Deception Gets You Laid - How Bad Is This?

Great Debates
161

“”""""""“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.

162

Darn, I guess Venus moved out of alignment with Jupiter and the coherent moment has passed.

163

You’ve got to be kidding me! The reply was still in construction, and sent. I was going to delve into how you ‘forced’ a response on me, and then ending it with pointing out how the consent issue was forced another layer up. And to delve into the complexities of why this doesn’t make one person more intelligent than another; when it’s just a matter of describing different things.

I may be all alone here (metaphorically) in regards to this answer.
I may have been here for years interacting with something that nobody else has ever seen or touched or studied or used or interacted with. I may actually know more about this one thing than you. Does that make you less intelligent? Does that make me more intelligent?

I need to stop rambling…

What about Bryan calling me Justin. My name is Jason. He could be interacting with the same dynamics for his own amusement, or he could be holding a lesson for me, or he could simply be confused, or he may want to know my real name just out of curiousity.

-Justhink

164

Whoops, I screwed up.

DNFTJt (Do Not Feed The Justhink).

165

Metaphoric in what sense? That you are the only one who has your started view point, or that you are here in the sense that we inhabit a “location” on the internet yet are still in our homes or work places?

<hijack>
If a person espouses flagrant pomposity, do they then find themselves gravely lacking satisfaction, in the phallic sense, because the objects of their angling become fatigue while trying to delve some sort of valuation from their convoluted diatribes concerning the scarcity of persons who notice their blustering brilliance? In my opinion, if one adopts a persona that inspires somnolence in their spectators, they will quite repeatedly be forced to look to releasing their tensions in a solo manner, by “marrying the bed” as Anne Sexton aptly puts it, because they’ve alienated anyone who would find them at all engaging.

Furthermore, IMO, A propensity to oft engage in such repugnant behavior would lead one to become one of the 30-40 year old virgins discussed in this thread as they become blinded by their own erudition and do not realize they would be more exultant if they took the advice of song (" shut and kiss me") rather than endeavoring to convey their superiority in a gentle way that belittles despite the actioner’s attempts not to do so, at least on a conscious level, as they have not realized this behavior is now innate to their personality.

On the other hand, I bet people like that have very few worries about one night stands, as they lack partners in which to engage in such an arrangement.

Your thoughts on my theory, anyone?

</hijack>

166

Here’s my take on the subject:

Expect the Worst, and make sure your hands are clean.

There’s a guy in my city who is, quite the stud at landing women in the sack. However, some of his methods are highly questionable… ranging from simple alcohol to stories so bizarre I wouldn’t repeat them for being thought a troll.

Now, to my knowledge, he’s never been charged or had any trouble.

(The skanky, low-self esteem women he goes after probably helps, too)

But:

That doesn’t make it right. I’ve had a few chances for one-night stands, and everything about them is wrong… to my way of thinking.

Look at it this way: You can decieve all you want. In relationships, in business, in life.

Anyone shallow enough to be fooled by a simple lie doesn’t deserve it. They simply may not know any better. Learn from it, and move on.

(Off topic: One of my most interesting jobs was meeting people in their homes. People would talk, and the most common thing I remember was REGRET. Regret over waste. Waste, specifically, being investing time and energy into something with low payoffs)

167

Metaphoric in the sense that we are all standing in different places looking at different things. In this sense, I’m drawing a strong analogy between thought and form. By standing and literally looking at something and attempting to explain what it is I see. In this day and age, where the whole world looks for a convenience store robber for a week, I think the comparison I made has a considerably popular understanding. (sorry for the hyperbole)

Think of this room like the T.V. set and the OP like one of those media blitzes to call in the next killer. I’m sitting in my chair, in my little life, one of 6 billion other lives doing the same thing as me; looking at something, Some cannot communicate with any of us, and the person who is standing there may be the worst damn speaker of your language in your world. The T.V. show (OP) talks and says “If you have anything on this, please give us a call.” “Hmm… is that that wierd thing I’ve been looking at for years and years? I swear that looks just like it, I’ll certainly submit it to the tip hotline.”

