Pages:
Author

Topic: Dark Enlightenment - page 10. (Read 69319 times)

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
February 08, 2017, 02:41:09 PM
What is Framing?
http://blog.iqmatrix.com/reframing-thoughts
Quote
"Never solve a problem from its original perspective." - Charles Thompson

Framing is a mental structure that is built upon the beliefs you have about yourself, your roles, your circumstances, and about other people. It is a structure you use to ascribe meaning to given circumstances. In other words, the meaning you ascribe to any event is dependent upon how you frame it in your mind. As such, your frames shape how you see the world, how you see yourself, how you view others, and how you interpret your life.

Frames can be of a positive or of a negative nature; they can also be within your control or out of your control. As such, they are either helpful within the context you are using them, or they are unhelpful. They either expand your opportunities and the possibilities of the situation, or they limit your options moving forward. They are therefore appropriate or inappropriate, good or bad depending on the objectives you have in mind.

When you decide to work on a project you set a scope or frame for that project so that everyone knows what is included and excluded. Everyone understands what is required to get the job done successfully and what they therefore need to focus on in order to get their part of the project completed. In the same way, the frames you use on a daily basis provide a context for your thoughts, decisions, attitudes and actions. They help guide the direction of your thoughts to help you accomplish your desired outcomes. Thusly, your actions are guided by how you frame events and circumstances; and how you frame things is dependent upon your preferences, attitudes and biases.
...
The frames of reference you use collaborate with your beliefs and values. You will therefore frame things in a certain way that corresponds with what you believe and value most in life — irrelevant of whether your beliefs are helpful or unhelpful. This basically means that every frame you make is linked to an underlying belief and/or assumption that is implied by your thoughts. In this way your frames provide you with a context in which you can assess your progress. This is helpful, but at the same time can be unhelpful. It is helpful because it allows you to unlock new opportunities and explore other possibilities that might be advantageous. However, it is unhelpful if your frames are built upon your limiting belief systems. In such instances — and without much objective thought — you might unconsciously be setting boundaries and putting limitations on yourself regarding what you can or can’t do; and this therefore limits your perspective, opportunities and the possibilities that lay before you.




Frame of Reference
https://plus.google.com/+Tinymuhagoogleplus/posts/fAV2VaW3xRy
Quote from: Samuel J. Queen
There are as many versions of reality as there are living room windows.
From the comfortable folds in the couches of our brains,
We stare out at the world and interpret the shapes that filter through our panes.

One day, I had an out-of-house experience.
I floated out of my frame of reference into the great beyond.
I had no idea where I was going and my level of control was negligible.
A strange house swam into my peripherals and my system got quite nervous.
It had the markings of a house but was somehow altogether different.
Music was leaking through its seams to the tune of Shostakovich.
A crescendo came and warped its frame and all the panes around it.
I peered through the window into a room that was very much alive.
At first, I saw a dancer twirling around the room to the timing of the tunes.
But then I realized the room was twirling around the dancer and the tunes were playing to her.
She leapt across the room and the walls bent towards her with the deep sound of an oboe.
Her pirouette sent the chandelier spinning with the twinkling of a flute.
A graceful wrist caressed the air and played a sorrowful bar of violin.
The house bent, warped, and swayed as did my frame of reference.

I looked around and realized there were houses all around me.
I flew up to a neighboring window and excitedly gazed in.
A man was pacing and tracing a figure 8 into his living room floor.
He was deep in thought and shallow in socks as all his pacing had worn through his soles.
With a quick “POP-POP” he would disappear for a second or a year then suddenly reappear.
Sometimes he looked older, sometimes he looked younger, sometimes he looked lost, sometimes he looked found.
The only constant was the figure on the floor that bore the tracings of his pacings he left behind as he figured himself into infinity.

Through the neighborhood I floated until a titillating scent tickled the tendrils in my nostrils.
I peered through the window where the smell was smelling from.
A woman with long, dark hair was stirring a bubbling cauldron hanging in the fireplace.
There were haggardly creatures of all shapes and sizes lined up for a dolling of the potion.
Their bowls were as empty as their hearts that hung from drooping frames and outstretched hands.
The woman whispered a spell upon each creature with the lilting of her ladle.
I spotted the ingredients of the potion on the cutting board.
They were beetroots, celery, and mushrooms.
I leaned in close to hear the spell and heard the woman say,
“It’s perfectly okay to feel the way you do, so go ahead and feel it through and through."

I floated back through town and back through my own window frame of reference into the nodes of my own abode.
I sat in the grey folds of my corduroy couch and stared out of my window.
Something about the pane had changed.
The shapes that filtered through were now a bit more wobbly.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 08, 2017, 07:26:53 AM
Damned facts:

According to the same Soviet press as reported these women, Nikita Izotov supposedly mined 607 tons of coal in a single shift with a pick and shovel.

The Soviet press regularly reported workers who achieved entirely improbable feats of production Stakhanovites, as examples to be emulated by all the other workers. When war came, they reported the equivalent warriors in much the same style.

It was deemed politically necessary to have some female war heroes, therefore female war heroes were created. Not only do I doubt that these women performed the highly improbable feats attributed to them, I doubt that they ever existed.

No reasonable person would believe that Stakhanovite accomplished the remarkable feats of production attributed to him. Why believe these women did?

These women were reported in the same way by the same papers that reported that Nikita Izotov mined 607 tons of coal in a single shift with a pick and shovel.

If female warriors existed, you would have examples where the truth was more easily discovered, and lies less likely – for example you would have some female heroes of 9/11

Whenever we are able to observe the actual conduct of female soldiers, female policemen, and female firemen, in the face of actual danger, it is hilarious.

Some women are reasonably brave in the face of moderate danger, for example medics evacing warriors from the battlefield, and deserve due credit for serving their country, but when the shit gets heavy, the women break and run, as they should, for women are the precious sex. Or they break and fuck, which they should not.

In the ancestral environment, if a woman was captured by the enemy, she would probably wind up as someone’s property, which would likely improve her reproductive success, since her owner would have confidence in the paternity of his children, whereas a man captured by the enemy was probably killed, and if enslaved, castrated. So women have an alarming tendency to be overcome with sexual lust for the enemy in combat and in situations of conflict and danger, which is euphemistically described as Stockholm Syndrome or Traumatic Stress Disorder.

After 9/11 four hundred and eleven emergency workers in New York City died while responding to the emergency. Many of the job categories, like medics, normally contain a good proportion of female workers. But on 9/11, no females responded to the emergency. They ran away. All of them. As women should, because women are the precious sex.

There is at least one case where a woman becomes a warrior, and that is if you try to attack her child in close proximity to her. She will then risk her ovaries.

It turns out that JAD's claim was not entirely correct and a few women responders did die at 9/11:

Apparently three female first responders died while attempting to rescue others: Captain Kathy Mazza, Officer Moira Smith, and EMT Yamel Merino. There seems to be sufficient physical evidence for bravery in these cases: identifiable bodies found near those of civilians they were trying to rescue, a picture of one of them with a wounded survivor before going back into the buildings to rescue more people.

It should not be surprising to us that a small percentage of women are capable of bravery despite strong genetic and cultural pressures to the contrary.

A strong indicator for sorting out the fake women warriors from the real ones is in the facial expressions. I met a female paratrooper once who was obviously not a real warrior: checking her FB pictures of her and her male comrades indicated that her male comrades all had the 1000-yard-stare-I-kill-people look and she did not.

We should find exceptions to any rule. Yet the broad statistical damned facts remain.

Note that Mazza was age 46, so her ovaries were of no value. Smith was 38 so very diminished value of ovaries.

Merino was apparently a very special person:

http://www.latimes.com/la-humantoll-merino-story.html
http://thesocialmedic.net/2010/09/remembering-yamel-merino/
http://www.legacy.com/sept11/story.aspx?personid=92728

And note she was killed in the collapse of the first tower, so she would not have had any warning of potential for building collapse:

http://www.firehouse.com/contact/10567737/yamel-merino

For all we know she might have been only rescuing people from the lower floors. That is not to diminish her sacrifice, but rather to speak to the level of (instinctive and/or cerebral) premeditated bravery involved.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 08, 2017, 07:08:15 AM
My current stance is not focused on repealing women's suffrage at the level of collective governance, because I view collective governance as just another enslavement coping mechanism (of which I view religion as another) for managing the stables/corrals of weak sheepeople.

My message is for the strong men who actually run or could run the world, if they would assert their superior cultural evolutionary strategy. The powerful have the "votes" that matter, because economics is reality and democracy is an illusion of control (an actually an enslavement mechanism) for weak sheepeople to circle-jerk themselves with.

JAD wishes to install a dictator Trump to manage the weak sheepeople, but this creates the precedent (and a power vacuum) for the devolution into a totalitarian regime. So it is not a solution. Rothschilds is cleverly playing the various modes of the enslavement paradigms to divide-and-conquer. We strong men should be aware and smarter.

