You haven’t Lived until you play the Devil backards!
I’ve seen this before somewhere. Just trying to hink where.
Bolding mine.
You have some very interesting ideas, and I’m under the impression that a few of the folks over at MGTOW and RedPill would love to hear about them (in a pared-down, simplified way that is shorter).
Here? Assuming your post actually contains something worth reading, you do such a terrible job of making your ideas approachable that even someone trying very very hard to figure out what you’re talking about, the kind of person who thinks Meditations on Moloch makes a lot of sense, struggles to figure out what you’re talking about. The first several paragraphs show little to no understanding of human nature, or indeed what the institutions and feelings you’re criticizing (at least, I think you’re criticizing them) actually are or represent. Somewhere around paragraph 4 I just gave up - barring a few rare cases (heya Sox fans, been watching any Yankees games lately? 
) I’m not happy because the other team lost, I’m happy because my team won. The bit before about perpetual motion machines makes even less sense.
This board is full of pretty smart people, and there is not a single person here who has posted who thinks what you’re saying makes sense. This should qualify as a red flag.
Hi fellow Slate Star Codex fan!
The OP is virtually the anti-Scott.
hi-fives
Personally I typically use my ethics in a 5% solution which is good for most applications, but some people dilute them a bit more for safety. I wouldn’t advise diluting less however, as that may lead to identity crises.
The frequency is 118.8 MHz. Now leave Kenneth alone.
In Hairway to Steven, the Devil hears YOU!
OP, your first post read like a red pill diatribe written by a new age guru, but I could mostly follow it. The second post sounded like one of those experiments where they try to prove post-modern philosophy is nonsense by submitting papers assembled by a computer stringing random buzzwords together and seeing if it gets accepted by a publication.
You left lesbians out of your analysis of women’s preferences.
The natural world is a horror show of depravity, so if you go full evo-psych then don’t expect to find moral justification for anything that doesn’t benefit the self. For mating strategies, generally the female animal is drab while the male animals are the colorful, sexy ones, or they sing a song, or do a trick, or bring a present, or they’re good at fighting off other guys. If you find yourself unable to keep a woman’s company, ask yourself what you bring to the table. Maybe seek our self improvement. Or not. Mother nature doesn’t care, and the world isn’t running short on people.
Evo-psych doesn’t solve that way. Lesbians are women, I said women and gay men are not accountable to morality; there isn’t a complaint in the lesbian community that “bitches” get the most women, just like gays, just like women in the heterosexual population; this is only true in the male heterosexual population. I am natural, I’m nothing close to a horror show of depravity. You are defending a defenseless system, with thick, thick denial about what reality actually is. That’s my assessment. It seems to me, that in order to gain power over your abuser, you have simply taken its form, becoming the thing you hate, I left that ship.
OK, field this question. What evidence do you have for the existence of any of these “signatures”?
Right - because women are sexual vending machines. You follow the steps and they dispense sex.
:rolleyes:
Also love your assumption that the reader is male. You know, we do let women read this forum, right?
I can’t tell you that. I can only tell you that they exist. Don’t believe me. I’m trying to use them appropriately; they can be abused, severely abused. I went to hell for 400 billion years in a time dilated portal messing with this stuff; now I’m back. Almost anything you can possibly imagine, is the way existence works. I’ll tell you that much. Don’t believe me. Not my problem; my problem is now my goal, if I achieve it; you’re more than welcome to explore all of this on your own; to learn everything I have learned. To a large extent, it’s inefficient for me to teach people everything I know in this world system condition. I have to prioritize. Part of that is not explaining how I know this. You folks will laugh. Again, not my problem. I’m paying close attention to people saying my posts are not comprehensible; thinking of easier language. The problem, is that I tried to make it short, assuming this would be good enough. I know it’s a horrible answer to you, sorry.
I’m well aware that females can read this, I’m also well aware of compensatory algorithms to maintain denial systems. These steps work, they’re the only thing that does work. Every man who uses them will go to hell for it.
What? Who has what now? Purpose to represent for life? What? Represent for life? What?
When come back bring …English please!
Next time, check the destination printed on your ticket. Maybe the airline(was it Delta?) will offer at least a partial refund.
If you make it more difficult to commit suicide for people, then you have less purpose to represent for life in order to keep people alive. That was the context, which you misquoted. It’s true by definition. It’s inarguable using referential language. Non-referential language isn’t an argument, so technically, it’s inarguable.
Serious question:
Are you under the care & following instructions of a medical professional, or do you adjust your own meds?
Can you tell us more about this journey? Was it in a phone booth that looked smaller from outside it? Did you meet anyone in hell? If so, who did you meet? What did they say? How did you respond? Did you high-five Satan? Did you kick Hitler in the balls? Did they have pie?
You were in a hell that was much older that the universe, stayed there for 29 times that age of the universe and did not figure out how to express your ideas clearly? That is a shame.
I suspect not.
Wild assertions unsupported by evidence are rarely well received in this forum and you are unlikely to “educate” anyone based on what you have posted so far.
*And now I’m back to let you know I can really shake 'em down.