gender and this site

Why is so much of this place dedicated to gender roles? I have never seen a philosophy site so intent on the subject, perhaps I am missing something?

We are focused on all aspects of modern nihilism.

The three most popular Liberal lies are those concerning sex, and race.
Sex has two parts:
Homosexuality and masculine/feminine specialized roles.  

One more reason is that feminization is occurring, where the preferred sexual traits are feminine ones.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...because us men are sexist evil pigs who can't get laid, we are also angry and hate women because we have been excessively rejected, and now we want revenge!!! ...we also have small penises..

But of course, it has nothing to do with women being generally retarded.

Satyr wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's in the Adyton. You should move it to the Agora if you want her to read it.

apaosha wrote:

Satyr wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's in the Adyton. You should move it to the Agora if you want her to read it.

I forgot about that.
Thanks.

Interesting work. After reading, should you not be applauding this very natural cycle of species survival and evolution? You seem to think that what is happening harms those like you but, it does not follow. When species become too many it is natural that its society implodes as you describe. The fall of so many as you see will lead to the dominance of the strongest, healthiest and most intelligent. Really with your obvious studies you should know this. With your distaste of this occurance, you should be elated. So why are you not happy about it?

mannequin wrote:

...because us men are sexist evil pigs who can't get laid, we are also angry and hate women because we have been excessively rejected, and now we want revenge!!! ...we also have small penises..

But of course, it has nothing to do with women being generally retarded.

The hatred of one extreme usually leaves one desiring the other extreme.

How important is it to you, to survive at all costs, even if it means, bringing your own kind down in the process, the inevitability of a homo-sensuality or homo-agape you promote owing to current feminism and feminization?
If there's a hole, you suggest making it larger than stitching it - how is that not a self-hating decadence?

This reminds me to question how we define self-love.
To gift ourselves anything to preserve ourselves, our sanity intact at the cost of self-esteem - is this self-love?
If not, does self-love even matter before survival?

Lyssa wrote:

To gift ourselves anything to preserve ourselves, our sanity intact at the cost of self-esteem - is this self-love?

For me, self-esteem is very closely related to self-love. Maybe it is self-love.
Self-confidence is a matter of experience. Making experiences while having good self-esteem at the time.
I don't know how to fill missing self-esteem. Haven't thought about it much. Maybe making friends with undesired parts of the self.

Pretzle wrote:

Interesting work. After reading,  should you not be applauding this very natural cycle of species survival and evolution? You seem to think that what is happening harms those like you but, it does not follow. When species become too many it is natural that its society implodes as you describe. The fall of so many as you see will lead to the dominance of the strongest, healthiest and most intelligent. Really with  your obvious studies you should know this. With your distaste of this occurance, you should be elated. So why are you not happy about it?

I am neither happy nor unhappy. I am describing a phenomenon in a way that opposes the popular narrative.

This is about a meme: a sum of morals, ideals, attitudes towards life.

This is dying.

If the extintion of humankind does not bother you, because life goes on, and bacteria will survive, then you must be reducing yourself to the least-common-denominator to find pride. 

I aim higher.
I rejoice when something low is surpassed, not when something high is degraded.

You also fail to see the bigger picture.
Are you a simpleton?

Try to follow:
If the masculine spirit is what challenges and resists and opposes, then science and philosophy and creativity can be seen as manifestations of this spirit.
Declining masculinity means declining intelligence, imagination, creativity, thinking outside the box, confronting the world, not surrendering to it, questioning authority and ideas etc.

Now look around you.

Lyssa wrote:

mannequin wrote:

...because us men are sexist evil pigs who can't get laid, we are also angry and hate women because we have been excessively rejected, and now we want revenge!!! ...we also have small penises..

But of course, it has nothing to do with women being generally retarded.

The hatred of one extreme usually leaves one desiring the other extreme.

How important is it to you, to survive at all costs, even if it means, bringing your own kind down in the process, the inevitability of a homo-sensuality or homo-agape you promote owing to current feminism and feminization?
If there's a hole, you suggest making it larger than stitching it - how is that not a self-hating decadence?

This reminds me to question how we define self-love.
To gift ourselves anything to preserve ourselves, our sanity intact at the cost of self-esteem - is this self-love?
If not, does self-love even matter before survival?

Do a lustful vampire ponder on the definition of self-love surrounded by blood filled humans.

The life I lead, you think self-esteem is a factor for me, a requirement?  To acquire confidence through the expression of self-love in a creative form to impact a favorable response, is it not then the value of self equates to a worthiness that can be appreciated by others, an acceptance.

Are you looking for a home lyssa?

Is a man with a lower functioning libido more loyal and committed to his wife than a cheating man with a high functioning libido?

Mannequins don't hold identities. I'm dead like casper without the friendliness.

Isn't the blankness of the mannequin on display for all to see fashioned in the current socially acceptable clothing at the time.

Look a little closer at those mannequins and they'll smile at you.
For now, ill stand behind the window with the rest of them.

Completely hopeless? Not quite.

My presence here signifies that. I return from time to time. Like a religious man who wanders the graveyard using the opportunity to get closer to god.

Only there is no god, or wander for me. Just the grave. I don't cry anymore, I don't look to the sky anymore..

Do you think they'll make a mistake when they carve the lettering on your epitaph?

Anfang wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

To gift ourselves anything to preserve ourselves, our sanity intact at the cost of self-esteem - is this self-love?

