Deception Gets You Laid - How Bad Is This?

I understand that I made many grammatical and spelling errors (though I did make an effort this time!) however, is this unintelligeble?

-Justhink

Would it be at all helpful at this point to make a distinction between implicit and explicit deception?

Things like dyed hair have been called “deception” in this thread, but I think that’s a little strong unless the person with the dyed hair actually says “This is my natural haircolor.” Barring this it is at most implicit deception, which to my mind hardly counts as deception at all. I think all rational adults realize that it is possible to dye your hair, put on a padded bra, borrow a friend’s fancy car, pick up a designer suit for cheap at a secondhand shop, etc. It is also possible to feign interest in a topic that you really find boring. Knowing this, it is unreasonable to assume that everyone with blonde hair is a natural blonde, that everyone in a nice suit has a lot of money, or that everyone who nods and says “That is so interesting” is really fascinated by the conversation. On a more dramatic level, it is also unreasonable to assume that someone with blue eyes can’t possibly be Jewish, that someone with straight hair can’t possibly be African-American, or that someone who looks good in a dress can’t possibly have a penis.

We all know that appearance can be a hint as to other attributes, but we all know that appearances can also be deceiving. Anyone who gives too much weight to appearances alone is setting themselves up for disappointment. I would make an exception for certain deliberate and elaborate cases of implicit deception ("But honey, how could you assume that I was a firefighter just because my closet is full of old firefighting gear and you saw me riding on the back of a firetruck and I told you my nickname was “Smokey the Bear and…”), but in general I think it’s unfair to hold the “implicit deceiver” morally responsible as the real deception was going on in the mind of the beholder.

On the other hand, people who actually lie (“Why yes, I am a natural blonde”, “Boy, sure was a long day at the firestation today!”) are practicing explicit deception. This I think is morally wrong, although I would be inclined to judge some cases more heavily than others. Lying about your job or marital status seems like a far more serious offense than lying about your hair color or zodiac sign.

QUOTE]*Originally posted by Justhink *
**I understand that I made many grammatical and spelling errors (though I did make an effort this time!) however, is this unintelligeble?

-Justhink **
[/QUOTE]

It depends on your definition of “unintelligible.” While I, and I think many others, understand the individual words in your posts, they don’t make a hell of a lot of sense all together because they lack coherency. Most of your posts read like stream of consciousness poetry, or perhaps a dissertation written by a philosophy/anthropology major who has an untreated brain disorder, so it’s difficult to wade through your style of writing to try to find any meaning to what you are saying. If you are going to create bizarre analogies, such as the one about the dentist and rape, you need to take the time to give your readers context so you can be understood.

The burden of establishing comprehension falls to the writer when they neglect to put things in layman’s terms. For example, if I tell you that part of my previous position" involved following through on a sensory diet," I am expected to realize that only parents of special needs children, and those who work with said children in school/medicial settings are likely to know what I’m talking about. Therefore, since making myself understood is my burden, I need to add something to my statement to make it coherent to an audience that might be made up of other people as well. So my statement is amended to “…involved following through on a sensory diet, which are breaks for physical activity that allows an autistic child to settle their nervous system so they can concentrate better.”

While it make seem too hard to believe, you can make an elegant argument while still obeying standard writing conventions which allow readers to understand what you are talking about. You may want to try it some time.:rolleyes:

Maybe it’s not unanswerable from your viewpoint, but to satisfy the condition I set forth an answer to the question of “Is it only wrong if you get caught?” has to satisfy everyone. I state with uncategorical assuredness that this answer will never be achieved. Arriving at an answer you espouse and attempting to brow-beat people to accept it is hardly worthy of consideration.

t-keela :wally

Enjoy,
Steven

Males can be raped, they can be drugged, tied up and raped with a strap on by a female.

“”"""""""“If you are going to create bizarre analogies, such as the one about the dentist and rape, you need to take the time to give your readers context so you can be understood.”""""""""

I explained this few times IMO. I’ll certainly do it again.

