Threatening to commit rape? Nonsense. That would be illegal and certainly any observing F.B.I. or Homeland Security agent on the internet that should ever cross paths with this thread should know we’re talking about natural rape/sexual coercion on the grounds of evolution that fits perfectly well within the enacted laws of free speech. I personally think you’re getting me confused with some other Joker. There’s all kinds of Jokers out there on the internet these days. You never really know who you’re talking to…
Free will is an illusion and there are limitations to self discipline or restraint.
I think there are a variety of different kinds of behavioral motivations on the part of rapists. You’ve only mentioned one kind. Over a period of time I am going to take a crack at defining some.
I don’t believe it all stems from a hatred of women either although I am sure some rapists are motivated by such just not all.
There seems to be a broad brush in prescribing behavioral motivations for rapists and I think this is a mistake.
You want to have me killed? You mad bro? 
To be malignant means “to act with malice” and the word malice means “desire to hurt another”.
You had a choice to discuss with me, but you chose to mock me, which is indicative of a desire to hurt another, in this case, me. Hence, the adjective “malignant” is more applicable to you than it is to me.
The word “anus”, on the other hand, refers to an opening of one’s body that exposes one to all kinds of violent rape. The fact that you totally submitted to the idea that morality is learned, rather than innate, indicates a past event, no doubt one of rape, so horrible that you ended up denying it. Hence, the word “anus” too is more applicable to you than it is to me.
It is thus you who should be referred to as “Malignant Anus”. And not only you, but also your “teacher”, really a pedophile, who should be referred to as “Malignant Fat Ass”. Because, at least within these narrow Internet circles, there is no greater victim of rape, and no person of greater malignance, than the two of you.
What you call “malignance” is really a retaliation against your malignance, and this malignance I am retaliating against is a true malignance because it is not a proper retaliation, but a misdirected retaliation, really an initiation, that is caused by the fact that you – and your “teacher” of course – are utterly incapable of retaliating against the real enemy.
So who’s “afraid of retaliation” here? You, of course. You are afraid of retaliation. You’ve been raped by none other than your “teacher” Satyr. And what my posts achieve is to remind you that you should retaliate against him. But because you can’t, you decide to attack me, because I am an easy target, and I am an easy target because I have respect for people, and because I do not fuel unnecessary conflicts. Unlike your “teacher”, who’s a Jew to the core, in the sense of being a magnificent manipulator and fear- and war- monger, I do not manipulate, so I am a much easier target to attack.
You had an option to discuss with me. Why did you choose to attack me instead? I believe it is because you are afraid of discussion. You are afraid because there is a chance I will stimulate you to turn against your “teacher”.
Your “teacher” too is “afraid of retaliation”. There is a theory, which I am sure is correct, that he’s been raped by passive-aggressive people and that this made him lose all of the decency that he once had (it is, however, questionable how much of it he possessed, but that shall be ignored for now.) Passive-aggressive people are a real danger. In many ways, far great danger than people who are overtly aggressive. This is because passive aggression is a very subtle and cunning mix of respect and disrespect that makes it very difficult for people to determine whether they are being treated with or without respect. It paralyzes people by making it very difficult for them to determine the intentions of the other. In your very own terms, what passive-aggressive people do is come up with a “degree” between the absolutes of respect and disrespect that effectively hides the fact that they are fundamentally disrespectful. The worship of degrees belongs to the manipulators, to those who want to hide their real intentions by resisting every kind of dualistic categorization.