For me, self-esteem is very closely related to self-love. Maybe it is self-love.

Then it must be death before dishonour for you.
For some, its a question of survival and self-preservation - pagan converts to Xtianity.
Would you kneel before a bishop, or would you rather have your head chopped off because of self-esteem?
Is it life at any cost, or only a dignified, principled life that is worth living?

Quote :

I don't know how to fill missing self-esteem. Haven't thought about it much. Maybe making friends with undesired parts of the self.

Posit a goal; see what's stopping you from within yourself, in getting there and work on it.
Not making friends, making home for even what's undesired, which requires self-exposure. If you don't know your own blue print, the design of your being, how are you going to "fit" it in a suitable place and determine its value? How do you determine self-worth?

mannequin wrote:

Do a lustful vampire ponder on the definition of self-love surrounded by blood filled humans.

So you see yourself as a lusty parasite than a predator?

Quote :

The life I lead, you think self-esteem is a factor for me, a requirement?  To acquire confidence through the expression of self-love in a creative form to impact a favorable response, is it not then the value of self equates to a worthiness that can be appreciated by others, an acceptance.

Why - "impact a favourable response"? Have not the best and creative philosophers died infamously, notoriously, hated, mocked, caricatured as outsiders even after death? When has people's rejection or acceptance mattered to a self-esteeming soul? Does the creator create for the pleasure of his audience? What does that make him, if not a third-rate...!

Quote :

Are you looking for a home lyssa?

No, I am not.

Quote :

Is a man with a lower functioning libido more loyal and committed to his wife than a cheating man with a high functioning libido?

That is a truth. But why does the lusty one ruled by pure animal pleasure, not finding satiation even with copulating with lots of women, then men, then children, then animals, corpses, what not,, content to exist as a parasite, not lust after himself? Is it not because he is undesirable to himself?
Self-organization demands energy; looking within can be a nightmare; the survival instinct of a weak and exhausted will tends to live a self-degrading life than disciplining itself, regulating that lust, raising oneself up, finding methods and strengthening its will to stop its self-depletion.
This is a picture of the american economy.
Why is this so?
Because self-exploitation, to extricate what we need from our own self, and being honest with what reflects from within us - affirming it is so painful, one's survival depends on turning away from it.

I was watching World War Z some weeks back. What does one do when parasitic zombies start attacking? The film's solution was "make yourself sick"; because parasites only attack healthy hosts.
The way to avoid parasites is to become ill oneself.

How enticing and logical the message of that film sounds.

One would be insane as Nietzsche was, to suggest cultivate such great health, enough to make any parasitic depletion insignificant...
scatter away vampires with the brilliance of one's daylight...

The path of least resistance will always be the more attractive one to the hedonists, because it pains less, and so costs less.

Quote :

Mannequins don't hold identities. I'm dead like casper without the friendliness.

Isn't the blankness of the mannequin on display for all to see fashioned in the current socially acceptable clothing at the time.

Look a little closer at those mannequins and they'll smile at you.
For now, ill stand behind the window with the rest of them.

Completely hopeless? Not quite.

My presence here signifies that. I return from time to time. Like a religious man who wanders the graveyard using the opportunity to get closer to god.

Only there is no god, or wander for me. Just the grave. I don't cry anymore, I don't look to the sky anymore..

Do you think they'll make a mistake when they carve the lettering on your epitaph?

I know.
And you write very poignant lines for a "dead one"...

Who's recognition are you waiting for? Are you incapable of making your own world, your own sky, your own sun?
And if there is an oil spill in the sea and dead species floating, does one dump more garbage and corrupt the environment even further?
If there's a heap of dirt in your living room, do you turn it into a charity sewer?
If women have turned mongrels and men are turning effete, do you de-dignify yourself and whatever trace of masculinity remains to surrender to life because you can't fight it? If you can't fight it, you join it? How does spreading more chaos and resigning to entropy, promise any "hope" for the not-yet-hopeless?

Self-esteem seems to kick up when trying to marry a horrible female and attempting to mould a child through one's ideals; one would sooner have no self-esteem and resign to entropy and spread an all-levelling corruption,,, a desert of the real, than have self-esteem and deal with an ugly woman. To prompt a slow suicide appears more healthy and logical, than bleeding from a thousand paper-cuts everyday at the hands of some nightmarish woman...
But isn't life a woman too? which makes living like casper such a perverse irony...

Lyssa wrote:

Would you kneel before a bishop, or would you rather have your head chopped off because of self-esteem?

I should have written 'To me' not 'For me'. The words self-esteem and self-love have a very similar meaning in my view. But let's expose my self in that scenario with the bishop.
It's not an either or decision. In my experience - certain things I'll accept and others I won't - it's not only depending on the thing itself though but also on my state of mind, which parts of myself are being dominant at the moment, how my decisions impact others who I feel, I have a responsibility towards. It's depending on the moment.

Quote :

Is it life at any cost, or only a dignified, principled life that is worth living?

Dignified by whom? If there is felt slight then there is a felt slight, I'm not interested in a bargaining or a rational approach. But I am about effectiveness - I don't want to display outrage without potency. If I can't retaliate in the now then I'll bide my time. It's not even all conscious - What I have to do, I'll do - what I don't have to do, I won't. I think that, not following this would make me ill, would make my body ill. The ideal would be to always try hard to follow the demands of the self - do I do that all the time? - No. But I'm trying - to be more focused. To give room to all aspects.

