Single people complaining
ThePuttKing
complaining about being single. I know both of them. Both have just
seperated from long time partners and have been single for only a few
months. Yet they complain about it !
They want to be like me, single forever. Do I complain about it ? No !
Some people just make me laugh !
Sicklee
You can live a fulfilling life without a finding a girlfriend, you
know.
Get yourself a life, and when you're a bit more chilled and happy with
yourself, you'll stand a much better chance at finding a girl.
Especially as it'll make you get out and about meeting different
people. It's a game of percentages.
Don't sit around waiting for some lass to throw herself at you, cos
you know it's not going to happen.
Make it happen.
ThePuttKing
I'm quite happy with my life at the moment.
What I meant with my post was people who are single for five minutes
start complaining about it. I don't complain to anybody.
Sicklee
The lady doth protest too much.
ThePuttKing
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whatever !
Bernd Jendrissek
> What I meant with my post was people who are single for five minutes
> start complaining about it. I don't complain to anybody.
What they're really doing is broadcasting their high social value.
What they're subcommunicating is that they're so desireable, that, to
them, five minutes is a very long time to be single, that's it's
highly unusual for them to be single that long. If they're female
they're probably fishing for you to make a pass at them.
ThePuttKing
I know other people think differently to me. These people can't
believe they are single. In their eyes they should be swapped with
offers for dates. I on the other hand, think I have no chance
whatsoever of getting a date.
You mentioned women fishing for dates. I used to believe that. I
remember years ago this woman was always talking about been single in
front of me. She complained that they were no decent men about. She
made out she would accept a date from anybody. Of course I ended up
asking her out (in a very bold way as well because I seemed to have
confidence then !) She said 'no' and then told the Manager about it.
Lucky for me he saw the funny side and didn't do anything.
Sicklee
What kind of fruit loop cries to their manager because someone asked
them out?
I wouldn't one sad attention-seeking bitch discourage you from asking
other women out.
ThePuttKing
>
> - Show quoted text -
That was years ago. I think the reason she gave was 'she felt the
Manager needed to know'.
I just think I have serious self worth problems. A good example is
what happened a few minutes ago. I have this female friend and we go
to the cinema a few times a year. There is a film on now I wouldn't
mind seeing (2012) so I went to see her last Friday after work. I
actually bumped into her on the way there walking her dog. So I tell
her about the film and she says 'it looks good' etc. She we chat about
this and that. We agree a 'date' on Wednesday night. A few days later
I found out Hull City are playing on Wednesday so I can't make it. I
have just rang her to tell her.
It went like this:
ME Hi, I can't make Wednesday night because Hull City are playing. Do
you want to go on another night ?
HER, Well I work Thursday, what time do you finish Tuesday ?
ME , 7pm
HER, Oh well we'll go then, I'll find out the time and give you a
bell.
We said goodbye to each other.
After I put the phone down I felt a bit sick in the stomach. I had the
impression she isn't going to bother to ring. But when you look at it
she couldn't have said anything else. It's me taking a negative view
on it. I've always felt like this yet she has never let me down. And
it's not like I love her or anything. This is just a simple cinema
visit, nothing heavy. I think this shows the type of person I am and
why it's unlikely I will end up with anyone !
Sicklee
You're just insecure. It's perfectly normal to feel like that.
I certainly wouldn't over-analyse it and punish yourself for it.
Saying things like 'it's unlikely I will end up with anyone' is coming
from the faulty reasoning that you fall back on whenever you think
your friend doesn't want to see you.
People like you and me can't trust our instincts. We want to cross the
street, but see cars when everyone else - normal people - sees an
empty road.
Apologies if I'm coming across as a little preachy.
ThePuttKing
>
> - Show quoted text -
No need to apologise. I think I understand what you mean. I guess
other 'normal' people just ring people up and arrange dates etc as
easy as anything. I think if I had 10 female friends then it wouldn't
be a big deal if one started acting a little cold with me. I must
admit this friendship with this woman does mean alot to me. It's
because of all the crap I've been through with women / friends. One
interesting point is I always feel like this before a cinema visit and
in the end we always go and have a good time !
ThePuttKing
>
> - Show quoted text -
She's not got in touch yet so it doesn't look good. I hate to be
pushy, I asked her if she wanted to go and I will leave it at that.
I'm not going to ring her. Unless she gets in touch while I'm at work
then it's not going to happen. Then I guess I will have to go back to
watching films by myself in afternoons like I used to.
ThePuttKing
>
> - Show quoted text -
We didn't go. I didn't think we would. I'm very surprized about what
happened though. When I got to work there was a note pinned up in the
canteen with my name on it. It was from her saying she couldn't make
it saying the times were either too early or too late. I agree with
that bit but why she didn't ring me up and tell me this I don't know.
It all seems a bit strange. I think she may have passed the message on
to her Mother who comes in my shop every day. Because I wasn't in, her
Mother has probably written a message and someone has left it in the
canteen. It was embarrassing as well because a few people asked me 'if
I had got my note' - I don't really want other people to know my
business.
Why she couldn't pick up a phone and tell me I don't know ? Maybe she
didn't want to tell me face to face ? Maybe she thought I would ask
her if wanted to go another day ? And she doesn't want to go anymore.
So it looks like my only friend has gone.
August Pamplona
You might be overdramatizing this, don't you think?
August Pamplona
--
If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
- Stephen Colbert
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
ThePuttKing
Well not really. I haven't got any friends that I socialize with. She
was the only one.
I've known her and gone to cinema with her for 8 years. I can't see us
going again. She's the only female friend I've ever had. And it
doesn't look like she wants to be friends after this. A phone call
isn't hard to make.
I'm just a little sad about it, nothing dramatic !
>
> August Pamplona
> --
> If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
> method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
> - Stephen Colbert
>
> a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
> Proud member of the reality-based community.
>
> The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
> individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
> reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
> In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
>
> To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
> make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.- Hide quoted text -
August Pamplona
> On 24 Nov, 21:52, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ThePuttKing wrote:
[snip]
>>> Why she couldn't pick up a phone and tell me I don't know ? Maybe she
>>> didn't want to tell me face to face ? Maybe she thought I would ask
>>> her if wanted to go another day ? And she doesn't want to go anymore.
>>> So it looks like my only friend has gone.
>> You might be overdramatizing this, don't you think?
>
> Well not really. I haven't got any friends that I socialize with. She
> was the only one.
> I've known her and gone to cinema with her for 8 years. I can't see us
> going again. She's the only female friend I've ever had. And it
> doesn't look like she wants to be friends after this. A phone call
> isn't hard to make.
After 8 years, there's one little thing and you conclude that,
obviously, she wants nothing to do with you? You really don't see a
possible flaw with that scenario? Again, I think that you really need to
seriously consider that you may be overdramatizing. To quote Robert
Anton Wilson (and to, once again, sound a lot more like Michaela than I
am comfortable with*), what the thinker thinks the prover proves.
August Pamplona
* I seem to have a habit of doing that
ThePuttKing
> ThePuttKing wrote:
> > On 24 Nov, 21:52, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> ThePuttKing wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>> Why she couldn't pick up a phone and tell me I don't know ? Maybe she
> >>> didn't want to tell me face to face ? Maybe she thought I would ask
> >>> her if wanted to go another day ? And she doesn't want to go anymore.
