GENIUS FORUMS

Save for a couple of falsely asserted legal "facts" and the mischievous use of celebrities as case studies for social analysis, that article was spot on. The author isn't worth much attention in a broader sense, but that specific article was excellent.

...

Remember, kissaki: Death fist vagina. Not just a great name for a death metal band.

Xerox: Yes, I have. Someone I'm not terribly attached to emotionally has been so destroyed by the family court system that the ordeal ended with the barrel of a gun in his mouth. On the other hand, I know a woman who was abused for the entirety of her marriage and was given custody because of that. She could have easily gotten over a thousand dollars a month in child support but instead she puts that money in a trust fund to which she also attributes a thousand dollars a month. When the child graduates high school, that money is going to go to his education.

The court makes her ex-husband pay that money. She said that she didn't need it because she has a very decent job, but the court didn't listen.

It's just a mess all over and needs reform. Honestly, I'm astonished that men aren't up in arms about this; y'all need to start marching or writing letters or something.

I think that article sort of explains why that doesn't happen, and why if it did, it might not achieve much.

I think he means giving women credit for the birth of their babies.

804 wrote:The court makes her ex-husband pay that money. She said that she didn't need it because she has a very decent job, but the court didn't listen.

It's just a mess all over and needs reform. Honestly, I'm astonished that men aren't up in arms about this; y'all need to start marching or writing letters or something.

Dan Rowden wrote:I think that article sort of explains why that doesn't happen, and why if it did, it might not achieve much.

And you hear women complain that men are "afraid to commit." It's like walking around with a shotgun, looking for people willing to get their heads blown off, then bitching when no volunteers come forward.

This guy Rudov is an American, so he mostly talks about the situation here. He is a gadfly that can push all a man's buttons and this makes him compulsively readable.

But of the times I've heard him interviewed, he seems to let his agenda get in the way of a clearer analysis of why things are the way they are. If you want to point fingers at the right people, keep your finger aimed at the money and follow that. It will take you to the lawyers nine times out of ten in this country. The American family is like a pig in a huge pen with other similar pigs, all fenced in, defenseless, and getting fattened up for the slaughter. No matter what is in a prenuptial agreement, no lawyer worth his salt would tell a woman anything else but that it is her inalienable right to sue for more. Oh, and because the prenup will make it difficult, he'll need to take a bigger cut, of course. On the other side, there is another lawyer who is assuring the man that it would be virtually unAmerican not to sue for custody of his kids. Even though the prospects look grim, they will put up the valiant (and expensive) battle.

The judges are all lawyers. The legislators are all lawyers. The litigants' counsel are all lawyers. Tort-reform advocates are all lawyers. Politicians are usually lawyers. There are a billion new lawyers being churned out each year, looking for a piece of someone else's pie.

As long as the private family stays private, they stand a chance. But when a man earns much more than his spouse, there is nothing that stands between her finger and the nuclear button. If things do not go her way and she has seen a friend cash in, or watched enough Oprah Winfrey, it is only a matter of time before she contacts a lawyer.

Just follow the money.

kissaki

Again, woman's magic is exactly the appearance of what they are not -- life.

Women appear to be life but are not?

Dan Rowden wrote:Save for a couple of falsely asserted legal "facts" and the mischievous use of celebrities as case studies for social analysis, that article was spot on. The author isn't worth much attention in a broader sense, but that specific article was excellent.

Agreed. His finger is very much on the pulse in that article. Very refreshing to read.

There needs to be far more of this sort of speaking - if only to shame men out of their ridiculous submissiveness towards women.

-

I also found the article spot on. I see that kind of subconscious deference to women all the time in my day to day travels. I have been guilty of it myself plenty of times. It's a sickness, really. And especially if and when laws are created around it, and worse, laws are broken -- by courts -- for it.

...

kissaki wrote:So which is it? Both statements made by you: No rigorous evidence that women are delusional or that it is pretty much undeniable that most of the high achievers in the fields of science, mathematics, and philosophy are men?

Let me clarify that the first statement that you attribute to me should read more like: you (or at least the blog post) have presented no rigorous evidence that women are vastly more delusional than men.

That written: the two statements are compatible. Firstly, ignorance is not the same thing as delusion: you are incorrectly conflating them. A delusion is a false belief, not a lack of knowledge. The Buddha was not a high achiever in the fields of science and mathematics, indeed compared to the average educated modern person, in those respects the Buddha was most likely utterly ignorant. Yet you hold him up as an example of one who was enlightened and free from delusion.