Edit: the Trump administration appears to be getting ample advice about the need for respecting Antifragility so I doubt JAD's wishes dovetail with actual advice Trump is receiving:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/steve-bannon-books-reading-list-214745
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 08, 2017, 06:58:52 AM
Re: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski sides with Democrats in the Senate voting

Never trust women with roles of highly strategic responsibility.

They love drama and vote their emotions and perspective as nurturers and consensus builders (or with their destructive hindbrain).
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
February 07, 2017, 04:37:47 PM
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 07, 2017, 03:02:42 PM
So true...

Quote
Any black or female or gay soldiers or cops in that mix?

There are no female or gay soldiers, and very few black soldiers. There are women and gays who are awarded the title of “soldier” as a form of flattery, but real soldiers secretly laugh at them.

This becomes hilariously obvious when female firemen or female policemen are sent to do something dangerous.

Sending women to this stuff is loathsome, despicable, vile, immoral, disgusting, contemptible and shameful, because men are the expendable sex, and women are the precious sex, and when you actually send women to do a man’s job, the result is invariable and predictable: Ancient instincts take over, and women and men revert to their ancient social roles, frequently with the result that the fire is not put out, or the bad guy gets to wander around for a few hours killing people at his leisure while the female policemen try to fuck him.

Just check out some incidents where female cops were among those sent to take down a terrorist.

Similarly, several hundred firemen, and absolutely zero female firemen were killed in dealing with the 9/11 fires and rescues, because every single female fireman, every single one, entirely without exception, ran away. And if female “soldiers” do not always run away, it is usually because they are trying to fuck the enemy. When the shit hits the fan, biology overpowers reason, socialization, social expectations, and training. Men can be trained to be soldiers because fighting in groups is natural for men. To train men to be soldiers you have to release, rather than suppress, ancient instincts. We are killer apes. This just does not work for women. The kind of stimuli that causes men to bond with their comrades and slay the enemy cause women to betray their comrades and fuck the enemy. Send a mixed sex group of cops to shut down a terrorist or put down a violent riot and observe what happens. It is hilarious. Women can no more be warriors than I can be a mother.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 07, 2017, 02:11:53 PM
legendary
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1005
February 06, 2017, 06:57:45 PM
Christian religion teaches men that they are too weak to be strong without God.

Define your use of strong in this context. Do you mean physical, willpower, influence, or something else?

For that matter, define religion as well. An hierarchical power structure, simply belief in God, etc?

Thus it is for weak men who feel they can't think clearly without a God to save them when they fail. It rewards failure by telling us it is okay when we fail, because we will be saved in this unfalsiable heaven.

It dovetails very well with other forms of mass control and enslavement such as socialism, which rewards failure and weakness.

This is what I thought, but is not at all what I've found.

From my experience there are many individuals claiming to be Christians who do not practice what is preached, apparently caused by conceptual misunderstanding or an attraction to the lifestyle in a form over function situation.

On the other side, those genuinely following have effectively scraped away layers of cultural and social toxicity to see that their own principled actions encourage and incentivize others to do the same. This highlights the strength of the individual as an integral part of a whole.

Along with that comes the strength to acknowledge and admit that one is learning and can make mistakes, to not fear looking foolish while discovering the optimal path. Likewise, to be just in supporting others in the process of learning as well as chastising those doing wrong. There is a clear distinction in Christianity between giving a helping hand and turning hostile individuals away, just as can be seen with the current immigration differences between Europe and the US where the former has no boundaries and the latter drew a line.

What I have seen:
  • Failure is forgiven, not excused
  • Strength is rewarded when used to build and support
  • Respect is for both men and women because we are different, always learning and improving

Before claiming to be Christian I also misunderstood deeply. It's the kind of thing where you need to experience the change to truly understand, similar to your illness.

This universe, existence, what-have-you is to me a playpen of sorts. I see it as a safe place both to protect us while we collectively grow as spiritual beings, as well as to protect whatever is beyond this universe from us. Yes, from us - we have the potential for immense power, both creative and destructive. We probably don't realize anywhere near the extent of what we can do as gods - Psalm 82:6

My perspective is that humanity collectively forms a unified organism that transcends what we understand individually. Whether what we arrive at is due to an emergent property or remains external is something I don't know, but all of the changes throughout history leave subtle clues in the same direction. The primary point of import is that we have to progress through the stages of growth together and at differing rates.

