Forums

Sil-Da-Dil-Doh sounds more like an insult, but might I suggest "Dildouette"? - with or without the u.

Quote :

Still, we never banned any of these members. Not even when some returned with guises, and indulged in Satyr bashing, or attacked other members.
We love attack, if it remains on-point and uses arguments. All insults are permitted, if substance is included, or if a special threat is created, in the appropriate section, dedicated only to that.

Before you start to worry that I will start making my own threads again, let me assure you I don't intend on posting outside of threads where I've been addressed, nor will I create another account here should this one be banned; it is tiresome. I asked you questions before you banned my previous account, that you left unanswered. Firstly, I have a new question; why do surround yourself with sycophants?

As for you and your lackeys' vague criticisms of me, why not make one of substance?

I'll make it easy for you:

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

The key to the alpha male perception is imposition. Impose your beliefs relentlessly and loudly; those who object will migrate, and those who are attracted will join. One can "biologise" here and infer that the most assertive agent expresses the highest health, as evidenced by relentless energy levels and capacity towards self-expression. The like-minded in this respect are defined by whether they are attracted to other like-minds or whether others are attracted to them. Stubbornness and obsession will win here over value and utility, because the former cannot be faultered yet the latter can. The attracted are thereby beta, friends of each other and the alpha.

As far as stubbornness and obsession go, Satyr, you succeed. Your vast wordcounts and relentless insults secure your self-professed status. Now let us consider that over which you are alpha.

I regard this forum as a haven of catharsis. Depending on your definition of philosophy, or to be less grandiose and more accurate: one's subjective tastes, here you will find a place to hate (the enemy) and contend (with them). Yes, this is an aspect of "the real" - who would deny the existence of group dynamics and ultimate origination of all behaviour being in the inner layers of the brain? We are animal and have something more than just an affiliation with the basal and primal - it has ensured our position and continuation as a species, it is an undeniable part of all of us.

I can do other things to release my energy and impose myself upon the world. The basal and primal weren't founded on the internet, they grew hand in glove with much more physical past-times. I like these past-times. When I come onto the internet, am not coming for catharsis and hatred. I am coming to the internet to pursue lines of thought that I cannot cultivate offline with people who I just happen to come across, tied to my life merely through the mundane rather than something more selective. In respect of this, ILP offers much more tastily pompous and lofty reward than here. I'm not where I am on the internet for a social life that I cannot achieve offline, I am where I can be intellectually stimulated, and whilst this place has value for exploring less fettered behaviours, I'm already well versed in such things. Stupid rules and the opportunity for analysis of how normal real people work offers so much more, as exemplified by ILP. Understanding such ways and learning the ins and outs just seems so much more useful.

I'm sorry, I'm just not really interested in you or this place.

Satyr wrote:

Thanks for your psychological expositions.

You are very welcome.

I'm surprised that you included the example of "how well you feel" in your commentary about quantity over quality - on a scale of 1 to 10? I don't regard feelings as quite so quantifiable, instead I count them far above anything quantifiable. My point was more along the lines of quantity not mattering if the quality is not enhanced by it. In which case, I gather from what you have to say about quality vs. quantity, that you would be in agreement with me. Though I don't think you want to be.

Satyr wrote:

That you find the repetition of everyday truisms inspirational, and interesting, only shows what you call quality.

Finding something fascinating and useful does not necessitate the discovery of intellectual quality.

Satyr wrote:

Maj is a dear, no.
Another ex-mensa member.
Birds of a feather...

I believe her excuses ran more along the lines of being unable to qualify for Mensa due to her mental state. This seems like the whole point, but I suppose that she prefers the idea of effective membership as opposed to actual. I also suspect that you don't truly judge us as similar.

Satyr wrote:

Watching those sheeple discuss the ubermench, all macho muscled domination and all, or trying to figure out why men and women are promiscuous, using some kind of psychosis to explain it, is excruciating.

And yet you cannot tear yourself away from the show?

