Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:And it's in the eye of the beholder. You have a very warped view of reality. What attracted you to your wife? Her nice, bushy moustache?

Her yellow irises, they look like golden eyes

chaz wyman wrote:You are contradicting yourself, First you say you hate then you ask why. Then you deny the existence of the very reason for hating. Confused?
Why would this engender hate?
There are a range of things that people are born with that gives them dis/advantages. Why single out beauty?
What is it in you that made you think of that? Ever been snubbed by a good looker?

No cheeze wineman, first I ask why, then I hate.
If a woman rejects me, then I hate her? Or, does she reject me because she hates me? Or does she hate me because she rejects me?
Tell me, Master Wineman, you guru, you intellectual, you superior intellect

reasonvemotion wrote:If a man falls in love with a woman, he would think she was deserving of his love .

You are assuming a man's love and a woman's love are equal, or the same.
This is an error on your part.

reasonvemotion wrote:If this woman rejects his love, would she then become undeserving?

Yes

reasonvemotion wrote:What of unrequited love. Is it a love that some people prefer rather than no love at all.

The greater the "love", the greater the risk. Courage is the primary factor. What has this forum proved? It has proved that few genetic feces has any courage worth remarking about. Most are cowards. Therefore, most are unworthy of unrequited love. Only the most courageous individuals alive, will have access to this type of relationship with another.
Love is connected to courage, one cannot love a coward, or love as a coward. This is why love is not a woman's domain, but a man's domain. Women are greater cowards than men, which is also why women are less worthy of respect than men. Courage is not a woman's strength. Risk taking is also not a woman's strength.
This is why most women, who are not sluts and genetic feces, require a long observation period before mating with a male. Women want to be "friends" first, to watch, scrutinize, observe, and judge a man. A woman wants men to "prove themselves" for her satisfaction, her wants, her needs.
This is a Judeo-Christian standard.

In pagan traditions, it is the woman who must bend to the man, to meet the man's needs, not the other way around. In pagan, masculine traditions, it is the woman who has lower value than men. It is your job, allemotion, to seduce men like Satyr, not the other way around. It is not his job to appeal to your pathetic, measly, low class, unrefined desires, no matter how much you dress your lack of dignity up with money pilfered from your Jewish ex-husband's pocketbook.
Money can never buy class or dignity. Money can never buy a woman out of her disgraced past. This is why women like you, allemotion, are so liberal, and wish to destroy, erase, or forget the past. You hate the past.

reasonvemotion wrote:What is it that you are proposing to sacrifice? Does one have to sacrifice to love?

A man or woman must sacrifice pride and dignity, for love. This is why love is a risk, and requires the greatest courage to achieve, or see or make into reality.

reasonvemotion wrote:Yes. Our sense of self-worth is a woman's highest value as is her personal journey. Let me make clear that genuine self-esteem has two dimensions of self-evaluation, "an evaluation that one is competent to deal with life's basic challenges (self-efficacy) and an evaluation that one is worthy of happiness (self-worth)" as "natural" and proper to one's existence. I spent too much time in a dysfunctional relationship, and ultimately the marriage failed. Power and control issues are complicated for all of us, but are particularly so for women who find themselves in untenable situations, and may lack the confidence or resources or even the knowledge that they can change things. Our sense of self worth has everything to do with what we accept in our lives. Beauty is a gift and it "affects human beings through the senses, and while the awareness of beauty does not involve abstraction, nevertheless, beauty is an object of the intellect" and should be appreciated as such.

You dodged this question. You dodge that beauty is in fact, a woman's greatest value and asset. But, you admitted that a woman's relationships, her social status, is her next greatest feature. Her social connections exemplify her value, as a woman, as a person, as a "human" being.
You admitted your own, personal failure in life, as a human being. If a woman must be judged by her personal relationships, then it is her fault, she is to blame, for a failed relationship, whether they are sexual or not, loving or not. A divorce is the fault of the woman, not the man. And if it were ever the fault of the woman, then the failed social relationship is still hers to own, in the end.

reasonvemotion wrote:If two women were trapped in a burning building, and one could be saved, one is beautiful and the other ugly, then save which one?
Trapped in a burning building? For any compassionate person beauty or ugly would not be an issue in that circumstance. Save which one? Ask the fireman how those decisions are made.

