Surrender and Sexual Predation

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Yet, you never explained why Satyr's positions lacked reason and took to fifi.

Satyr's cynicism is the same as phoneutria's. They both see "surrender" to anyone other than yourself as weakness and a death sentence, rather than an affirmation of one's values and a strength, as you do, in your OP.

Mo,

Surrender is from a female point of view.

The Noble Hunter is noble because he does not exploit or abuse that surrender of the Sovereign huntress.

Although it was I who first pointed out that indeed fifi and Satyr share the same cynical view of the world, that similarity ends there; their approaches to what they do with that cynical perspective is different.
And Satyr's already explained what cynicism means to him.

Quote :

I'm not the parasite that Satyr describes of himself.

What? Where does he do that?

Quote :

Quote :

If "just because" is not your phrase or your idea,,, why do you not start a topic on what IS your idea...

I explained what the idea was to you. I would just be cut and pasting it into a new thread.

The "just because" was in relation to race, and since you seem to be suggesting that Satyr thinks of himself as a parasite, and that's why you never want to be like him, I have to ask you to show me where he says that?

Quote :

Anybody can make observations, and create more and more elaborate descriptions. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t still descriptions of internal shadows that they find moving in the dark. Satyr can describe for you some Christian nihilist egalitarian random-mixing Nietzsche wanna-be---as if that makes sense---but it doesn’t mean it isn’t bullshit.

You keep trivializing this, but I say you still do not present your case and make clear if intelligence is just another value among values to you, etc.

Since you speak of dominating others on other threads, it is reasonable for me to ask you why you do not challenge Satyr to his own flaws, if not to present your own case?

Why not take him to task??

What he says of you might be stupid,, but why not show how erroneous his positions are?

Quote :

As I said, it falls to the floor and I walk past. After awhile, why even bother poking it?

Many would be benefitted from such a discussion, if not you.
I would say, I for one.

Lyssa wrote:

The Noble Hunter is noble because he does not exploit or abuse that surrender.

Mo: "May I invite her "predator" interlocutors to explain what "predation" means to them?"
Satyr: "Predation: exploitation of a population's weaker elements, along the lines of the path-of-least-resistance, resulting in a natural cleansing of the gene-pool".
Mo: "The thread is titled "sexual predation". You can't be saying that you are a sexual predator if you want to remove your prey's genes from the gene pool. I think you have it backwards"
Satyr: "In the context of this thread predation would be parasitism: exploiting the other's sexuality for your own gain. This can take the form of exploiting pleasure, or duplicity."

Quote :

What he says of you might be stupid,, but why not show how erroneous his positions are?

I call you an egalitarian. You say you're not. You tell me you've never said anything like that. You ask me to quote you.
I call you an egalitarian. You say you're not. You tell me you've never said anything like that. You ask me to quote you.
I call you an egalitarian...

...I am you, in this story. What would you do? I am an elitist. You can find that, and why, in the thread I quoted for you.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

The Noble Hunter is noble because he does not exploit or abuse that surrender.

Mo: "May I invite her "predator" interlocutors to explain what "predation" means to them?"
Satyr: "Predation: exploitation of a population's weaker elements, along the lines of the path-of-least-resistance, resulting in a natural cleansing of the gene-pool".
Mo: "The thread is titled "sexual predation". You can't be saying that you are a sexual predator if you want to remove your prey's genes from the gene pool. I think you have it backwards"
Satyr: "In the context of this thread predation would be parasitism: exploiting the other's sexuality for your own gain. This can take the form of exploiting pleasure, or duplicity."

I said, the Noble Hunter is noble because he does not exploit or abuse that surrender of a Sovereign Huntress.

He clearly said "in the context of this thread" - as regards to Fifi who is against surrendering and theforefore no sovereign huntress, and therefore exploitation as his chosen method of predation.

Quote :

Quote :

What he says of you might be stupid,, but why not show how erroneous his positions are?

I call you an egalitarian. You say you're not. You tell me you've never said anything like that. You ask me to quote you.
I call you an egalitarian. You say you're not. You tell me you've never said anything like that. You ask me to quote you.
I call you an egalitarian...

