gender and this site

"How does intelligence evolve?
Why does it evolve, and how, given that it is evenly distributed within a population?"

Intelligence develops with omnivorous diet. A balanced diet promotes a higher capabilty for higher intelligence. Herbivors and carnivores lack one and too much of the other. Their systems have become suited to this yet it caps significant brain development.. Humans that lean either to carnivore or vegetarian will suffer from underdevelopment as will their offspring. This can be reversed with in one to two generations at the most. This has been tested with humans and apes. Proper diet is the most crucial element to higher intellect.


"Why perceive at all, if appearances are superficial, dealing only with the physical?"

Sight is one of our survival needs from the past yet not as much now nor is it used by itself. We see, hear, smell, and observe to perceive threat. We have gone beyond common mammal perceptions. We have learned to combine and judge friend or foe without reliance on vision only. Vision does include not just physical appearance of another, it does include watching body movement and expressions. Animal use physical difference only to determine friend/foe/food. Many also use smell in combination with sight.


"What is the difference between mental and physical potentials, and how do appearances matter in all areas dealing with nature except when it comes to humans?"
  
There is more than one difference between the two potentials . Having the strength to pick up two hundred pounds does not mean you know where to move it and knowing where to move it does not mean you can. That is the main difference. Appearance does matter to humans it just is not used by itself. Animals use appearance as friend/ foe or food many also use smell in conjunction with appearance. Humans use these two along with sight of action and rational thinking that surpasses fight or flight instinct.


"If specialization only affects the body and not the mind, then are all species equal in intelligence and only different in form and color?
If not why? "

Those that have better use of the right side of the brain and those that have better use of the left are specializations of the brain. Combine that with proper diet and education there will be specific abilities one can have..
The last part was already adressed by the first answer about diets.

If its just diet and education why do sub-Saharan africans have the same mean I.Q as African Americans that have access to better diets and better education?

The same can be said for whites living in South Africa, Europe and North America.

Anfang wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Tell me Anfang, did you have any Principles when you attacked Mannequin and expressed your Xt. hatred at him for being a party-crasher?

No, I had no principles - see my post which you quoted. But those 'principles' must be Xt. based - whatever that means at the time, right?

Exactly, so you had no principles whatsoever as you say at the time. Which is why I say why feel disgusted at Mannequin if you are the one being ambiguous suiting yourself to whatever it is you are facing at the moment? If you are going to live moment to moment, someone might as well think today you huff and puff, but tom. you might as well be in the mood for opening your supple orifices.
No. They are not "must be" Xt. "based"; they Were.
Perpetual, Apaosha, Recidivist, Satyr gave their reasons and views on the matter of homosexuality. The Wowman all la di da uttered some heroine lines "this is going to be interesting" and " i'll play the game" - from an actress who comes to the set, wears make-up, delivers her lines, and packs up, this is normal and one expects no more from such an exotic creature rustling by in her silk and chiffon. At the max., she too would have quoted some line from Corinthians. But what did YOU do? You sprung out from nowhere like you were squatting and hiding in the bushes only to say, "I'd call you Mr.Fancy Pants, except you aren't wearing any" - now, if I were a homo, I would def. take you for a tease.
But luckily for you it didn't stop there. You showed what a serious Xt. you were being when you added, the real problem was, people were not taking out the Trash Completely.
Its only a Xt. who wishes to totally castrate the parts that disturbs him, scares him. Its Xtianity that found the body and passions repulsive and the mind-body severance is old news.
Its only a Xt. who wants to erase and wish away completely all that is unpleasant and repulsive to him.
Its only a puritanical Xt. who fears getting his hands dirty who tells the other "you will see yourself out"... I laughed...

Quote :

Why would you assume that the main motivation for my attack (by the way, tell me which post you are refering to, there were a few in that exchange) was him being a party-crasher? -

Why would you assume I was assuming that?
I think you calling him a Temporal Anomaly is quite clear that it wasn't because he was an ordinary party-crasher. That much is obvious to all.

Quote :

To shorten this here, A main motivation was the question of influence and dominance. I wanted to diminish his dominance because I don't like him in a position of power over me.

I don't recall him starting anything with you or trying to dominate you - not even subliminally. You initiated the name-calling without any serious opinion, thought, rational confrontation or any substantial debate. You simply passed judgement and called him Mr.Fancy Pants because you found him ugly and repulsive - everyone has their own aesthetic sensibility and that's fine, but to a Xt. mind, only that which is pleasant is "normal" and only what is normal is "good"...

You cite his "over-powering" presence was the motivation of your hatred or attack; I smell more.
No matter, I am not here on some de-Xt. mission.

Quote :

Yes, sure, you can take it - affirm it all... . How silly of you but if you feel like it then go ahead.
So the chances for that are pretty much zero (If we are talking willingly).

"What I'll do in a particular situation I cannot say precisely because part of the internal figuring is not done consciously. That is, if I haven't experienced the situation at least once, better several times before - so I can only make rough estimations at best."

It takes a gun shoved at your head to do something unwillingly, and yet how you'd react to a bishop threatening you to convert or die is only something you can roughly estimate... ?
A mental rape is only roughly estimable, maybe even pardonable depending on the situation, compared to a physical rape?
I am sure I haven't gotten down way way down to the bottom of your sub/conscious principles...

I need a flash-light.

Quote :

What do you mean, to blame him for trying? Did I complain to the 'authorities' about it?

As in you call him repulsive but you state no reasons, no principles, no arguments, for why you feel so - you yourself admitted, you had no principles. So why should he not take your saying "Mr. Fancy Pants" as a come-on, as a tease?
Is his behaviour repulsive, or is it YOU who is being ambiguous and easy for anyone to interpret you the way they want to?
Focus on your Self first.

Quote :

What kind of moral are you trying to attach to that? Stick on it what you want to see.

What? You are acting as though you are bullied?
As amusing as your semantic performances are, if I wanted to enjoy some Ballet, I'd prefer to go to a play.

Its true, I've got nothing better to do. I am so jobless and bored I am here to smear Your character.
Now Stick that wherever.

I posted some rhetorical questions and even said "these questions were not at you actually", but You decided to put yourself in the questions and made some statements which I found non-sensical and I have stated my reasons and opinion as to why I found it so, and how you appear to me. If you are not a Xt. fine. If you are, fine. Who cares.
And what does what I think of you matter?!

Quote :

Tell me, if someone has a gun to your head, would you rather die or take his dick in your mouth?
Give me some rough estimations.
Nope - no estimations for you.

I know, its too early. You atleast need to experience gagging once before you decide on what you'll be doing at a particular moment, lol

Quote :

You are a thrill-seeker,

I'm just a ho..ary person.
Ancient souls are full of mirth.

Quote :

aren't you.

not even started on my nymph phase yet...  
The moon is in waxing...

Quote :

Like a bungee-jumper.

Detained by rubber is not my idea of a thrill...

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

0/100.

Slaughtz wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Tell me, if someone has a gun to your head, would you rather die or take his dick in your mouth?
Give me some rough estimations.

This reminds me of someone close to me who was in that exact situation and chose the latter - but later promised to fatally stab the person if they ever tried again. They were around 14 at the time and, of course, male. The person perpetrating was their step-father.