Surgical rapes can and do occur without detection.
The people being raped during surgery from what I understand, are unable to seperate the act of sex from the concept of rape - as it translates into a dream scenario the it guided by being on stimulants.

This strikes me as an equivilent to ‘the black box scenario’
–where everyone else seems to be arguing that no harm has occurred.
There is an excellent chance that if the surgeoun had asked the person if they could have sex with them when they were placed on a partial (or even full anethesia) - the answer would be “no”.

Yet the actual act of sex shows no evidence of non-consensual force - in that the person being raped is enjoying it. With a little prep work after the rape; the area can be manually and pharmaceutically enhanced so as to not give the waking patient and particular feeling in the genital area - that would alert them of anything other then the actual surgical process.

Two people are happy. Nobody was harmed. It is quite reasonable to assume that a patient who is put under could even GIVE verbal and emotional consent, as they are not properly mapping the situation when being asked. When they wake up, the memory is gone - this is certainly indicitive of blackouts of previous evenings.

The question is in regards to deception and consent IMO.
I see people arguing that rapes which occur in the span of a few hours - as being a violation; while shrugging their shoulders when it moves into the same exact pattern, yet over a period of years, decades or even centuries until the actual rape is detected through the use of better physical and cognitive tools.
I see people arguing that the issue of cognitive age and/or acuity is a reason NOT to be transparent. I conpletely disagree here, I see it as the opposite.

(I hope that was understood)

-Justhink

Basically, you can virtualize consent. We can prove this.

I’m arguing that any use of deception is arguing that virtualized consent is an acceptable form of innitiating consent and as such, opens a very large loophole.

Consent is virtualized by greater experience and greater knowledge of life systems then another person, if and only if, not revealing that knowledge preceeds or is excluded from the consent.

If you have members of the species who require virtualization in order to give consent, the responsibility of the social elders is to show them the difference and set the pace by acting in accordance with this level of maturity.

The means in which the cognitive age corruption is bypassed is through pre-emptive intent expression. This falls on both the intent of the user of the intent and the objects’ ‘intent’ that are being interacted with in the environment; including ones thoughts and opinions. This is where the selection process backfires significantly, as many individuals literally cannot walk through the ‘fire’ of being referenced in regards to intent, without feeling like they are being manipulated of their free-will.

Again, this is a cognitive age issue as well. By creating pre-emptive standards - the cognitive age issue ceases to be an abusive factor for all distributions of cognitive age and consent.

-Justhink

Let me put it this way (sorry for the spam)

You are sexually attracted to X individual, X individual is sexually attracted to you.
X individual, however, requires Y evidence to consent sex from you. We’ll assume that Y (evidence) needs to be true (non-deceptive).

You can literally virtualize Y evidence, for the sole purpose of sex, regardless of whether they would consent or not.

Stories, gossips and all that stuff only require a month or so of dilligent deception in order to aquire, in order to be able to claim truth. Theoretically, you could undergo a brainwashing program to forget that you were collecting the deceptions for the purpose of sex; collapsing the actual lying process until such time as the sex was achieved, at which point the trigger is released from the program to revert the old memories back.

This is very much akin to the degree of planning and pre-emption used to innitiate the surgical consented rape. Careful calculation, to simulate consent in every concievable way, with the exception that we know it is not transparent, but rather thrives on an environment suited for non-transparency. To combat this social dynamic of collecting personality evidence, covertly, and impacting society as a whole - it seems prudent that sex itself be regarded with something given only to pre-emptive transparency routines - that disable the selection value for the black boxes which are being argued as necessary for sexual selection.

Pressure can be placed on transparency for selection by slightly modifying the ‘rules’. I this instance, the selection of personality can be intelligently applied; so that when one says that looks aren’t the only factor, it can be consistently applied with the engagement process that innitiates sexual requests.

-Justhink

Please, if you have the gift of being able to ‘dumb’ this down, please help me if you understand what I’m saying.

-Justhink

Well, “virtualize” now joins “counter intelligent” and “consistent” in the pantheon of phrases Justhink uses in manner that makes no sense whatsoever.

