GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:If you're going to bring this persona into every post in every thread in which you participate, don't bother addressing me because I won't be reading it.

Indeed, it would be wasteful of me to attempt to educate you, being that we both (not to neglect Advanced readers) know what a Spiritual Titan you already are. And I'm sure that the more Enlightened of readers would already have recognised the role playing that we have been partaking in and would already have derived some spiritual benefit from our exchange. It is humbling to acknowledge that you are willing to place your illusory ego in a seeming state of subservience wherein you are "supposedly" corrected but where in actuality you already know the Abiding Truth, and are simply manifesting a circumstance of learning for the less advanced.

Dan,

This one is lacking in anything discernibly valuable.

Just cause you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Hidden messages man. This Laird guy, for instance, full of secret meanings. Most of them are "I haven't had any pussy since my mom farted me onto the floor", but there's also some really complicated ones like "Trevor: I need you to make fun of me." Happy to oblige, fucktard.

Not you, Dan. You're not a fucktard.

Rhett: When a male uses passivity/desirelessness as a technique, the female intuits that she has to get him in bed to try to get him to bond to her, and then provide for her.

All it would take is for all the men in a given area to stop chasing women for the current dynamic to be totally reinvented. Since men are blessed by nature, and women are incomplete, the women would start to chase the men. But the smart men would rebuff them, telling them to become a proper person.


Skipair: Passivity plays a part, but what a woman responds to is a Yin/Yang mixture. You're right that the Yin sets the stage for the chase to be reversed, but she will not want to take responsibility for her actions, and so needs/wants to be actively led by the Yang, via her emotional state. If all it took was Yin, then every passive, shy, nerdy guy would be very busy. The Yang is also needed for full sexual/emotional escalation. Either principle standing alone is eventual boredom for her. Properly "dosing" the principles back and forth hits the sweet spot.

I agree, well expressed. I don't see a contradiction between it and what i posted.

Regarding her irresponsibility, for example, when tired of an old partner, or when a better one comes along, she will very quickly explore him and set the stage for infidelity, but will wait for the man to make the move, so she can blame him. Women try-before-they-buy their next partner, and if he doesn't match up to her estimation of him, or more importantly, his estimation of him, since she doesn't trust her own mind, she will remain with her current partner without the slightest sense of guilt.

An irony is that i've learnt what i've learnt almost entirely from my own observances without ever really being interested enough in women to have more than a few titbits of sex - so i'm not ignorant of it. I've always had the sense that using sex as a drug to blow-off consciousness, blows-off one's chance of reaching full potential and eliminating pain.

Rhett: But the smart men would rebuff them, telling them to become a proper person.


Skipair: And she would laugh at your face and go find someone who she could have fun with.

Yes, we need all the men to be smart men. If they all stayed away, the women would become distraught. They would all group together and look for weaknesses in the men, practise new tricks around each other to gain attention and invoke sexual responses, etc. Women are confused when they almost give themself to a man but he declines not only her but all other women. It just doesn't fit their schema, and if they can't distance themself from you, they may just keep trying and hoping and becoming more desperate in their methods. It is an offense to everything womanly to be a seemingly eligible batchelor, that declines.

The Dude wrote:[T]here's also some really complicated ones [messages from Laird] like "Trevor: I need you to make fun of me." Happy to oblige, fucktard.

"The Dude", or, to set matters aright: Trevor - your violent abuse of sockpuppets is becoming more than unreasonable. I strongly encourage you to question yourself: what spiritual benefit is this course of action providing you. If, as it can be logically proven, the answer is: none, and indeed even negative, then you are logically compelled to cease and desist, and if you do not, then your spiritual superiors in the form of QRS*T* will be logically necessitated to ban your sockpuppet. I hope that this timely advice raises some warning bells in your mind.

Rhett wrote:Passivity plays a part, but what a woman responds to is a Yin/Yang mixture.