Because the person is related, I wonder if it was cowardice, if I carry the same blood. I do. However, how much does blood matter in this regard? The awareness of feminization, the differences between the male and female - how they react with each other. What kind of masculine control does a 14 year old boy have over his feminine nature? It's so near the edge of the maturity of masculine spirit that it confounds me. It is probably why it affects him so readily, too. If he was only 3-4 years younger, there wouldn't be such a serious question about the nature of his spirit - whatever feminine aspects in him were surely strong, to accept and submit, at such a young age. Who would expect a someone 10 or under to accept death over being used in such a way?

Taking what I have from Satyr's views, every male has these aspects to him, a feminine breaking point - it's a matter of exercising that masculine control over the immense fear and desire to give up, give in. There is a coward in all, but intelligence, wisdom and heart is a determining factor in how that emotion is managed.

Part of the reason this concerns me is that I might actually choose to take it over dying right now. The other is that I care about how people perceive me. Who? Well, perhaps too many people. It includes those whom I respect here, though.

Because I think I may choose that now, I wonder if it's an aspect of me I can change - hence the importance of mentioning the masculine control over female aspects. I grew up with a mother telling me to always think of my wife first - a sister telling me I was born a girl. How much of a battle that was for me.. I don't remember, probably because I don't want to. I can only imagine it as very difficult.

I realize the rational end to someone who accepts being cattle, who accepts taking the dick. They're used, constantly but slowly. Humans are one of the rare animals you can farm because of their fear of death, they're also one of the very rare ones you can't because they think longer term than themselves. You can kick a cat or dog but it still won't do your farming or your dishes. You can kick and prod a cow, but it won't produce any faster because of it. But if you beat a man, he may just work faster or become your bitch. Taking death over injustice grants you self-esteem that you won't allow yourself to be treated as an animal, that you did your best. You also insured that your family and all future generations will not suffer the same.

Whether or not people perceive you as masculine, I suppose, isn't actually a problem - it's whether you are or not. If you do something about those slights or 'injustices' against you, then there's something to be said for there.

Here's how I now see what you've said in regards to Anfang, Lyssa. If you give in to the moment, you've let your feminine aspect take over - you might as well be whimsical. This is not an absolute for the situation - that was Xt. thinking on my part. That close someone who was in that situation, promised an end to that person's life had it happened again and it was heeded by him - he never touched him again. Suffering that humiliation, he still kept his spirit - he still preserved his future through a promise to those that would use him.

Too many cross-tracks.

The question between self-love and self-esteem I initially and rhetorically posed, was at Mannequin and his personal context.
I was trying to tell him not to snuff out his little light.

What I said was in the context of a choice, where one did have power to do something despite the surrounding depravity.
If I were a man, and being reduced to a mannequin, and not even an Asian girl suited me, and sharing a rare wife with other men as it was the custom in Sparta had no chance with no men today, then a nobler option would be to adopt a child and teach him/her my values and inculcate in him/her the beauty of a masculine/fem. spirit and raise him/her to be an honourable individual. And perhaps when he/she grows and the situation is hundred times worse, I'd still teach him/her to again adopt someone and keep the flame alive. That is defiance against this age as I know it to the capacity possible by me. Not let the fire die come what may.

Not at Mannequin, I am speaking generally here,
Shake off this victim mind, this helplessness, hopelessness, complaining, moaning, whining, bitching, and see the best you can do and do it. We all have dreams that have broken or are breaking, but when are you going to uncover or discover your spirit, test your will, your strength if not in the most tragic age? Depraved times give the advantage of showing 'what is noble?' more well-defined, clarity to its contours. I can only feel grateful I am getting to live in this age.

Doing depraved things to survive at any cost in the name of 'self-love' is a dishonesty with one's self, when if the will is strong and self-esteeming enough, it will find a way.

Self-love has been falsely taken to mean doing whatever it takes to make the self feel good, pleasured, to gift all joy.
This kind of self-love which I regard as self-submission is different from that which reveres and raises itself in/through the pain and struggle and suffering and agony it may encounter in the way and even desires to encounter.


Now Anfang enters and says, to him self-love and self-esteem are the same thing.
So I ask musing... was it self-love at the cost of self-esteem when many pagans converted to Xt.?
Two issues here.

1. A man clinging to his self - he makes his self emerge from his esteem. And so, he survives at any cost knowing he can always adjust his sense of self by whatever he esteems at the moment, or cowardly takes out his life and escapes when something threatens to injure his reputation - if things have failed with him, he believes he himself is a failure and so suicides.

2. A man possessing his self - he makes esteem emerge from him self. And so, he either survives knowing his self is intact by enduring the disgrace, or he survives post-humously knowing it takes honourable death and self-sacrifice to keep a heroism-meme alive. If there were no heroes who died *from honour [not *for honour - i.e. Xtianity.], if there were no honour-conscious memes of dead heroes, and myths and stories to tell, a culture cannot survive. It becomes feminized.
Dead heroic memes are as necessary to a culture's survival as are living heroic genes enduring disgraces to preserve and carry forward a culture.

J.-Xt. marking Christ as the last abs. sacrifice, and hyper-inflating individuals to the point of making them unsacrificiable, and condemning violence, aggression, masculinity is thwarting heroism, and the development of any culture. J.Xt. is and promotes and can promote only a cult-ure, a semblance, not a living culture.

The self-clinging man is narcissistic and is in love with the image of himself.
The self-possessed man is masterly and is in love with himself.

In the Anfang case, shifting and forming Principles as it suits the situation and mood and moment tells me, he might be the former.
I don't claim to 'know' him, but from what I have 'perceived' of him, he lacks self-focus and is more interested in what others are upto. Hopefully his awareness will grow.


In your case, I will say this much. - the same as I told Perpetual before.
There is a body we inherit, but it is upto us, to make it our own.

How we interpret a situation is a direct expression of our Will.
The re/cognition of a Fact, how it is absorbed, assimilated, itself is an interpretation tied to our will-power.

Is your relative cowardly for suffering abuse, or is the whole culture and society that keeps children and teenagers dumbed-down and redeems a homosexual as equal to any other 'human', also a factor?
In my view, no one person is ever responsible - we are the sum total of our past. This is a near a-moralistic dionysian view blaming neither your relative, nor his step-father.
On the one hand, what kind of family tolerates him and does not report him to the police or has him castrated, even if its many years after discovery?
What stops your relative from beating him to a pulp after he's grown up? This is one kind of masculinity.

On the one hand, letting another live in their own shame with no feeling of wanting to punish them or acting judge and jury can be a very noble and courageous soul. Its only the ones who can't redeem themselves, want to inflict pain and vengeance on the other. This too Is one kind of masculinity.  If the other is so beneath and depraved and soul-less already, what would one be punishing anyway? Its a rotting dead corpse.


Anfang thinks I am a thrill-seeker because I ask questions like if he'll open his a-- or his mouth to a homo?

This is because he is emotional and takes things literally.

Look around you, and cultural-marxism is trying to practice faggotry with every one, what J-Xt. missionaries have been doing since ages. Moulding, converting, coercing, seducing, policing... except the domain has shifted from physical to mental, from gene to meme.
Men can no longer be men. They have to think a hundred things before they can spontaneously act or speak. This is the case on some heavy duty philosophy forums, never mind the real world where its even worse.
This is RAPE. Mental Assault. Spiritual Battery.
This is Happening as we speak.

How many have had to swallow their pride, their self-esteem and forced to a submissive position?

