There are other worlds, right?
Sure there are. Like the one inhabited by the OP. 
All your psychology has done so far is project and perpetuate what you are ostensibly trying to avoid. My cite is this ridiculous set of misogynist statements, baseless observations, ridiculous assumptions and outright absurd gish-galloping you’ve been posting relentlessly for six pages now.
Trying to reason with you is starting to feel like 400 billion years in hell.
JFC, even O.J. got parole after just 9 years.
An immature species will set a very low bar for statutory rape.
The only crime is hypocrisy; if I gain from crime; my gains are tainted. I don’t plan 10 years down the road anymore… I plan infinitely, and I’m trying to plan all of your infinite lives as well, in the way that you want them planned. You folks laugh at me, but you are extremely young to someone like me.
Wait, you mean you have no data whatsoever for your musings? Well, knock me over with a feather, up till now your case had been air-tight! I mean, you were wrong about seemingly every objective claim you made, but still.
Somebody doesn’t watch television! Check out any random sample of sitcoms, stereotypes about genders and relationships abound!
- Women love shopping, and spend too much on clothes
- Men love toys, and spend too much on cars and gadgets
- Women are naggy buzzkills
- Men are immature but fun
- Groups of female friends gossip about each other and try to steal each others’ men
- Groups of male friends are bros, and just have fun adventures
- Women are level-headed and sensible, and put right their men’s shenanigans
- Men love sex waaaaay more than their wives do
- Men are afraid of commitment, women want marriage and kids immediately
And on, and on, and on.
I seem to recall you doing this in the 2014 thread as well - proposing hypothetical studies, then using their (non-existent, mind you) results as evidence for your claims.
That’s all I’ve got. If you pop up in three years, we can run through it all again.
2014 thread? I thought this posters rhetoric was familiar -
I guess he cherishes t’aints.
Is that you, God? It’s me, Margaret!
See post #151. It’s 100% the same guy.
Son of a gun, you’re one of those immortal space aliens visiting Area 51. Are you green with tentacles? How do they affect your non-existent sex life with hu-man wo-men?
All of those memes are subset memes; aggressive men get the most sexual choice (all men are pigs); women are prostitutes. They are subset memes.
Dude, I’m not going to cite the intricacies of what is public; because quite honestly; some of it is so offensive, that this board wouldn’t let me post it… even though they are peer reviewed studies. Logic is logic. When I say that the phrase “I don’t exist” is non-referential - it is necessarily non-referential - it refers to something that is not there in any possible reality. And then some person like you comes along and says I haven’t proven anything… it’s self evidently true. Logic is not capable of proving everything that is self evident; at some point when I point to a tree that I know we both see, I can’t use logic to prove it, if the other person simply denies every step. The conclusion, for example, when they feel the tree, and say “I don’t feel anything” and on and on… gets old. This is very easy for anyone to do. It is what you are doing.
Additionally, to my last post.
Think to yourself this:
How do my actions and statements solve as a decrypted sequence as “I don’t exist”?
Follow that for the rest of your life. That’s my best advice to everyone. All contradictions ultimately solve as “I don’t exist”… pay attention to it.
You’re so big on definitions, right? “Statutory rape” means “rape as defined by statute.” Please cite the statute that supports your definition.
Why should we accept this definition?
That’s a ludicrous assertion. Very few crimes are related in any way to the concept of hypocrisy. If I pull a gun on someone and demand their wallet, that makes me a lot of things - but it doesn’t in anyway make me a hypocrite.
Except maybe, “Men like sex more than women,” none of those memes are related in anyway to your “men are pigs/women are whores” dichotomy. And even that one is a reach, because it assumes “like sex more” equals “is a pig,” which is debatable in its own right.
None. None of my actions can be decrypted in that way, nor can any of the actions taken by the overwhelming of human beings, because the concept you’re trying to describe is logically incoherent, and relies on entirely non-standard definitions of common terms.
Actually what this is a good example of is your habit for constructing illogical arguments.
All you have shown here is a failure to demonstrate that the concept of deserving is applicable to sex.
We don’t criticize a rapist because he obtained sex he didn’t deserve. That’s a silly concept. We criticize a rapist for causing harm to someone through nonconsensual contact.
I will point out the gibberish in this post once, then I am going to let you flounder along with your idiolect and your lack of knowledge and your smug, self satisfied opinions of your beliefs.
-
You are attributing to me words I have not said. You now claim that if someone has the same feelings that I have toward my beloved, I am going to be jealous. I specifically said no such thing. I have known men who had the identical feelings toward my fiancee as I had. They did not act on those feelings. They made no effort to “take her away” from me or to separate her from me, and I developed no jealousy toward them. Similarly, I have developed feelings toward different women who were in committed relationships. I respected those relationships and took no action to separate the partners. The man in the relationship developed no attitude of jealousy toward me, (as I know, having now been friends with those couples for over 40 years).