You deny the importance, the value of beauty. This speaks volumes about who you are, as a person.

RickLewis wrote:I notice that you didn't respond to my question about Hypatia and the meaning of notability. Do you accept that she was a notable mathematician? If not, what is your criterion of notability?

(And pur-lease, DON'T say that to be notable she should have been able to dominate you in debate in an online philosophy forum. She died in the 5th century!)

To be notable, a woman must have a lead position. This includes competition. This includes the necessity of superior and inferior relationships, and comparisons to others.

The female gender, is not built on hierarchy. The female gender, representing society and socializing as its primary biological function, is built on deference to authority. It is always in a woman's interest to defer thought, ideas, conversation, actions, anything, to a higher authority. These authorities are always male, and masculine, representing accountability, blame, and responsibility. Women diffuse responsibility, from the individual, to a social group. Women do this, as a gender, to defer blame away from women as individuals.
In short, women cannot be responsible for significant or notable contributions to intellectual fields. As a gender, women are not inclined to accept the responsibility for what a great contribution would mean, to human intellect and knowledge as a whole.

If a woman is responsible for any intellectual greatness or achievement, then she can be attacked, ridiculed, blamed, and scapegoated for the same contribution, once it is refuted. And refuting a woman's intellect, is no great difficulty. Women are not used to male competition. Women make easier targets, the easiest target in fact. However, despite the best attempts to make male and female gender biology "equal", there is always a beta male around, protecting a woman from her own stupidity.
This gives women a distinct advantage over men, if ever men and women were to compete directly. This refutes the idea that women have been "denied" freedom to achieve excellence in human history. This could never have happened, and cannot happen now, if women are automatically protected from their own stupidity, by men.
This means that women should have "achieved" far more than any man ever has. Women have more freedom, automatically, as a gender.

reasonvemotion wrote:

If a man falls in love with a woman, he would think she was deserving of his love .

You are assuming a man's love and a woman's love are equal, or the same.
This is an error on your part.


No the error is on your part. Of course men are physically stronger and are more aggressive in their nature. A woman on the other hand embodies an inner dignity. You may confuse that with weakness, but in truth, it is strength and this kind of strength can be stronger than the most physical force one could imagine. True dignity does not shout it, is as I have said previously about love, silent, strong and steady. Women's nature while being subtle, does not translate into weakness. While a man displays characterics of being aggressive, that does not mean he is a savage.

A man and woman must each have these attributes to be complete.





reasonvemotion wrote:

If this woman rejects his love, would she then become undeserving?

Yes

Indeed, there are many circumstances for a woman to reject a man's love, that would make your answer of "yes" seem highly unreasonable.

reasonvemotion wrote:

What of unrequited love. Is it a love that some people prefer rather than no love at all.

The greater the "love", the greater the risk. Courage is the primary factor. What has this forum proved? It has proved that few genetic feces has any courage worth remarking about. Most are cowards. Therefore, most are unworthy of unrequited love. Only the most courageous individuals alive, will have access to this type of relationship with another.
Love is connected to courage, one cannot love a coward, or love as a coward. This is why love is not a woman's domain, but a man's domain. Women are greater cowards than men, which is also why women are less worthy of respect than men. Courage is not a woman's strength. Risk taking is also not a woman's strength.
This is why most women, who are not sluts and genetic feces, require a long observation period before mating with a male. Women want to be "friends" first, to watch, scrutinize, observe, and judge a man. A woman wants men to "prove themselves" for her satisfaction, her wants, her needs.
This is a Judeo-Christian standard.