This thread posed a question, I’m looking at some weird $#!t that might be the answer. Do you care? I don’t know! I’m just callin’ the damn phone number, and trying to explain why I’m calling and what I’m seeing — you may end the conversation saying the equivilent of “Sorry sir, those things in the windows are called mannequin’s <sp?>, that’s not what we’re looking for thanks for the call though.”

Does the fact that Nostradamus described people with pig heads that travel through the sky in machines have anything to do with flight masks worn in WWII? I dunno. I do know that it is an apt analogy for someone who cannot describe what they are seeing, because they don’t have a reference. In Nostradamus’ case, he was aparently the only one who was standing there looking at this stuff. It’s the equivilent of calling as a concerned citizen while also attempting to assert your own reality as precisely as possible; looking for clues that it has been comprehended enough for you to drop the issue. Should Nostradamus have never written any books? I dunno.
Should I shut up? I dunno, you tell me. Maybe you have to ban me or ignore me to make me shut up, I may have no sense of understanding about the process here, no ability to modify addictive behavior which discourages any fruitful discussion here.

<hijack>
If a person espouses flagrant pomposity, do they then find themselves gravely lacking satisfaction, in the phallic sense, because the objects of their angling become fatigue while trying to delve some sort of valuation from their convoluted diatribes concerning the scarcity of persons who notice their blustering brilliance? In my opinion, if one adopts a persona that inspires somnolence in their spectators, they will quite repeatedly be forced to look to releasing their tensions in a solo manner, by “marrying the bed” as Anne Sexton aptly puts it, because they’ve alienated anyone who would find them at all engaging.

Furthermore, IMO, A propensity to oft engage in such repugnant behavior would lead one to become one of the 30-40 year old virgins discussed in this thread as they become blinded by their own erudition and do not realize they would be more exultant if they took the advice of song (" shut and kiss me") rather than endeavoring to convey their superiority in a gentle way that belittles despite the actioner’s attempts not to do so, at least on a conscious level, as they have not realized this behavior is now innate to their personality.

On the other hand, I bet people like that have very few worries about one night stands, as they lack partners in which to engage in such an arrangement.

Your thoughts on my theory, anyone?

‘Pomposity’ may also be the most effective way to communicate ideas, while leaving the greatest amount of free-will to the observer as possible; to choose a side for themselves. Maybe people have an interest in things like this.

i.e. “I’ve already made up my mind - what’s your decision? I’m not exactly an impartial jury here, and I’m sure as hell not going to pretend like it.”

As for your theory, it may require its own OP. I have an axiom though (mwhahaha!) :: Consent can be virtualized, and is evidenced as having been virtualized.

This is big stuff!

-Justhink

168

“”"""“they took the advice of song (” shut and kiss me")""""""

That’s pretty funny stuff for the sex that files and wins sexual harassment suits for this behavior. Believe what you want about yourself, there is definately a real world out there.

Great advice: More prison labor to pay child support.

-Justhink

169

I am in utter awe that you’ve captured the
“pomposity” and, at the same time, actually managed to convey a genuine, coherent thought, with which I agree. Bravo.

Why yes, it does. And it’s quite possibly the only coherent comment Justhink has made.

Now to a serious charge:

Typically (as if these incidents are common) in the situation you’re envisioning, the victim is unconscious and incapable of giving consent or “enjoying it”. Therefore it is rape, whether they are aware of it or not. The few times “surgical rape” has come to light is because the victim regained consciousness during the act, or discovered clues afterwards and was able to put the clues together.

I’ll echo the other posters who have recommended that you seek professional counseling.

170

Originally posted by Justhink:

Begs Justhink to leave the scales alone for just a second
[Pit Moment]
Could you disregard my cognitive age briefly and take some advice from a huge fan??? You need an editor- very, very badly. 1, in the above quote “anyone” is singular and agrees only with singular pronouns ie) he, she or it. 2, pupetrators? explanitory? I wouldn’t be running around advertising my cognitive age there buddy.
[/Pit Moment]

Next, to the issue at hand (kind of)- Everyone seems fairly critical of one-night stands. They’re not generally my thing, but I think we’re ignoring the whole “Romeo and Juliet” phenomenon. Sometimes sex within 24 hours of meeting isn’t a sign of shallowness or superficiality (sp?), but of a boldness in pursuit of what could be real. Some people still believe in love at first sight.

