Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Open Challenge

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:20 pm

Poison IV wrote:
What I meant was, you're a clueless appetizer for other worldly predators and I think it funny that all you do is sit around all day and frequent this forum while they feed on you... ;]
In fact I'm delicious.
I flow with nutrients.
I once used one of them ouij...whatchemecalits...the message was: Think.

I have ever since.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:27 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:
Have you been listening to David Icke, Ivy? Are you referring to reptilian humanoids, Ivy? It seems you have failed to realize, Ivy, 'Satyr' is a reptilian humanoid, in fact 'Satyr', or should I say Korgannu, is an betoid reptoid. Why do you think he considers himself a separate species, dear, why do you think he feed off of human negativity and fear? What do you think Nietzsche was referring to when he spoke of ubermensch, he was speaking to those who carry the bloodline, who may not realize. Your secrets out Korgannu, what will you do now, hmmm?
I think we talked about this at the last meeting.
This breach of security will not be tolerated, the humans do not need to be informed, especially not those who, like PoisonIV, already know too much.

I'm going to have to discuss this with the High Counsel.

From now on every time you see a light in the sky, you hear a strange sound or have a bad dream, it is us.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:49 pm

Haha, you and the high council think too much of these, humans. Millions of photographs have been took of our vessels and 'Grey' vessels and yet the majority are still not convinced of our existence, they will believe whatever our sock puppets tell them to believe. We could land on the white house front lawn tomorrow without reprocussion. Nonetheless I will do what the council commands of me... for now, I'll say nothing more. Oh Korgannu, how much longer must we wait before dawn, when we will slaughter them by the millions and drink their blood, I can't take this stinkin skin suit, and kissing up to these stinkin humans much longer.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:09 pm

I saw a vision yesterday night. These spirits were thrashing me with spiritual whips.
a woke to the sound of helicopter blades.
later that day a mysterious car drove by my house, with this weird looking dude.

He smiled and waved, and I instantly knew...and he knew that I know....and I knew that he knew that I knew that he knew....
Later that evening I was watching a movie...thee were all these symbols in it, you know?
Like satanic emblems and and gestures. I realized that I was onto something deep.

I thought I was going mad...instead I called it real....and the world was mad.
I have to warn the world....tomorrow, if I make it.

Pray for me.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:11 pm

That reminds me of a story.
Remember that earthquake that happened in Thailand?
Well I had some premonitions and some foreshadowings about it.
3 and a half months before it happened, I had a dream my hometown of Saskatoon was struck by an earthquake. Now, I realize Saskatoon is a long way from Thailand, and that I have nightmares about disasters befalling me personally and the world all the time... and that an earthquake was bound to happen somewhere, sooner or later, but come on man, only 3 and a half months before it happened, freaky.
Not to mention 2 weeks prior to the earthquake, I watched a movie about an earthquake, I mean, what are the odds of that? Now, I realize I watch movies about disasters and such all the time, and none of those disasters occur shortly afterwards, but still... still.
Oh, I almost forgot, I became abruptly and inexplicably depressed the day it happened, before I even knew it was happening, my brain must have been acting as a reciever for all the pain and suffering that was being broadcasted. Now, I realize I'm depressed all the time, but the day it happened, my depression was weirder and more intense than usual. Of course my friends cat died 3 days prior to me getting depressed, but still, coincidence, I think not.
One last thing, two days after the earthquake happened, I got a handjob in a park from some broad, I mean, that never happens to me.

Now, you may not think much of these events, Satyr, you closed minded misogynist bigot fascist racist, but I do, and a growing number of my friends, family, and people without cridentials who write both pseudoscientific books and fantasy novels do, so fuck you!!! You'll be begging for God, once you get cancer or some other horrific tradedy befalls you, and I always take the beliefs of people more seriously when they're undergoing extreme traumatic stress, they're usually the most rational people, and they confirm all my suspicions about angels, ufos and moon crystals.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:02 pm

Well, Satyr, why don't you put one of your beliefs on the line, and I will challenge it, I don't care, I'm usually game, I'll pretend to disagree with you even if i don't, I'm sure I'll give you a good challenge.
Pav is good at debates too, better than most, me and him had a few good ones, but he hasn't been around lately.

BTW, I edited the above post to make it a little more coherent.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:32 pm

I don't think you're that difficult to challenge Satyr, it's a case of most people being too dumb and cowardly, not you being too smart and intellectually courageous, although you are very smart and intellectually courageous, don't get me wrong, but we're dealing with some real retards here, d63, and most of those at ilp.
Phoneutria and crapapple were ok, at least they had the guts to challenge us, even if they failed miserably, and weren't the least bit humble 'bout it, conceding nothing, they put up an adequate fight, kept us busy for a little while.
You need someone with more substance, someone who's thought existence through, someone like me, I think I can give you that, or maybe I'm just deluding myself, I've been full of self doubt lately... we'll see.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:49 pm

I'm easy to challenge, I admit it.
I'm only slightly above average intellectually, but I know what I believe and why.

It's not up to me to choose what you will defeat me at.
Pick my most vulnerable spot and be kind.
Kind in that you do not destroy what you think I think rather than what I did say.

I'm a bit busy these days, but I'm sure I'll find the time to get embarrassed.
Right now I'm debating with myself whether or not I should start a YouTube Blog, like some others have.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:47 am

There's something very old testament about your hatred of homosexuals, I wonder if you have anything else in common with the o t morality? You believe in an eye for an eye, neh? What else? Do you hate liars, thieves, those who dishonour their parents? Of course you only hate others when they abuse those whom you consider 'noble'. Your brand of homohate is quite different, in that you despise egalitarian homosexuality, not hierarchical homosexuality. So is it the egalitarianism you despise, or the homosexuality, or both? Now, would you make a law against homosexuality, and if so, does this not constitute a form of nurture, which you are supposedly against, as you believe nurture protects the weak from culling, but nurture can also cull the weak, or those unfit to survive. Do you think asexual (wo)men should be killed also, since they are unfit, but why bother, since homosexuals/asexual will eradicate themselves by not procreating, and they may have something positive to contribute while they're still here.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:06 am

eyesinthedark wrote:
There's something very old testament about your hatred of homosexuals, I wonder if you have anything else in common with the o t morality?
"Hatred"?
Are you pulling an ace out of your sleeve, dear? An emotional crutch?

If I expose, let's say, the lies behind vegetarianism...am I resentful of anyone who does not eat meat?
Is that your only angle...emotional appeals?

eyesinthedark wrote:
You believe in an eye for an eye, neh?
"You believe" implies that there is an alternative.
I also believe in "no God" can YOU provide evidence or a cogent argument against my disbelief or should I assume that you are correct or worth considering on purely emotional grounds?

eyesinthedark wrote:
What else? Do you hate liars, thieves, those who dishonor their parents?
This emotion "hate" again. I no more "hate" them than I "love" those that honor their parents.
What business is it of mine, dear?
What someone, or something, does, how it behaves, only serves as an indication of its nature.