Secondly, the fact that some men achieve most highly in those areas says nothing about the general state of ignorance or delusion of the average man and woman.

kissaki wrote:The article doesn't accord with your experience. Therefore women in your experience is ... what ?

It's hard to generalise. I'd need a more specific question to venture an opinion. One thing that I will say is that, as with men, each woman has a unique personality and set of values and motivations, and that's what makes it hard to form generalisations. I will say though, that generally I get on reasonably well with women and I don't often have problems with them - certainly not of the sort that the original blog post describes. I don't find them to be narcissists in general.

kissaki wrote:No matter what great light you paint women in we already know it is not her who pushes the boundaries of knowledge and takes man to the edge of the Void.

There are plenty of women currently involved in the fields under discussion, who are pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Whether or not they succeed to the same extent as men is not the point.

kissaki wrote:So why your propensity to defend something, woman, which takes you in the complete opposite direction?

Because I reject the premise: that women take me "in the complete opposite direction". There are plenty of women who are interested in understanding reality, and from those who aren't, I don't feel any particular threat to my own attempts to do so.

kissaki wrote:The entire purpose of destroying women is not to hate them. The purpose is to hate the constructions surrounding and accredited to woman -- life.

Please clarify: are you saying that life itself should be hated, or that what should be hated is that life is attributed to women?

kissaki wrote:Your last paragraph is based on a false premise and subtle delusion. There is no QRS philosophy!

Haha, classic. Aside from the exclamation mark, that could have come straight off David's keyboard. You really have lapped it up, haven't you?

In any case if that's what you believe, then you're not just suffering from a subtle delusion, but a gross one. David and Kevin have written entire books outlining QRS philosophy; QRS have undertaken a series of radio shows and podcasts to - whilst exploring other people's beliefs - promote QRS philosophy; this entire forum is devoted to QRS philosophy. Get real.

kissaki wrote:Am I not allowed to build upon, agree with, or proclaim the wisdom of others?

Sure you are, just as I'm allowed to comment on how uncritically you do so.

kissaki wrote:And you proclaim Science. Hypocrite.

I "proclaim" that the scientific approach is most appropriate if you want your claims to be anything other than opinion. I don't, however, uncritically adopt every theory that science proffers.

kissaki wrote:I will paint woman in the worst possible light, and I shall paint men in it too. All you've proven is that you spoke too soon, and made an accusation against me before I've denounced men and after I've denounced women.

You've made it plain that you are toeing QRS line: that the problems with men are due to the deference that they pay to women, not just externally but in their internal character as well (i.e. that men are too feminine). Your painting of men in the worst possible light will therefore be, in its own way, an attack upon women.

kissaki wrote:There are many ways to perceive the gain and loss, but you've already shown your hand: a preemptive attack to pigeon hole my words into the non-existent QRS philosophy category. Strictly speaking from your viewpoint, it is a tactical blunder.

Strictly speaking, it's an accurate observation.

kissaki wrote:Elizabeth made a foolish post, and I revealed it as such.

Elizabeth was having problems, and you treated her with contempt rather than compassion.

kissaki wrote:I have cut down your arrows, now cut down mine.

Too late to pull up the drawbridge, I've stormed your castle.

kissaki wrote:Were you born of a dick and a vagina or not?

That's a rhetorical question, right? I only ask because you've repeated it and I'm wondering why.

Iolaus wrote: Women appear to be life but are not?

A woman is praised for her ability to birth life, yet what is birthed has many more causes than the physical woman herself and they extend back in time long before her physical existence. Woman defines her existence around an act she never performs.

kissaki wrote:

Iolaus wrote: Women appear to be life but are not?

A woman is praised for her ability to birth life, yet what is birthed has many more causes than the physical woman herself and they extend back in time long before her physical existence. Woman defines her existence around an act she never performs.

Somewhere along the line (life's path) you fell down.

You are a complete fool.

.

That's a good point, Kissaki. Women haven't given birth to anything; it is all Nature. And then they have the presumption to say they gave birth. At least when men give birth to ideas and solutions through reasoning, they are aware that there are causes beyond themselves.

---

guest wrote:the fact that some men achieve most highly in those areas says nothing about the general state of ignorance or delusion of the average man and woman.

Women can't even achieve excellence in being women. The greatest women are female impersonators.