171

I’ve got nothing against one-night stands.

172

unsupported generalization- my fault

rephrase: the opinions of some poster ie) t-keela, istara, and blowero seem to indicate some negativity toward one-night standers.

173

No - nothing against them per se as long as no one is physically endangered (wear a condom and be honest about STDs) just hideously cynical about their potential to spark a meaningful relationship - yes it can happen (personal experience) but more likely it’s not going to.

So if the point of the ONS was to hook yourself an eligible partner, it’s a pretty desperate freaky stupid way to go about it.

The only point to a ONS that I can see is (a) sex (b) sex © sex because you really want a leg-over and can’t be bothered to wait to get to know them to find out if they are the Yorkshire Ripper or not.

It’s not the ONS I am against - it is stupid fucking people getting hurt and tearful because they shagged some bloke in a bar who promised to call them and didn’t. Or wasn’t really a pro-footballer. Or wasn’t really the world’s fifth richest man. Or wasn’t Julia Robert’s sister-in-law. Or whatever. Time to grow up, wake up, and smell the coffee - if your ONS partner even bothered to put the kettle on.

174

I had a friend in law school who had one unbearable trait. When she got stoned (which was quite often), she would begin to pontificate at great length on some issue.
If you expressed agreement with her pontification, she would take this as encouragement, and redouble her pontification, both in length and in volume.
If you disagreed with her pontification, she would take umbrage and redouble her pontification, both in length and in volume.
The only possible response to my friend’s pontification would be to stare straight ahead and not acknowledge a word she was saying, by voice, gesture or facial expression, until she ran out of steam.

Just thought I’d share this story.

::whistling::

Sua

175

Go with confused. It was a simple mistake.

I’d apologize, but since no-one ever apologizes to me when they refer to me as “brian” or “eckers”, screw it.

176

Don’t get me wrong Homebrew , I’m arguing that this is rape. This is also not the only example I provided shrug.

Not everyone who is undergoing surgery is under full anethsesia, and I’m quite sure there is at least one person out there (raise your hand and come forward please) who can testify to a person who consented to this form of rape. “Oh yeah, you kow you want it” “My whole life, you know it” One person is looking at someone sprawled nude on a surgical table and the other is picturing some dream person in a tropical setting. The point is that consent can be virtualized, and is evidenced as being virtualized. I believe this provides a strong arguement as to why any form of deception is unacceptable. The reasons for this have been enumerated above, however, I’m attempting to ponder how to summarize them coherently.

-Justhink

177

While I’m pondering how to coherently summarize my stance…

I haven’t seen anyone provide a concrete standard which bypasses the unacceptability of deception. I’ve seen lots of “Well, we all know what the rules are.” “Everyone knows what’s right - it’s right to be deceptive, you just have to do it right, you know, the way everyone knows how to do it right.”

I would like to see something concrete here, if anyone is so inclined.

-Justhink

178

To re-phrase the above:

If consent is easy to virtualize (decepetion)
aka. It’s easy to ‘trick’ people into consent
Then the acceptence that deception is a necessity or even warranted, leads to a VERY slippery slope.
What is your line? Your personal boundary that draws this and why? Does it stand to scrutiny? Does your line allow a person to slither into that slippery slope using logic? Think about it please, as this will most likely be the only defense against the ‘badness’ of deception in regards to the OP. Defend yourself and your actions and your integrity!! Bring it to the front line and validate your behavior, your life, your little ‘white lies’.

Of course my worst nightmare here would be a slew of people buying “Virtualize Consent!” T-Shirts to further use the process of cannibalizing inconsistencies for sexual selection. flusters

-Justhink

179

Thank you :slight_smile: It’s fun, if used as an intellectual exercise or to prove a point, but while I can write like that at great length, I also paid attention to the professor who told us that that sort of writing might make people think you’re smarter, but also think you’re a jackass. I don’t like the thought of people’s eyes glazing over, so I try to limit myself to using only a word or two a page that people need to look up when I write for my audience on a story forum; here that’s not a problem since people tend to be older and somewhat more educated, so their vocabularies are bigger.