Would you want to rule benevolently or malevolently?

[Reality vs Adventure]

You want to use N. Korea as an example of longevity in ruling, but you forget about the governing bodies of every other country that has ruled in a different way for much longer. For example, the USA has had a democracy for 240 years. It has been a WORLD power since the 50’s. They didn’t need authoritarianism to rule its people. And the USA thrived and became productive far greater than N. Korea. They control the media in N Korea so you can’t possibly know how hungry or ready for a revolt they are in. There are 2 Koreas remember? This is a perfect contrast of authoritarianism and a democracy (democratic republic to be exact). And today S. Korea has greater economic standing and quality of life than the North.

To use the USA as an example again; recently the country has taken authoritarian views from the top of government. They are secluding themselves and confuse allies not quite to the extent yet as N. Korea, but are on that path. The influence in the world has decreased, there is chaos in the streets all due to the push of authoritarianism. And in the chaos, there lives law and order that authoritarians hide behind to slowly tear down the foundations of human rights and eventually leads to use whatever tactic to demoralize, abuse, and subjugate the people. Your so called mafia racket tactic. Create civil disobedience in order to justify oppressing, imprisoning, and even killing them. Open war is even tastier. Give me what I want and I’ll protect you.

I never said I was perfect in any way. I proposed to not even rule at all. But if I got involved, I simply would want everyone to have rights and lead a productive society. That is what I would try for. All conflicts can be prevented. It doesn't take much effort to give in to fighting. It takes greater effort and intelligence to find a solution where all sides are happy including the people below all the power. That is the key to evolving. Intelligence has a higher consciousness, which means you have rationality and sympathy. I'm not talking about monkey see monkey do intelligence. I'm talking about preserving all life. Unfortunately, humans are easily corrupted. That doesn't mean we can't evolve as a whole. But, Individually is where it all starts. And individual leaders unfit to rule prevents humans as a whole from evolving. 

Interestingly, some of the greatest technology is invented during times of war. So here I go helping your case. But at the same time, that same technology we use to destroy, abuse, and subjugate. So the wheels of evolution and devolution keeps turning

I have tried to see your way to rule. We have discussed a lot. But you keep proving to be bent on harming others. And that makes you even more dangerous in your thinking because you simply enjoy it. You have shown to be rational in some circumstances and have a conscious willing to change things. So no, that doesn’t make you devolved in that sense, it just makes your proposals unproven and with the lack of sympathy. 

You have made a conscious effort to look at different views and I congrats you for that. But you are hell bent on taking by force or whatever way to get females in your pocket. In this instance, you are proving to be a devolved species. Who else does that besides the leader of a pack of wild animals that have lesser intelligence? Many people want wealth, doesn’t mean they should rob a bank. That is something I’m not sure there is a solution for. A moral person would just let it pass. But that insistence that I answer how to get ladies into your pockets is kind of a raw insatiable hunger you have. There is a thin line there between desire and rape.  So that is an animalistic behavior in your sympathetic nervous system. Not to confuse with sympathy. You are stuck somewhere between a rational sociopathic, predatory, and consciously immoral. 

And please don't say we are all predatory, it's in our nature. We aren't out hunting sabertooth anymore. 

Having sympathy is a barrier against corruption but nobody knows their limits. 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Reality vs Adventure

[Jakeyjake]

Contrary to what you first think, I wouldn't objectionalize/objectify the tiny people. I would very much enjoy the idea that they were actual, real people I carry within my a jar in my pocket, almost like pets.   They would be insurance against attacks yes, but knowing that they can comprehend me as an Old Testament god makes it all the better.  Where stepping on ants is just mindless entertainment, dominating an intelligent species, people with lives and hopes and dreams, that would be meaningful power.  Do you really imagine it would be that unpleasant for them for the women I abduct? Why?  

