Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bowser, Nov 13, 2015.
Hmmm....why can't you get a girlfriend or sex no matter what you ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
First of all, it might be the way you are looking at things, your perspective. sure, life may not be so good or how we would like it but that's the way for many people. one thing you could realize is you are not alone in that.
second, people or society is brought up with lots of carrots and advertisements and social programming to tell us what we are supposed to have or do as well as entitled to. no one is entitled to have a man/woman or relationship. many people don't have relationships or have bad ones so, again, you are not alone there either. some people choose to be single because they don't want the hassle and trouble, did you know that? be careful what you wish for because most relationships are difficult or become difficult.
thirdly, it's a lie you can't get sex. anyone can. there are plenty of sites on the internet where people are looking for just sex and there are plenty of average to ugly people (males especially) that use such sites. also, you can pay for sex. there are even attractive men who pay for sex because either they are single and don't have a relationship or don't want the responsiblity of one or some are just cheaters such as boyfriends or husbands. so if very attractive men pay for sex also and not have what you would call real romantic relationships (just fantasy), then what makes you think you deserve a better situation?
i've noticed that many males have such a deeply ingrained sense of blind entitlement, they will bump up against just random, inappropriate people almost expecting others to meet their wants/needs and when they are rebuffed or rejected, they can't believe it. but i also know they do this on purpose because they really don't care, they are trying to get something for nothing and with the least amount of effort or have a predatorial/egoistic motive, even unconscious, where looking for mutually beneficial, open-handed and honest rapport is too healthy for them. in short, they are idiots and scum and may have a rapist (i want to get over on someone or take advantage) gene, unbeknownst to them.
So? jerk off, problem fixed.
Why do you need affection or positive response from women, or anyone for that matter? ... get a dog, problem fixed.
All of this is because you think others can fix you, if only you had others, no sir, you can fix yourself, you need no one.
Oh so you don't have money for prostitutes, because I would say that is a solution as well.
Well... aaah... don't drop the soap.
Wait what did you do with all the money you did not pay taxes on???
There is no point, no meaning, other than what you make for your self. And yes life is pain.
Very empathic there, ElectricFetus. I'm sure pluto2 felt a lot better after your response.
Empathy does not fix problems, be solution orientated. He said "I can't get a girlfriend or sex no matter what I do." I presented solutions not a "there there someone is out there waiting for you, [pat pat pat]"
A man said to the Buddha, “I want Happiness.”
Buddha said, first remove “I”, that’s ego,
then remove “want”, that’s desire.
See now you are left with only Happiness.
Anyways this reminds me of some good old misogyny:
You answered a different question.
If we call that a "solution", we might as well note yet another erasure of women.
And what question would that be? and what solution did I suggest? I suggested a lot of solutions there.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to trust him.
Okay, so here's the deal: I will believe you are this incompetent because you want me to, but we're going to hold to that.
In order to take you seriously, we must pretend you are unaware of your own posts:
Well, there we go, then.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wait so are you saying male masturbation is "yet another erasure of women"?
In present context, it is exactly that... you are attempting to distill the desire for companionship and intimate relation down to "Well, you can get the same thing from your own hand, so why do you need a woman?"
If you wish to claim it isn't an attempt at erasure, then it is certainly, at the very least, an attempt at dismissal.
If I'm not clicking "like" it's a matter of stubborn pride. Wouldn't that be like saying, "Congratulations! you saw the obvious!" in a context one can reasonably argue should not require you to actually come out and say it.
It's something I've never quite understood in all my time at discussion boards; there comes a point at which I need to identify and accommodate undeclared cognitive disruption, or else achieve some mysterious insight to the strange relationship between conceptual simplicity and not so much an attention deficit as an anti-span.
They are familiar elements, scorching simplistics and seemingly determined unawareness of one's own doing.
Consider how extraordinary it seems:
• "... you are attempting to distill the desire for companionship and intimate relation down to "Well, you can get the same thing from your own hand, so why do you need a woman?"
Yes, you really said that; and yes, you really did have an occasion to make such a simple point as to recite the obvious.
