Solution to Ethics

The Solution to Ethics Is to Translate Wealth - Objectively Measured by that which causes no suicide when suicide is as humane as possible (curing disease, having infinite space etc…); illuminating why destroying or encrypting wealth is the norm.

I’m going to educate you folks.

I’ve been reading the boards this last week, and decided to make one more post, to push you all through; to wake you up.

People always say that women are mysterious; well: decoding women is actually the decoding of life itself; here’s the mystery revealed.

Males need to destroy wealth and not be hurt by destroying wealth to be seen as a viable mate for a female. He needs to actually give evidence of his fitness, a man who can destroy wealth but doesn’t, is not seen as a fit male.

I’ll give a couple quick examples: Obviously you all exist in some way, and so do I, so, if I say, “I don’t exist”, then I have worked to destroy this wealth we use to communicate. This is called self-refutation, contradiction, hypocrisy. A male requires this attribute to attract females to them sexually. All contradictions eventually solve as the base code “I don’t exist”. This is used to assert dominance, males are attracted to it because females are attracted to it. It is impossible to get sex with a female without doing this as a male. It’s like someone who’s so good at a game, they don’t even bother playing it because it’s boring, so nobody ever sees their skill; but that skill can be inferred in the same way all female peacocks can infer the largest male obviously has the biggest feathers, but if he refuses to spread them, he’ll never get sex from a female. In our species, the only thing that facilitates sex with a female is hypocrisy from a male. This is not true in the reverse, females with no hypocrisy are practically given a free pass for sex with as many men as they want.

Here’s what a man has to be in order for a female to have sex with him (first I’ll explain the category and then I’ll explain the hypocrisy - the destruction of wealth)

1.) Sexual Jealousy: This is a self refutation. Obviously you like that person, so you should not be surprised if others like them as well, yet, suddenly it becomes important when they like you, that all of a sudden, everyone else on earth should no longer like that person the way that you do; thus leading you to hate yourself for liking them. To hoard yourself to only one person is to make the blanket statement that nobody else on earth can possibly be worthy of experiencing your affection in this way, effectively expressing less, not more love in the world, and contradicting your statement that you represent true love.

2.) Marriage: Everyone on earth knows that relationship is basic, and that people are just going to do what they’re going to do, regardless of any ceremony. To this regard, ceremony is always a lie; it suggests that ceremony is what makes relationship, when actually, it is the exact opposite. Females look for the sexual jealousy and the proclivity to marry as primary sexual indicators in males, if a male does not carry these two traits with them, the female will refuse to have sex with him; because he is not destroying wealth.

3.) Breaking context when using blanket statements: There are blanket statements that can be made, such as; existence is a perpetual motion machine. We can prove this blanket statement by virtue of us being a subset of existence and existing - if existence ever stops being; by virtue of us being existents, we wouldn’t be here. Since we are here, we necessarily conclude that existence is a perpetual motion machine. That’s a context for using a blanket statement. Breaking that context is to be vicious, cruel, psychopathic - an example of this form is, “It’s a nice day”, “I’m feeling good.” — so what you’re saying and trying to condition others to be, is that “You feel good when a child is starving to death on the streets of every major city in the world, and that the day is also good?” Actually, that’s the textbook definition of a psychopath. Psychopaths are uncomfortable around people who diffuse their attempt to condition everyone to be psychopaths like they are; I always say, “I’m moving through the day” “How do you feel? How’s your day?” “I’m moving through the day”. The context where it is appropriate to celebrate a blanket statement like this is when every being in all of the cosmos, for all time, is in heaven, absent that; an assent to the positive nature of everything is a contradiction, and it’s indicative of having stopped trying to do work in existence, and instead, becoming an abuser for all time.