Quote :

Not making friends, making home for even what's undesired, which requires self-exposure.

Tomaito - Tomatoh ... But yes, it explains it much better. Self-exposure puts it out there and the outside world becomes the reminder of those 'undesired aspects' forcing an individual to engage them, to not forget them. When I say that I haven't thought about it much then it doesn't mean that I haven't worked out certain 'undesired' parts of my self already. It just means that I have no explanatory framework to put it on paper, in theory. Though, you've made me realize certain things, again - remembering.

"I am neither happy nor unhappy. I am describing a phenomenon in a way that opposes the popular narrative.

This is about a meme: a sum of morals, ideals, attitudes towards life.

This is dying.

If the extintion of humankind does not bother you, because life goes on, and bacteria will survive, then you must be reducing yourself to the least-common-denominator to find pride."


(How do you see a trillion humans dying? Short of this planet exploding or the sun going nova, humans are here to stay. The ARKS being constructed on every continent assures it. Knowledge and biomaterial are being stored in each for repopulation of humans and animals. Along with plants, insects, germs etc. All to create a strong ecosystem. )


"I aim higher. I rejoice when something low is surpassed, not when something high is degraded.

You also fail to see the bigger picture. Are you a simpleton?"

(I see the bigger picture quite well)

"Try to follow: If the masculine spirit is what challenges and resists and opposes, then science and philosophy and creativity can be seen as manifestations of this spirit. Declining masculinity means declining intelligence, imagination, creativity, thinking outside the box, confronting the world, not surrendering to it, questioning authority and ideas etc.

Now look around you."


Your words: " If the masculine spirit"
If is the big word here. I see women stepping into those niches as easily as any man. You do not. So again : You and your fellows with your females should rejoice at the downfall of the feminized masses. This will leave room for you to build as you see fit. Surely you do not think emasculated males can be reconverted?
Your group will breed humans to your criteria. Of course inbreeding
will occur but, damages can be minimized by the removal of damaged infants. You and yours will rule. Is this objectionable? Is this not the purpose of you? Recruitment of proper sperm and ovaries? I have read your threads although there are petty ones that are undignified that malign others on other forums. But, emotional needs must be met somehow even negative ones. Hate is a survival trait afterall.
I find I must disagree about female abilities. Physical strength is a main difference aside from genitalia and hormones. The brain really shows no difference. A human is taught how to use their brain. Yes some have natural abilities that surpass the average and there are those that are below. Other than physical size and hormones the existing human is equal no matter the gender. Unless you have multiple unbiased brain scan studies to prove otherwise? One or two cannot count as definitive. A group of 10 will suffice as probable.

Pretzle wrote:

(How do you see a trillion humans dying? Short of this planet exploding or the sun going nova,  humans are here to stay. The ARKS being constructed on every continent assures it. Knowledge and biomaterial are being stored in each for repopulation of humans and animals. Along with plants, insects, germs etc. All to create a strong ecosystem. )

I depends on how you define human.
A brain-dead zombie, can be called human.

I have a more precise definition, other than species identity which, ironically, is a sexual category.

Pretzle wrote:

Your words: " If the masculine spirit"
If is the big word here. I see women stepping into those niches as easily as any man. You do not. So again : You and your fellows with your females should rejoice at the downfall of the feminized masses. This will leave room for you to build as you see fit. Surely you do not think emasculated males can be reconverted?

What I see is monkeys with enough intelligence to work the machinery already invented for them.

I see recipe books, peer support, and precedent.
Strap a gun to a chick's hips and she's John Wayne.
Then boys cower before her.
How strong she is when another invents the device to compensate for the absence of balls.


I've heard memetic inbreeding causes the worse genetic deformities.

Fuck a gorilla, dear, you want those genes in the gene pool.
Dilute that human gene pool with some primate blood.
Something special will come of it.
It's good for ya.
I will not judge you.
I'll know, and comment, but my modern Secular Christian ethos forbids me from judging you and what you do in the bedroom.

Pretzle wrote:

You and yours will rule. Is this objectionable? Is this not the purpose of you? Recruitment of proper sperm and ovaries? I have read your threads although there are petty ones that are undignified that malign others on other forums. But, emotional needs must be met somehow even negative ones. Hate is a survival trait afterall.

Justifying the status quo is also emotionally rewarding.

Pretzle wrote:

I find I must disagree about female abilities. Physical strength is a main difference aside from genitalia and hormones. The brain really shows no difference.

I know, that's why human science, philosophy, innovation, creativity in all fields are so dominated by females.

Thanks for teaching me that evolution, for some inexplicable reason, only affects the body, but not the brain.
I suppose intelligence just occurs spontaneously.
No natural selection involved.

I would love for you to explain how intelligence evolves and why it is such a dominating trait if it is uniformly distributed.

You know, social factors can only take you so far when looking for excuses to explain away thousands of years of history.
Then you have to wonder why before there was a social structure of our Paternalistic kind, nothing creative occurred in the female brain.

And please give me the typical exceptions to the rule which still do not manage to be equal to what we call genius.
women are good supportive elements.
They perverse, nurture to its fullest potential, what is given to them.

Some few of them can be placed on the higher 10% of total human intelligence, making then superior than the average male.
But potential is about the highest probable point.