I do not "hate" Christians, because their existence - pretentious and superficial though it might be - aids me in my quests. I only expose their nature, when nothing will come back to me.
I would not "hate" your stupidity, because it is preferable to me, but I would expose it and exploit it when and if the opportunity arises.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Of course you only hate others when they abuse those whom you consider 'noble'.
I no more hate a virus for infecting one of the ones I love than i do an animal for doing what comes natural to it.
My intent, dear boy/girl, is the other side....I immunize.
I immunize with ideas and awareness.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Your brand of homohate is quite different, in that you despise egalitarian homosexuality, not hierarchical homosexuality. So is it the egalitarianism you despise, or the homosexuality, or both?
How is the symptom of a disease different form the disease?
Homosexuality is a symptom.
"Despise" is your ace. I hope it works for you.
Is this a rational conversation or an emotional one?

eyesinthedark wrote:
Now, would you make a law against homosexuality, and if so, does this not constitute a form of nurture, which you are supposedly against, as you believe nurture protects the weak from culling, but nurture can also cull the weak, or those unfit to survive.
I would no more make a law against homosexuality than I would against a virus or a genetic dysfunction or mutation.
I cannot be a judge against nature only a judge of nature.
Would I make a law against stupidity or being short or being ugly?

eyesinthedark wrote:
Do you think asexual (wo)men should be killed also, since they are unfit, but why bother, since homosexuals/asexual will eradicate themselves by not procreating, and they may have something positive to contribute while they're still here.
"A-sexual"?
Define it.
I consider myself, somewhat indifferent to sex...in the same way I am indifferent to food.
I enjoy it, when it is present and easy to attain, but I do not define myself according to what I've eaten or how much of it I've eaten.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:14 am

How far would you take this antinurture principle, at what point do you draw the line? Would you refrain from puting a saddle on a horse,or from disciplining your wives, children and slaves, I'm assuming you wouldn't refrain from doing these things. Why cultivate one area of nature and human nature, and not another? Come to think of it, you said you were against all forms of human nurturing, but obviously you're not, so it seems you're contradicting yourself. Perhaps you would merely remove laws that protect unmanly homosexuals and other 'perverts' from culling. Still, with or without government, this culling of the unfit is a form nurture, unless it is spontaneous, instinctive and disorganised. There's no guarantee bisexuals and fags would be culled in a state of nature. Would you kill Steven Hawkings, he's a genetic dead end? It seems you've invented some mutant hybrid of anarchism and fascism or decentralised eugenics.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:31 am

Oh come now, you should no better than that, I am many things, but emotional is not one of them, no bleeding heart liberal am I, I thought you hated the weak and inferior... maybe that would be making too much of them, eh? Maybe you're just for letting them die, or letting others take care of them. Maybe you're just indifferent to them, and you don't like how Christians and democratic socialists force us to care, and tax us on their behalf.

Let me ask you this, is timocracy not a form of nurturing? Shouldn't the strong be able to defend themselves? That's how it works in prison.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:42 am

eyesinthedark wrote:
How far would you take this antinurture principle, at what point do you draw the line?
What does this even mean?

eyesinthedark wrote:
Would you refrain from puting a saddle on a horse,or from disciplining your wives, children and slaves, I'm assuming you wouldn't refrain from doing these things.
How is it "unnatural" to exploit?

eyesinthedark wrote:
Why cultivate one area of nature and human nature, and not another?
Who cares?
Would I lie about it?
Would I make it seem like a profound practice? Would I pretend that it is selfless and virtuous and worthy of emulation?

eyesinthedark wrote:
Come to think of it, you said you were against all forms of human nurturing, but obviously you're not, so it seems you're contradicting yourself.
Then allow me to clarify:
If nurturing means only knowledge or teaching and no shielding an individual form the world where all knowledge and training is to be tested, then yes I am against it.
It's easy to pretend you are for a loving, benevolent, tolerant, God when you do not have to put this into practice.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Perhaps you would merely remove laws that protect unmanly homosexuals and other 'perverts' from culling.
I would not "remove" nor add anything except what is already present.
Laws serve me well if they keep degenerate, retards, from attacking me, but I shall not pretend or lie to myself that these degenerates, because they are inebriated by religion or some other ideal, are not capable of attacking me.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Still, with or without government, this culling of the unfit is a form nurture, unless it is spontaneous, instinctive and disorganized.
No, because "government" implies a human intervention.
The idea that any human intervention is benign and benevolent or not guided by some external will is your myth, not mine.

eyesinthedark wrote:
There's no guarantee bisexuals and fags would be culled in a state of nature.
"Guarantees" are for fags.
in nature fags would have no "automatic" "rights".
If they manage to procreate it would be due to their individual sacr9fice or power or happenstance or whatever, not be causer the system offered them a "right".

eyesinthedark wrote:
Would you kill Steven Hawkings, he's a genetic dead end?
Why would I, personally, need to "kill" him?
If he were to die, what exactly would I be denying mankind of?

eyesinthedark wrote:
It seems you've invented some mutant hybrid of anarchism and fascism or decentralised eugenics.
Is that what it "seems" like?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:47 am

I see, well, there are alternatives to an eye for an eye, there's mercy, forgiveness, natural human sentiments, and laws that are lenient and tolerant, and conversely there's vengeance, wrath, laws and people that would cut your testicles off for stealing a loaf of bread or eyeing another man's wife, you see there's a whole spectrum of human behavior, law and tradition, ranging from the sociopath to the Christian democrat. I'd say 10 eyes for 1 eye is the normal, natural human response, though in addition it depends on multiple factors, the demeanor/temperament of the victim, the severity of the transgression, the remorsefulness of the perpetrator, the age of the perpetrator, whether the transgression was intentional or not, law, custom, religion, eye for an eye across the board is terribly simplistic.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:57 am

eyesinthedark wrote:
Oh come now, you should no better than that, I am many things, but emotional is not one of them, no bleeding heart liberal am I, I thought you hated the weak and inferior...
Really?
How could I "know better" outside of what you write?
I have no visual ques, no body language, no voice fluctuations, to go by....all I have is text.
If it were otherwise you would be, for me, an open book. There would be no need to engage you, as I would already know what I needed to know simply by analyzing your gestures, your tonal qualities, your facial and physical expressions.
That I even give you,or anyone else, the time of day is because words are all I have...and words challenge me.
I need to "work" more. I need to notice work usage, sentence structure, repetitions, meanings etc.

eyesinthedark wrote:
maybe that would be making too much of them, eh?
Isn't that the test?
Overestimation and underestimation are the test.

Right THERE is the test. We all use projection, emotional appeals; we all use ourselves and out experiences and our personal analysis, as a groundwork, (our personal "baggage" or subjectivity) so what, exactly I the decisive factor?
Are all perspectives equal?
If not, then what defines the one perspective that stands out?

eyesinthedark wrote:
Maybe you're just for letting them die, or letting others take care of them.
I could care less. All I am for is not giving them an artificial, a manmade , advantage.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Maybe you're just indifferent to them, and you don't like how Christians and democratic socialists force us to care, and tax us on their behalf.
I only care about how it affects me and my own bloodline. Even this desire to teach, to make others aware, is based in this fundamental principle of making my own kind more likely to survive.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Let me ask you this, is timocracy not a form of nurturing? Shouldn't the strong be able to defend themselves? That's how it works in prison.
Prison is an enclosed and controlled environment....how does this apply to Timocracy?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:05 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:
I see, well, there are alternatives to an eye for an eye, there's mercy, forgiveness, natural human sentiments, and laws that are lenient and tolerant, and conversely there's vengeance, wrath, laws and people that would cut your testicles off for stealing a loaf of bread or eyeing another man's wife, you see there's a whole spectrum of human behavior, law and tradition, ranging from the sociopath to the Christian democrat.
If so, then how are they not natural selection?

How is someone convincing himself that his ideals are "transcendental" the same as saying that they are essential or necessary for my own, personal, good?
How is buying into the bullshit and sentimentality, the same as being aware of the pragmatic factors?
Let me lower this to a level you might understand:

How is me becoming convinced that I am "in love" with a female, the same as me being aware that I require this female to procreate and that I will do whatever is necessary to accomplish my goal?
They both lead to the same consequences, only one is surprised, hurt, dismayed, whereas the other expects it, prepares for it.

eyesinthedark wrote:
I'd say 10 eyes for 1 eye is the normal, natural human response, though in addition it depends on multiple factors, the demeanor/temperament of the victim, the severity of the transgression, the remorsefulness of the perpetrator, the age of the perpetrator, whether the transgression was intentional or not, law, custom, religion, eye for an eye across the board is terribly simplistic.
God...then how is this not like anything I've said, or how is this against Jude-Christian doctrine?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:20 pm

"How is it "unnatural" to exploit?"

What makes it unnatural, the way I define it, is not that it is exploitive, wolves prey on human and animal flesh and I do not consider what they do unnatural or inherently bad (nor do I equate unnatural with bad), is the degree the left brain (learning, strategizing, reasoning, planning, organizing, manipulating) plays a role in the behavior, so there is no precise line betwee natural and artificial, it is natural for a human to kill and eat another human if he's hungry.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:24 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:
"How is it "unnatural" to exploit?"

