Who is “they”?
How did they give it to you? Did they send it by UPS? Registered mail? Radio signals sent from distant star clusters? What frequency? Can anyone else see/hear “them”?
Top. People.
Don’t fret. It’s understandable. Spend 400 Billion years in hell, you’re bound to miss a thing or two.
Jealousy is not wanting everyone else on earth to stop wanting your beloved. That is simply not what the word means.
Jealousy includes wanting no one on earth to act in a way that would separate you from your beloved. A man who goes so far as to insist that no one like his beloved in the way that he does, when no one is taking any action to separate him from his beloved, is regarded as an over possessive sicko.
The ceremony is not a lie and no thinking person thinks that the ceremony “makes the relationship.” In societies where marriages are the result of courtship, the ceremony is simply a public declaration of a relationship that has already been established. In societies where marriages are arranged, the relationship is what the couple pledges to attain, but the ceremony does not establish the relationship.
Your weird “destroying wealth” idea has no bearing on whether a woman will engage in sex with a man, regardless of the marital status of the man and woman.
You appear to have no idea what the phrase “perpetual motion machine” actually means and your “argument” goes downhill from there.
Your “It’s a nice day.” analogy is nonsense. You posit the statement as though each expression of it is proclaimed as a universal truth. In reality, context is everything and 99.99999% of all speakers of the phrase, as well as a similar percent of their audience, know that the day in question refers to the current day in the current location and the overwhelming majority of the time refers to the weather.
Expanding that intent to act as though the phrase must be always true for all people in all places is a silly word game that does nothing to promote your ideas.
This is wrong. Games without winners and losers have already been pointed out to you and the rest of your attempt to draw a conclusion from your erroneous assertion fail on its lack of validity. Beyond that, your illogical exposition implies that some woman. somewhere, would become the object of the entire (men’s) world’s lust, as though no man would be happy associating with a different woman.
This paragraph starts out silly and goes down from there. Why would a woman immediately “shows slight discomfort,” just because he is larger and faster? Do you have any actual evidence of this phenomenon? Or is this just wishful thinking on your part?
My first few occasions of engaging in sexual activity occurred only at the approach of the woman. (Not claiming to be super attractive. It was the 70s, before herpes and HIV, we were friends, the women decided to stop waiting for the nerd–me–to act.) Your “every male on earth” claim is utter nonsense with no underlying facts.
Your assertion that temples were built so that men could have sex with women is ludicrous, given the number of temples where sex is forbidden.
Saying that suicide is an imperative as opposed to separating the abused from the abuser is simply something you made up for no reason that makes sense.
First, no one “deserves” sex. it is an expression of feelings that is not bound by deserving things. It is not a contest or an award. All the rest of that rant is pointless once you finally realize that.
I am sure that you will respond with more silly claims about how I simply do not understand your points. However, the few things you post that do not come off as utter gibberish have been factually wrong, so I doubt that any further word salads arte going to persuade me.
Reading FG posts leaves me feeling awash in idiosyncratic unmoored metaphor.
I’ve never said that once. I’ve actually never heard anyone say that.
I feel like I’m doing a drive-by just picking out bits, but your gallop is such a fire hose that it’s hard to taste any of it and I mostly feel like I’ve been smacked in the face and left dripping.
Life is not, in any context, defined as something that coalesces and dissolves. Just never.
I know of no aspect of life that is unconditional.
Life is not objective, and you haven’t defined what inter-subjective means or what an inter-subjective being might be.
If you’re trying to be metaphorical instead of factual, you have to stay in the same metaphor until it’s understood instead of using a stream of metaphors in place of statements.
I’m going to assume you don’t mean that suicide is a decision “to terminate life in context”, but that it’s just a decision to terminate life. That leaves “in context, by definition” as a useless phrase. I think you’re trying to claim that suicide implies a lack of purpose, but there’s really no evidence for that.
There are people with a hereditary predisposition to suicide. There are medications that can provoke a predisposition to suicide. Circumstances that cause pain or provoke depression can increase the likelihood of suicide, whether or not a person has a purpose. it’s also entirely possible to be happy without a purpose. Once, at a difficult time in my life, the following thought popped into my head: If you just set the goal of being a disappointment to your parents, you’re an instant and complete success! it cracked me up and lightened my mood a lot. I had, at the time, if anything, too much purpose.
It’s not true by definition. You’re making a claim. You need to support it. The referential - non-referential is smoke. “It’s inarguable” is the same as “don’t look at that man behind the curtain.”
As evidence against the claim that preventing suicide makes suicidal people unhappy - did you know that a significant number of people who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge survive? Did you know that they don’t come back and try again. Sometimes the urge to kill yourself is a passing thing. And you still need to uncouple misery from lack of purpose.
PLEASE, no geysers.
I think you’re confusing lack of purpose with anhedonia, which is a completely different thing. You also seem to have amorphous, personal uses for the word wealth. You also don’t sound like you’re very accurate when you supply motives to other people.
We’re all pedants, here. We’ve all responded. He was the one who tried to explain you TO US.
No, they did not ask about consciousness signatures - they asked what signatures were.
Question - is “hey, gimmee a beer” a sign of psychopathy? And do you mean that the resource is one that gives pleasure, or that getting a resource via aggression is pleasurable?
I need to towel off.
I think I understand better than you do. Your theories are farther out in left field than Justin Upton watching a home run ball clear the fence.
Only if you shake her hand.
You’re denying something true by definitions.
If someone is committing suicide, we know for a fact, that in that particular context, suicide represents more purpose than living. Since suicide is the removal of the context of living here, we can state that them being here didn’t represent enough purpose for them, relative to leaving here. To simply state that context is irrelevant is absurd. Just because we die here, doesn’t mean that we die; so using the word context is extremely important.
That some may change their mind after surviving an attempt, is irrelevant to those who actually want to carry through with it; keeping those people alive because of exceptions like that is as inhumane as behavior can get; if there should ever be a fundamental freedom, it is the freedom to suicide; that our bodies belong to us, at least to that simple regard; that they do it in a way that’s not rude, is something society as a whole can work to facilitate, so their most obvious choices aren’t ways that leave messes.
I want to comment additionally on the 2% stat… it’s actually not astounding if you ponder what it means.
2000 people.
1000 men
1000 women
2% of 1000 men is 20 people
80% for 20 people is an average of 40 partners each. Does that really sound like an absurd number for what we know about counts for guys who get lots of women?
You’re really sloppy with your definitions. That’s not what psychopathy is. In fact, that’s pretty normal human behavior.
No. Just no.
Okay, so let me get this straight. If I initiated beyond where the woman reciprocated (which, if I understand you right, includes even something as simple as propositioning someone to take a walk with me, so clearly asking, “wanna have sex?” qualifies), even if they agree to it, this is rape.
So, okay. Why is that immoral?
No, seriously. If that’s how you want to define rape, why is it immoral? Because by your asinine definition, I “raped” my girlfriend repeatedly, and the end result was a net positive for everyone involved. I had fun. She had fun. We had a lovely time together. Our relationship got more positive, and generally everything was lovely.
On the other hand, she was “raped” by someone else, and this caused her immense trauma, anxiety, and PTSD to this day.
So two thoughts.
- These are clearly two different things, and you are trivializing actual rape, which is kinda fucked up.
- These clearly have a different moral character under any rational moral system. If one thing makes everyone feel happy and good, and the other is a traumatic, harmful experience, they are not morally equivalent.
This is like redefining murder as “any physical contact with someone they didn’t explicitly ask for”. It’s stupid.
90% of all the sex is seen by 10% of this message board. All we ask for is your portal technology.
OP, I’m sorry to tell you that someone already solved ethics back in 2014. You’re too late.
I guess we can add “suicide” to the list of things you know nothing about. It’s not a logical, thought-out action, barring rare cases like medical euthanasia. Suicide is most often a spur-of-the-moment decision, based on temporary brain conditions that will typically pass and can be fixed with medication. It has nothing to do with “purpose”. Everything else you say in the rest of this paragraph is wrong based on that alone.
Just because X doesn’t mean X.
Last I checked, in logic, X => X is a tautology.
Those who want to carry through with it, of course, make up between 10 and 25% of those who try (I’ll be generous and assume that those who attempt again and fail again really do mean to kill themselves, and aren’t just crying out for help). Again, you don’t get suicides. The majority of people who attempt suicide and survive never attempt it again. Most of them are glad they didn’t succeed. Because it’s not typically a well-thought-out, carefully-planned decision. It’s not someone deciding, “I have made certain I have nothing more to live for, so it’s my choice that I no longer want to live.” Your characterization of suicide is totally wrong. Just like I’d stop a friend on LSD from wandering onto the tracks until they’ve come back down, I’d stop a suicidal person from going through with it until I knew they weren’t just having a psychotic break, or were going through something that could be solved with a bog-standard SSRI.
When asked for a source for your statistics, “I made them up and they seem to make sense” is not generally considered a good answer. Honest, sure, but not convincing. It is unconvincing to me, and most other people. It assumes an extreme sex disparity in the number of partners, and while I realize there is clearly some disparity, this much disparity strikes me as nutterbutter.
Well, since ethics has been solved, can we now do something about all the ethnics?
People think about suicide, and maybe some of them go through with it
People also (and perhaps in the majority of suicide attempts) act on a shorter-term basis, as you say.
You get to hear the opinions of the first set, but not so much those of the second - and that, I believe, is how people come to hold an opinion like:
- this is the opinion of someone in the first set (the vocal minority).
Thank you! I knew I’d read a similar, suicide-based ethics gibberish essay on here before, but couldn’t find it.
Don’t forget this one:
Forest Green, you will of course agree that if someone is committing suicide, we know for a fact, that in that particular context, suicide represents more purpose than living. Since suicide is the removal of the context of living here, we can state that them being here didn’t represent enough purpose for them, relative to leaving here. To simply state that context is irrelevant is absurd. Just because we die here, doesn’t mean that we die; so using the word context is extremely important.
That some may change their mind after surviving an attempt, is irrelevant to those who actually want to carry through with it; keeping those people alive because of exceptions like that is as inhumane as behavior can get; if there should ever be a fundamental freedom, it is the freedom to suicide; that our bodies belong to us, at least to that simple regard; that they do it in a way that’s not rude, is something society as a whole can work to facilitate, so their most obvious choices aren’t ways that leave messes. If there is anything with which you disagree herein, please quantify your objection below.
Interesting. Apparently, sometime between 2002 and 2014, he switched from blaming nihilists for hypocrisy and social ills, to blaming women. On the plus side, his English has improved.
I missed the post that went to addressing these numbers, I’m glad I re-read. Thank you for addressing them.
1.) Ahh… so you state that they can have those feelings, but if they’re doing the same exact thing that you’re doing, it’s wrong! I see now. The thing about hatred is that what people hate in others is them hating themselves, and if your partner or they did this, in your mind, you hate that thought, that the other person would do what you’re doing right then and there - instead of analyzing that you hate yourself for being who you are, you project it upon these simulations of what others may do, that you yourself do every waking moment. Not quite the argument to make your point. I even went so far as to state that to the extent that there are at least a million right people for each person, it makes sense that some of these people should get to express intimacy in that way, rather than let them sit with unreciprocated feelings that contradict everyones actual feelings for each other for some stated “rule”, that makes them the person they hate.
2.) A ceremony is conspicuous consumption of relationship. You stated it in your own words “A public display of relationship”; it is additionally conspicuous consumption of relationship, because it contradicts the thing everyone knows; that regardless of ceremony, people are going to do what they’re going to do… to that regard, ceremony is the denial of that basic truth about relationship. I also like to say that just because you take a vow, and keep it, doesn’t make you a good person, some vows are extremely hypocritical when analyzed.
3.) A perpetual motion machine is anything that lasts forever, and ever, and ever - there is at least one that is known, existence itself. This is psycho-neuro-linguistic programming; and behavioral conditioning; to tell people that phrases aren’t interpreted by the brain as what is actually being stated; “the day is good” “I feel good” – as an unconditional assent, it implies how you feel about everything in existence; if you don’t think it’s right to feel good when others aren’t, then change your phrasing, it then allows you to sit with reality in a way that is absent denial, and facilitates a cognition that doesn’t psychopathically live in a bubble. It’s called growing up and being an adult.
4.) There is no game without losers. When Miller backtracked and tried to express things like solo video games, or constructed games with virtual dungeon masters; I pointed out that some people are better at the game than others; some teams are better than others, in terms of acquiring the same desired outcome. To this extent, wealth is not being translated; the wealth being, what is desired by multiple people. This leaves losers. Thus, the celebration must include celebration because someone fails relative to you. Like I said a few times; if people are infinitely good; the virtual dungeon master will be impossible to beat, and the group will be impossible to lose; which means they can’t possibly play the game. Same as an immovable object and unstoppable force.
5.) Approach escalation is using any form of contradiction, always under the banner of conspicuous consumption. So, if you contradicted yourself, you flirted, you used the human mating ritual. You can use this technique to have women “approach you first”; like when women throw panties at people who write lyrics that contradict themselves. Or at gurus who contradict themselves. Flirting is different for men and women. Men who flirt, want to have sex with that person; women flirt with thousands of people they have no intention of having sex with. Flirting is approach escalation, forms of flirting are dancing, sports (watching or playing). It’s important to note the asshole through omission clause, before escalation sequences for sex; sex is much more stratified in the male population than the female population; this causes problems in the species, you have to state this to not be an asshole. This is the aggression of neglect abuse; not mentioning the worlds largest subset problem, before engaging in the act itself.
6.) Temples - breaking my train of thought right now - trying to think of how to condense this - it’s a long topic - I’ll post this as a follow up within the hour.
7.) The concept that in context, life can be an abuser to people is made up nonsense for no reason? - you sound like an abusive spouse who doesn’t want to think too deeply about yourself; fear of abandonment, controlling etc… Of course life can be abusive, and just because it’s meaningful to you, doesn’t mean that it is to others. Besides, if you really want to end suicide, making it easier, gives everyone ways to falsify what works and what doesn’t; in the absence of evidence, they have great leeway to be an abuser of people without accountability. Do you really think you could torture POW’s if you mounted a shotgun on the cell wall? Everyone knows you can’t torture people if suicide is humane and available.
8.) Yes, asshole through omission. I also stated, that to the extent, that people want sex and are having sex, some people deserve sex more than others - if you think rape is bad, then sex with a rapist is bad; you’re defending their past behavior over those who have never raped. What you have sex with is a statement of what kind of world you want and what type of life is not worth living, in the case that they seek sex, and get none from anyone. If a woman has sex with a man, she necessarily loves that man sexually more than every other man on earth, in that moment, regardless of who that other man is or what he does. It’s a statement. Everyone watches it.