Rape

Arditezza wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Are you a pagan/i.E.?

I subscribe to ideologies that ensure my survival and enjoyment of life, while trying not to harm anyone else spiritually or otherwise.

How do you expect real heroism and heroic cultures without factoring in pain and suffering?

Who's your hero, if any?

Satyr wrote:

Having listened to humans for almost half a century, I can safely say that in comparison to them I am a fuckin EXPERT!!!!

That's the spirit!

Satyr wrote:

Experts on excerpts...

Very nice.

Satyr wrote:

My IQ is 100.
Prove me wrong.

Ok.

Lyssa wrote:

Arditezza wrote:

Above all the power of instinct that runs like a current beneath us and is rarely tapped. The ambition to be the hero.
We have no leaders. We have only politicians.  They are not the same thing.

Every culture has its own kind of hero.

What kind of hero/heroic ideal is yours?  What do you stand for?

A hero is a man who's actions (not just ideologies) inspire, lead, promote and otherwise ensure our livelihood. He is someone with the presence and command to stir up respect, loyalty and allegiance to him in his family, business and community life. He is the one artists paint, on who writers write books and poetry and philosophers hold debates about. He is someone people remember as a powerful influence.

As for me, I am woman. I get the distinct pleasure of being with a man who holds that kind of power. He tends to be more lustful, more trustworthy, and more reliable than any other kind of man. I also respect him as I am also respected for who I am and what my role is and treated like the woman I am because of it.

Lyssa wrote:

How do you expect real heroism and heroic cultures without factoring in pain and suffering?

Who's your hero, if any?  

There is no existence without suffering. It's not possible in any species, we can only hope to do the least amount of harm. There will always be people who suffer, but the goal of a hero is to champion that which causes the least amount and still provides for the people who follow him. It should be the goal of the weak to be a hero, to fight his way to the top so that he has less suffering.  Struggle makes a better man.

In short, you can't expect life without suffering at any level.

If we build a house and many of the bricks are weaker than the others, what happens to that house when it ages?  Despite the strength of the better bricks, the whole thing will topple regardless of how the stronger bricks hold together.

As to your question about my hero.  My hero is the man who leads his family and community honestly. I married the closest hero I could find to that ideal, but we all have flaws.  This one has the least amount of flaws that might weaken him as a man.

Imbesil wrote:

It's currently only metaphysical and based on the logical application to ontological and epistemological fundaments, such as the fact that there is no nothing with which to divide existence, therefore it is continuous. The "subject" is only ever conceivable as the object of conception, and therefore contradicts itself as a concept, and thus its relative opposite "the object" simultaneously loses its relative meaning. Thus in order to impose (as a "subject") an understanding of existence in discrete terms is fundamentally illogical, and one must draw upon other values with which to construct a reality. From this basis, it is then possible to evaluate these different value sets and all the truths that may subsequently emerge.
I propose "experience" as the fundamental substance of existence: the concrete complement to the abstract term. Thus I have titled it "Experientialism" - a play on the synthesis of Existentialism and Essentialism, from which it draws in equal measure.

Is this related to process philosophy? By substance, you mean units of experience?

And regressing this a little, it would mean a belief in the presence of an intelligence/design/consciousness, although I get it, not of the mind-body kind... mind itself as a proto-'experience'?  

Quote :

I would class them as musicians, though not in the instrumental sense but in the Dionysian sense - and with "music" in terms of its derivation from "the Muses". They are a direct agent unto their emotions with any societal facade maximally transparent. Of course there is a degree of Apollonian order to their being, but if I'm honest it's never particularly advanced - though I've not met any where it is.

How does Apollonian order manifest here? - musical sensibility?  

Quote :

This is a Feminism thread, are you a Feminist?

"Discoveries are rare and all the sweeter for their intermittent unveiling."
Are you?

Arditezza wrote:

A hero is a man who's actions (not just ideologies) inspire, lead, promote and otherwise ensure our livelihood.

Ah...not a thinker, but a doer.
Thinking not being an action.

More Napoleon than Goethe.  

Arditezza wrote:

He is someone with the presence and command to stir up respect, loyalty and allegiance to him in his family, business and community life.

So, more inherited charisma than awareness as charisma.

Arditezza wrote:

 He is the one artists paint, on who writers write books and poetry and philosophers hold debates about.  He is someone people remember as a powerful influence.

The total, ideal, package....artist, thinker, doer, warrior, charismatic, tall, dark, handsome, muscular, big dick, good lover, caring, sensitive, humorous...

Would you like a "leap over tall buildings" or can you live without that?

While we're at menus...and you?
What, the fuck, have you to offer that is comparable?
Your twat?
A gaping hole, willing and open for service?

HA!!!

Arditezza wrote:

As for me, I am woman. I get the distinct pleasure of being with a man who holds that kind of power.  He tends to be more lustful, more trustworthy, and more reliable than any other kind of man.  I also respect him as I am also respected for who I am and what my role is and treated like the woman I am because of it.

Know what I want, right now?
A nice, cold, vanilla milkshake...and a gun.
I'm thinking of blowing my brains out.
.

Satyr wrote:

Ah...not a thinker, but a doer.
Thinking not being an action.

More Napoleon than Goethe.  

Goethe wrote. That is an action.

There are plenty of men who think and do not write. Do not open themselves up for debate and/or inspiration. Goethe is as much of a hero as Napoleon and just as flawed. I'm not looking for not flawed. I already stated that.

Satyr wrote:

So, more inherited charisma than awareness as charisma.

No a man knows when he is leading. He inspires himself and that charisma shines through. It is not inherited, but earned through careful consideration as to how to move people to be just as inspired.

Satyr wrote:

The total, ideal, package....artist, thinker, doer, warrior, charismatic, tall, dark, handsome, muscular, big dick, good lover, caring, sensitive, humorous...

Would you like a "leap over tall buildings" or can you live without that?

While we're at menus...and you?
What, the fuck, have you to offer that is comparable?
Your twat?
A gaping hole, willing and open for service?

HA!!!

Not all those things at once, nor in one package. As I have said, all men have short comings, all men have areas in which they excel. The world doesn't need one hero. It needs many of them.

And not just my twat, but it's ability to provide him offspring that he can bring up to be inspired men or women in their own right. To show them that grabbing the brass ring is a noble intention, not one they should be ashamed of. I am particularly good at it, I gave him not one but two sons.

But he also respects me for my own personal strength of character. My ability to keep pace with him on debate topics and my thirst for knowledge. But what he admires most is my compassion for others that drives me to care lovingly for my family and my community members.

Satyr wrote:

Know what I want, right now?
A nice, cold, vanilla milkshake.

Milkshakes are loaded with calories and fat.

Arditezza wrote:

Goethe wrote. That is an action.  

Ah, so thinking and writing it down IS an action.
I gotcha.

Arditezza wrote:

No a man knows when he is leading.  He inspires himself and that charisma shines through.  It is not inherited, but earned through careful consideration as to how to move people to be just as inspired.

I see.
Intriguing.

Arditezza wrote:

And not just my twat, but it's ability to provide him offspring that he can bring up to be inspired men or women in their own right.  To show them that grabbing the brass ring is a noble intention, not one they should be ashamed of.  I am particularly good at it, I gave him not one but two sons.

 

You married a "hero"?!

Satyr wrote:

You married a "hero"?!

Measured against most men, I would say yes.

Are you not someone who inspires others, who has a distinct loyal following, and one who has a wife and child who you lead?

Would they not say the same of you? If not, why not?

Ask your followers.

Good.

I'm only interested in your values.

Christian?

Satyr wrote:

Christian?

Don't insult me.

Religion is a corrupt form of paternalism and just as detestable.

Niiice...

Carry on.

We've had all these conversations before, dear. On many different fora as many different names. Wanderer, Satyr, et al.

Doesn't matter if it's sciforums, ILP, Philosophy forums. We've always been mostly on the same page.

Lyssa wrote:

Is this related to process philosophy? By substance, you mean units of experience?

The primary stage, the establishment of the foundation of continuous experience is not process philosophy. Herein lies the connection with Essentialism. The secondary stage is indeed related to process philosophy, well spotted. Though process philosophy requires a base in order to stand up by itself, and that is what I have provided for it - along with a specific position from which to begin its process.

Lyssa wrote:

And regressing this a little, it would mean a belief in the presence of an intelligence/design/consciousness, although I get it, not of the mind-body kind... mind itself as a proto-'experience'?