When I say that Negros are intellectually inferior to Europeans, I don't only have history behind me - which your kind must explain away with excuses - but I have Evolution Theory on my side.
I am not advocating violence, cruelty or anything. I am saying that this bloodline, a product of genetic isolation made obvious by appearance, has a lower, no average, potential for intelligence As I define it.
Proven by history. Thousand of years of it.    

In this area you have only Jared Diamond to draw from.
Go for it.

Pretzle wrote:

A human is taught how to use their brain.

Indeed, and we call that training.

The education system churning out females by the droves -let us put it to the test, and watch for the next cognitive revolution from the up-and-comnig female geniuses.

Here's another way of seeing it:
We are also trained how NOT to use our brains.
Between the do and do not, we get this fine world of mediocrity, where females are just as brilliant as males.

Quote :

Pretzle wrote:

Yes some have natural abilities that surpass the average and there are those that are below. Other than physical size and hormones the existing human is equal no matter the gender. Unless you have multiple unbiased brain scan studies to prove otherwise? One or two cannot count as definitive. A group of 10 will suffice as probable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What's interesting about your position is that it validates mine.
Here you are requiring institutional validation to explain what is obvious, while you ignore reality itself.

You must ask yourself:
In modern science, who funds the work?
Are scientists free to explore any direction they wish?

Having answered this - I'm sure you will be using a very popular method - then proceed to explain why men dominate.
 Why Paternalsim?
If domination is chance, then what you are saying is that evolution is about luck.

Why are the creative arts, revolutionary ideas, explorations, thinking outside the box, always have a masculine source?

The "women were in a box", and the "glass ceiling" excuse, falls short.

But, let's put it to the test:
Let's wait for the next revolutionary thought, that expands human thinking, by shattering our established beliefs, to come from a female.

Brain test:
Imagine a world with no rules, no laws, no culture. On one side all men. On the other all females.
Who wins the survival battle and makes the other their bitches?

Be honest, my sweet.

Before I waste more time on you, because I am getting a scent of something bad. 
It may be coming from me, but my instincts rarely fail me.

For miss Pretzle twisting herself in a bind:


I will humor you.
My position is that sexual traits are determined by hormonal effects, influencing the embryo in a way that benefits it in its sexual role - or that facilitates this specialized role.
For me nature doesn't give a shit about equality and fairness, and only produces individuals to function and to specialize, so as to increase the potential survivability of an entire population - or a genetic grouping. 

I do not just say that men are more creative, I say look at who dominates the creative fields in the present, who did in the past, and I also provide a reasoning as to why males must have this creative advantage and not so much females. 

You, on the other hand have modern mythologies - the popular, feel-good, ones -, infinite excuses, and ignorance to support your claims. 
For you the fact that females do not dominate in any intellectual field requiring creativity, innovation and thinking outside the box, is a male conspiracy spanning thousands of years,  the delusion that environment only has an affect on the body and not the brain, and man's willful, or not, ignorance as to what differences there are between categories which are aesthetically obvious. 

Explain how intelligence evolves if it is uniformly distributed across individuals and populations.
Explain how chimps cannot be educated up to the level of a human if all that is required is to be taught/trained how to use your brain, and you are not born with limits to your potentials.
Explain how body is other than brain/mind.

Me in ChatBox, for some real-time debating. 


Please, feel free to get acquainted with Satyr's actual views, if it so interests you, before you proceed in making a fool of yourself.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The newest member and feminist, needs to collect her thoughts. 

Already we see the typical Modern tactics.



-Deference to authorities
We must discuss about the real world all around us, through intermediate sources. 
We cannot and should not, judge, think, speculate, conclude, unless it is validated by some commonly accepted authority.
The motives of this authority is never in doubt.

She requires validation to determine that what she perceives as different - an apple and an orange, for instance - is actually so. 
The senses, appearances, are not to be trusted. We need an expert to tell us that what appears to be different is actually so.
Not even experience, history, can usurp the power of the institutional authority.

Here we witness the deep confusion human intervention has produced in the minds of the mediocre - a comforting confusion, mind you, and so one they willingly give themselves over to, wholeheartedly. 
If reality can be hidden, changed to imitate something else by human intervention, by a willful hand, then we cannot trust anything using our senses. All thinking and judging must come from a common source.

This is, in a nutshell, is institutionalization.
Our own senses, our own brain, is not to be trusted.
The other's is, if (s)he/it tells us what is most popular, what our peers and family members think, and when it makes us feel good and proud and hopeful.
Also what we call brainwashing methods. Watch a televangelist to get a taste of it, in the extreme.


-Ignorance as an Argument
Because we do not know everything about how intelligence manifests in the brain, we must err on the side that makes us feel good about ourselves and the world around us.

If we do not know the absolute truth, then we must postpone judgment.
Therefore, if we are not god-like omniscient, we must assume that we are all equally ignorant, and embrace whatever makes us feel good and what unites us in our shared ignorance.

The slightest doubt is reason enough to dismiss a possibility, whereas in all other cases a bigger doubt is not good enough.
Science, for whatever reason, cannot or does not tell us everything, ergo we can only assume what satisfies us personally, though it contradicts our own sensual awareness and experiences.
We see, but we cannot decide what we see, because science has not told us, definitely, what we see; it has not given us the right to see.  