...I am you, in this story. What would you do? I am an elitist. You can find that, and why, in the thread I quoted for you.

What would Socrates do?


What did Socrates do when accused of something he was not?, or was he?

Lyssa wrote:

I said, the Noble Hunter is noble because he does not exploit or abuse that surrender of a Sovereign Huntress.

He clearly said "in the context of this thread" - as regards to Fifi who is against surrendering and theforefore no sovereign huntress, and therefore exploitation as his chosen method of predation.

The context of the thread is your OP. It's your thread. You can understand why I would think what I do.

Quote :

What would Socrates do?

What did Socrates do when accused of something he was not?, or was he?

Who cares what Socrates would do?

Bon apetit

rabid lyssa was an inside joke between me and mo.
mo may wish to disclose it if he wishes to do so.

I called you rabid and hysterical, Lyssa.

...Which you are.

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

All knowing satyr, the people reader, who weeks ago thought me a divorcee with an adopted kid...

And because you presented yourself as a coquette and insisted that YOU did not care what the other made of you as you are a dream-maker, and then you act as if the other had no scruples?

Amusing.

Quote :

Your arrogance in categorically describing people from a position of ignorance is a display of weakness.

Taking interest in knowing you would be him having no scruples about engaging with a married woman...  is it not...

I did not accuse anyone of no scruples dear. I called him an ankle biter for his constant engagement of baseless caricaturing of others with the purpose of demeaning them.
Speak to the words dear, not to the person, as the person is unknown.

Are "scruples" the same as a conscience?

I don't speak Phoneeee.

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Just a though....
If satyr thins of mo a particular way, instead of another, that's his own business and his own problem.
Specially if mo doesn't give a shit about what satyr thinks, which might be the case.

Does satyr go everywhere correcting every misunderstanding people make regards him? Why should mo? Why should anyone?
I think satyr said in a chat that he washed his hands from whatever any idiot may say or do based on what he posts. Should mo not do the same?
Why is it so important that mo should care abouy satyr or you think, lyssa? Do tell.

And why is it so important for you to defend Mo, and intrude on my thinking of a certain situation, a certain way, when that's my business?

Perhaps you should have asked me that before concluding I was 'pathetic', and now you pretend to seek to know?? slimy.

And if I answer you, its because saying f--- off might be just too kind.


Who said Mo 'should' care about Satyr or me??  It is because he 'did' care enough to point out a contradiction present, I suggested "it" probably had something to do with x, y, z and perhaps may not really be a contradiction...

That's not asking someone to care about the other, but to assess their own statement, their own judgement.
That's what you do in a philosophy forum.

Since you always personalize things because you *care too much*, you will be unable to see that.

But why does it irk you if I should go everywhere trying to set straight every misunderstanding people make regards Satyr?

Because a hedonist like you can only see Satyr as a person...

He is more than that.

He is a profound symbol, and perhaps it is the symbol I defend here and what it stands for??

He stands for something that is noble, rare, and a path and vision that is worth not only preserving, but spreading everywhere, and one of which includes, "he has never misled anyone" -  itself being a type, an ideal, that is worth more than preserving, defending.

Mo and Satyr are not equal; Satyr is a phenomenon, symbol of something larger and that has exceeded his personal self.

And if you have a problem acknowledging that, or with my defending him, which I will wherever and whenever I can, and it annoys you so, you should stick to your own attitude and not give a shite.

I am spechless.
Laughing, but speechless.

Satyr, dear, do you still question you idol status? Do you see what I mean by idolatry?

Shall we make Satyr an institution now?
Oh, dear...

Can't remember the last time I laughed so hard at somethibg said on the internet. I'm going to go take a breath, brb.

Satyr wrote:

Are "scruples" the same as a conscience?

I don't speak Phoneeee.

Leasy's word, dear, not mine. Ask her.

phoneutria wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Are "scruples" the same as a conscience?

I don't speak Phoneeee.

Leasy's word, dear, not mine. Ask her.

I asked you, dear.
Are scruples the same as conscience?
I want to determine if you have accused some-one of not having any...as not being burdened by conscience.