But if we look at EF's posture—
—it would seem he does not know the content of his own posts and is incapable of reading them. Furthermore, if you note the post he responds to↑, a quote of EF notes him actually reciting the issue:
The nickel's worth of question that remains has something to do with a sarcastic distinction 'twixt sinister and stupid; some days it's hard to tell the difference. That is, can he really not follow the discussion? Okay, why not? For instance, is he ESL/ELL? That would explain a few occasions when he just doesn't seem to know what words mean, but that would also be really, really new information that would seem to contradict his posting history at Sciforums. Is he doing this deliberately? Okay, sure, but we arrive, then, at another intersection, and this one is more realistic; rather than sinister or stupid, we might simply ask if this is one of those things that is willful or simply beyond his control. And if this is beyond his control, are we looking at a cognitive spectrum, or an antisocial personality? Furthermore, somewhere around here in the paragraph is where I'm supposed to make some manner of point about how it would probably be easier if his posts could show some contiguity of awareness.
Because such as it is, not knowing what is in his own posts↗ is neither unheard of in his history nor especially inconvenient to his supremacism. Like the idea that he never opened a thread about identity politics↗ in order to denounce rejection of misogyny. Or identified himself as an Appeaser↗ while refusing to answer the issue.
Nor is erasure of women unsual; I noted in April↗ a post erasing women↗.
But the thing is that neither does the idea that this really is a troll job absolutely indict; I might consider two applications of incompetence↑ by which one requires the other but the other does not require the one. That is to say, even if sinister, it's a pretty stupid outcome, as such endeavors tend to be.
And as it happens, from time to time, there comes a point when what they really want is for people to give them a whole bunch of attention so that they can make a self-gratifying demonstration of pretending to ignore the effort. Seriously, what happens next? He complains of a straw man? Okay, we can go through and detail the last few years of his posting on generally related subjects, like his de facto exclusion of women from humanity in an abortion discussion, or equality as anti-egalitarian before that. And we can go through the most recent threads, including this one. And we can pile up the quotes, and he will be gratified for the attention we give him before ignoring the evidence.
The point is to get people to waste their time giving him attention.
Aye, and fair enough - however, there are some on the forums that seem to miss such pretense (even as unsubtle as it is in this case) - figured that spelling it out would be advantageous for those folks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then again, there are also those who give the illusion of having missed it so they can voice their support without labeling themselves "racist" or "misogynist" or whatever the topic may be. Having it called out this bluntly will (at least for those here in good faith) remove that ability - either they decry it, or they embrace it.
I'll have to work on my expressions of sympathy; it's more a joke that I feel stupid clicking "like" for an effort you should not have to undertake.
There comes a point where Ockham almost demands this interpretation because malice seems the simpler explanation. But there really is a lot of it around the internet in general, and some days it seems like we distill it here at Sciforums.
After all, what is reasonable accommodation for seemingly compulsive behavior striving toward communal futility? And at what point, in the question of sinister or incompetent is the difference merely academic compared to the effect?
During my youth, the general political tenor I recall included some difficult arguments about crime and punishment, and a question of vendetta or justice. As a caricature, we might point out that some of it had to do with the Miranda decision; even fifteen to twenty years later, conservatives convicted suspects without trial by denouncing Miranda rights as caring more about criminals than victims. More relevant to us than that particular point of dispute, though, was a disdain for social sciences; notice the most respectable of psychologists and psychiatrists, among law-and-order plank conservatives, was the so-called "Dr. Death", who custom-wrote political documents for prosecutors advocating the death penalty for accused murderers. The part I'm thinking of has to do with questions of competency; indeed, we might invoke Atkins and Roper, two death penalty precedents by which the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed execution according to competence. There are two things to note, here, one of which is simply the difference between a question of justice to the one and pursuit of vendetta to the other. But those who remember the time will also remember words like "culpability" and the idea that people "get off scot-free". It was an indictment against political liberalism, social sciences, and theses that have developed into useful, affirmative policing practices reducing diverse manners of harm.