> >>> So it looks like my only friend has gone.
> >> You might be overdramatizing this, don't you think?
>
> > Well not really. I haven't got any friends that I socialize with. She
> > was the only one.
> > I've known her and gone to cinema with her for 8 years. I can't see us
> > going again. She's the only female friend I've ever had. And it
> > doesn't look like she wants to be friends after this. A phone call
> > isn't hard to make.
>
> After 8 years, there's one little thing and you conclude that,
> obviously, she wants nothing to do with you? You really don't see a
> possible flaw with that scenario? Again, I think that you really need to
> seriously consider that you may be overdramatizing. To quote Robert
> Anton Wilson (and to, once again, sound a lot more like Michaela than I
> am comfortable with*), what the thinker thinks the prover proves.
>
Yes you was right. I got the whole story today from her Mother. My
friend was at work and passed a message onto her Mother to tell me she
couldn't make the cinema. Her Mother came into my shop but I wasn't
there so she told a member of staff to pass it on. The member of staff
wrote it down so she would remember. Hence the note in the canteen. My
friends Mother told me she was concerned that I wouldn't get the
message and she would ring me up sometime. Nothing sinister at all.
The member of staff told me to get a mobile. She also said people at
work may have read the message and presumed me and my friend were
having an affair. She said it will spread all around the shop. I told
this woman it was nothing like that. She understood but said others
wouldn't.
So you were right and I was wrong. An overraction again ! (It's not
the first time !)
Sicklee
So, to summarise:
She left you a note because you're living in the dark ages and have no
mobile
She does want to see you
Other people think you're capable of seducing married women.
The only person who thinks you'll be alone forever is you, clearly.
ThePuttKing
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've never looked at it like that before !
I guess I must have some issues. I mean it's not everybody else that
is the problem but me !
Michaela Mackenzie
On Nov 16, 2:02 pm, Bernd Jendrissek <bernd.jendris...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 15, 6:02 pm, ThePuttKing <theputtk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > What I meant with my post was people who are single for five minutes
> > start complaining about it. I don't complain to anybody.
>
> What they're really doing is broadcasting their high social value.
> What they're subcommunicating is that they're so desireable, that, to
Perhaps they just want what they can't have like the rest of us.
> them, five minutes is a very long time to be single, that's it's
> highly unusual for them to be single that long. If they're female
> they're probably fishing for you to make a pass at them.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
I realise stuff has happened since this, but I don't know what the
problem is.
You made plans and then realised you wanted to do something else and
instead
of wimping out you put yourself first and postponed the plans.
Good for you. That's what anyone with HSE (not that you can divide the
world
into people with and without HSE) would want to do faced with the same
options.
Well done!
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
> She's not got in touch yet so it doesn't look good. I hate to be
> pushy, I asked her if she wanted to go and I will leave it at that.
> I'm not going to ring her. Unless she gets in touch while I'm at work
> then it's not going to happen. Then I guess I will have to go back to
> watching films by myself in afternoons like I used to.
You handled this beautifully. Stop beating yourself up.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
Your last few posts remind me of something I used to go through as a
kid (I
still do it nowadays, but the first time is more stand-outy if you
mean what
I know). I would invite my friend to sleep over and then her mom would
come
up with an excuse.
So each time after a while when my friend went to ask her mom if she
could
sleep over, I would think up all the ways her mom would find a way to
stop her
from sleeping over. I would tick them off on my fingers until I was
sure she
couldn't possibly come up with any new excuses, but she always had a
new one.
I don't suppose my point is clear, but it meant something to me.
- Michaela
Michaela Mackenzie
I guess you could put it like that, but I'd rather say you don't value
the notion
of having a rship much.
- Michaela
August Pamplona
[snip]
> I realise stuff has happened since this, but I don't know what the
> problem is.
> You made plans and then realised you wanted to do something else and
> instead
> of wimping out you put yourself first and postponed the plans.
>
> Good for you. That's what anyone with HSE (not that you can divide the
> world
> into people with and without HSE) would want to do faced with the same
> options.
>
> Well done!
>
> - Michaela
I hate TLA's!
August Pamplona
August Pamplona
> On 25 Nov, 00:28, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ThePuttKing wrote:
>>> On 24 Nov, 21:52, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ThePuttKing wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>> Why she couldn't pick up a phone and tell me I don't know ? Maybe she
>>>>> didn't want to tell me face to face ? Maybe she thought I would ask
>>>>> her if wanted to go another day ? And she doesn't want to go anymore.
>>>>> So it looks like my only friend has gone.
>>>> You might be overdramatizing this, don't you think?
>>> Well not really. I haven't got any friends that I socialize with. She
>>> was the only one.
>>> I've known her and gone to cinema with her for 8 years. I can't see us
>>> going again. She's the only female friend I've ever had. And it
>>> doesn't look like she wants to be friends after this. A phone call
>>> isn't hard to make.
>> After 8 years, there's one little thing and you conclude that,
>> obviously, she wants nothing to do with you? You really don't see a
>> possible flaw with that scenario? Again, I think that you really need to
>> seriously consider that you may be overdramatizing. To quote Robert
>> Anton Wilson (and to, once again, sound a lot more like Michaela than I
>> am comfortable with*), what the thinker thinks the prover proves.
[snip]
> So you were right and I was wrong. An overraction again ! (It's not
> the first time !)
>
>> August Pamplona
It's not surprising that it turned out fine. I mean, it's been
8 years and it's not the first time you had doubts and it's been fine
before. The problem is that if you don't lighten up a little and
continue this habit of catastrophizing, your confirmation bias may
eventually unnecessarily make things go south for you. That is, if you
look for evidence of something hard enough (such as your friend not
wanting to have anything to do with you), you will eventually find it
(even if it isn't really there). That's what I meant with the RAW quote.
In real life, though, information also flows from you to others so if
you end up with such a scenario other people will sense that there's
something wrong and react accordingly creating a positive feedback loop
which makes it even worse than just a little confirmation bias. This is
wonderful fodder for sitcoms but in real life it simply sucks.
I think that was almost as clear as a Michaela post. Sorry.
August Pamplona
ThePuttKing
The problem I have is she is a busy woman who has a job, husband and 2
kids. I don't want to become a nusicence to her, ringing her up every
week. I always get in touch every 3 months or so. I think that is fine
and she always seems pleased to see me. But I don't want to leave it
too long so she thinks I don't care !
>
> I think that was almost as clear as a Michaela post. Sorry.
>
> August Pamplona
> --
> If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
> method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
> - Stephen Colbert
>
> a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
> Proud member of the reality-based community.
>
> The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
> individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
> reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
> In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
>
> To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
Bernd Jendrissek
> work may have read the message and presumed me and my friend were
> having an affair. She said it will spread all around the shop. I told
> this woman it was nothing like that. She understood but said others
> wouldn't.
I think you should subtly encourage people to continue thinking this,
even (especially!) if it isn't true.
ThePuttKing
Yes I did that today. This woman said, "if there gossiping about you,
David, they are leaving everybody else alone !" - I just said,
"everything they said is true", then I said, "only joking !"
ThePuttKing
Why did I handle it beautifully ?
It's a week later and she hasn't rung yet. I don't think she's pissed
off or anything but I'm probably way down the pecking order of the
things she thinks about. I guess she will get in touch eventually.
Michaela Mackenzie
> On 25 Nov, 19:31,MichaelaMackenzie
Delayed gratification is a worthy skill to work on.
Let's put it this way.
She's married.
Perhaps her hubby doesn't like going out at all or to movies or what-
have-you.
She's found you and you have been buds for years.
You're undemanding and when she needs someone to go to see a movie
with,
you're there.
The pair of you are using each other on one level.
But it works for you.
If you'd thrown a wobbly and said "But we made a date and you can't
let me
down now" chances are she would be scared off.
But as it is, you left it open and she.. well she still feels she has
a choice about
whether or not she wants to see you.
If you'd thrown a wobbly, she'd feel pressurised and that'd be more
likely to scare
her off.
Take my friend. We both have kids. She wants to get together a lot
more than puppy
or I want to get together.
One Friday evening she called and asked what we were up to. I said
puppy was kinda
being punished for one thing or another and she said 'Well call us to
get together this
weekend'.
I don't remember what I said, but I was non-commital. I knew puppy
didn't want to
get together with her kid just yet and neither did I.
The following Monday she sent me a message saying her kid had kept
badgering her
about when we coulda all gotten together and she had had to lie to him
and tell him
she couldn't reach me.
I felt trapped and told her so. She was the one who'd just assumed we
would get together
and I.. well I dunno if I've managed to explain anything with this
post.
I think the final thing I want to say is: Always, always have a back-
up plan. My friend
didn't have a back-up plan and life throws it at you in that way. If
you have a back-up
plan, you prolly won't need it and if you don't you probably will.
You did good. Take it as a compliment and find something to do and
before you know
it, she'll be on the phone or at your work asking you to do this that
or the next thing.
- Michaela
ThePuttKing
<michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 4:38 pm, ThePuttKing <theputtk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25 Nov, 19:31,MichaelaMackenzie
>
> > <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 24, 1:23 pm, ThePuttKing <theputtk...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > She's not got in touch yet so it doesn't look good. I hate to be
> > > > pushy, I asked her if she wanted to go and I will leave it at that.
> > > > I'm not going to ring her. Unless she gets in touch while I'm at work
> > > > then it's not going to happen. Then I guess I will have to go back to
> > > > watching films by myself in afternoons like I used to.
>
> > > You handled this beautifully. Stop beating yourself up.
>
> > > -Michaela
>
> > Why did I handle it beautifully ?
>
> > It's a week later and she hasn't rung yet. I don't think she's pissed
> > off or anything but I'm probably way down the pecking order of the
> > things she thinks about. I guess she will get in touch eventually.
>
> Delayed gratification is a worthy skill to work on.
>
> Let's put it this way.
> She's married.
> Perhaps her hubby doesn't like going out at all or to movies or what-
> have-you.
Her husband doesn't like the cinema. Before me, she used to go with a
relation of some kind. But he would never go to the films she wanted.
> She's found you and you have been buds for years.
> You're undemanding and when she needs someone to go to see a movie
> with,
> you're there.
True.
> The pair of you are using each other on one level.
> But it works for you.
> If you'd thrown a wobbly and said "But we made a date and you can't
> let me
> down now" chances are she would be scared off.
> But as it is, you left it open and she.. well she still feels she has
> a choice about
> whether or not she wants to see you.
> If you'd thrown a wobbly, she'd feel pressurised and that'd be more
> likely to scare
> her off.
Interesting !
I don't think I'm the type to complain like you mention. I am easy
going.
I ended up going to see the film Yesterday by myself. I had the day
off, so I went in the afternoon.
>
> You did good. Take it as a compliment and find something to do and
> before you know
> it, she'll be on the phone or at your work asking you to do this that
> or the next thing.
I hope so. I always enjoy her company.
>
> - Michaela- Hide quoted text -
ThePuttKing
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still not heard from her. And the film Avatar is coming soon. I really
want to see that and I have been looking forward to it all year.
I've bought a mobile in case she does get back in touch. Communication
will be easier between us. I see her Mother almost everyday at work.
She asked me today if I've seen her. I said 'no'. I told her I've just
bought a mobile and then her Mam said she could get me her daughter's
mobile number if I wanted. I said no, because I only wanted it if she
wanted me to have it. I know her Mam tells her everything I say. Once
I complained that I don't see her anymore and she was in the shop a
few hours later asking me how I was etc. Of course she never mentioned
what her mam had said but I could tell what had happened.
I guess I will have to patient. And make plans to see Avator by myself.
Michaela Mackenzie
I hope she doesn't find out you bought it mainly for this reason..
Communication
> will be easier between us. I see her Mother almost everyday at work.
> She asked me today if I've seen her. I said 'no'. I told her I've just
> bought a mobile and then her Mam said she could get me her daughter's
> mobile number if I wanted. I said no, because I only wanted it if she
> wanted me to have it. I know her Mam tells her everything I say. Once
> I complained that I don't see her anymore and she was in the shop a
> few hours later asking me how I was etc. Of course she never mentioned
> what her mam had said but I could tell what had happened.
>
> I guess I will have to patient. And make plans to see Avator by myself.
Exactly. Everything in its own time.
Did you mention to her mom that you'd like to see the movie (even if
her
mom doesn't catch the name of the movie, tell it to her) with her
daughter?
- Michaela
Sicklee
friends and those who have partners.
Sometimes it's hard to get people to want to go and see films you want
to see.
And there's a big stigma about going alone, which is kind of stupid
really.
If someone set up a website where people met up to go to the cinema
together, they'd make a fortune.
You could put down where you live, what times you'd go and what films
you'd want.
Then they'd pair you off with someone.
Michaela Mackenzie
> Loads of people don't get to go to the cinema; even those with tons of
> friends and those who have partners.
>
> Sometimes it's hard to get people to want to go and see films you want
> to see.
>
> And there's a big stigma about going alone, which is kind of stupid
> really.
Really? Glad I didn't know about that. Just think about the movies
I'da
missed all those years when I used to go every Saturday and Sunday
on my own.. I'd never have known that 'Evian' spelt backwards spells
'Naive' or had Breakfast with Mussolini, not to mention Groundhog Day
or... or... or... or... or...
I think my point is it's only a problem if you want to buy into it.
> If someone set up a website where people met up to go to the cinema
> together, they'd make a fortune.
Only I'm sure they'd find reasons not to go with one another...
> You could put down where you live, what times you'd go and what films
> you'd want.
>
> Then they'd pair you off with someone.
Ewe might make a fortune...
...or perhaps you wouldn't.
In the end, people are alone because they choose to be alone.
They make a series of choices that lead them to where they are.
I asked Mike a while ago why I was so different from my family
(or should I say my various families) and he said 'because that's
what you want to be: different'.
I didn't like that answer, but I have to live by the code I inflict on
everyone else and I had to admit to myself that I actually enjoy
my quirks more than I want to include the rest of the world...
- Michaela
nSCOURGE
<michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 11:12 pm, Sicklee <thisisr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Loads of people don't get to go to the cinema; even those with tons of
> > friends and those who have partners.