Here's another thing to pick your brain: would eliminating any resistance by force, or stamping, be considered "murder" in your eyes?  Or would the size difference blur the line?  Think: does Godzilla care about the humans he steps on?  Is it really rape, what I do with the women?  Men have needs, but people who rape have options.  At that size, I wouldn't have many.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Jakeyjake

[Jakeyjake]

19 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

But that insistence that I answer how to get ladies into your pockets is kind of a raw insatiable hunger you have. There is a thin line there between desire and rape.  So that is an animalistic behavior in your sympathetic nervous system. Not to confuse with sympathy. You are stuck somewhere between a rational sociopathic, predatory, and consciously immoral. 

That isn't quite what I said.  I was asking you how else to fulfill a very real physiological need.   There is an oft cited psychological theory that certain needs must be met before others:  it is called Mazslow's heirarchy of needs.  It states that more abstract needs, like the ones you seem to want to champion, can't be met until physiological needs are secured sustainably.  Clean air, water, food, temperature regulation, sleep, and sexual needs are included.  

My abduction idea is unethical you believe: okay.  But you propose other grand, egalitarian ways to rule, yet there is an unfulfilled need still, and without satisfying it, you couldn't actualize your larger plans.  Eventually chemicals, hormones, urges would take over: no matter how rational you can be, you are a male.  So what would you propose?  Castration?   It's not a raw "insatiable hunger" as you put it, that I ask you to express an alternative.  It is a physiological need that one way or another, as a giant, would need to be satisfied.  Men have needs. 

What then would you do?  Or if you don't want to answer that, what do you propose I should do in such a situation, that actually fulfills the need in question.  

For me it would be two jars that I keep in my pockets: one for sexual stimulation, containing women to stimulate me, and one to fuel my superiority complex, containing men to do all sorts of degrading tasks like raking up foot crud between my toes.  Are these "harmful?"  

 

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Jakeyjake

[Reality vs Adventure]

21 hours ago, Jakeyjake said:

Here's another thing to pick your brain: would eliminating any resistance by force, or stamping, be considered "murder" in your eyes?  Or would the size difference blur the line?  Think: does Godzilla care about the humans he steps on?  Is it really rape, what I do with the women?  Men have needs, but people who rape have options.  At that size, I wouldn't have many.

To quell uprisings by taking lives would be killing, not murder. If you instigated the whole thing to provoke chaos and take their lives to quell it, that is murder. That is like stabbing someone in the arm, they fight to defend themselves, and you kill them for it.

Godzilla is an interesting thought. But even Godzilla with questionable intelligence wanted a more personal relationship with the woman or did he just want to pocket her as a toy? Reminds me of Beauty and the Beast. Would an ant sized woman develop feelings for a giant beast or vice versa? Would that turn your beastiality into a caring sympathetic homosapien? Is your superiority complex relieved if your abducted developed Stockholm syndrome?

Somehow, all of this is related from your need to take women and rule. Is that advanced stages of male chauvinism? This persona of yours for this topic, does that complex mean that maybe you have fear of women in real life? You have needs but go straight to taking instead of swaying. Our evolved species don’t need to fight every man to get a women. We don’t need to strut around pounding our chest, spraying territory, and tucking every female underneath us to show dominance.

[Reality vs Adventure]

That’s interesting how you would consider them as pets in your pocket. What exactly is a pet? How would you own a pet? Someone could have a dog they use to earn money in dog fights and be a pleasure to watch. That would be objectionable as in the case of having smaller people please you and clean you. Having a pet makes you responsible for their well being mentally and physically. The little people supposedly have equal intelligence, so to confine them and work them as a pet is an insult to their born intelligence and potential. What about their Maslow’s theory of depriving them of esteem. Or even their love and belonging or safety needs?

Also, the size difference shouldn’t matter because they have equal intelligence. That is the true meaning of racist. Why would you deprive them of their needs based on Maslow’s Hierarchy.

