Nature is Female; Artifice is Male.

Great, male = order, now explain yourself using reason, dipshit.

You're wasting my time.


I can make a lot of declarations.

grapefruit = order
oxygen = order
timepiece = chaos
umbrella = chaos

See, dipshit? It means nothing. You have to explain yourself and your values, or I will do it for you.

Retard, everyone values security and everyone values freedom and everyone values order and nobody values insecurity and nobody values unfreedom and nobody values chaos. You are doing nothing but bungling concepts.

Why is male order and not disorder? Because masculine spirit is characterized by MEMORY. Men do not forget, they organize their memories. Man is loyal, man builds, man is depth, man values tradition, man accumulates, man preserves, man values continuity, man has "tunnel vision".

Why is female disorder and not order? Because feminine spirit is characterized bu FORGETFULNESS. Women do not organize memories, they simply forget them. Woman is disloyal, woman transforms, woman is appearance, woman values fashion, woman squanders, woman destroys, woman values originality, woman "thinks out of the box".

Why is masculine spirit attracted to ordered societies? Because his instinct of self-preservation is pretty strong, because he wants to preserve himself and his kind, because he is farsighted. He values mental integrity (truthfulness) far above else.

Why is feminine spirit attracted to disordered societies? Because her instinct of self-preservation is weak, because she wants to avoid death at every cost, because she is shortsighted. She values her heart, brain, kidneys, liver and lungs far above else (including her mental integrity / truthfulness.)

Get it, fagot?

This shit is so banal it's amazing to me I have to explain it to you using more than one or two words.

Æon wrote:

I already explained this.  Female is ordered insofar that the female gender clings to security, not freedom.  Females are scared of freedom, and devalue freedom.  Freedom is antithetical to the female gender.  This is why young males take potentially fatal risks, in order to impress young females.

If you have to take risks (not to mention potentially fatal lol) in order to impress young ladies, if you have to put ANY effort in impressing young ladies, you are worth shit. You heard it right: you are worth jackshit. Healthy men need not move a finger to impress young ladies: their life task does it for them. No worthy female wants a one-trick pony, and besides that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain such a relationship for a very long time. To engage in such a behavior is to admit that you are desperate and ashamed of who you REALLY are (i.e. nobody.)

Which is why you're placing so much emphasis on competition: because the uncertainty of the outcome allows you to bypass the reality that you are and will remain a nobody. For even if you "win" you will remain what you were before, and that is nobody.

People take risks not because they are "competitive" but because they want to preserve themselves. I am certainly not trying to compete with anyone, I am simply trying to take care of myself. I am engaging with you not because I am competitive or because I want to challenge you, but quite simply because I want to be surrounded by healthy people.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Retard, everyone values security and everyone values freedom

No, wrong, child.

Security and freedom are opposite values, opposing directions/goals/ideals.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Because masculine spirit is characterized by MEMORY. Men do not forget, they organize their memories. Man is loyal, man builds, man is depth, man values tradition, man accumulates, man preserves, man values continuity, man has "tunnel vision".

Incorrect, females are the organisms which focus on memorization. Females have better memories on average than males. Because the female gender role is to accept, without doubt, the prevalent codes, laws, standards, and orders of any particular era. This is the mechanism of modernity, in which females reinforce the status quo.

Child.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Why is female disorder and not order? Because feminine spirit is characterized bu FORGETFULNESS. Women do not organize memories, they simply forget them. Woman is disloyal, woman transforms, woman is appearance, woman values fashion, woman squanders, woman destroys, woman values originality, woman "thinks out of the box".

You are abstracting. You must remark on which specific types of memories you're speaking of.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Why is masculine spirit attracted to ordered societies? Because his instinct of self-preservation is pretty strong, because he wants to preserve himself and his kind, because he is farsighted. He values mental integrity (truthfulness) far above else.

You mean, females, are attracted to ordered societies.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Why is feminine spirit attracted to disordered societies? Because her instinct of self-preservation is weak, because she wants to avoid death at every cost, because she is shortsighted. She values her heart, brain, kidneys, liver and lungs far above else (including her mental integrity / truthfulness.)

The two concepts are not correlated to each other. An ordered society compensates for forgetfulness and a chaotic mind. Females don't need to think, because the institutions think for them.