What makes it unnatural, the way I define it, is not that it is exploitive, wolves prey on human and animal flesh and I do not consider what they do unnatural or inherently bad (nor do I equate unnatural with bad), is the degree the left brain (learning, strategizing, reasoning, planning, organizing, manipulating) plays a role in the behavior, so there is no precise line betwee natural and artificial, it is natural for a human to kill and eat another human if he's hungry.
And?

Do YOU have a point?

Listen, boy, if you are going to attack me or debate me, make an effort to, at least, oppose me.
This, bullshit, about taking on another side, just for fuck's sake, is not my style, If you have no vested interest in what you fight for, then what are you doing: mental masturbation?

----

Listen, boy...you cannot engage ion intellectual matters as if they were movies or something you participated in circumstantially, able to disengage form at will.
This is hypocrisy and it is quickly made evident through the quality of your responses. If you do not believe in what you are saying and are only indulging in it for the sake of conversation then it is obvious.
Debate for debate's sake, is what retards do, in forums like ILP where the goal is not to challenge fundamental beliefs but to pretend that, despite the fundamental belief and the shared myth, that all are practicing "free-will".

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:34 pm

What makes cannibalism unnatural is if its done to please the Gods, or for some abstract, cultural reason, or the amount of deliberation and planning that went into the kill, if it was done spontaneously with a hammer to satify ones hunger or rage, then it its perfectly natural, if it's done ritualistically and a great deal of premeditation and with poison, then it is more unnatural. You see I have a very clinical, idiosyncratic way of defining the word, It wasn't my intention to inject my morality into the debate or to heal your morality with my sacred, holy morality, my morality is just for others to leave me alone, if they cross me, I will murder or maim them, this may be the extent of morality, although it depends on my mood, and I'm constantly reevaluating myself and the world, as I am full of doubts, questions and curiosity.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:44 pm

listen jerk off, my intention here is to test the consistency of your beliefs, not to pit my morality against yours, or to adopt a phony morality for the sake of challeging you.

always concerned with motives and alterior motives, having a conversation with you is like having a conversation with an aircraft carrier or a missile defense system, you sound very paranoid.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:50 pm

You, are rambling.
I thought you were supposed to be other than D6 and the turd in the dungeon.
eyesinthedark wrote:
What makes cannibalism unnatural is if its done to please the Gods, or for some abstract, .
Cannibalism in hat sense, intellectual or physical.
The only species I can feed upon mentally is the, supposed, human one.
That there is no other, does not mean that there will never be any other.

The division between mimetics and genetics is fundamental.
If I abuse, use, manipulate, exploit, a moron, this is form of mimetic cannibalism.

eyesinthedark wrote:
cultural reason, or the amount of deliberation and planning that went into the kill, if it was done spontaneously with a hammer to satify ones hunger or rage, then it its perfectly natural,
Rage, is a form of hunger.
When a lion pounces on a buffalo is emotional, and physical state can be compared to a stage of eager.
eyesinthedark wrote:

if it's done ritualistically and a great deal of premeditation and with poison, then it is more unnatural.
I've already gone over the difference between "artificial" and "natural". I cannot repeat this over and over again.
Either provide a challenge on point or do not bother.
eyesinthedark wrote:

You see I have a very clinical, idiosyncratic way of defining the word, It wasn't my intention to inject my morality into the debate or to heal your morality with my sacred, holy morality, my morality is just for others to leave me alone, if they cross me, I will murder or maim them, this may be the extent of morality, although it depends on my mood, and I'm constantly reevaluating myself and the world, as I am full of doubts, questions and curiosity
In other words: you are not really challenging or debating me, but are only using, what you think,is the best method of extracting information from me.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:53 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:
listen jerk off, my intention here is to test the consistency of your beliefs, not to pit my morality against yours, or to adopt a phony morality for the sake of challeging you.
Therefore, questioning have been replaced with hypocritical challenges.

eyesinthedark wrote:
always concerned with motives and alterior motives, having a conversation with you is like having a conversation with an aircraft carrier or a missile defense system, you sound very paranoid.
Wait a minute...you mean that when you use the method of attack, of challenge, I am supposed to be passive and defenseless?
If you were to ask me a question, to clarify, I would respond, but you do not....you assault...and so you expect what?
Do you expect, passivity?

Why?

Do I owe you something outside this exchange?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:53 pm

my point was that you said you are against all human nurturing, but you pick and choose, you are inconsistent, sometimes you are for nature, sometimes for nurture. now, originally i thought you were for killing fags and other people unfit to survive, but i was wrong, but still are for other nurturing, cultivating, domesticating, like timocracy, some laws, culture, traditions, slavery, raising your wife and children a certain way.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:00 pm

If nurturing is the issue then one must first admit that it is all about human intervention, which is what nurturing is all about, and then what KIND of nurturing one is to apply, because none are created equal.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:13 pm

you're psychotic. that's not a moral assessment, it is a psychological fact, your brain is on hyper alert, hyper defense mode, you see alterior motives, hidden agendas and manipulations in every innocent word that comes your way. relax man, take a breath. i'm not hear to exploit you, or manipulate you, use you or abuse you, or get you to convert to mormonism. can you not just have a conversation and see where it leads, play it out for a while without making all these negative assumptions preemptively, and false accusations. it's just a conversation, and it is your beliefs that are on trial here, not my character, that should be secondary at most, and it is always consistently negative, never anything positive to say about anyone, you immediately assume the worst case scenaio when dealing with people, you must have been hurt many times in your life, and/or you're just cazy/eccentric. you see you have been assessed as well, and i have concluded you have paranoid personality disorder.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:30 pm

yes, i think we've uncovered an inconsistency here, timocracy is a form of nurture, in that it protects farmers and/or merchants from having their asses handed to them by thieves and raiders, just like socialism protects one class of men from a form of exploitation, timocracy protects merchants from another, more physical, violent form of abuse, that sounds like intervention and sheltering to me, why should i be taxed to protect some timocrats property, or you, why should except their form of government, it self serving and weak partial like any other, let those with acrage or cattle protect it themselves, stupid weaklings.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:45 pm

i don't think you're against sheltering, nurturing and interventionism per say, you're for it when protects a group of men that you identify with, timocrats, although i take it you yourself have no land, and no farm animals, and your against it when it protects men you do not identify with, like the lower classes, of which you are a member, although you identify with the farmer in spirit, men with acrage and cattle, which is funny. why should farmers, herdsmen, and whatever other class timocracy caters to, from the anger of the poor, or gangsters, pirates, do you want us to believe your timocrats are the strong, productive, non exploitive class who is divinely ordained to rule, can't you see that timocrats are only made strong by government intervention. is satyr a kind of christian humanist as well, a selective one? not all timocrats are strong, farmers, land owners, corporatists, some of these faggots wouldn't last 5 minutes a state of anarchy, yet they want us to believe they're courageous and mor noble...
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:11 pm

eyersinthedark wrote:
you're psychotic. .
Yes...whatever.
I've heard it all before, and called worse.
This is still not an argument...it is a judgment, an accusatory based on an emotional response.

eyesinthedark wrote:
that's not a moral assessment, it is a psychological fact, your brain is on hyper alert, hyper defense mode, you see ulterior motives, hidden agendas and manipulations in every innocent word that comes your way.
Ah, so you are here to tell me that you are, automatically, not attacking or non threatening, even if you are unknown to me, is that it?
Shall I, despite all indications, take your word on it, or should I take your actions as more honest?

eyersinthedark wrote:
relax man, take a breath.
I will....ha......ha...and HA.....are we in some kind of alternative reality, some place where nothing I say or do matters to me in any way...some game-boy play?
Do your activities matter or are your words more honest?

eyersinthedark wrote:
i'm not hear to exploit you, or manipulate you, use you or abuse you, or get you to convert to mormonism.
Do you promise?
Are you sure?
What are your "real" motives, other than the ones you are are aware of? Are you aware of tour own motives? Do you truly "know yourself"?

eyesinthedark wrote:
can you not just have a conversation and see where it leads, play it out for a while without making all these negative assumptions preemptively, and false accusations.
Sure...can you? Can you pose a question which is not misleading or insinuating or based on presumption?
Shall I be more subtle? Is that what you mean by "civilized" or more "complex" thinking?

eyesinthedark wrote:
it's just a conversation, and it is your beliefs that are on trial here, not my character, that should be secondary at most, and it is always consistently negative, never anything positive to say about anyone, you immediately assume the worst case scenario when dealing with people, you must have been hurt many times in your life, and/or you're just cazy/eccentric. you see you have been assessed as well, and I have concluded you have paranoid personality disorder
Are you implying, whether you know it or not, that the thinker is other than the thought; that the mind is other than the body; that the quality is different than the quantity; that the judgment is other than the judge?