We can learn everything to know about the here and now, which is all well and good - but we still don't know what lies beyond death, and it doesn't seem we will in the immediate future. In that context, unless we can provably know all there is to know, it makes more sense for me to believe than to hold fast to the notion that we might figure everything out here.

As for the Horus-Jesus link and other comparative mythology, I've spent some time studying them and simply haven't found anything truly convincing. The whole sun god concept falls apart in light of Deuteronomy 4:19, among other verses, which explicitly prohibits worshiping of the sun, moon, stars or any other celestial object.

I have not studied all religions extensively, but I have seen that Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and others all echo each other in some way. I find that to be a greater indication that they hint at an absolute truth than anything else.

We have too many dumb ass "men" giving too much socialism money to too many dumb ass bitchez, and thus being a wife, mother, and suppressing (repressing) the undisciplined hindbrain is disincentivized. And the devolution always repeats throughout history

...

Agreed, although I use different terms. We create and destroy with words, perhaps more so than we do with our hands - Ephesians 4:29 Smiley

I think the trouble may lie more in the push to "educate" than in being educated and quotas pushing for more minorities/women in STEM - the strong-willed may not necessarily need to get a degree in higher education, whereas those with an inclination to be led might follow paths that are not always beneficial. Exposure to opportunities is one thing, but if a person does not act on it then forcing won't help. On top of that, how many can fathom the implications of their choices in a non-linear reality?

Everyone in this life has a different path; some women may indeed go on to be prominent leaders, although that is certainly not their most common purpose or strength. What's most important is a sense of respect and understanding that we all have stages in our lives where we misunderstood or were misguided and may have caused harm somehow. It's also critical to remind ourselves that there may still remain areas where we are mistaken, which can indeed be humbling. That humility garners more respect in the long run than any amount of blustering.

Reading through some of your posts on Github and ESR's site, there is evident emphasis and enthusiasm very similar to how I used to write. Your reasoning and technical acumen is commendable, so the frustration during explanation is understandable. It can be a major challenge to remain civil and I only learned how to be judicious with my replies due to lack of time, but its made a world of difference in how my words are received. The years you've spent on these forums and in discussion have undoubtedly made an impact, but they've also taken a great deal of time; that constant pressure will have a profound result at some point, especially as you refine your approach.

As you've stated before, doing will have much greater impact than talking. Patience is the hard part in that.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 06, 2017, 09:06:18 AM
then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.

That sounds like you don't want to refute:

What have you stated that you think is true which you think refutes my claim that putting the woman's hindbrain a par with the men's obligation to lead destroys the society with social activism?

Where have you refuted that fact that you claimed that men are unable to think for themselves and that only God can tell us what is moral and ethical?

You made a claim that conflicts with your stated thesis about morals (wherein you claimed that men can't be objective because they can decide that evil is really good):

If a religion tells you not to think for yourself then you have chosen the wrong religion. Your argument against religion are indeed a valid complaint against some religions but not all.

Christian religion teaches men that they are too weak to be strong without God. Thus it is for weak men who feel they can't think clearly without a God to save them when they fail. It rewards failure by telling us it is okay when we fail, because we will be saved in this unfalsiable heaven.

It dovetails very well with other forms of mass control and enslavement such as socialism, which rewards failure and weakness.

We have too many dumb ass "men" giving too much socialism money to too many dumb ass bitchez, and thus being a wife, mother, and suppressing (repressing) the undisciplined hindbrain is disincentivized. And the devolution always repeats throughout history:

http://blog.jim.com/war/after-the-flight-93-election/
http://blog.jim.com/politics/courts-predictably-rule-trumps-election-platform-illegal/
http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-first-confrontation-between-the-trumpenreich-and-the-permanent-government/

If you don't believe we don't have too many dumb ass bitchez being given money by too many dumb ass men (who shouldn't and wouldn't have the money to give if socialism died), just spend some time on any dating site with pretty Causasian women such as the following:

http://russian-dating.com/

And don't tell me these women aren't educated. Free higher education is a pinnacle of these Russian speaking countries.

Btw, I did date some beautiful Causasian women such as for example my high school gf was 5'9" blonde, blue eyed, 36C, and a runner. Tracey Valliant. But most often what ladies told me was, "you have an all American blonde, good boy look and I want a BAD BOY with a chiseled jaw bone, tattoo, and smoking a cigarette a la James Dean". I was literally too tame looking for the ladies in my youth.

That is reality.

Btw, I remain open-minded and willing to read all substantive counter arguments.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 06, 2017, 02:43:31 AM
A lot of this makes sense during times of scarce population

It always makes sense when you are competing for who has the most votes and the immigrants are multiplying like rabbits.

