Forums

Does this urge to flap your mouth like a duck's ass explain your involuntary reaction of whipping out your penis to impress bystanders. When it's all hanging out or up do you flap it around and give it a voice to talk to its victims?

Don't worry, your bitch will come barking to your side, but I'd still like to hear it from you, Zoot.

On the contrary,

A pea-brained twit quickly runs out of things to say when talking at length. If you wrote more than a few sentences then I'm certain you'd bore everybody here into a coma. Have you ever said anything interesting? Have you ever had a thought, of your own, last longer than a paragraph?

You see how easy this is for me? It's nothing for me. I only wish my mind wouldn't so quickly run circles around pea-brains like yours. Every once in awhile I again feel the urge for a challenge, somebody worth engaging.....Satyr is tired and repetitive. But, you have to work with what you got, yes?

Yes.

The mouth corresponds to the other organs.

@Aeon
You can run your mouth all you want, but your time has quickly run out.

Until then, you better learn how to outrun.

Let's admit the obvious, for now.

Some people have superior, higher quality, objectively "better" minds than others. It's the difference between wanting somebody to speak or remain silent. How many thinkers, here, have something worthwhile to say? Then, how many can furthermore express these ideas in a suitable manner? Does an individual want conflict and disagreement? Does he want solution and agreement? What is he intent of the idea?

Ideas have multiple angles, sides, and dimensions. There is the intent of the individual, the mind producing the memes. There is the idea-itself, the "objective" thought of its own accord. But then the idea at least needs an environment, a collective, a context. These are three primary sides to an idea, all necessary.


Whose empty mind needs to be filled up by my productions? Where are the thirsty minds? So thirsty and parched, dying for wisdom?


Where, the fuck, are you, Philosophers???

Hrodeberto wrote:

@Aeon
You can run your mouth all you want, but your time has quickly run out.

Until then, you better learn how to outrun.

Thank you for proving my point.

That's fine for you admit your pea-brain is empty, and incapable of thinking. Not every human has the genetics for it. You will live a life having others think for you....

I'm not opposed to that. Nor do I condone your choices.

You keep repeating your self-proclaimed greatness and the urge to copulate.

Attacking a person physically, instead of mentally using reason, already admits to everybody the degree and severity of your own mental weakness.

It basically admits to everybody that you are a mind-slave, incapable of defending your unguarded, virgin brain. Philosophy is masculine and male; because you'll get mind-fucked over, and over, and over again. Without mental defenses, you are an "eternal victim" of thinkers.

Even if a philosopher is destroyed physically, the ideas still persist, still live within memories, and the ideas are undestroyed.

Many people, with weak-minds, or simply mindless, have no choice but to be ideological and mental victims of such "manhandling".


Mind control.

You reason with others in proportion to their reasonibility.

Hrodeberto wrote:

You reason with others in proportion to their reasonibility.

Very good, Roberto!


I need to remember to be softer with children and soft minds. I'll need to buy you children a drink at the bar before I take you to my house and bedroom and rough you up on my bed mattress.......

Sounds like rap about how rich one is yet living in da hood.

Quote :

Does this urge to flap your mouth like a duck's ass explain your involuntary reaction of whipping out your penis to impress bystanders.

The desire to solicit hostile and aggressive invective from forum members is a schadenfreudean pleasure I have always enjoyed.

The second premise is misguided; impressing bystanders was never the end-goal of my exhibitionism. And, even if it was, there is nothing extraordinarily impressive about my johnson. Impressive, yes, but not extraordinarily. I mean my johnson is not so awesome that one would think one should go around showing it to people or at least start a blog about it.

Ah, so that's how it works: when someone defends and counters he is the instigator.

I have no idea in this madened and inverted world what is wrong with you disfigured, dismembered, disembodied, disemboweled, disempowered, dissociated, dishonest, displeasing and disgusting people.

Well, sir, I wasn't going to tell you but my plan backfired, so I went with it and pretended like I was trying to unnerve you on purpose.

In fact, I wasn't picking on the erudite nature of your writing and am actually impressed with your vocabulary (wish I had it...I'd be a beast, bruh).

All better now?

FC wrote:

He fascinates, that is abundantly clear. That might be what keeps him going - the phenomenon "fascination", in all its forms, be he subject or object or bystander.

That's funny, what a projection; its something I or anyone and in fact even you would say about yourself as a pure spectacle. "Spectacular"… "thrown across," from dia- "across, through" + ballein "to throw""

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

One would have to open in full the folds of the japanese fan and follow the full "spectrum" thrown across, to be-hold the spectacle, the great red dragon...
Aren't you fascinated with yourself, Actor? And those bearing powerful images?