>
> > Sometimes it's hard to get people to want to go and see films you want
> > to see.
>
> > And there's a big stigma about going alone, which is kind of stupid
> > really.
>
> Really? Glad I didn't know about that. Just think about the movies
> I'da
> missed all those years when I used to go every Saturday and Sunday
> on my own.. I'd never have known that 'Evian' spelt backwards spells
> 'Naive' or had Breakfast with Mussolini, not to mention Groundhog Day
> or... or... or... or... or...
>
> I think my point is it's only a problem if you want to buy into it.
Females are now hyper-valuable, and thus are not subject to social
stigma.
> > If someone set up a website where people met up to go to the cinema
> > together, they'd make a fortune.
>
> Only I'm sure they'd find reasons not to go with one another...
>
> > You could put down where you live, what times you'd go and what films
> > you'd want.
>
> > Then they'd pair you off with someone.
>
> Ewe might make a fortune...
>
> ...or perhaps you wouldn't.
>
> In the end, people are alone because they choose to be alone.
>
> They make a series of choices that lead them to where they are.
Sure.
And in the end, girls are raped and killed because they want to be.
We all construct our own reality, right?
ThePuttKing
I've always gone to the cinema by myself. I used to go in the
afternoons because it seemed like embarrassing for some reason. That's
why I hooked up with her. When we started working together and become
friendly, I mentioned that I went to cinema by myself. When the first
Lord of the Rings came out she asked me if I wanted to go with her. I
said I did. Of course the others at work found out and caused aload of
bullshit. One suggested to my friend that she shouldn't go with me
because I would 'get idea's' - I know all this because my friend told
me. She told me she didn't believe any of it and we ended up going. We
enjoyed it and we've been over 50 times together in about 8 years !
ThePuttKing
Well I did mention Avatar to my friend in September and also last
month when I saw her. I said there's this good 3d film coming out at
christmas. With all the hype at the moment she must have seen / heard
about it. She hasn't rang though or got in touch so the only real
conclusion to make is she either isn't bothered or is going to see it
with her kids. I don't think I could face ringing her up and asking
her especially with what happened before. My backup plan is to see it
on Jan 8th, a friday afternoon by myself. Of course if I bump into her
before then I will probably mention it.
Mxsmanic
> Still not heard from her. And the film Avatar is coming soon. I really
> want to see that and I have been looking forward to it all year.
If it is not too nosey of me to ask, how old are you?
Mxsmanic
> Well I did mention Avatar to my friend in September and also last
> month when I saw her. I said there's this good 3d film coming out at
> christmas. With all the hype at the moment she must have seen / heard
> about it. She hasn't rang though or got in touch so the only real
> conclusion to make is she either isn't bothered or is going to see it
> with her kids. I don't think I could face ringing her up and asking
> her especially with what happened before. My backup plan is to see it
> on Jan 8th, a friday afternoon by myself. Of course if I bump into her
> before then I will probably mention it.
Which would be more pleasant: Seeing a boring movie with her, or seeing Avatar
without her?
Mxsmanic
> Sometimes it's hard to get people to want to go and see films you want
> to see.
It's easy to get people to see movies they want to see. If you are trying to
get them to see movies YOU want to see, you're already making a big mistake.
> And there's a big stigma about going alone, which is kind of stupid
> really.
Is there? Almost all my visits to the cinema (rare as they are) in recent
years have been alone.
> If someone set up a website where people met up to go to the cinema
> together, they'd make a fortune.
>
> You could put down where you live, what times you'd go and what films
> you'd want.
>
> Then they'd pair you off with someone.
Teen couples are already the main market for cinema admissions; I'm not sure
that targeting them even more aggressively would make much difference.
Mxsmanic
> Females are now hyper-valuable ...
Are they? When did this happen? Have the Taliban been told about this?
ThePuttKing
41, Do I sound younger ?
ThePuttKing
Good question. I would say Avatar without her (presuming it's as good
as the reviews say). The trouble with watching a boring film with her
is she would complain about it on the way home.
Mxsmanic
> Good question. I would say Avatar without her (presuming it's as good
> as the reviews say). The trouble with watching a boring film with her
> is she would complain about it on the way home.
So you're really interested in the film, not in her. I think I see the
problem.
Mxsmanic
> 41, Do I sound younger ?
Films like Avatar appears to be usually appeal to a young male demographic.
ThePuttKing
No there is no problem. If I would have answered, I'd rather see a
boring film with her, you would have said -'oh your in love with her
it's nothing to do with films' - there was no answer to your question.
I like spending time with her. Full Stop. Going to the cinema is a way
of doing that. I also go around and have coffee at her house.
If your suggesting I'm using her then your sadly wrong.
ThePuttKing
PandoraElpis
That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
Islam and the west differ only in a relative proponderance of
evolutionary strategies.
And if you weren't stupid as well as ugly, enlightened self-interest
might skew your sympathies accordingly(hint: your optima does not lie
with genetic benefits/short term strategies).
How do you suppose this great female utopia(dystopia for underling
males like you) emerged, if not through strategically sensetive
entanglements in the fitness landscape(ie. female 'liberation' was a
symmetry breaking invasion vector of short term strategies)?
I would echo shared sentiment that you 'read a book', but I fear there
is scarely enough books in the world to remedy the kind of debts you
flaunt in parroting populist ignorance(problems which entail impolitic
solutions you must reason out for yourself, as they are not to be
found in any 'book').
The first step on the road to knowledge is in conceding ignorance - if
you cannot manage that, then you are a credulous fool beyond
instruction's bent.
Mxsmanic
> That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
> diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
> availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
> female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
Who said anything about Islam? I mentioned the Taliban.
Islam is often blamed for misogyny that is actually rooted in local culture
and only rationalized through a skewed interpretation of Islam. I often think
that the Prophet actually may have been trying to moderate much more extreme
attitudes towards women that existed long before he was born. A great deal of
misogyny arises from Arab culture rather than Islam, for example.
> Islam and the west differ only in a relative proponderance of
> evolutionary strategies.
In other words, you find one more in agreement with your own viewpoint than
the other.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
> > diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
> > availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
> > female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
>
> Who said anything about Islam? I mentioned the Taliban.
>
> Islam is often blamed for misogyny that is actually rooted in local culture
> and only rationalized through a skewed interpretation of Islam.
It has already been pointed out previously that misogyny is but a
strategic dynamic in sexual conflict, fixed by evolutionary success.
> I often think
> that the Prophet actually may have been trying to moderate much more extreme
> attitudes towards women that existed long before he was born. A great deal of
> misogyny arises from Arab culture rather than Islam, for example.
>
> > Islam and the west differ only in a relative proponderance of
> > evolutionary strategies.
>
> In other words, you find one more in agreement with your own viewpoint than
> the other.
Nice ad-hominem interpretation of a sound argument.
Try again.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
> > diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
> > availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
> > female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
>
> Who said anything about Islam? I mentioned the Taliban.
>
> Islam is often blamed for misogyny that is actually rooted in local culture
> and only rationalized through a skewed interpretation of Islam.
Another book to add to your 'to read' list - The Koran.
> I often think
> that the Prophet actually may have been trying to moderate much more extreme
> attitudes towards women that existed long before he was born.
Why would you assume that?
Mxsmanic
> It has already been pointed out previously that misogyny is but a
> strategic dynamic in sexual conflict, fixed by evolutionary success.
That may have been expressed as an opinion, but that doesn't make it a proven
fact.
Mxsmanic
> Another book to add to your 'to read' list - The Koran.
Again?
> Why would you assume that?
Because the Koran is considerably more moderate in its attitude towards women
than are some predominantly Muslim societies.
PandoraElpis
Misogyny is broadly/popularly defined as any agency which conflicts
with female interests(consensus is implied).
This kind of conflict has high level behavioral manifestations, which,
if sufficiently common(or 'pervasive', as female
victimology would have it), must be preserved/fixed by some function
of selective value.
This is not just my 'opinion'.
And no matter how much you move the goal-posts, or hold to an
insoluble burden of proof, incredulity is still not knowledge.
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > Another book to add to your 'to read' list - The Koran.
>
> Again?
Yes, again.
Keep reading until something sinks into that impenetrable grey matter.
> > Why would you assume that?
>
> Because the Koran is considerably more moderate in its attitude towards women
> than are some predominantly Muslim societies.
And how the fuck do you know what the prevailing attitude was 1400 yrs
ago?
From where do you infer progressive sympathies in the Prophet's work?
That Islamic doctrine is at all agreeable with the notion of
westernized female 'liberation' is not very plausible(so your
counterpoint is a diversion).
If you have contrary evidence to show otherwise, then present it.
August Pamplona
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> nSCOURGE writes:
>>
>>> Females are now hyper-valuable ...
>> Are they? When did this happen? Have the Taliban been told about this?
>
> That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
> diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
> availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
> female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
Jesus fucking Christ, write in English. You are not fooling anyone.
[snip]
August Pamplona
--
If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
- Stephen Colbert
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
August Pamplona
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> nSCOURGE writes:
>>
>>> It has already been pointed out previously that misogyny is but a
>>> strategic dynamic in sexual conflict, fixed by evolutionary success.
>> That may have been expressed as an opinion, but that doesn't make it a proven
>> fact.
>
> Misogyny is broadly/popularly defined as any agency which conflicts
> with female interests(consensus is implied).
>
> This kind of conflict has high level behavioral manifestations, which,
> if sufficiently common(or 'pervasive', as female
> victimology would have it), must be preserved/fixed by some function
> of selective value.
That's line of thinking is called being a strict adaptationist.
A given conclusion reached by someone who is a strict adaptationist may
be right or it may be wrong. Of course, being a strict adaptationsit is
retarded, either way.
PandoraElpis
August Pamplona wrote:
> PandoraElpis wrote:
> >
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> nSCOURGE writes:
> >>
> >>> Females are now hyper-valuable ...
> >> Are they? When did this happen? Have the Taliban been told about this?
> >
> > That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
> > diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
> > availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
> > female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
>
> Jesus fucking Christ, write in English. You are not fooling anyone.
Get over your personal entanglements, asshole, *you're* not fooling
anyone.
The only one having a problem with this is *you*.
PandoraElpis
August Pamplona wrote:
> PandoraElpis wrote:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> nSCOURGE writes:
> >>
> >>> It has already been pointed out previously that misogyny is but a
> >>> strategic dynamic in sexual conflict, fixed by evolutionary success.
> >> That may have been expressed as an opinion, but that doesn't make it a proven
> >> fact.
> >
> > Misogyny is broadly/popularly defined as any agency which conflicts
> > with female interests(consensus is implied).
> >
> > This kind of conflict has high level behavioral manifestations, which,
> > if sufficiently common(or 'pervasive', as female
> > victimology would have it), must be preserved/fixed by some function
> > of selective value.
>
> That's line of thinking is called being a strict adaptationist.
> A given conclusion reached by someone who is a strict adaptationist may
> be right or it may be wrong. Of course, being a strict adaptationsit is
> retarded, either way.
Behavioral implications of sexual conflict are limited to 'strict
adaptationist'(retarded) interpretations?
Pose a 'non-retarded' interpretation of pop 'misogyny'(sexual
conflict)?
Speaking of retarded, how 'retarded' is it to become emotionally
invested in a usenet discussion?
nSCOURGE
PandoraElpis wrote:
> August Pamplona wrote:
> > PandoraElpis wrote:
> > >
> > > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > >> nSCOURGE writes:
> > >>
> > >>> Females are now hyper-valuable ...
> > >> Are they? When did this happen? Have the Taliban been told about this?
> > >
> > > That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
> > > diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
> > > availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
> > > female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
> >
> > Jesus fucking Christ, write in English. You are not fooling anyone.
>
> Get over your personal entanglements, asshole, *you're* not fooling
> anyone.
>
> The only one having a problem with this is *you*.
Lol, he just tends to get a little bitchy when someone tries to
justify the 'm' word(which seems to have a conveniently floating
definition when appealed to by apologists).
Mxsmanic
> Misogyny is broadly/popularly defined as any agency which conflicts
> with female interests(consensus is implied).
I'm not sure where you obtained that definition, but it's news to me.
Misogyny is simply a hatred of women, or sometimes just a dislike of women.
Menstruation and pregnancy often conflict with female interests, but that
doesn't make them misogyny.
> This is not just my 'opinion'.
Oh. It sure looks like your opinion.
Mxsmanic
> From where do you infer progressive sympathies in the Prophet's work?
From the gentler attitude towards women of the Koran, as compared to the
attitude of certain societies that call themselves Muslim.
> That Islamic doctrine is at all agreeable with the notion of
> westernized female 'liberation' is not very plausible(so your
> counterpoint is a diversion).
It doesn't seem to be any worse than Christian or Jewish doctrine, or most
other doctrines of organized religions.
Mxsmanic
> Get over your personal entanglements, asshole, *you're* not fooling
> anyone.
I think you've slipped out of character.
PandoraElpis
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > Misogyny is broadly/popularly defined as any agency which conflicts
> > with female interests(consensus is implied).
>
> I'm not sure where you obtained that definition, but it's news to me.
>
> Misogyny is simply a hatred of women, or sometimes just a dislike of women.
Yes, I meant to say it is broadly/popularly appealed to as any agency
which conflicts with ad-hoc female interests(which deviates
significantly from the stated definition).
It's appeal is so naively inferred(universally inclusive of the female
sex), that it carries no weight except as an ad-hominem tactic.
Also, it is important to note that antagonism which is, in fact,
dependent upon some hypothetical variable would seem to violate the
implied inclusiveness of the definition.
Bottom line: only a fool uses such a term in all seriousness.
Which is why I assume you use it.
> Menstruation and pregnancy often conflict with female interests, but that
> doesn't make them misogyny.
>
> > This is not just my 'opinion'.
>
> Oh. It sure looks like your opinion.More than *just* my opinion.
Learn to parse text.
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > From where do you infer progressive sympathies in the Prophet's work?
>
> From the gentler attitude towards women of the Koran, as compared to the
> attitude of certain societies that call themselves Muslim.
From 1400 yrs ago?
Present the evidence.
> > That Islamic doctrine is at all agreeable with the notion of
> > westernized female 'liberation' is not very plausible(so your
> > counterpoint is a diversion).