Is THAT what you are saying?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:00 pm

Quote :
Then allow me to clarify:
If nurturing means only knowledge or teaching and no shielding an individual form the world where all knowledge and training is to be tested, then yes I am against it.
It's easy to pretend you are for a loving, benevolent, tolerant, God when you do not have to put this into practice.
All of civilization is a form of shielding from nature, a farmer shields himself from having to forage and gather in the cold, dank woods, from having to rummage through thorns and thistles, he domesticates, tames the plants, fruits and vegetables, bends their nature to his nature, to his will, clothing and shelter shield us from the bitter cold, a shepard shields himself from having to chase his prey everynight, he weeds out their fearful, aggressive tendencies, humanizes them, builds a fence around so as to monopolise their flesh and fur. This ingenuity has yielded a great abundance and resources, where before they were was uncertainty and scarcity. This lead to a population boom, but man abuses his technology, leading to overpopulation, resource depletion, soil erosion, and many other environmental problems, atrophy, lack of excersise, obesity. My question to you is, at what point do you draw the line, at point what point does man become decadent. Do you arbitarily draw it, on a whim, or have you carefully considered it?

Now, man also domesticates man, the left, right, center, up and down factions, groups, wings, each have their own ways of domesticating other individuals, classes, genders, races, etc, to make the other easier to manage, more fruitful and productive for the individual, class, gender, race, doing the domesticating, and each one attempts to convince the other and even himself, that he is doing so in the name of God, or whatever, republicans, monarchs and democrats alike believed and believe in 'rights'. The monarchs believe in the 'divine rights' of kings, repulicans believe in the divine/'natural rights' of individuals, and democrats believe in the natural rights of the majority, the collective, or whatever, whatever suits them. The key is to make the other think that you and yours have the right to rule, ordained by God, natural law, or that it extrinsically benefits the whole of society if he and his were to rule, or that he and his are more 'pure' and 'noble', but in reality, is all a bunch of hogwash, as far as I can tell. The rightwing and the left are full of shit. I am primarily for me and secondly for my own, those similar to me, in terms of ability, personality, in terms of blood. The further you deviate from the principle of egoism, the more you error. I play 'round with other paradigms, but this is the one I return to, because it makes sense, it best describes my nature, our nature.

Your oligarchs, whether they be warriors or farmers, are no different, each sings a bullshit song about himself.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:56 pm

Quote :
Really?
How could I "know better" outside of what you write?
I have no visual ques, no body language, no voice fluctuations, to go by....all I have is text.
If it were otherwise you would be, for me, an open book. There would be no need to engage you, as I would already know what I needed to know simply by analyzing your gestures, your tonal qualities, your facial and physical expressions.
That I even give you,or anyone else, the time of day is because words are all I have...and words challenge me.
I need to "work" more. I need to notice work usage, sentence structure, repetitions, meanings etc.
So in other words, philosophy is pretense for you, a means to an end, the primary goal being psychoanalysis. Despite your 'humble' bullshit you use to wipe your ass with, you really think little or nothing of me, or anyone else on these forums, you have nothing to gain, intellectually and philosophically from us, you're using us to hone your psychoanalytical abilities, the internet is a means of challenging you, sharpening your skills, philosophy is just one way of exposing nature hiding behind nurture and pretense, which makes you a kind of troll. This 'discussion' is ass wipe, why all the psychological attacks I thought to myself, because you're fucking nuts, or because you're hiding something. This is all part of a ritual for you, isn't it? This thread didn't go the way your were anticipating, did it? You weren't hoping for a philosophical exchange, you were hoping to unmask another closet egoist hiding behind a Christian mask, but I'm just an egoist, primarily, no Christian here, so tough luck, ass jack.

This is all part of some perverse ritual for you. You began life as an idealist (1st a Christian, then a socialist) and ended up a realist, a bitter cynic. Your hopes and dreams were dashed, promises were broken, but finally (only after 46 years) you woke up to a stark reality. You realized all was a farce, a sham, a spectacle, but you did not blame them, did you, those who you feel let you down, they were just animals, intellectually inferior to you in every way, but nor did you forget, you vowed never to let yourself be duped again, so now you seek out 'Christians' and 'socialists' on line, hoping to expose them as fools, liars and hypocrites every chance you get, you think they're so far gone they've even duped themselves, concerning their own nature in particular and human nature in general, or as your 'Trivers' suggests, they lie to themselves to make the lie (universal equality and brotherhood of man) more believable to those they mean to dupe.

"Express yourself exactly as you are and face the consequences." The Hannibal Lectre thing, the entire persona you crafted is a psychological weapon you use to expose retards to reality, hoping they will kill themselves, and cultivating tactics for figuring these animals out and how to expose them or manipulate them.

Your philosophy is half baked anyway, some points are very ingenious, others are full of holes and contradictions, and I am not saying this because I am a Christian (you wish), I am saying this because I am superior to you in some ways. This isn't about philosophy, it is about you masterbating, exposing and raping naive minds with some truth.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:06 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:

My question to you is, at what point do you draw the line, at point what point does man become decadent. Do you arbitarily draw it, on a whim, or have you carefully considered it?
If you read Baudrillard, then this point, ambiguous though it be, is when it begins substituting reality with something man-made. This is the point of totally artificiality, where reality is murdered.
It is a kind of systemic solipsism.
Art exposes it perfectly.
When art begins imitating itself, it begins regurgitating and repeating and sampling itself to reproduce newer, more detached form reality forms of expression, it is the point where man has completely cocooned himself within an artifice.
It's not only that he is shielded from the big bad world, anymore, but that he is shielded from what is shielding him from the big bad world. The world, reality, has taken another step back into the background...it has become a background.

Take art, again, as an example.
Art is no longer describing the real, but it is describing the description of the real. It is taking itself as the real and then adding an extra layer of description.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Your oligarchs, whether they be warriors or farmers, are no different, each sings a bullshit song about himself.
My "oligarchs" are not about hedonism or materialism nor are they about leading or controlling the masses, and so bullshit need not be applied.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:42 pm

To eyesinthedark

Sorry hun, I'm talking about creatures I've actually fucking seen and even talked to...I don't know where your pathetic imagination has taken you to :[
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:48 pm

She's back for one day and this is the effect she has on the retard...
From my mail box:
Retard wrote:
Satyr and Poison IV will attempt to double team, become aware. They are teammates together, lovers. So don't trust either. Consider them as a pair. Poison IV usually comes to "protect" Satyr when he meets a true challenge. So you can take her presence as indication that you are hitting your mark.

Don't relent otherwise you will lose opportunity. You are right about your attacks of Satyr. He is very good at cynicism and nihilism, but has no cogent responses to any coherent governmental model or practice of philosophy. He will contradict himself when it comes to Nurture, if pushed hard enough. This is where it is possible to untie the strings of his thoughts.
Shit, this world needs more like him.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:43 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:
So in other words, philosophy is pretense for you, a means to an end, the primary goal being psychoanalysis.
No, philosophy is a way of engaging and knowing the world...humans are part of the world.