Its you, not him, on the seductive path of 'will a self, and thou fill find it' - in-venting relies on scaffolds and artifice and seducing yourself to yourself. Discovery un-earths the trails of the real.

Speaking a with A, and b with B, and c with C - this bridge-building through the "concern with image" is truly your trait, not his. Satyr adapts, but does not adopt.

Quote :

Satyr is very much drawn to the axis of self-undoing and surrender, the gutter of life where also the most unbound joys are found.

The axis of self-undoing is also the heroic Odysseus moving as Outis. Follow.

Quote :

Every alcoholic and drug addict will recognize something in Satyr, but it will be something he likes, because it represents something to fall back on, something not every drug addict knows can be permanent. The man has little taste for what is not in this spectrum, it seems, but within this area it is hard to find someone so committed to it, and so consistently reflecting or expressing it.

Any axis attracts the lowest to the highest - that says nothing at all; every rune gives a reverse reading.

If you are affirming the lowest he attracts for his highest manifestation, I would rather you speak for the highest you have attracted so far… who have you drawn?

Every lowlife Xt. will recognize something in you, and they do. Who could look away from the spectacle of being promised everyone can experience the glad tidings? N. is being disqualified for not being resonant to a "moral universe"?! Is this his hamartia? His remaining a small boy clueless of the 'true' existential burden? lolz x 3
Xt. as the 'progress' and 'improvement', an intensification of the Greek subjectivity is the kind You draw and are drawn to.

You speak of Satyr's affiliation to the axis of surrender - when its you, who is mesmerized and paralyzed before the "unfathomable powers of jesus" and the "inexhaustible well of Xt."
Is he the one who can't move out of his spectrum, or you, who can't climb out of Her shadow?

Didnt you say you resigned yourself to whatever was at hand in the face of shitty pro-spects the world was coming to? Its animal vigour when you do it, but not him when he attacks low-lives and says what they are to their face?

Truth is always fascinating, and even when those in the sewage are repelled by their own face(t)s that Satyr mirrors, they are drawn to that which rings true in themselves. An Outis, a mirror has no faces… the most self-undone is what reflects the best…

I dont see Satyr backing off from answering any questions - how in the gutters one must live to be such a self-undoing nakedly honest person?! You, who's asked me to not question you on anything, and dodged even the one question I asked you, you tell me!!

Incest is so in these days. (pun intended)

li'l infant Erik should just go suckle his mother and be done with his agitation. The Greeks did everything,, we can always use them to justify anything… no worries.

Didn't this moron say, he would have nothing to do with KT?
No resolve. tsk tsk
The moron cant keep his word, and he wants to keep his (s)word…?!!

Why I will disagree with Ecce here. Boys were initiated through discipline before being given swords.
A 15 yr. old who plays with swords with no understanding of discipline, and uses it for posing his "beauty" like a cosmetic accessory will only grow up to be a hypermasculine effete ass.

The eunuch li'l erik, is proof.

Hrodeberto wrote:

Don't worry, your bitch will come barking to your side, but I'd still like to hear it from you, Zoot.

Who are you calling bitch?

@Lyssa

I wouldn't speak about a Kamerad or Freund with such mannerisms.

Æon wrote:

I come for Philosophy.

And if none is present nor presented for me; then I am obligated to present it to others.

While it's true that I used to seek a "female philosopher", that reflected my younger self and romantic idealism.  My faith in females is diminished.  Whereas I used to have hope and yearn for the mystical "intellectual" or half-way "smart" female, I see there are none.  Therefore, it is no different for me to spend effort pursuing a pussy on an internet forum, than it is for me to spend a few dollars to buy a drink at a local bar.

These fools on these internet websites and forums are NOT special, as I used to believe they were, females especially.


I always wanted to be proved wrong, about "female philosophers".  Now I know reality.  I know the difference between what is merely REAL versus what is IDEAL.

I know about creation and procreation.  I know that some creatures need to be created, and cannot exist in the present or in the past, only in the future.

This is Evolution.

There are female philosophers, they just communicate in a different way than you do.

Think of a female and how she has to act in this life, and follow my thought process here.  She must hide her intellect because displaying it openly and challenging the male rules will mark her as an abomination to the men who call themselves philosophers.  It's not that she cannot live and function in their world, it's that she cannot be heard.  If exposed as a woman, she is already considered to be a master manipulator and playing at something instead of attempting to work through thoughts and theories on her own.

She does what she has to do to work it out, and then tests it on the masses.  She writes books, works of fiction, works that allow people to walk with her instead of fighting their instinct to ignore her.  She takes them on a journey to explore within themselves, and then watches the aftermath.  This is the only way she can put her theories into practice. She doesn't start a conversation with the people, she watches them make the journey on their own.