Rhett, these superficial concepts ("Yin" and "Yang") are of no philosophic value in a true discussion of sexuality. You would be well advised to dispense with such academic intellectual constructions and to get back to basics. I will not deal with the remainder of what I know you will now realise is an a priori falsifiable set of deductions.

Rhett wrote:Regarding her irresponsibility, for example, when tired of an old partner, or when a better one comes along, she will very quickly explore him and set the stage for infidelity, but will wait for the man to make the move, so she can blame him. Women try-before-they-buy their next partner, and if he doesn't match up to her estimation of him, or more importantly, his estimation of him, since she doesn't trust her own mind, she will remain with her current partner without the slightest sense of guilt.

This is a relatively wise estimation of the nature of Woman, however as is to be expected, you fail to push your reasoning to the bitter end. A woman "tries before she buys". Very true, but what does this teach you about Woman? You haven't yet pushed that far, have you? Think a little before you read the answer, for I know that you are capable of the necessary logical deduction. Got it yet? Here it is then, for your confirmation: women are drug dealers. They deal in the drug of love, and they will pay hard cash for it. Clear now? I hope that you have locked this absolute truth into your memory.

...

Sex is for fun!

df,

Sex is for fun!

Keep it simple, stupid?

Dan Rowden wrote:If you're going to bring this persona into every post in every thread in which you participate, don't bother addressing me because I won't be reading it. Just letting you know so you don't waste your efforts.

More seriously, now that I've sobered up:

It's funny though, you seem to read David and he brings a very similar persona into every post in every thread in which he participates. Not identical, but close enough for it to be quite ironic that you preference one so far above the other - I really didn't have to exaggerate all that much.

(Also, my apologies if I took things a little too far: during yesterday's steadily increasing inebriation I became more concerned with the quantity of my posts than with their quality. I hope that I didn't harm my cause too much. I must admit that for a while there I was intending to push what I was doing to the limit, but I took the hint from a couple of other people that it would quickly - and perhaps already had - become tedious for the rest of the community, so I've canned that idea. Back to average, ordinary old me it is then...)

Laird wrote:More seriously, now that I've sobered up:

I think it's very disrespectful to other people to write to a forum when you're drunk. It's like telling other people to their face that you couldn't give a stuff about them, and that they should just put up with your drunken nonsense because you say so.

Kevin Solway wrote:I think it's very disrespectful to other people to write to a forum when you're drunk. It's like telling other people to their face that you couldn't give a stuff about them, and that they should just put up with your drunken nonsense because you say so.

Would you say that it's more or less disrespectful than holding yourself up as a paragon of spiritual achievement and characterising those other people as deluded, or, in extreme cases, as living in the animal realms? Is drunken nonsense fundamentally any worse than sober nonsense?

What's worse is when the drunken stuff from one person successfully refutes the sober stuff from someone else.

divine focus wrote:Sex is for fun!

Sex is fun only in so much as one enjoys closing down consciousness to get a partial rest from suffering. Dominant evolutionary forces have created a situation where people suffer, and if they do something favourable to reproduction, are given a moment of semi-relief, in the form of animal unconsciousness.

There are practices that can evolve these forces into a much better situation. If the following three scales are kept foremost in mind and applied accurately to phenomena, they being consciousness/unconsciousness, wisdom/delusion, non-suffering/suffering, the mind is greatly strengthened and purified, assuming they are valued appropriately, of course. The high ends of these scales complement each other, and the low ends compound each other.

The key focus and objective, the key means of resolution, is gaining understanding of the nature of reality.

Kevin: I think it's very disrespectful to other people to write to a forum when you're drunk. It's like telling other people to their face that you couldn't give a stuff about them, and that they should just put up with your drunken nonsense because you say so.


Laird: Would you say that it's more or less disrespectful than holding yourself up as a paragon of spiritual achievement and characterising those other people as deluded, or, in extreme cases, as living in the animal realms? Is drunken nonsense fundamentally any worse than sober nonsense?

It is the highest merit towards people to explain their spiritual malaise, thus giving them opportunity to resolve it.