Yet, the world was always war. Life was always violence, rape, pillage, exploitation. Nothing new about this.

How we behave, even if No One were to be watching or aware of our actions, is what will equally get woven into the future. Its a Design We Set.
Its the disposition and spirit we take into things, not the act itself.
A Deed is always in becoming.
Its not the cowardly deed itself but what one makes it Become... to where one leads it.

The Past is only an Inheritance. 'You' are what YOU Earn. And You will be what you chose to save from all that was given, and all that you gathered.

Quote :

So maybe, there's no blood aspect involved in my 'willingness' to give in in that moment... Maybe there's a memetic reason. Time will always tell... Perhaps something I've revealed will allow one of you to speed up that process of awareness.

En-trusting your awareness to another makes you ripe for slavery.

When the sun sets and the moon sets and the light outside has gone, strike up your inner light and awaken your self by yourself.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Now contributors have to deal with the admitted dual usage of one avatar.  Why does it need two people to relay the same opinion, whilst hiding behind the one avatar.

Wowman, you're back!! I was missing target-practice
Satyr has given his reasons why.

Why would contributors be concerned if as you say, he&she had the same opinion almost verbatim, and one of them wasn't even thinking and was like a dummy card?

Quote :

For some reason you both seem to find this amusing.

I am assuming by 'you both', you mean Satyr and I... unless of course you have now started seeing Satyr HERE as a dual-person in himself, apart from me, which would then make it 3 people in 1 Satyr avatar and that'd be just too funny coming from a bi-polar 2/1 person in 1 wowman avatar...
But since one half of Satyr is just a 0 dummy and so similar that it could almost be him, then there are only 2 people in 1 Satyr avatar including 1 me.

In any case, assuming one 2/1 of you was talking to 1 me or 1/02 Satyr, I'll say I do actually - find it amusing... Its hilarious to watch a board experience the consequences of its own beliefs and values on gender.

Quote :

Why wouldn't people be confused, especially considering you both have the same opinion almost verbatim.

Confused? Maybe you haven't been following. That board has been in no doubt that 02Satyr was Sabina, and its that personality-obsession with those 4 trolls pushing all philosophical ideas to the back-burner which is the issue.

Quote :

One of you is not thinking for him/herself.

Assuming you are addressing this to 02 Satyr, I'll leave 1/0 of him to reply to this.

Quote :

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Me in ChatBox, for some real-time debating.

Why not  excusively "You" behind "Your" avatar on this thread for some real-time debating.

Why not you watch the film Identity starring John Cusack and tell me - Lyssa, what you thought of it?
Satyr is everybody here. Even I am him. I was recently told I apart from Satyr am also two other people on this board. I don't exist. I am not even a female. Satyr is a mega-Octopus, or a matrix mind alone, no body - he's a BOT simultaneously operating many avatars and many threads at one time.
Maybe Satyr's half-phantom, half-goat, half-woman, half-man, half-bot.. a transhuman intelligence... aissshhhh

Quote :

Pretzle wrote:

Quote :

Is it possible that I ask you questions?

You may well ask, but it can't be guaranteed you won't get two to answer, under the guise of one.

Look at the Heroine all Hot for Satyr jealously preventing Pretzle from taking him seriously...
btw., how do you know Pretzle is not Satyr, the other 0 "girl" involved as Sabina?
Can you be sure of anything?
mmm...

hǣþen wrote:

If its just diet and education why do sub-Saharan africans have the same mean I.Q as African Americans that have access to better diets and better education?

The same can be said for whites living in South Africa, Europe and North America.

Access does not mean it is done. The vast majority of humans do not have good balanced diets of healthy foods. Processed foods lack, Combinations are unobserved. People eat for taste not health. You will note that I said a proper diet. Ever note how the meat and fresh vegetable sections are smaller than the processed foods sections in a grocery store? People want convienent and quick not true health. Unhealthy male sperm and unhealthy female eggs damage potential. Diet affects the potential abilities of progeny. As this fetus becomes developed the host mother must be on a healthy diet to give proper nutrients to the fetus. Improper diet during infancy and beyond will inhibit the brain's development. Most do not eat right.

Lyssa wrote:

Quote :

Perpetual, Apaosha, Recidivist, Satyr gave their reasons and views on the matter of homosexuality. The Wowman all la di da uttered some heroine lines "this is going to be interesting" and " i'll play the game" - from an actress who comes to the set, wears make-up, delivers her lines, and packs up, this is normal and one expects no more from such an exotic creature rustling by in her silk and chiffon. At the max., she too would have quoted some line from Corinthians.

My view on homosexuality has already been expressed at length in the thread Deconstructing Adam.  Obviously you chose to ignore and as usual choose to distort.

reasonvemotion wrote:
Now contributors have to deal with the admitted dual usage of one avatar.  Why does it need two people to relay the same opinion, whilst hiding behind the one avatar.


Lyssa wrote:
Wowman, you're back!! I was missing target-practice
Satyr has given his reasons why.

Why would contributors be concerned if as you say, he&she had the same opinion almost verbatim, and one of them wasn't even thinking and was like a dummy card?


Why would he&she think it necessary to hide behind the same avatar, if not to deceive.  The deception is what people obviously feel uncomfortable about.



Quote:
For some reason you both seem to find this amusing.  

Lyssa wrote:

I am assuming by 'you both', you mean Satyr and I... unless of course you have now started seeing Satyr HERE as a dual-person in himself, apart from me, which would then make it 3 people in 1 Satyr avatar and that'd be just too funny coming from a bi-polar 2/1 person in 1 wowman avatar...
But since one half of Satyr is just a 0 dummy and so similar that it could almost be him, then there are only 2 people in 1 Satyr avatar including 1 me.

In any case, assuming one 2/1 of you was talking to 1 me or 1/02 Satyr, I'll say I do actually - find it amusing... Its hilarious to watch a board experience the consequences of its own beliefs and values on gender.


I'll say I do actually - find it amusing... Its hilarious to watch a board experience the consequences of its own beliefs and values on gender.


A long winded agreement.

Quote:
Why wouldn't people be confused, especially considering you both have the same opinion almost verbatim.

Lyssa wrote:

Confused? Maybe you haven't been following. That board has been in no doubt that 02Satyr was Sabina, and its that personality-obsession with those 4 trolls pushing all philosophical ideas to the back-burner which is the issue.


RE wrote:  
One of you is not thinking for him/herself.

Lyssa wrote:

Assuming you are addressing this to 02 Satyr, I'll leave 1/0 of him to reply to this.


I am addressing you in this instance, as under your name are his words and others apparently have visited here and have confirmed this.  

Satyr wrote:

Me in ChatBox, for some real-time debating.

Why not  excusively "You" behind "Your" avatar on this thread for some real-time debating.  

Lyssa wrote:

Why not you watch the film Identity starring John Cusack and tell me - Lyssa, what you thought of it?
Satyr is everybody here. Even I am him. I was recently told I apart from Satyr am also two other people on this board. I don't exist. I am not even a female. Satyr is a mega-Octopus, or a matrix mind alone, no body - he's a BOT simultaneously operating many avatars and many threads at one time.
Maybe Satyr's half-phantom, half-goat, half-woman, half-man, half-bot.. a transhuman intelligence... aissshhhh


Why not just tell me about it.