Get it, child???

You should pay me for wasting my time. Consider yourself in debt.

It is often said that self-preservation is antithetical to risk-taking, but this is wrong: in all self-preservation, and preservation in general, there is some sort of risk-taking involved. The problem is that the concept of (self-)preservation is not well understood.

To preserve something means to guard something and to self-preserve means to guard oneself. To guard oneself means to guard that which belongs to one. Depending on the meaning that is assigned to the word "self-preservation", and in particular to the word "self", this oneself can mean one's body but it may also mean posessions that exist outside of one's body (such as, for example, one's family, one's house, one's car, etc.) Here, we're only interested in one's body, so self-preservation is taken to mean guarding one's body.

A body consists of a multiplicity of organs meaning that guarding one's body means guarding its organs. These organs, however, aren't equal: some organs are more valuable than others. This means that guarding one's organs in equal measure is not a good idea. This introduces guarding strategy: one has to determine the rank of organs and guard them in accordance with this rank. And this is where risk-taking acquires its meaning: an organ with a strong guard is said to be protected whereas an organ with a weak guard is said to be exposed to risk (i.e. it's more likely to be destroyed.) What this means is that EVERYONE engages in some sort of risk-taking, the only thing that differs is what they risk.

It is usually said that slaves are dominated by the instinct of self-preservation, but this can't be farther from truth: their instinct of self-preservation is so weak they are utterly incapable of guarding the most important part of one's body that is psychological health. In the case of slaves, it is psychological health that is at constant risk, whereas the best preserved organs are the so-called vital organs. In other words, slaves sacrifice their psychological health in order to remain alive. On the other hand, masters prioritize psychological health whereas vital organs have a lower level of priority.

Psychological health is maintained through a process of self-control which is nothing but a process of organizing one's memories. A man who controls himself has a very strong memory, whereas a man who is not in control of himself is forgetful and prone to self-deception. To be in control of yourself means to act with all of your memories in mind, without forgetting, cherry-picking, falsifying and denying some of them -- it means to stay LOYAL to yourself. On the other hand, to  lack self-control means to act without all of your memories in mind, it means that you are prone to, or forced into, forgetting yourself, that you are prone to cherry-picking, falsifying and denying your memories -- it means to BETRAY yourself.

Ever wondered why submission is so frowned upon? Because a man who submits risks losing his memory -- he risks forgetting himself. That, however, does not mean that submission is bad per se: there are many times when it's desirable to submit to another. But in order to successfully submit to another you must have a strong memory, you must have a will that is strong enough -- you have to know HOW to submit.

You can see the aforementioned betrayal at work when that Laughing Moron retard decides to go to work despite his body screaming into his face that it does not want him to go to work. By ignoring these signals Laughing Moron ends up forgetting himself -- he ends up losing control over his life. But since his memory isn't too weak, the forgotten memories begin to invade his consciousness as soon as he gets back home. However, his memory is never restored in its entirety: at the same time as he recalls his forgotten memories he ends up forgetting some of the other memories, meaning that, he only ever manages to shift between different threads and never really manages to get hold of all of his memories. This is what leads to his shiftiness and this is what makes him resent himself and his job and the society within which he lives: he's a coward incapable of taking the tiniest risk by quitting the goddamn job so that he can better understand what his body is trying to tell him and use that knowledge to find a job that converges with his long-term goals (if he can find a job -- there is no guarantee he will find one.)

Risking one's life is not a sufficient condition for nobility: one can risk one's life without prioritizing one's psychological health.

Quote :

Security and freedom are opposite values, opposing directions/goals/ideals.

They aren't, fuckface.

Quote :

Incorrect, females are the organisms which focus on memorization. Females have better memories on average than males. Because the female gender role is to accept, without doubt, the prevalent codes, laws, standards, and orders of any particular era. This is the mechanism of modernity, in which females reinforce the status quo.

You define females as something that is opposite to you, but what is really opposite to you is male, not female. You are a female, fagot.

Quote :

You are abstracting. You must remark on which specific types of memories you're speaking of.

"I am abstracting" lol. Whatever that means. You should learn to ask questions. What's unclear to you? I am willing to train your tiny little fagot brain, but you have to tell me what you fail to understand.

Quote :

You mean, females, are attracted to ordered societies.

Females aren't attracted to ordered societies, they are attracted to liberal societies, which are disordered societies (the word "liberal" gives it away: something that lacks self-control.)

Quote :

You should pay me for wasting my time. Consider yourself in debt.

None of my concern. You should learn how to utilize your time. Take me for example: I consider you to be pretty dumb, and yet, I still profit from interacting with you (in the same way scientists profit from interacting with their lab rats.)

Magnus Anderson wrote:

They aren't, fuckface.

They are, my retarded child.

An organism cannot both be secure and free at the same moment. Freedom involves risk taking and bearing the burden of consequences. Security protects children, like yourself, from the negative consequences of risky behavior. For example, like saving a teenager from overdosing on drugs, instead of letting her die. Or bailing out banks who use their prime interest rates to gamble on future commodity trading.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

What's unclear to you?

Nothing that you're aware of, my retarded child. I do not expect knowledge, intelligence, nor wisdom from you. Why would I? I expect little or nothing from a dipshit.

You add nothing to my thread, only subtract and take away. You can't even stay on topic, demonstrating to me your lack of focus and self discipline. You are ignoble, mud blood, peasant.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Females aren't attracted to ordered societies, they are attracted to liberal societies, which are disordered societies (the word "liberal" gives it away: something that lacks self-control.)

My stupid, stupid child, listen.

Liberalism is the result of an excessively ordered society, too much order, too much security. Do you understand, dipshit, or do I need to use smaller sentences and words???

Liberalism = too much order. Understand yet? Let me repeat, I know retards like you need to hear it a hundred times.
Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order. Liberalism = too much order.

You get it yet? Probably not, my retarded child. However, I forgive your ignorance. You are a commoner.




Now, address the topic of this thread in your next response, concerning nature and artifice, male and female, or you will be permanently ignored until the day you die.

Æon wrote:

A male is "bad and evil", by society, if he divorces from society, and disobeys society.

I personally wouldn't say bad or evil, but his misanthropy and inability to remain emotionally stable when in society at large, are probably a manifestation of one component of a multitude that add up to the real problem, which altogether we call Narcissism, which like any Narcissism would be a consequence of having had an emotionally neglectful, withdrawn, father, or none present at all, combined with a severely narcissistic mother, be it overt or covert narcissism. Basically an inordinate lack of self-worth, that's what's at the heart of capital N narcissism, regardless of how grandiose, superior, or "tough" the narcissist manages to make themselves appear to ignorant others. Such a person's deep-seated insecurity is made obvious by their tendency toward trying to dominate others in one or more of the following ways:
1) Emotionally (eg getting the other worked up and then telling them that they're upset and to calm down, or that they're being mean in reacting defensively to what in reality is emotional abuse)
2) Intellectually (information overload, "facile intelligence", a very common manifestation of the Narc...so common that even a severely Narc woman who is very physically attractive will try mightily to come off an intellectual, despite the fact that for such a Narc it is completely unnecessary to meet their underlying need...there we see the autopilot that is indicative of a true mental disorder)
3) Seduction, another way to dominate the other
Mendham, Molyneux, a lot of the career atheists and feminists and countless others, on youtube, are all just crushed souls- crushed due to fatherlessness, now in adult form, using adult-level language and other adult-level expression which inadvertently serves as camouflage to the simple underlying reality of lonely child, acting out of desperation, to maintain any sense of self-worth they can (because, due to their narcissism, can't connect with people generally in the real, become unbearable)...the Internet becoming the life support system, a virtually endless source of narcissistic supply.

You are a funny little idiot.

Quote :

Freedom involves risk taking and bearing the burden of consequences.

I already explained this: everyone takes risk, the difference lies in what they risk. For example, slaves risk their psychological health (they become dumber in order to stay alive) whereas masters risk their vital organs, and with them their lives (they die in order to protect their control over themselves.)

But you are too dumb to understand what I'm saying and too vain to admit that you understand jackshit. But it's okay, I forgive you.

Quote :

You can't even stay on topic

You have a very funny definition of "staying on topic". Everything that utterly vaporizes every single mind-numbing word you churn out of your smelly little crater that you call your asshole is said to be "off-topic". Clear demonstration of a shut-in mentally-stunted child-fagot trying to protect his stupidity.

