Easily Confused

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Eliza: David has supported killing old people who fail a wisdom test. Why are you shocked by Cory and Ryan's support of abortion?

Unidian: David was also the first to advocate aborting all female infants, several years ago.
I just want to make something clear - I did not and do not advocate the aborting of 'all' female infants. Elizabeth made a mistake. What I was driving at earlier is simply that it's nice to see how technology has emerged for intentionally masculinizing the fetus. It's also nice to see that a significant chunk of the pop. is open to gender selection; it might mean that eventually it will be normal to be educated on the the shortcomings of having males and females who are 'too' feminized, and thus make a conscious effort to masculinize as much as possible without losing our ability to reproduce.

Also, in over populated areas, it will make sense to ensure that a higher percentage of the babies born are males, and then when the population gets too low, bring the ratio back up to 50/50, always trying to produce females who are as masculine as possible.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Shardrol »

Cory

Have you personally ever felt the urge to mate with a woman who had a masculine appearance?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by David Quinn »

Unidian wrote:
David was also the first to advocate aborting all female infants, several years ago.
I also have large fangs and snarl at everyone who looks my way.

It's definitely not surprising to hear that others have taken up the call. That sort of idea is probably the inevitable result of taking QRS views on gender seriously.

And yes, this is one area where the term "QRS" applies, and it is also one area where QRS views fall down monstrously.
Challenging people's taboos and attachments. Monstrous. It is our Achilles heel.

A lot of single guys are preoccupied with thoughts about women, and in that respect, 'QRS' are no different. Their thoughts, of course, revolve around what they see as the dangers and pitfalls of relationships, rather than "getting some" or the like. But the degree to which their thinking is tied up with matters involving the feminine seems comparable to any other guy.
To be honest, I hardly think about women at all. Perhaps a few minutes a day on average, if that. Unless, of course, a discussion about the subject comes up that I want to get involved in. Then I think about them a little more.

-
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Shardrol wrote:Cory

Have you personally ever felt the urge to mate with a woman who had a masculine appearance?
A woman who had a 'relatively more' masculine appearance, yes.

One woman I was involved very briefly with while traveling was much more masculine than earlier girlfriends. She had almost non existent breasts, a deeper voice, was hairier, liked sports, very high performance academically, more humorous. Out of all the girls I had been with, she activated my lust the least, but I was still capable of getting aroused by her.

My point is that by masculinizing females, we won't render them completely undesirably sexually. Perhaps we could - but for the sake of maintaining reproduction, we'll had to lay off a bit. At least at first.

Later, I would think that if we were conscious enough as a species to intentionally masculinize females as much as possible, then the masculine women would end up using artificial insemination to impregnate themselves. But that's really far down the road.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Leyla Shen »

Cory wrote:My point is that by masculinizing females, we won't render them completely undesirably sexually. Perhaps we could - but for the sake of maintaining reproduction, we'll had to lay off a bit. At least at first.

Later, I would think that if we were conscious enough as a species to intentionally masculinize females as much as possible, than the masculine women would end up using artificial insemination to impregnate themselves. But that's really far down the road.
It is not men who would do such a thing, but asexual being. This is evident in the deeper unconsciousness (same theme as above, however) that would see you make such statements as this:
Really, what I'm most optimistic about is parents consciously masculinizing female fetuses, but not so much that they lose the ability to become pregnant.
What sort of optimistic consciousness is it that would practise such a thing?

The masculine is already every part feminine as the feminine is masculine. These are not distinct things, rather they are immutable qualities of the same thing. “Masculinity” will never exist without “femininity,” and vice versa. To posit some sort of autonomous state of masculinity is exactly nothing but deluded misogyny. Still, it works well to lull unsuspecting men into a false sense of superiority and feminine security…

[edit spelling]
Between Suicides
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Tomas »

.

Leyla writes: Still, it works well to lull unsuspecting men into a false sense of superiority and feminine security.


-tomas-
Very well said. Thanks, i like that :-)

This would be a wonderful thread in and of itself.




