Technology and the Levelling of Man

Didn't mean to snuff the conversation.

Man, didn't know the universe was so colorless and void. Strange, how the universe appears so colorful and animated on a clear night in the the country.

Quote :

You seem to be thick on this matter....but you probably know this, as well.
You seem to be unable to wrap your mind around the quote by Trivers and what it implies...you are stuck in the liar knowing he is lying bit.
What Trivers seems to be implying, but you must already know this of course, is that a liar is made more convincing when he actually buys into his own lie....because the other has evolved methods for perceiving a lie.
He also implies something very surprising, but you already know this also, and that is that if the goal is to succeed then awareness seems to be detrimental in the game of deception as it inhibits that smoothness and "naturalness" that would make it more convincing, and that, in fact, delusion is far more advantageous to the organism when deception is its method and when survival or sexual reproduction is its goal.

the quote is limited on the matter of deception and i understood it, thank you very much. of course, when one buys into a lie it makes it more convincing to the other unless the other is more aware but just because one is convinced doesn't mean they will be successful in fooling others. those who buy into their own lies are also easy to further deceive, especially in relation to that lie just as well, not that everyone would.
also, you can also still be smooth and appear 'natural' even when you are aware your goal is deception.

how the quote does make sense is that we are all products of deception building upon itself in perpetuity from genetics (predation which can involve guile as well) to memetic because no one is completely deception free.

Quote :

One might be willing but unable, or the other might want too much in return...and reciprocity, no matter how it goes against your naive little romantic idealism to think so, is never balanced; one of the two parties is always being exploited.
What we call a "healthy" relationship is one where a near balance is achieved based on different value judgments and with heavy doses of bullshit.

The questions in bold should suffice, as we uncover how much you actually know.

no shit. just because one can note that relationships can involve mutually known agreement, doesn't mean that it implies there never is an unbalance or exploitation or possibility of it occuring but that generally if between relatively equal and less disparate parties, there may not be any deception of note or importance to either one. still, there are other variables such as the type of person and their particular values will also determine how they conduct their relationships and their motives. it's not naive just to make a general statement, i just assumed i wouldn't have to labor every point and those variables and exceptions were already understood.

you are right about one thing and that is i already did know all of this. have we exhausted this point yet that we already know?

and as for uncovering what i know, fuck yourself. as if i'm supposed to prove myself and you all are right as judge and jury. lol

i think my iq is slipping interacting with you fools who think your shit don't stink and seriously deluded to think you are also not ignorant, deceived or just plain wrong about anything or everything.

cranapple wrote:

the quote is limited on the matter of deception and i understood it, thank you very much.

This appears to be an overestimation of yourself, boy, as you only speak of hypocrisy or deception as a violent act, and not an act of self-preservation or placation or seduction or self-delusion.

cranapple wrote:

of course, when one buys into a lie it makes it more convincing to the other unless the other is more aware but just because one is convinced doesn't mean they will be successful in fooling others. those who buy into their own lies are also easy to further deceive, especially in relation to that lie just as well, not that everyone would.

And the lie you tell yourself, boy, that you know all this, when you obviously do not or the shit you tell yourself about race is a case in point.

cranapple wrote:

how the quote does make sense is that we are all products of deception building upon itself in perpetuity from genetics (predation which can involve guile as well) to memetic because no one is completely deception free.

Speak for yourself, boy.
What it says, but you know this, is that awareness is not necessarily an advantage; it exposes a mind to a truth it may not be able to deal with.

For example the truth about your simplicity.

cranapple wrote:

no shit. just because one can note that relationships can involve mutually known agreement, doesn't mean that it implies there never is an unbalance or exploitation or possibility of it occuring but that generally if between relatively equal and less disparate parties, there may not be any deception of note or importance to either one.

Ah, so that shit about "honesty being the best policy" in a relationship was either you being naive and an imbecile, until it was exposed, or you lying to yourself or to us.

I think it mostly you being a simpleton, for who can utter such romantic idealism and not blush with embarrassment?

I would also say that the biggest hypocrites are the ones who proclaim their innocence or who claim that they are always honest with themselves or with their friends or loved ones.

cranapple wrote:

still, there are other variables such as the type of person and their particular values will also determine how they conduct their relationships and their motives. it's not naive just to make a general statement, i just assumed i wouldn't have to labor every point and those variables and exceptions were already understood.

I understand....so you will excuse me if in the future I call you a simpleton without going through all the dirty details.
I prefer to expose you real-time...as was done.