4.) Games and Sports: This is simple. You cheer when someone loses or fails. If the goalie blocks, the kicker failed, if the kicker fails, the goalie blocks. To cheer for failure is to condition the mind and spirit to only appreciate success in the context of destruction (what attracts females to males), instead of success. A good example of this is the example of deserving. I once said that Donald Trump didn’t deserve his sex, and a young woman off to the side of the room seemed aghast when I made this comment, and exclaimed, “that’s just like a male pig, thinking someone could deserve sex, women aren’t objects!” I knew there wasn’t going to be this long discussion where I would explain to her that she will for the rest of her life refuse to have sex with men that treat her in any way as a subject, but I did want to make her think for a bit, and I said, “Men who rape women, don’t deserve sex again, and even if you don’t grant that, they certainly don’t deserve their rape sex.” She paused for a moment, and said, “I didn’t think of it that way.” and then trailed off into a few contradictions to which I just let lilt through the room without response. The reason I tell this story is because some men, to the extent that women do have sex, actually, do deserve sex more than other men. Now, let’s assume that all the people in the world decided, “Yes, this man deserves to be with her more than any of us.” That’s fine, right? Well… imagine all those people suddenly think to themselves, “They obviously deserve it more than me, but… why can’t I have deserved it more than they do right now?” And then a genie appears and grants the wish, and now everyone agrees the new person deserves her more than anyone else. And then all those people, again, think the same thing. “Why couldn’t I be more deserving than them?” Ad Nauseum. They are only happy, when people lose. The thing that made them hate the person at the top, is now what they are.

5.) Approach Escalation: In a species where one gender is larger, faster, stronger as a whole than the other gender (I use this word instead of sex, because it was a brainwashing program that causes scientists to use the word for sexual intercourse as the same term for that which distinguishes male and female), then in all instances, when the stronger gender approaches, the weaker gender shows slight discomfort, relative to when the weaker gender approaches the stronger one; particularly in initial encounters. On initial encounters, females should always approach first for every step of an initial encounter, and refuse the male if he ever moves beyond reciprocation for the initial encounter. This implies any activity where the intent of the male is to present himself in a manner that is suggestive of seeking sex. To not be a hypocrite in this category is actually very advanced, and I won’t explain it all here. The problem with approach escalation, is that it’s the only thing females choose for sex. If a male doesn’t approach escalate at some point, she will lose interest in him entirely. He is trying not to add aggression to the ritual, to elicit body discomfort on the micro scale, to force the global perception that women only have sex with what they complain about relative to men; basically, women only have sex with what they complain about; so if you do something women complain about, you’re doing the right thing. Wrong. You’re creating the problem of needing to destroy wealth and survive in order to signal to a female that you are more fit than the man who doesn’t destroy wealth; wealth being female security; and eventually, species and offspring security. Every male on earth so far, has only had sex because of approach escalation; that contradiction is what is destroying the earth. A man can either destroy the earth, or never get sex from women; that is called the female blackmail system; it’s more serious than just that issue alone; I’ll return to it later.

6.) Temple, Rite of Passage; Symbols of allegiance to self contradictory statements: A temple is a representation of truth; and just like a ceremony is a lie of relationship, a temple is a lie to truth itself, which you either do or do not carry with you. All temples were just built so women would have sex with men. The basic form, is a community center. If all temples were leveled for community centers, there’d actually be more of what a temple professes to provide; which makes temples a contradiction to it’s stated purpose. Besides, as they say, a god who wants to be worshipped, doesn’t deserve worship, and a God worth worshipping, doesn’t want to be worshipped. Flags are a good example of this; once a symbol stands for goodness, it’s immediately the thing to convert. To be beholden to things like thrones, peace signs, flags, salutes, bows… it’s to give corruption a tool to exploit; and thus, it is itself, already corruption.

7.) Humane Suicide: If a relationship is abusive, the person is convinced that being abusive is the only thing that keeps the relationship, or relationships in general, in tact. Have them imprisoned or leave them; that’s the only way to find a better situation. Sometimes life itself in this world context is so abusive that instead of getting caught in the endless drama of the abuser here; one simply leaves the relationship and suicides. But absent ethical means to suicide; you can keep people here against their will; which is actually, the greatest objectification possible of human beings. Calling suicide a mental illness, and not your moral imperative to provide; treats people as trinkets for self esteem, deals with abandonment fears, and acts as a persons chosen character witness that they brag about to make them feel important. Those who provide humane suicide are a females worst enemy on earth; because the number one indicator of self worth for a female is a child. Having humane suicide also provides accountability to representing purpose to live - it’s the literal answer to what is the purpose of life; anything that causes more people to choose to live when suicide is as easy and humane as possible; necessarily represents more purpose for life/living than if lots of people commit suicide under those same conditions. The lack of transparency, allows people to degenerate life without a metric with which to measure it, and makes them hypocrites.