In pagan traditions, it is the woman who must bend to the man, to meet the man's needs, not the other way around. In pagan, masculine traditions, it is the woman who has lower value than men. It is your job, allemotion, to seduce men like Satyr, not the other way around. It is not his job to appeal to your pathetic, measly, low class, unrefined desires, no matter how much you dress your lack of dignity up with money pilfered from your Jewish ex-husband's pocketbook.
Money can never buy class or dignity. Money can never buy a woman out of her disgraced past. This is why women like you, allemotion, are so liberal, and wish to destroy, erase, or forget the past. You hate the past.

The greater the "love", the greater the risk.

How is love greater or lesser, this makes no sense

It is your job, allemotion, to seduce men like Satyr, not the other way around. It is not his job to appeal to your pathetic, measly, low class, unrefined desires, no matter how much you dress your lack of dignity up with money pilfered from your Jewish ex-husband's pocketbook.
Money can never buy class or dignity. Money can never buy a woman out of her disgraced past. This is why women like you, allemotion, are so liberal, and wish to destroy, erase, or forget the past. You hate the past.

If as you say I pilfered money from my ex husband you are so far away from the truth. Yes, I believe some women may have done so in my situation, but, during my marriage, instead of taking advantage of that, I continued to work, whereas I could have done "nothing" and as you say, just pilfered his money from his wallet, and lowered myself into the category of a prostitute.

I have no disgraced past as you say, indeed I am proud of how I conducted myself and at all times behaved with dignity and inner strength, much to the chagrin of my ex. In fact he was so desperate to discredit me he hired a private detective. My only regret was I fell in love with him.


reasonvemotion wrote:

What is it that you are proposing to sacrifice? Does one have to sacrifice to love?

A man or woman must sacrifice pride and dignity, for love. This is why love is a risk, and requires the greatest courage to achieve, or see or make into reality.

I disagree with that. To sacrifice pride or dignity, means either the man or women has a partner who is not honorable.


reasonvemotion wrote:

Yes. Our sense of self-worth is a woman's highest value as is her personal journey. Let me make clear that genuine self-esteem has two dimensions of self-evaluation, "an evaluation that one is competent to deal with life's basic challenges (self-efficacy) and an evaluation that one is worthy of happiness (self-worth)" as "natural" and proper to one's existence. I spent too much time in a dysfunctional relationship, and ultimately the marriage failed. Power and control issues are complicated for all of us, but are particularly so for women who find themselves in untenable situations, and may lack the confidence or resources or even the knowledge that they can change things. Our sense of self worth has everything to do with what we accept in our lives. Beauty is a gift and it "affects human beings through the senses, and while the awareness of beauty does not involve abstraction, nevertheless, beauty is an object of the intellect" and should be appreciated as such.

You dodged this question. You dodge that beauty is in fact, a woman's greatest value and asset. But, you admitted that a woman's relationships, her social status, is her next greatest feature. Her social connections exemplify her value, as a woman, as a person, as a "human" being.
You admitted your own, personal failure in life, as a human being. If a woman must be judged by her personal relationships, then it is her fault, she is to blame, for a failed relationship, whether they are sexual or not, loving or not. A divorce is the fault of the woman, not the man. And if it were ever the fault of the woman, then the failed social relationship is still hers to own, in the end.

I don't believe I dodged the question. I meant to infere that if a woman has beauty and intelligence she is doubly fortunate, but must remain unassuming.


reasonvemotion wrote:

If two women were trapped in a burning building, and one could be saved, one is beautiful and the other ugly, then save which one?
Trapped in a burning building? For any compassionate person beauty or ugly would not be an issue in that circumstance. Save which one? Ask the fireman how those decisions are made.

You deny the importance, the value of beauty. This speaks volumes about who you are, as a person.

I have given my answer on beauty above. I fail to see how one could come to that conclusion from one answer, that it speaks volumes about who I am. But if it pleases you to think so, I won't challenge that.

Atthet, I disagree with most of what you have just written, but let's accept your definition of notability for the sake of argument.