Here you are, now, simpleton, claiming that yes deception is present, even necessary, in all relationships, because you knew this, when before you were stating that honesty is the best policy.

cranapple wrote:

you are right about one thing and that is i already did know all of this. have we exhausted this point yet that we already know?

Your knowledge is becoming apparent.

cranapple wrote:

and as for uncovering what i know, fuck yourself. as if i'm supposed to prove myself and you all are right as judge and jury. lol

I am a judge, as are you, boy...but you know this as well.
And do we not compete?
But you know so much...or are you pretending to be a stupid, naive, moron?
Good job on that, by the way.

cranapple wrote:

i think my iq is slipping interacting with you fools who think your shit don't stink and seriously deluded to think you are also not ignorant, deceived or just plain wrong about anything or everything.

That's terrible given the low number.

It seems that humility is now your motive.
Are you here to teach us humility, boy?

Shall we discuss it?
We already know you are either a liar or a moron, as there is no other option given your original position that "honesty" is preferable in a relationship....you either have no clue, or no experience with women.
As we've established that need is the motive for any deception you must sow us a state where need is absent, particularly when it comes to relationships.

Quote :

This appears to be an overestimation of yourself, boy, as you only speak of hypocrisy or deception as a violent act, and not an act of self-preservation or placation or seduction or self-delusion.

excuse me? i thought this didn't have to be spelled out. of course, deception is also part of self-preservation in relation to those you can't trust and you certainly don't reveal everything to those you don't know or information that can be used against you. if someone randomly stopped me in the street and asked me where i live etc, i would not give them info which would be omission as well as if they threatened me at gunpoint, i would be forced to lie to protect myself. again, how could YOU think that others are unaware of this? isn't this just common sense and weren't we talking about 'mutual' relationships?

Quote :

And the lie you tell yourself, boy, that you know all this, when you obviously do not or the shit you tell yourself about race is a case in point.

and what lie would that be and what lies do you tell yourself? none?

Quote :

For example the truth about your simplicity.

yet i expounded on the quote and you still didn't recognize it. you hold narrowly to the quote itself without any exception. that's simplicity.

Quote :

Ah, so that shit about "honesty being the best policy" in a relationship was either you being naive and an imbecile, until it was exposed, or you lying to yourself or to us.

I think it mostly you being a simpleton, for who can utter such romantic idealism and not blush with embarrassment?

I would also say that the biggest hypocrites are the ones who proclaim their innocence or who claim that they are always honest with themselves or with their friends or loved ones.

i was not being a hypocrite. again, honesty is the best policy in mutual relationships as betrayal will damage or end that relationship. this is not being a simpleton or romantic idealism.

i also never said that i was always honest with myself or others. we already went over this point as no one is completely deception free or always aware of their motivations. intentional dishonesty is another matter and we know that there are various contexts but there is a difference between 'how' one conducts their mutual relationships depending on their values. some are sociopaths who don't care at all about how others feel or how it affects them etc as well as those who do in differing degrees.

Quote :

I understand....so you will excuse me if in the future I call you a simpleton without going through all the dirty details.
I prefer to expose you real-time...as was done.

Here you are, now, simpleton, claiming that yes deception is present, even necessary, in all relationships, because you knew this, when before you were stating that honesty is the best policy.

that is not what i said. i said that honesty in mutual relationships is the best policy, not that it's totally deception free and you muddle the point.

for instance, though people will use deception that varies between people because of other variables such as their values. there are even people who would rather take the fall than deceive others etc. you are assuming that everyone would behave the same under all circumstances. i was making a general statement as to how deception is used or under what circumstances. you made the point simple

Quote :

I am a judge, as are you, boy...but you know this as well.
And do we not compete?
But you know so much...or are you pretending to be a stupid, naive, moron?
Good job on that, by the way.

what? i could say the same about you for not recognizing the points i made.