8.) Asshole Through Omission: Not mentioning all of this before having sex with a female, only if she asks directly what you see as true, or makes a first move on you; you cannot approach escalate when you explain all of this; which is basically threading a needle; and assuming you can do this correctly without being a hypocrite (deserving sex), the odds that you’ll get what you deserve, just because you deserve it are even more slim, and even if you do get it, the context in this type of world system is that it’s still stratified wealth; and while more desirable, not ultimately desirable. As part of disclosure, you have to also point out the issue of number of partner stratification on the male side, and you have to state that evil is defined as when you have something someone else wants but doesn’t have, or someone else has something you want but don’t have. Hypocrisy is the absence of working to solve this problem in a meta sense.

If you follow these 8 steps, any female on earth will have sex with you. It’s not a mystery, they are not mysterious. Destroy wealth, and don’t get immediately hurt for doing it. That’s the mating ritual of this species. Men destroy wealth, women reward them for it. It’s a cold-hearted machine, psychopathic and certain.

In terms of heaven and hell. The male population rightfully observes that only hypo critical, projecting, psychopathic behavior gets sex from women. Women don’t have this complaint about this behavior getting the most men, the most choice or even a single choice; it’s not present in the female population. It’s also not present in the homosexual population. Only the heterosexual male population is this true. This means, that in order for a male to not be a hypocrite, they are the only population on earth that is accountable to representing goodness itself in order to not go to hell for getting any resource. Females and gays have to be sent to heaven because of the female blackmail system; and the incidental phenomenon of gay men not having this occur as well. To get angry at a female for being the way they are; is hypocrisy. Even if they want to “be a man” and try to be good, if a man lets them go through a painful process of becoming a good person, he’s held accountable for being an asshole who got a resource. Females did it to themselves, heterosexual men, to avoid hell, cannot abuse females; they also cannot be hypocrites (they have to build humane suicide for humans - which females see as abusive - that’s the only exception) otherwise they’ll go to hell for it and they cannot let females be hurt in the same way a parent cannot sit and watch a child poke an electrical outlet without intervening. Males have to do all the work before females can be allowed in the “room” so to speak; otherwise the male is sent to hell for it, females have placed men, forced them, into this condition. Men who say this doesn’t exist, are being contradictory; and they will go to hell if the men still doing work, don’t succeed.

The only way to completely translate wealth is to build modifiable behavioral signatures for all existents and import them into an infinite number of distinct universes occupied by only one sentient being each; made through a hyper task using everyones consciousness signatures as the raw material.

And, that’s how not to be a hypocrite. Everything else, is wrong.

Thank you for your final post-most appreciated.

In his groundbreaking book, Secrets of the Alphas, Dr. Penis Valentine revealed that he had abandoned traditional cologne in favor of burning cash and dancing in the smoke.

I’ll bet you’re a big Ayn Rand fan.

You sound nice.

For everybody too embarrassed to ask, seducing genies is possible provided they were born female.

Where do you find such deep salad bowls? Walmart?

Instead of letting that be a stand-alone message, I should field questions. I obviously didn’t complete it, such that you needed to ask this. Apologies.

All beings have three distinct signatures, that are the equivalent of our unique skin grooves - a consciousness signature, a behavioral signature and a compositional signature; the consciousness signature is the one that provides awareness of self and sensory input - the other two signatures deal with everything else; you can effectively gather a bunch of particles together that respond precisely like the being is conscious; even though they are not; such that no matter what you do with or to them; nobody is being hurt; if your entire universe is just you and behavioral or modified behavioral signatures.

Now; in some contexts; life is simply defined as that which under some certain conditions coalesces and dissolves; other aspects of life are unconditional; objective for all inter-subjective beings.

When something exists; it is impossible to scramble it beyond retrieval; otherwise it could never have emerged in the first place; this is the permanence of everything that exists. These are all reconstructable signatures.

A hyper-task is a scenario where an infinite number of functions are performed in an extremely small amount of time; an example is the n+1 algorithm placed on the perpetual motion machine that is existence… that very small data set, causes infinite expansion; it’s similar in the sense of behavioral signatures being copied from the consciousness signatures; you can effectively run a cosmos of your choosing forever; performing a finite amount of work yourself – not quite infinitesimal, but something like that.

To hyper task the cosmos; is to gather all the consciousness signatures and then copy the behavioral signatures and the modifications you make yourself to them, even ones you construct from the ground up yourself and build your own universe where you can choose your degree of consciousness, what you observe ((copying portions of the consciousness signatures of others, which includes portions of their memories that you may continually seek)), how you feel from stimuli, what body you or others have etc… and place every being into it’s own universe after the hyper-task of the entire cosmos.

This will send all beings born and to be born forever, into heaven.