Humans dominate the landscapes...it is prudent of me to study and try to understand this species, in its many forms.
But memes are coming to be more distinguishing than genes...they are taking over in a world where men produce environmental conditions.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Despite your 'humble' bullshit you use to wipe your ass with, you really think little or nothing of me, or anyone else on these forums, you have nothing to gain, intellectually and philosophically from us, you're using us to hone your psychoanalytical abilities, the internet is a means of challenging you, sharpening your skills, philosophy is just one way of exposing nature hiding behind nurture and pretense, which makes you a kind of troll.
If I'm not mistaken a troll is someone who purposefully tries to cause a stir so as to gain attention or simply to cause a stir. He does not have to believe what he says, he only says what he thinks will get the best emotional reaction from the other.
This automatically excludes me. I cannot pretend and so I do not play those silly games, like you retards do, where you pick a side, at random, and debate it.
I actually have to believe in what I am saying...that's my weakness, fag. This is why I could never fully take advantage of my insights. I could not play the game long enough to be effective.
(By the way...did you enjoy being penetrated?)

But, in general, yes, once I've judged the other to be substandard or not salvageable I use them to prove my points.
Those whom I deem worth the effort, I remain civil towards, unless they turn on me...then it's open season on retards.

eyesinthedark wrote:
This 'discussion' is ass wipe, why all the psychological attacks I thought to myself, because you're fucking nuts, or because you're hiding something. This is all part of a ritual for you, isn't it? This thread didn't go the way your were anticipating, did it? You weren't hoping for a philosophical exchange, you were hoping to unmask another closet egoist hiding behind a Christian mask, but I'm just an egoist, primarily, no Christian here, so tough luck, ass jack.
Isn't this thread about challenging me? Is this not why you came here?
Well, from the get-go there has to be an antagonism assumed. And I've responded to you both philosophically and emotionally, just as you responded to me.
If I pepper my responses with some probing then it's because I get bored and I need to maintain my interest...I do not wish to be rude.

eyesinthedark wrote:
This is all part of some perverse ritual for you. You began life as an idealist (1st a Christian, then a socialist) and ended up a realist, a bitter cynic.
I was never a christian...I did dabble in Communism for a while, in my late teens. I quickly got over it.
Cynic, yes, but bitter is the taste I give to the sweetness in the mouths of babes. You know when you've been raised on milk and honey anything tasting different seems sour.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Your hopes and dreams were dashed, promises were broken, but finally (only after 46 years) you woke up to a stark reality.
I never had any unrealistic dreams...what lessons I learned from reality I took to heart and I adjusted my perspective. It's called growing up. But failures and disappointments are part of everyone' s life.
I just wanted to figure out the how and why...and so I also took the failures and disappointments in other people's lives as a guidance.
I wasn't happy with just blaming the world for not living up to my expectations, and so I studied myself first and foremost, to find and correct the errors in my thinking.
When I saw them I realized that most of mankind was suffering from the same delusions, only most never wake up and grow up...and so they always accuse others and the world for what they, themselves, are guilty of.
Am I proud about waking up? Yes....do I look down on those that can't? Yes. Do I, now, know why they refuse to or can't deal with reality? Definitely. My empathy does not automatically result in compassion. Because I know.

eyesinthedark wrote:
You realized all was a farce, a sham, a spectacle, but you did not blame them, did you, those who you feel let you down, they were just animals, intellectually inferior to you in every way, but nor did you forget, you vowed never to let yourself be duped again, so now you seek out 'Christians' and 'socialists' on line, hoping to expose them as fools, liars and hypocrites every chance you get, you think they're so far gone they've even duped themselves, concerning their own nature in particular and human nature in general, or as your 'Trivers' suggests, they lie to themselves to make the lie (universal equality and brotherhood of man) more believable to those they mean to dupe.
I think stupidity is very dangerous. Mainly because you can't reason with it...it has no reasoning...it is pure emotion.
It is also easily manipulated by those who know how and who have the means. This makes morons, like your ilk, tools.
Very dangerous ones.

Like all organisms I set out to protect myself from this environmental element. I want to know so as to defend and protect myself, those I care for and that which I value most.
I embarked on studying it, this human stupidity, in my own experiences but mostly, because I also wanted to cut corners and be more efficient, I studied it in the lives of others.
I became a sort of voyeur.
Whenever I was in the company of others, I listened, I watched, I asked questions. I rarely made myself the center of attention because I preferred watching.
Ironically, on some occasions, this made others turn their attention to me. This, at first, baffled me...so, again, I had to know why and how, without flattering myself.

After so many decades of watching, analyzing and testing, I noticed that some of my conclusions were being validated. I put them on paper and reluctantly published them on-line. The attention I got was surprising. Then I realized that this was part of my world-view, that it supported my views. It all clicked...it meshed.
And yes, I also enjoyed the ego boost it gave me..but I did not give into it. I am not as arrogant as I pretend to be.
I am arrogant.. just not that much. It's a part....the part I cannot express in my real life.

I decided to play with them, these idiots, in the only medium where it would not have any personal ramifications. I wanted to make an example of them....to show my views, real-time, rather than just explain them theoretically.
But I never go looking for them...these retards...they offer themselves up, just like you did. They come to me, wanting to "put me in my place", expose me as a "hypocrite" and all that jazz....so I toy with them...and in the effort to expose me, I expose them.
How?
Because they are suffering from what they project upon me...this is their failing. They don't even see it....they can't see it. In this case their projections are an exposition of their own psychology...I just know how to read it well.

I invented Satyr...later, and later still after seeing the movies Harris inspired, with Hannibal Lecter, I saw that he too had noticed many of the things I had...so my Satyr character gained an avatar.
I chose the avatar which resembled the role I was playing in real life but less over the top than the movie character...a less extreme caricature, freed from the worldly concerns I was forced to take into consideration every time I spoke and acted.
Remarkably it has been effective...not only with the retards, like you, who despise me but are still fascinated, but also amongst the girls...a few I've managed to translated this on-line persona into a real-life outcome. And not only from this forums. Many contact me through my Blog.
I've also manged to come in contact with those who are more, or most, like me. Few, but valuable contacts. They make me feel less alone.

Of course your fascination, as well as the Dragon's, comes from an inability to grasp the essence of it all. You know the theory, you understand the contexts....but you can't fully imitate it or get into the skin. You assume that because I am playing a role that it is fake...there's your first mistake. You also assume, or the retard purple wyrm does, that it can be duplicated simply by following a formula...second mistake. You also assume that it's some kind of conjuring up scheme, a grand hypnotic hoax...third mistake.

You can't fake charm....no more than you can fake intelligence. At least not for long.
You can fake beauty and height and strength but not charm and intellect.
You either are, or you are not. Genetics plays a part...but mostly it is a matter of circumstances....the right ingredients finding themselves in the right conditions, not breaking but hardening into something beautiful or monstrous...or both.

eyesinthedark wrote:
"Express yourself exactly as you are and face the consequences." The Hannibal Lectre thing, the entire persona you crafted is a psychological weapon you use to expose retards to reality, hoping they will kill themselves, and cultivating tactics for figuring these animals out and how to expose them or manipulate them.
My goal, unlike the movie character, is not to kill and devour anyone. I don't have a taste for pig.
I want everyone exactly as they are. But if it so happens that some fall on the sword they yield against me, then it's funny and it gives me pleasure to watch them squirm.
Like this feeble attempt at "psychoanalysis".

Let me be forthright...firstly we all project... this is a given, unlike what liberals and morons think. We all take the given, what is past (knowledge, experiences) and we form abstractions which we project towards what we do not know.
But not all minds are equal and so how deeply and how well each mind understands what is learned or experienced is not the same...furthermore not all abstracting is equal, as some possess a more powerful imagination and a more courageous heart....necessary when evaluating things that might be hurtful.
Imagination is often tainted by fear and hope, resulting in fantasy.

Secondly...we all fear and are driven to deal with this fear. But how we do it and how brave we are in handling this fear is, again, unequal. Most are overly affected and so they come up with the easiest and most flattering and most hopeful convenient conclusion, never being more cruel towards themselves as a way of taking on responsibility and avoiding the pitfalls of the easy way out.