Warm Regards,

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason


.
User avatar
daybrown
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: SE Ozarks
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by daybrown »

Nick Treklis wrote: Right, but the kind of attention given to the subject is entirely the opposite of the kind given by the typical man you described above. If you lived in a neighborhood filled with heroin addicts I'm sure much of your time would be spent dealing with that problem. The world's addiction to Woman is even worse though, it's in every neighborhood and every culture. It even has an entire society hell bent on spreading and preserving this addiction. If sanity, rationality, and consciousness are what one values most, how can one not give the issue of Woman its due attention?
Then too, I read < I’m not denying that women have innate talents, and mediocre women are superior to mediocre men in many ways. However, I’m judging women through the context of how likely it is that she can achieve enlightenment, which is almost nil.> from another poster.

But the question is being carried on as if it can be plotted on a line, when in fact it is multi-dimensional. I know women who have had sex in a spiritual ritual. For a man to do this, proves nothing. For a woman, it at the very least, proves she has moved beyond the constraints of group think. I have likewise shared sacred potions with women in the sacred time, at the sacred space, and have a far better idea of their degree of spiritual enlightenment than you can get any other way. Nevertheless, "almost nil" is certainly true for the vast majority of women. But there were times and places where such a spiritual path was SOP.

They did not live in neighborhoods of drug addicts, but powerful psychoactive compounds were commonly used to speed spiritual enlightenment for most people. To use these outside of the sacred space and time was not illegal, just blasphemy, and as a result, they didnt have "drug problems". Cultures have problems when they receive unfamiliar substances that dont have traditional methods of dealing with.

I have given Soma to young men and women, but it is the young women who return later to express their gratitude for the spiritual experience they had. Maybe there was a time when young men were more mature and enlightened, but considering those I get to see now, that time has passed.

In the Tang, and prolly long before, there were many Buddhist nunneries, who like European abbeys, owned land & peasants. And as in Europe, these nuns were literate. they recorded the births, deaths, marriges, and other contracts for the people. But they also transcribed and translated sacred texts, and shared them with the Tocharians, just beyond the Jade Gate, which also had a female literati, that was also involved in business.

Given the high cost of paper, the superior muscle control of women allowed them to write smaller and put more text on a given sheet. This led to them being translators, on both sides of the Jade Gate, of the 20 languages then circulating on the Silk Road. And on both sides of the Jade Gate, there are images of female bodhisattvahs.

This was also the era when the Tocharians were ruled by queens, and sometimes China had an empress; but even if not, the alliance between the harems and the eunuchs was often the real power behind the throne. The absence of enlightened women is to some considerable exten the result of rule by the warrior class and a bad press. In Europe, for a long time, a spiritually enlightened woman would have been regarded as a satanic witch.

While the airheads are just as stupid as ever, increasing numbers of smart young women are researching their spiritual roots to recover the enlightenment of their ancestors.
Goddess made sex for company.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Easily Confused

Post by skipair »

I think Uni is *quapshhh!!!*....whipped. ;)
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Unidian »

Yes, to criticize the idea of killing female infants and other such gems heard around here is to be "whipped."

Good thinking there, kid.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Philosophaster »

LOL. This place is so crazy.

I take a hiatus and then come back again, and it still hits me every time.
Unicorns up in your butt!
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Skipair,
I think that discussing it with other women is a waste of time, and in that regard I agree it has gone too far.
I have to say Skipair is making a lot of sense here.

The major disconnect between the women and some of the males on here is that the women believe that there is no major difference between how they experience the world, and how a few of the more advanced male thinkers experience the world. And so they assume they understand what the masculine/feminine psychological insights are pointing to.

However, women don’t have the right physiology to experience the depths of subjective enlightenment, and they don’t even know it, and they have no way of understanding it. The right physiology in terms of brain structure, genetic architecture, and endocrinology is what makes it possible for a small minority of males to experience the deep subjective enlightened state.

Moreover, I have respect for all the women posters on here, and many of you are quite bright in certain areas, but you all need to understand that you do not perceive the world at the same depth as a select few of the male thinkers on here.

And this is why certain members value male offspring more than female offspring because we value the enlightened state, and we want more beings to slip into that state in the future to improve the state of humanity, but we know that women don’t have the right physiology for it.

A fundamental dynamic I've observed is that the weaker men side with the views of some of the women who are defending their own femininity, and so the women on here actually thwart the efforts of the more enlightened posters by diluting everything, and making the momentum of truth less obvious, and more ambiguous.

So the efforts here at GF will run much more smoothly if the women stop reacting personally to the fundamental ideas of enlightenment pertaining to feminine inferiority, which translates into both genders, but realize that females have a much more unlucky physiological configuration as far as enlightenment is concerned.
I think Uni is *quapshhh!!!*....whipped. ;)
Correct again Skipair, geese you’re on a roll. It is obvious the Uni is attached to a woman, and he’s lying to himself, while trying to deprecate the value of the QRS philosophy in order to remain living his dishonest life.

He is basically trying to tell himself that guys like David and Kevin are less free than he is, which is total rubbish.

As soon as you’re attached to a woman, you’re dishonest, and it’s easy to spot, only because I’ve observed it quite a few times, of what happens within my own mind when I become attached to a woman.

It’s quite the feeble process that a man goes through when he’s in love - he gets very attached to her over a period of time with pleasurable habits and physiological conditioning, and then he loses her and suffers deeply. That entire moment is a sad state of spiritual affairs. It’s soul-sucking misery.
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Dan Rowden »

Philosophaster wrote:LOL. This place is so crazy.

I take a hiatus and then come back again, and it still hits me every time.
And this is the extent of your contribution every time, a sanctimonious jibe bereft of content. Impressive.
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Philosophaster »

It seems to me that the one thing women generally lack (as far as prerequisites for philosophy go) is a desire for exploration as an end in itself.

And I think that is why women tend to be less interested in math, philosophy, and science. Because that's why so many people start out doing those things: simply to find stuff out, regardless of the potential "benefits" it might bring. It's like what Mallory said when asked why he wanted to climb Everest: "Because it's there." I don't know many (if any) women who would give a reply like that.

And I don't know whether this is cultural or biological. Could be both, I suppose.
Unicorns up in your butt!
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Philosophaster »

Dan Rowden wrote:And this is the extent of your contribution every time, a sanctimonious jibe bereft of content. Impressive.
Wrong. See above. :-)
Unicorns up in your butt!
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Unidian »

Correct again Skipair, geese you’re on a roll. It is obvious the Uni is attached to a woman, and he’s lying to himself, while trying to deprecate the value of the QRS philosophy in order to remain living his dishonest life.

He is basically trying to tell himself that guys like David and Kevin are less free than he is, which is total rubbish.
"Freedom" is not the only worthwhile value in life. To love freedom at the expense of all other considerations is an ugly worldview indeed.

But Philo is right. Time to get out of here again, this place is just too much of a nuthouse. Hey P, we need to find someplace to post. There's nothing happening anywhere.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kevin Solway wrote:I think that site is meant to be humourous . . . and it is.
I think the essays of the author ought be taken satirically, and they are funny at times if taken that way, but the accompanying discussions are mostly just plain ugly. I think one has to stretch the notion of humour to breaking point to find them funny.
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Easily Confused

Post by skipair »

Unidian wrote:Yes, to criticize the idea of killing female infants and other such gems heard around here is to be "whipped."

Good thinking there, kid.
Unidian, I appologize for the taunting nature of my last post. I'm fairly new to this board and have only read a few of your posts, but I respect very highly what I've read of yours and appreciate the time you put here - thank you, seriously.

That being said, I also have a few reasons for the whippage comment. The major one being you have a GF - you do right? That means more or less case closed. In addition your reactionary response was telling- though I'll give you, in my taunting maybe I deserved it. :)

Much respect, Skipair
User avatar
Philosophaster
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:19 am

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Philosophaster »

Unidian wrote:Hey P, we need to find someplace to post. There's nothing happening anywhere.
I wouldn't mind a place to discuss philosophy and politics. I don't really know of any venues anymore, though.
Unicorns up in your butt!
User avatar
skipair
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Easily Confused

Post by skipair »

Unidian, also if you have a convincing argument to both keep a sage-like lifestyle AND a woman at the same time, I would LOVE to hear it. This topic is the majority of what I write about on this board. Feedback would be much appreciated.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Dan Rowden »