With "Pink", Aerosmith's took a few minutes to do what Kate Bush, Madonna, Cher, and Nicole Kidman have needed a lifetime to plod through. No female prima donna, not even Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, or Lauren Bacall, could match a male prima donna. There are very few women who can carry off drag king acts, but thousands of men that can carry off drag queen acts.

The man of genius possesses, like everything else, the complete female in himself; but woman herself is only a part of the Universe, and the part can never be the whole; femaleness can never include genius. This lack of genius on the part of woman is inevitable because woman is not a monad, and cannot reflect the Universe.

— Weininger

guest_of_logic wrote: Let me clarify that the first statement that you attribute to me should read more like: you (or at least the blog post) have presented no rigorous evidence that women are vastly more delusional than men.

That written: the two statements are compatible. Firstly, ignorance is not the same thing as delusion: you are incorrectly conflating them. A delusion is a false belief, not a lack of knowledge. The Buddha was not a high achiever in the fields of science and mathematics, indeed compared to the average educated modern person, in those respects the Buddha was most likely utterly ignorant. Yet you hold him up as an example of one who was enlightened and free from delusion.

Secondly, the fact that some men achieve most highly in those areas says nothing about the general state of ignorance or delusion of the average man and woman.

Ignorance is guaranteed if delusion is not addressed, thus ignorance is a subset of delusion, thus science is a subset of the Tao. You poo poo Buddha because you cannot even see where he went. The fact that old Buddhas were not born into a scientific world and unable to address the subject directly is hardly a mark against them. Besides, there are Buddhas now.

Men are usually inclined towards what other men do. Women are usually inclined towards what other women do. Thus the average man and woman otherwise being equal -- which I say only for the sake of this point, not because I think that is the case -- the average man has the advantage. The core philosophy of this forum brings this point to the forefront for precisely one reason only: to demonstrate just how far women have to go in order to reach where few men even tread. The point is to go against mediocrity, not use it as an excuse for bringing everything down to its level simply because it is everywhere.

guest_of_logic wrote: I don't find them to be narcissists in general.

See, you are not ignorant but yet you remain delusional. I can debunk your statement in one word: makeup.

guest_of_logic wrote: There are plenty of women currently involved in the fields under discussion, who are pushing the boundaries of knowledge.

Knowledge of atoms and subatomic particles is impressive, yet none of these things brings one closer to Void.

guest_of_logic wrote: Whether or not they succeed to the same extent as men is not the point.

That is the mantra of postmodernism. The delusion that everything is equal, no matter how different.

guest_of_logic wrote: Because I reject the premise: that women take me "in the complete opposite direction". There are plenty of women who are interested in understanding reality, and from those who aren't, I don't feel any particular threat to my own attempts to do so.

Then you don't understand reality. You don't understand that there is no you, them, or women at all.

guest_of_logic wrote: Please clarify: are you saying that life itself should be hated, or that what should be hated is that life is attributed to women?

See my response to Iolaus.

guest_of_logic wrote: Haha, classic. Aside from the exclamation mark, that could have come straight off David's keyboard. You really have lapped it up, haven't you?

In any case if that's what you believe, then you're not just suffering from a subtle delusion, but a gross one. David and Kevin have written entire books outlining QRS philosophy; QRS have undertaken a series of radio shows and podcasts to - whilst exploring other people's beliefs - promote QRS philosophy; this entire forum is devoted to QRS philosophy. Get real.

The thoughts coming off David's keyboard exist before time and will not end even at the universe's destruction. The same cannot be said for yours.

Once again, you don't even know the source of words, where they star or where they end, and here you are accusing me of being a thief. Hah! QRS is just three letters.

guest_of_logic wrote: I "proclaim" that the scientific approach is most appropriate if you want your claims to be anything other than opinion. I don't, however, uncritically adopt every theory that science proffers.

I proclaim that science arose in the world and it shall eventually disappear. You build on sand thinking it concrete.

guest_of_logic wrote: You've made it plain that you are toeing QRS line: that the problems with men are due to the deference that they pay to women, not just externally but in their internal character as well (i.e. that men are too feminine). Your painting of men in the worst possible light will therefore be, in its own way, an attack upon women.

You've made it plain that the word QRS stands as an insurmountable barrier in your mind. So here it is, in your language so you might understand: Men deferred to women long before QRS, and will do so long after QRS. But the message of QRS? Never.