Not so much intelligence nor design, but consciousness yes. If you are familiar with him, George Berkeley has been a significant influence in opposition to the traditionally materialistic worldview. I believe that the human understanding of existence precludes the human ability to refer to and conceive of existence. I'm impressed that you seem to get it, I'm hoping that by your inverted commas you mean experience as one commonly understands it today. There is an understanding amongst others that differs from this: that of experience as "one" but also "zero" (because if the whole is "1", there are no relative comparisons from which to grant intellectual meaning - there "just is"). Continuous experience has no boundaries until they are imposed, and it is literally the simplest thing to realise. And from then, by all means impose!

Lyssa wrote:

Imbesil wrote:

I would class them as musicians, though not in the instrumental sense but in the Dionysian sense - and with "music" in terms of its derivation from "the Muses". They are a direct agent unto their emotions with any societal facade maximally transparent. Of course there is a degree of Apollonian order to their being, but if I'm honest it's never particularly advanced - though I've not met any where it is.

How does Apollonian order manifest here? - musical sensibility?

If by sensibility you mean sensitivity, then they have a great deal. Making sense however, that has never been their "forte". The jury is out on such musical sensibility - I was in a relationship with a woman who literally knows a great deal about music, but she lacked significant emotive connection, which was ultimately deeply unattractive. But aside from literal music, I know women who are musical in their mannerisms and self-expression, which is far more precious.

Lyssa wrote:

Imbesil wrote:

This is a Feminism thread, are you a Feminist?

Are you?

No.

You ask a lot of questions. I wonder if you are simply curious and rational, or perhaps do not have much to say about yourself.

Lyssa wrote:

I'll be doing the selecting ; )

What do you select?

Imbesil wrote:

No.

You ask a lot of questions. I wonder if you are simply curious and rational, or perhaps do not have much to say about yourself.

She seems to ask a lot of questions so she better understands where you are coming from because there is either not enough information or you are being muddled/obtuse or otherwise nonsensical. That skill of asking questions to get clarification is a great strength, not a weakness or a personal defect.

Maybe if you listen and learn to ask questions, you can form a better argument and get better results from the debate. She's asking them more for your benefit than hers, I think. That way you can both learn.

Arditezza wrote:

She seems to ask a lot of questions so she better understands where you are coming from because there is either not enough information or you are being muddled/obtuse or otherwise nonsensical. That skill of asking questions to get clarification is a great strength, not a weakness or a personal defect.

Maybe if you listen and learn to ask questions, you can form a better argument and get better results from the debate. She's asking them more for your benefit than hers, I think. That way you can both learn.

If so then my apologies! She need only say.

Perhaps you are reared up on account of contributing to this inhospitable forum. They're a lot tamer than you think once you learn their behaviours. I entirely agree with questions as a personal strength, and also answers as a personal strength. I entirely welcome questions for my benefit as well as the questioner's. I feel flat if I am not progressing, and moreso if others around me are not also.

Imbesil wrote:

Perhaps you are reared up on account of contributing to this inhospitable forum. They're a lot tamer than you think once you learn their behaviours.

Translation:
They are not as I first thought, and many others still think.
If you do not declare yourself a "genius", with a high IQ, begging to have your arse ripped apart, and you are not a moron modern nihilist, thinking that you make sense and that you know what you are talking about, and if you remain honest, you will be tolerated.

If not....you best go away.
It will not be pretty.

Satyr wrote:

Translation:
They are not as I first thought, and many others still think.
If you do not declare yourself a "genius", with a high IQ, begging to have your arse ripped apart, and you remain honest, you will be tolerated.

If not....you best go away.
It will not be pretty.

Dude, I've known you guys for far longer than you would like to admit. I can't care to be tolerated or otherwise, I'm here to gain what I wonder that I might gain, if anything. Sometimes I'm wrong. But my ass will be fine, thanks for caring.

Imbesil wrote:

Arditezza wrote:

She seems to ask a lot of questions so she better understands where you are coming from because there is either not enough information or you are being muddled/obtuse or otherwise nonsensical. That skill of asking questions to get clarification is a great strength, not a weakness or a personal defect.

Maybe if you listen and learn to ask questions, you can form a better argument and get better results from the debate. She's asking them more for your benefit than hers, I think. That way you can both learn.

If so then my apologies! She need only say.