-Institutionalized Thinking
This is related to the first remark.
Here the benevolence and the motives of the institution are not in question, but our senses are. 
What we perceive as different is not truly so, at least not where it matters (intelligence), because appearances are not manifestations of essence, but are products of chance, or are purely superficial.
Yet, at the same time, human institutions, science now being highly institutionalized, is not to be questioned or doubted, for it is regulated, you see. 
You know, like the markets were in capitalism - self-regulating institutions. 


-Nature as Fair
The idea that nature or evolution is just, or that it should be, if it is not already, permeates the Judeo-Christian mindset, even when it is convinced that it has outgrown this nihilistic childishness by calling itself secular humanist, or Marxist, or Socialist or ...modern.

Nothing makes us skeptical like a conception which is detrimental to us on a personal level.
But, what flatters us never, or rarely, makes us doubt it's motives.
We never try to get into its psychology, or delve into its fears its vileness, its illness.
We only do so sometimes, which, ironically, exposes our own motives, and illness.

The world is fair, and it is men who are unfair. Man as an evil spirit, reminding us of Rousseau and his delusions about the innocent wild-man.
You see, up until men invented Paternalism, out of thin-air (perhaps Satan had a hand in it), women and men were equal, like they are in all primate and primal social structures.
See Bonobo, the ape that makes feminists wet - an orgy-fest, made possible by the absence of any great threat.
Sort of like the current western lifestyles.   
Female and male divergence is not usual in nature, you must believe me, because it was man that invented exploitation and injustice, and these vile gender roles.
Some say men invented heterosexual reproduction to keep women pregnant and dull.

No, man did not conjure up the fable of justice, but the reverse is the case. 


-Superficial Specialization 
It would seem that specialization in nature is purely superficial, or what is referred to as "physical," and that it has nothing to do with cognitive abilities. 
But this only applies in certain aspects of nature, and not others ...conveniently so. 

The mind/body duality is alive and well, amongst those who profess to call themselves intelligent, and enlightened.

When a cheetah, for example, splintered-off from a common ancestor along with the leopard, through natural selection, the traits it required to take advantage of its niche had only physical effects and no mental, psychological ones.
You see, cheetahs are just the same as house-cats ...except in appearance.
Species, therefore, is a purely physical matter.
All species are equal in intelligence ...or does this only apply to humans, again?


-Shame
As exemplified by this feminists first posting, the idea that some intellectual pursuits are suspect, and open the one indulging in them to all sorts of speculative assertions.
But others are exempt, for no ulterior motive should be sought when one is flattered and when a repetition of the popular and the common is in effect.
If you are strange, you must be a witch in old Salem. If not, then you are normal.
A "normal moron," I would assume.
This female wonders why this forum is so "obsessed" - as she would like to think of it - with sex, or sexual issues, but does not wonder about any other thought dealing with the human condition.

Does she wonder why her culture and her peers are obsessed with love, the Platonic kind?
Can she come up with a few hypothetical, concenring this unending obsession with this emotion?  

Here, the either/or scenario is in play. 
Either something is fear-based, and hateful and bad, or it is loving, and benevolent, and good. 
It is either healthy and productive and instructive, or it is destructive and ill.
No grey zones here. The lines are un-clearly drawn.
GOOD .... BAD
Healthy ... Ill

In the meantime let is settle on the uniformity of a singular oneness.


-Appearance is OTHER than Essence/Spirit/Nature
It's not that appearance reflects the phenomenon's essence, but that it is actually meant to hide it, mask it. The senses did not evolve to help us judge and, through this judging, this discrimination, survive, but that they evolved to trick us, to test us.

Something appears o be different but is not so. It is only so in appearance.
This, of course, in true nihilistic, selective-reasoning, style, only applies in some cases - not surprisingly when dealing with human beings and what hurts them. 
Beauty, is skin deep, and how one looks says nothing about what he is.

He, in fact, is other than what he appears. He, as an identity, is separate from the shell he is forced to endure, because some evil spirit thrust it upon him.
Again Judeo-Christian bullshit, in all its glory.

So, although we are all human -not a generalization- this is not a category based on sex, ergo species categories are not sexist, but sexual specialized categories are.
The bub-categories of male/female, or Negro/Caucasian, are over-generalizations, and fear-based prejudices.
They are founded on superficial, judgments ...but human being is not.
In one case appearance matters, in the other, not so much.
Why?
Because ...it feels right, and nobody in science has told us what to think.

If you lobotomize yourself, it all makes sense.

Anfang wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Would you kneel before a bishop, or would you rather have your head chopped off because of self-esteem?

I should have written 'To me' not 'For me'. The words self-esteem and self-love have a very similar meaning in my view. But let's expose my self in that scenario with the bishop.
It's not an either or decision. In my experience - certain things I'll accept and others I won't - it's not only depending on the thing itself though but also on my state of mind, which parts of myself are being dominant at the moment, how my decisions impact others who I feel, I have a responsibility towards. It's depending on the moment.

Righto. Lets just lick the finger-tip and raise it to the sky and see which direction the wind blows, and what the meterological department is saying about the weather today, and what colour flower is brushing against me, then depending on my mood and feelings and emotions that particular second, I might bend over or not. Who knows. We'll see when it happens. Principles are after all not advanced re-solutions and scaffolds shaping our character.
To each his own. The questions were rhetorical and not at you actually.

Pretzle wrote:

If is the big word here. I see women stepping into those niches as easily as any man. You do not. So again : You and your fellows with your females should rejoice at the downfall of the feminized masses.