I accused no one of either. I called you an ankle biter.

phoneutria wrote:

I accused no one of either. I called you an ankle biter.

No, sweetie, you can't scuttle away "laughing" this time.

I asked you if scruples means the same thing as conscience, to determine if you've accused some-one, not necessarily me, some-one of not having any burdening them.
Take it slow.

Since you ask so nicely...

You may think of scruples as conscience, as scruples means to take a measurement.. to measure one's actions.

Do keep in mind dear, that a clear conscience is not the same as no conscience .

So, clear is not nil?
If I am clear of guilt I am not void of it?
I'm learning, I'm learning.

You are not burdened by your scruples, because you are clear of them, yet you have them?

Now you either are lucky enough to find pleasure in what does not conflict with your conscience, because it isn't burdened, or, like a true hedonist, you conveniently construct your scruples around your pleasures, which would be self-serving and easy.

I am lucky enough, sweet.

phoneutria wrote:

I am lucky enough, sweet.

How nice for you.
You slither away through the crack.
How fortunate you must be to find pleasure in what can never burden your conscience.

Is that another way of saying dull, 'cause I'm not good with words and all?

Don't let it burden you if I say that nothing you just said will in any way factor into me judgments of you.
You remain mystifying to me.

Call me dull, dear. I was raised in the forest.
There, we kill, and we eat, and we care for our own.
We do not seek out others in order to overpower them, but we destroy those who attempt to overpower us.
We are animals. We exist as a part of a whole. We breathe the same air and we drink the same water as all other creatures, and that air and water become us. We consume their bodies, and their bodies become us.
Outside of that there is no law, no moral, no ropes tying me down. I care nothing for them, I spit on them.
So do pardon my dull existence, as you sit alone at home, feeling the weigh of everything that makes you feel small, and pouring all of that bile on here for us to read. I could not make myself feel it as you do... I am too light.

phoneutria wrote:

Outside of that there is no law, no moral, no ropes tying me down. I care nothing for them, I spit on them.

I wonder how that ties in with women's rights and that well paid programmers job you have?

Life is certainly tough in the forest.

Recidivist wrote:

I wonder how that ties in with women's rights and that well paid programmers job you have?

Life is certainly tough in the forest.

The expression of a female, fully engrossed by the immediate.
For her "nature" is what begins when she wakes up, and goes away when she sleeps.
"Morning is when she wakes." as she put it, tongue-in-cheek.

I say...

Old Goat wrote:

Now you either are lucky enough to find pleasure in what does not conflict with your conscience, because it isn't burdened, or, like a true hedonist, you conveniently construct your scruples around your pleasures, which would be self-serving and easy.

...to which she responded...

Phonee wrote:

I am lucky enough, sweet.

...in regards to her claim what her conscience, unlike mine,  is not "burdened" by her pleasures.

She implies, in that coy way of hers, because, like her and Moooo and many of her ilk, she never dares to actually say anything clearly - because she cannot hold it in her mind that way - that the fact that her conscience is not burdened by her pleasures is due to luck.

Note how she leaves the back-door open with the "enough".
In that word she might find an escape.

Luck is a way of describing what we cannot explain.

Like "just because" and/or "spontaneous".
It's a word that begs for a finality without having to explore the causes, the possibilities.
It's a surrender itself, a capitulation before the possible.
It's an end to the thought process.
It pretends to be 'bringing to light' when it is burying.

"Why did the dinosaurs go extinct?"
Luck.
"Why are some born smarter than others?"
Chance.

In this context why not 'race mixing'?
It's all blind luck anyway.
What if we sacrifice intelligence but chance upon a replacement mutation...like flight, clairvoyance, longer life?
Let's roll the die. It's all luck.
Why pay homage to our ancestry, beyond the immediate family, the tangible?
Why discuss race or sex...it's all spontaneously lucky.

I, therefore, assume, that if it is true that the only reason her conscience is not burdened by her pleasures is luck, then her pleasures, with no effort on her part, are such that they never come into conflict with her interests, her expectations, her ideals.