Thirdly...we all have baggage, another pet for the liberal mindset...in that we all have a past which is not always pleasing. The past cannot be forgotten or denied or erased...this is easy, it must be dealt with. Part of knowing yourself is this dealing with your past. The past informs our present but it also supports it...for we are our past. To accept this is to accept self.
This includes all your failings, all your ugliness, all your mistakes, all your limitations.

These three factors are my advantage over you and your ilk.
Retards, like you, think that you can tell me something about myself which is not true, and that I would be offended, or that you can tell me something which is true and I will be hurt...hurt enough to be silent.
Now, I have fears and baggage and I project, constantly...I judge knowing that I am judged in return. Welcoming this for there is nothing I am ashamed of or insecure about...not the way I used to be when I was younger. More so due to the fact that I was a sensitive boy....not fragile but sensitive. I saw things, I felt things, I was aware of things on a level other children didn't seem to be. At first, being who I am, I thought there was something wrong with me.
I was more vicious towards myself than I ever have been to anyone of you idiots. I was relentless, cruel and unforgiving on a level you douche-bags would never comprehend.

I cried and waled and dreamed of being just like everyone else. Then I realized that it's not me...it's the fuckin' world. It's fucked up.
Look around you. Look in the mirror.
I saw the hypocrisies, the lies, the pretenses, the games....and, as I stated before, I wanted to know...to protect myself and to take advantage of it. I was attracted, early on, to the idea of con artists and grifters, being mesmerized by their abilities. Then I realized I was missing one key piece...and I gave that up.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Your philosophy is half baked anyway, some points are very ingenious, others are full of holes and contradictions, and I am not saying this because I am a Christian (you wish), I am saying this because I am superior to you in some ways. This isn't about philosophy, it is about you masterbating, exposing and raping naive minds with some truth.
You poor fuck...if it sufficed to simply declare such things without proving them, then nothing about thinking would matter.

If it pleases you to consider yourself "superior" without actually showing this superiority or is calling my views "half baked" (I've heard worse) with no particulars, then please indulge.

Who the fuck cares?

-------------------------------------------

eyesinthedark wrote:
All of civilization is a form of shielding from nature, a farmer shields himself from having to forage and gather in the cold, dank woods, from having to rummage through thorns and thistles, he domesticates, tames the plants, fruits and vegetables, bends their nature to his nature, to his will, clothing and shelter shield us from the bitter cold, a shepard shields himself from having to chase his prey everynight, he weeds out their fearful, aggressive tendencies, humanizes them, builds a fence around so as to monopolise their flesh and fur. This ingenuity has yielded a great abundance and resources, where before they were was uncertainty and scarcity. This lead to a population boom, but man abuses his technology, leading to overpopulation, resource depletion, soil erosion, and many other environmental problems, atrophy, lack of excersise, obesity. My question to you is, at what point do you draw the line, at point what point does man become decadent. Do you arbitarily draw it, on a whim, or have you carefully considered it?
This is part of the entire cycle of life, retard...a civilization is born, it grows, it becomes strong, then it gets old and it declines towards death. This is the organic take on history and philosophy, ushered in by Goethe and Nietzsche and followed by Spengler, and Guenon, and Yockey, and Heisman, and Evola and many, many others...including me.
Man becomes decadent when the fruits of his success turn into a crutch and comfort becomes more enticing than work and effort. It's a natural process.
See Roman Empire.
Judeo-Christianity infected the west, through Rome, because it had become weak, soft, complacent, living on its past glory. It atrophied and withered and was infected with a virus which, in unison with its gene/meme, it morphed into what we call Christianity.

By and by, there is a difference between culture and civilization.
Hellas, was culture ....Rome was civilization.
One has a spiritual aspect to it...it is more organic...the other is mechanical, it is utilitarian...it is technique and technology, no heart, little essence.
Civilization as Spengler said, was what happens to culture when it becomes rigid with old age.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Now, man also domesticates man, the left, right, center, up and down factions, groups, wings, each have their own ways of domesticating other individuals, classes, genders, races, etc, to make the other easier to manage, more fruitful and productive for the individual, class, gender, race, doing the domesticating, and each one attempts to convince the other and even himself, that he is doing so in the name of God, or whatever, republicans, monarchs and democrats alike believed and believe in 'rights'. The monarchs believe in the 'divine rights' of kings, repulicans believe in the divine/'natural rights' of individuals, and democrats believe in the natural rights of the majority, the collective, or whatever, whatever suits them. The key is to make the other think that you and yours have the right to rule, ordained by God, natural law, or that it extrinsically benefits the whole of society if he and his were to rule, or that he and his are more 'pure' and 'noble', but in reality, is all a bunch of hogwash, as far as I can tell. The rightwing and the left are full of shit. I am primarily for me and secondly for my own, those similar to me, in terms of ability, personality, in terms of blood. The further you deviate from the principle of egoism, the more you error. I play 'round with other paradigms, but this is the one I return to, because it makes sense, it best describes my nature, our nature.
This crap is part of Traditionalism.
Another form of mind manipulation. If you actually believe that it is true, then you are a hypocrite and a deluded fuck; if you use it as a ploy, then you are clever.

There is no God, and so man places himself there. Man is the towards Godliness.
I follow no man.
I am a Greek...in ancient times the Greeks worshiped their dead, their kindred, their own. A man was pries and leader of his clan.
His God was his father, and his father's father.
The hearth was the center of his home; it was the fire representing his bloodline.
Read a book.
Start with Ancient City.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Your oligarchs, whether they be warriors or farmers, are no different, each sings a bullshit song about himself.
Yes, and I dance to my own rhythms.
My kind is by nature not organizable. They resist assimilation.
The free-spirit always roams alone, outside the walls...entering to briefly rest, indulge and then leave again.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:50 pm

Quote :
If you read Baudrillard, then this point, ambiguous though it be, is when it begins substituting reality with something man-made. This is the point of totally artificiality, where reality is murdered.
It is a kind of systemic solipsism.
Art exposes it perfectly.
When art begins imitating itself, it begins regurgitating and repeating and sampling itself to reproduce newer, more detached form reality forms of expression, it is the point where man has completely cocooned himself within an artifice.
It's not only that he is shielded from the big bad world, anymore, but that he is shielded from what is shielding him from the big bad world. The world, reality, has taken another step back into the background...it has become a background.

Take art, again, as an example.
Art is no longer describing the real, but it is describing the description of the real. It is taking itself as the real and then adding an extra layer of description.
So you primarily use art as an indication of mans 'cocooning'.
I wonder if art began imitating itself in any other civilizations besides modern, western civilizations (North America, Europe, Japan, etc). Maybe cocooning occurred in ancient Rome and Greece (albeit in the latter stages of those civilizations, albeit not to the same extent as ours). I remember Plato mentioned something about art 'degenerating' in his age.
When did our cocooning begin? Obviously it began sometime in the 20th century. Several movements/candidates spring to mind. Pop art, Surrealism and Dada. Dada isn't really art imitating art or itself, it's more like art imitating random shit, chaos or nothingness. Surrealism is art imitating dreams, the psyche, if anything, I consider Surrealism to be a higher form of art than previous movements, it is my personal favourite style of art. The most clear and striking example of art imitating itself is pop art. I believe Hitler and his regime believed all the aformentioned movements to be indications of degeneration. If you wanted to include Dada, Surrealism, Cubism, Fauvisms, and other 20th century art isms, I would say what they all have in common is, they don't represent anything tangible, physical or objective. In that respect, they're like Christian or Mythological art. However, they're not representations of the ideal, they're respresentations of the mind (mental and/or emotional states), and/or other representations of other representations, and/or representations of crap, the minds (and/or the wills) failure to accurately represent anything.

