How many women have you had sex with?
Yeah, I stumbled through it.
But remember, I said ‘might have had.’ 
I have 4 people who understand me in my current circle. How about you try this, as I suggested a while back, take each section, explain to me why it is nonsense, and I will address it. I find it interesting that really the only attempt at this, was a pedant, who understood what I meant, and on the same topic, the attempt that brought me back to the thread. Both on the suicide issue. I was then asked to clarify referential speech and cognition. I wrote much more than that, and you are all very welcome to ask what I meant by it, where it confused you.
Someone asked me about consciousness signatures as well… obviously, if one does’t exist, you can’t read your own mind. It’s tautological. Just like the definition of time is patterned change; without pattern, motion is not perceptible, the pattern, is the signature, that allows it to be read, allows awareness to occur.
So it’s not to say you haven’t asked me anything relating to the OP.
I have had sex 15 times. I am 40 years old. Each time, I used approach escalation, which is as bad as rape; so I don’t use euphoric recall for those times, because I abused the woman to get it… that would be like masturbating to a rape murder 20 years later; it’s abhorrent. Actually, every man on earth up to this point also used approach escalation; they take pride in their ‘rapes’, even brag about them. Approach escalation from the larger gender in a gender dimorphic species is as serious as rape; only psychopaths use it, derive esteem from it, use the relationships made from it to give them pleasure in the present or future.
Mistakes like this are very serious, callous, infinitely harmful, unless you solve the problem of harm itself for all beings - at which point, it is appropriate to derive pleasure from relationship.
Like I stated earlier; you derive pleasure from someone losing; to place spin and say you derive pleasure from someone winning; in something where someone merely failed, to make your winner, you derive pleasure from someone losing for you to win; destruction and failure, for success… if everyone was infinitely good at the game, it wouldn’t be fun to your type of psychology, because nobody would play, because nobody can win or lose, which allows everyone to win. We have different psychologies.
Ever hear the phrase “Not even wrong”?
“Something that does not refer is non-referential” doesn’t really tell me anything, because you’re using the term you’re trying to define in the definition of that term. I don’t know what, “referential” means, as you are using the term. By the same measure, I don’t know what you mean by “does not refer.” Refer to what? You say that the phrase “I don’t exist,” is “non-referential.” In what way is it “non-referential”? What specific attributes does it have that allow you to recognize that the phrase is “non-referential”?
Is “You are the worst type of people” an example of a referential or non-referential statement?
Also, if “I don’t exist,” is not speech, what is it? How are you defining the word “speech” in your argument?
Yes, and it answers Miller’s questions… non-referential speech is “not even wrong”; people who use it frequently, have learned how to use this phrase to end the discussion of referential speech by contradicting themselves and reversing the polarity of their speech being the referential speech and the referential speech being “not even wrong”. Anyone can do this, it requires no effort. Anyone can say that about anything if they want to end a discussion. The intent of that phrase is that it is non-referential speech; the double-speak is to use that phrase for referential speech, and then only speak non-referentially about referential speech. It’s a basic system, used frequently to maintain dominance over referential speech; this inversion technique, where the person doing it, represents it (a hypocrite) while trying to pass the hypocrisy on the referential speech.
Longer than you think, dad. It’s longer than you think!
I’m going to clarify something so everyone understands…
Approaching a woman and saying something like, “I feel drawn towards you, I’m sure I’m not the only one, I just live down the street and was curious if you’d be interested in going for a walk sometime with me?”
That is as bad as rape. You have to see the situation globally to understand this.
What does “approach escalation” mean?
You say that you used “approach escalation” every time you had sex. You say that every man on Earth has used “approach escalation” to have sex. Then you say that only psychopaths use “approach escalation.” So… all men, including yourself, are psychopaths?
I have to ask, at this point: what do you mean by “psychopath?”
Also, this deduction seems to be based purely on straight sexuality. How does it apply to same-sex relationships? Speaking personally, I’ve had sexual relationships with both men and women. Have all of my relationships used “approach escalation,” or just the ones I’ve had with women? What hallmarks could I look for to recognize that I’ve used “approach escalation” in my relationships, and what should I be doing differently to avoid “approach escalation?”
This is a significantly strong personal judgement of another person based, on a very small amount of text. Given your very strong reaction to the judgmental posts you have received based on your OP, I would think you would be more careful about making this sort of broadly condemnatory criticism of another person. You’ve earlier categorized statements such as, “You need to be medicated,” as “non-referential,” “violent,” “not speech,” and ultimately based on a desire to feel superior to other people. How do those values - the last one, in particular - not apply to what you just wrote?
Sorry, but no, it really doesn’t.
Fellow Dopers, I believe we have discovered the reincarnation of Francis E. Dec, Esquire, “your only hope for a future!”
Tell me, do you stand alone against the mad deadly world-wide conspiratorial gangster computer god?