>
> It doesn't seem to be any worse than Christian or Jewish doctrine, or most
> other doctrines of organized religions.
Strawman, as one might argue a common assumption that Muslim cultures
are less mediated by secular concerns.
PandoraElpis
You obviously haven't seen some of my earlier threads - this is all
consistent within my dynamic range.
Mxsmanic
> Yes, I meant to say it is broadly/popularly appealed to as any agency
> which conflicts with ad-hoc female interests(which deviates
> significantly from the stated definition).
Maybe, but I was using it in its normal sense.
Mxsmanic
> From 1400 yrs ago?
>
> Present the evidence.
Compare what the Koran actually says about female dress to the extremes
practiced in some Muslim societies.
Mxsmanic
> You obviously haven't seen some of my earlier threads - this is all
> consistent within my dynamic range.
It is consistent with affectation.
PandoraElpis
Well, I stand convinced.
August Pamplona
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> nSCOURGE writes:
>>
>>> Another book to add to your 'to read' list - The Koran.
>> Again?
>
> Yes, again.
>
> Keep reading until something sinks into that impenetrable grey matter.
>
>>> Why would you assume that?
>> Because the Koran is considerably more moderate in its attitude towards women
>> than are some predominantly Muslim societies.
>
> And how the fuck do you know what the prevailing attitude was 1400 yrs
> ago?
We've had this thing called writing for thousands of years
which allows information to be passed, relatively uncorrupted (more so
if you take diverse sources under account), across generations. You
might have heard of it. Oh wait, you are actually using it right now
(just not very well).
>
> From where do you infer progressive sympathies in the Prophet's work?
From the prophet's work, maybe?
>
> That Islamic doctrine is at all agreeable with the notion of
> westernized female 'liberation' is not very plausible(so your
> counterpoint is a diversion).
I don't think that Mxsmanic has attempted to make that case
(see, that was actually a real example of a strawman that you used
there). He's claimed that the Koran is considerably more moderate in its
attitude towards women than some predominantly Muslim societies.
Certainly, the case is easily made that Islam promoted a more moderate
attitude towards women than the prevailing attitudes that it replaced
(and even the prevailing attitudes everywhere else).
>
> If you have contrary evidence to show otherwise, then present it.
August Pamplona
August Pamplona
>
> August Pamplona wrote:
>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> nSCOURGE writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Females are now hyper-valuable ...
>>>> Are they? When did this happen? Have the Taliban been told about this?
>>> That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
>>> diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
>>> availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
>>> female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
>> Jesus fucking Christ, write in English. You are not fooling anyone.
>
> Get over your personal entanglements, asshole, *you're* not fooling
> anyone.
>
> The only one having a problem with this is *you*.
Shut up, fucker. You ruin my fun of disagreeing with Mxsmanic.
PandoraElpis
August Pamplona wrote:
> PandoraElpis wrote:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> nSCOURGE writes:
> >>
> >>> Another book to add to your 'to read' list - The Koran.
> >> Again?
> >
> > Yes, again.
> >
> > Keep reading until something sinks into that impenetrable grey matter.
> >
> >>> Why would you assume that?
> >> Because the Koran is considerably more moderate in its attitude towards women
> >> than are some predominantly Muslim societies.
> >
> > And how the fuck do you know what the prevailing attitude was 1400 yrs
> > ago?
>
> We've had this thing called writing for thousands of years
> which allows information to be passed, relatively uncorrupted (more so
> if you take diverse sources under account), across generations. You
> might have heard of it. Oh wait, you are actually using it right now
> (just not very well).
Better than youcould dream of.
> >
> > From where do you infer progressive sympathies in the Prophet's work?
>
> From the prophet's work, maybe?
>
>
> >
> > That Islamic doctrine is at all agreeable with the notion of
> > westernized female 'liberation' is not very plausible(so your
> > counterpoint is a diversion).
>
> I don't think that Mxsmanic has attempted to make that case
> (see, that was actually a real example of a strawman that you used
> there).
That he is equivocating is obvious to anyone who doesn't have their
head up their ass as far as you do...
PandoraElpis
August Pamplona wrote:
> PandoraElpis wrote:
> >
> > August Pamplona wrote:
> >> PandoraElpis wrote:
> >>> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>>> nSCOURGE writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Females are now hyper-valuable ...
> >>>> Are they? When did this happen? Have the Taliban been told about this?
> >>> That Islam is less tolerant of female (sexual)latitude speaks to a
> >>> diminished female sexual value only insofar as it mediates female
> >>> availability with respect to time varient fitness strategies(through
> >>> female pessimal dynamics in sexual conflict), dummy.
> >> Jesus fucking Christ, write in English. You are not fooling anyone.
> >
> > Get over your personal entanglements, asshole, *you're* not fooling
> > anyone.
> >
> > The only one having a problem with this is *you*.
>
> Shut up, fucker. You ruin my fun of disagreeing with Mxsmanic.
Tough shit for you.
August Pamplona
>
> August Pamplona wrote:
>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> nSCOURGE writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Another book to add to your 'to read' list - The Koran.
>>>> Again?
>>> Yes, again.
>>>
>>> Keep reading until something sinks into that impenetrable grey matter.
>>>
>>>>> Why would you assume that?
>>>> Because the Koran is considerably more moderate in its attitude towards women
>>>> than are some predominantly Muslim societies.
>>> And how the fuck do you know what the prevailing attitude was 1400 yrs
>>> ago?
>> We've had this thing called writing for thousands of years
>> which allows information to be passed, relatively uncorrupted (more so
>> if you take diverse sources under account), across generations. You
>> might have heard of it. Oh wait, you are actually using it right now
>> (just not very well).
>
> Better than youcould dream of.
Your prose is every bit as obscurantist as Michaela's. It's
nothing but an awkward aping* of population genetics prose. I could put
out something more comprehensible with a Markov chain based text
generator. In Michaela's case, it at least it accurately reproduces the
mumbo jumbo which passes for deep thinking among new age types. What's
your excuse?
Like I said, you are not fooling anyone (or perhaps, by
implication of the Dunning�Kruger effect, I should say that you are not
fooling anyone else).
August Pamplona
* Normally my references to monkeys or apes are value neutral. In this
case, however, it's not a compliment.
August Pamplona
> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>
>> August Pamplona wrote:
>>> PandoraElpis wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> nSCOURGE writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another book to add to your 'to read' list - The Koran.
>>>>> Again?
>>>> Yes, again.
>>>>
>>>> Keep reading until something sinks into that impenetrable grey matter.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you assume that?
>>>>> Because the Koran is considerably more moderate in its attitude
>>>>> towards women
>>>>> than are some predominantly Muslim societies.
>>>> And how the fuck do you know what the prevailing attitude was 1400 yrs
>>>> ago?
>>> We've had this thing called writing for thousands of years
>>> which allows information to be passed, relatively uncorrupted (more so
>>> if you take diverse sources under account), across generations. You
>>> might have heard of it. Oh wait, you are actually using it right now
>>> (just not very well).
>>
>> Better than youcould dream of.
>
> Your prose is every bit as obscurantist as Michaela's. It's
Actually, I'm pretty puzzled as to why I wrote that. My memory
might be playing tricks on me. Obscurantist is not the label I would use
for her.
However, there was one a long time ago who wrote kind of like
Pandora does (though he attempted to use more bravado in his persona
instead of seeming like a mere defeated man looking for excuses like
Pandora). It wasn't nSCOURGE although he was there also --tenderly
suckling from his dick like he is now beginning to do with Pandora.
Oh well!
August Pamplona
Mxsmanic
> He's claimed that the Koran is considerably more moderate in its
> attitude towards women than some predominantly Muslim societies.
Yes. The Koran is often used as justification for extremely misogynistic
practices, when in fact it is much more moderate than many of the societies
that claim to follow it.
> Certainly, the case is easily made that Islam promoted a more moderate
> attitude towards women than the prevailing attitudes that it replaced
> (and even the prevailing attitudes everywhere else).
Yes. Some Muslim societies may still mistreat women in a way that is shocking
to Western sensibilities, but I'm quite convinced that without Islam the
situation would be even worse.
PandoraElpis
And would someone of an obscurantist bent offer to clarify points of
confusion?
Would they concede points made in error or ignorance(as I have done,
but you have failed to likewise do - newsflash: you don't know fuck-
all about evolution)?
What would my implied agenda be?
That you have no more specific complaints is revealing of your
academic pretensions, as a closet misologist.
If you have neither the means, nor the inclination to better
comprehend my posts, what other reason beyond trolling could possibly
compel you to reply to them?
You are just another ugly, 40 yr old virgin ASS type entangled in a
losing evolutionary strategy(academia pursuant to long term
investment), with an axe to grind on his betters because he cannot
abide solutions to the problems posed here.
Who strategically elevates this to a 'flame-war' in a evasion to
reasoned argument?
Who complains about unconventional prose(with sesquipedalian
tendencies) like it is a genuine, material greivence?
If you don't like how/what I write then kill-file me, and stfu already
and quit polluting usenet with your impertinent whinges.
Otherwise, show me where I am wrong, and I will concede the point - I
will take my lumps.
Isn't that a more elegant solution than precipitating a flame-war
(unless this is your intended goal)?
PandoraElpis
Jelousy does not become you.
Best you have another tension relieving wank, or you'll never get
through the holidays(You sure do seem to get cranky this time of
year).
nSCOURGE
So, if Michaela's a consistent new-age sophister fruit-loop, and PE is
a consistent obscurantist(wtf?), then what's your major bitch again?
> Like I said, you are not fooling anyone (or perhaps, by
> implication of the Dunning–Kruger effect, I should say that you are not
> fooling anyone else).
>
> August Pamplona
> * Normally my references to monkeys or apes are value neutral. In this
> case, however, it's not a compliment.
> --
> If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
> method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
> - Stephen Colbert
>
> a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
> Proud member of the reality-based community.
>
> The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
> individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
> reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
> In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
>
> To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
> make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nSCOURGE
Hey, my sympathies are well known(but then, so are yours).
I needn't apologize, as it is nothing personal(unlike, apprently, in
your case).
> August Pamplona
>
> > nothing but an awkward aping* of population genetics prose. I could put
> > out something more comprehensible with a Markov chain based text
> > generator. In Michaela's case, it at least it accurately reproduces the
> > mumbo jumbo which passes for deep thinking among new age types. What's
> > your excuse?
>
> > Like I said, you are not fooling anyone (or perhaps, by
> > implication of the Dunning–Kruger effect, I should say that you are not
> > fooling anyone else).
>
> > August Pamplona
> > * Normally my references to monkeys or apes are value neutral. In this
> > case, however, it's not a compliment.
>
> --
> If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
> method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
> - Stephen Colbert
>
> a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
> Proud member of the reality-based community.
>
> The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
> individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
> reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
> In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
>
> To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
Bernd Jendrissek
> Shut up, fucker. You ruin my fun of disagreeing with Mxsmanic.
They should both go read a fucking book.
nSCOURGE
Which one?
Since I wouldn't mind giving it a try, lol.
But then, I'm sure you've read plenty, and it hasn't worked out that
well for you, has it?
Geek jousting with academic trivia holds little currency outside of
usenet(as I'm sure you are learning).
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> August Pamplona writes:
>
> > He's claimed that the Koran is considerably more moderate in its
> > attitude towards women than some predominantly Muslim societies.
>
> Yes. The Koran is often used as justification for extremely misogynistic
> practices, when in fact it is much more moderate than many of the societies
> that claim to follow it.
A desire to control female sexuality is hardly motivated by a 'hatred'
or 'dislike' of women, silly.
> > Certainly, the case is easily made that Islam promoted a more moderate
> > attitude towards women than the prevailing attitudes that it replaced
> > (and even the prevailing attitudes everywhere else).
>
> Yes. Some Muslim societies may still mistreat women in a way that is shocking
> to Western sensibilities, but I'm quite convinced that without Islam the
> situation would be even worse.
Where would things be without altruist dupes like you - evolutions
doormat's?
August Pamplona
>
> Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 3:49 am, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Shut up, fucker. You ruin my fun of disagreeing with Mxsmanic.
>> They should both go read a fucking book.
>
> Which one?
Is it so damn hard? Mxsmanic gets the developmental biology
textbook (the more current the better, as there is a lot of cool shit
going on), Pandora gets to read some evolutionary psychology and you get
to fuck yourself. Any other questions?
nSCOURGE
> nSCOURGE wrote:
>
> > Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> >> On Dec 15, 3:49 am, August Pamplona <cosmic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Shut up, fucker. You ruin my fun of disagreeing with Mxsmanic.
> >> They should both go read a fucking book.
>
> > Which one?
>
> Is it so damn hard? Mxsmanic gets the developmental biology
> textbook (the more current the better, as there is a lot of cool shit
> going on), Pandora gets to read some evolutionary psychology
I thought evolutionary psychology was retarded.
Or is it only retarded where it renders personal disagreement?
> and you get
> to fuck yourself.
No, I think we'll save that option for you, because fucking yourself
is the only option a dysgenic, prosocial tool like you is ever likely
to have(If you're going to try flaming someone, be sure you're up to
the task - speaking of the Dunning–Kruger effect).
> Any other questions?
Yeah, what's crawling up your ass?
Am I being obscurantist, lol?
But, seriously, I think you should do what Pandora suggests and
relieve some of that obvious nervous energy with another tension wank,
and save the rest of it for the books, smart guy.
This whole usenet tantrum you are throwing over purportedly
disagreeable prose is not believable as anything but a poorly
concealed red herring argument(you have a history of doing this).
But then, you can scarcely deny your emotional involvement any
longer.
Mxsmanic
> A desire to control female sexuality is hardly motivated by a 'hatred'
> or 'dislike' of women, silly.
The misogyny of the societies in question goes far beyond merely controlling
female sexuality. And in any case, female sexuality should be controlled by
... females.
nSCOURGE
> nSCOURGE writes:
> > A desire to control female sexuality is hardly motivated by a 'hatred'
> > or 'dislike' of women, silly.
>
> The misogyny of the societies
It has already been shown that such broad usage of that term is
nonsensical.
> in question goes far beyond merely controlling
> female sexuality.
And where do you draw such a convenient, arbitrary line with a nebula
of sexual conflict?
> And in any case, female sexuality should be controlled by
> ... females.
So, now you switch to a moral argument?
OK, I'll humor you.
What compels your moral convictions beyond an observance of punishment
conditioned group norms?
Mxsmanic
> It has already been shown that such broad usage of that term is
> nonsensical.
Nothing of the kind has been shown, although opinions have been expressed.
> And where do you draw such a convenient, arbitrary line with a nebula
> of sexual conflict?
I didn't draw a line. I merely pointed out that it goes far beyond sex.
> So, now you switch to a moral argument?
No, a logical argument. People should be in control of themselves, as a
general rule. I don't see any reason why sexuality should be an exception.
> What compels your moral convictions beyond an observance of punishment
> conditioned group norms?
My morality is based on the Golden Rule. I believe that everyone should treat
each other equally, and as they would want others to treat them.
nSCOURGE
> nSCOURGE writes:
> > It has already been shown that such broad usage of that term is
> > nonsensical.
>
> Nothing of the kind has been shown, although opinions have been expressed.
A society that hates women?
You know, for someone who is skeptical of extra-consciousness, you
seem awfully credulous that an entire fucking society can be assumed
to hate something like some kind of unqualified gestalt consciousness.
Sounds like goal-post nudging nonsense to me.
> > And where do you draw such a convenient, arbitrary line with a nebula
> > of sexual conflict?
>
> I didn't draw a line. I merely pointed out that it goes far beyond sex.
Then you'll have to point more obviously, because you haven't made an
argument.
> > So, now you switch to a moral argument?
>
> No, a logical argument. People should be in control of themselves, as a
> general rule.
I don't follow.
> I don't see any reason why sexuality should be an exception.
>
> > What compels your moral convictions beyond an observance of punishment
> > conditioned group norms?
>
> My morality is based on the Golden Rule. I believe that everyone should treat
> each other equally, and as they would want others to treat them.
Unless you actually mean reciprocal altruism, you're hopeless.
Expect more poor outcomes in life with an ideology that goes looking
for them.
Mxsmanic
> A society that hates women?
Unfortunately, many societies are misogynistic in many ways, as reflected in
their laws, institutions, customs, etc.
> You know, for someone who is skeptical of extra-consciousness, you
> seem awfully credulous that an entire fucking society can be assumed
> to hate something like some kind of unqualified gestalt consciousness.
There are metaphysical ramifications as well, but they are not necessarily
significant enough to worry about in this context.
> Then you'll have to point more obviously, because you haven't made an
> argument.
Whether or not something is obvious depends on the beholder.
> I don't follow.
I agree.
> Unless you actually mean reciprocal altruism, you're hopeless.
I mean treating others as you would have them treat you.
Bernd Jendrissek
> > seem awfully credulous that an entire fucking society can be assumed
> > to hate something like some kind of unqualified gestalt consciousness.
>
> There are metaphysical ramifications as well, but they are not necessarily
> significant enough to worry about in this context.
I think you missed the point: since (as you claim) you cannot observe
the consciousness of these so-called misogynistic societies' members,
you are ill-placed to conclude that they do, in fact, hate their women.
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > It has already been shown that such broad usage of that term is
> > nonsensical.
>
> Nothing of the kind has been shown, although opinions have been expressed.
>
> > And where do you draw such a convenient, arbitrary line with a nebula
> > of sexual conflict?
>
> I didn't draw a line. I merely pointed out that it goes far beyond sex.
You are equivocating again.
There is no dynamic of sexual conflict which is not within some
neighbourhood of selective value.
If systematic 'misogyny'(of the kind you are alluding to) is acting
forcefully upon females, then it can be seen that they are effecting
female sexuality.
Offer an example where you suppose this is not the case.
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > A society that hates women?
>
> Unfortunately, many societies are misogynistic in many ways, as reflected in
> their laws, institutions, customs, etc.
Again, this isn't a strong argument for a society that 'hates' women.
The only unconfounded explanation is with sexual conflict, which does
not necessarily imply misogyny, while misogyny(however it is being
interpreted) must necessarily follow from sexual conflict.
Tell me, how do you suppose the West's more 'progressive' attitude/
sensebility towards women 'evolved'(yes, I am setting you up for
something)?
> > You know, for someone who is skeptical of extra-consciousness, you
> > seem awfully credulous that an entire fucking society can be assumed
> > to hate something like some kind of unqualified gestalt consciousness.
>
> There are metaphysical ramifications as well, but they are not necessarily
> significant enough to worry about in this context.
>
> > Then you'll have to point more obviously, because you haven't made an
> > argument.
>
> Whether or not something is obvious depends on the beholder.
>
> > I don't follow.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Unless you actually mean reciprocal altruism, you're hopeless.
>
> I mean treating others as you would have them treat you.
And is this at all dependent on how you are treated(ie. a generous co-
operator instead of a mere sucker)?
Mxsmanic
> I think you missed the point: since (as you claim) you cannot observe
> the consciousness of these so-called misogynistic societies' members,
> you are ill-placed to conclude that they do, in fact, hate their women.
Whether they are conscious or not is irrelevant; only their behavior matters.
nSCOURGE
wtf?
So, you can infer an emotional state(which implies consciousness
anyway) from behavior, but not consciousness?
Keep moving those goal-posts around as much as you want, but everyone
can see you walked straight into that one, lol.
Michaela Mackenzie
> On Dec 17, 5:12 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bernd Jendrissek writes:
> > > I think you missed the point: since (as you claim) you cannot observe
> > > the consciousness of these so-called misogynistic societies' members,
> > > you are ill-placed to conclude that they do, in fact, hate their women.
>
> > Whether they are conscious or not is irrelevant; only their behavior matters.
>
> wtf?
>
> So, you can infer an emotional state(which implies consciousness
> anyway) from behavior, but not consciousness?
First you need to define consciousness. Behaviour, imo, does not imply
consciouness.
In my book, if you respond (act with responsibility) then you are
conscious. If you react,
(act without thinking) then you are unconscious.
- Michaela
nSCOURGE
Michaela Mackenzie wrote:
> On Dec 18, 1:10 am, nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 5:12 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bernd Jendrissek writes:
> > > > I think you missed the point: since (as you claim) you cannot observe
> > > > the consciousness of these so-called misogynistic societies' members,
> > > > you are ill-placed to conclude that they do, in fact, hate their women.
> >
> > > Whether they are conscious or not is irrelevant; only their behavior matters.
> >
> > wtf?
> >
> > So, you can infer an emotional state(which implies consciousness
> > anyway) from behavior, but not consciousness?
>
> First you need to define consciousness. Behaviour, imo, does not imply
> consciouness.
What is at issue here is that Mxsmanic betrays an ad-hoc position with
respect to consciousness in it's broadest sense.
On the one hand, he holds that consciousness cannot be reasonably
inferred from observation.
On the other hand, he holds that hatred of women can be reasonably
inferred from behavior.
The contradiction comes in the form that hatred implies an emotional
state, which in turn, implies consciousness.
Busted.
> In my book, if you respond (act with responsibility) then you are
> conscious. If you react,
> (act without thinking) then you are unconscious.
We are considering consciousness in the broadest sense of the word.