Quote :

your original position that "honesty" is preferable in a relationship....you either have no clue, or no experience with women.

lol. you can't be this dense, can you?

i already went over this point, dumbass. reread the statement several posts ago and that is when one can't get what they need or want, people resort to deception which is a generality. but we made a distinction between mutual relationships.

i suppose your 'dishonesty' is working for you in relationships, is it? if you cheat on your girlfriend/spouse, you'll have to keep on lying and covering up. guess what? not everyone conducts themselves that way and some choose to drop relationships they can't be honest in to continually deceive the other, depending on their values.

just because you are jaded perhaps in some respects doesn't make another a moron for stating the truth that honesty is best, not betrayal. if you want to further labor trivial points such as telling your girlfriend she doesn't look fat when she does to protect her feelings, that's usually not considered a contentious or important area of honesty in relationships though some people are better able to communicate delicately when it's called for or just find relationships where they can be more honest and vice versa.

you know.. like...people tend to look for relationships where they are mutually understood which i'm sure you do the same whilst calling me a moron. lol

It would appear that the Korean knows so much that he is now going back o edit his earlier stupidity out of existence.
His only tactic now is this constant repetition that "he already knows all this", making us await from him something nobody knows which would make sense and be interesting.

cranapple wrote:

excuse me? i thought this didn't have to be spelled out. of course, deception is also part of self-preservation in relation to those you can't trust and you certainly don't reveal everything to those you don't know or information that can be used against you. if someone randomly stopped me in the street and asked me where i live etc, i would not give them info which would be omission as well as if they threatened me at gunpoint, i would be forced to lie to protect myself. again, how could YOU think that others are unaware of this? isn't this just common sense and weren't we talking about 'mutual' relationships?

Therefore, boy, you've now flipped your position and honesty in not the best policy when ti comes to relationships as they always involve need.

If I need to get laid, and there's a girl who can satisfy this need, as well as her own, then telling her that she's dumb or a bit chubby would be stupid, no boy?
But you know this, right?

cranapple wrote:

and what lie would that be and what lies do you tell yourself? none?

The main lie you tell yourself, boy is that knowing is the same as understanding and that you, after you are made aware of something, had already known it.
This thread proves it, as you begin with a naive stupidity, a romanticism about how honesty is best in a relationship and now you are backtracking and reinventing the past.

As for what lies I tell myself....I will leave it up to you to uncover.

cranapple wrote:

yet i expounded on the quote and you still didn't recognize it. you hold narrowly to the quote itself without any exception. that's simplicity.

I could waste my time on a coward, like you, but it suffices to watch you say stupidities and then cover them up when you are exposed.

The utter naivete, to be kind, of posting the opinion that honesty in a relationship is best, or that it better serves it, speaks for itself.

cranapple wrote:

i was not being a hypocrite. again, honesty is the best policy in mutual relationships as betrayal will damage or end that relationship. this is not being a simpleton or romantic idealism.

Self-deceiving simpleton, now you are mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to hide your earlier stupidity.
In what way does deception automatically lead to "betrayal"?

cranapple wrote:

that is not what i said. i said that honesty in mutual relationships is the best policy, not that it's totally deception free and you muddle the point.

Exactly boy...meaning that it is when you don't care if you destroy a relationship when you can exhibit its highest virtue of total honesty.
I would say that intimacy is another one of those modern myths only little boys and women fall for, though they never practice it.

cranapple wrote:

for instance, though people will use deception that varies between people because of other variables such as their values. there are even people who would rather take the fall than deceive others etc. you are assuming that everyone would behave the same under all circumstances. i was making a general statement as to how deception is used or under what circumstances. you made the point simple

No, boy...it is you who is leveling human relationships and offering a blanket behavior that applies to all circumstances.

Honesty, whatever that means, is a matter of degree, for not even you know the absolute truth or can accept it to make your honesty pure and virtuous.
This "self-sacrificing" bullshit is another form of self-deception.

I would say that if you truly value the other, in that he or she provides something for you (support, loyalty, help, friendship, companionship, sex) then (s)he is a resource...which you fear losing. Thusly, boy, you make sure not to risk losing it with your mind-farts or speaking honestly all the time about all matters. Care is a product of anxiety, fear.
You fear losing what the other provides and so you show respect or you pick your words or you keep your mouth shut...as you should because your are making it clear how much you know and how much you understand.

But you know this.

cranapple wrote:

you are right about one thing and that is i already did know all of this. have we exhausted this point yet that we already know?

Your knowledge is becoming apparent.

Nothing on humility, huh?
Do you know too much and is this knowledge so unique that you are reluctant to share?

Ta, Ta,

Quote :

Therefore, boy, you've now flipped your position and honesty in not the best policy when ti comes to relationships as they always involve need.

oh lord. need doesn't mean it's predicated on deception. the other can very well be aware of that need and be willing to fulfill it.