By your own admission the vast masses of men and women are average. So how can I not attack one without the other if I attack average-ness? You continue to mistake my attack as one ultimately on people. The attack goes far beyond just people.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:There are many ways to perceive the gain and loss, but you've already shown your hand: a preemptive attack to pigeon hole my words into the non-existent QRS philosophy category. Strictly speaking from your viewpoint, it is a tactical blunder.

Strictly speaking, it's an accurate observation.

If one wears QRS colored glasses then everything looks like QRS!

guest_of_logic wrote: Elizabeth was having problems, and you treated her with contempt rather than compassion.

Ah, the White Knight comes to her rescue.

guest_of_logic wrote:

kissaki wrote:I have cut down your arrows, now cut down mine.

Too late to pull up the drawbridge, I've stormed your castle.

kissaki wrote:Were you born of a dick and a vagina or not?

That's a rhetorical question, right? I only ask because you've repeated it and I'm wondering why.

The White Knight storms the castle but refuses to challenge the castle's guard? I can sum up everything you've said in a word: cowardice.

kissaki wrote:

Iolaus wrote: Women appear to be life but are not?

A woman is praised for her ability to birth life, yet what is birthed has many more causes than the physical woman herself and they extend back in time long before her physical existence. Woman defines her existence around an act she never performs.

A co-worker of mine recently gave birth, and afterwards some of the other employees were praising her for "good job." I don't even think she believed she had really actually done all that much -- but there's the reinforcement of society for you.

The Perfect Man is capable of doing lots of things for women, like tell her jokes and set goals.

The Perfect Woman doesn't have her own opinions, and the top of her head is around eye-level.

It must be confusing when you give a different set of ideals to either half the species. Men often find attractive in women characteristics they find annoying in men -- and then are totally surprised when they don't care about a word their SO has to say and their relationship goes sour. And women idealize that in men that they themselves are incapable of -- and then are surprised when their SO makes them feel stupid.

Trevor wrote:The Perfect Woman doesn't have her own opinions, and the top of her head is around eye-level.

Excuse me, but the top of the Perfect Woman's head is around waist level.

Thou Shalt Not Disappoint Her, The Jazzy Musical Version

More Eternal Truths

Check out this shit...

I knew I loved you heaps, and you were mine for keeps...

dejavu wrote:Kissaki:

You don't understand that there is no you, them, or women at all.

lol That is because he understands that there is.

The essence of all your posts thus far: Existence is inherent and the Universe is self-caused because there is motion.

This is a clever and subtle stance to battle with because the no matter what words are used to attack it, motion is created, giving the stance life. The key is not to engage it and know that the stance is dead right out of the starting gate. The stance itself is motionless. Behold, motionless engagement.

Is that all you have to offer, jester of motion?

dejavu wrote: Nothing is void. Put away your sword, and I may even forgive you for boring me!

It's no wonder you insist on having the sword put away. If a deadly manifestation of motion were to kill you you'd no longer be able to enjoy it so much.

Tomas wrote:

kissaki wrote:

Iolaus wrote: Women appear to be life but are not?

A woman is praised for her ability to birth life, yet what is birthed has many more causes than the physical woman herself and they extend back in time long before her physical existence. Woman defines her existence around an act she never performs.

Somewhere along the line (life's path) you fell down.

You are a complete fool.

It's early days, but kissaki might well have a bit of spark in him. There are not many people who can drive to the heart of a matter with simplicity and clarity, and be roundly abused by others because of it.

-

Women appear to be life but are not?[/quote]
A woman is praised for her ability to birth life, yet what is birthed has many more causes than the physical woman herself and they extend back in time long before her physical existence. Woman defines her existence around an act she never performs.[/quote]
Somewhere along the line (life's path) you fell down.

You are a complete fool. [/quote]
It's early days, but kissaki might well have a bit of spark in him. There are not many people who can drive to the heart of a matter with simplicity and clarity, and be roundly abused by others because of it.



My Bad!

Shouldda read: You are a complete tool.

No, he's an interesting read.

Thanks for bringing my misspelled word, there.

Tool. Not fool.

Pardon the unintended slight, kissaki.


Tomas


.

In modern speak, doesn't tool mean "loser" ....?

-

David Quinn wrote:In modern speak, doesn't tool mean "loser" ....?

-

Define "modern speak".


.

Tomas,

Just tell us what the hell you meant by 'tool'.