If we don't reproduce well above replacement rates, our culture dies. Sorry these are damned facts.

This is inevitable to some degree as the population grows and resources become more sought after.

Your Malthusian delusion is unwarranted. Resources are inexorably getting cheaper. Iron used to be a precious metal. Did you not see the chart that I quoted from the Economist magazine in my seminal essay several years ago.

You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.

I will be the first to admit I needed a week or two to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint.

The Rise of Knowledge

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 05, 2017, 03:08:58 PM
Here's further confirmation, fast forward to 10:15 and watch this "professor" short circuit: https://youtu.be/wzFS1qLlULc

Come on CoinCube, you are out of your league in terms of analysis (although I was impressed at how you analyzed Bitcoin vs. gold in the Exter's pyramid argument and obviously I have incorporated your strong points about the contention of preventing defection and the importance of having a cultural evolutionary strategy). You were the one who argued that the breakup of the USA couldn't happen because every one of the 50 States has people on welfare.

The reality of what happens when we give women suffrage is then the right to peaceful protest becomes intolerable for the society, because it threatens the very existence of the society as evidenced by the above quoted video clip. Tie that back to the comments upthread about how we avoid civil war by not letting women and weak men vote.

What are your substantive arguments as to why we should allow women and weak (e.g. before it was landless) men to vote?
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 05, 2017, 02:35:37 PM
Oh my:

http://blog.jim.com/war/after-the-flight-93-election/

If you are not in a condition to fully read and process my replies then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.

JAD is well and I urged you to attempt to debate him.

My disagreement with JAD is that I think Trump was put in power by Rothschilds and for the specific purpose of divide-and-conquer. I don't think we strong men win with a top-down collective. We can only win with an Apache-style decentralized paradigm reinvented with stronger knowledge and principles of cultural evolution. So although I appreciate JAD's knowledge and perspective, I will have to lead because I don't think he is leading effectively. And he is censoring me and refusing to let me post on his blog. Ditto Eric Raymond who in spite of writing about the damned facts, continues to not admit the truth about for example woman's suffrage and besides he has no kids and thus no skin in the game. And he also continues to censor me and not allow me to post on his blog.

then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.

That sounds like you don't want to refute:

What have you stated that you think is true which you think refutes my claim that putting the woman's hindbrain a par with the men's obligation to lead destroys the society with social activism?

Where have you refuted that fact that you claimed that men are unable to think for themselves and that only God can tell us what is moral and ethical?

You made a claim that conflicts with your stated thesis about morals (wherein you claimed that men can't be objective because they can decide that evil is really good):

If a religion tells you not to think for yourself then you have chosen the wrong religion. Your argument against religion are indeed a valid complaint against some religions but not all.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
February 05, 2017, 02:35:03 PM
Of course I didn't read all of your post, nor read any of it with a fine tooth comb. I told you I don't have enough energy. I responded to few small portions that I read. I may become energized for some moments I am not (as I am now) by being provoked, but the vast majority of the time I am not in good condition right now. I did have some burst of mild energy a few days ago and perhaps I get a few hours every other day or so, where I feel mostly awake.
...
I am lacking an appropriate word to use in your case, and besides I don't want to be judging or analyzing you at all. I'd rather we just talk about facts.

If you are not in a condition to fully read and process my replies then this conversation is a poor use of both of our time.

Rest and get well.

sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 05, 2017, 01:36:40 PM
Perhaps you were not intending to imply that I am a liar?

Did I use the word liar any where? You are a doctor and should understand what sort of effects 4 very powerful antibiotics can have (so liver toxic that significant number of patients can't continue them and I already had liver disease before I started treatment), as well as my repeated statements (and also private ones) that I couldn't even eat without urinating out of my ass (even before I started the antibiotics and I rushed the treatment because my health was failing so precipitously and acutely on return from Singapore). I told you in private as well repeated it in public that my cognitive state is highly diminished. Although I am a beast of a fighter in terms of managing to do athletics even while I am so ill that you admitted to me you can't do while healthy, the fact is I've probably been fighting active, disseminated Tuberculosis for several years! Years! My body is really messed up and curing this is a major risk.

Of course I didn't read all of your post, nor read any of it with a fine tooth comb. I told you I don't have enough energy. I responded to few small portions that I read. I may become energized for some moments I am not (as I am now) by being provoked, but the vast majority of the time I am not in good condition right now. I did have some burst of mild energy a few days ago and perhaps I get a few hours every other day or so, where I feel mostly awake.