The thing about this whole mythopoesis is that its contemporary heritage still cannot seem to distinguish the functional differences between culpability and danger. Quite simply, if we cannot help ourselves, certes there is mitigation of culpability, but that says nothing about the danger we present. Which is why people have long pretended psychiatric institutionalization is some manner of vacation. In crime and punishment, human rights and general human decency were too complicated and therefore deemed negotiable if not outright expendable. It remains a common juxtaposition whereby, approximately, the liberal outlook asserts to enforce the constitution while the conservative argument seeks any excuse to exclude the case, person, or circumstance from constitutional purview.
(Why does anyone think officers need not present evidence in order to attain certain convictions? These are, after all, minor offenses with mere monetary penalties—[insert wisecrack about debtor's prison here]—but even in the case of prisonable offenses there are some days it's just asking too much for law enforcement to abide by its own processes, attend the constitution, or, you know, collect evidence; then again, there's a reason states will seek alternative adjudication of DUIs that compel people to spend a lot of money on interests public and selected private, to the tune that people occasionally wonder how the driver who is finally going up for manslaughter managed to retain license access through thirteen priors. At the end of the day, sloth and procedural incompetence on the part of law enforcement—"It's too hard! It's too complicated!"—are sufficient excuses to exclude a case, person, or circumstance from constitutional purview.)
It's not an easy conundrum to answer, even in a considerably less deathly context such as an internet discussion board.
To wit, to what degree does it matter if our neighbor's malice achieves a magnitude of dysfunction and disruption sufficient to indicate disorder or not if the question is assessing the damage. A hole in the wall is no more or less expensive, nor harder or easier, to repair simply because the person who put it there was or not in conscious cognitive control of their function when causing the damage.
This is an aspect many have overlooked; reduced culpability for incompetence does not require reduced damage assessment or danger potential. Nor does reduced culpability for incompetence mean any given disruption is any less disruptive.
He said he can't get any, no matter what he does, so what is your solution? Do you tell a paraplegic to just stand up and walk?
I would think it is a "erasure" of women to proclaim their only value is to provide companionship and intimate relations to men. Tell me if a women said she can't get a good man , what is your proposed solution? "You don't need no man!" is that an erasure of men? I would instead think of it as liberation of a individual from having to shackle themselves with codependency.
As to Tiassa, by all means ignore me, none the less I will remind you every fucking day who is president and how you help make him president.
Say something worthwhile, for once.
(I mean, shit, really, how fucking hard can it be?)
I have been: why did you not vote for Bernie?
See "Bernie Sanders the alternative to Hillary C." #215-219↗.
(You've been referred↗ to those posts↗ before; maybe you could have bothered to make sense back then, or does that make your identity politic sad?)
Stop trying to change the subject.
I will say what I said then: "Nope you provide no answer just long winded sophistry" and "and around and around we go, none the less we can't escape this hell you put us in with president trump."
Back on the subject yes: how about we worry about the big problems instead of degrees of misogyny, you know like not electing a pussy garbing pig as president, instead of trying to point at anyone and everyone as misogynists.
welp i'm no expert but i can definitely say its not acting like an asshole for the sake of one's one amusement and self-aggrandizement. lets face your acting like an dick for what? no really for what. your literally kicking a man down for what. To prove your an asshole? cause you already proved that cupcake a long time ago. to make your self feel better? for fucks sake a race to the bottom is one everybody loses. people like you are the reason people kill them selves or go shooting rampages. seriously where the fuck do you get off mocking someone's pain? and before you you bitch you were trying to help with your "solutions" no you weren't. your just a fucking bully you needs to attack others to find some sort of value in your sad worthless meaningless life. the day you finally shed your mortal coil the world shall have a darkness lifted from it and become a warmer happier place. i'd tell you you should be ashamed but you have no shame you don't care who you hurt you pathetic man child. seriously what the ever living fuck is wrong with you. why are you so hell bent on making the world a worse place.
Not sure why you wanted to do that; I guess you have your reasons.
But back to the topic at hand. Do you really think being as big an asshole as you can be helps anyone? If the poster you replied to does kill himself (which he seems to be suggesting is a possibility) will you be proud of your contribution towards that? Or will you just blame Tiassa for it?
Separate names with a comma.