Growth needs Resistances.
More massive the resistance, then higher is the evolutionary leap or one perishes from the pressure; either way.
Mastery and Domination is about Subjugation, not Elimination.
Orpheus getting the animals to dance to his tune and getting them to do his work, not the Pied-piper exterminating them.

Lyssa wrote:

Righto. Lets just lick the finger-tip and raise it to the sky and see which direction the wind blows, and what the meterological department is saying about the weather today, and what colour flower is brushing against me, then depending on my mood and feelings and emotions that particular second, I might bend over or not. Who knows. We'll see when it happens. Principles are after all not advanced re-solutions and scaffolds shaping our character.

Principles shape our character over the long haul. Creating anything doesn't happen instantaneous. Even gravity takes its time to expand its pull in space. Even destruction takes time, although usually much less. In every moment we are in flux, our character isn't precisely defined but we have potential, we have room for different actions, we have a range of options, a range of character. Principles (thinking), similar to formed habits (sensual) will over time tilt our development in a different directions.

But if you ask me about a single moment in time then principles are only a small part. Principles are what shaped me in all the time, my past, coming to that one moment in time - but in that moment, it's not the principles which guide me but the core being which developed (within its limited potential) due to following my habits, my principels,.... . And that core being, as in every moment before, has room, has potential for different ways of expressing itself. How that room of possibilities looks like is depending on the innate temperament of the individual and what that individual has made of his/her potential over the long haul.

I don't know everything about my principles, because part of them are based in my unconscious and only part is conscious - this I know from experience. What I'll do in a particular situation I cannot say precisely because part of the internal figuring is not done consciously. That is, if I haven't experienced the situation at least once, better several times before - so I can only make rough estimations at best.

After reading your responses to me I decided to visit the other sites you apply to. What a personality. Upon study it is apparent that you are a passive artist of weaker minds. This alone is not bad , it is the information you create that has such potential in creating a person that can be a mass killer. The fact that you have brought others to you in compliance of your edicts is quite interesting. To date there is no known crimes that you have claimed through my short research so this is a positive for this.
The subtle yet heavy degradation of those that oppose you is vanity not knowledge. I cannot address all of your comments I have not the time. Work and family are priority. I type slowly due to Dyslexia. I will adress one concern of yours. I am not a feminist. I find genderizing detrimental to progress and evolution. Genders must learn from each other as people must learn. The only seperation must be in personal intimate relations where sexual stimulation takes place. Is it possible that I ask you questions? Your postion on forums is not unique but, it is distinct. Delving into you would be educational.

Pretzle wrote:

After reading your responses to me I decided to visit the other sites you apply to. What a personality. Upon study it is apparent that you are a passive artist of weaker minds. This alone is not bad  ,  it is the information you create that has such potential  in creating a person that can be a mass killer. The fact that you have brought others to you in compliance of your edicts is quite interesting.  To date there is no known crimes that you have claimed through my short research so this is a positive for this.

It's dumb luck, my sweet.

Pretzle wrote:

The subtle yet heavy degradation of those that oppose you is  vanity not knowledge.

Indeed, and therefore something someone like you can take full advantage of.

Pretzle wrote:

I cannot  address all of your comments I have not the time.

Original and simple.
Your time is precious.
Use it for something more productive ....like excusing yourself from reality. 

Pretzle wrote:

Work and family are priority. I type slowly due to Dyslexia.

Excellent usage of humility.

Pretzle wrote:

 I will adress one concern of yours.

One will do.
I am sure we can assume that you can address all of them.

Pretzle wrote:

 I am not a feminist.

Ummm, sorry to say this but this is of no concern to me.
I thought you were going to address something on-point, about evolution and about sexual specialization, but in a very typical manner, you addressed the personal.
So, yes, you leave me unconcerned.

Pretzle wrote:

 I find genderizing detrimental to progress and evolution.

And I find spieciation degrading and troubling ...I also dislike death.

Thanks for trying to play: "What I wish were true" while pretending you are rational.

Pretzle wrote:

Genders must learn from each other as people must learn.

Yes, and ape must learn from lion and negro from European and then we can hug and makeup.

And here's something I've learned form my feminine side and from the females and the effete males I've come across over the years - increasingly so in the last decade:
When confronted with the superior, which you've underestimated, settle back on the emotional, with an air of aloofness feigning reasoning. 


I learn from all aspects of nature. I learn from worms, from apes, from crocodiles, from the wind and the sun, and the birds and the plants.
Still doesn't stop me from devouring them and exploiting them. In fact it helps when I understand their nature and their tactics.

I think it's because I outgrew my naive innocence, sometime after my 30th birthday.

Pretzle wrote:

The only seperation must be in personal intimate relations where sexual stimulation takes place.

Yes, and divergence is a ploy to discover our unity.  A divine test of our spiritual enlightenment.

Like how consciousness is not about detachment finding similarity in the general and the simple.

Pretzle wrote:

Is it possible that I ask you questions? Your postion on forums is not unique but, it is distinct. Delving into you would be educational.

That sounds like a statement, not a question.
But then I have a more primitive understanding of words and questions.

I'll leave you with some questions of my own - these ones not as evasive and coy:

If I were to enter a room full of apes, would telling them about human conceptions be old and not unique?
If I tell a child that Santa is not real, is this old, and not unique?
Would a population of children not have already heard the negative story about the unreality of Santa?
Is traditionalism about what is old or is it fresh and unique and new?
What is unique?

