Rape

Stuart- wrote:

I no longer claim to be a victim and yet I admit that if I thought such a claim could be directly beneficial to me, as opposed to just part of an emotional argument, I would possibly make it. The question is when the material used in an emotional argument becomes directly beneficially to one. My ego doesn't have much of a foundation, if it were to be shattered due to unfortunate circumstances, would I not accept death rather than renew my membership in the cult of victimhood by begging the proud to accept my weakness as a strength?

For the sufficiently strong, an understanding of reality is necessary for their strength. For the weak victim a denial of reality is necessary for their persistence.

My outlook on this subject is not based in playing the victim, as Satyr and others seem to claim. I seriously can't believe how flippant and cold hearted some people have become...." Never mind those poor innocent girls, who get abducted into sex-trafficking...they should have known better...". It makes me sick to think of what those girls have to go through.....being taken away from their families, doped up and then violated. Instead of being so selfish, should we not try to extend a hand to the world?

Anfang wrote:

Stuart- wrote:

Anfang wrote:

"Rape culture" is not about reducing rape. The opposite is going to be achieved.

How are feminists going to get fat off of it if they help it disappear?

It's not exclusively about money though. It's a rage, not about men, but about nature, about who they are - not some 'social construct', that's just an excuse. It's self-hatred, hate of the body-aspect. A psyche raging against its own nature. Raging against itself.

That makes sense. I'm used to cynically focusing on those would do anything for money, that I forget how much self-hatred, which often manifests itself as a love for money, makes things turn.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

What; because you're Black?

Edit: Never mind.

Zara wrote:

My outlook on this subject is not based in playing the victim

You're setting up barricades, but not the most practical kind. I doubt you've ever asked how is it that you could live the safest life possible, but you certainly are making sure to line your resume in case you're ever accused of being opportunistic.

What do you mean by that, setting up barricades?

Stuart- wrote:

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

Stuart- wrote:

I no longer claim to be a victim and yet I admit that if I thought such a claim could be directly beneficial to me, as opposed to just part of an emotional argument, I would possibly make it. The question is when the material used in an emotional argument becomes directly beneficially to one. My ego doesn't have much of a foundation, if it were to be shattered due to unfortunate circumstances, would I not accept death rather than renew my membership in the cult of victimhood by begging the proud to accept my weakness as a strength?

For the sufficiently strong, an understanding of reality is necessary for their strength. For the weak victim a denial of reality is necessary for their persistence.

What; because you're Black?

Even if I wasn't black, in color, what if I were to find that I'm black on the inside, that is, my heart, where it counts?

So if I tell myself I am a nigger or a woman "inside" am I permitted to play the wounded victim?

Zara wrote:

What do you mean by that, setting up barricades?

I no longer give change to the homeless, in fact, I no longer support or pay attention to liberal cause in general. If I was to ever be homeless, I might find I'd have to beg and I'd have to think long and hard about whether my callousness towards social welfare was due to an objective disillusionment with it, or simply a manufactured arrogance that resulted in thinking I was above it.

Stuart- wrote:

Zara wrote:

What do you mean by that, setting up barricades?

I no longer give change to the homeless, in fact, I no longer support or pay attention to liberal cause in general. If I was to ever be homeless, I might find I'd have to beg and I'd have to think long and hard about whether my callousness towards social welfare was due to an objective disillusionment with it, or simply a manufactured arrogance that resulted in thinking I was above it.

Are you black?
Are you that black dude who was my youtube fan...green he called himself?

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

So if I tell myself I am a nigger or a woman "inside" am I permitted to play the wounded victim?

More important than that you could is that you would.

Satyr wrote:

Stuart- wrote:

Zara wrote:

What do you mean by that, setting up barricades?

I no longer give change to the homeless, in fact, I no longer support or pay attention to liberal cause in general. If I was to ever be homeless, I might find I'd have to beg and I'd have to think long and hard about whether my callousness towards social welfare was due to an objective disillusionment with it, or simply a manufactured arrogance that resulted in thinking I was above it.

Are you black?
Are you that black dude who was my youtube fan...green he called himself?

In one thread he declared: "I'm a nigger."

Stuart- wrote:

Zara wrote:

What do you mean by that, setting up barricades?

I no longer give change to the homeless, in fact, I no longer support or pay attention to liberal cause in general. If I was to ever be homeless, I might find I'd have to beg and I'd have to think long and hard about whether my callousness towards social welfare was due to an objective disillusionment with it, or simply a manufactured arrogance that resulted in thinking I was above it.

Well....it's true that some forms of charity can be a disguised arrogance, but one can easily fix that by looking within, especially philosophers. I do believe our compassion should be given to those, who deserve it, but that shouldn't make one cut off and callous.

Satyr wrote:

Are you black?

No, I was being sarcastic.

Quote :

Are you that black dude who was my youtube fan...green he called himself?

No, I've only spoken to you with two other names, FuckingMoron, and Canterbury.