Now, she either is in perfect tune with the environment, in this case not nature but society, or she has no principles beyond her immediate gratification.
In the first case I too would be lucky enough to not be burdened if I were, in fact, not living in a human society, of a clearly nihilistic bend, and if my principles were constructed by the immediate, by the socioeconomic culture.
In natural setting my pleasures, or most of them, would not be problematic.
The gratification of my spirit, expressing a need/desire, would not be thwarted by a manmade rule.

In the second case this declared harmony of her pleasures with the prevailing culture could be a sign of dullness - her pleasures are so common, never exceeding the acceptable, that she is unburdened by them - simplicity in thinking is also unburdened by reality - or she conveniently adjusts her pleasures to the social standards so as to not be burdened - the last would expose her duplicity in relation to her original declaration.  

A dog, living in its master's home, is also unburdened by its conscience.

There are many ways one can be burdened by his/her pleasures.

Some possible activities, promiscuity, gluttony, lechery, rape, killing, torture, exploitation...are all possible candidates of stimulating pleasure.
They evolve in natural environments.
NATURAL ones.

But we no longer live according to NATURAL conditions.

The Greeks explored the essence of virtue in relation to the "good life".
The "good life" demands a form of self-repression, self-control....reason overpowering instinct, and denying to self these pleasing activities.  
In its extreme this practice of self-repression, suing the Will, can turn to a dis-ease, a nihilistic self-denial.

This self control need not base itself on moral grounds, because morality is how the simpleton is told how to behave without having to engage what little intellectual faculties he might possess, but on idealistic grounds.  
In other words one burdens his conscience in reference, deference, to a chosen idea(l).
The simpleton considers all demands upon his/her free expression of her nature an imposition of an otherness.
Self control would be a control of self by self.
For the manimal the only reason it can think of to willfully control self, is another will.
So morality is the only rule it can imagine to curb its appetites: external force, threat.

And because the absolute is absent, this idea(l) can be anything.

For example...
I find pleasure in eating. I am a gourmand.
But this pleasure is born in austere circumstances that now, in superfluous ones, can prove to be deadly to me.
Therefore, I burden my conscience by adhering to a physical idea(l), not because gluttony is one of the seven sins, nor because I want to appear pleasing to the other, but because I choose to submit to that idea(l), and because I consider my interests beyond social standards and shallow temporal horizons.

A simpleton, with no ability to think beyond his/her immediate gratification will have to be given a moral reason, because we must care for stupidity allowing it to procreate and give birth to more simpletons, so as to make superfluous environments possible.
The simpleton only thinks about the pleasure of the feeding - like a manimal.
This alone makes it a preferable type.
It's need, denied as is human nature amongst liberals, is how it can be exploited.

It is spontaneous, intuitive, uncaring, about any possibility beyond its perceptual-event-horizon, as this has been determined by genetics.
It is "in the moment".
It does not care because it has no clue - its conscience is not burdened by any consideration other than satisfying its need, and feeling the pleasure derived from this action.
Animals are hedonists - they function on the simple mechanism of Suffering<>NEED<>Pleasure, automatically, instinctively, because this requires no cognition.  

Like a plant.
It does not need a brain.
It functions on the primacy of need.
That it has no brain is a blessing and a curse...it denies it the sensation of extreme need, suffering, but also the sensation of momentary satiation, pleasure.
Still, it acts continuously on need....need for hydration, for nutrition, for chemical reactions produced by sunlight etc.
It's actions are automated.
It is in the moment.

A small animal with a tiny brain, has a bit broader perceptual-event-horizon.
It feels pleasure and pain, and must also prepare, take care, be cautious, consider the possibilities...again this might be automatic and may not require the engagement of its consciousness.
It runs for cover when it sees a big bird in the sky, similar to an eagle, not because it understands what an eagle is, but because the behavior is ingrained in it genetically, similar to when a doe struggles to stand as soon as possible. It has no awareness of the threat, the reasons why it must stand and walk and then learn to run...it does so automatically, genetically.

It might even feel pleasure in the act.
It is not burdened by any other consideration than the act itself.