Perhaps you are reared up on account of contributing to this inhospitable forum. They're a lot tamer than you think once you learn their behaviours. I entirely agree with questions as a personal strength, and also answers as a personal strength. I entirely welcome questions for my benefit as well as the questioner's. I feel flat if I am not progressing, and moreso if others around me are not also.

A misunderstanding I think. I came here precisely because they are inhospitable and aggressive. It's a sign of a greater intelligence and intellectual honesty. How else does one question their morals and virtues to whittle out the crap and get on more solid ground? I wish I had come here sooner.

Arditezza wrote:

Perhaps you are reared up on account of contributing to this inhospitable forum. They're a lot tamer than you think once you learn their behaviours. I entirely agree with questions as a personal strength, and also answers as a personal strength. I entirely welcome questions for my benefit as well as the questioner's. I feel flat if I am not progressing, and moreso if others around me are not also.

A misunderstanding I think.  I came here precisely because they are inhospitable and aggressive.  It's a sign of a greater intelligence and intellectual honesty. How else does one question their morals and virtues to whittle out the crap and get on more solid ground?  I wish I had come here sooner.

And you stayed in sciforums?
For how long?

After the fag Paul took over, that place went to the toilet.
He's a brain-dead, fag....full of post-modern, politically-correct, mythological needs.
A forum reflects its administrator.

Look at ILP: a den of dimwits.
Is Carleas any better?

Arditezza wrote:

A misunderstanding I think.  I came here precisely because they are inhospitable and aggressive.  It's a sign of a greater intelligence and intellectual honesty. How else does one question their morals and virtues to whittle out the crap and get on more solid ground?  I wish I had come here sooner.

Oh absolutely. As soon as you have only enough energy to mix with those who agree with you, the sooner you are intellectually dead.

But intelligence is indicated through more than just voracious confrontation. Honesty though, yes - to relish and productively respond to intellectual diversity is intellectual life! You will most certainly meet confrontation here, and in some cases prosper. I hope you find what you are looking for.

Satyr wrote:

And you stayed in sciforums?
For how long?

After the fag Paul took over, that place went to the toilet.
He's a brain-dead, fag....full of post-modern, politically-correct, mythological needs.
A forum reflects its administrator.

Look at ILP: a den of dimwits.
Is Carleas any better?

I'm not sure if I ever joined sciforums.
I've not posted in ILP for 11 months.

I'm sorry you didn't get what you needed from those guys, but yes, a forum reflects its administrator. I've revisited here - perhaps that means something? Perhaps not.

Get what?

I went there to find specimens.
I found exactly that.
I wanted to toy with the bugs.
The big-daddy didn't want me to.

I was expected to take the abuse, but not respond.
They thought I was some nerd, who would shirk away from conflict when they dished it out...then they realized I was Satyr, a differenrt creature...and I could ripped them to shreds. Then they went running to the admin, who was more than happy to use it as an excuse to humble me...and slap their wrists.

Back, before Paul took over sciforums, that place was a blast.
After that brain-dead, fag, took over...it became, like him, dull, stupid, and average.

Imbesil wrote:

My bad, so you did. Though I took "at will" to mean whenever they feel like it - so I thought it was relevant to point out that they probably wouldn't feel like it any more or less if the law was changed or removed. As I understand it, rape is an irrational compulsion - not one that can be calculated with all the risks weighed up. If it happens, it would have happened regardless of law. Unlike with murder, sexual arousal isn't something you plan - you can kill without relying on any biological processes.

But if you were in fact meaning "wanting to rape" when you said "raping at will" then like I said, the law isn't even a factor if the desire is there. If someone is already committed to the act through wanting it, the law won't stop them, only the intended victim and/or any other parties that might be against the idea.

Murder can also be an irrational compulsion, in the cases of crimes of passion/rage. The law understands that sometimes our animal selves may take control of us for a moment and cause things that we would otherwise prefer not to do, and applies an amount of leniency to the punishment, as it clears the accused of the aggravating aspect of criminal intent or premeditation. Naturally those situations are very difficult to prove in a court, but sometimes they are obvious enough to grant a not guilty verdict.

Interestingly, the law does not seem to give equal weigh to being sexually teased as an excuse for temporary insanity as it does to having suffered a great injustice/loss of honor.
It also seems to understand that rape is less about sexual arousal than it is about teaching a woman a lesson. I'll leave that to the scholars, or to those to whom violence comes more naturally than it does to me.