Quote :

demonstrating to me your lack of focus and self discipline

Well, it is you who asked whether civilization is more masculine or more feminine and it is you asked for a definition of self-control. What's off-topic about that, retard?

Quote :

You are ignoble, mud blood, peasant.

I wonder how many times do you have to repeat this in order to start believing in it?

Quote :

Liberalism is the result of an excessively ordered society

There is no such a thing as "excessive order", shithead. You are bungling concepts because your analytical skills are almost non-existent.

An ordered society would be one that is homogeneous and liberalism is everything but homogeneous.

Fucking imbecile.

I already said this: a strong person does not want freedom, he quite literally wants unfreedom.

A strong person wants to burden himself (to tense the bow) whereas a weak person -- a slave -- wants to get rid of the burden (to relax the bow.) Which makes sense: slaves are masochists i.e. people who are exhausting themselves in order to stay alive. They take too much burden in order to stay alive and when you take too much burden it is inevitable that you will develop a hatred for every kind of burden at some point in time. Hence their obsession with weekends, holidays and other kinds of freedoms. They work in order relax, whereas masters relax in order to work.

But let's put that aside and train our sights on the following gem.

Quote :

[F]emales are the organisms which focus on memorization. Females have better memories on average than males. Because the female gender role is to accept, without doubt, the prevalent codes, laws, standards, and orders of any particular era.

If it is true that females are the organisms which focus on memorization of codes, laws, standards and order of any particular era -- and it is indeed true -- then it appears that my claim that females are forgetful is wrong.

But there is no contradiction whatsoever here, only an appearance of contradiction which allows hysterical little dudes such as Aeon to grab the opportunity to quickly and easily dismiss the vast possibility space of what I'm trying to say in order to protect their pet theories.

Females memorize in order to forget. By stuffing one's brain with external thoughts/memories one manages to suppress one's own thoughts/memories. The problem is that females are incapable of organizing their thoughts/memories, they experience quite a discomfort when they try to do so, which is why they seek means to forget, and submission is one of the most effective means to do so. By ingesting other people's thoughts/memories they achieve temporary order of mind which, in reality, is not an order at all, but a disorder appearing to be order.

Very simple stuff.

Oh I see now, my retarded child...

You erroneously presumed that since I asked about self-control, that I was asking you, as if you were in a position of intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom, compared to me. You made a mistake out of ignorance. My questions are always hypothetical. I have dozens of answers prepared, to my own questions. Because long ago I realized that I produce both superior questions and answers to everybody else on this planet. So to your retorts, they are uninspiring.

What do you know of self control and self discipline, what do you know of order, compared to me? Very little


Earlier I asked the questions out of interest to this idea of "self knowledge, self consciousness, self discipline, and self control". It is very solipsistic thinking, introverted and autistic. Retarded, which I'm certain you empathize with.

Let's consider a simple fact, to begin. How can individuals come to be in such a state of immense self reflection? It is civilization. Civilization provides security and excess comforts such that retarded children, such as yourself, stay cocooned forever within an eternal state of infancy, rather than maturing from one stage of life to the next step. Modern civilizations reject growth, maturity, and wisdom. At least this is true in the context of u.s. non culture and general western hedonism and decadence.

Taking you as my example, what do you propose? Your over emphasis on "self control" reminds me of a narcissist, who stares in the mirror her whole life. She is "self obsessed". Selfish, not selfless. Here is my personal philosophy "Balance in All Things". So like her, you are self obsessed. You look only inward, introverted, and are autistic. You don't look outward. You don't have balance, as I do.


So when I ask about "self control", self this, self that, blah blah blah, I'm speaking to a more general point. Earlier in this thread, the point was made that females or males have this sense of "self control". Well this cannot make sense except to take gender out of context. And this is where you've become lost, and struggle to respond with a simple coherent, or relevant response to this thread.

"Self control" means nothing, as an individual, and isolated from an environment. Instead the point needs to be made about a male or female is "self controlling". I mentioned this point already, to those very, very rare few people who actually take the time to read my threads. In fact, there maybe just one or two, ever, who read my threads and actually understand them. Taking you as my example again, it seems you are lost inside your own head, rather than truly making an effort to understand what I've already laid out rather simplistically and clearly.