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Just a though....
If satyr thins of mo a particular way, instead of another, that's his own business and his own problem.
Specially if mo doesn't give a shit about what satyr thinks, which might be the case.

Does satyr go everywhere correcting every misunderstanding people make regards him? Why should mo? Why should anyone?
I think satyr said in a chat that he washed his hands from whatever any idiot may say or do based on what he posts. Should mo not do the same?
Why is it so important that mo should care abouy satyr or you think, lyssa? Do tell.

And why is it so important for you to defend Mo, and intrude on my thinking of a certain situation, a certain way, when that's my business?

Perhaps you should have asked me that before concluding I was 'pathetic', and now you pretend to seek to know?? slimy.

And if I answer you, its because saying f--- off might be just too kind.


Who said Mo 'should' care about Satyr or me??  It is because he 'did' care enough to point out a contradiction present, I suggested "it" probably had something to do with x, y, z and perhaps may not really be a contradiction...

That's not asking someone to care about the other, but to assess their own statement, their own judgement.
That's what you do in a philosophy forum.

Since you always personalize things because you *care too much*, you will be unable to see that.

But why does it irk you if I should go everywhere trying to set straight every misunderstanding people make regards Satyr?

Because a hedonist like you can only see Satyr as a person...

He is more than that.

He is a profound symbol, and perhaps it is the symbol I defend here and what it stands for??

He stands for something that is noble, rare, and a path and vision that is worth not only preserving, but spreading everywhere, and one of which includes, "he has never misled anyone" -  itself being a type, an ideal, that is worth more than preserving, defending.

Mo and Satyr are not equal; Satyr is a phenomenon, symbol of something larger and that has exceeded his personal self.

And if you have a problem acknowledging that, or with my defending him, which I will wherever and whenever I can, and it annoys you so, you should stick to your own attitude and not give a shite.

I am spechless.
Laughing, but speechless.

so phunny......

Quote :

Satyr, dear, do you still question you idol status? Do you see what I mean by idolatry?

Didn't he already say its out of his hands what people do with his ideas?

If I choose to defend them, does that Automatically imply He believes he is an idol?
How idiotic.

Now that kind of illogic and incoherent (dis)connection is sooo phunny, I'm speechless...

Quote :

Shall we make Satyr an institution now?
Oh, dear...

Why are you so bothered? Somebody forcing him on you?

Aren't you here on your own, and as much as you say, you don't care for his ideas, you read, absorb his notes and attempt to imitate him...

Smitten are you kitten.

And who needs to "make" him an institution, he already was a discipline the day his voice gave expression to those like him, and that kind of affinity is enough recognition.

Quote :

Can't remember the last time I laughed so hard at somethibg said on the internet. I'm going to go take a breath, brb.

In the land of the two-legged, the cripple goes laughing like a hyena, how anyone can take the two-legged seriously...

And then, I too joined the laughter.

phoneutria wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

All knowing satyr, the people reader, who weeks ago thought me a divorcee with an adopted kid...

And because you presented yourself as a coquette and insisted that YOU did not care what the other made of you as you are a dream-maker, and then you act as if the other had no scruples?

Amusing.

Quote :

Your arrogance in categorically describing people from a position of ignorance is a display of weakness.

Taking interest in knowing you would be him having no scruples about engaging with a married woman...  is it not...

I did not accuse anyone of no scruples dear. I called him an ankle biter for his constant engagement of baseless caricaturing of others with the purpose of demeaning them.

Rubbish. And you are a pretentious liar.

You tried to inject your moralism into his thoughts trying to equivocate your hedonism with his epicureanism:

"Moral and consequence come into play on the decision to engage in an action,
not in the appreciative judgment of the sensorial stimulae gathered from the action.
Your taste for a woman does not care if she is married or not. Your taste for steak does not care if will give you a heart attack or not. You "like" those things regardless of consequence. Whether you pursue these things or not is where consequence comes into play."

Quote :

Speak to the words dear, not to the person, as the person is unknown.

Someone who doesn't know how to remain objective in philosophical discussions is in no position to make suggestions on objectivity to others. You just go laughing now, go on... or remain speechless.

phoneutria wrote:

rabid lyssa was an inside joke between me and mo.
mo may wish to disclose it if he wishes to do so.