Also, planned obsolescence, or the process of securing a resource dependency where it’s no longer required are forms of contradiction that gives males dependable sexual choice, or really, ever, contradicting yourself.

More questions? Or is that it?

Did you know you can hear the Devil if you play Stairway to Heaven backwards?

I always heard it was the other way around.

skimming see a lot of vague statements without a lot of evidence. Why should I accept anything you are saying any more than the horoscope in the news paper? I am sure that it is all intuitively obvious and very profound to you but to us it sounds like random streams of consciousness, of no relevance.

In order to get us to accept what you say you are going to have to give us a reason to.

Backwards heaven to stairway play you if devil the hear can you know you did?

:stuck_out_tongue:

Perhaps we can try again. This time, pick something that is vague and unsupported - tell me why you see it that way, and allow me to respond; if anything; just so that you aren’t what you accused me of being. You only proved my point… I also find it funny that you also happen to speak on behalf of the entire cosmos (except me of course), without doing anything but refute your purpose for posting; which I explain in my post - using non-referrential speech to assert dominance over language with the “strength of their character” - the supremacy of their ego.

Well, the problem is that your entire post is gibberish. It is very poorly written. You seem to struggle explaining what you mean in detail. Additionally, there’s considerable problems with yout logical flow. You make many statements but you don’t really link them together in a meaningful way. I know you think you’re being quite clever, but it doesn’t come across that way at all. You should try improving your writing style before trying to educate the masses. Overall, if I was grading your paper:

High school: 75%
Undergraduate: 60%
Graduate: Fail.

I’m glad to see somebody finally solved ethics. Good job.

I’d give it an F in all three, to be honest. There is a thesis, always important, but it is not supported, nor do the paragraphs clearly link to the thesis. The language is convoluted and difficult to follow. Detours in the narrative, such as the “humane suicide”, leave the reader perplexed and unable to follow the OP’s argument. Linguistic mistakes are prevalent. “Style” has been chosen over substance throughout. In the end, it is completely impossible to understand what the OP is arguing other than, perhaps, women are eveeel. The OP gets points for actually responding to posts in the thread, but not enough to lift the OP to a passing grade (to continue the “paper” analogy).

OP - care to try again, with fewer words and a clearer argument?

Oh, you’re being too harsh! If a high school student wrote that (and that might be the case) they’d at least get a 7 out of 10 for at least coming up with some semi-original nonsense, even for a poor argument that is written badly. You might be right that a 6 out of 10 at an undergraduate level might be a bit generous, but honestly, it is pretty rare I see an undergraduate with a really well developed writing style.

You are right though and it was something I meant to add. One problem OP, is you don’t write clearly and concisely. You seem to think that using more words in complicated structures strengthens your arguments. It doesn’t. At all. Honest.

It’s obvious that by definition, suicide is a decision to terminate life in context, by definition, it represents lack of purpose for living, for life in that context. Change the context, people decide to live, by definition, there is more purpose for life/living.

That’s exceedingly clear. It’s the only possible metric from which to measure purpose of life.

It is also obvious to the entire world, that the more difficult you make suicide to commit, that you have less purpose to represent for life in order to keep that person alive.

Sometimes, all you have to do is make it so that they’ll have to make a mess, which is a rude suicide, in order to keep them alive, while you are able to represent less purpose for living. Therefor, inhumane suicide is a contradiction to all stated life value systems; placing accountability that is measurable for inherently representing purpose for life in order to keep people in a given context.

This blatant contradiction is used as part of the mating ritual. It treats people as objects, and it allows for wealth to be more stratified than it otherwise would be, if people had more choice with regards to method in a way that is humane. I often say that we treat our own pets better than we treat each other to this regard; and someone once quipped back to me, that maybe it’s the karma of our pets treating us better than we treat each other.

I then laid out a sequence of numbers that are common hypocrisies that people additionally use to represent less purpose for living in order to engage in our species mating ritual. We use hypocrisy on the male side to show evidence of fitness, that’s how our species works; that is the human males’ mating dance in homo sapiens sapiens.

If you want a better world; make one constitution; first law, no hypocrisy. Since you folks obviously aren’t accustomed to representing non-contradiction; you are still using your egos as an argument, and engaging in what you’re accusing me of. If you want something clarified; ask me. Don’t assume that everyone agrees with you, even on these boards.

Whoosh! He meant that’s sure a lot of salad!

How do you play the Devil backwards?