Quote :

If I need to get laid, and there's a girl who can satisfy this need, as well as her own, then telling her that she's dumb or a bit chubby would be stupid, no boy?
But you know this, right?

depends upon the girl, dummy. and she may very well be aware that she's chubby or dumb as well as know you are stupid. if her agreeing to sleep with you is dependent on if you think she is chubby or dumb, that's not mutual. if she just wants to fuck you or vice versa, that is not deception. dumbass.

Quote :

The main lie you tell yourself, boy is that knowing is the same as understanding and that you, after you are made aware of something, had already known it.

i did no such thing.

Quote :

This thread proves it, as you begin with a naive stupidity, a romanticism about how honesty is best in a relationship and now you are backtracking and reinventing the past.

your imagination is working overtime.

Quote :

As for what lies I tell myself....I will leave it up to you to uncover.

i don't give a crap.

Quote :

I could waste my time on a coward, like you, but it suffices to watch you say stupidities and then cover them up when you are exposed.

i didn't cover up anything. maybe you are paranoid.

Quote :

The utter naivete, to be kind, of posting the opinion that honesty in a relationship is best, or that it better serves it, speaks for itself.

yes, it speaks of sanity and truth.

Quote :

Self-deceiving simpleton, now you are mixing apples and oranges in an attempt to hide your earlier stupidity.
In what way does deception automatically lead to "betrayal"?

simpleton, how is deception not betrayal in a relationship? are you going to labor trivial points that don't matter? if one wants a monogamous relationship and the other agrees as well but acts otherwise eventually, that's not deception necessarily but it is if one continues while the other is unaware assuming otherwise. throwing a surprise birthday party is not betrayal or deception while using trivial lies as long as the most important agreed upon issues by both parties for the basis of the relationship (such as having their best interests at heart and vice versa) are not betrayed. if one does throw a surpise party and knows the other hates it, then that is betrayal though perhaps not one that would kill the relationship, for example. want me to expound on more trivial examples?

Quote :

Exactly boy...meaning that it is when you don't care if you destroy a relationship when you can exhibit its highest virtue of total honesty.
I would say that intimacy is another one of those modern myths only little boys and women fall for, though they never practice it.

since you believe intimacy is a myth, that explains everything you've posted in response to this issue.

Quote :

No, boy...it is you who is leveling human relationships and offering a blanket behavior that applies to all circumstances.

no. actually that's what you are doing.

Quote :

Honesty, whatever that means, is a matter of degree, for not even you know the absolute truth or can accept it to make your honesty pure and virtuous.
This "self-sacrificing" bullshit is another form of self-deception.

we already went over this point and we know it's a matter of degree but you have to start somewhere. you are being dishonest by implying that a person never can have intent and continual work toward honesty or correcting dishonesty. self-sacrificing is not bullshit. for instance, some parents sacrifice for their kids.

Quote :

I would say that if you truly value the other, in that he or she provides something for you (support, loyalty, help, friendship, companionship, sex) then (s)he is a resource...which you fear losing. Thusly, boy, you make sure not to risk losing it with your mind-farts or speaking honestly all the time about all matters. Care is a product of anxiety, fear.
You fear losing what the other provides and so you show respect or you pick your words or you keep your mouth shut...as you should because your are making it clear how much you know and how much you understand.

But you know this.

this is if the relationship is not really mutual. you are talking about deception and your description is strange. friendship and loyalty is based on mutual understanding, otherwise one is deceiving the other.

Quote :

Nothing on humility, huh?
Do you know too much and is this knowledge so unique that you are reluctant to share?

Ta, Ta

reading comprehension problems? i never said i knew everything or that this point was unique. i just said i know what's already been stated thus far.

ta ta. whatever. you are nuts.

cranapple wrote:

oh lord. need doesn't mean it's predicated on deception. the other can very well be aware of that need and be willing to fulfill it.

Dear boy, are you obtuse or do you have difficulties with the English language?
an animal feels need without having to conceptualize it.
A deception is a strategy, boy. A strategy meant to fulfill a need. One does not act if he does not have to.

Simpleton, you claimed that deception was only necessary in times of severe depravity, when dealing with resources.
This is how simple you are and how much you truly know.

cranapple wrote:

simpleton, how is deception not betrayal in a relationship?

When it is meant to save the other a greater pain or when it is meant to preserve the relationship itself.
Boy, you are an idealist...a romantic and very modern one.
Naive, simple, delusional, self-deceptive and for this reason all the more irrelevant.

Simpleton, that you still believe that speaking your mind directly and honestly when dealing with another, whether you are in a more or less intimate communion with, is feasible or practical then you are truly self-deceiving because I doubt that you ever do so or that everything about your friends and loved ones is flattering and prefect.

cranapple wrote:

since you believe intimacy is a myth, that explains everything you've posted in response to this issue.

Indeed....
Now tell me something I do not know.
I will tell you that in my experience those proclaiming honesty or some other virtue like courage as being their own are usually the one who fail to live up to them.

I mean, you know everything, right?
Give yourself a mental test; an experiment, if you will.
Imagine a world where all thoughts could be heard. I mean every single thought that passes through your mind is made immediately accessible to all in your vicinity, how long, to you suspect, relationships would last?

cranapple wrote:

no. actually that's what you are doing.

Simpleton, you are becoming desperate now.
I neither believe in absolute honesty nor in total disclosure. I believe in degrees based no circumstances.
I certainly did not offer the ridiculous advice of being completely honest in a relationship, no matter what.
The "no matter what" simpleton, means one cares...and when one cares one is careful...one is fearful and selective.

cranapple wrote:

Honesty, whatever that means, is a matter of degree, for not even you know the absolute truth or can accept it to make your honesty pure and virtuous.
This "self-sacrificing" bullshit is another form of self-deception.

Simpleton you are going from one concept to the other, residing comfortably in the absolute.
Individuals have degrees of understanding, based no degrees of awareness and knowledge and experiences; individuals have different evaluational and value judgments and interests and methods, based on the particulars of their past (nature and nurture).
There is no perfectly balanced give and take, simpleton, for this is another myth founded on absolute parity....equality.
furthermore, simpleton, value judgments alter in time, making what was considered precious a year ago not so much a year from now.
Flow, boy...constant change. there is no static place where we can construct our balance beam of justice and find total agreement.

Relationships are based on need, simpleton. We are for one another resources, means towards an end.
Friendships are based on cooperation or on a momentary give and take based on hierarchies.
A woman goes with you because she wishes to have a child and you are the most convenient male or the one she can hope to attract, or she goes with you for protection, not to feel lonely, because you entertain her or whatever.

cranapple wrote:

we already went over this point and we know it's a matter of degree but you have to start somewhere. you are being dishonest by implying that a person never can have intent and continual work toward honesty or correcting dishonesty. self-sacrificing is not bullshit. for instance, some parents sacrifice for their kids.

Oh Jeez the old parent argument.
Simpleton, do you know why a parent sacrifices?
Mortality, boy...There is always a self-serving motive involved in every action, even if it is the return of a pleasure derived from remaining true to your principles or what you want to think yourself as.
There is no giving without taking and no taking without giving...but this is never at par from either side of the relationship.

cranapple wrote:

reading comprehension problems? i never said i knew everything or that this point was unique. i just said i know what's already been stated thus far.

ta ta. whatever. you are nuts.

But you repeat it here and elsewhere, as if to hide your ignorance.
Boy, only a whore repeats everywhere she goes how pure and sexually selective and virginal she now is.

You "know what's already been said" but when this conversation started you were professing positions in antithesis to the ones you now claim as your own.
Before honesty was best now it depends on the circumstances...but the circumstances of total and complete disclosure have never been explored by you, have they boy?

I would say that the only relationship where total honesty, from your point of view, is possible is one where you do not care; where you do not give a shit about the consequences.
So, it is a theoretical relationship within which you have nothing invested...so a one-sided relationship, because I presume the other still cares.

In every other contingency, simpleton, you are careful, you fear the possibilities, so you choose your words, the "right" moment to open up your heart and then you never go all the way and you never spill the beans about everything.
Relationships are based on mutual interests, no? But interests are not across the field. For example I might have shared interests with another economically but not socially or emotionally.
I might want to have a family with a woman but not shoot the shit about girls or play football with her.
With a business partner I might have shared interests in a company but not in a family.
With one friend you share sports and activities, with another you have common grounds in thinking or books.

Now since you have nothing to say which I do not already know, I'll await the moment when you actually surprise me with some new information.
Now, go and fuck yourself like only you know how.

Ta, Ta,

Quote :

Dear boy, are you obtuse or do you have difficulties with the English language?
an animal feels need without having to conceptualize it.
A deception is a strategy, boy. A strategy meant to fulfill a need. One does not act if he does not have to.

no duh

Quote :

Simpleton, you claimed that deception was only necessary in times of severe depravity, when dealing with resources.
This is how simple you are and how much you truly know.

it is. deception implies a motive to take without the others consent by misrepresentation or undermine which may require another to deceive to prevent it. but we know there are multiple contexts how deception is used or even if it is at all, depending on one's values. of course, deception is not employed just in cases of need, it was just a general statement of how and why for the reason at a root level for it's evolution (animal quote by trivers). get it?

Quote :

When it is meant to save the other a greater pain or when it is meant to preserve the relationship itself.

we already went over this with examples. that's not deception unless that deception is considered a betrayal.

Quote :

Simpleton, that you still believe that speaking your mind directly and honestly when dealing with another, whether you are in a more or less intimate communion with, is feasible or practical then you are truly self-deceiving because I doubt that you ever do so or that everything about your friends and loved ones is flattering and prefect.

again, we already went over these trivial points.

Quote :

Indeed....
Now tell me something I do not know.
I will tell you that in my experience those proclaiming honesty or some other virtue like courage as being their own are usually the one who fail to live up to them.

i said nothing about courage or that i'm completely honest. we went over this.

Quote :

I mean, you know everything, right?
Give yourself a mental test; an experiment, if you will.
Imagine a world where all thoughts could be heard. I mean every single thought that passes through your mind is made immediately accessible to all in your vicinity, how long, to you suspect, relationships would last?

this is a dumb example as everyone has thoughts that are insulting or perceived to be by others or are contrary to them. you took honesty literally when it was understood as contextual such as in a mutual relationship.

Quote :

Simpleton, you are becoming desperate now.
I neither believe in absolute honesty nor in total disclosure. I believe in degrees based no circumstances.
I certainly did not offer the ridiculous advice of being completely honest in a relationship, no matter what.
The "no matter what" simpleton, means one cares...and when one cares one is careful...one is fearful and selective.

again, no shit. you are repeating the point i already made. of course you will disagree with others but the basis of a mutual relationship is still based on agreement on important issues for the basis of the relationship.

Quote :

Simpleton you are going from one concept to the other, residing comfortably in the absolute.
Individuals have degrees of understanding, based no degrees of awareness and knowledge and experiences; individuals have different evaluational and value judgments and interests and methods, based on the particulars of their past (nature and nurture).
There is no perfectly balanced give and take, simpleton, for this is another myth founded on absolute parity....equality.
furthermore, simpleton, value judgments alter in time, making what was considered precious a year ago not so much a year from now.
Flow, boy...constant change. there is no static place where we can construct our balance beam of justice and find total agreement.

again, you are just repeating the point that was already made. i used the example of a relationship that fails to meet eachothers needs over time, either through loss of interest or having grown apart. i also was not assuming that there was literal equal give and take but that mutual relationships are based on an agreed upon give and take that is satisfying to both parties.

Quote :

Relationships are based on need, simpleton. We are for one another resources, means towards an end.
Friendships are based on cooperation or on a momentary give and take based on hierarchies.
A woman goes with you because she wishes to have a child and you are the most convenient male or the one she can hope to attract, or she goes with you for protection, not to feel lonely, because you entertain her or whatever.

i never disagreed with this point. wtf are you on about?

Quote :

Oh Jeez the old parent argument.
Simpleton, do you know why a parent sacrifices?
Mortality, boy...There is always a self-serving motive involved in every action, even if it is the return of a pleasure derived from remaining true to your principles or what you want to think yourself as.
There is no giving without taking and no taking without giving...but this is never at par from either side of the relationship

.

again, i never disagreed with this when it applies to a mutual relationship. at literal par is a foregone conclusion. but one can give without taking and one can take without giving but that is up to the individual in giving or taking whether it's just charity or taking through predation.

Quote :

But you repeat it here and elsewhere, as if to hide your ignorance.
Boy, only a whore repeats everywhere she goes how pure and sexually selective and virginal she now is.

what?

Quote :

You "know what's already been said" but when this conversation started you were professing positions in antithesis to the ones you now claim as your own.
Before honesty was best now it depends on the circumstances...but the circumstances of total and complete disclosure have never been explored by you, have they boy?

i did not. honesty is best in mutual relationships and that is true. circumstances that dictate otherwise is a foregone conclusion. it's as if without stating them in detail, they must not be understood already to you.

Quote :

I would say that the only relationship where total honesty, from your point of view, is possible is one where you do not care; where you do not give a shit about the consequences.
So, it is a theoretical relationship within which you have nothing invested...so a one-sided relationship, because I presume the other still cares.

that is absolutely not what i said. however, your point of view of relationships is very one-sided as you view them or the other as objects to work around but never to mutually understand between the parties as if hiding your real feelings, opinions and motives is the basis of a mutual relationship so as not to offend the other.