Justhink: Are you saying that you think the incidence of surgical rape is a large one? What about the nurses, usually hanging around. Do they get down too?

Please boil down your posts into one thought, and one thought only. Then take the time to spell-check, and put the grammar into some normative English standard.

Cut and paste the rest of it into a word doc for later use.

That’d be helpful, thanks.

Counter intelligent is virtual consent of both purpetrators and the victims simultaneously. Virtual consent is determined through the observation of consistency, as a:
violation of that which is consistent.

Consistency is determined from explanitory and predictive power.

The basic idea…

-Justhink

“”""""""“Justhink: Are you saying that you think the incidence of surgical rape is a large one?”"""""""

Oh heavens no! I’m sure that nurses become engaged in the activity too – that all depends on whether or not the two people have been able to cross that line of exclusive perversion or not.
It’s a tough line to cross! When that line is crossed, the results can be devastating.

-Justhink

It’s a tough line to cross in this particular instance; the two people either have to have a LOT in common, or it is just a situation where someone is forced into the situation by the act of one person engaging in it first; and then waiting…

If the other person is somehow convinced to enjoy it “this is sooo cool” and laugh about it, then the force has been effective.
If they take time to think about it (thinking that their job may be in danger or WHATEVER, out of fear, shock etc… they can still be sitting by themselves and eventually process, “Hell yeah, that is sooo cool!” Then you have two actors, stealing consent for the purpose of their own enjoyment, regardless of how it reflects their own meaning to exist. I’m imagining it like a drug, a narcotic.

This is extremely common in human interactions, as that’s what gossip and whatnot is –
“so and so is such a jerk”
“yeah”
“no kidding, did you notice this too?”
“no way!, totally a jerk, that’s just to funny”
giggles
“but seriously, I can’t stand people like that! They make me sick.”
“like so and so made you sick?”
“Oh, but that’s the right kind of sick”
giggles

blah, blah, blah… down the line

What is isolated here is a metabolic process where a perversion has been extracted and virtualized in order to produce joy, joy being the evidence of value to this degree. The terms are corrupted, with a theme of non-transparency; much like the God concept itself - and metabolized in order to virtualize human value; against the sheer difficulty of actually working to extract it.

-Justhink

Marzie dotes and dozee dotes and litlamzy divy. A kiddly divey too, wouldn’t you?

“”"""“they can still be sitting by themselves and eventually process, “Hell yeah, that is sooo cool!””""""

Anyone who possesses a higher cognitive age can tip this scale into their favor at any given point. Part of the process of forcing the consent is the desire to have a partner (when TWO people who are almost identical in this respect are ‘hard’ to find); is to create one. This creation process can be significantly enhanced by being the person doing the hiring - so as to determine who will require the least work for conversion.

Then the conversion process is mapped and extracted, existential pressure is forced when the fruit is at it’s greatest appeal; and whammo! You have yourself a buddy AND the terms of virtualization are being defined by YOU.

What typically occurs is that the person who triggered the partner is eventually discovered, as they have difficulty letting the glory of this conversion go unrecognized - it is another drug unused, sitting on the shelf. Also, they can feal the poke of REAL existential pressure, and begin to allow a decryption of the terms which they possess in order to have the sense of a peer interacting with them. This will often backfire - and create judgement tension in spite of the ‘best’ wishes for allowing more transparency. As in, the person should or will respect them for opening this door into the Godly world…

hmm… now rambling…

If people lack interest in the topic, I’ll stop – yeah, or nay?

-Justhink

“”"""“That’d be helpful, thanks.”"""""

Thank you. Are you absorbing ‘any’ of it?
I could always write:

People are mean to each other when they lie, and it’s just not right. I think lies are deceptions. It’s not fair.

When people decieve each other, it is the same as lying, except it’s harder to notice because some people don’t know much and are really stupid. Stupid people should have rights too.
We as smart people declare rights for stupid people because that is our priviledge and right and responsibility.
If people don’t act like us, and appreciate the way we act, then they are stupid. They will pay severe consequences for being stupid, we nice and smart people are being generous in not taking advantage of stupid people.

