment, if the punishment is minor it's better for the 'unjust' ruling to stand than to waste valuable senate time to go over it.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#6
If all jury members vote the same it's probably a correct ruling and thus there will be no need for the senate to look into the verdict, thus it make sense to require to require the approval of a jury member to appeal.

The senate (ruling elite) will only have limited time and thus they should focus on cases they are more likely to overturn.
Also, you might phrase that as, e.g., "Juries will be permitted to render verdicts with a less than unanimous vote, but in that case, the defendant or prosecutor will be allowed [or have the legal right] to appeal the verdict if they are not happy with it."

I also suggest adding what you just said to the text as an explanation of how it would work and the reason for it.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#7
Not a question, just a comment:

> It is very difficult to help victims of severe brainwashing before they die and reincarnate, most people are not willing to accept that they have been fooled and will not accept help even if it is offered for free. Realizing you have been fooled and moving on to a better understanding of reality requires both intelligence and will-power.

Reminds me of what Mises wrote, https://mises.org/library/epistemological-problems-economics/html/p/285
Every new theory encounters opposition and rejection at first. The adherents of the old, accepted doctrine object to the new theory, refuse it recognition, and declare it to be mistaken. Years, even decades, must pass before it succeeds in supplanting the old one. A new generation must grow up before its victory is decisive.

To understand this one must remember that most men are accessible to new ideas only in their youth. With the progress of age the ability to welcome them diminishes, and the knowledge acquired earlier turns into dogma. In addition to this inner resistance, there is also the opposition that develops out of regard for external considerations. A man's prestige suffers when he sees himself obliged to admit that for a long time he has supported a theory that is now recognized as mistaken. His vanity is affected when he must concede that others have found the better theory that he himself was unable to find.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#8
Also, you might phrase that as, e.g., "Juries will be permitted to render verdicts with a less than unanimous vote, but in that case, the defendant or prosecutor will be allowed [or have the legal right] to appeal the verdict if they are not happy with it."
The red part is technically redundant/false, they dont actually need to be unhappy with the virdict to appeal.

The senate will have to figure out the exact details on this over time, there are many different possible implementations that may work
0. the senate will go over all verdicts (punishment, vote result) and will more likely look into ones where the jury wasn't unanimous.
1. the senate will go over non unanimous verdicts only
2. appeal permission by jury member is independent from the verdict vote.
3. you need 2 dissenting jurymembers to appeal (one isn't enough).
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#9
The red part is technically redundant/false, they dont actually need to be unhappy with the virdict to appeal.

The senate will have to figure out the exact details on this over time, there are many different possible implementations that may work
0. the senate will go over all verdicts (punishment, vote result) and will more likely look into ones where the jury wasn't unanimous.
1. the senate will go over non unanimous verdicts only
2. appeal permission by jury member is independent from the verdict vote.
3. you need 2 dissenting jurymembers to appeal (one isn't enough).
Incidentally, the whole concept of appealing a jury decision, where there's no question of the process of the trial having been flawed, is totally foreign to the U.S., where the only appeals that are allowed are about procedural stuff like mistakes made in jury selection, or allowing the jury to hear inadmissible evidence, or a juror distracting people with his cough drop wrappers, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thomas_(1997)

The six jurors complained that Juror No. 5 was distracting them in court by squeaking his shoe against the floor, rustling cough drop wrappers in his pocket, and showing agreement with points made by defense counsel by slapping his leg and, occasionally during the defense summations, saying " [y]eah, yes."
The idea is, unless there was a procedural problem, you don't want to rob the parties of their opportunity to get a fair shot at getting a favorable decision made by a randomly-selected panel. However, they're robbed of that anyway by the practice of allowing peremptory strikes, which work against a side that is hoping to put a few dissidents on the panel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge

France, I think, does have a system where you have lay judges, and then an appellate panel that also has lay judges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cour_d'assises
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#10
I
France, I think, does have a system where you have lay judges, and then an appellate panel that also has lay judges.
Selecting random citizens as judges is idiotic when the bar of becoming a citizens is so low (just surviving until you are 18).

Judges should be selected among individual that have passed a test (answering legal questions correctly) and you shouldn't be forced to serve as member of your jury, it should be voluntary, maybe give a small salary for missed work income.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#11
> In addition it will the mental abilities of the average voter will go down as the amount of voters increase given ideal selection of people being allowed to vote.

What do you mean by this, exactly?
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#12
Not a question, just a comment:

> Long after you are dead people will look up to you as a hero no matter how tyrannical you were.

In fact, the more tyrannical you were, the more they may look up to you, because they may assume, "He must have been a pretty awesome guy, to see in himself and his ideas so much merit that he thought it was right to destroy those who opposed him."

Sometimes people just want a decisive leader, even if he's an imperfect leader. Psychological studies show that people prefer even the illusion of progress to stasis. The decisive leader, who forces everyone to fall into line and move forward rather than allowing too much idle debate that turns into a filibuster, or simply delays progress for longer than is reasonable even if some points have merit, is viewed as a doer, a dynamic individual, someone one can look to for the direction of one's productive forces. Idle hands are also the devil's workshop, so the guy who enslaves others is avoiding that evil.

If you don't have that kind of confidence in yourself, to treat others as you wish, how will anyone else have confidence that you know what you're doing and that you have clear ideas about what's right? People have a tendency to want to rationalize somewhat the stuff that happens to them, so that they don't feel like victims, since victimhood tends to not be all that attractive. In a man, victimhood indicates he's weak, and in a woman, it indicates she's damaged goods. If, on the other hand, one is simply corrected righteously, or destroyed so that progress can go forward, that doesn't seem like a bad thing, and one can feel that all is right with the world.

This is in contrast to a situation where someone is, say, a misunderstood genius, or someone whose genius is understood quite well and whose work and potential are purposefully destroyed to keep him from disrupting the establishment. He may have been a superior individual, but because he was isolated, he couldn't prevail against those who were better-organized and united.

If you don't believe that you deserve to rule as you wish, then everyone else is going to see weakness at best and incompetence at worst, and walk all over you. That's what we see happening to Bernie Sanders right now, for instance. You have to at least fake having that kind of self-assurance. https://dilbert.com/strip/2012-03-10
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#13
> In addition it will the mental abilities of the average voter will go down as the amount of voters increase given ideal selection of people being allowed to vote.

What do you mean by this, exactly?
The more people you select the more difficult it will be to maintain high quality among the individuals you select since you run out of suitable humans to select for the purpose.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#14
The more people you select the more difficult it will be to maintain high quality among the individuals you select since you run out of suitable humans to select for the purpose.
Oh, I totally wouldn't have gathered that's what you were getting at, so maybe it would be better to swap out that sentence for what you just said.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#15
> avoid psychoactive substances.

How strict is this rule? I notice rule 12 doesn't say this rule can be broken for good reason, like some of the other rules.

What happens if you violate it; do other people in the church just frown on it but let you deal with the consequences rather than trying to force you to change that behavior?

What about how a lot of chicks like to have drunken sex, and are more easily seduced when drunk? What about how some drugs (e.g. MDMA, LSD, pot) can allegedly enhance sex? What about medical uses of pot?

Could some of the same principles that apply to masturbation also apply to certain drugs, e.g. that it's a stress reliever and helpful form of recreation? E.g., some people have more fun socializing while drunk, or at least after having a few beers. A lot of other leisure activities are enhanced by pot as well.


What about those who can't get pussy, because they suck at holding any kind of job; if Vintologi tells them to avoid psychoactive substances, what does it offer them in return, as a pleasure that they get to enjoy with all this spare time they have? And what are they really losing by using drugs, if they were going to stay home anyway rather than, e.g., being active in the workplace?
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#16
> avoid psychoactive substances.

How strict is this rule? I notice rule 12 doesn't say this rule can be broken for good reason, like some of the other rules.
Since i use the word "avoid" there is no need to make an exception, most people should strictly avoid them and if you are willing to make exception the outcome will be overall worse. People underestimate how dangerous psych drugs are.

What happens if you violate it; do other people in the church just frown on it but let you deal with the consequences rather than trying to force you to change that behavior?
It's really difficult to deal with people abusing drugs, they tend to get blinded by the drug the are taking and thus they dont see the long term negative consequences

http://psychiatry.vintologi.com

What about how a lot of chicks like to have drunken sex, and are more easily seduced when drunk?
You shouldn't give your body away to losers like that and if you are drunk sex will be worse since you will be numb.

What about how some drugs (e.g. MDMA, LSD, pot) can allegedly enhance sex? What about medical uses of pot?
Unless you face a high risk of death this cannot be justified since the long term price will be too high.

Could some of the same principles that apply to masturbation also apply to certain drugs, e.g. that it's a stress reliever and helpful form of recreation? E.g., some people have more fun socializing while drunk, or at least after having a few beers. A lot of other leisure activities are enhanced by pot as well.
This illustrates well why the rule need to be strict but maybe it would be better to just list specific exceptions since otherwise people will think "i shouldn't blindly follow this religion" and thus make an exception when it's not justified.

Only good exception i can think of is if you face serious risk of injury/death if you dont take the drug such as if you have terminal cancer, in that case numbing yourself with drugs might be justified, it disables your mental faculties which can be helpful in a hopeless situation where the reality of the situation is too painful.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#17
> When you increase the number of people with similar genetics as you will increase your chance of ending up with a better brain next life.

How does that work exactly? Wouldn't you want to increase the number of people with superior genetics who are being produced? Or do you mean, if you're already at the top, that's when you need more people with the same level of genetics?
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#18
> When you increase the number of people with similar genetics as you will increase your chance of ending up with a better brain next life.

How does that work exactly? Wouldn't you want to increase the number of people with superior genetics who are being produced? Or do you mean, if you're already at the top, that's when you need more people with the same level of genetics?
If the population increases while the average genetic quality stay the same there will be more individuals being born with superior genetics.

Current population: ABCDEF (A is best and F is worse)

new population: AABBCCDDEEFF

It is assumed that the old members will then be more likely to end up with A to C in the next life while new incarnations of that race are more likely to end up with D to F
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#19
If the population increases while the average genetic quality stay the same there will be more individuals being born with superior genetics.

Current population: ABCDEF (A is best and F is worse)

new population: AABBCCDDEEFF

It is assumed that the old members will then be more likely to end up with A to C in the next life while new incarnations of that race are more likely to end up with D to F
Why is that assumed?
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#20
Why is that assumed?
It is/was assumed that your are more likely to end up wit a brain similar to your old brain allowing for a more continious conscious experience even when you die and reincarnate.

An earlier vintologi axiom was "the probability for reincarnation decreases with genetic distance" but it was later dropped due to the fact that it's not fundamental and that there are situation where it's likely to be false.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#22
The male sex drive is many times stronger than the female sex drive, sex is a male biological need and when most males are unwilling to have sex with other males rape females or substitute the need for female sex in other ways the result is likely to be extreme gynocentrism or feminism.
Why/how does it have this result?
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#23
Why/how does it have this result?
Females will get a lot of power due to being gate-keepers when it comes to sex and reproduction, this will push males to adapt opinions females like and thus we will see males becoming very gynocentric and likely to adapt feminist views.

You chould of course lie about your views but doesn't come naturally to the more dominant males.
 

Oxblood

Well-known member
#24
We losers lack knowledge and data about vagina shapes.

I gathered information about pussy shapes. But my understanding of pussy is very primitive because I don’t have sex.
 

Leucosticte

Well-known member
#25
We losers lack knowledge and data about vagina shapes.

I gathered information about pussy shapes. But my understanding of pussy is very primitive because I don’t have sex.
You should approach random chicks (who just happen to be young and fertile) and tell them you're doing a research project and need their cooperation. If they balk, offer $20 and say, "It's not prostitution, it's a recruitment incentive." https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-info...s/payment-and-reimbursement-research-subjects

Paying research subjects in exchange for their participation is a common and, in general, acceptable practice. Payment to research subjects for participation in studies is not considered a benefit that would be part of the weighing of benefits or risks; it is a recruitment incentive.
 
Top