Miller, I was a psychopath, yes. A psychopath uses aggression to get a resource involving pleasure. I may even have traces of it that I still can’t see… heterosexual men have the issue of gender dimorphism, homosexuals don’t. Heterosexual men have the issue of number of partner stratification, homosexuals don’t. To get your heterosexual sex, you had to be a psychopath… it’s impossible that you didn’t.
Approach escalation was covered in the OP. It is when a person uses an intimate advance first, or at some point in the sequence, moves beyond reciprocation, and escalates the approach.
What I wrote is true by definition, people who derive pleasure from winners, when someone else fails in order to make the winner, necessarily are also cheering for failure to make them feel good, which is a contradiction to wanting to truly wanting winners, they are cheering for the hypocrisy, not for winning. If both players are infinitely good, it’s impossible for them to play the game. Then, to the psychopath, it is no longer “fun”.
Buck !!
Buck !!
What does “approach escalation” mean?
You say that you used “approach escalation” every time you had sex. You say that every man on Earth has used “approach escalation” to have sex. Then you say that only psychopaths use “approach escalation.” So… all men, including yourself, are psychopaths?
I have to ask, at this point: what do you mean by “psychopath?”
Also, this deduction seems to be based purely on straight sexuality. How does it apply to same-sex relationships? Speaking personally, I’ve had sexual relationships with both men and women. Have all of my relationships used “approach escalation,” or just the ones I’ve had with women? What hallmarks could I look for to recognize that I’ve used “approach escalation” in my relationships, and what should I be doing differently to avoid “approach escalation?”
This is a significantly strong personal judgement of another person based, on a very small amount of text. Given your very strong reaction to the judgmental posts you have received based on your OP, I would think you would be more careful about making this sort of broadly condemnatory criticism of another person. You’ve earlier categorized statements such as, “You need to be medicated,” as “non-referential,” “violent,” “not speech,” and ultimately based on a desire to feel superior to other people. How do those values - the last one, in particular - not apply to what you just wrote?
Miller, I was a psychopath, yes. A psychopath uses aggression to get a resource involving pleasure. I may even have traces of it that I still can’t see… heterosexual men have the issue of gender dimorphism, homosexuals don’t. Heterosexual men have the issue of number of partner stratification, homosexuals don’t. To get your heterosexual sex, you had to be a psychopath… it’s impossible that you didn’t.
Approach escalation was covered in the OP. It is when a person uses an intimate advance first, or at some point in the sequence, moves beyond reciprocation, and escalates the approach.
What I wrote is true by definition, people who derive pleasure from winners, when someone else fails in order to make the winner, necessarily are also cheering for failure to make them feel good, which is a contradiction to wanting to truly wanting winners, they are cheering for the hypocrisy, not for winning. If both players are infinitely good, it’s impossible for them to play the game. Then, to the psychopath, it is no longer “fun”.
(my bold)
On one hand, you’re being incredibly offensive by trivializing actual rape victims by comparing this “approach escalation” to actual rape and by comparing every single man on earth to a rapist. Then, in the next breath you say that only psychopaths use this “approach escalation”. Color me confused. Could you explain this seeming contradiction?
That’s nowhere close to rape. It’s a guy casually asking a woman to take a walk with him in public, which she is free to accept or decline, although she might find the comment, “I feel drawn towards you, I’m sure I’m not the only one,” somewhat creepy. I agree with Ambi. You are trivializing rape, and I find this offensive.
How does sexual dimophism factor into heterosexual relationships being inherently akin to rape? What does “partner stratification” mean? And can you define the term “partner stratification” without using the words “partner” or “stratification?”
How do trans people fit into your schema? This evening, I’m going out to dinner with a lovely woman who was born male. I’ve previously been in a relationship with a really great dude who was born female. Prior to dating me, the woman I’m seeing tonight has dated other women. Subsequent to dating me, my ex-boyfriend has had a girlfriend.
Which of these relationships were based on psychopathy? All of them? None of them?
Again, “approach escalation means escalating the approach” isn’t a useful definition. Can you define this term in a way that isn’t entirely self-referential? Also, why is this something that only happens when men hit on women? Or is it that it’s only problematical when men hit on women?
I’m a gamer. I play a lot of different types of games - video games, board games, card games, role playing games, and so forth. Some of my favorite games are viciously competitive. Some of them are completely non-competitive. Some of them are wholly co-operative.
So, I don’t think what you wrote is “true by definition,” because - based on my personal experience - a person can enjoy competitive activities where there is a clear winner and loser, and also enjoy co-operative activities where there are no losers, only winners, and also enjoy non-competitive activities, where winning and losing aren’t relevant terms.
I do not immediately see any reason why this attitude would necessarily be limited only to games, and not other areas of a person’s life, such as romantic or sexual interactions.
For a male, approach escalation is the equivalent of using a ruhfee, it bypasses consent in a gender dimorphic species - it’s like using something that erases memory, and re-writing the memory. I agree there is a difference, that difference doesn’t reduce aggression or consent violation; it’s merely different in kind. I understand your anger at equating them as not being different in kind, but there’s a lot you have yet to understand about this as well.