Supra-Aryanist, you're emotional, and a KTS broken record, it's hard to watch at times.

Imbesil, you're far more emotional than he is, yet you don't even have the autistic intelligence you would have people believe with your MENSA shit. At best, maybe your willingness to come here and expose yourself to better people is indicative of a desire make some slight improvement.

Stuart- wrote:

Supra-Aryanist, you're emotional, and a KTS broken record, it's hard to watch at times.

Imbesil, you're far more emotional than he is, yet you don't even have the autistic intelligence you would have people believe with your MENSA shit. At best, maybe your willingness to come here and expose yourself to better people is indicative of a desire make some slight improvement.

Retrospect your posts, bro. Nuff said.

Stuart- wrote:

Supra-Aryanist, you're emotional, and a KTS broken record, it's hard to watch at times.

Imbesil, you're far more emotional than he is, yet you don't even have the autistic intelligence you would have people believe with your MENSA shit. At best, maybe your willingness to come here and expose yourself to better people is indicative of a desire make some slight improvement.

You guys get along so well here lol

Stuart is hormonal, hence all his anecdotal whining and neediness for affirmation.

Who is the author of your signature quote, Supra-Aryan?

In part from an old internet mate.

Supra-Aryanist wrote:

In part from an old internet mate.

Ok. What about your username...what is that supposed to mean?

This isn't the appropriate place to discuss these things.

Stuart- wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

It intrigues me that indigenous tribes of south are able to exist without the proper modest attire required to prevent women from being brutally assaulted by men day and night.

The more protection from family a women has the less reserved she must be. Why do you think American women are generally so lacking in femininity?

So do you think that those women are just asking to be raped all the same, but they have more protection from their families? Do you think those families would do better to put clothes on their girls, lest the poor neighboring men fall victim of their own natures when nobody is looking?

phoneutria wrote:

perpetualburn wrote:

Zara wrote:

Women should never be harmed...idc what they did....it's just wrong to take advantage of other women...This is why people need to be instilled with the proper virtues.

Does it "harm" men to be exposed to excessive, unfiltered displays of the female body growing up in a soft, feminized public education system that caters to the "objectified" and "victimized" (that "instills" the "proper virtues" to support a woman's "choice")?

You are a man, so why don't you answer that?
Specifically, are you harmed by exposure of the female body?

A "woman" can't answer it any better?

If I might not be as harmed "specifically" does that change the collective effect on men?  It's not about saying "I can handle it" or "It's not a big deal" or even "I enjoy seeing more of a woman's flesh, it adds to everyday life" with macho confidence or blind indifference...it's about improving and perfecting ideal conditions.

perpetualburn wrote:

A "woman" can't answer it any better?

Why would you ask a woman what harms a man and expect a better answer than a man can give?

Quote :

If I might not be as harmed "specifically" does that change the collective effect on men?

We are not talking about you. The question is "Does it harm men..."
So what is the answer?

Quote :

It's not about saying "I can handle it" or "It's not a big deal" or even "I enjoy seeing more of a woman's flesh, it adds to everyday life" with macho confidence or blind indifference...

Meaning that your opinion is that men who are not hurt by female exposure are under a pretense?

Quote :

it's about improving and perfecting ideal conditions.

What are these?

phoneutria wrote:

perpetualburn wrote:

A "woman" can't answer it any better?

Why would you ask a woman what harms a man and expect a better answer than a man can give?

Seeing as you're so concerned with "context" maybe you should re-read "Zara's" comment: "Women should never be harmed...idc what they did....it's just wrong to take advantage of other women...This is why people need to be instilled with the proper virtues." ...and then you can see how my question doesn't "expect a better answer" because she's a "woman"

Quote :

If I might not be as harmed "specifically" does that change the collective effect on men?

Quote :

We are not talking about you. The question is "Does it harm men..."
So what is the answer?

Actually your question was directed at me, "Specifically, are you harmed by exposure of the female body?"

Quote :

It's not about saying "I can handle it" or "It's not a big deal" or even "I enjoy seeing more of a woman's flesh, it adds to everyday life" with macho confidence or blind indifference...

Quote :

Meaning that your opinion is that men who are not hurt by female exposure are under a pretense?

Are you trying to say there ARE men who are not hurt?  It might be a good idea to define "harm" though to avoid further confusion.  Harm can be the leveling of the instincts through the repetitive reinforcement of popular sentiments constantly "reborn" through association with nauseating images that depend on and demand re-approval.

Quote :

it's about improving and perfecting ideal conditions.

Quote :

What are these?

That's a tough one, I keep trying to flesh out the details.

perpetualburn wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

perpetualburn wrote:

A "woman" can't answer it any better?

Why would you ask a woman what harms a man and expect a better answer than a man can give?

Seeing as you're so concerned with "context" maybe you should re-read "Zara's" comment: "Women should never be harmed...idc what they did....it's just wrong to take advantage of other women...This is why people need to be instilled with the proper virtues." ...and then you can see how my question doesn't "expect a better answer" because she's a "woman"

Granted.
However, I don't see how a woman can answer of what harms a man if the harm is not physical. That is why I ask you instead.