Let me make a prediction:
These questions will also be avoided, because although you have the time to post you have little time to think of a response appropriate for posting.

I am willing to conceded defeat, if you are to explain to me what I asked for before:

How does intelligence evolve?
Why does it evolve, and how, given that it is evenly distributed within a population?

Why perceive at all, if appearances are superficial, dealing only with the physical?

What is the difference between mental and physical potentials, and how do appearances matter in all areas dealing with nature except when it comes to humans?
  
If specialization only affects the body and not the mind, then are all species equal in intelligence and only different in form and color?
If not why? 

Take care, my sweet.

Anfang wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Righto. Lets just lick the finger-tip and raise it to the sky and see which direction the wind blows, and what the meterological department is saying about the weather today, and what colour flower is brushing against me, then depending on my mood and feelings and emotions that particular second, I might bend over or not. Who knows. We'll see when it happens. Principles are after all not advanced re-solutions and scaffolds shaping our character.

Principles shape our character over the long haul. Creating anything doesn't happen instantaneous. Even gravity takes its time to expand its pull in space. Even destruction takes time, although usually much less. In every moment we are in flux, our character isn't precisely defined but we have potential, we have room for different actions, we have a range of options, a range of character. Principles (thinking), similar to formed habits (sensual) will over time tilt our development in a different directions.

But if you ask me about a single moment in time then principles are only a small part. Principles are what shaped me in all the time, my past, coming to that one moment in time - but in that moment, it's not the principles which guide me but the core being which developed (within its limited potential) due to following my habits, my principels,.... . And that core being, as in every moment before, has room, has potential for different ways of expressing itself. How that room of possibilities looks like is depending on the innate temperament of the individual and what that individual has made of his/her potential over the long haul.

I don't know everything about my principles, because part of them are based in my unconscious and only part is conscious - this I know from experience. What I'll do in a particular situation I cannot say precisely because part of the internal figuring is not done consciously. That is, if I haven't experienced the situation at least once, better several times before - so I can only make rough estimations at best.

Hmmm.. is that so?

Tell me Anfang, did you have any Principles when you attacked Mannequin and expressed your Xt. hatred at him for being a party-crasher?
Given your statements and explanations above, can I take it, that at some point in the future, depending on your mood and the situation, you might open your a-- to Mannequin? Can you blame him then for trying his chances with you when its going to come down to how you feel about something at some particular moment?
Tell me, if someone has a gun to your head, would you rather die or take his dick in your mouth?

Give me some rough estimations.

Lyssa wrote:

Tell me Anfang, did you have any Principles when you attacked Mannequin and expressed your Xt. hatred at him for being a party-crasher?

No, I had no principles - see my post which you quoted. But those 'principles' must be Xt. based - whatever that means at the time, right? Why would you assume that the main motivation for my attack (by the way, tell me which post you are refering to, there were a few in that exchange) was him being a party-crasher? - To shorten this here, A main motivation was the question of influence and dominance. I wanted to diminish his dominance because I don't like him in a position of power over me. If he would be someone else or developed in a different direction then I wouldn't mind a stronger influence coming from him.
Is it Xt. to do so? And would be Xt. to do something about a 'party-crasher'? Well if that's what you are saying then call me Xt. all you like. I don't mind your disapproval on this... if there is any.

Quote :

Given your statements and explanations above, can I take it, that at some point in the future, depending on your mood and the situation, you might open your a-- to Mannequin? Can you blame him then for trying his chances with you when its going to come down to how you feel about something at some particular moment?

Yes, sure, you can take it - affirm it all... . How silly of you but if you feel like it then go ahead.
So the chances for that are pretty much zero (If we are talking willingly).
What do you mean, to blame him for trying? Did I complain to the 'authorities' about it?
I don't want - I do something about it.
What kind of moral are you trying to attach to that? Stick on it what you want to see.

Quote :

Tell me, if someone has a gun to your head, would you rather die or take his dick in your mouth?
Give me some rough estimations.

Nope - no estimations for you.
You are a thrill-seeker, aren't you.
Like a bungee-jumper.

I am truly disappointed in Pretzel. 

I was ready and willing to completely change my mind on man issues, turning my world-view on its head, if only she could provide some alternative reasoning, some different explanations, something that can harmonize what I see with what I think.

---Why is appearance not a representation of essence, of nature - if by 'nature' we mean the sum of all past nurturing?

---If it is not so then why do we evolve the senses to perceive, to be aware, to sense? 

---If similarity is our common identity, then why diversity, and why must we detach, as it were, so as to them become aware of how we are one? 
Is there some kind of Divine motive, a ploy, a testing phase? 

---If intelligence is uniformly distributed across a population, or its potential is, then why is it such an advantage and why are some species less or more intelligent than others, or seemingly so?

---If specialization, in any context, does not promote the traits necessary to carry out the reason why it comes about, then how does it evolve and why?

---If environment only affects the body and not the brain/mind, then why doesn't it?
What is mind in relation to body?
Is dualism over or does it still factor into modern thinking?

Lyssa wrote:

Tell me, if someone has a gun to your head, would you rather die or take his dick in your mouth?

Give me some rough estimations.

This reminds me of someone close to me who was in that exact situation and chose the latter - but later promised to fatally stab the person if they ever tried again. They were around 14 at the time and, of course, male. The person perpetrating was their step-father.