Quote :

In every other contingency, simpleton, you are careful, you fear the possibilities, so you choose your words, the "right" moment to open up your heart and then you never go all the way and you never spill the beans about everything.

this is common sense that you don't open up your heart right away to anyone but as far as going all the way or revealing everything will depend upon the person and who they are interacting with if they expect it or will appreciate it based on the level of trust.

Quote :

Relationships are based on mutual interests, no? But interests are not across the field. For example I might have shared interests with another economically but not socially or emotionally.
I might want to have a family with a woman but not shoot the shit about girls or play football with her.
With a business partner I might have shared interests in a company but not in a family.
With one friend you share sports and activities, with another you have common grounds in thinking or books.

unbelievable. this has nothing to do with deception, however. just because your girlfriend isn't interested in sports and you are doesn't mean you can't have a mutual relationship based upon what you do share or agree upon. was that in contention, dummy?

Quote :

Now since you have nothing to say which I do not already know, I'll await the moment when you actually surprise me with some new information.
Now, go and fuck yourself like only you know how.

i never said no one knew this. you are the one who started the argument, dummy. read the thread.

no response?

intent is critical to deceit. deceit denotes an aggressive act. from all your responses, you regard any omission as an act of deceit, in all cases. this has been the basis of your argument. it is unrealistic because motive is not considered.

there is omission to misrepresent and bad faith and there is omission for self-preservation. the latter is not really deceit. it is a word we use because there is none other to differentiate except to call it self-defense. it is not trying to pull one over on the other to take advantage, which is deceit and a totally different motive.

for instance, if in a relationship and one learns that the other dislikes a certain subject or opinion, it is not deceit to keep it to oneself if that is what the other expects. these are trivial areas which have no motive of deceit behind it if they don't betray the agreed upon basis of a relationship.

not revealing everything to everyone is not deceit either. unless there is a motive to take advantage, it is not deceit and neither is an honest mistake. as one shares in increments to an other, how they respond will dictate whether they can further continue and if they can have mutual understanding and agreement. to be leery of opening up or further without positive feedback or the other reciprocating is not deception.

i think there was some misunderstanding on the term 'honesty'. i meant it with the intent to be honest with the other about their motives, not that one would always be literally honest about every thought that passes through their mind and make sure they are aware of it or that there would never be mistakes or misunderstandings that would arise but that because of the motive to be honest with the other, there is the desire to resolve them.

this is what i mean by honesty is best in a relationship (granted, that is my personal opinion) and not that this is what everyone does, wants or can do completely/literally. if you don't have the motive to be honest in a relationship (of course of your choosing), the other will never really know or understand you and therefore you are not having a relationship with them, but only yourself while using the other. if you get to know the other and can't be honest because it would end the relationship, this is pretense and deception as obviously it's not really mutual.

also, in regard to the quote, the problem with deception is that it can be habit-forming so that even when one does not need to be deceptive, it often occurs as a self-defense mechanism. this also speaks of the imperfection of nature. this can manifest as self-deception as well as deception of others. this of course is relative person to person to the degree and even in what area/s or issues.

when i said that deception as the last resort is only necessary in regards to need (root evolution of deception), that is literally true but not that is what actually occurs, which was the misunderstanding. also, people can mistake or interpret wants as needs as well as just use deception motivated by greed, opportunism etc, not need. a person's values will also dictate how and why they use deception.

i'm going to throw this in case there is some further misunderstanding. i am not saying that honesty is all that's required as of course compatibility is really the basis of mutual relationship of any kind but honesty is essential to find that out. people are complex and what one needs, desires and likes/dislikes ranges from the blatant to the subtle and differs between individuals even with some similarity just as each relationship will be unique.

cranapple wrote:

no response?

Why?
don't you already know everything i can possibly respond with?
Why are you here, anyways, given that you know all of it?
Shouldn't you be off somewhere discussing shit with people who tell you things you do not know?
Like on Mount Olympus?

cranapple wrote:

intent is critical to deceit. deceit denotes an aggressive act. from all your responses, you regard any omission as an act of deceit, in all cases. this has been the basis of your argument. it is unrealistic because motive is not considered.

Boy, does a snake deceiving any potential predator that it is poisonous have to have a conscious intent or a personal motive?
The snake is oblivious to its own deception.