If there were open female philosophers (and there have been) they were all ostracized.  They learned to write veiled theories instead, to varying degrees of success and failure. Some of those philosophers are the most read books in our history and have changed the world, good and bad. I am not saying I agree with them, but take a look at Ayn Rand, Margaret Atwood, Iris Murdoch, Ursula Le Guin, and others.

Pay particular attention to Iris Murdoch, she tried both ways and even wrote a whole book on how works of literature have moved philosophy forward more than any other media source at least up until the advent of TV.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Who are you calling bitch?

I believe he was referring to aeon there, madam Lysvatsky.

Zoot Allures wrote:

Well, sir, I wasn't going to tell you but my plan backfired, so I went with it and pretended like I was trying to unnerve you on purpose.

Can't unnerve the nervous, nervending.

Quote :

All better now?

Not yet, Mother: you'd have to kiss the ochie. The prescribed therapeutic which works ineffably everytime.

Roberto was projecting, he has no clue about the history of forum dwellers around here. New names need to be tested and thrust through the fire. They need their petulant, child minds tested. If they begin to crack under such small, slight pressure, then what hope can they have when the real (mental) challenges begin? With the advent of globalization, and a global civilization, stresses of any kind are becoming rarer everyday. So instead stresses become artificial, like weightlifting, or modern sports to mimic warfare and military rituals.

Philosophy is an exercise of the mind, an artificial stress.

If there were still wild environments, or world warfare, then minds would be put to the test against nature or an opposing army.


Roberto, and For Tuna, probably wouldn't pass the test....

Arditezza wrote:

There are female philosophers, they just communicate in a different way than you do.

Think of a female and how she has to act in this life, and follow my thought process here.  She must hide her intellect because displaying it openly and challenging the male rules will mark her as an abomination to the men who call themselves philosophers.  It's not that she cannot live and function in their world, it's that she cannot be heard.  If exposed as a woman, she is already considered to be a master manipulator and playing at something instead of attempting to work through thoughts and theories on her own.

She does what she has to do to work it out, and then tests it on the masses.  She writes books, works of fiction, works that allow people to walk with her instead of fighting their instinct to ignore her.  She takes them on a journey to explore within themselves, and then watches the aftermath.  This is the only way she can put her theories into practice. She doesn't start a conversation with the people, she watches them make the journey on their own.

If there were open female philosophers (and there have been) they were all ostracized.  They learned to write veiled theories instead, to varying degrees of success and failure. Some of those philosophers are the most read books in our history and have changed the world, good and bad. I am not saying I agree with them, but take a look at Ayn Rand, Margaret Atwood, Iris Murdoch, Ursula Le Guin, and others.

Pay particular attention to Iris Murdoch, she tried both ways and even wrote a whole book on how works of literature have moved philosophy forward more than any other media source at least up until the advent of TV.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It becomes redundant and predictable hearing the same arguments for the 10th time, from the 10th different stranger.

Here's some parts of my definition of philosophy: Exploration of Existence. Females, for whatever reason, value security & safety, confined within society and civilization, instead of living in the wild, where there is true risk, threat, death, suffering, and pain. Females instinctively create shield upon shield, to guard yourselves from "the wild". As such, it is the female's instinct to build civilization and society automatically. Thus her genes compel her not to expose herself, needlessly, nor to survive new averse conditions through the compulsion of exploration alone.

Thus the rule of Existence Explorer falls upon men and males.


What you already admitted to is the "exploration of self", which may or may not be important. It certainly is in a globalized, socialized context. But that is politics, not philosophy.,,,

You would not survive a day in any conflict outside your sheltered autistic bubble.

OhFortunae wrote:

You would not survive a day in any conflict outside your sheltered autistic bubble.

You are projecting

I'd say as a rule of thumb people who didn't actively engage in combat as children, brutal stuff just for fun, do not have it in them.

I think so. Every boy should at some point between the ages of nine and twelve win and lose at least one fight. The former gives him a taste of the feeling of victory and the latter, a taste of humility. Out of this comes a realistic balance of expectations for oneself as the boy matures. He grows up as a confident person who also knows he isn't indestructible.

Warfare is relegated, controlled, and suppressed today. There is no all-out warfare just as all-out hand-to-hand fighting is suppressed. Even in MMA fighting, there are referees and rules. Humanity has self-preservation instincts, and on a social level as well. The "rules and laws" prevent people from dying who normally would "in the wild" and without laws.

Simply put, there is very little need for people to die, despite this forum's stance on eugenics and culling the herd. There are already natural compulsions in place for human culling. As human populations continue to expand, eventually breaking points will be met.

Despite the fact of male expendability, doesn't mean males are sacrificed willy nilly and without warrant.

Angry little autist, you cannot hide it, your bubble gives the smell of rot.