Atthet wrote: To be notable, a woman must have a lead position. This includes competition. This includes the necessity of superior and inferior relationships, and comparisons to others.

If you read again what I wrote about Hypatia, or any of the online biographies of her, you will see that she was the head of the Platonist school in Alexandria. In other words she was at the top of the most important local hierarchy of intellectuals. She occupied a central and respected position in the city's cultural life and was an advisor to the city's govenor. As for comparisons, Socrates Scholasticus (a Christian writing in around 439AD) wrote "There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time."

Atthet wrote:If a woman is responsible for any intellectual greatness or achievement, then she can be attacked, ridiculed, blamed, and scapegoated for the same contribution, once it is refuted. And refuting a woman's intellect, is no great difficulty. Women are not used to male competition. Women make easier targets, the easiest target in fact.

Well, as for being attacked, ridiculed etc, a mob of fanatics angered by her intellectual influence kidnapped her, stripped her, dragged her into a church and brutally murdered her. As you have said, women make easier targets, especially if they are middle-aged intellectuals alone against a mob bent on murder.

As Hypatia easily met your two criteria for notability, namely (1) that somebody should have a lead position and (2) that they should be attacked, ridiculed etc for their achievements, do you therefore accept that Hypatia was notable?

Given that Hypatia was a female philosopher, so what? What did she contribute that is remembered today? What was her defining contributions? And the best question of all, why is she important to you, Rick Lewis, except to prove a point? You want to prove that women are "equal" with men, this much is obvious and apparent. The conclusion is, what length are you willing to go, to "prove" this equality between men and women?
And some of us already know, you are compensating. This is a liberal, Judeo-Christian drive. Because if in fact, women and men are not equal, then you're fucked, and nothing you can do, can prove what you are driving toward. No amount of evidence and arguments would suffice, something that is blatantly untrue and false.

Philosophy remembers and recalls names of men very easily, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Hume, Kant, Heidegger, Leibniz, Hegel, Marx, on and on. In every intellectual field, men dominate the lists, name after name after name. Where are the women? Where are the females?
Once gender and biological differences are admitted to, the answers become obvious. It is not in a female's biological prerogative to stick her head out to be chopped off by competitors. To do so, is inherently, masculine, risk taking, competitive, brave, bold. All traits that makes men masculine, and women feminine.
A woman who mimics men, is something less than a woman, or what a woman could become.

Atthet wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You are contradicting yourself, First you say you hate then you ask why. Then you deny the existence of the very reason for hating. Confused?
Why would this engender hate?
There are a range of things that people are born with that gives them dis/advantages. Why single out beauty?
What is it in you that made you think of that? Ever been snubbed by a good looker?

No cheeze wineman, first I ask why, then I hate.
If a woman rejects me, then I hate her? Or, does she reject me because she hates me? Or does she hate me because she rejects me?
Tell me, Master Wineman, you guru, you intellectual, you superior intellect

I imagine women reject you because you are an arse-hole.
It's what they call a no-brainer.

allemotion,

You've established that what you call "love", requires pride, dignity, risk, exposing yourself, honesty, and great sacrifice. This means, love requires a great cost. And this cost is different across the gender gap. Love is different to a man, than to a woman, different between male and female. A woman's love requires a sacrifice, a risk, of spreading her legs open to a dominant male. If she fails, then she will birth an inferior child into the world, crippling herself, her resources, the child's resources, and society's resources.

The most irresponsible action a woman can do in life, is fail in her fundamental judgment, and spreading her legs open to an inferior male. If a man, a criminal, tries to rape a woman, and she does not defend herself to the death, if she submits to this attack, then she is an inferior type of woman, with no pride and dignity, no worth. She would spread the seeds of a rapist, and plant this germ into a new generation.
Men are a different biology, and a man's worth is not dependent on who he has sex with, or children with, but instead his moral and ethical character. A man with no ethics, is not a man, but an animal. He is driven by instinct, not reason. Reason separates men from animals, this includes a certain control of sexual compulsions. Women do not have this. Women are the unreasonable gender, the emotional gender, the allemotion, noreason gender.

chaz wyman wrote:I imagine women reject you because you are an arse-hole.
It's what they call a no-brainer.