Doesn't matter. Fact is You said it.

That makes someone like you who came here praising the value of dictionaries,... pathetic.


[00:01:30 24/05/14] phoneutria : the way she guards him like a yappy dog is pathetic

[00:02:52 24/05/14] Mo : It's not that pathetic.

[00:03:18 24/05/14] phoneutria : oh?

[00:03:43 24/05/14] Mo : Yea, not really. It's unfortunate. But it's not pathetic.

[00:04:15 24/05/14] Mo : She would know him better than me, though.

[00:04:17 24/05/14] phoneutria : maybe the right word is ridiculous

[00:04:19 24/05/14] phoneutria : rabid

[00:04:22 24/05/14] phoneutria : hysterical

[00:04:26 24/05/14] phoneutria : Wink

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

I said, the Noble Hunter is noble because he does not exploit or abuse that surrender of a Sovereign Huntress.

He clearly said "in the context of this thread" - as regards to Fifi who is against surrendering and theforefore no sovereign huntress, and therefore exploitation as his chosen method of predation.

The context of the thread is your OP. It's your thread. You can understand why I would think what I do.

If that's your way of admitting your blunder, I'm fine with it.

Quote :

What would Socrates do?

What did Socrates do when accused of something he was not?, or was he?

Who cares what Socrates would do?




Am I bringing him out of the blue or was his approach not your own preference?

And is it that irrelevant when part of this thread has to do with fifi accusing Satyr of "corrupting the young" like Socrates...

What would Socrates do?

Who cares?

Someone with grit, and not ready to bury his glory would care.

You saw how my going step by step saved you from your own mis-judgement about someone or something.

An honest and self-reverent philosopher would care.

Mo wrote:

I called you rabid and hysterical, Lyssa.

...Which you are.

ONLY THE FORMER, MO.

HYSTERICAL DOES NOT FIGURE INTO LYSSA. LYSSA ONLY MAKES THE OTHER HYSTERICAL.

LIKE YOU.

WHO JUMPS TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT OTHERS WHEN HE'S F--KED UP IN HIS OWN READING INFERENCE AND DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE GRIT TO OWN UP TO IT.

NOW TELL ME, HOW HYSTERICAL I AM, TYPING IN CAPS??

GO ON.

HAVE A BLAST.
IMAGINE ME SHRIEKING AND WAVING MY ARMS WHENEVER SATYR IS CRITICIZED.

NOW YOU HAVE AN IMAGE; A FEELING OF ME AFTER ALL..., AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HOLD YOUR HANDS...


mo.

The issue with scruples.

If a married woman comes onto me, my care would be for the potential costs to me, to my own...not to her, or her husband.
If she is nobody to me, then why would I give a shit about her and her marital bliss?

That is not my problem...no more than what others think of me through my writings, or what they do with my ideas.
That's their issue, not mine.
Flattery or insult...if it has no merit on a level I can relate to, on a realistic level, then why would I care?
My only scruple is pragmatic, and only regarding my interests.

The other is responsible for his/her choices, as I am responsible for mine.  

My choice to describe reality, is not about them, it's about me and my values.
It is my choice, regarding a shared experience, and a projected object/objective.
How they are affected, what they do with it, is their problem.

I accept the collateral effects, only as they impact me.

I cannot, and will not, be held accountable for what another does with my opinions.  
My only interest in this is academic, psychological, sociological...and primarily how it impacts me indirectly.

My interest ends there.

If the other seeks pleasure in me, then I demand pleasure from them.
How this affects them personally, only interests me if it affects me and my chosen objectives.

Recidivist wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Outside of that there is no law, no moral, no ropes tying me down. I care nothing for them, I spit on them.

I wonder how that ties in with women's rights and that well paid programmers job you have?

Life is certainly tough in the forest.

It was the environment in which I was formed.
You may recall dear, as I repeat to you over and over... I am not what I do.

I try to harmonize what I do with what I am.

Otherwise, what's the fuckin' point in living?

I only go around once, and if it's over and over again, then what would I repeat, infinitely?