Laird wrote:Rhett, these superficial concepts ("Yin" and "Yang") are of no philosophic value in a true discussion of sexuality. You would be well advised to dispense with such academic intellectual constructions and to get back to basics.

You've misquoted, the terms "Yin and Yang" were used by Skipair, not myself. Whilst i don't use them, i don't deny anyone else using them.

Rhett: Regarding her irresponsibility, for example, when tired of an old partner, or when a better one comes along, she will very quickly explore him and set the stage for infidelity, but will wait for the man to make the move, so she can blame him. Women try-before-they-buy their next partner, and if he doesn't match up to her estimation of him, or more importantly, his estimation of him, since she doesn't trust her own mind, she will remain with her current partner without the slightest sense of guilt.


Laird: This is a relatively wise estimation of the nature of Woman, however as is to be expected, you fail to push your reasoning to the bitter end. A woman "tries before she buys". Very true, but what does this teach you about Woman? You haven't yet pushed that far, have you? Think a little before you read the answer, for I know that you are capable of the necessary logical deduction. Got it yet? Here it is then, for your confirmation: women are drug dealers. They deal in the drug of love, and they will pay hard cash for it. Clear now? I hope that you have locked this absolute truth into your memory.

Women receive cash through men's love. Women aren't themselves capable of loving a man. Women love the cash. Women's interest in love as a topic is in a man's love for her, and she puts as many screws into his dependency as she can. Women increase mens suffering, while men reduce women's suffering. If a man loves her, she will get cash and attention and commitment and all the rest, and we then say 'they' are in love.

Rhett wrote:Women increase mens suffering, while men reduce women's suffering. If a man loves her, she will get cash and attention and commitment and all the rest, and we then say 'they' are in love.

And yet another "free-thinking" man succumbs to the giddy arrogance of the oh-so-very barren QRS-informed misogyny...

...

Laird wrote:Would you say that it's more or less disrespectful than holding yourself up as a paragon of spiritual achievement and characterising those other people as deluded, or, in extreme cases, as living in the animal realms? Is drunken nonsense fundamentally any worse than sober nonsense?

To be worthy of being taken seriously you would need to provide some solid argument. For example, you would need to demonstrate that those characterised as being deluded are in fact not deluded, or that it is wrong to tell deluded people that they are deluded, or something along those lines. You would also need to demonstrate what the animals realms are, and also why people are not residing in them. You have done none of these things.

All you've said is "I don't like it" - which is not particularly interesting.

...

Kevin Solway wrote:All you've said is "I don't like it"

I'll leave it to others to judge whether that truly is "all" that I've said, and...

Kevin Solway wrote: - which is not particularly interesting.

...whether or not what I wrote held any particular interest.

xerox, I'm not going to attempt to refute your post - you are of course entitled to your opinion. I do want to acknowledge one of your points though:

xerox wrote:They [...] almost universally refrain from ad hom. Pretty rare in the world of web foru and non-existent outside of it.

Given the qualifier "almost" I will 100% agree with your observation. It is IMO a characteristic of which they can be proud, although I doubt that they would be satisfied with my framing of it in that way.

...

xerox wrote:Why not offer a cogent alternative to QRS.

Good question - thanks for asking. The main reason is that I am wary of setting myself up as an authority figure when really I don't have all of the answers. For example, I strongly believe in the sanctity of life - I believe against the slaughter of animals. Here in Australia the (introduced) rabbit is a pest. They are rampant in the area in which I live. Biologists (I presume - but anyway whoever they are, they are authorities on the matter) tell us that the rabbit causes so much damage by out-competing native animals (presumably with the end result being the extinction of said species) that the only solution is to eradicate it. Now, on my occasional ramblings through the outskirts of my town, I encounter the cute little critters and I watch them bounce innocently out of my path: I am struck with the strong bond that I feel with the little buggers: here is fellow LIFE, in all of its wondrous, complex, magical, sacred glory; to destroy it in its innocence is unthinkable. And yet the alternative - the extinction of native species - is equally as unthinkable. I am unable to resolve this moral quandry. An authority on wisdom, however, needs to have the answer. I suppose that I could attempt to find a creative alternative, but the most likely one that I can think of is likewise completely impractical: develop non-lethal traps and ship the creatures back to lands in which they are native. Oh, actually, I've thought of a better one: genetically engineer their food supply (or find some other practical means of mass administration) to act as a contraceptive. Hmm, perhaps I have more of the answers than I thought.

