Phi for All Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Are you going to call us nazis next?Seems pretty obvious that you and Syphill joined up as tag-team trolls with the idea that being provacative was the same as being interesting.
Lance Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Seems pretty obvious that you and Syphill joined up as tag-team trolls with the idea that being provacative was the same as being interesting. They don't have the same ip then? I assumed they were the same person.
invert_nexus Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Phi, Seems pretty obvious that you and Syphill joined up as tag-team trolls with the idea that being provacative was the same as being interesting. It's pretty obvious that Syphill and I know each other. Yes. She asked me to back her up in here and I have done so. I did so because her point is so obvious but everyone refused to see. I agree that she was a bit crude in her statement, but the point was and is valid. As are all the other points made on the nature of self-confidence and the suppression of violence. Do you think that we have made no decent points? Just provocative? I suspect that now the masses will come out and reiterate your statement, however, just a few posts ago Callypygous, for one, begged to differ. (I'm not judging, however, perhaps the sentiment won't be revoked. He/she did stand up to #2 after all.) Trolls? Really? I have to disagree. But, I'm not surprised by your viewpoint. Lance, The first comment was not quite as diplomatic. True. They don't have the same ip then? I assumed they were the same person. You assume poorly. Callypygous, your not doing yourself any favors, invert. Probably not. "I've been warned." And what of Klanger? Has she been warned? The things she's said are far worse than anything I've said. And add to that the fact that she was arguing against an argument that neither Syphill nor I were arguing and I think she should have an additional warning. But. She's the victim here, right? So it's ok? If I'm wrong and she has been warned then I apologize.
Callipygous Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I suspect that now the masses will come out and reiterate your statement' date=' however, just a few posts ago Callypygous, for one, begged to differ. [/quote'] i begged to differ about the conversation being in the trash when Sayo chimed in, at that point it had switched over to an actual discussion about confidence. the garbage you people were posting before is not something i support at all. Probably not."I've been warned." And what of Klanger? Has she been warned? The things she's said are far worse than anything I've said. And add to that the fact that she was arguing against an argument that neither Syphill nor I were arguing and I think she should have an additional warning. But. She's the victim here, right? So it's ok? correct. her statements are warranted, seeing as how someone wished a rape on her. what bigger insult can there be? everything she says in return is nothing but retaliation and self defense.
invert_nexus Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 i begged to differ about the conversation being in the trash when Sayo chimed in, at that point it had switched over to an actual discussion about confidence. the garbage you people were posting before is not something i support at all. That's what I meant. Never meant you advocated rape. But, can't you see how the discussion it turned into was a direct response of what she said and the way that the thread turned? correct. her statements are warranted, seeing as how someone wished a rape on her. That wasn't what she said. For one thing. And for two. Her statements were in response to some imaginary conversation that never took place. But whatever. what bigger insult can there be? everything she says in return is nothing but retaliation and self defense. Seriously?
Callipygous Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 That's what I meant. Never meant you advocated rape. i dont advocate your buddy making a point by joking about rape either. That wasn't what she said. For one thing.And for two. Her statements were in response to some imaginary conversation that never took place. But whatever. your right, syphill didnt actually say "i hope you get raped again," but she couldnt have implied it any more clearly. here, let me quote it for you: C'mon. Be honest. Who isn't dying to hear that Klanger- she of the Ann Coulter stupidity- got raped again because she thought confidence deters rape? Seriously? yes, im absolutely serious. anything she says about syphill, and you now that youve backed syphill up, after that statement ^^ is entirely within bounds in my opinion. im curious which part of her post is based on an imaginary conversation.
invert_nexus Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Callypygous, i dont advocate your buddy making a point by joking about rape either. Did she? She was commenting on the perils of holding a false assumption. Said assumption being that self-confidence deters rape. Yes. She said it crudely. But. Would you equate it to rape? Did you understand why I mentioned nazis earlier? your right, syphill didnt actually say "i hope you get raped again," but she couldnt have implied it any more clearly. Look again. Keywords: because she thought confidence deters rape. That was the point. The point that we've been discussing and the point which you've admitted to being "in a better direction". What you object to is the crudity of the statement. But that crudity, in itself, said something. 1.) That people get excited by violence and ugliness. (I'll agree that this point is off-topic and is somewhat trollish. But whatever.) 2.) One could even look at her stance as a demonstration of self-confidence. I've alluded to this here and there but no one's picked up on it. Pity. What does her self-confidence get her? Is it protecting her from violence? Or inciting it? 2a.) Perhaps her stance is not so much one of self-confidence as it is arrogance or snobbiness. Several people have interpreted it thus. Could this fact be used in a conversation to elucidate upon the point of self-confidence as a violence deterent? On the nature of self-confidence? yes, im absolutely serious. anything she says about syphill, and you now that youve backed syphill up, after that statement ^^ is entirely within bounds in my opinion. No. Sorry. what I meant was are you serious that there could be no bigger insult. Think carefully. This goes towards the point I've tried to make about nazis. im curious which part of her post is based on an imaginary conversation. Again. Apologies. Too many "she's". Klanger's response was a strawman argument. She was arguing against an argument that nobody is arguing. She's arguing phantoms. AzurePhoenix, The one he's imagining exists, obviously Would you like to elucidate on Klanger's post then and point out where her arguments coincide with the discussion at hand? And which are merely constructed from thin air?
