Is open sexism getting worse here?

[accelafine]

You never know when something is going to come back to bite you in the arse. Often it comes in the form of being a pathetic, withered heap in a 'care' home, with no visitors because everyone hates your guts (for good reason) and 'carers' who beat and torture you every chance they get. And there's no one to tell, because they are all in on it, and besides, who would believe a ghastly old unloved man anyway?

And all you can do is lie there, trapped inside your broken and useless body, thinking about the horrible way you have treated others, full of guilt, regret and shame, desperately yearning for the release of death (or at least hoping it will be a release). Imagine believing you finally have that escape only to wake up in hell

[godelian]

You never know when something is going to come back to bite you in the arse. Often it comes in the form of being a pathetic, withered heap in a 'care' home, with no visitors because everyone hates your guts (for good reason) and 'carers' who beat and torture you every chance they get. And there's no one to tell, because they are all in on it, and besides, who would believe a ghastly old unloved man anyway?

And all you can do is lie there, trapped inside your broken and useless body, thinking about the horrible way you have treated others, full of guilt, regret and shame, desperately yearning for the release of death (or at least hoping it will be a release). Imagine believing you finally have that escape only to wake up in hell

That is why you need children.

Furthermore, you must teach them that they must take care of their parents in their old age. In fact, the society around you must teach that as well. That is why it makes sense to grow old in Asia. Pretty much everybody over here takes care of their elderly parents. With (half-)Asian children, and living here in Asia, I will not end up in a "care" home.

When they are young, children need their parents. When parents become elderly, they need their children. This is a long-term arrangement that is in fact 100% transactional. There are good reasons why you love your children. You love your children because doing so will eventually benefit you.

I do not want western children and I do not want to grow old in a western society. Western children are transactionally useless to me. I really do not see why I would waste my time or my money on raising them. Seriously, let them fend for themselves. When I am old and helpless, they will let me fend for myself. Therefore, it is only fair that I would not give a fuck about them when they are young. I simply don't want them.

[Age]

Once more, what 'we' can see here again is another one who has prioritised 'money' over life and over helping and supporting other human beings.

I notice that you believe that everybody is your friend while also complaining about the fact that I do not believe this.

This is beyond absolute absurdism.

There is no compulsion in beliefs.

If you say so.

You are just as free to believe what you want as I am to believe what I want.

Maybe so. But, so you become aware, I absolutely do NOT believe what you BELIEVE I do.

The problem is not what exactly you believe but the fact that you insist that other people should believe that too.

you are more DELUSION than you first appeared to be.

Do you ever hear me insisting that you should believe what I believe?

I have NOT heard this before, but I have heard you say and claim that you would NEVER help another human being, even if it is a human baby, unless, of course, you could get some thing, from them.

I don't do that. I am perfectly fine with the fact that other people do not necessarily believe what I believe.

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that was being talked about here, previously, but okay.

I do not believe that everybody is my friend and I will never believe it. It is obviously okay for you to live in Lalaland but I won't.

Talk about a prime example of one who is ABSOLUTELY DELUSION, here.

But, this may also just be all of an 'act' to 'try to' DEFLECT and DETRACT AWAY from being absolutely evilly greedy and selfish, here.

So, if you want something from me, you will have to give me something in return.

But, I have ALREADY GOT, exactly, what I WANTED, from you. And, as far as I am concerned I have given nothing that you have wanted in return.

With me, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

'We' ALREADY KNOW, BECAUSE you have ALREADY informed 'us' of this. For example 'you' have already informed 'us' that 'you' would not even help a dying child, unless, of course, 'you' could get some thing from 'them'.

This more or less sums up that you would not do absolutely any thing for absolutely anyone else, unless you could get some thing, from them.

So, instead of trying to get something for nothing, tell me what's in it for me?

But, again, I have ALREADY GOT what I wanted from you.

What am I gonna get? Otherwise, I am not lifting a finger.

TO LATE.