If you were listening, my point was that we are dissimilar: you come here to vent, I don't come here because I vent offline. I don't come here because I cannot tear myself away, I come here because I prefer things that are straightened out. I divined you as a devotee of disharmony, so I already knew I would not achieve any such goal here, though I admit I am somewhat slave to my compulsions to pursue the seemingly impossible. I have nothing to hide about myself, I will even reveal myself more than others will feel comfortable with if it serves me. You may be interested to know that genuine honesty about oneself stabs far deeper than a front of threat and conditional disapproval. I never said I was uninterested in you, but merely how my interest in you and this forum is not really that great. Read back if you doubt me. I actually said "this place has value for exploring less fettered behaviours", but that ILP has more to offer in demonstrating the behaviours of the real world (which ironically you profess to engage more whilst rejecting it). No, you are far too honest for reality, which you mistake for reality. Honesty is easy - learning to honestly negotiate the real world is far more challenging. Don't make the same mistake twice, of taking the engagement with reality as the assessment of quality. For quality, I have myself.

As usual, our encounters tend to end with you exhibiting the exact same behaviours with which I attributed to you. Continue with me or don't, play on.

If you've both got all that out of your system let's proceed to substance. Firstly, since I supposedly have the idea of nihilism so wrong, please explain it to me.

Now for some questions for whomever wishes to respond.

Why would one who has managed to understand Satyr's ideas more quickly than others have more merit in the minds of those here? Nihilism is a mimetic sickness that most born in modern society are inflicted with, Satyr admits that he too was once afflicted with it. But, he found his way out with the help of many of the esteemed authors he lists in the introduction to TFOM. Is Satyr completely ineffective at curing nihilism (or unwilling) or have others here come as nihilist and stayed to be respected members, if so some examples and links would be appreciated? Basically I'm asking if there's any measure of intelligence you believe you can discern among those still inflicted with nihilism?

Satyr agreed that those descendants from Northern Europe have the most potential. But, he also says repeatedly that others may also have such potential, but rarely; Mediterraneans or Asians, for example. So if one here was of Mediterranean blood or Asian blood, and believed that they have as much potential as those directly descended from northern Europe, would it or would it not be defacing nonetheless for them to associate with such ideas about northern Europeans?

Finally a couple mundane questions to end this session. In Primal's thread on nihilism (the one where I supposedly showed how ignorant I was on the subject) as well as some of his other poorly thought out threads, I predicted exactly what his standing with this community would soon become. So were others here oblivious to the signs or were they keeping those thoughts to themselves?

Anfang

So my problem is that I speak in terms of absolutes? Could you find me a link on this site where someone has spoken of another who is only partially nihilistic or where the subject of the transitional period has even been discussed?

Satyr wrote:

The average is where the mediocre mind thrives.
He needs the bullshit all the time.
It's all around him, every day, but he needs to have it everywhere, at all time, so as to believe that it is more universal than it truly is.

So you did choose to make the same mistake twice. This wasn't unexpected.

Imagine having the opportunity to speak of things I could/dare not? Is there some form of existence where this opportunity does not exist?

Satyr wrote:

I searched for a single post that would display that professed intellect, and I found nothing.

This is interesting because I have similarly attempted to become acquainted with your contributions to both forums, and emerged equally disappointed. What are we to conclude? (I know what you will conclude so you need not answer that). You sell a style, not philosophical quality: a pent-up urge to counter others by calling them nihilists. I don't believe you have contributed a single thing to philosophy, from what I have witnessed.

Of this forum's clientele, I believe there is only one poster who suggests potential, and his name is Anfang.

In closing, I feel obligated to do you the courtesy of informing you that pussy-farts do not smell.

Satyr wrote:

ImbeSIL wrote:

Imagine having the opportunity to speak of things I could/dare not? Is there some form of existence where this opportunity does not exist?

Yes.

Well that was supposed to be rhetorical, though I will give you the benefit of the doubt as having mis-read me. You're saying that some people do not have the choice to speak of certain things? I say people always have the option. Always.

But that is nothing more than Sartre. I assumed you had read/thought of at least the very basics of existentialism...

Seeing as your posts have run out of content by this point, shall we leave it here? Unless you feel the need for repetition, of course.

Ask me anything.. but make it brief, I loath verbosity.

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

Apaosha

Above, I believe I asked some succinct question related to memetic/genetic potential and nihilism, they weren't answered on the premise that they are gossip; I reject that premise, and I reject the notion that gossip doesn't belong within this thread; it is filled with it. The questions will stand should anyone want to go their own way and take the risk of providing an answer to them, and my invitation to others to ask of me any questions they want; in whatever context they wish to ask them, also stands. Your or Satyr's permission is surely not required for others to make up there own mind on the issue of responding to me.