I am not (as I am now)

I am making numerous errors like that that I have to correct when I reread two and three times, because that is the state of my cognition right now. My brain is semi-conscious, and I hear in my head not what I am typing.

Please note the edit:

(Note further upthread I stated I thought you were regurgitating lies, but that doesn't mean I think you are consciously lying, but rather I that I thought you were deluded by ideology. But in the recent post I am trying to move away from personalization of this issue.)

To reiterate, I sometimes or often find religious and leftist (social activist) zealots to be demeaning with a superior holier than thou attitude, and thus I tend to feel I should react strongly as well, but as I said, I am trying to back off from such personalization. I realize by allowing myself to feel provoked, I am probably interfering with my own rationality (realize that when this discussion started, I was fighting for my life healthwise as I was in a rapidly deteriorating health episode and was afraid I was going to be admitted to ER again thus I was in a fighting mode and in an agggresively defensive posture with raised cortisol levels, etc). Also I don't want to insinuate you are a zealot. As I said earlier, I am lacking an appropriate word to use in your case, and besides I don't want to be judging or analyzing you at all. I'd rather we just talk about facts.


Edit: as I said I am happy for you that you have such a great wife who is a match for you. And also congrats on 4 offspring. Forgot to make it clear that I am happy for your successes.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
February 05, 2017, 01:00:23 PM
Where in the prior post did I state I thought you are liar?

Here you go:

I dislike personal anecdotes but I will use one here to demonstrate a point. I know for a fact your theses is wrong. I know it is wrong because I am married to a virtuous, beautiful, smart, faithful female. She is highly educated and has willingly chosen not to work and sacrifice her career goals to raise our four young children.

I don't think you have reached 3 - 4 children yet either, but anyway...


My wife and I have been blessed with four beautiful and healthy children.  Smiley
That fact is utterly irrelevant to our conversation.

You mentioned above that you feel unwell and delirious from your medications. Honestly, I think your health is impairing your ability to carry on this conversation in a coherent manner. Perhaps you were not intending to imply that I am a liar? In my opinion your writing and overall cognition has been a pale shadow of what it usually is.

I am going to check out of this conversation for now and suggest you do as well. When you recover and feel you are back to your usual lucidity please send me a PM  I am happy to continue it at a later date.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 05, 2017, 11:30:21 AM
Translation:
...
I think you are a liar.

Where in the prior post did I state I thought you are liar? As far as I remember, you have told me you have 2 children (I wasn't going to mention that but you have quoted my 3 - 4 children statement and claimed I am claiming you are a liar).

(Note further upthread I stated I thought you were regurgitating lies, but that doesn't mean I think you are consciously lying, but rather I that I thought you were deluded by ideology. But in the recent post I am trying to move away from personalization of this issue.)

The 3 - 4 children is taken from your statement that orthodox Jews are averaging 4.5 children and also my rough, quick guessestimate of what is necessary to stay above replacement rate.

It seems to me you are trying so hard to characterize me as an unethical person, so you can take the holier than thou stance in your mind. This is typical of religious people. They think they are superior. I indeed tried to depersonalize while respectfully addressing the points you made. How did you invent this liar allegation in your mind ostensibly in order to support your ethical superiority? Where in what in my prior post is an objective evidence that I was alleging you are a liar?

As I wrote in my prior post, when we debate core life philosophies and ideology, it becomes very stressful. Who wants to question their own life plan after already making a huge investment in it that can't be changed analogous to the inertia of the Titanic. I tried in my prior post. And this is your reaction. So please stop trying to frame the debate as if you are the victim. The stress is mutual. As well, I am under acute health (and as a result also financial!) stress at this time.

iamnotback I honestly feel I have made my case. Everything I have said up-thread is true you can choose to believe it or not at your discretion.

What have you stated that you think is true which you think refutes my claim that putting the woman's hindbrain a par with the men's obligation to lead destroys the society with social activism?

Where have you refuted that fact that you claimed that men are unable to think for themselves and that only God can tell us what is moral and ethical?