Quote :

Concerning provocation, I stand by the sense that I make of female behaviour, which is that they often want to provoke the male response ONLY up to but not including touching and interfering, including the use of threatening words or actions. On the occasions where they have not been able to appropriate their provocation in line with the male's restraint, then yes they have been naive, but no they did not have it comin' nor did they want it (highly retarded / a deliberate troll for Satyr to imply otherwise).

You can call me troll or retarded if you wish to, but I think that such naiveté is reckless, and reckless actions bare consequences. That is not to say that they deserve to be raped, or that raping reckless women is ok, but it is important for people to know that it is best to not be in a dangerous situation at all than to be in one expecting that someone or something will protect them.

Quote :

Nietzsche gets a bad name from all the people who take his words flatteringly, justifying their "ressentiment" as wanting to take a philosophical hammer to the world and create new tables in line with their own "noble" values. Plenty of that here.

Indeed, and nice choice of words, tehehe.

Satyr wrote:

Back, before Paul took over sciforums, that place was a blast.

JamesR

Right...James R.
Have you seen him?
No need...he looks exactly like he sounds.

yeah

Satyr wrote:

And you stayed in sciforums?
For how long?

After the fag Paul took over, that place went to the toilet.
He's a brain-dead, fag....full of post-modern, politically-correct, mythological needs.
A forum reflects its administrator.

Look at ILP: a den of dimwits.
Is Carleas any better?

Stay is the wrong term. I visited from time to time to test theories but found almost no answers save for a few posts from a very select few.

I don't know whether I would call Paul names as I generally don't pick on the weak, but the general practice of only supporting regurgitated force-fed Kantian misinterpretations got old quick. Outlaws were to be hung and deviant thinkers hooded and shipped to Cuba. Bleh.

My stays at ILP and Sciforums have all been temporary and infrequent.  I was banned from one of them for standing up to Porfiry.

As for JamesR. He's not a bad poster, but as a mod I think he's in a bad position. There would have to be a gutting of everything and nearly everyone to make that forum reasonably good. He's had a few posts that have made me think about things, but as a mod he abuses power too much.

Satyr wrote:

Back, before Paul took over sciforums, that place was a blast.
After that brain-dead, fag, took over...it became, like him, dull, stupid, and average.

Sounds like a shame. A familiar shame that rings true in more than just forums, if your interests span to those areas as I'm sure they do to some extent.

This is devolution (not in the sense of anti-evolution, but devolving responsibility to smaller units). What do you think about that prospect? I am in favour so long as strong people push their own agenda to counter the dull status quo, even if it remains only minor in its presence. That seems to me to be democracy in action.

I don't think you're developing if you're merely trying to find confirmations to your current beliefs - not to say that they ought to change. But how are you supposed to improve if you are only out there to find more of the same? Unless of course you only aim to teach a static vision. If it's a good vision then good - so long as good is *that* good. Ripping to shreds is indispensibly important and I would never take that away from you - perhaps that retains more importance than I might impulsively grant.

My motive is to seed minds with idea(l)s that contradict the present Judeo-Christian, secular humanist, Marxist, Liberal, dis-eased nihilism.

I am conducting a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and, outside of that, I am raising my son, and having fun reading, writing, exercising, cooking, staring into space, pleasuring myself, and enjoying nature.
The rest is meaningless drivel.

If I lower myself to the level of those I combat it is because I know that to fight against a foe - a brain-less, needy, desperate, zombie one, in this case - you must get into the mud, with the feces, where swine live, hoping to find some gem in the slop.
My style, as Satyr, is adapted for this work.
I've been called this, and that, and the other thing.
Do you know how many times I've been declared defeated, by every Tom, Dick and Harry out there?
Dozens.
And, after every time, they come looking....pretending to not be interested.
It's a joke.
Who, the fuck, cares?
I deal in ideas and ideals.
I fight to preserve Indo-European Aryanism.  

True, that seeding involves chance.
You cast the seeds to the wind, and you do not know what shit it will fall upon.
From time to time, and more often than not, I attract the  clueless fanatic; the man-child with no daddy looking for something to guide him; the motherly female who comes here to save my soul; the desperate boy wanting a direction to find happiness, and a girl to fuck... and so on...

But that's to be expected.
A writer's work has a life of its own when he finishes it and publishes it, making it accessible to every sick fuck, out there.