Philosophaster wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:And this is the extent of your contribution every time, a sanctimonious jibe bereft of content. Impressive.
Wrong. See above. :-)
Oh, you just did that to make me look wrong. I'm onto you, dude :) As to that actual post:
Philophaster wrote:It seems to me that the one thing women generally lack (as far as prerequisites for philosophy go) is a desire for exploration as an end in itself.
Yes, I agree with that. Disposition is every bit as important as aptitude. I think it's incontrovertibly the case that men have a far greater natural disposition for philosophical thinking and "systemisation" in general. The male mind more readily seeks to put everything into a consistent and coherent framework. The quality of that enterprise varies greatly, as we know, but the natural tendency is important for philosophical "success".
And I think that is why women tend to be less interested in math, philosophy, and science. Because that's why so many people start out doing those things: simply to find stuff out, regardless of the potential "benefits" it might bring.
It's about overcoming. In this instance, overcoming ignorance of things. This is one of the key differences between how the feminine and masculine engages the world.
It's like what Mallory said when asked why he wanted to climb Everest: "Because it's there." I don't know many (if any) women who would give a reply like that.
Overcoming is not a natural thing for the feminine mind. If something does need to be overcome she will turn to the nearest masculine force to achieve it.
And I don't know whether this is cultural or biological. Could be both, I suppose.
That remains an open question. Differences in gender aptitudes and dispositions are measurable from as early as 6 months of age, so there is absolutely a genetic component of some kind. Of course, as always, these differences only matter within the context of particular values and goals. Change those things and the judgements ones makes change along with them.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:women don’t have the right physiology to experience the depths of subjective enlightenment, and they don’t even know it, and they have no way of understanding it. The right physiology in terms of brain structure, genetic architecture, and endocrinology is what makes it possible for a small minority of males to experience the deep subjective enlightened state.
Men don't have the right physiology to understand what it is like to be women, but some are deluded enough to think that they do by subtracting what they consider "maleness." However, if the earlier linked scientific article is correct in that a Y chromosome is just a damaged X chromosome, and that some mental functioning was encoded on the leg of the X that got lost - it would be more accurate to say that women can understand what it's like to be a man simply by shutting down some of our cognitive functions. Perhaps women are so enlightened that they don't bother with major philosophical contributions, because to us it is all to obvious to get all that worked up over (so suggests the person with the highest post count on GF).
Ryan Rudolph wrote:I have respect for all the women posters on here, and many of you are quite bright in certain areas, but you all need to understand that you do not perceive the world at the same depth as a select few of the male thinkers on here.
Kevin - I don't think that this is what you mean to be teaching, but this is what these guys are learning - that if it is a biological female, it is completely incapable of enlightenment. Since people who have been on here for years, like Ryan, are picking up this message, I see harm being done.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Skipair wrote:
Unidian, I appologize for the taunting nature of my last post.
Don’t apologize for hurting his ego, he needs to suffer, he either suffers now or when he loses his woman, either/or.

Don’t forget that Uni is the one that came on GF and accused the moderators of being inferior to himself, in order to defend his own attachments, and then he is surprised when more conscious individuals hurt his ego by simply stating the truth of his own dishonesty.

Uni wrote:
But Philo is right. Time to get out of here again, this place is just too much of a nuthouse. Hey P, we need to find someplace to post. There's nothing happening anywhere.
Uni, you must be willing to suffer for truth, suffering is growth. You can run away, or you can face the truth of your attachment like a man. But eventually, given your current attached circumstance with a woman, you're gonna suffer regardless.
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Unidian »

Thanks for the update, Oh Wise Master.

LOL. You guys are a trip.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Kevin - I don't think that this is what you mean to be teaching, but this is what these guys are learning - that if it is a biological female, it is completely incapable of enlightenment. Since people who have been on here for years, like Ryan, are picking up this message, I see harm being done.
Why don't you just straight up tell Ryan right he's incapable of thinking for himself and that he has a guru complex? Those are the implications of your post.
User avatar
Unidian
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Easily Confused

Post by Unidian »

Skipair,
Unidian, also if you have a convincing argument to both keep a sage-like lifestyle AND a woman at the same time, I would LOVE to hear it.
I wouldn't have anything to say about that, because I don't have or aspire to "a sage-like lifestyle." I don't have a job because I hate employment and I have better things to do. I've done a lot of philosophical thinking over the years because I wanted to know what this life and this world is all about, or at least find out why I don't know. I did reasonably well in that regard, but I'm not trying to cultivate some "enlightened sage" pose. I toyed around with that sort of thing for a few years and ultimately found the self-deception and pretentiousness of it untenable.

Thanks for your post explaining your previous tone, I appreciated it.
I live in a tub.
Locked