This is just nonsense that you invent, to spin your world view. -
Your use of the phrase “conspicuous consumption” is ludicrous. Actual conspicuous consumption has no bearing on the topic. The rest of your gibberish is simply illogical. That some people will fail to adhere to their profession of love does not mean that “people are going to do what they are going to do” despite the vows in the ceremony. In fact, despite a culture that has moved away from committed monogamy, more than half of all people remain true to their spouses and of those who fail in that regard, for most it is a one-time failure following which they continue to adhere to those vows. (The “one time” indicates a relationship with one other person over a period of time that may be a one-night stand or an affair of some time, but most people return to their spouse.) So in your odd little world, anyone who fails to keep their vows one time, (still less than half the population), invalidates the profession of vows. That is nonsense.
-
Your definition of perpetual motion machine is silly and meaningless. A perpetual motion machine is an actual machine that performs tasks, but also produces sufficient extra power to power itself. Setting that aside, where is your proof that existence will continue forever?
The “psycho-neuro-linguistic” word is pseudo-philosophical gibberish. As to your claims about what other people mean when they state an opinion: just silly. That you want to dictate that when a person happens to be in a good mood and expresses that feeling, they must put all kinds of conditions on their words in order to avoid violating some rule that you have invented is your sad little problem. The words expressed communicate to the audience what the person intended to communicate. They, personally, felt good. To come in from the outside and insist that a person MUST mean what you dictate is nothing more than hubris on your part. You persist in misusing many words, (jealousy, conspicuous consumption, perpetual motion, etc.,). If you have the right to demand that other people follow a specific list of meanings for the sentence “It is a nice day.”, then we should have the right to demand that you follow the norms of conversation and use those words in ways that meet dictionary definitions.* Do you agree with that?
- I am mostly a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist, so meaning is what the majority of people associate with a word, not what some pedant or eccentric wishes to impose from their own idiolect.
-
There are games without losers and your inability to recognize that is part of the reason why you appear to have a really warped view of the world. That there are people who are better than other people at some games is irrelevant. Your claim was that to win one must enjoy another person’s loss. If I play solitaire, it is irrelevant to me whether I am the best or the worst player of that game. I have no idea whether others are better or worse than I am and I make no effort to discover which people (if any) play better or worse than I do. It is utter invented rubbish to claim that my enjoyment derives from taking joy in another’s loss when I am happy even if I am the worst player in the world. You are trying to impose a reality on me that is of your invention and has no bearing on the real world.
-
So, now, misusing the words “conspicuous consumption,” and now “flirting” (it does not mean what you claim it means on the one hand and it is quite possible to flirt without having any intention to engage in sex with the object of one’s flirting), you want to tell me, whom you do not know and with whose life you are utterly unfamiliar, what I am like and what I do. Piffle. You are doing exactly the same thing that other posters are doing when they speculate on your “sad” life, hatred of women, or inability to get a date. Don’t you feel a bt hypocritical?
-
:rolleyes:
-
No. And your paraphrase is not what I said. Saying that providing the opportunity and means for suicide is the only valid response for a person suffering abuse instead of saying that it is valid to remove the abused from the abuser is nonsense.
As to what I sound like, (especially since most of what you claim I sound like is a distorted invention not based on what I have actually said), would it be legitimate in this discussion to say that you sound like a misogynist with your claims about women? A number of posters have suggested that you have various psychological issues. Are those legitimate arguments in this discussion? If one has to invent what another person says or does in order to condemn their words or actions, they have pretty much lost the argument ab initio. -
I have no idea what “asshole through omission” means in this or any other context, It appears to be nothing more than a gratuitous insult.
Rape is terrible and wrong, but permitting a person who has raped to engage in sex says nothing about whether they “deserve” to have sex. Suppose an eighteen year old rapist who chose that act out of a bad upbringing and various psychological issues, serves time in prison, makes amends to the victim, gets counseling that changes their mindset, and then, at age 35, falls in love with a woman who is aware of his past but accepts him anyway. Your claim is that he can never “deserve” sex and that anyone who does not condemn him, now, for his past deeds is “defending his past behavior.” Utter rubbish.
These are the sort of unreal claims that you have made throughout this thread. Your claim that men call women whores is along the same imaginary lines. Some men refer to women as whores. No one with whom I work, no one with whom I went to school, and no one in my family would ever use such language. I have, on very rare occasions, encountered a jerk that speaks that way. That you believe that all men do so speaks volumes of the manner in which you are out of touch with reality.
Based on your previous behavior, I presume that you will respond with another little rant that misuses words as if their meaning differed from that generally accepted and that you will begin to try to slide (not very) subtle insults at me by hypothesizing how I “really” am. I am not going to bother replying to that upcoming screed. However, I should note that attempts to slide insults into the discussion will not be met with acceptance.
Because it’s how definitions are formed.
Miller. You can judge me by my own standard - it’s the universal standard.
The dichotomy like I stated is based on dowry, and protection and helping to raise offspring. That’s why it’s so ever present as a meme. I’ll look at the list again, at first glance I was decompiling it that way - that they are subsets of the theme of women looking to hoard resources for periods of not being able to work when offspring come; and men requiring more aggression to have those extra resources to facilitate this.
I’ve known some radical feminist women to write screeds on the Internet claiming that even consensual sex is rape, but I have never seen a man write this sort of opinion until now (assuming Forest Green has XY chromosomes.)
Sorry, I forgot the statutory rape comment: I stated that a species this immature would set the bar very low on statutory rape. I didn’t say it was a statute.