Smart people should not use their smarts to control stupid people, because that makes the really smart people think about controlling all of us. So please put down your weapons and let’s set some standards that apply the same to every different kind of smarts.

That way, not even the really smart people can abuse us and the really dumb people will no longer be confused and kill us when they don’t know better.

That is my opinion.

-Justhink
The entire ‘reply’ here is sarcastic. I can try to formulate it this way… still too complex?

WOW, that actually kinda sorta made sense! Or at least it was comprehensible!

I knew you had it in you, Justin.

I’ve been lurking in this thread for a while, and it just kills me that Justhink, whether he’ll admit it or not, obviously believes the problem is that everyone else is too thick and/or uneducated to comprehend his point.

In order to make sure that I am not being misunderstood, let me put it this way, Justhink: You’re not being clear, and you’re not being concise . . . at all. It’s not that you’re writing is “too complex.” It’s that your prose is simply awful and your thoughts are poorly organized and expressed.

I’d vote “yea.”

“”""""""“I’ve been lurking in this thread for a while, and it just kills me that Justhink, whether he’ll admit it or not, obviously believes the problem is that everyone else is too thick and/or uneducated to comprehend his point.”"""""""""

This IMO is a great place to work from. Observe how this very reply touches upon the issue of deception and consent:

First: You’re accusing me of lying.
Why? I already said that terms like this are used for sex. I believe that it is a matter of lack of exposure to knowledge .
“Uneducated”: Not all knowledge comes from education.
“Thick-Headed”: It does not address the time required for the knowledge to be percieved.

““whether he’ll admit it or not””
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Something that exists regardless of anybody’s opinion.
I wonder what exists regardless of anybody’s opinion…
(a new axiom perhaps?!! cool!!):

“”""""""“obviously believes the problem is that everyone else is too thick and/or uneducated to comprehend his point”""""""

It’s more like using a telephone and guiding people through ‘uncharted’ territory.

“I’m pretty sure that what I’ve been looking at is the same thing as what these people (the OP) are asking to find and be delivered to the commons area”

Turns out that it’s too ‘heavy’ for ME to bring over there, but I can describe it. The difficulty is communicating whether we are talking about the same thing, when my descriptions are walking a very fine line between incomprehensible, not like it at ALL, and almost exactly descriptive of it.

think Nostradamus: He’s describing airplanes in the future. It seems like the future is something that includes people flying in machines, although quite a few will still agree that it is impossible – even-though-the-archetype-has-exited-for millenia!!. As he’s describing these flying machines; he mentions that the pilots bear the head of a pig. Even a guy like Nostradamus can’t be held accountable for not knowing what a flight mask is! But it sure damn well does make it look like people with pig heads are flying airplanes! People with the heads of pigs seems contradictory and almost irrelevant to the process of a flying machine!! That’s not even counting for the FACT that people cannot fly unless God is bringing them into Heaven, i.e. God didn’t make the world that way. This makes Nostradamus a heretic! Well, not quite… He did manage to effectively live a full life devoting himself to healing plague victims, while never catching the plague himself. His secret? Sanitation. He took baths with fresh water every day, removed feces from the town, ground up rose hops (vitamin C) to provide for immune enhancement, and was equally well versed in the times anatomy courses.

My words may look intelligent to you, however, it is my burden to establish a reason for you to bother visiting me other than those words. The words in and of themselves don’t make me correct; trust makes me correct. By forcing you to consider trusting me, by mixing things that make sense with a bunch of confused garble is preying on your need to resolve an answer, your need to feel validated and your common sense that begs you not to fall for this trap of ‘hope’ (it is just a GD thread after all).

“”""""“Smart people should not use their smarts to control stupid people, because that makes the really smart people think about controlling all of us.”""""""""

“”""""“The entire ‘reply’ here is sarcastic.”"""""""

I gave that to you, and have been consistently leaving that door open to alert readers to the actual system of action effecting consent in regards to values that people can steal that are not inherent.