[accelafine]

You never know when something is going to come back to bite you in the arse. Often it comes in the form of being a pathetic, withered heap in a 'care' home, with no visitors because everyone hates your guts (for good reason) and 'carers' who beat and torture you every chance they get. And there's no one to tell, because they are all in on it, and besides, who would believe a ghastly old unloved man anyway?

And all you can do is lie there, trapped inside your broken and useless body, thinking about the horrible way you have treated others, full of guilt, regret and shame, desperately yearning for the release of death (or at least hoping it will be a release). Imagine believing you finally have that escape only to wake up in hell

That is why you need children.

Furthermore, you must teach them that they must take care of their parents in their old age. In fact, the society around you must teach that as well. That is why it makes sense to grow old in Asia. Pretty much everybody over here takes care of their elderly parents. With (half-)Asian children, and living here in Asia, I will not end up in a "care" home.

When they are young, children need their parents. When parents become elderly, they need their children. This is a long-term arrangement that is in fact 100% transactional. There are good reasons why you love your children. You love your children because doing so will eventually benefit you.

I do not want western children and I do not want to grow old in a western society. Western children are transactionally useless to me. I really do not see why I would waste my time or my money on raising them. Seriously, let them fend for themselves. When I am old and helpless, they will let me fend for myself. Therefore, it is only fair that I would not give a fuck about them when they are young. I simply don't want them.

Good luck with that Having children is no guarantee whatsoever of being looked after in old age. If you are really as vile as you come across on here, with a grasping prostitute for a 'faux wife', then I don't like your chances.

[godelian]

Good luck with that Having children is no guarantee whatsoever of being looked after in old age. If you are really as vile as you come across on here, with a grasping prostitute for a 'faux wife', then I don't like your chances.

Women like a man typically for his handsome appearance (short-term) or for his wealth (long-term). I am perfectly fine with typical female preferences. As far as I am concerned, a woman is not a whore because she prefers to be with a man who has the ability to lavishly spend on her. Not at all. This is simply standard biology:

Briffault's law

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers. Vol. I, p. 191.

The notion of "whoredom" that emerges out of Islamic moral theory is about women having sex with more than one man during the same menstrual period and thereby confusing the paternity of the resulting pregnancy, if any. It must always be perfectly clear who the father is of the child. Consequently, when a woman has sex with the first man in a given menstrual period, she is not yet a whore. She only becomes one, if she sleeps with a second man in the same menstrual period.

Whoredom has nothing to do with men giving money to women, even for sex or companionship, because men spending money on women is considered to be biologically perfectly sound. That is simply part of our nature ("fitrah"):

Quran An Nisah 4:34. Men are the maintainers of women as Allah gives to them more means than to others, for them to spend of their wealth on women. So virtuous women are obedient and guard their private hidden parts as Allah wants them to be guarded.

Furthermore, it is up to the individual woman if she wants to be with a man for his handsome appearance or for his wealth. Why are you so hellbent on criticizing other women? Why do you call them prostitutes? On grounds of what moral theory exactly?

[accelafine]

Good luck with that Having children is no guarantee whatsoever of being looked after in old age. If you are really as vile as you come across on here, with a grasping prostitute for a 'faux wife', then I don't like your chances.

Women like a man typically for his handsome appearance (short-term) or for his wealth (long-term). I am perfectly fine with typical female preferences. As far as I am concerned, a woman is not a whore because she prefers to be with a man who has the ability to lavishly spend on her. Not at all. This is simply standard biology:

Briffault's law

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers. Vol. I, p. 191.

The notion of "whoredom" that emerges out of Islamic moral theory is about women having sex with more than one man during the same menstrual period and thereby confusing the paternity of the resulting pregnancy, if any. It must always be perfectly clear who the father is of the child. Consequently, when a woman has sex with the first man in a given menstrual period, she is not yet a whore. She only becomes one, if she sleeps with a second man in the same menstrual period.

Whoredom has nothing to do with men giving money to women, even for sex or companionship, because men spending money on women is considered to be biologically perfectly sound. That is simply part of our nature ("fitrah"):

Quran An Nisah 4:34. Men are the maintainers of women as Allah gives to them more means than to others, for them to spend of their wealth on women. So virtuous women are obedient and guard their private hidden parts as Allah wants them to be guarded.

Furthermore, it is up to the individual woman if she wants to be with a man for his handsome appearance or for his wealth. Why are you so hellbent on criticizing other women? Why do you call them prostitutes? On grounds of what moral theory exactly?

Congratulatons. You got yourself a prostitute. They have to be VERY good actresses too

[godelian]

Good luck with that Having children is no guarantee whatsoever of being looked after in old age. If you are really as vile as you come across on here, with a grasping prostitute for a 'faux wife', then I don't like your chances.

Women like a man typically for his handsome appearance (short-term) or for his wealth (long-term). I am perfectly fine with typical female preferences. As far as I am concerned, a woman is not a whore because she prefers to be with a man who has the ability to lavishly spend on her. Not at all. This is simply standard biology:

Briffault's law

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers. Vol. I, p. 191.

The notion of "whoredom" that emerges out of Islamic moral theory is about women having sex with more than one man during the same menstrual period and thereby confusing the paternity of the resulting pregnancy, if any. It must always be perfectly clear who the father is of the child. Consequently, when a woman has sex with the first man in a given menstrual period, she is not yet a whore. She only becomes one, if she sleeps with a second man in the same menstrual period.

Whoredom has nothing to do with men giving money to women, even for sex or companionship, because men spending money on women is considered to be biologically perfectly sound. That is simply part of our nature ("fitrah"):

Quran An Nisah 4:34. Men are the maintainers of women as Allah gives to them more means than to others, for them to spend of their wealth on women. So virtuous women are obedient and guard their private hidden parts as Allah wants them to be guarded.

Furthermore, it is up to the individual woman if she wants to be with a man for his handsome appearance or for his wealth. Why are you so hellbent on criticizing other women? Why do you call them prostitutes? On grounds of what moral theory exactly?

Congratulatons. You got yourself a prostitute. They have to be VERY good actresses too

You conclude based on ... what exactly?

Melania Trump was a stunningly beautiful Slovenian model in her twenties when she got together with Donald Trump, a wealthy businessman and astute investor in his fifties. Did Donald Trump get himself a prostitute? Is Melania a "very good actress"? As far as I know, she is about to become again the American First Lady. In the upper class protocol, you are supposed to make a curtsy for her, if you even get the privilege to do that, because I doubt that you would ever be invited to loiter in her vicinity. You see, in theory everybody is equal, but in practice, there is something called "social class" and "social hierarchy", at the very bottom of which we can see lots of people like you, because that is exactly where you end up, if your only contribution to this world is to talk shit about other people.

[Age]

You never know when something is going to come back to bite you in the arse. Often it comes in the form of being a pathetic, withered heap in a 'care' home, with no visitors because everyone hates your guts (for good reason) and 'carers' who beat and torture you every chance they get. And there's no one to tell, because they are all in on it, and besides, who would believe a ghastly old unloved man anyway?

And all you can do is lie there, trapped inside your broken and useless body, thinking about the horrible way you have treated others, full of guilt, regret and shame, desperately yearning for the release of death (or at least hoping it will be a release). Imagine believing you finally have that escape only to wake up in hell

That is why you need children.

Furthermore, you must teach them that they must take care of their parents in their old age. In fact, the society around you must teach that as well. That is why it makes sense to grow old in Asia. Pretty much everybody over here takes care of their elderly parents. With (half-)Asian children, and living here in Asia, I will not end up in a "care" home.

When they are young, children need their parents. When parents become elderly, they need their children. This is a long-term arrangement that is in fact 100% transactional. There are good reasons why you love your children. You love your children because doing so will eventually benefit you.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The absolute greediness and selfishness of this one CONTINUES.

This one loves children ONLY because it hopes doing so will benefit it.

There are, for your information, other reasons as WHY to love children.

I do not want western children and I do not want to grow old in a western society. Western children are transactionally useless to me. I really do not see why I would waste my time or my money on raising them. Seriously, let them fend for themselves. When I am old and helpless, they will let me fend for myself. Therefore, it is only fair that I would not give a fuck about them when they are young. I simply don't want them.