Callipygous Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Did she? She was commenting on the perils of holding a false assumption. Said assumption being that self-confidence deters rape. Yes. She said it crudely. But. Would you equate it to rape? crudely enought to be obscene and insulting. no' date=' i would not equate it to rape, but i can understand why someone who has been raped, and had the statement directed at them, would see it that way. Look again. Keywords: because she thought confidence deters rape. That was the point. The point that we've been discussing and the point which you've admitted to being "in a better direction". What you object to is the crudity of the statement. ok... and? none of that changes the fact that the statement was incredibly rude and insensitive. so none of that changes the fact that i think syphill is a dirtbag. No. Sorry. what I meant was are you serious that there could be no bigger insult. Think carefully. This goes towards the point I've tried to make about nazis. i dont really care, im not about to put my mind to the task of deciding what, exactly, would be the biggest insult you could give someone. Again. Apologies. Too many "she's".Klanger's response was a strawman argument. She was arguing against an argument that nobody is arguing. She's arguing phantoms. i understood exactly who your talking about. exactly which part of her(klangers) post was based on an imaginary conversation?
invert_nexus Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 ok... and? none of that changes the fact that the statement was incredibly rude and insensitive. so none of that changes the fact that i think syphill is a dirtbag. Yes. And? I've already conceded that. Although 'incredibly' is a relative term. *Edit to add* My 'and...' was in the post. You know. The part right after the part you quoted? The part that you decided to overlook? You know. The various points? Pity. *End edit* i dont really care, im not about to put my mind to the task of deciding what, exactly, would be the biggest insult you could give someone. You brought it up. Oh well. i understood exactly who your talking about. exactly which part of her(klangers) post was based on an imaginary conversation? Meh. You're back on defensive mode. Pity. You were thinking there for a minute or two. Oh well. (Have you read my response to her? Do I need to repeat it?) Bah. This thread is back to going around in politic circles and refusing to get into any meat. Again. Pity. So be it. Your choice.
Callipygous Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 so that means you cant tell me any parts of her post that were based on an imaginary conversation? good to know. excellent non-answers you have there. so i think we have pretty much agreed at this point that confidence does deter rape, although not entirely, and not at all if its fake. that sound about right?
Lance Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I would say this has been a constructive thread but it hasn't.
Syphill Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 We meet again! Greetings to you all established intellectuals, so kind and loving and brilliant. Its is Syphill.. So! Can't a girl stand back to observe your fecundity, wondering what will happen to this thread if she left- why so quiet? So demure? Until Nexus resumed on his own? No salient thoughts on this most pressing topic of broomstick-with-blade-up-a-girl's-yam? Not even the casual reference to Masters and Johnson to display your abilities of casual referencing? You know, like the chick in the other thread trying to teach me about Kohlberg in name-only? *funeral ring* No love sessions with Klanger? Vagina was not enough. A utensil jammed up a vagina was not enough, even considering the compulsive obsession with sex that the Modern is heir to. A poor weakling bewailing her getting violated by another poor weakling was not enough No, no, in order too shoot up the number of views and posts in this sagging thread where the self-professed libertines come to bask like so many artists in French galleries and cuisines the answer is as timeless as its been for the Christian. You must give it an outlet to feed its aggression- not the honest aggression of the criminal, the brute, the b-itch or the carniverore- but the contorted one of the hypocrite who bares his fangs under excuse of "Cuase". Not only bare them, but sit there and watch all his comrades take up this Grand Cause that's forgotten its premise because, as always, its become voyeurism. Do any of you even know Klangy? *grin* Didn't think so. Yet all of you pour your love out to complete strangers, forfeiting all its value. On topic: Rape is social biology, not philosophy or science.. The social scientists believes that men learn to rape and are summarily put through programs and seminars trying to 'teach' it back out of them. The social scientist, like all of you and my little friend Klanger, believes that a girl can be just as educated in her demeanor and by modification can just as such deterr rape. Because in a civilized society, so they say, it all adds up to Respect. I can understand Invert’s point- a confident woman can be seen as intimidating an too, as a prize where confidence can be its own worst enemy by calling attention to itself. However, rape is not a human dilemma. You'll find it in birds, frogs, dogs, lizards, nonhuman primates as well- consider the scorpionfly. The male has something on its abdomen called a nodal organ which it uses to latch on to the female. It has two options when mating- either court her with goods or impose itself on her body. This nodal organ has no function sexually