Anyway, I'd consider offering an alternative that comes with the explicit disclaimer that I am not "The Unbreakable Master" but rather just another guy - albeit a relatively intelligent and well balanced guy - imperfect and incomplete in his wisdom but believing that if everybody took approximately the same philosophical approach to life that he did that the world would be a joyous place for all of us (non-human life included) to live in.

Another reason that I'm wary of setting up an alternative is that I'm not confident that it's the best use that I can make of the remainder of my life. There are so many pressing practical problems on planet Earth, not least of which is the inequity that exists between the first and the third worlds, as well as the corrupt system that underpins the maintenance of that inequity. I'm inclined to believe that there are more effective practical actions that I can take to contribute to the solution of these problems than simply setting up an interactive website and engaging people in discussions on its forum. Having said that, look at the way in which I'm currently occupying my time: satirising a bunch of barely known (no disrespect intended) philosophers on a marginal backwater of the internet (again, this isn't a dig). Hardly world-changing behaviour.

Finally, I'm wary that I don't really have very much to contribute that's completely original. Most of my beliefs and wisdom can be readily acquired through existing sources: I have the feeling that a lot of what I might have to write/say would be redundant, and if there's one thing that dissatisfies me it's duplicated (wasted) effort.

Again, thanks for asking: composing this post has allowed me to clarify a few things in my own mind.

Rhett wrote,

Women increase mens suffering, while men reduce women's suffering. If a man loves her, she will get cash and attention and commitment and all the rest, and we then say 'they' are in love.

This guy is so full of b.s., it's not even funny any more. I am a "common" woman, and never once have I taken advantage of a man, while many of them have taken advantage of me. I believe I'd be rich right now if it weren't for what men I trusted (and was even married to) have stolen from me, and I do mean financially. I won't even mention what they have cost me in emotional suffering.

Dan, this is the sort of stuff that I was talking about when I mentioned that women bashing is extremely common in this forum. This is far from being constructive criticism -- for starters, anything constructive would first have to be true, not to mention free of hatred. It does take away from the credibility of your woman philosophy to assume that anything bad that can be said about women is unquestionably true. It seems as if woman has been defined as "all bad qualities", and man as "all good qualities". By taking things too far, you risk losing the truth you have to offer on this subject.

Of course, I don't give a damn about losers like Rhett whose self-esteem is based on constantly trying to convince themselves that women are below them. But I do give a damn about QRS, and I wish you would open your eyes as to why this doesn't help your cause.

If I didn't give a damn, I would definitely not have made this post, as I find the woman-bashing that goes around here to be incredibly boring.

.

By the way, Kev, I neglected to respond to some of the very valid points that you made earlier, and for that disrespect I apologise:

Kevin Solway wrote:To be worthy of being taken seriously you would need to provide some solid argument. For example, you would need to demonstrate that those characterised as being deluded are in fact not deluded, or that it is wrong to tell deluded people that they are deluded, or something along those lines. You would also need to demonstrate what the animals realms are, and also why people are not residing in them. You have done none of these things.

I hope at some future point to present to you a work that will comprehensively satisfy these very reasonable requirements that you suggest are incumbent upon me should I truly wish to fully engage with you. I will not make any promises, because my continuing motivation and commitment are subject to the temperamental whims of fancy: suffice it to say that I embarked upon this endeavour several months ago, and, judging by my progress, it will be at least another month before this effort will be complete and - in my eyes - satisfactory, if indeed I even manage to complete it prior to running out of puff.