Lyssa wrote:

Look at the Heroine all Hot for Satyr jealously preventing Pretzle from taking him seriously...
btw., how do you know Pretzle is not Satyr, the other 0 "girl" involved as Sabina?
Can you be sure of anything?
mmm...


I am sure of this.
 
Your insistence about my attraction for Satyr, let's not go there again.  Instead why not re-read my post about you and your obsession with the man.  The very thought of a person who handles cadavers, has the hands with a smell of death on them and for me, this has the same abhorrence, as a butcher with blood under his fingernails.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Quote :

Perpetual, Apaosha, Recidivist, Satyr gave their reasons and views on the matter of homosexuality. The Wowman all la di da uttered some heroine lines "this is going to be interesting" and " i'll play the game" - from an actress who comes to the set, wears make-up, delivers her lines, and packs up, this is normal and one expects no more from such an exotic creature rustling by in her silk and chiffon. At the max., she too would have quoted some line from Corinthians.

My view on homosexuality has already been expressed at length in the thread Deconstructing Adam.  Obviously you chose to ignore and as usual choose to distort.

How can I distort what I ignored? ha

Ah, I forgot. The quote by Karlen basically stating homosexuality was prevalent in ancient Greece. That was... so valuable.
And yes, you raised speculation on if pederasty was an abuse or not;
"While history portrays that only the man experienced pleasure, art and poetry indicate reciprocation of desire, and there are others who express the opinion that it is a modern fairy tale that the younger eromenos was never aroused."
That was very valid in the context of Mannequin saying he was not one.

There there. I hope now I have presented you well and in a shining light.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Why would he&she think it necessary to hide behind the same avatar, if not to deceive.  The deception is what people obviously feel uncomfortable about.

The point was to expose the lie of gender-insignificance they keep parroting...
And what deceiving, when he&she went knowing their IPs were open to the mods.
They understand it, Moreno has come here to say he does,, so why are you so bothered?

Quote :

Quote :

One of you is not thinking for him/herself.

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:

Assuming you are addressing this to 02 Satyr, I'll leave 1/0 of him to reply to this.

I am addressing you in this instance, as under your name are his words and others apparently have visited here and have confirmed this.  

I have no idea who you are referring to, who has confirmed this.
Be CLEAR and Specific, who are these people you talk about?
I have NEVER plagiarized Satyr here, not even Once.
If he and I sound similar to you, that cannot be helped.
I write from my heart; I don't even make any claims to philosophical intelligence. As you know, I have no substance. I'm a citation bot, nothing more.
Lately, I haven't had the chance to be reading, so I seem to be talking more, and quoting less; I'll have to break soon.

Quote :

Why not just tell me about it.

Because you are a movie buff and you might miss the experience of such a thriller film. If you can't be bothered, read the synopsis on wiki.

Quote :

I am sure of this.

You are sure pretzle is Satyr's other sabina? hhahaha

What gave it away?
 

Quote :

Your insistence about my attraction for Satyr, let's not go there again.

I won't, if you stop blemishing his image to all the people who come here.
You couldn't resist that Pretzle was taking him seriously, and so you had to give a warning and implant doubts and suspicions in her mind. You shouldn't accuse another if you have no proof.

Quote :

Instead why not re-read my post about you and your obsession with the man.

I have read this post, but where have you stated anything about my obsession with him? How am I obsessed exactly?
Or do you mean the prv. one where you warned me that he would use and discard me? That one?
I know you meant well; but I've already told you I am not in your way. And let me say in all seriousness, you are terribly mistaken about him.

Quote :

The very thought of a person who handles cadavers, has the hands with a smell of death on them and for me, this has the same abhorrence, as a butcher with blood under his fingernails.

Satyr handles cadavers?  And how did you arrive at that?  

Why do you fear death?
Did you not come from blood and mucus and the filth and the death of so many cells?

Don't you thrive on the meat the butcher kills who aids your hands from getting dirty, yet you abhor the butcher?

I can say in total frankness, I have never come across a more kinder, beautiful, gentler and rarer soul than Satyr.
There are very very few people I can count on one hand, whose being smells so clean, and he is one of them. And he's got the hands of a Cultivator.
And what are you? Anything better than a beggar waiting for praises for the chores that you may do for him, which was your "duty" anyway?
What is it that you hate about him so much anyway? Let me know if there's a real one - not this crap about male-female equality, etc. too boring.
This time I speak softly to you, because you are such a good sport.
Don't say the things you say again; I'll tear you into little little itsy bitsy pieces ; )

reasonvemotion wrote:

Now contributors have to deal with the admitted dual usage of one avatar.  For some reason you both seem to find this amusing.   Why wouldn't people be confused, especially considering you both have the same opinion almost verbatim.  One of you is not thinking for him/herself. Why does it need two people to relay the same opinion, whilst hiding behind the one avatar.

Sweety, you are trying to hard.

It's easy. The usage of one moniker was only on ILP and for a very specific reason.
An experiment/fishing expedition.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Me in ChatBox, for some real-time debating.

Why not  excusively "You" behind "Your" avatar on this thread for some real-time debating.

Don't be so paranoid, my dear.
I admitted what happened there, as a matter concerning my honesty.
Here, or whenever you see the moniker Satyr, there is only one person, one mind, behind it.

I was invited, once a moniker had been created, to respond to some of the idiots posting there, who felt safe behind their electronic wall.
Sabina's posts were only half mine.
Here, or anywhere you find Satyr lurking, there is only I ...and my very developed feminine side.

Lyssa wrote:

Quote :

What is it that you hate about him so much anyway?

So now I hate him? I don't think I have ever said that, another figment of your imagination.

What happened to the extended hand of friendship, perhaps it was offered only because it is important for people to see you as having high standards and few will unveil your complete self-interest. You think "everyone needs something" and with some men or women it may take time for you to discover what that "something" is, but you are skilful in managing to make the majority unaware of your underhandedness. This being said, even the most successful of your kind can be exposed by people who are shrewd and knowledgeable in the realities of life.

Learn to be more understated with your threats or better still don't use them.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Quote :

What is it that you hate about him so much anyway?

So now I hate him?  I don't think I have ever said that, another figment of your imagination.

I suppose you are not the one who used the word "Abhorrence"?
The last time I checked it meant...

I think you are mentally ill, swinging from one pole to another.

How convenient you ignore the rest of my questions, - "specific people who claimed I was plagiarizing him here" - you ignore this,,, you ignore my question on death and how you eat meat but abhor the butcher? And you evade the question above as well - what made you arrive at saying he handles 'cadavers' and why you abhor him?

Quote :

What happened to the extended hand of friendship,

Its still open, although guessing by how his hands smell bloody disgusting to you,, mine can't be that farther either.

Quote :

perhaps it was offered only because it is important for people to see you as having high standards and few will unveil your complete self-interest.