Because the person is related, I wonder if it was cowardice, if I carry the same blood. I do. However, how much does blood matter in this regard? The awareness of feminization, the differences between the male and female - how they react with each other. What kind of masculine control does a 14 year old boy have over his feminine nature? It's so near the edge of the maturity of masculine spirit that it confounds me. It is probably why it affects him so readily, too. If he was only 3-4 years younger, there wouldn't be such a serious question about the nature of his spirit - whatever feminine aspects in him were surely strong, to accept and submit, at such a young age. Who would expect a someone 10 or under to accept death over being used in such a way?

Taking what I have from Satyr's views, every male has these aspects to him, a feminine breaking point - it's a matter of exercising that masculine control over the immense fear and desire to give up, give in. There is a coward in all, but intelligence, wisdom and heart is a determining factor in how that emotion is managed.

Part of the reason this concerns me is that I might actually choose to take it over dying right now. The other is that I care about how people perceive me. Who? Well, perhaps too many people. It includes those whom I respect here, though.

Because I think I may choose that now, I wonder if it's an aspect of me I can change - hence the importance of mentioning the masculine control over female aspects. I grew up with a mother telling me to always think of my wife first - a sister telling me I was born a girl. How much of a battle that was for me.. I don't remember, probably because I don't want to. I can only imagine it as very difficult.

I realize the rational end to someone who accepts being cattle, who accepts taking the dick. They're used, constantly but slowly. Humans are one of the rare animals you can farm because of their fear of death, they're also one of the very rare ones you can't because they think longer term than themselves. You can kick a cat or dog but it still won't do your farming or your dishes. You can kick and prod a cow, but it won't produce any faster because of it. But if you beat a man, he may just work faster or become your bitch. Taking death over injustice grants you self-esteem that you won't allow yourself to be treated as an animal, that you did your best. You also insured that your family and all future generations will not suffer the same.

Whether or not people perceive you as masculine, I suppose, isn't actually a problem - it's whether you are or not. If you do something about those slights or 'injustices' against you, then there's something to be said for there.

Here's how I now see what you've said in regards to Anfang, Lyssa. If you give in to the moment, you've let your feminine aspect take over - you might as well be whimsical. This is not an absolute for the situation - that was Xt. thinking on my part. That close someone who was in that situation, promised an end to that person's life had it happened again and it was heeded by him - he never touched him again. Suffering that humiliation, he still kept his spirit - he still preserved his future through a promise to those that would use him.

So maybe, there's no blood aspect involved in my 'willingness' to give in in that moment... Maybe there's a memetic reason. Time will always tell... Perhaps something I've revealed will allow one of you to speed up that process of awareness.

Slaughtz wrote:

Part of the reason this concerns me is that I might actually choose to take it over dying right now. The other is that I care about how people perceive me. Who? Well, perhaps too many people. It includes those whom I respect here, though.

The rational decision is to take it, no? I mean, if you assume that it's not a bluff then you should choose to live, to fight another day and not die at the spot. But... some people are too proud to comply - they are, frankly, stupid, if you think about it. They'll probably die - or was it a bluff after all? There is more than one way to handle such a situation, in a 'masculine' way.

But be aware! - I'm right now telling you what is masculine and what is not - don't take that lightly. You must decide for yourself. People are full of shit - manipulation is a daily event in all our lives.

The proud person is proud not because he's rational but because he can't help it, to be proud. It's his strength and his weakness at the same time. He'll get shot at times - bang, dead. But it's even more than just about himself because by refusing to comply he tilts the world for everybody else as well. If there were only complying sheep running around then it would be easy to farm them. But the odd encounter with something else raises the bar, the costs for the farmer.

Quote :

Here's how I now see what you've said in regards to Anfang, Lyssa. If you give in to the moment, you've let your feminine aspect take over - you might as well be whimsical.

To give in to the moment...
How about taking the moment?

Principles like habits are a useful crutch - once formed they minimize the energy, which is required for making decisions. Routines are energy savers because there is no internal process for figuring things out on the spot.

Aside from where your or my principles come from -
The question I'd ask is - Are you following your own principles? And if you are, what in you is following whose principles? Who or what part created those principles? For whom or what part were those principles created for?

Is it the masculine part which controls, guides the feminine part?
Fine, then let's move to the moment...

In that very moment, which part is in charge?
If it's the feminine part then let's hope that that part has been trained well by your masculine part, so it can follow its principles.
If it's the masculine part which is in charge in that moment, the part which takes over in that situation, then principles aren't followed but that part just acts.

In my experience - a situation can startle you if you weren't prepared. And then you get a grip on your fear - then you grow resistant - then you focus and become assertive inside - then you become assertive on the outside. You control your self in that moment. No principles there for me - at least I don't see them.

It may very well be different for others.


It's all training. Every encounter, even if lost... If there is discontent over the result then there is potential for growth. To become.

Now contributors have to deal with the admitted dual usage of one avatar.  For some reason you both seem to find this amusing.   Why wouldn't people be confused, especially considering you both have the same opinion almost verbatim.  One of you is not thinking for him/herself. Why does it need two people to relay the same opinion, whilst hiding behind the one avatar.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Me in ChatBox, for some real-time debating.

Why not  excusively "You" behind "Your" avatar on this thread for some real-time debating.

Pretzle wrote:

Quote :

Is it possible that I ask you questions?

You may well ask, but it can't be guaranteed you won't get two to answer, under the guise of one.

I look forward to this, hopefully on this thread.