Btw, since man invented God, then it is ludicrous to claim that God can tell men which morals and ethics are absolutely true:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9f0XU_S78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orFKj0coLXA


And that God is a creation of man is not disproven by this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pwp8DtPjCQ

(As I wrote before, I will be replying on the role of religion throughout history, but I've told you, I do not have a lot of energy, so I will get to it when I am able to. I had already written in our discussion that religion is for the weak men, and thus is a way that weak mean enslave themselves, i.e. are unable to think for themselves, because they are incapable of knowing and acting on the truth of how to organize their own cultural evolution. The message of Jesus ((which I claim is an invention of smart men)) is that men should relegate their own selfish goals for the benefit of humanity and any successful cultural evolution will require some amount of selflessness combined with some amount of competition. It is true that when the weak men fall away from religion to hedonism, then society collapses. It is also true in history that torture and war can be justified by religion, so it isn't purely working as an instrument of successful cultural evolutionary superiority but rather just appears to be a natural aspect of weak men. And even within religion, weak men are not following the teaching of religion, because they idolize women and give them suffrage when the Bible and Koran clearly state not to do that! I had stated upthread that my message is intended for strong men.)

I hope you get well soon.

Thank you. I hope so too. I am running out of time.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
February 05, 2017, 12:53:17 AM
CoinCube, I propose we take a step back and depersonalize our discussion
...
how about we step back from the ledge of personalization and try to see if we can debate with more rationality and objectivity.
...
I don't think you have reached 3 - 4 children yet either, but anyway I proposed to depersonalize this discussion.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Translation:

Lets depersonalize our discussion,

Lets debate with more rationality and objectivity.

I think you are a liar.

But lets depersonalize the discussion.


 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

iamnotback I honestly feel I have made my case. Everything I have said up-thread is true you can choose to believe it or not at your discretion.

P.S. I am on very strong 4-drugs anti-tuberculosis meds and I am basically so exhausted that I can only sleep continuously (about 20 hours a day) and eat. So I am in sort of state of near delirium, so apologies but the quality of my cognitive state (and thus prose) is highly diminished at the moment. I am posting on this topic because I think it is perhaps the most important thing I can possibly do with the limited moments I have awake. And because I don't have enough energy to do any real work (such as programming).

I hope you get well soon.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 04, 2017, 09:17:39 PM
CoinCube, I propose we take a step back and depersonalize our discussion. I think what set me off is combination of factors including but not limited to:

1. Your statement that man can't know what is moral without a God, thus implying a holier than thou attitude (and that men can't think for themselves) about those who don't agree. And this combined with what I perceived to be personal judging, not all of it stated rather just a perception (and not all of our discussion being public but I am not insinuating you said anything to me in private that was obnoxious or demeaning). I don't want to try to explain this perception as it was a confluence of discussion where I perceive your allegiance to certain things (such as medical institutions) as absolute which I perceive to he holier than thou pedestals.

Personally I think it is much more meaningful when someone is empathetic to me not because God told him to do so, but because it in his own heart and mind. The God people always carry this holier than thou righteous, moral baggage which they can dump over our head at any time. And I have pointed out that it often doesn't correctly identify good from evil, given my stance that anything which does not further my cultural group evolutionary strategy is evil. But whereas the Bible is very clear that women should not have suffrage, yet then some religions ignore that wisdom so they are evil.

2. That this discussion has been ongoing while I have been in the midst of a very horrible nausea and in general delirious (nearly hallucinating) and generally not feeling well, because I been in the first two weeks of very toxic 4 drug TB therapy and also I was fighting some kind of salmonella poisoning (or whatever that was?) simultaneously.

3. Generally how everyone including yourself uses derogatory, demeaning terminology when referring to people with ideologies you disagree with. For example, you have said JAD is primitive. Excuse me, primitive would not be respecting women in a civilized society, it would dragging them around by their hair Neanderthal style.

4. In general how men who believe in women's equality feel very disgusted about men who ponder whether women should not be voting. The judging is palatable even when you aren't writing or speaking, just the reverberations of the word "primitive" is more than enough for me to know how you feel about our stance. It is quite demeaning to know that the other side thinks we are Neanderthals.


Btw, you playing the role of the victim begins to mimic the tactics of Marxists, so it is not becoming. And again I consider moralizing to be a weapon of mass destruction and also personally demeaning holier than thou judging, thus I could also play the role of the victim but I instead went on the offensive. Nevertheless how about we step back from the ledge of personalization and try to see if we can debate with more rationality and objectivity.

As for your wife, I have no reason to doubt that she is a great match for you (and no reason for me to not be happy that you have her), but my point is about the widescale effects of idolizing women in ways where we as men usurp our own natural obligation to lead. Most men can not find a highly educated wife who will stay home, bear, and raise 3 - 4 children. You have the advantage of having two degrees and being a doctor, so given the culture your wife originates from I think it is very likely she would subjugate herself in honor of her pride for her husband's very high status, because you know in her culture-of-origin status is very important. But how many men will be in that position (and what if they want a Caucasian woman who isn't impressed by status). I don't think you have reached 3 - 4 children yet either, but anyway I proposed to depersonalize this discussion. Because there are widescale impacts of putting the female hindbrain at par with the male when it comes to leading the society. And that is what suffrage for women does. And if we educate females too highly, then all sorts of bad things happen, including the fertility rate dropping below the replacement rate (and that is not including the social activism and Marxist education that most people get now at educational institutions). You claim this is not the case for orthodox Judaism, but you've also admitted that the Jews are very prone to fall out of orthodoxy and into social leftism and I assert this is because of overly educated women raising little boys and polluting their minds. Women are naturally drawn to social causes (even that orthodox woman's perspective I cited upthread has her mentioning doing work on social causes). It is their nature. And they do not appreciate economics. For them money and strategy are never more important than the babies and the social causes. So that is why they should not be voting. Otherwise we end up with social activism clusterfucks.

You apparently love your wife and view her as an objective, virtuous woman. But I mean in terms of cultural evolutionary strategy, I don't think a woman is capable of subjugating her priority set so she can become a man and have the man's priority set. So I am using virtuous in that context. A woman can be virtuous for nurturing.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 04, 2017, 11:16:52 AM
I do believe men need to lead. I believe we need to lead our families to God. Men need to teach our sons and daughters morals and proper behavior. We need to teach them about responsibility and duty. We need to teach them about honor, compassion and self-respect. We also need and to do what we can to build and support a culture the sustains such values.

If a religion tells you not to think for yourself then you have chosen the wrong religion. Your argument against religion are indeed a valid complaint against some religions but not all. In the words of Kurt Godel.

Quote from: Kurt Gödel
Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not.

You can't possibly teach men to be objective if you are inject the unfalsifiable God nonsense into the equation. And you can't possibly be objective about morals (ethics) and competitive cultural evolution if you are trying to be so idealistic that you idolize women (which the 10 Commandments tells you not to do and Genesis tells you Eve couldn't be trusted and woman is only a rib of a man!) and fairytales that don't exist.

Gödel was the guy who tried to prove God exists, but then was so ashamed of it he never published his attempt. So apparently he was suffering from some idealistic delusion as well. At least he apparently had some awareness of his insanity.

I mean you can claim that you are teaching your offspring something, just as your parents sent you to be educated. But that doesn't guarantee you aren't just spreading more idealistic delusion.

(I will follow up on Bruce Charlton's writings later)


sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
February 04, 2017, 10:59:52 AM
I have to admit this made me laugh a little.

In this discussion so far I have been accused of:

1) regurgitating lies
2) having a fetish
3) being closer to female than male
4) having low testosterone
5) being closed-minded
6) being an idealist nutcase
7) insanity

That is somewhat accurate and it is humbling (humiliating?) to read that.

I would say the #1 and #6 are factual, but let's replace "nutcase" with "zealot" but even I am not comfortable with that word. I see you as suffering a delusion of idealism. I don't know what word to use to describe those who are destroying this world by elevating women's hindbrain to equality with the men who need to lead. It think is a bat shit dumb crazy form of idealism (because of the impacts I think it has). The more I think about and the more I test this concept in terms of observing various things over the past days (I've been busy doing some research on this concept in the real world the past days), then more convinced it is the truth.

As for #2, you are framing everything in terms of religion and there is not sufficient objective reason to conclude that religion is the causal correlated factor or even the solution for humanity, rather a preference to frame it from that perspective. Whereas, religion has not worked. So what word to use to describe someone who wants to judge others (moralizing and even arbitrary morals which are evil) in terms of some arbitrary preference?

As for #3 and #4, I agree that I do not know if those correlate with your ideology. I've seen a lot of gay or effeminate men in these recent feminism marches and Trump protests. I've seen very masculine men in the pro-Trump side.

As for #7, I already stated that I don't see you as a person who is literally insane, but that I think the ideology you are professing is insanity (it should be clear that I think a majority of the people are suffering from this delusion of idealism). There is a distinction, and I put a lot of effort into making that distinction, so I am disappointed that you claiming I am saying you are insane.

As for #5, I presume you've been sticking to more or less one point of view your entire life, which is ostensibly the one you were programmed to have by your consistent educational environment from kindergarten to well into adulthood (sorry not trying to be demeaning but is it not a factual statement?). I have been changing and learning many different times. So which of us is more open minded? You've been on one set indoctrination plan since formative years. I have been out there in the real world learning by real world experience.
Pages:
Jump to: