Philosophy Now Forum

I am a Satyr...do you know what that means?
My name is not Satyr...I AM a Satyr.
Silenus is my King.

Seriously, what does your mother think about this? Is she concerned for your welfare. I AM a Satyr, I am NOT insane.

Loss of true identity is a sympton of depression.

uwot wrote:Nope.

If you are being seduced by a woman, and you are very aware of her attempts to seduce you, then this is not seduction. Seduction only works, and be called seduction, if the victim is unaware of its method. This is why the phenomenon of beauty and superficial beauty markers is so effective in biology. Beauty is seductive, precisely because it denies the nature of what attracts what, and who attracts who.
Secondly, seducing a man or woman, with lies catering to their fears and hopes, is not giving them a "choice". It is the taking away of this choice.

Seduction is no different than slavery. Seducing a man or woman, is also enslaving a man or woman. God seduces Jews and Christians into His holy army. This is enslavement, which Jews and Christians readily accept with zealotry. A Jew or Christian, like cheeze wineman, love being slaves. That's why they make good slaves, because of how fervent they are to serve their heavenly father.

bus2bondi wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:As for the use of 'one', it does come across as pompous which is a shame because it's so useful, especially in written form, because it ensures that others don't think you are referring specifically to them, which is apt to occur when 'you' is used.

i've just found it (in general) as a term of reference, a point of reference which is pretty much just the same as using the word 'you' although it's a word that reaches beyond the word you because it sort of encapsulates the word 'you' and the word 'everyone' at the same time with it simultaneously being both and simultaneously not being both.

i suppose it just depends upon how its being used, or the intention of the user.

the word misogyny has always seemed pompous to me. when i first came across this word a long time ago i had no idea what it was. after i learned what it was, it almost seemed 'pomp' in it's own way to use the word misogyny.

i've found there is this 'flow' (for lack of a better word) around it.. i'm not saying at all that i am for women haters, etc.. not at all. but the word misogyny, it's always bothered me. if you wrote, for example the word, ontology, that would not bother me. but the word misogyny...

'Misanthropy, philanthropy, pederast, misandry.....I guess they are all 'pompous' then. Perfectly good words with straightforward meanings.
Problems arise when a word like misogyny is over-used, or misused, by radicals with an agenda. It's a shame because a useful word then loses its meaning.
As a matter of fact you have just demonstrated my original point. You don't like the word misogyny because it's 'pompous', yet you are not bothered by the blatantly misogynistic rantings of some of the posters on this forum. Just 'boys being boys' eh?
The point I was TRYING to make about the use of 'one' is that it's a pity it comes across as pompous because it saves the bother of having to tie ONEself into knots explaining to someone that ONE is not referring specifically to the person ONE is speaking to , but to ONEself and others in general. I've always thought there is a bit of a shortfall or 'missing link' in the English language when these situations come up.

reasonvemotion wrote:

I am a Satyr...do you know what that means?
My name is not Satyr...I AM a Satyr.
Silenus is my King.

Seriously, what does your mother think about this? Is she concerned for your welfare. I AM a Satyr, I am NOT insane.

Loss of true identity is a sympton of depression.

How is "true" identity Formed or 'Constituted'?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

bus2bondi wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:As for the use of 'one', it does come across as pompous which is a shame because it's so useful, especially in written form, because it ensures that others don't think you are referring specifically to them, which is apt to occur when 'you' is used.

i've just found it (in general) as a term of reference, a point of reference which is pretty much just the same as using the word 'you' although it's a word that reaches beyond the word you because it sort of encapsulates the word 'you' and the word 'everyone' at the same time with it simultaneously being both and simultaneously not being both.

i suppose it just depends upon how its being used, or the intention of the user.

the word misogyny has always seemed pompous to me. when i first came across this word a long time ago i had no idea what it was. after i learned what it was, it almost seemed 'pomp' in it's own way to use the word misogyny.

i've found there is this 'flow' (for lack of a better word) around it.. i'm not saying at all that i am for women haters, etc.. not at all. but the word misogyny, it's always bothered me. if you wrote, for example the word, ontology, that would not bother me. but the word misogyny...