Assuming you are addressing me as me only and not I as Satyr, that's the first reason I messaged you - to clear the air reg. identity. Then I did say lets make a fresh start until you called him a homo... you don't expect me to watch someone I respect get mocked at by you, silently, do you...
And wowman, "high standards" and "image" and "outer perceptions" are the LAST thing I am concerned about.
I was not the one who went off in a huff last time for feeling ignored and complaining about not being Liked here. That was YOU.
Still, I have already acknowledged you are the one with the substance. I have no issues saying, you certainly are more sophisticated and cultured than my crude, unpolished vulgarity and the real Barbaric I am.
What do you want to call me? A slut? A lowlife? Do it.
On the other hand, if you want to call me a Liar, a Cheat, a Fraud - do it, but with PROOF.
What is my complete self-interest? You tell me.
I am here to cite texts to the best I can and finish my duty. I choose to die lightly.
If Satyr didn't introduce me to this forum, I'd be happy reading and writing enjoying my obscurity never coming online -
I could take off anytime now and never come to any phil. forum again.
I have no need for the internet or public debates to arrive at thoughts. I work differently.
The one begging for praises and acknowledgement and recognition is YOU, not I.
The one who gets hysteric everytime someone disagrees with her is YOU, not I. Then the instant reaction is tranish another's image just to save your own.
And perhaps Friendship to you means only the pleasant side of things, where someone gets along with you jollyly and there's only meadow cow feel-goodness...
For me Friendship also involves pointing out then and there when someone goes wrong and involves brutal honesty.

Quote :

You think "everyone needs something" and with some men or women it may take time for you to discover what that "something" is, but you are skilful in managing to make the majority unaware of your underhandedness.

I think you are talking to Satyr than me.
If its me, you'll have to be more clearer than that, what you mean by "underhandedness".
If you are going to accuse someone, be Bold and Clear about what you are accusing. Don't talk in these cowardly hinting ways, unless you are One.. a Coward.
If not, speak with clarity what "underhandedness" you mean?

Quote :

This being said, even the most successful of your kind can be exposed by people who are shrewd and knowledgeable in the realities of life.

I am sure you are shrewd and street-smart, but exposed for What, Idiot?
TALK CLEARLY.

Quote :

Learn to be more understated with your threats or better still don't use them.

Funny coming from the one who just accused me of being underhanded, and now the dolt is telling me to make my threats understated LOL
You are taking your medication on time, aren't you?

Wowman, I'm an ugly barbaric,, and all this fake politeness means shite all to me. See why I cannot be the person who cares about "High Standards" and "Image"! See how your accusation is undermined by your own statement...
No, I am no Coward like you. I speak my mind CLEARLY and exactly how I feel it.
And I'll say it again, Friendship does not mean "only" exchanging pleasantries.
You say something false about me or anyone on this forum I respect, I will TEAR you into little little itsy bitsy pieces.
That is also my Friendship.

Good day ~

Pretzle wrote:

Access does not mean it is done. The vast majority of humans do not have good balanced diets of healthy foods. Processed foods lack, Combinations are unobserved. People eat for taste not health. You will note that I said a proper diet. Ever note how the meat and fresh vegetable sections are smaller than the processed foods sections in a grocery store? People want convienent and quick not true health. Unhealthy male sperm and unhealthy female eggs damage potential. Diet affects the potential abilities of progeny. As this fetus becomes developed the host mother must be on a healthy diet to give proper nutrients to the fetus. Improper diet during infancy and beyond will inhibit the brain's development.  Most do not eat right.

Sure a poor diet can damage potential but it's not going to compensate for their innate lack of quality ie their genes.

An analogy along the lines if cars, you can "supe up" or modify a beetle but it will never be a BMW no matter how well you look after it.

reasonvemotion wrote:

You think "everyone needs something" and with some men or women it may take time for you to discover what that "something" is, but you are skilful in managing to make the majority unaware of your underhandedness. This being said, even the most successful of your kind can be exposed by people who are shrewd and knowledgeable in the realities of life.

It's this kind of posturing that gives me the thrills.

I am now expecting you, my sweet, to be that "shrewd" one "knowledgeable of life". 


I must be honest, because that's the only thing I can be, the common usually consider the common to be worldliness. 
Their "understanding" of humans is based on the institutionalized parameters of their experiences.
It is usually exposed when talking about nature or something which is not a human construct, such as 'justice,' or 'equality' or some other such nonsense they have no ability to define and, for this reason, defend.

And you are not the first to come to me, as a worm-tongue, offering closeness to get to my "mask". 

So, just for the sake of gamesmanship, let me help you along:

- Satyr is indeed a mask, but the person behind it is one and his real name is known.
I would say that of all the public monikers on these Internets I am the most well-known on a personal level. 

- I am honest, in the sense that I say things some think but do not dare utter, making me not at all original.
I think most of you good-people would be shocked by how many think as I do, but appear normal, well-adjusted in your sense of defining the term. 
You also have a term for it: sociopath.
A demeaning term which assumes that in order to think in such a way you must be void of emotion, love, compassion, appreciation for the meek and the beautiful, unnecessarily cruel and violent.... 

You, my dear, would find the man behind the mask surprising, perhaps even boring, because for you the pretense is what matters.
You have an image as to the ideal man, of how someone who thinks like me, has my mental gifts, let us say, should behave like. A Lector-like character, which I toyed with and  promoted as being part of my mask. 
For you such a man would have to have some softens, for you. A beautiful, muscled, strong, wild stallion, which only you can spurn, and ride.
A very romantic image.
A beautiful beast with the impeccable taste, dressing styles, and social graces of a dandy.

- Having lost hope in finding this Hannibal minus the brutality, you now become a classic female, full of vengeance and a desire to tear down the one who did not live up to your expectations.
The ideas themselves do not matter, for you hope you can deal with them by simply slandering the one behind them.
Like shit-Smears, you dream of a fat, ugly fella, which you can then deal with by saying:
"Ha, who cares what you say. Just look at yourself!!!"

For me the internet, particularly when dealing with philosophy, should be open and free of all social rules of conduct, except those that would disrupt the conversation itself. 


I'm looking forward to being exposed. 
Maybe the mask is not a mask at all. maybe it's the unexposed in daily life, part of the same person. 
In that case, what would you be exposing in the already exposed, but that the man behind the mask is not stupid enough to be himself in the world as it is? 


Because, if I were, my sweet, I would be either in jail or dead.
The Hannibal Lectors of the world are not killers, if they are truly in control and "shrewd". 
They are men who pretend, to get by, and have convinced others that they are something other than who they are. 
Maybe Satyr is that hidden someone, and the man behind the internet mask is really the necessary social mask.

Lyssa wrote:

Exactly, so you had no principles whatsoever as you say at the time.

Exactly... precisely...absolutely...nothing or everything - which one of the two is it today?

Zero or one - 0/100

Feel free to change your stance. To actually do something masculine, to order yourself, to offer resistance, not to follow your instructed, established principles.
But hey, maybe that process is finished for you - Goddess.
I'm a mortal man.

I can tell that you didn't read my last quote - otherwise you'd have noticed the ambiguity.
A bad word that is! Neither zero nor one.

The feminine becomes efficient, directed, purposeful when being controlled, disciplined, ordered. The principles themselves are not masculine. The process of developing principles is masculine. The following of principles is about the feminine aspect becoming efficient, directed. Established authorities decay - that's chaos, that's entropy, that's the opposite of ordering.

Man builds a house, that creation is the ordering. Once the house is finished it decays, unless maintained by someone - the ongoing refinement of principles.

Quote :

If you are going to live moment to moment, someone might as well think today you huff and puff, but tom. you might as well be in the mood for opening your supple orifices.

A rabbit is living from 'moment to moment', as is a lion, as is a snake, as is a cow.... but still there are differences. Who would assume everything is nice and fluffy by default?
Must be someone who has been living among cows and sheep for a long time.