Quote :

Quote :

If I might not be as harmed "specifically" does that change the collective effect on men?

Quote :

We are not talking about you. The question is "Does it harm men..."
So what is the answer?

Actually your question was directed at me, "Specifically, are you harmed by exposure of the female body?"

True. Serves me right, too much multitasking
Now that you've answered for yourself, would you care to speak on behalf of your sex?

Quote :

Quote :

It's not about saying "I can handle it" or "It's not a big deal" or even "I enjoy seeing more of a woman's flesh, it adds to everyday life" with macho confidence or blind indifference...

Quote :

Meaning that your opinion is that men who are not hurt by female exposure are under a pretense?

Are you trying to say there ARE men who are not hurt?

Apparently so, as you just said that is not your case.

Quote :

It might be a good idea to define "harm" though to avoid further confusion.  Harm can be the leveling of the instincts through the repetitive reinforcement of popular sentiments constantly "reborn" through association with nauseating images that depend on and demand re-approval.

So you think that in order to allow man's instinct to fuck everything that moves, which is natural, to persist without causing harm to women, we must inhibit woman's instinct to flaunt, which is also natural.
Which must also mean that you equate the harm of being forced to keep one's dick in one's pants to the harm or having one's body physically violated.
Which leaves us with the options of letting all instincts run free, and let women carry knives, let men rape and let women stab; inhibit all instincts and let not men rape and let not women flaunt, burqas are in fashion I hear; let men rape women in burqas; or what we have now.

Still doesn't explain those sassy little indian girls in their uluris.
Nice ass, no?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

Quote :

it's about improving and perfecting ideal conditions.

Quote :

What are these?

That's a tough one, I keep trying to flesh out the details.

I'll take a rain check.

phoneutria wrote:

Granted.
However, I don't see how a woman can answer of what harms a man if the harm is not physical.

How convenient.

Quote :

True. Serves me right, too much multitasking
Now that you've answered for yourself, would you care to speak on behalf of your sex?

I'm not speaking on behalf of all men.

Quote :

So you think that in order to allow man's instinct to fuck everything that moves, which is natural, to persist without causing harm to women, we must inhibit woman's instinct to flaunt, which is also natural.
Which must also mean that you equate the harm of being forced to keep one's dick in one's pants to the harm or having one's body physically violated.
Which leaves us with the options of letting all instincts run free, and let women carry knives, let men rape and let women stab; inhibit all instincts and let not men rape and let not women flaunt, burqas are in fashion I hear; let men rape women in burqas; or what we have now.

Now you've gone off the deep end and are drawing wild conclusions that don't follow from what I've said. We're not in the jungle cities of Brazil here. Almost like you enjoy reading into some oppressive conservatism so you can overreact.

Quote :

Still doesn't explain those sassy little indian girls in their uluris.
Nice ass, no?

What's your point? Those are small isolated communities.

It is not as if you are giving me much to go by.

That ass. If only I were at home right now.

phoneutria wrote:

It is not as if you are giving me much to go by.

lol, what kind of response is that... "I don't have much to go by, so I'll just make a bunch of stuff up"

Satyr wrote:

So, homosexuality is found in nature, and is a behavior one can observe in other species, but then so is rape...

Rape, homosexuality, consensual coitus, heterosexuality - of course they exist in nature alongside every other natural thing. I wouldn't say they are all common though, and certainly not as common as one another, I would say the first 2 are the exception and the last 2 the rule. But the exceptions happen, and the rule does not have to be followed when it comes to what is possible.

Though seeing as the rape subtopic is an ethical one and not an ontological one, that argument is pretty pointless.

And seeing as the standard for most "modern morons" is the democratic ideal - born of a collection of varying preferences - rape has been found guilty of not being very preferable overall by quite a margin.
More specifically than being democratic however, is that it is "neo-liberal": it follows the rule of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Rape involves interference, which is pretty unpopular at the moment amongst "modern morons". Consensual homosexuality doesn't interfere with anyone, especially if it is only acted upon in private, so it's ok.
There's your distinction.

Given this, your ethical argument that one should accept the reality of things is somewhat undermined by the reality being that negative liberties rule. As natural as rape is, the reality is that it's still not preferred by a strength much greater than your self-congratulatory contrary protestations. By all means, derive your self-worth by your weak resistance to nature and calling it strong nature - I even agree that having my way feels better and stronger than not. But some fights for your positive liberties you're going to lose more than others - one of them being the defense of people who violate negative liberty. Another being the advocacy of fear as a means toward social control. As effective and "natural" as fear is, empirically it's not that effective compared to alternatives. Keep trying though, I know you will.

Myself, I'm fine with rape being unacceptable, and with the contradictory measures of forcing others not to force themselves on others - so long as the net result is greater negative liberty. I like not being interfered with.