There is a joke of yours about the dungeon; I finally must address this. No one of dignity would post there if they're account is restricted to it, unless they are doing so ironically, such as d63 or Ty. With my posts as FM I too was being ironic, I'm sorry you did not read, understand nor appreciate them.

Nonetheless, I respect such magnanimity to let this new account wonder these hallowed hallways unimpeded, even if the pressure is far and beyond what would be expected; pressure is not a problem.

Unless further addressed in these threads, I won't return until I have something that easily would meet the unnatural and disproportion standards you suggest; something of length and depth, that delves right into the issues most discussed on this forum, perhaps in a month or two. I will be sorely disappointed if it is disregarded.

Anfang wrote:

What joy it is for a woman to try and sow the seeds of discord.
Though it's a good idea to blind and dazzle the targets first.
They must be unsuspecting, which means that the woman must, at least, be within range of the target in the area of intelligence and cunning. Part of it can be compensated by a woman's charming ways. It also takes time, this requires either patience or an enjoyment of the game itself.

All valid advice for anyone trying to "sow the seeds of discord".
I gain nothing from attempting to pit two people together in an environment entirely constituted by people being against something or other. My display of discretion was simply intended to prove I am beyond a lifetime of teenage angst, actually being able to see the positive and grounds for praise without worrying that I might lose my competitive edge. I do not fear like Sad-tear.

Naturally, all that was seen was an attempt to compete - I see you are more at home here than I had previously supposed (though that does not negate the sense of genuine intelligence that I got from you, amongst a gang of superfluous "better than average" ones, and a lack of need to insult at every opportunity in order to make up for lack of content). But still, everything is a veil for something else here, so desperate is the need to boast secret and superior knowledge - anything to put "the enemy" down in revenge for their rejecting you from reality. "I didn't want it anyway because I've discovered a realer reality beneath their false reality that shows they are weak and I am strong". Did you now? How quaint. Shame it's nothing more than resentment and circle-jerk therapy to help maintain the facade. Actual real world plans anyone? Something that might actually engage reality in more than just words, to shape it in your own image? No?

Sad-tear. If you really want to impress me, you can point me in the direction of something positive and creative of yours - something that is not simply a reaction to (or a "study of" as you like to put it) others who you just plain don't like. I can't guarantee it will hold my attention if it's just another monolithic block of words to hide any potential content like usual, but I will make the effort.

Now this is a reply with which I can engage. Thank you, Anfang.

Anfang wrote:

Are you saying that your comment about me was not, at least to some extent, intended to bring about some discord? Because, if so, then I think you avoid to recognize some aspects of yourself or... you have no respect for me. I can't tell because I don't know you that well.

A third option would be that you were not thoughtful and didn't realize the potential effects of your comment - I don't think so. So it's either that you are not aware of certain aspects of yourself or you just tried to get away with it. Not being aware would then be just a mechanism to keep your own self-preception untarnished.

A satisfyingly thorough analysis, though I regret to inform you that my comment was mostly disregarding of the possibility of creating discord. I am sure that the possibility would have crossed my mind, but alas my memories are sullied by hindsight. In which case I am at least partially guilty of disrespecting you or being intentionally ignorant, for which I apologise. Shamelessly regardless of these possibilities, I maintain that I meant only to demonstrate honest discretion.

This confronts us with the possibility of lying to oneself either to protect oneself, or the lying to oneself out of disinterest, or at least out of playfulness, knowing of the consequences yet disregarding of them. I fancifully and self-flatteringly regard myself as someone less caring though daring enough to happen to land upon the consequences of denying my responsibilities, and playingly seeing them through out of curiosity.

Anfang wrote:

To put "an enemy" down makes him stronger (or breaks him). So a 'cunning' person would make them weaker by telling them some comforting things to make them take it easy.

If you crush your enemy then you make room for a new threat to develop. If you make your enemy weak and keep him alive then you have an easy living. Eventually you and the enemy get weaker over time because any form of challenge has been removed.

I am reminded of the cat. I love cats, I am a cat man. The cat of course finishes the job after enjoying the play before the execution. Your avatar ought to be less dragon, less wolverine and more feline. Just a suggestion, abiding by which I would approve - and if not then I might.