Yes, they might think that - so what will happen is that I get into confrontations where I have to set things straight and make things clear. Good, let me affirm those confrontations. But unlike you, I don't keep it 0/100.

Quote :

No. They are not "must be" Xt. "based"; they Were.

The point was that if they are Xt. , that I don't mind them being Xt. - me being Xt. , in part.
Oh shock, maybe those Xts have soiled my bloodline. Time to cut it off and... Oh wait, I should continue reading what you wrote about cutting off parts of the self... and.... ignore that as well!... or perhaps not...
I'll read it and think about it and most probably come up with something better. Sounds like a plan.

Quote :

Perpetual, Apaosha, Recidivist, Satyr gave their reasons and views on the matter of homosexuality.

I guess so. And?

Quote :

But what did YOU do? You sprung out from nowhere like you were squatting and hiding in the bushes only to say, "I'd call you Mr.Fancy Pants, except you aren't wearing any" - now, if I were a homo, I would def. take you for a tease.

_I_ didn't think about it that way. I was just trying to start a quarrel*. But this would explain why it escalated so quickly. Huh.

*Yeah it was only a quarrel and nothing else, everything is easily reduced to a monism. (I'm being sarcastic here)

Quote :

But luckily for you it didn't stop there. You showed what a serious Xt. you were being when you added, the real problem was, people were not taking out the Trash Completely.

Is that Xt. ? I can decorate a whole X-mas tree by now.

Anfang wrote:

A passive-aggressive strategy which thrives today because nobody is taking out the trash for good. (Until it spawns again - a natural process)

Why did you write Completely in bold letters? Did you want to emphasize that you used a different wording and more importantly that you left out the content in the brackets?

You are a little cheat. Let's bend it a bit and a bit more.
Maybe even a big one - if I believe you when you talk about your 0/100 approach.
So you are a master cheater.
Unless you lied when you talked about your 0/100 approach.
Then you would be a liar though.
Points are stacking up either way.

Quote :

Its only a puritanical Xt. who fears getting his hands dirty who tells the other "you will see yourself out"... I laughed...

Bewitching laughter...

Quote :

I think you calling him a Temporal Anomaly is quite clear that it wasn't because he was an ordinary party-crasher. That much is obvious to all.

With you hiding behind the majority... I have no chance whatsoever. I'm doomed!!!
Though... I don't get what you are saying here.

Quote :

I don't recall him starting anything with you or trying to dominate you - not even subliminally. You initiated the name-calling without any serious opinion, thought, rational confrontation or any substantial debate. You simply passed judgement and called him Mr.Fancy Pants because you found him ugly and repulsive - everyone has their own aesthetic sensibility and that's fine, but to a Xt. mind, only that which is pleasant is "normal" and only what is normal is "good"...

Without any serious opinion? Is that so...
It isn't required to talk to someone directly to form a 'serious' opinion. Observing interactions with others works as well. Then came the decisive point, my interaction with him started - and it could have developed in many ways but in this case it escalated.

So everybody has is own aesthetic sensibilities and that's fine... - Good... I mean, not 'good', that would be Xt. *rolls eyes*
And yeah, add some explanation what is Xt. in this case.
Woeman, I almost thought I had to defend myself against those 'pleasant=normal=good=Xt.' allegations but then I realized you just put them there so it insinuated that I am like that - pushing me into a defensive position... and so on.

And then you can have it either way.
Plausible deniability as witches, eh lawyers would say.
You are a little cheat again.

Quote :

You cite his "over-powering" presence was the motivation of your hatred or attack; I smell more.
No matter, I am not here on some de-Xt. mission.

No amputations today then.

Quote :

I need a flash-light.

Wouldn't help you when the maze is organic and changes while you are in it.
No 0/100 wonderland here.

Quote :

As in you call him repulsive but you state no reasons, no principles, no arguments, for why you feel so - you yourself admitted, you had no principles. So why should he not take your saying "Mr. Fancy Pants" as a come-on, as a tease?
Is his behaviour repulsive, or is it YOU who is being ambiguous and easy for anyone to interpret you the way they want to? Focus on your Self first.

I thought I found him repulsive before the interaction started - now I found him repulsive after?
Tell me more about myself, let's focus on my self and make me run in circles.

Round and round and round again. Ah, always the loser in this game. I feel cheated.
Hey... maybe I AM cheated!

By the way - this is now a great opportunity to label me as a Xt. because I act like a poor little girl who gets cheated all the time. - Damn! Can't get out of this swamp.
It must be because of me. I just won't find the light. Show me some directions. You wouldn't try to lead me deeper into the swamp, now, would you?

Ah, damn again! This must be paranoia talking. It's obvious! - The reason why I feel so distrustful of you, by now, is within myself. Ah, yeah, now I see it. Brilliant!!!

Quote :

What? You are acting as though you are bullied?
As amusing as your semantic performances are, if I wanted to enjoy some Ballet, I'd prefer to go to a play.

Its true, I've got nothing better to do. I am so jobless and bored I am here to smear Your character.
Now Stick that wherever.

I must say you are a good training, a very good training.
I'm intrigued with your feminine ways of fighting. Amazing resolve to not cave in.  

Quote :

Detained by rubber is not my idea of a thrill...

Impressive line to come up with.
Yeah, yeah, I know, you don't care about it.

Anfang wrote:

Quote :

But luckily for you it didn't stop there. You showed what a serious Xt. you were being when you added, the real problem was, people were not taking out the Trash Completely.

Is that Xt. ? I can decorate a whole X-mas tree by now.

Anfang wrote:

A passive-aggressive strategy which thrives today because nobody is taking out the trash for good. (Until it spawns again - a natural process)

Why did you write Completely in bold letters? Did you want to emphasize that you used a different wording and more importantly that you left out the content in the brackets?
You are a little cheat. Let's bend it a bit and a bit more.

Are you that important I would be doing your homework for you and quoting your precious passage word by word...?
Dawg, who was it performing acrobatics "tomATo" "Tomaaaatoe" like what I was trying to differentiate between "making friends" and "making home" didn't matter, which way one presented what had no significance?
To quote such a Dawg, "trash for good" and Trash Completely is same difference and quite sufficient.
Dawg, that's not cheating,, that's a Goddess showing you your place.

You are an obfuscating LIAR twisting and changing your words and motives as you go along.
First it was no principles and you wanting to diminish Mannequin's over-powering you [when in truth he never initiated anything towards you], and AFTER I point that out, you now change the tune to "yea, yea, I wanted to start a quarrel", and some wannabe rebellious pose of a "SO?" to save face.

I am the cheat?? Eat shite.

You have a vain pea-cockish and Xt. mindset and your spirit is effete.
That is how I think of you.

The rest of your ejaculations "you are in the majority, oh poor me" (how's my verbatim quoting coming...) is your own sissy victimology - your problem.
If you see me as Satyr, Apaosha, Cold Weasel as One Person or different people ganging up on poor li'l you, that's your own pathetic paranoia. Low self-esteem always compensates in hyper-vanity, like the whole world is trying to bully and pick only on poor anfang, as if everything revolved around you here. In a like-minded forum, everyone is bound to sound the same - don't expect someone to come pat your head and give you assurances and make you feel they are trustworthy. Dawg, if you can't trust anyone, I will say go f--- yourself.

You asked me where and how I thought you to be a Xt., and I placed my opinion; the rest is 0.

This correspondence is dismissed.

And scene.

"Sure a poor diet can damage potential but it's not going to compensate for their innate lack of quality ie their genes.

An analogy along the lines if cars, you can "supe up" or modify a beetle but it will never be a BMW no matter how well you look after it."

Genes become better and healthier with a proper diet and activity. Biomaterials are not the same as plastic and metal. Proper care and genetics adapt/evolve. Selective breeding or breeeding to similar to family creates weak genes over time. Biomaterial needs new and different also to evolve into healthiest material. Yet without a proper balanced diet to fuel the material it will not achieve its fullest potential.

Pretzle wrote:

"Sure a poor diet can damage potential but it's not going to compensate for their innate lack of quality ie their genes.

An analogy along the lines if cars, you can "supe up" or modify a beetle but it will never be a BMW no matter how well you look after it."

Genes become better and healthier with a proper diet and activity. Biomaterials are not the same as plastic and metal. Proper care and genetics adapt/evolve. Selective breeding or breeeding to similar to family creates weak genes over time. Biomaterial needs new and different also to evolve into healthiest material. Yet without a proper balanced diet to fuel the material it will not achieve its fullest potential.

I find it funny you say that breeding too similar to family 'creates' weak genes. If the 'weak' genes weren't there to begin with, they wouldn't be expressed.

One point I agree with you on is that nutrition can possibly effect the expression of genes - this is the turning on and off of certain genes through epigenetics. This is something which happens over generations and in specific, vulernable, periods of development for a human being.

Genes becoming 'better and healthier'? Where's your evidence for this? Sounds straight out of a book written by Lamarck. Everything I've read regarding biology and epigenetics debunks his theory. Is this another conspiracy theory the university system is pulling on me?

My fault seeming all indignant and pissy about this, after reading what you say about selective breeding only creating weak genes over time - the whole thing stacks up to you being ignorant and/or moronic under all conventional wisdom on the topic.

Now I see why Satyr made a thread on Breeding.

Women, despite their claims of fidelity, are samplers of genes.
Naturally promiscuous. 

Men had to impose monogamy, and associate it with sin and shame, to control female, and through it, male sexual conformity. 
Emancipating females means Bonobo orgies. 
Family deconstructed...ergo MRA's and female unfulfilled romantic idealism.

Welcome to the modern world.

"Sure a poor diet can damage potential but it's not going to compensate for their innate lack of quality ie their genes.

An analogy along the lines if cars, you can "supe up" or modify a beetle but it will never be a BMW no matter how well you look after it."

Genes become better and healthier with a proper diet and activity. Biomaterials are not the same as plastic and metal. Proper care and genetics adapt/evolve. Selective breeding or breeeding to similar to fami

Lamarck is wrong, My fault in explaining lies in my omission of time and generations. I did not realize you could not comprehend Since you are adamant about your stance, what hope is there for you to learn other information? It has become rather obvious that true civil communication and learning here is staunchly frowned upon. A single view is as blinding as staring into a light. Your mentor's thread is typical of this.

Pretzle wrote:

  I did not realize you could not comprehend Since you are adamant about your stance, what hope is there for you to learn other information? It has become rather obvious that true civil communication and learning here is staunchly frowned upon. A single view is as blinding as staring into a light. Your mentor's thread is typical of this.

I wonder if you can correct generations of bad diet with one of good diet.

I wonder if centuries of nurturing can be erased in a single lifetime.
 
I wonder how much of the past can be denied relevance, to finally achieve parity.

The recipe for changing an ape into a human?
A few lifetimes of good diet, and proper training.

Pretzle wrote:

"Sure a poor diet can damage potential but it's not going to compensate for their innate lack of quality ie their genes.

An analogy along the lines if cars, you can "supe up" or modify a beetle but it will never be a BMW no matter how well you look after it."

Genes become better and healthier with a proper diet and activity. Biomaterials are not the same as plastic and metal. Proper care and genetics adapt/evolve. Selective breeding or breeeding to similar to fami

Lamarck is wrong, My fault in explaining lies in my omission of time and generations. I did not realize you could not comprehend Since you are adamant about your stance, what hope is there for you to learn other information? It has become rather obvious that true civil communication and learning here is staunchly frowned upon. A single view is as blinding as staring into a light. Your mentor's thread is typical of this.

You seem to be addressing the wrong person. You made it clear that it takes time and generations. Genes do change over time - these are called mutations according to conventional knowledge. How mutations work, I never fully understood. In fact, I've never even seen an example of it in conventional education, despite the insistence it exists.

I am not adamant at all, dear. I am pointing out that under conventional wisdom, if you know it, you sound like a moron. Now, if you have evidence to back up your claims, I welcome them. Enlighten me.

Expecting me to doubt conventional wisdom when you've provided no evidence for what you're saying is absurd. If I'm going to choose someone's word over another, it's going to be the one in a text book backed by many scientists over that of some person on an internet forum.

If the type of audience your views were intended toward was such that they are ignorant of the conventional wisdom and will take your word without skepticism - I am not your intended audience and I would suggest not responding to me or anything I've said.

Here are some questions:

How do genes mutate into 'superior' versions? In your case, intellect.
What physical, actual changes take place in this process, and when?
What effect does diet have on the process?
What specifically about diet effects the genes? [What does meat affect? What do vegetables affect?]
Have there been any experiments done to confirm this relationship, if so, where and when and by whom?
Does anyone else agree with and have tested your position?
Do you know what a gene actually is within conventional biological knowledge, and what it is made of and how it behaves?

SCIENCE.

Yes, well, I have a boyish/dumbed down sense of humor sometimes. Sue me or warn me if that extra bit is considered to be too shit.

Story goes like this:

Change the environment so that the traits considered "fit" alter, then train what nature has done to us poor creatures, so we become docile, forgiving, submissive, dependent on authorities, and you'll have the trainees thanking the trainers for their guidance.

Man can cocoon reality in his technological magnificence, to the point where what has superior in nature becomes inferior in the human world.

This is what nihilism is. 

All you need is to attack the weakest part: the female. Lacking self-awareness, being innately willing to submit to power, to the popular, you can turn her from a natural filter to a social one.

Once accomplished, you'll have men falling over each other to chop off their testicles.

The few who cannot, because of an abundance of spirit, will turn their backs.


Once a liberal, progressive, en-lightener, here to unburden us from reason with some good ol' female chicken-soup for the soul, fails to be convincing, she resorts to the apssie agressive tactic of mental pouting, and shaming.
Here is a good example of it:

Pretzle wrote:

It has become rather obvious that true civil communication and learning here is staunchly frowned upon.

If you fail to appreciate, on an emotional level, the power of her suggested freedom, then you've closed your mind to her offer of salvation.
You must be ill or ungrateful.

How can the promise that good education, and nutrition, can correct centuries of genetic memory?
How can one reject Jesus, in his secular form, here to take on the genetic failings of billions?

To be "civil" is to pretend that the ridiculous is respectable.
It is to not treat it as it deserves to be treated.
Who shall protect the meek and the weak, now?

Civility, trolling, ad hom...all ways of saying that something must be respected, or, at least, humored, no matter its quality.
Once the fool begins feeling exposed, for the fool that (s)he is, (s)he takes out this Judeo-Christian armor of shame and guilt.

Weakness must be protected.
If not, then you have 'closed your mind' to its need for protection. You have not offered it what it deserves: a hearing.