This one appears to be completely OBLIVIOUS to its absolute CONTRADICTION, here.

This one claims that you love "your" children because doing so will eventually benefit you, but then it goes on to claim that if you love "your" children, then this will not benefit you.

you are appearing more and more LOST and CONFUSED, here, "godelian".

[accelafine]

Women like a man typically for his handsome appearance (short-term) or for his wealth (long-term). I am perfectly fine with typical female preferences. As far as I am concerned, a woman is not a whore because she prefers to be with a man who has the ability to lavishly spend on her. Not at all. This is simply standard biology:



The notion of "whoredom" that emerges out of Islamic moral theory is about women having sex with more than one man during the same menstrual period and thereby confusing the paternity of the resulting pregnancy, if any. It must always be perfectly clear who the father is of the child. Consequently, when a woman has sex with the first man in a given menstrual period, she is not yet a whore. She only becomes one, if she sleeps with a second man in the same menstrual period.

Whoredom has nothing to do with men giving money to women, even for sex or companionship, because men spending money on women is considered to be biologically perfectly sound. That is simply part of our nature ("fitrah"):



Furthermore, it is up to the individual woman if she wants to be with a man for his handsome appearance or for his wealth. Why are you so hellbent on criticizing other women? Why do you call them prostitutes? On grounds of what moral theory exactly?

Congratulatons. You got yourself a prostitute. They have to be VERY good actresses too

You conclude based on ... what exactly?

Melania Trump was a stunningly beautiful Slovenian model in her twenties when she got together with Donald Trump, a wealthy businessman and astute investor in his fifties. Did Donald Trump get himself a prostitute? Is Melania a "very good actress"? As far as I know, she is about to become again the American First Lady. In the upper class protocol, you are supposed to make a curtsy for her, if you even get the privilege to do that, because I doubt that you would ever be invited to loiter in her vicinity. You see, in theory everybody is equal, but in practice, there is something called "social class" and "social hierarchy", at the very bottom of which we can see lots of people like you, because that is exactly where you end up, if your only contribution to this world is to talk shit about other people.

I don't think she likes him very much. Who cares? I don't think her life is anything to be envied. I have a feeling you are no Donald Trump though. You seem to be desperate to prove something.
'Curtsy'? In the US? You don't even have to curtsy for the Queen you moron.

[godelian]

I don't think she likes him very much.
I don't think her life is anything to be envied.

That is what Melania says about it:

https://www.thecut.com/article/what-did ... iends.html

When interviewer Ainsley Earhardt asked Melania what she loves most about her husband, she responded, “His being.” Okay, romantic, if a little vague. Melania continued, “His humor, his personality, his kindness. He’s very special. His positivity. His energy, it’s unbelievable. Yeah, so we have a beautiful relationship.”

Donald Trump used to be married to Ivana Trump and Marla Maples. They both divorced him. Nothing stops Melania from divorcing him too, if that is what she would prefer. She would probably manage to extract a hefty settlement too.

I have a feeling you are no Donald Trump though. You seem to be desperate to prove something.

I am wealthy but (almost surely) not as wealthy as Donald Trump:

Google: The net worth of president elect Donald Trump is not publicly known. For decades, Forbes has assessed his wealth, currently estimating it at $5.5 billion as of mid-November 2024. Meanwhile, Bloomberg estimates his wealth at $6.32 billion as of the same date, although Trump himself claims a much higher net worth.

The funny thing is that digital-asset wealth, unlike wealth in other asset classes, is indeed mathematically provable. You see, "spending" Bitcoin even amounts to sending a message in which you prove that you own the bitcoin that you are spending. Still, proving that the prover owns bitcoins may be pointless to the prover because the verifier still needs to have the ability to verify the proof.

Proving anything is pointless if it is obvious that the verifier does not understand the proof.

[Age]

Lol wtf, I never had any extremely perverse sexist attitudes. How did you even come up with this lie?

Through your own posts here, in this forum.

Back that up or I'll report you.

LOL just about every time I have asked you, politely, to back up and support your claims you do not, and DEFLECT. But 'now' you EXPECT me to back up my claims, and even make threats if I do not.

[Age]

"With me, there is no such thing as a free lunch"

Not necessarily so. Consider the following scenario:

You've made sandwiches and are hosting a picnic where everyone brings some food. The sandwiches of yours that they eat are not free to them since you are eating the food they brought. So far, so good.

At the end of the picnic, everyone is full, and while you do offer them some sandwiches to take home, they decline.

The drive back is too long, and the ice has already melted in the cooler and the sandwiches have already been out for an hour.

To your left is a trash can and to your right, a group of three hungry homeless people sitting on a bench. You hand the sandwiches to the homeless people and therefore give them a free lunch.

But, "godelian" would not do this, unless, of course, "godelian" could get some thing from those three human beings

[accelafine]

I don't think she likes him very much.
I don't think her life is anything to be envied.

That is what Melania says about it:

https://www.thecut.com/article/what-did ... iends.html

When interviewer Ainsley Earhardt asked Melania what she loves most about her husband, she responded, “His being.” Okay, romantic, if a little vague. Melania continued, “His humor, his personality, his kindness. He’s very special. His positivity. His energy, it’s unbelievable. Yeah, so we have a beautiful relationship.”

Donald Trump used to be married to Ivana Trump and Marla Maples. They both divorced him. Nothing stops Melania from divorcing him too, if that is what she would prefer. She would probably manage to extract a hefty settlement too.

I have a feeling you are no Donald Trump though. You seem to be desperate to prove something.

I am wealthy but (almost surely) not as wealthy as Donald Trump:

Google: The net worth of president elect Donald Trump is not publicly known. For decades, Forbes has assessed his wealth, currently estimating it at $5.5 billion as of mid-November 2024. Meanwhile, Bloomberg estimates his wealth at $6.32 billion as of the same date, although Trump himself claims a much higher net worth.

The funny thing is that digital-asset wealth, unlike wealth in other asset classes, is indeed mathematically provable. You see, "spending" Bitcoin even amounts to sending a message in which you prove that you own the bitcoin that you are spending. Still, proving that the prover owns bitcoins may be pointless to the prover because the verifier still needs to have the ability to verify the proof.

Proving anything is pointless if it is obvious that the verifier does not understand the proof.

Oh my god. Who gives a flying fuck about those awful people? Why are you on a philosophy site? Do you really think anyone on here gives a rat's arse about your alleged life, which you seem to imagine is the envy of everyone?

[Age]

To your left is a trash can and to your right, a group of three hungry homeless people sitting on a bench. You hand the sandwiches to the homeless people and therefore give them a free lunch.

In the moral theory that I subscribe to, there is an entire section dedicated to zakaat (mandatory charity) and sadaqah (voluntary charity).

But then again, not everyone subscribes to this moral theory, and not everyone knows how exactly it works in practice. That is why I usually leave out that kind of details.

That is also why I don't like to talk about morality.

I see morality as a particular, very mechanical and objective axiomatic system while other people prefer to think that it is about a delusional Lalaland in which logic does not even matter.

So, of course, charity exists and is certainly a thing, but you never have a right to it. You can never claim charity from others. You either receive it or else you don't. If they don't want to give you anything then there is nothing that you can do about that.

And, as "godelian" has already told 'us' "godelian" will NEVER EVER do absolutely ANY thing for ANY one, including even just saving a human baby's life, if "godelian' could not get some thing from 'the other'.

Furthermore, I don't want other people to believe that they can get anything from me for nothing. Instead, when they see me, they must pull out their wallets already because they know for a fact that I am not doing anything for free.

And, this includes even saving ANY one's life. Unless, of course, the other will give "godelian" some money or something else, first.

Seriously, if you want something from me, then get ready to cough up big time, because it is not going to be cheap.

[godelian]

Oh my god. Who gives a flying fuck about those awful people? Why are you on a philosophy site?

Donald Trump is mentioned all over the site.