Here is what I said:

"A female's self-control revolves around her diet, and suppression of her appetite," which creates the dichotomy between thin sexy beautiful girls, and fat obese slobs, which I'm sure you prefer the second group.

I haven't made a point yet about male self-control. But it is of minor interest anyway, since this thread is about nature and artifice, and gender.

Which you'll ignore, since you're retarded. You can't even stay on topic, can you?

Here is my delicious, delectable fruit of wisdom:

Quote :

You can see why now, obviously, that a female who denies her hunger, who controls her diet, who neglects food, and remains thin in the face of abundant resources, is..........an exceptional female. She is denying her own instinct as a female. Because the female type is one that acquires power through eating, absorption, integrating all else into her through her stomach.

However, my retarded child, you may not quote me. Surely you will have my ideas stuck inside your empty skull, but, do not dare repeat or quote anything I say or write, without explicit permission. And if you refuse to ask permission first, then you owe me far too much. You're in debt, to my exuberant, overflowing wisdom.

You are building a mountain of debt. You owe me wisdom, my retarded child.

So much gibberish to make up for the fact you are an utter imbecile.

I expected less from you, dipshit.

Well, if you want to, I can continue bludgeoning you to death, for I am a tireless person, but the problem is that I already produced so much damage to your brain it's barely fun anymore.

The problem is that you're not responding to what I'm saying but to the voice inside of your head that is saying that Magnus Anderson is penetrating the fuck out of your bum. And since you cannot stand such a thought, such a possibility, since being vain you're incapable of admitting defeat, you are forced to deny it by utilizing hallucinations of all sorts.

Take this for example:

Quote :

"Self control" means nothing, as an individual, and isolated from an environment.

Quote :

You look only inward, introverted, and are autistic. You don't look outward.

You made this up in order to be able to attack me. If you were to see what I'm really saying, you'd have no opportunity to attack me.

There is nothing that is isolated from environment, mental integrity included. It is absurd to claim otherwise. I never said that mental integrity is separate from its environment. You should read that post where I talk about Laughing Moron going to work to see that I do not see mental integrity as separate from the environment.

Then you say something like this:

Quote :

Your over emphasis on "self control" reminds me of a narcissist, who stares in the mirror her whole life. She is "self obsessed".

Ignoring the fact that narcissists lack self-control. But how can you know this when you yourself are a narcissist?

See here:

Quote :

Because long ago I realized that I produce both superior questions and answers to everybody else on this planet. So to your retorts, they are uninspiring.

Quote :

What do you know of self control and self discipline, what do you know of order, compared to me? Very little

Quote :

You don't have balance, as I do.

Empty statements the goal of which is nothing but to make yourself feel good about yourself.

Then you say:

Quote :

Here is my personal philosophy "Balance in All Things".

Which I already made fun of by explaining that the balance solution is a solution adopted by retards who are incapable of ranking their options. It's like saying that you should eat crocks of shit in order to balance your diet. Remember fagot: self-control is ALWAYS better than no self-control, just as healthy foods are ALWAYS better than unhealthy foods.

And the fact that you know absolutely nothing about self-control is proven in the following statement of yours:

Quote :

A female's self-control revolves around her diet, and suppression of her appetite

. . . by failing to realize that self-control and suppression are not one and the same thing. Suppression can be both divergent and convergent, and in the case of females, it is almost always divergent, meaning, it is not really self-control, but a lack of self-control.

But your vanity does not allow you to understand what I'm saying.

When all is said and done it's clear you are doing nothing but rambling.

What is healthy food to one organism can be fatally poisonous to another, dipshit.

Try again.

And next time, actually make my brain do some work. I want a real challenge, not some pussy bitch who goes off topic blathering about "self control" when she clearly lacks it herself. At least practice what you preach.

Now put your pinky in my back pocket. You're my bitch.

Quote :

What is healthy food to one organism can be fatally poisonous to another, dipshit.

Yes, moron, which proves what? Which proves that you are a moron who no longer knows what he's talking about.

A healthy food for one organism is healthy food for that organism and unhealthy food for that organism is unhealthy food for that organism. Just how much I have raped your brain when you can no longer say anything that doesn't sound utterly imbecilic?

At this point you are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself with your failed attempts at posturing.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

A healthy food for one organism is healthy food for that organism and unhealthy food for that organism is unhealthy food for that organism.

This is your petulant solipsism on proud display, my retarded, cocooned child. Notice the self referencing and using oneself as an standard for....what? For a value. Health not relative from one organism to the next, but health relative to itself.

There is not "health" relative to self, understand, my retarded child? No, you don't. Why would you? Because some ideas and concepts are for noble minds, not for peasants. You cannot fathom what standards, therefore values, are. Values and standards are relative between individuals, organisms, groups, and societies. Like I said before, what is healthy to one, is not necessarily healthy to another. Therefore there is no standard of "health" except the one you are presuming, without testing.

"Me healthy!"

Wow, your reason and brain is astounding, so impressive, my retarded child! Do you have anything more to say, before I wipe the drool away from your mouth? You know, when your mother and I learned that you were going to be born with down syndrome, I argued ferociously to have you aborted. You owe your life to your mother. If I had my way, your retardation wouldn't be a problem here, and you certainly wouldn't be wasting my time.

Health is a value. And again, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Which I remind any other reader, is about nature, artifice, and gender.


I would make a complaint to the owners of this forum, but, they apply rules selectively. They claim that morons like yourself will be punished for derailing topics and going off course, but, fail to enforce these rules when a blatant violation occurs. So I may as well violate all the other areas of your body and mind which you previously thought were private and I didn't know about. Time for a cold probe to discover new areas that you didn't know you had within you.

My retarded, stupid, ignorant child. My disgrace.

The more I press you the more your mental illness comes to the foreground.

Health has to do with the topic, moron, because I am trying to explain to you that order is always better than diisorder just as health is always better than sickness. The reason you think I am straying away from the topic is quite simply because you lack reading comprehension skills and are thus utterly incapable of parsing what I am saying.

"Always better than", this is only true as an abstraction, not grounded in reality. You're speaking of ideals, not the real.

And your ideals are off topic. You don't even seem to know what order is.

The mentally ill fagot is utterly incapable of realizing that his remark that healthy/unhealthy is relative to the individual (he's going to call this solipsism lol) is completely irrelevant and that he's merely making a fool of himself by stringing together a very long series of ridiculous misinterpretations and narcissistic celebrations.

The point, you imbecile with zero reading comprehension skills, is that what is healthy to one is always better than what is unhealthy to one. THAT WAS MY POINT. Can you grasp something as simple as that, you mentally stunted child-fagot?

Æon wrote:

"Always better than", this is only true as an abstraction, not grounded in reality.  You're speaking of ideals, not the real.

Orly? So health is not always better than sickness? And that fact is not fact at all, i.e. it's not real, it's merely an ideal? And ideals are supposedly unreal?

Jesus fucking Christ today. You have no clue what you're talking about.

In the universe that is interconnected (and only such universe can exist) everything is real and nothing is unreal. Unreal things are IMPERCEPTIBLE because they are DISCONNECTED from the universe. In the everyday use, however, concepts of real and unreal are used to describe a relation between two real phenomena. A real phenomenon is said to be unreal if it does not have the full list of consequences that the real phenomenon that is said to be real does.

So what does it mean that ideals are unreal, you braindead imbecile? It simply means that you want to believe that ideals are DISCONNECTED from the universe i.e. that they cannot be objectively compared, that there is no rank between them. That's all it means. And then you call me a solipsist?

Only a mentally ill fagot can claim that sickness is sometimes better than health.

My retarded child,

"what is healthy to one is always better than what is unhealthy to one"

This demonstrates your solipsism. I hope that you are not older than 10 years old.

Æon wrote:

Females value security over freedom. While males need freedom. Freedom is a need for males, since maleness is automatically rejected and expulsed from society. Society is a collection of individual males and females, but society requires female subsistence and participation. A group of all males, no females, is technically not a "society" at all. A society requires at least one female, one woman.

Really? Well...I'm not so sure about that. Personally, I don't see it that way. I like to have my own space, where I can freely express myself and be autonomous without someone feeling compelled to watch over me. And how, exactly, is it that a society requires a female?