Lyssa wrote:

Quote :

I am here to cite texts to the best I can and finish my duty. I choose to die lightly.

If Satyr didn't introduce me to this forum, I'd be happy reading and writing enjoying my obscurity never coming online -
I could take off anytime now and never come to any phil. forum again.
I have no need for the internet or public debates to arrive at thoughts. I work differently.

A gem.

A woman such as yourself is always looking for people to undermine and those who refuse to be forever attentive to you, will feel your wrath. " But wait, I want to explain what really happened, what exactly I said". Why bother. You have no interest in any other's arguments. What makes it more frustrating is that you are blind to your own toxic actions, all the while engaging in these emotional outbursts. "Now stick that wherever", noice one lady.

Solace sits easily with you? Who could you victimise, when you are alone, reading books, cutting and pasting into a scrap book, for future reference and no potential next victim in sight and no man to fawn over.

Most people take death lightly unless it affects them directly.

Heroine wrote:

A gem.

A woman such as yourself is always looking for people to undermine and those who refuse to be forever attentive to you, will feel your wrath. " But wait, I want to explain what really happened, what exactly I said". Why bother. You have no interest in any other's arguments. What makes it more frustrating is that you are blind to your own toxic actions, all the while engaging in these emotional outbursts. "Now stick that wherever", noice one lady.

Solace sits easily with you? Who could you victimise, when you are alone, reading books, cutting and pasting into a scrap book, for future reference and no potential next victim in sight and no man to fawn over.

Most people take death lightly unless it affects them directly.

I'll dignify your comments when I see you dignifying your own.
A wowman who does not have ladylike manners to apologize to a man for falsely calling him a homo, a wowman who does not have the integrity to address the questions posed at her and simply goes about ignoring, accusing and spreading rumours should be the LAST one to be pointing fingers at me.

By all means, start a "Justice for Anfang" thread - let us all see how passionate your convictions are about his matter, how deeply you want to dwelve into the case for him, or if you did not just intrude to simply stir things up, as the one missing the Attention and SpotLight is you...
Show me how much you care about the injustice he has suffered at my oppressive hands; but surely you calling Satyr a Homo and a gaylord and getting away with it, with no CONSCIENCE whatsoever is abs. no Injustice towards a gentleman...

You apologize to Satyr,,, and I'll show "interest in other's arguments" and in the "But wait, I want to explain what really happened, what exactly I said"."

You have continuously ignored Satyr's two posts at you, plus my own questions at you,,, have you looked at YOURSELF First?
That you should be the one talking of 'I not bothering of another's explanations' is blatant hypocrisy.

Until you have examined your own self and behaved in a Just manner, I don't deem you worthy to be talking of justice. The word becomes a caricature in your petty rabble mouth.
Now stick that somewhere, in between some corinthians.

Second. Its open for all to see, its Anfang who interjected in my conversation with Mannequin, did I go searching for a "victim"? I like the Marxist victimized "figments of imagination" you create here... you demonstrate your substance in how knowledgeable and shrewd you are! The Tuts presents a Marxist Seminar with all her prior Jungian discourse... she couldn't mother me against evil satyr, so now she tries to be titty-mommy for anfang against the wicked witch...; the humour of course becomes unbearable when one notes the tits taking up her marxist cause of one who's openly stated "I wanted to start a quarrel with Mannequin"... she's defending the guy who went in search of a fight to undermine someone, and yet accusing me of being the one looking for someone to undermine?!! Shock me, say something intelligent. If that wasn't so laughable, I'd spit on your ground.

That she says "no man to fawn over", is what irks and burns her. She's neckdeep with jealousy. I keep telling I am not in the way, yet she's so insecure in her denying-yet-very-present attraction to Satyr, she consciously keeps pricking me about it, she consciously goes about implanting suspicions and rumours in other girl's heads...

Just because crack-hos like her come to philosophy forums and the internet for nothing but social dating, and gathering compliments to get a high, she assumes every woman must be like her. Retard, didn't your pet Laconian accuse me of the exact opposite of what you say? He had issues with me being a snob because I was doing nothing but citing texts and being such a minding-my-own-business unmeddlesome "worker ant"! -I am the one going after victims? Have you been shopping lately? They are selling lives at the mall - you should get one.

Shame-mongers like you waiting for vengeance and itching to find any opportunity to SHAME others is what makes you so beneath me, and your character so filthy. Bitch, I own you like a dog in a leash. Your pathetic and shameful hypocrisy puts you beneath the level of the ass of a bacteria in the dust on my toenail.
Atleast I am not the one who eats the delicious roasted beef and chicken before me, and then acts all heroine-like ...ooooh I can't stand the stench of the butcher's hands!
Life is 100 for some people. Those who live intensely, and do their best with no obligation left unturned, do indeed die lightly with no regrets.
Morons and lickspittles like you who gobble up all the delicious and pleasant things and have no gratitude and feel no obligation towards those who made such delicacies possible, dirtying their hands and handling cadavers, are the ones who fear death and shag Kierkegaard all night and cling to Jesus, with bibles under their pillow. Death scares them because they never affirmed life, and they fear unconsciously life will not affirm them. They try to cover this fear looking for passionate sex to conceal their vacuum, and project their hatred at anyone who rejects or spurns them. Its as if life were spurning them. Its why they burn and make it so personal.

Brilliance, before I tell you to f-- off, you should see the wiki on what Lyssa means, and then speak of Wrath and how I was "blind" to my own "toxic actions"... lol. idiot. a hysterical bipolar swinging from one pole to another, not even aware that she said she Abhors satyr one day and the next day she says I never said that,,,, shouldn't be giving seminars on "blindness"; she should be swallowing medications.
Now get lost and find someone else to shame.

Lyssa wrote:

...the guy who went in search of a fight to undermine someone,...

Undermine? - Too much credit.

A: Why are you not wearing any pants, fancypants?
M: So that I can expand your ass.
A: Die!
M: Arghh...unghhh. Oh no! .... (Psycho storyline part)... Let's be friends?
A: No.

(Dramatized version)

Quote :

Bitch, I own you like a dog in a leash. Your pathetic and shameful hypocrisy puts you beneath the level of the ass of a bacteria in the dust on my toenail.

Sounds like you have had a bad day, another emotional outburst!

The only way to stop enabling you, is to stop providing you with what you need/want most, a human host.

I enjoy watching you work, my sweet. 
Very feminine.


#1
A female will pay you no mind unless you have already seduced her.
Her first acknowledgment of your presence will determine if you keep her attentions.
Her test is that of substance, though she has no way of rationally determining and understanding it.
She will feel it in her bones, in her vagina, on her nipples.
But she will doubt herself.
Then she will test you, or watch as others test you for her.
Your talents will be evaluated intuitively, viscerally.  
She will not know what or why, but she will know there is "something about you," or nothing at all.



#2
When dealing with the feminine mind, relinquish the initiative.
She will resist taking the lead, being against her nature (an innate quality) to not be passive-aggressive and (re)actionary.
Taking the lead, being clear, requires courage and integrity.
She has very little of either. 

To outperform the female at her own games you must use more elegant feminine methods.

Never take the lead - fall back and wait.
Make her come to you, swinging.
Force her into that place of focus.
Watch, adapt, be flexible.
She will signal you when she's had enough.
Then you'll have her.