Having had the misfortune to witness the afore-gone and embarrassing cat-fight, right here on KT, I find myself spiralling into a dark doubt concerning my womanhood. I do not think I could ever match such a brazen display. My cause is lost and even my love of cats is knocked. Whatever shall I do, oh diviners of inverted identity? Please attribute me with some other senseless and misappropriated label so that I may again feed your opinion of the world as it is not - so as to feign venerate your resentful lowliness  

Satyr wrote:

But do not open you thesaurus yet, for the internet will be taken over by the hoards of anarchy, and no words can save us then.
Words will not be enough.

Hope for the end of your enemies due to a greater force than yourself acting on your behalf, allowing for a Pyhrric kind of revenge - afterall, where would you be without your wearying walls of words? At least on some level you recognise your real impotence to achieve your Heaven on earth. Yes I know your type, closet Xtian.

Satyr wrote:

The Nazis were, in fact, socialists, of a particular sort.

There is such strength in a simplistic black-and-white world of neat boxes, isn't there? Understanding, knowledge and wisdom are no match for reckless, stubborn myopia and forceful ignorance. If it doesn't fit, for your God's sake, MAKE it fit at all costs. Push and push and push and you might even fool a small section of the marketplace, causing them to surround you and give you the validation that the greater and more powerful world denied you. Know Thyself. I shed a Sad-tear for you, oh pitiful one  

Anfang wrote:

The charm of a librarian...

Not meaning to give so much away about my coy-mistress self, but I believe my starsign is polar opposite to libra. But don't fret, one's first unassisted judgment of this sort is at least correct one twelth of the time. I much prefer to openly expose my self often and easily (not that one can help such action in the company of any who are fluent in matters of the human heart). I find the reaction to such behaviour as my own to be all the evidence one could ever need in judging the worth of other judgers. This of course is intended to apply to myself in equal measure.

Anfang wrote:

I like cats too. There are differences among them though. The domesticated ones, who have all the shelter and food and play and attention they could ever want tend to get very priggish. They are grateful for someone to draw the line from time to time, someone to set and enforce the rules. Pussy-cats...

I cannot say I'm familiar with the priggish feline personality. The only cats I have known do whatever they wish when they like, except when it comes to me who seems to consistently win them around. Cats have an amazing and uncompromising sense of worth. I value the same attribute in humans though am much less frequently impressed. Humans tend to be much more responsive to bones that I throw - just to see what they do. There is no doubt that I do wish to be impressed, because this means the discovery of a potential challenge. There is nothing in my life, in my opinion, like a challenge.

To your moderating Sa(n)dman, I am afraid that I continue to find myself lulled to sleep by your fantastical bedtime stories. Indeed one of the drawbacks of throwing bones is that dogs compulsively return for more. Needless to say, I continue to find myself uninterested by your eternally recurring regurgitations. As a closing gift to you, I offer you the opportunity to revisit your trauma of being rejected - may you find peace with it if and when that becomes what you wish.

Anfang wrote:

And here I am - betting on that one in twelve chance.

All credit to you, despite your loss. It's healthy to be reminded of the feeling of losing, else playing to win loses its thrill.

Anfang wrote:

That's okay, early impressions often don't correlate with the starsign. Check the rest of your horoscope if you are interested in that.

I'm not but thank you for your invitation.

Anfang wrote:

The talk of coyness reminded me of that archetype. In social settings, a very strategically thinking type, a plotter. And the librarian looked nice too.

Not such a bad divination afterall then. As predicted, you easily supersede your local comrades when it comes to psychologising - it may actually be interesting to see how you take it further, should you choose to do so.

Anfang wrote:

Changing the rules of sexual intercourse has a vast impact on all social dynamics.

No doubt, though a look beyond life most familiar to humans will reveal that specific sex (or lack thereof) is somewhat incidental in your hierarchy (as applicable as it may be to cats). The ranking of male over female or vice versa matters very little except to the individuals involved - assuming sexual dimorphism, which does not appear to be necessary for a species to become powerful (much to the collective dismay of KT clientele). Even humans have very limited sexual dimorphism, and our greatest threat seems to be small and asexual. The resulting mixtures of various social dynamics make for a more interesting picture, I find. The rejection of the simplistic superficial boxing of "male vs. female" will not make me popular here but this is of no consequence. Archetypes are of much less interest to me than networks.

Lyssa wrote:

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

Where did you get those pictures?

Anfang wrote:

It's definitely not a full picture. But from your approval, I take it that those qualities I ascribed to you do flatter you. And again, flattery plus sowing discord. By now I think this comes to you as natural as breathing.

Yes, I take them flatteringly. I regard the qualities of "very strategic thinking" and "plotting" as flattering. I want to be these things, so when described as such, I am pleased. Flattery. But does that make them wrong judgments?
As for sowing discord, what discord is that? If we are all so intelligent as to have second-guessed the sowing of discord then no such discord is created. From what I see, we are all here attuned to the possible discord that my sentiments may sow, such as to avoid such discord. So there are only two possibilities to deduce: that I am too stupid to have not predicted such a reaction, or I foresaw such a possibility and therefore could not have expected to sow any discord. As a very stratetic thinker/plotter, I ask: which do you think is the case? Either you must retract your judgment of my intent, or you must retract your judgment that I am indeed a strategic thinker/plotter.

Which is it?

Anfang wrote:

Ranking in what? Sexual differences are a form of specialization which evolved in pretty much all more complex species. If we were a form of bacteria then sexual dimorphism would probably not be the case. The human species evolved in this environment which is also co-inhabited by other organisms. I don't know how you define powerful but humans were powerful enough to develop in this environment and thrive up to this point.

So which is more important? Being complex or being powerful? If the former, then are we to denounce the importance of reality and which beats what, or we are to accept that power exists irrespectively of complexity.

You are wise to question how I define power before judging me, you impress once more. Such reserve your counterparts do not possess (discord or honesty?). No doubt humans rule, we really do. But we are not above threat. As I said before, and as you have picked up on, the smaller life-forms seem to really fuck us up - though undoubtedly there is definitely a significant amount of control we have over them. Perhaps complexity, or at least the human level of complexity is optimal afterall... for now. I am excited about the future.

Anfang wrote:

I think showing your 'love' for other species is still illegal in most countries. In that hazy blur of sameness such accidents can happen.

You couldn't resist that last little bit of insult, huh? You are a product of your environment afterall, or at least the product of having selected a compatible environment. Be who you will, though I will suggest that insult does little to enhance your argument - unless you have something to teach me...

Satyr wrote:

My new [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], 'cause ILP is really getting dull.

Let's see if I can generate some traffic.

"I wish to openly declare my status as a god-like entity.
I have achieved what no one has ever achieved in the history of man:
I know Everything...I have a Theory of Everything....."

  

Satyr, is there any chance that you'll publish your map of the universe, so we can stop guessing?

Satyr wrote:

I'll think about it.
As a God I have other things on my mind.
Like smoking pot and biatches...and listening to my RAP music....I'm gangsta.

A nice little hottie is coming over son to clean my overman pipes.  

Satyr's RAP:

me, me, me, look at me, look how great I am, look at how many bitches/shorties/hoes I fuck,, my car, my jewellery/bling, my house/crib...blah, blah...


This is a hit!

Satyr wrote:

I am one of those few rare ones....because I am an alpha-male and...an overman.

Here's some guy from Germany trying to explain what 'Übermensch' means:

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

I just got a PM on ILP from Stuart trying to get me to come back to ILoveGossipAndInaneAntiPhilosophy.com with some more of the same bullshit that made me want to leave.
Thought I'd check out this place to help try and figure out where the hell it came from. Seems like he's fabricating some new stupid rumour to waste everyone's time with, that I have other accounts.

How retarded do you have to be to think I'm either insightfoul, one of the shittest thinkers I've ever had the misfortune to encounter, or eyes, who lives on the other side of the fucking world and nowadays just fritters away his time scurrying around in rabbit-holes of conspiracy theory and anti-semitism?

I know none of you care, nor should you, but I have *some* pride and refuse to be lumped in with the unworthy. I'm Silhouette and only Silhouette over there and only Imbecil over here.
Should be obvious enough. Just wanted to clear that up.

Satyr wrote:

When one is guided by a desire to connect with his past - to Know Thyself - in other words to know his nature, to follow his memetic and genetic line as far back as he possibly can, to find an identity there, by accepting this, then he is not detaching, as moderns do, but attaching.
He does not stay there, but improves upon the given.
Knowledge of the past, nature, and not rejecting it, alters the form and the plausibility of the projected ideal. It connects it to the real and so makes it realistic...the opposite of fantastic, supernatural.

Instead of the Jewish version of AI, there could be a form of AI that has all of one's heritage within it. The obvious example would be the old idea of uploading one's brain and other aspects of ones physiology onto an advanced system of computers and other electronics. If done correctly, the latter form could enhance rather than amputate. It could know itself and it's origins, including it's genetic origins through those who made it. While obviously no longer helping to improve the genetic lines of its creators, it could improve upon its memtic origins.

Is this possible?

Satyr, based on your avocation of Heisman's work I mistakenly assumed you took the more immediate prospect of AI as more than fantasy.

Lyssa wrote:

Knowing is Not uploading Data.

Charting a genealogy tree on your computer is Not the natural drive of our being that selects, rejects, discriminates, emphasizes, de-emphasizes - the shape forming process... a Willing.
It is neither intelligence nor storage.

I'm still not convinced that the some form of transition away from the biological can't be rationalized. But, being that I find the idea abhorrent, I'm satisfied to put my doubts aside for now.

That argument helps; several people who all have high opinions of each other working in a comfortable setting making this AI, couldn't help make one with no internal pressures nor drive worth mentioning and therefore no degree of consciousness worth mentioning. Yet it its still conceivable that an AI could be made in an adversarial environment. It may then have an advanced consciousness, the question would be if it would have a modern mind. It would assuming that it's unprecedented origins must necessarily equate to unnatural origins; I'm not convinced that they would.

Satyr wrote:

Evolution is a reaction to stress.
No stress, no growth.
Natural selection: adapt or die.

One of the reasons why oscillating fans are used with indoor plant grow operations is to apply pressure on the plant in the form of "wind", doing this allows the plant's stem to grow stronger and more stable.

I guess this applies in auctions too when the auctioneers use the speed of their voice to increase anxiety influencing a quick reaction resulting in a sale.

Satyr wrote:

Instead of honoring man you want to escape man through a mechanism?
An escape through artificiality?

To know and shine the light of scrutiny on my fears and fantastical notions, I assume the role of their advocate.

Back to ilp..

I now find the analogy of pressure to be useful.

Could the inability to transfer the biological to an artificial machine be likened to someone trying to use a bucket to replace a missing piece of hose in a hydraulics system?

Satyr wrote:

Uuuummmm, this is a thread about Forums.
so, on topic...on ILP who is the dumbest fuck in your opinion?
Who is the most degenerate, pathetic, one?

There's Lev who's clearly problematic. That said, I'll attempt to stop provoking and taking part in this cross-forum dialogue.

Quote :

Speaking of shit, smeared across a screen...do you understand why politeness, although necessary, when it becomes extreme, like a religious "thou shalt not," and supported by the "cult of victimhood" the the ideal of quantities over qualities - more is better - resulting in uncontrolled all-inclusion (like the one produced by monogamy and rules concerning sexual etiquette) prevents a thorough cleaning out of "house"?

Like not taking out the garbage because somewhere in the smelly, decomposing, mush, some useful bacteria might be growing.
The risk of dis-ease would outweigh any potential bacterial growth.
At some time one must decide if having a clean house is better than having an open house...and why build walls, doors, and windows, if everyone is allowed in?

I didn't always understand the problems with over inclusiveness, nor was I aware of how much it was taking place. Over the last three years I've become aware of how much necessity there is for exclusion. Unfortunately, hatred has been part of my assessments of that need.

Satyr wrote:

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

Ya know, if you have a declared intelligent quotient of 150, or claim to be a member of MENSA, and you still cannot understand how declaring and being, in not the same thing, or why talking about philosophy or pretending to be philosophizing is not the same as actually thinking, still does not compute, then the hell with intelligence.

Just a couple of fallacies:
1) 150 I.Q. people think the same because of one shared attribute.
2) If one instance of the above, then throw the baby out with the bathwater and apply the rule to all those with the above attribute (dismiss a particular measure of intelligence entirely).

Just thought I'd throw that in there, not that fallacies are uncommon in this place of repetitive resentful rhetoric. I am criticised as effeminate because I enjoy words and want a challenge, yet don't actively engage with those who do not engage me. Therefore I am female because women often appreciate aesthetic beauty and reserve themselves until approached by a worthy proposition, yet many males active approach without regard to the style and validity of their approach. Cause for consequence and problem of induction anyone? I know I'm preaching to bored rejects who only wish to flatter themselves with the identity of "philosopher", but in the real world philosophers use logic and actually know themselves. The rigour of the self-ignorant hypocrisy in this place just frustrates me sometimes...