other than to grab on to her to force his penis into her body. Nature places no other demand on its organisms, which all of you are, as important otherr than to procreate. That pull is stronger than reason and any stalwart philosophy a social scientist can muster. It does not care for your feelings of justice, nobility, your pompous 'rights' and your precious person- hood. Its does not care if you were weak once with your head down like a ninny or held high like mine is. I can be raped. So can Klanger. The male is, by nature, instilled with a sexual impulse stronger than that of the females (duh) as the investment in offspring for both is indirectly proportional- she expends alot of energy just to breed once and he expends no energy at all just to keep breeding indiscriminately. Which makes her chooosy and drives him insane just to be chosen. So he has three options. Be physically appealing to her by displaying symmetry thus health. If not, like Woody Allen (ick), he compensates with social status and finance. For the man that is neither physically appealing nor wealthy, his only recourse is rape. This is why rape is crime of poverty and deviance and its perpetrator socially unskilled personally or otherwise and, quite frankly, butt ugly. This is why rape victims are usually women in their fertile years. Don't point out to me the occasions every now and then where an old woman got raped or her mother or them both, or pedophilia, or where the rapist is a successful bachelor, handsome, or a married mlae with three kids. These instances, statistically, are GROSSLY underrepresented in comparison to the rest. Man is a lusty moron driven by groin (ha) and just the fact that every now and then his call to procreate gets f-ucked and unleashes itself on the elderly and the young, and when in prison manifests itself in rampant, careless, violent homosexuality (whereas in female prisons, its more nurturing and communicative as a testament to lonelieness) – this only proves that these wired imbeciles we call Men truly are, to use Soalnanas’s words (and she ruled) "walking dildos" “...the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly p-ussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and, furthermore, pay for the opportunity”- Solanas. (muhahah) This by no means implies that the male only wants to have children or spread seed. To him, its a "power process" or some abstract ego-soothing smarm about 'domination'. Yet I, and you, and we, should always remember who's boss and, thus, driving things. Nature. Conclusion: So, for Klangawassername to think she will stand a chance of not being raped again because she is "confidnet" now is to think like a social scientist who does nothing but watch Oprah, write books, psychoanalyze, go to school, and watch Oprah. Both of you only guarantee your being raped again. Nature does not care to respect you.
Syphill Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 And don't bring up the ugly-but-nice-so-gets-laid David Schimmers. Far too rare.
Callipygous Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 men are not mere animals, you arrogant bitch. the difference between animals and humans is that psychology DOES apply to us, its NOT just base instincts. we have higher brain function and it does take precedent over animal urges. if it didnt every woman you have ever met would be a rape victim. not all rapists are ugly and socially incapable. however, they may be mostly the second one. being attractive is not enough to get you laid. not that thats the point. your post shows complete idiocy in regard to the cause of rape. it is an act of CONTROL not SEX. you rape someone to make yourself feel powerful, not to relieve your sexual urges. a magazine (or your imagination) and a little lotion will accomplish the latter. rape is commited by people who for one reason or another feel the need to assert dominance over another person.
Syphill Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Callypgious: men are not mere animals, you arrogant bitch. the difference between animals and humans is that psychology DOES apply to us, its NOT just base instincts. we have higher brain function and it does take precedent over animal urges. if it didnt every woman you have ever met would be a rape victim. C'mon. Now tell me about all your schooling and relationships and books that you've read and your brialliant abilities to add 2 plus 2. Becuse this distingushes you from the "animals", my genius. That, and believeing in Jesus and virtue and wuv. Right? not all rapists are ugly and socially incapable. however, they may be mostly the second one. being attractive is not enough to get you laid. not that thats the point The point is your brain is not reading words. Your emotions are reading your dislike of me, you logical mess. That's so amazingly sicneitific. In a scienceforum. SCIENCE SCIIENCE science. your post shows complete idiocy in regard to the cause of rape. it is an act of CONTROL not SEX. And yours- one) that you cannot bloody read: "This by no means implies that the male only wants to have children or spread seed. To him, its a "power process" or some abstract ego-soothing smarm about 'domination'. Yet I, and you, and we, should always remember who's boss and, thus, driving things. Nature.", Syhill two) take it oh so personal as I know all a Lancelot is capable of three) your inabilty to see that to Gaia, you don't matter And I'm the arrogant one *grin* Now do you a favor and take up your 'rape is about power and not sex" tripe with the manicured social scientists in my basement. If it weren't about sex, dear, there'd be, like, you know, no erection?
Syphill Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 rape is commited by people who for one reason or another feel the need to assert dominance over another person. And a rapist, can just as easily masturbate. Yet rapes! you.....wonderful being.
Lance Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I'm suspecting drug abuse now. What do you guys think?
invert_nexus Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Callipygous, so that means you cant tell me any parts of her post that were based on an imaginary conversation? good to know. excellent non-answers you have there. I repeat. For deaf ears. Read my response to her. It's only a click away. It says, very well, what strawman arguments she's made. Why should I repeat them? If you insist I will repost them for your benefit but I don't see the point as you will most likely just ignore them anyway if your present actions are any judge of future actions. so i think we have pretty much agreed at this point that confidence does deter rape, although not entirely, and not at all if its fake. that sound about right? Not really. And if that's all you got out of it, then I've obviously been wasting my time. Which I'm no longer going to do. men are not mere animals, you arrogant bitch.[/Quote] Oh? Sure about that? Your fangs are showing. Anyway. Yes. We're not mere animals. We do transcend much instinct but that doesn't mean we're utterly removed from such things. To think so is ridiculous. AzurePhoenix, I'd say that's a sound conclusion. That's not very surprising. Lance, I would say this has been a constructive thread but it hasn't. And this doesn't surprise me either. Such a pity. The eyes. The ears. But they see only echoes of the vast stir of conscience within. So limited they are. These beings of heightened morality Pity. I'm suspecting drug abuse now. What do you guys think? I wouldn't be surprised. Lay off those drugs and maybe your reading comprehension will improve. Pray that it's not too late. Obnoxious, Flaming + profanity Your reading skills are also excellent then. Yes. She's going to be banned soon. Uh oh. I said it this time. Do I still drink or are you supposed to drink this time? Syphill, You make many excellent points. You also make points that I would dispute. However, the conversation in this thread is pretty much over. You're going to be banned shortly. And who knows, I may follow because I'm now emotionally connected to a troll in their minds. Who knows? Anyway. Maybe we can continue this conversation elsewhere where people actually read the words rather than hem and haw about their emotional complaints. Game?
Callipygous Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 And yours- one) that you cannot bloody read: "This by no means implies that the male only wants to have children or spread seed. To him' date=' its a "power process" or some abstract ego-soothing smarm about 'domination'."[/i'] which you brilliantly throw out the window with this garbage: Man is a lusty moron driven by groin (ha) and just the fact that every now and then his call to procreate gets f-ucked and unleashes itself on the elderly and the young, and when in prison manifests itself in rampant, careless, violent homosexuality (whereas in female prisons, its more nurturing and communicative as a testament to lonelieness) – this only proves that these wired imbeciles we call Men truly are, to use Soalnanas’s words (and she ruled) "walking dildos" two) take it oh so personal as I know all a Lancelot is capable of you called me a walking dildo, and did so in as annoyingly arrogant and snotty tone as you could muster. what a surprise. three) your inabilty to see that to Gaia, you don't matter which has what relevance to the cause of rape? for starters, gaia is a god, lets leave religion out of this. and second, it doesnt matter if im important to nature, the point is nature is not all powerful to me. i have this neat thing called sentience, which gives people the ability to resist their natural instincts. And I'm the arrogant one*grin* profession of not being arrogant, followed by a display of arrogance... awesome. Now do you a favor and take up your 'rape is about power and not sex" tripe with the manicured social scientists in my basement.If it weren't about sex, dear, there'd be, like, you know, no erection? thats simply not true. just because dominance is asserted using sex doesnt mean the act is about sex. if you actually think rape is about sex you need to go read up a little then come back and try again.
invert_nexus Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 gaia is a god Hint: Gaia=nature. That was tough. I understand your confusion.
Callipygous Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 And a rapist, can just as easily masturbate[/i']. Yet rapes! you.....wonderful being. interesting... so you realize that men have other ways to release sexual tension, and that they still rape... lets see how long it takes to put two and two together... Hint:Gaia=nature. That was tough. I understand your confusion. gaia= GOD of nature. i addressed "nature" in the line immediately following that.
Recommended Posts