But omission is an act of deceit boy. Grifters use it regularly. They allow the other deceive themselves and they simply play along, adding to what the other already wants to believe.
Boy, if you had a friend with a hot girlfriend you wanted to bang...and he was convinced that she was cheating on him, when you knew she was not, would you by allowing him to think that she was cheating on him not be deceiving him because you wanted him to break up with her?

cranapple wrote:

there is omission to misrepresent and bad faith and there is omission for self-preservation. the latter is not really deceit. it is a word we use because there is none other to differentiate except to call it self-defense. it is not trying to pull one over on the other to take advantage, which is deceit and a totally different motive.

Man-child deceit is always bout self....everything is about self.
Like I said, when a bug looks like poisonous one, is it not deceiving for self-def fence? When a cat raises the hairs on its back to appear larger than it really is, what is it doing?
Does it have to be consciously aware of it, or does it only perform an act, which turns out to be deceptive, because it works?

Deception is part of nature, boy.
Trivers....read you silly child.
Deception works and this is why it evolves...and because it evolves the capacity to perceive deception evolves with it...making self-deception a one-up-manship.

cranapple wrote:

for instance, if in a relationship and one learns that the other dislikes a certain subject or opinion, it is not deceit to keep it to oneself if that is what the other expects. these are trivial areas which have no motive of deceit behind it if they don't betray the agreed upon basis of a relationship.

It is boy, if you wish to discuss the topic or if the topic interests you or if your opinions on the subject would not be taken well by the other.

cranapple wrote:

not revealing everything to everyone is not deceit either. unless there is a motive to take advantage, it is not deceit and neither is an honest mistake. as one shares in increments to an other, how they respond will dictate whether they can further continue and if they can have mutual understanding and agreement. to be leery of opening up or further without positive feedback or the other reciprocating is not deception.

Boy you've latched to the word "deceit" like a baby on a blanky.
You originally said, man-child, that honesty is the best policy when ti comes to relationships, and I pointed out that relationships are built and based on huge amounts of bullshit, on omissions and never on total intimacy or honesty.
You don't have to try to hurt the other, man-child, to be willing to hide your true opinions. Your intent is to maintain the other's good will, because you want them in your life....and so you make every effort not to ruin this.


Boy, did you indulge me in my challenge?
A mental test.

Imagine a world where all thoughts were public...not one thought that passed through your mind was hidden. All heard what you thought at all times.
How long, to you suspect, relationships, and most of all the relationship called society, would last?

deceit?

you mean how failed to notice we are on different wavelengths? that you took my response to vanitas' post regarding relationships (when all common sense clearly implied it's mutual even extenuating from prior posts) out of context or was it deliberate?

how you argued omission without considering motive and context is deceit. how you waxed on redundantly about "literal" deceit (lie, omission, hidden agenda) as if that wasn't already understood and you are schooling me? how you equate a person lying to their spouse about their infidelity as self-preservation to one being forced to lie under threat of harm as deceit when the former is a motive to perpetuate the betrayal/deceit and the latter is not. you know? how your understanding of deceit is like how a computer knows math but you fail to apply motive and context to understand deceit. it's just all the same to you.

how your argument was what is and my argument was what is best? this is not even the same discussion and you used what occurs as an argument against what is best?

how you used triver's quote to imply that due to even unconscious self-deception motivated by self-preservation, one can never correct deception when the opportunity presents itself or one is never motivated to do so because it's all about 'one-upmanship' at all times and in all contexts? you know? like how when you kill pathogens by washing your hands, you are one-upping them but to you but you regard the desire for a mutual relationship 'bullshit' because it may involve actually fixing/correcting self-deception and even unconscious deception? to you, it's all about the self and one can't genuinely care for another or be honest with them because it still is motivated by the self and what it wants. now that is bullshit.

how you think all literal thoughts being public betrays your shallow and simple understanding? it's not thought but the motive behind it. one may observe another is fat without any malicious motive to hurt, one may observe another is fat with a motive to insult, one may observe another is fat and their motive is concern for their health.

mutual relationships involve both parties knowing they have eachother's best interests at heart, faults and all.

as for being honest, this is irrevelant but let's. how constant accusations of naivetey and simplicity of others betrays one's own fears of being deceived, let alone the fact everyone is relatively naive and simplicity is not necessarily wrong or even negative.

now accuse me again of being simple and your pov isn't, asshole, while you delude yourself that anything you've responded with is not something i or most already know.

Quote :

Like on Mount Olympus?

ok, now this was funny. i'm just sparring. jeezus