'Misanthropy, philanthropy, pederast, misandry.....I guess they are all 'pompous' then. Perfectly good words with straightforward meanings.
Problems arise when a word like misogyny is over-used, or misused, by radicals with an agenda. It's a shame because a useful word then loses its meaning.
As a matter of fact you have just demonstrated my original point. You don't like the word misogyny because it's 'pompous', yet you are not bothered by the blatantly misogynistic rantings of some of the posters on this forum. Just 'boys being boys' eh?
The point I was TRYING to make about the use of 'you' is that it's a pity it comes across as pompous because it saves the bother of having to tie ONEself into knots explaining to someone that ONE is not referring specifically to the person ONE is speaking to , but to ONEself and others in general. I've always thought there is a bit of a shortfall or 'missing link' in the English language when these situations come up.

no, i didn't say that. anything ending with 'opy', 'ast', 'andry' is pompous? i don't think that myself.

you wrote, "Problems arise when a word like misogyny is over-used, or misused, by radicals with an agenda. It's a shame because a useful word then loses its meaning."

that seems to be it, but not quite, but maybe so, it's just the thing i noticed about the word misogyny is that its got something going on about it beyond most other words in terms of the word, maybe 'pomp'?


The point I was TRYING to make about the use of 'you' is that it's a pity it comes across as pompous because it saves the bother of having to tie ONEself into knots explaining to someone that ONE is not referring specifically to the person ONE is speaking to , but to ONEself and others in general. I've always thought there is a bit of a shortfall or 'missing link' in the English language when these situations come up.[/quote]

i understand your point, but i've never met anyone who's ever tied themselves into knots over it. especially 'explaining to someone that one is not referring specifically to the person one is speaking to, but to oneself and others in general.'

As a matter of fact you have just demonstrated my original point. You don't like the word misogyny because it's 'pompous', yet you are not bothered by the blatantly misogynistic rantings of some of the posters on this forum. Just 'boys being boys' eh?

no, i have not just demonstrated your original point.

That you are a fucking moron? Yes, I think you have.

no, you are wrong, i am a green fucking moron

you have spent some time arguing with me when you could've been arguing with the misogynists on the forum, i have come to the conclusion that you are not bothered by the blatant misogynistic rantings of some of the posters on this forum. Just 'boys being boys' eh legknee

bus2bondi wrote:you have spent some time arguing with me when you could've been arguing with the misogynists on the forum, i have come to the conclusion that you are not bothered by the blatant misogynistic rantings of some of the posters on this forum. Just 'boys being boys' eh legknee

Misogyny is a phenomenon of sexism! Especially discriminate the female！

Miss Atthet and John Boy could not be classified as misogynists, that would require some recognition that they had some force within them to laud it over a woman.

These two are different.

They are both unsuccessful with women, harbouring a hatred because women do not want to bond with them. Why would they? One is a sycophant who drowns in his own wet dreams and the other is a red neck/Creedance Clearwater, lets watch Deliverance. I guess one looks like Buffalo Bill and the other's mother terrifies every woman who comes to "visit" so consequently both have to continue masturbating alone and you know what that does to you. How's your eye sight, both wear glasses?

I could almost feel sorry for you both.

REPLY DELETED BY RICK

(Just too unpleasant - johngalthasspoken is really lowering the tone. Banned for one day)

Atthet wrote:I'm not an asshole. I'm a hater, don't you know the difference?

Therefore, despite your claims to the contrary, you are a misogynist by definition. That and being an arsehole that is.

Urban Dictionary meaning

MYSOGINIST ENCOUNTER

Male: " Hey baby whats up, wanna get wit me sweet thang? "

Woman: " Eww, get away from me freak? "

Male: Fuck you you stupid bitch! *Slap, smack, WHAM WHAM, WHAM WHAM WHAM, WHAM, WHAM, WHAM, WHAM, WHAM WHAM WHAM*