Quote :
My "oligarchs" are not about hedonism or materialism nor are they about leading or controlling the masses, and so bullshit need not be applied.
What are they about then? Do they spend most of their time alone, in solitary self confinement, in solice and quietutde, observing the world from the outside in, watching times and spaces go by, keeping people and things at a distance, only letting a select few in when necessary (quality over quantity), ascetics, minimalists, asocial and asexual, living in their apartments, pursuing their quirky, eccentric artistic and intellectual hobbies and interests alone, neither seeking fame, nor fortune, living according to their idiosyncratic laws, principles and rules? They sound like shizoids to me, are schizoids not an expression and manifestation of cocooning (maybe/maybe not)? Or maybe I have you all wrong, again, is it my fault or yours? Originally I thought it was mine, now I'm not so certain.

I consider myself a bit schizoid, though if I was an extreme variant of the 'disorder', I wouldn't be typing to you, right now.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15005
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:33 pm

eyesinthedark wrote:
So you primarily use art as an indication of mans 'cocooning'.
I wonder if art began imitating itself in any other civilizations besides modern, western civilizations (North America, Europe, Japan, etc).
What other system had the technological means and energies to push nature back this far?

eyesinthedark wrote:
When did our cocooning begin?
Think of ti like the skin.
Here the system is the superorganism.
The organism in this case the superorganism, seeks to protect itself from the outside, form the aline, from what lies beyond its willful control.
So it constructs an imperfect, porous, barrier...a skin, supported by a frame, bones.
It tries to close up, close itself in, a form of solipsism...self-referential awareness with no, or little outside input. this eventually results in destruction, an implosion, as you cannot ignore the world and hope that it goes away.

Keep in mind that when we speak of a superorganism it is also protecting itself from alien memes and not only alien genes.

eyesinthedark wrote:
Obviously it began sometime in the 20th century. Several movements/candidates spring to mind. Pop art, Surrealism and Dada. Dada isn't really art imitating art or itself, it's more like art imitating random shit, chaos or nothingness. Surrealism is art imitating dreams, the psyche, if anything, I consider Surrealism to be a higher form of art than previous movements, it is my personal favourite style of art. The most clear and striking example of art imitating itself is pop art. I believe Hitler and his regime believed all the aformentioned movements to be indications of degeneration. If you wanted to include Dada, Surrealism, Cubism, Fauvisms, and other 20th century art isms, I would say what they all have in common is, they don't represent anything tangible, physical or objective. In that respect, they're like Christian or Mythological art. However, they're not representations of the ideal, they're respresentations of the mind (mental and/or emotional states), and/or other representations of other representations, and/or representations of crap, the minds (and/or the wills) failure to accurately represent anything.
This process has always occurred....only difference being that in modern systems it has attained a certain height due to technological advancements...these including advancements in husbandry and psychology.

eyesinthedark wrote:
What are they about then?
Aristocrats of the spirit.
I've laid out some basic principles here:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

eyesinthedark wrote:
Do they spend most of their time alone, in solitary self confinement, in solice and quietutde, observing the world from the outside in, watching times and spaces go by, keeping people and things at a distance, only letting a select few in when necessary (quality over quantity), ascetics, minimalists, asocial and asexual, living in their apartments, pursuing their quirky, eccentric artistic and intellectual hobbies and interests alone, neither seeking fame, nor fortune, living according to their idiosyncratic laws, principles and rules? They sound like shizoids to me, are schizoids not an expression and manifestation of cocooning (maybe/maybe not)? Or maybe I have you all wrong, again, is it my fault or yours? Originally I thought it was mine, now I'm not so certain.
did you not declare yourself superior, boy?
Go with that.

This type is all that.
Ascetic suffices to define the kind.
But it has taken on a nihilistic flavor in out time when everything is taken to an extreme with no balance.
Ascetic in the ancient Greek way: akin to athletics, which in the Greek language bears the same name: ασκηση...ασκητικη
A form of self-denial promoting distinguishing taste.

eyesinthedark wrote:
I consider myself a bit schizoid, though if I was an extreme variant of the 'disorder', I wouldn't be typing to you, right now.
So...how did it feel....inside you?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:53 pm

And now I will expose you for the big, fat, Greek bitch you are.

Quote :
If I'm not mistaken a troll is someone who purposefully tries to cause a stir so as to gain attention or simply to cause a stir. He does not have to believe what he says, he only says what he thinks will get the best emotional reaction from the other.
This automatically excludes me. I cannot pretend and so I do not play those silly games, like you retards do, where you pick a side, at random, and debate it.
This is because you lack an ability I and others possess, the ability to imagine why people believe things you do not, and imagine what aruments they might have and use to substantiate their beliefs. To adopt a belief not your own, and defend it, takes great mental strength, fortitude, flexibility and versatility, it means you are capable of questioning your own beliefs and seeing things from another point of view, from a perspective you lack.
This mental excersise can reveal validity in perspectives not currently your own, as well as strengthen your mind. Since you are cognitively egocentric, and can't imagine anyone thinking or feeling about the world differently than you, or that they might have good reasons for thinking or feeling about the world differently than you.
Like a retard, you lack this ability, and being a retard, you automatically assume people who think, feel and do things differently than you, are dumb, instead of thinking maybe they're just different than me, or maybe they just see things from a different angle than me, and if someone has an ability you lack, you assume their ability is superfluous, unnecessary, in order to salvage your fragile ego.

It is a mental excersise, a way of challenging one's own beliefs and others, but it is not the same as trolling, as the goal is not to provoke a negative emotive response in an other, but to refute the other and challenge ones own beliefs.

BTW, moron, I never adopted a belief not my own in order to challenge you, that is your ass, umption. I didn't put my beliefs or anyone elses beliefs on the line, I merely pitted some of your beliefs against some of your other beliefs, looking for a contradiction. I was unable to find one, thus far, through no fault of my own, but because your beliefs are elusive, vague, soft and fluid, I'm not the first to say so. You and your philosophy can be defined more by what you oppose than what you let in (cynicism).

Quote :
I actually have to believe in what I am saying...that's my weakness, fag. This is why I could never fully take advantage of my insights. I could not play the game long enough to be effective.
Yes, it is your mental weakness, you can't imagine why people think, feel and do things differently than you.
Also, you assume it is womanly to do so, but if one openly annources that he is doing so (adopting anothers beliefs for the purposes of debate), it is not shying away from ones self, or trying to become something (s)he is not.

Quote :
(By the way...did you enjoy being penetrated?)
In your dreams, fag boy. Anyone can see it has been you, getting emotionally defensive, emoting and lactating all over the place. You're the one all hot and bothered, you hyper, sensitive, douche bag.
I wonder why?
My theory is- I was critiquing you, and I happened to use words like despise and hate, and since you are really a Judeo Christian douche bag, you were bothered by these words, and forced by your hypersensitive, Greek emotions to retaliate. Finding no beliefs of my own to critique, since I put none on the line, unlike in previous discussions we've had, your feminine mystique was forced to criticize me for causing you pain, so you imagined I was a Judeo Christian like you, emotively attacking you for hating homosexuals, when I couldn't give a damn about them, I was merely pitting one of your beliefs (against nurture) against another one of your beliefs (active social darwinism, but it appears you're more of a passive social darwinist, but whatever the fuck). You don't like being accused of being hateful, do you Satyr, you shy away from such feelings, they are too manly, and brutish for you. You do not hate your enemies, they are "dumb animals", oh not you Satyr, no one could ever accuse you of hate... weakling.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:15 pm

Quote :
Isn't this thread about challenging me? Is this not why you came here?
Well, from the get-go there has to be an antagonism assumed. And I've responded to you both philosophically and emotionally, just as you responded to me.
If I pepper my responses with some probing then it's because I get bored and I need to maintain my interest...I do not wish to be rude.
No, it is about your emotional need to pretend everyone, but you of course, is a Christian socialist, meanwhile, you're affraid of your own hate, and what others think of you.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:52 pm

Quote :
I think stupidity is very dangerous. Mainly because you can't reason with it...it has no reasoning...it is pure emotion.
It is also easily manipulated by those who know how and who have the means. This makes morons, like your ilk, tools.
Very dangerous ones.
Where is your proof, I am emotional, are you not the one incapable of engaging in a dispassionate, impersonal discussion for more than a few seconds?
You take all disagreements as personal insults to you, even if they are about epistemology or metaphysics, and you cannot refrain from resorting to ad homs, but of course you spin this into a virtue, once again to salvage your ego, for all character traits and abilities you possess are virtuous, and everyone are vicious, and you can objectively prove this, of course.