Rational beings always see options. At that size, maybe you can beach a slimy whale and stick your pecker in it since getting pleasure from different species is no problem. (Burn joke after reading). The Maslow’s Hierarchy states you don’t have to reach 100% of every lower level before moving on to the next. You would definitely have a need for belonging. Love and belonging isn’t the same as pocketing women. A sense of belonging if you were a lone giant would be having the civilization respect you and help each other. You develop acceptance and trust which is in the same bar as intimacy.

You would be the one depriving yourself of those needs by distancing yourself from them and making yourself God like and objectionalizing them. Wanting to be God like and cowering them is more narcissistic. And interestingly, how I proposed to work together falls right into Maslow’s Hierarchy by developing relationships with the little people, which would then give you esteem by providing the means and ways to accomplish a productive society. Then you can reflect on it all and be God like as you reach your potential in this rare case to help shape a whole civilization and maybe they build you something in respectful honor.

[The Blackangel]

It doesn't say "Resident Sociopath" under my name for laughs. I am a clinically diagnosed sociopath. So in this instance I could watch them kill and die for my own amusement while ruling them. Or I could interact and kill them myself, all the while not caring about the outcome. Why should I care how much they cry over their mother dying. It's not like she's going anywhere except a hole in the ground. Seemingly senseless murder is actually entertaining. It's not like life actually matters. We are vastly closer and closer to our own extinction every day. So what does it matter? A century from now man will be extinct. We have ensured that. So if you want to rule, start a cult. If you don't want to rule, but be ruled, become a scientologist. If you don't want either, then fuck them both, and who gives an honest shit?

[Jakeyjake]

14 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

Having a pet makes you responsible for their well being mentally and physically.

That is true, so my word choice was poor.  They would be slaves: living beings who think and feel that I could bully and make do anything I want.  That's the greatest appeal.

The "persona" I'm revealing in this thread isn't a character though; it's actually the way I would act if I were a massive giant stranded on a planet or an island inhabited by flea-sized people.  I'd be an absolute tyrant, using my jarred slaves as little beings I could unleash wrath upon due to any personal insecurity I experience at the time,  any temporary frustration: but that would mostly be the men.  If I had the means I would even place them in an enclosure where I could crouch down and hover a magnifying glass over them... I could see myself chasing each of them with precision as they scrambled, screaming, to avoid being disintegrated, while maintaining the composure of a curious but cold scientist watching with boyish fascination.

With the tiny people contained in the darkness of my pocket, it would make me feel like Godzilla or a temperamental Greek deity, cold, callous, and whose actions and motivations are unknowable  Striding around the world with literally dozens of tiny people plunged into the darkness of my shorts pocket, only seeing the light of day when I feel like removing them: that would be a euphoria like no other.  I'd delight in the fact that when I lift their little bottle to my face, all they will see is a huge, grinning visage through the glass and they screamed and yelled and pleaded for their lives back.  To me, they would be like crickets in a jar: powerless against my size.

"That would be objectionable as in the case of having smaller people please you and clean you."  Objectionable because of the nature of the tasks in question?  Or because they would be forced?  Would the tasks ever be done if not forced on them?  

I like your whale idea, by the way.  Unfortunately, that would fall into the same category as masturbating (although where I would even put it?)  And while I would probably masturbate a lot anyway, like any guy, I still wouldn't feel whole or completely satisfied in my manhood unless actual women were involved.  

Edited October 22, 2020 by Jakeyjake

[The Blackangel]

You have to be ready for the responsibility to take in a pet. Not so much as a human child, but you still can’t neglect them. I personally have 13 pets. They are 6 rats, 4 dogs, 2 bearded dragons, and one conure. One of the dogs is a pitbull and she isn’t shy about demanding attention from me. She’s also possessive over me. The bird doesn’t like anyone except for me. The rats love playing with me. The dragons think I’m a jungle gym. They always end up on top of my head. The bird thinks I’m a jungle gym too.

It can be expensive having so many pets, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I hate people, but I absolutely love animals.