That's why I lie to women in real life, and am more honest here on this philosophy forum. You're correct, cheeze wineman, if women knew my nature and thoughts, then they'd run like hell. Women want control over men.

If a woman comes across a superior intellect, a superior man, who her beauty and passivity cannot control or convince, or dominate, then she becomes fearful and feels this man is a "creep" or "dangerous". Women like "bad boys", but not bad men. A bad man is one that women cannot control, and so, feel very vulnerable and weak around. A bad man, obviously, is a man who has not succumbed and submitted to Judeo-Christian values, like you have Cheeze. You, as a Jew, are a slave to an ideology. This comes with a sacrifice.
Women are "attracted" to you, cheeze wineman, because they don't feel you are a threat. And, you aren't. You aren't a threat to moral or social values. You are a slave, a bitch, another woman. You are distinctly feminine in your brain, just as other women are. And as like attracts to likeness, women are attracted to what they identify within themselves.

That attraction is weakness, and to weakness. It is toward beta males, and feminine men, who buy into social mores, artifice, and slave mentality. It is a humiliated, defeated mentality, which men, on the other hand, hate. Males cannot stand this, despite subjugation to these social norms. This creates the realm of fraternity and male bonding. Males bond, based on recognition of these subjugating principles, and how well one man dodges and avoids, or usurps the social norms. This gives the possibility for respect, between men.
This is something distinct and excluded from women. Women are never "equal" with men, for this reason. Men have a much greater hardship than women, biologically, and this is known as personal responsibility and accountability, something that women know nothing about. This is as foreign to women, as independence, individuality, and giving meaning to life.

Atthet wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:I imagine women reject you because you are an arse-hole.
It's what they call a no-brainer.

That's why I lie to women in real life, and am more honest here on this philosophy forum. You're correct, cheeze wineman, if women knew my nature and thoughts, then they'd run like hell. Women want control over men.

If a woman comes across a superior intellect, a superior man, who her beauty and passivity cannot control or convince, or dominate, then she becomes fearful and feels this man is a "creep" or "dangerous". Women like "bad boys", but not bad men. A bad man is one that women cannot control, and so, feel very vulnerable and weak around. A bad man, obviously, is a man who has not succumbed and submitted to Judeo-Christian values, like you have Cheeze. You, as a Jew, are a slave to an ideology. This comes with a sacrifice.
Women are "attracted" to you, cheeze wineman, because they don't feel you are a threat. And, you aren't. You aren't a threat to moral or social values. You are a slave, a bitch, another woman. You are distinctly feminine in your brain, just as other women are. And as like attracts to likeness, women are attracted to what they identify within themselves.

That attraction is weakness, and to weakness. It is toward beta males, and feminine men, who buy into social mores, artifice, and slave mentality. It is a humiliated, defeated mentality, which men, on the other hand, hate. Males cannot stand this, despite subjugation to these social norms. This creates the realm of fraternity and male bonding. Males bond, based on recognition of these subjugating principles, and how well one man dodges and avoids, or usurps the social norms. This gives the possibility for respect, between men.
This is something distinct and excluded from women. Women are never "equal" with men, for this reason. Men have a much greater hardship than women, biologically, and this is known as personal responsibility and accountability, something that women know nothing about. This is as foreign to women, as independence, individuality, and giving meaning to life.

QED.

I think women are smarter than you think. Actually most women are just smarter than you.

RickLewis wrote:Atthet, I disagree with most of what you have just written, but let's accept your definition of notability for the sake of argument.

Atthet wrote: To be notable, a woman must have a lead position. This includes competition. This includes the necessity of superior and inferior relationships, and comparisons to others.

If you read again what I wrote about Hypatia, or any of the online biographies of her, you will see that she was the head of the Platonist school in Alexandria. In other words she was at the top of the most important local hierarchy of intellectuals. She occupied a central and respected position in the city's cultural life and was an advisor to the city's govenor. As for comparisons, Socrates Scholasticus (a Christian writing in around 439AD) wrote "There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time."

Atthet wrote:If a woman is responsible for any intellectual greatness or achievement, then she can be attacked, ridiculed, blamed, and scapegoated for the same contribution, once it is refuted. And refuting a woman's intellect, is no great difficulty. Women are not used to male competition. Women make easier targets, the easiest target in fact.

Well, as for being attacked, ridiculed etc, a mob of fanatics angered by her intellectual influence kidnapped her, stripped her, dragged her into a church and brutally murdered her. As you have said, women make easier targets, especially if they are middle-aged intellectuals alone against a mob bent on murder.

As Hypatia easily met your two criteria for notability, namely (1) that somebody should have a lead position and (2) that they should be attacked, ridiculed etc for their achievements, do you therefore accept that Hypatia was notable?

The story of Hypatia is a heart-breaking one. Skinned alive by a mob of Christian fucks who were busy destroying the Great Library, taking humanity back a thousand years and plunging it into the Dark Ages.

Atthet wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:I imagine women reject you because you are an arse-hole.
It's what they call a no-brainer.

That's why I lie to women in real life, and am more honest here on this philosophy forum. You're correct, cheeze wineman, if women knew my nature and thoughts, then they'd run like hell. Women want control over men.

If a woman comes across a superior intellect, a superior man, who her beauty and passivity cannot control or convince, or dominate, then she becomes fearful and feels this man is a "creep" or "dangerous". Women like "bad boys", but not bad men. A bad man is one that women cannot control, and so, feel very vulnerable and weak around. A bad man, obviously, is a man who has not succumbed and submitted to Judeo-Christian values, like you have Cheeze. You, as a Jew, are a slave to an ideology. This comes with a sacrifice.
Women are "attracted" to you, cheeze wineman, because they don't feel you are a threat. And, you aren't. You aren't a threat to moral or social values. You are a slave, a bitch, another woman. You are distinctly feminine in your brain, just as other women are. And as like attracts to likeness, women are attracted to what they identify within themselves.

That attraction is weakness, and to weakness. It is toward beta males, and feminine men, who buy into social mores, artifice, and slave mentality. It is a humiliated, defeated mentality, which men, on the other hand, hate. Males cannot stand this, despite subjugation to these social norms. This creates the realm of fraternity and male bonding. Males bond, based on recognition of these subjugating principles, and how well one man dodges and avoids, or usurps the social norms. This gives the possibility for respect, between men.
This is something distinct and excluded from women. Women are never "equal" with men, for this reason. Men have a much greater hardship than women, biologically, and this is known as personal responsibility and accountability, something that women know nothing about. This is as foreign to women, as independence, individuality, and giving meaning to life.

You sound like a fucking mediaeval Pope. Yeah, women are all evil witches out to entice, castrate, and destroy poor weak, unsuspecting males with their Satanic wiles. Change the record!

If a man, a criminal, tries to rape a woman, and she does not defend herself to the death, if she submits to this attack, then she is an inferior type of woman, with no pride and dignity, no worth. She would spread the seeds of a rapist, and plant this germ into a new generation.

She could have an abortion.

But wait, your catholicism is seeping through. You do your parents proud. "Give me a child of seven and I will show you the man". Catholicism.

reasonvemotion wrote:

If a man, a criminal, tries to rape a woman, and she does not defend herself to the death, if she submits to this attack, then she is an inferior type of woman, with no pride and dignity, no worth. She would spread the seeds of a rapist, and plant this germ into a new generation.

She could have an abortion.

But wait, your catholicism is seeping through. You do your parents proud. "Give me a child of seven and I will show you the man". Catholicism.

He's a catholic? Oh my, what a surprise.