Quote :
But I never go looking for them...these retards...they offer themselves up, just like you did. They come to me, wanting to "put me in my place", expose me as a "hypocrite" and all that jazz....so I toy with them...and in the effort to expose me, I expose them.
How?

Because they are suffering from what they project upon me...this is their failing. They don't even see it....they can't see it. In this case their projections are an exposition of their own psychology...I just know how to read it well.

I invented Satyr...later, and later still after seeing the movies Harris inspired, with Hannibal Lecter, I saw that he too had noticed many of the things I had...so my Satyr character gained an avatar.
I chose the avatar which resembled the role I was playing in real life but less over the top than the movie character...a less extreme caricature, freed from the worldly concerns I was forced to take into consideration every time I spoke and acted.
Remarkably it has been effective...not only with the retards, like you, who despise me but are still fascinated, but also amongst the girls...a few I've managed to translated this on-line persona into a real-life outcome. And not only from this forums. Many contact me through my Blog.

Of course your fascination, as well as the Dragon's, comes from an inability to grasp the essence of it all. You know the theory, you understand the contexts....but you can't fully imitate it or get into the skin. You assume that because I am playing a role that it is fake...there's your first mistake. You also assume, or the retard purple wyrm does, that it can be duplicated simply by following a formula...second mistake. You also assume that it's some kind of conjuring up scheme, a grand hypnotic hoax...third mistake.

You can't fake charm....no more than you can fake intelligence. At least not for long.
You can fake beauty and height and strength but not charm and intellect.
You either are, or you are not. Genetics plays a part...but mostly it is a matter of circumstances....the right ingredients finding themselves in the right conditions, not breaking but hardening into something beautiful or monstrous...or both.
You flatter youself too much, I am fascinated by you, although this fascination is waning. I don't want to expose you as a hypocrite, you asked for a challenge, and i merely attempted to offer you one.
I'm not a Judeo Christain, or an effete male, secretly attracted to your charisma and your essence, or any of that bullshit you use to lubricate and jerk off with, your emotions are making far too much out of this.
Anyway, my fascination with you is probably no more than what you felt for Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
Ahough I think you're limited in some ways, my goal was to raise my ego by challenging and overcoming you in debate, but you had to go and turn this into emotionally charged shit, whilst accusing me of doing the same, once again, to bolster and salvage your little ego, for you are incapable of admitting fault or error, incapable of admitting fallibility, and this, more than anything, is why I challenged you, a pride thing, nothing to do with your usual Christian idealist vs Cynical realist paradigm.

The trouble with you is, being egocentric and caught up in your particular, peculiar world view, you are unable to see anything outside of that. if someone disagrees with you, it must be because they're a (closet) Christian.
Always black and white with you, it could never be that they disagree with a portion of your philosophy, or they merely want to have a stimulating debate with you, for fun and to excersise their mental muscles, no, if someone disagrees with you, or doesn't like you, it has to be part of this dualistic, black and white, binary, overly simplistic paradigm you crafted, where you are the pinnacle of manly virtue, and everyone else is either with you or retarded, degenerate, or whatever.

There is no in between with you, no other factions or groups outside of the two, which is funny because you accuse others of being dualistic and overly simplistic, when you yourself are caught up in your own gemini concepts. Orginally this is why I was attracted to you and your philosophy, it was a breath of fresh air for me, to see such consistency, to see a complete and well thought out world view was very refreshing for me, I was growing tired of the nihilistic dada philosophy of a John Jones and the boring, dull as fuck atomism and materialism of a Three Times Great.

I too wanted to construct my own paradigm, this has always been my dream, but you are too greedy, you have solipsistically cealed yourself from all other information that doesn't and people who don't fall neatly within the confines and parametres of your rigid, stagnant, sterile, fixed paradigm, you go too far the other way, and this is why i feel like I can't have a conversation with you, not because i'm a secret marxist or whatever, God your simple.

You dont' debate individuals, you don't see individuals, you see archetypes, and yes, this is good, yes, this is what philosophy is supposed to look like, make conncections and see the bigger, abstract picture, but not to the point where one denies, ignores, or is unable to acknowledge individual differences and variances you solipsistic, schizophrenic fuck. I, am an individual, with subtle nuances and distinctions, no one is quite like me. Of course I have similarities with others in addition to differences, but you cannot see that, can you, retard, oh well, have fun exiling and isolating yourself from reality in your self imposed prison, where you don't let any others or any alternative points of view, in.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:50 am

Quote :
Let me be forthright...firstly we all project... this is a given, unlike what liberals and morons think. We all take the given, what is past (knowledge, experiences) and we form abstractions which we project towards what we do not know.
But not all minds are equal and so how deeply and how well each mind understands what is learned or experienced is not the same...furthermore not all abstracting is equal, as some possess a more powerful imagination and a more courageous heart....necessary when evaluating things that might be hurtful.
Imagination is often tainted by fear and hope, resulting in fantasy.

Secondly...we all fear and are driven to deal with this fear. But how we do it and how brave we are in handling this fear is, again, unequal. Most are overly affected and so they come up with the easiest and most flattering and most hopeful convenient conclusion, never being more cruel towards themselves as a way of taking on responsibility and avoiding the pitfalls of the easy way out.

Thirdly...we all have baggage, another pet for the liberal mindset...in that we all have a past which is not always pleasing. The past cannot be forgotten or denied or erased...this is easy, it must be dealt with. Part of knowing yourself is this dealing with your past. The past informs our present but it also supports it...for we are our past. To accept this is to accept self.
This includes all your failings, all your ugliness, all your mistakes, all your limitations.

These three factors are my advantage over you and your ilk.
Actually i agree with everything you said here, but you may believe about me whatever you think flatters yourself.

Quote :
Retards, like you, think that you can tell me something about myself which is not true, and that I would be offended, or that you can tell me something which is true and I will be hurt...hurt enough to be silent.
Now, I have fears and baggage and I project, constantly...I judge knowing that I am judged in return. Welcoming this for there is nothing I am ashamed of or insecure about...not the way I used to be when I was younger. More so due to the fact that I was a sensitive boy....not fragile but sensitive. I saw things, I felt things, I was aware of things on a level other children didn't seem to be. At first, being who I am, I thought there was something wrong with me.
I was more vicious towards myself than I ever have been to anyone of you idiots. I was relentless, cruel and unforgiving on a level you douche-bags would never comprehend.
Here you are turning sensitivity and fear of others into a virtue... pathetic. I'd be lying if I said I'm not bothered by what SOME others say and think about me, but not to that extent, not to the extent of wanting to blow my brains out.

Quote :
I cried and waled and dreamed of being just like everyone else.

That's precious.

Quote :
I cried and waled and dreamed of being just like everyone else. Then I realized that it's not me...it's the fuckin' world. It's fucked up.
Look around you. Look in the mirror.
I saw the hypocrisies, the lies, the pretenses, the games....and, as I stated before, I wanted to know...to protect myself and to take advantage of it. I was attracted, early on, to the idea of con artists and grifters, being mesmerized by their abilities. Then I realized I was missing one key piece...and I gave that up.

Oh boo hoo, the world has always been fucked up. Like an imbecile, you idealize the past, as if the Greeks or Romans had it any better than us. Hate to burst your bubble, but there has always been liars, hypocrites, thieves, murderers, and scoundrels, and there always will be, most probably, and I hope you're including yourself among them, or are you a spotless little lamb, forsaken by a Godless, cruel, unkind universe, placing owness on everyone but yourself.

You're far too sensitive and precious for this world, aren't you?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Open Challenge

Back to top Go down
 
Open Challenge
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Open Challenge
» QC to bid out contract to convert Payatas open dump into sanitary landfill
» Open eyes Vision
» Open vision of nice Black shoes
» Another open vision inthe spirit!!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: