🚀 go-pugleaf

[should be under the spider and women post]
http://www.arabianwildlife.com/nature/insect/ins08.html

[copied from the other server]
Assume we impose a limit on the number of feminine relation(ship)s a
man can have. Lets say four. If the man lives in a family of mother,
aunt and grandmother, THEN he can only have ONE girlfriend or other
feminine relation in his life! Some rationale to include close family
inot the limit is that incest cannot be completely proven... so, the
question is, what would happen if the man and the girlfriend have a
DAUGHTER?

Note how this single _rule_ can be used to justify ALL KINDS OF
(Occidental) CRIMES. As enforcers cant REALLY know, they can simply
assume that incest occurs _normally_; that way they cannot err
according to that
rule! SO there is a strong motivation to engage in incest as it will
be assumed at the outset by the (unwanted) enforcers. It means sex
with mothers, aunts and sisters. Then it is justified too to take away
children from their family as it will ensure that they remain _free_
for future relation(ship)s. According to that single unique law boys
can remain with their feminine family if enforcers dont consider them
fortunate enough to have the four relationships later in life, but
GIRLS, if the count exceeds the statuted limit, HAVE to be taken away
from the family so to avoid UNLAWFUL incests, that is, _possible_
_anticipated_ incests that would put actors in out_of_place (to borrow
a soccer term) and hence would have to be punished later (by the same
enforcers). So it is very easy to justify child abductions of all
kinds, mainly of girls. Note also how this can be implemented as a
game (in the mathematical sense), where families can assume enforcers
dont have the knowledge, then engage in defeating practices, for
instance, shunning women out of the family OR kidnapping women to have
more unlawful relationships without enforcers knowing, by keeping them
apart. In extreme cases it would justify murder, the more so the more
important the person, a man, is or becomes, as enforcers cannot go
through the risk that important people be seen as breaking the rule
because other people would follow the example, leaving enforcers in
the dire problem of having to forfeit their rule (the rule that gives
them meaning). So besides incest, abduction, kidnapping (some torture
would be attached to it as a way of enforcing the kidnapping), murder
can also be justified in a hard game of enforcing the law of no more
then four (lets say n) relation(ship)s in a man s life. This is one of
the supports for the application of the Sterens algorithms by players
contrary to the rule. With a Sterens algorithm the man can _enjoy_
more than one relation without being considered, by those who
implement the _COUNT_, as breaking the law. Some measure of deceit is
needed, so women must look alike enough as to deceive people who would
act as enforcers. This last condition is more or less achieved if they
belong to the same family, otherwise some form of physical
modification is needed, which leads back to torture as a primitive,
basic means to make people look alike (a very primitive minded need,
as it is the need, the atavic recognition that ANIMALS look alike
while people tend to be different). So torture is **justified** both
ways, to enforce kidnappings and to deceive the enforcers, very likely
also as punishment by enforcers when their count is obviously broken
by whom they, very **_lawfully_*, would call **criminals**. A further,
wider crime from the biological point of view, that of reducing the
diversity of the human genetic pool is also justified by recurring to
that law, since to break
the law without punishment by applying the Sterens algorithm similarly
looking women have to be found and used to create a new population of
very similarly looking people by forcing a single set of genes on
that, at first, diverse genetic pool, therefore reducing diversity for
the next generation. It is important to note that the man in the
center does not need to be aware of the framework as it would give him
an incentive to become one of the law breakers through kidnapping...


Two terms: fulano and tipito. They are sociological categories not
very well defined, despective, but understandable. Fulano would be
more or less equvalent to unskilled worker, just a man, who would do
any kind of jobs or would be very busy doing **businesses** in an
informal way... It would represent **light mafia** and lack of fame.
More or less the contrary to nobility in a non royal society. Also
means man, as in many men together, you turn yourself into a
f(oo)lano. Very likely the origin of the foo, bar, baz series in
programming... (maybe a programmer fulano, drunken and music player...
unacknowledged). The name appears as a generic name, like John and
Jane Doe, in the series Fulano, Mengano, Zutano and Perengano, which
incidentally may have been well known surnames and then hidden by
society. Tipito would be translated as small guy. Tipito would be kind
of a biological category meaning not physically impressive or
physically weak, without very distinctive physical traits. Many
teenagers qualify as tipitos, those who dont look like football
players... So somebody can be a tipito and a fulano or just any of
them, or not be one at all.

Essentially, taxi drivers would be considered fulanos by those who use
the distinction...

Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore