LOL!Well, they do say that the philosopher's life is one of comedy and paradox!
No, I don't think Mother Theresa had any money, but I do think she achieved some things. And she didn't have to bash anybody to achieve them.Are you asserting that achievement should only be recognized within the economic realm?
to which Kevin responded:quoting EI:This is coming from a guy who has successfully achieved existance off of government handouts to spend his life bashing women for non-achievements.
se wrote: Really? So... the guy can't have a successful relationship with a woman, he can't hold down a job... It's all starting to add up as a rather sad tale of woe, isn't it?
It's understandable then that his own ego-driven needs would compensate by fabricating an elaborate tale of sageful enlightenment and doing what he can to bring in others around him who will reinforce and strengthen that delusion, i.e., someone like Sue Hindmarsh who by her own admission has always had a "masculine" mind and no doubt, has felt the sting of being different. Sue is praised for reflecting David's "teachings" while someone like Pye, who is clearly, an exeedingly intelligent and rational woman who likely presents a personal threat on multiple levels, is ridiculed.
The ego is fascinating in its bends and twists to seek personal gratification, no?
Success is being successful at something.So your measure of success is being in a relationship with women and having a job. Is that right?
It's not nits, it's an important point.Nick wrote:You are nit-picking in vain.
I'm afraid I disagree. What I think happened is that you made a mental mistake, equating 'all [biological] women' in your mind with 'unconscious', revealing your true feelings about [biological] women, which are not what you claim them to be. This is called hypocrisy.The thing is, I think you realize noone needs your help to understand what I or Kevin, has said, if they contemplate it with an open mind.
I agree with that thought and add to it that people who have spent a great deal of their time (years) and much of their energy and reputation on sticking to a thought that no matter how wrong it is, they are going to have a very difficult time admitting that they are wrong.What I think happened is that you made a mental mistake, equating 'all [biological] women' in your mind with 'unconscious', revealing your true feelings about [biological] women, which are not what you claim them to be.
Alas, she constantly bashed up sages and obliterated Truth for the sake of her addiction to "helping others". The way she intertwined her "help" with deluded Christian fantasies, and tacitly undermined any desire people might have had to use their reasoning powers and seek the Truth in their minds, showed that she was essentially a force for evil - albeit unwittingly so.DQ: Are you asserting that achievement should only be recognized within the economic realm?
EI: No, I don't think Mother Theresa had any money, but I do think she achieved some things. And she didn't have to bash anybody to achieve them.
What is this oh so important point? You have no problem trying to pick apart what I have said, but you are too cowardly to put yourself out there with your own more enlightened perspective. Instead you would rather sit in the background and throw mud at what others say. Just admit you want something to nit-pick about, for the sake of nit-picking.Shardrol wrote:It's not nits, it's an important point.
How is using, what I consider, an extremely accurate generalisation, hypocrisy? Hypocrisy would require me to say one thing and deomstrate the opposite. Please, show me where you think I have demonstrated this behavior and I would be obliged to clarify my thoughts for you. There is simply not one hypocritical bone in my body. Again I believe it is your biased state of mind that causes you to make these irrational assumptions about me.Shardrol wrote:I'm afraid I disagree. What I think happened is that you made a mental mistake, equating 'all [biological] women' in your mind with 'unconscious', revealing your true feelings about [biological] women, which are not what you claim them to be. This is called hypocrisy.
.
I'll take that one. I agree that much of what Christian missionaries do is harmful to indigenous cultures, at least. (Although if you think Mother Theresa was sexy, I'm begining to think you have been celibate a bit too long...)The way she intertwined her "help" with deluded Christian fantasies, and tacitly undermined any desire people might have had to use their reasoning powers and seek the Truth in their minds, showed that she was essentially a force for evil - albeit unwittingly so.
I take back "And she didn't have to bash anybody to achieve them" and stand corrected on that part. Although the church provided for her upkeep, I believe that she did not have personal money, and did not lead a wealthy life herself. She did achieve some things. This would be an example of how someone can be sucessful in one area (fundraising) and unsuccessful in another (ethics).I don't think Mother Theresa had any money, but I do think she achieved some things. And she didn't have to bash anybody to achieve them.
The example (Mother Theresa and achievement) does not address the larger, and I agree much more important issue of ethics. Although this does kind of throw her into the financial realm, doesn't it?DQ: Are you asserting that achievement should only be recognized within the economic realm?
I already did that in my 'slither/weasel' post on page 10 of this thread.Nick wrote:Hypocrisy would require me to say one thing and deomstrate the opposite. Please, show me where you think I have demonstrated this behavior and I would be obliged to clarify my thoughts for you.
It looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree. It seems futile to discuss it further.There is simply not one hypocritical bone in my body. Again I believe it is your biased state of mind that causes you to make these irrational assumptions about me.
My guess is you are refering to this statement I made in my initial post; "Not to say this isn't the case with most men, but it is the case with all women", in reference to their absence of consciousness. Followed later by my statement that I don't consider all anatomical women unconscious. If I need to make anything more clear it is that in my initial post, I am refering to one's state of mind being one of masculine nature, or one of feminine nature. Not a characteristic I believe is definable by one's genitals or breasts, which was the point of the second statement. Truly there are many women I have met who happened to posess a penis and a pair of testicles.Shardrol wrote:I already did that in my 'slither/weasel' post on page 10 of this thread.
I'm wondering who you think the "narcissistic leader" is, or whether you are writing your posts purely for your own entertainment.s_e wrote:The narcissistic leader fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, mythology.
Myself, I did not have to "guess" this, as Shardrol's original exception to your reasoning makes this perfectly direct and clear. Of course, alert readers did not need Shardrol to see it, either.My guess is you are refering to this statement I made in my initial post; "Not to say this isn't the case with most men, but it is the case with all women", in reference to their absence of consciousness. Followed later by my statement that I don't consider all anatomical women unconscious. If I need to make anything more clear it is that in my initial post
So, not definable by genitals, but then:Nick: I am refering to one's state of mind being one of masculine nature, or one of feminine nature. Not a characteristic I believe is definable by one's genitals or breasts
-- definable by genitals.Truly there are many women I have met who happened to posess a penis and a pair of testicles.
Well Nick, that's some impressive use of your physio-masculine edge in the process of reasoning. And an excellent illustration of how said reasoning on your part (and the part its other practitioners) is embedded in confusion to begin with.It really gets boring having to explain this concept over and over again. It's not at all confusing
To me it did sound like the "women" in question were anatomical women.Nick wrote:Not to say this isn't the case with most men, but it is the case with all women [in reference to their absence of consciousness]
Rubbish, this is exactly how it went:In Nick's case, he did say that he didn't consider all anatomical women unconscious, so in that context I think it is clear that he was using a generalization.
And the rest is history.Kevin: Now, if I have a like discussion with any woman, no matter whether she is a thirteen year old girl or a 50 year-old professor, the discussion will vary little from one woman to the next, and they won't understand a word of it. They might repeat back to me what I'm saying, telling me how wise and lofty it is, but it doesn't even penetrate the outer layer of cells of their brain. The discussion will rarely influence their lives in any way whatsoever other than in possibly increasing their vocabulary.
Nick: I agree with Kevin. I live in a very populated area with people from many different walks of life, and like Kevin said; "They (women) might repeat back to me what I'm saying, telling me how wise and lofty it is, but it doesn't even penetrate the outer layer of cells of their brain". Not to say this isn't the case with most men, but it is the case with all women.
Shardrol: So would you say then that all the women on the forum do not understand the writing of those on the forum whom you consider wise?
If you weren't so scared of your femininity you would understand that what I've said complies with this perfectly.Pye wrote:.
btw, I do not possess a penis and testicles -- not physically, not psychically, not metaphorically, not at all (and no amount of your metaphorico-irrational insistence on this will put them there. Your iconic-dickhood is not the yardstick of my brain, nor of anyone's). But I do possess human consciousness, human reason, as does every one, to more or less degrees.
He's young, passionate and has an inkling of the world's bullshit. What more do you want? He may be a bit raw at the moment, but there is every chance that he will change and develop as time goes on.Good thing you performed some triage for Nick, Kevin. He's one of your unconscious victims set-back by and stuck in this incoherent rationale.
Women are generally able to read social situations a lot better than men. They are more aware of social dynamics. They are better at reading body-language. They are more aware of the connections and bonds they share with other people. They are often more empathic to other people's suffering. They often have intuitive insights which can surprise and startle men. They tend to possess far more knowledge about practical matters. They can multi-task without too much trouble, meaning they can perform more than one complex task at a time, a feat which is beyond most men.Anyone with a conscience will see that it is men who are vastly superior in consciousness.
Certainly, but there are animals that are more conscious than me in certain instances. Take my pet dog for example, she can hear things that I can't, making her more conscious than I am in this aspect. And for all those characteristics you mentioned women might be more adept at than men, you didn't metion two traits that I value far, far above those; honesty and sincerity. Two traits which I find much more common in men.DavidQuinn000 wrote:Nick wrote:
Women are generally able to read social situations a lot better than men. They are more aware of social dynamics. They are better at reading body-language. They are more aware of the connections and bonds they share with other people. They are often more empathic to other people's suffering. They often have intuitive insights which can surprise and startle men. They tend to possess far more knowledge about practical matters. They can multi-task without too much trouble, meaning they can perform more than one complex task at a time, a feat which is beyond most men.Anyone with a conscience will see that it is men who are vastly superior in consciousness.
Surely, it is the case that women are far more conscious than men in many ways?
-