Here is another way to describe the process. What passive-aggressive people do is intentionally make themselves unnecessarily complex so that other people are more likely to skip the necessary process of trying to understand their intentions (since increase in complexity makes it too difficult and too long of a process) and so that these people end up making an easy assumption and a whimsical decision. The process they are forced to skip is called complexity management . . . all manipulation works by trying to force people not to manage complexity. And the easiest way to do this is to deliberately make the situation more complex than it is necessary. Due to its deceptive nature, the violence of passive-aggression is rarely felt immediately, and is almost always felt at a much much later point in time, which is when people freak out and start digging themselves deeper and deeper into the ground. The most common reaction is to respond to manipulation by becoming manipulators themselves (Boromir Syndrome) and that by renouncing direct or symmetric interaction with people (i.e. respectful interaction) in favor of asymmetric interaction (selectively respectful, or quite simply disrespectful, interaction, also known as elitism, and more generally, as tribalism and egoism.) The individual simply locks himself within his tower spending all of his time doing nothing but observing other people walking in his “courtyard” in an effort to understand them such that he is forever protected from the danger of direct interaction. This leads to crude abstractions that deal with people AS A GROUP rather than AS INDIVIDUALS and which, though effective in securing protection from passive-aggression, ends up mistreating innocent people. In this way, complexity is NEVER managed, which is to say reduced, but is merely TRANSFERRED from the internal (felt as pain) to the external world (felt as pain by others.)
So what happened to your “teacher”? He became SO AFRAID of passive-aggression that he ended up becoming INCAPABLE of socializing with people, eventually resulting in being perma-banned on this forum, and in a years-long shit-posting on his very own forum. Instead of retaliating against passive-aggression he ended up retaliating against entire groups of people which included not only those who are guilty and deserving of his retaliation, but also those who are innocent and those who are guilty but not deserving of the kind of retaliation he is administrating. Instead of figuring who his enemies are, and then retaliating against them, or at least working on retaliating against them at some future point in time, he simply ended up hallucinating his enemies and then retaliating against his hallucinations. This is what people who are over-concerned with survival do (and he is, despite his claims, in many ways over-concerned with survival.)
I am not the one who is afraid of retaliation, my friend, I am the one who responded to this topic in order to remind people of the need to retaliate – to offer resistance – instead of treating with respect those who have no respect for others.
The post to which you responded with mockery emphasized this point.
It is YOU who is unable to retaliate and who is hiding this fact by pretending that your INITIATION is in fact RETALIATION.
It is not me, but you who is “socially submissive”. You may not be beta, but this is only because you are afraid of being beta, which is why you’re rejecting complacent submission in favor of rebellious submission, which is in many ways worse because it has an extra fear added, which is the fear of being beta, that makes you even more fit for manipulation.
This is what I told you in the post to which you responded – that it is YOU and not me who is submissive. But you ignored it and simply went on to repeat yourself. Why? Because as I concluded in that post, you are a rude imbecile.
And you did “touch a nerve”, because unlike you, I have nerves, and I do not like to be treated with disrespect. You are used to it, I understand, so I can rape you and you won’t notice a thing, because you have no nerves, but that does not mean that I too have no nerves. I do. Unlike you, I have self-respect.
The idiotic belief and grand delusion of morality as something that is learned, rather innate, as a set of abstract rules that come from without, rather than as something that comes spontaneously from within and that is mapped as a set of abstract rules only later on through the process of self-analysis, is very very real.
This “false morality” is what you understand by the term morality and it is the reason you are demanding empirical evidence for it.
How do you prove something that is innate? How do you present empirical evidence for something that is innate? Not counting testimonies of people who say that morality is innate and real. You won’t accept this. So what kind of evidence would you accept? What kind of evidence would you accept for something that is innate?
The thing is that, if you want direct evidence, you need to REPLICATE THE SPIRITUAL JOURNEY OF MORAL PEOPLE in order to come to realization that morality is real. This is because morality is innate, and if you want direct evidence, you need to IMITATE what other people are doing and see whether it leads you to something divine or not.
And it is this that you are incapable of doing and that paves the way for your confidence in the delusion that morality is not real.
Morality follows directly from the process of complexity management. It is this process that you are utterly incapable of replicating within yourself.
,^^^^^^
For me all morality and ethics is illusion, delusion, error, contradiction, or without evidence in terms of backing up claims. Nothing is going to change my mind on that so don’t even bother.
Trying so desperately to defend your pedaled fictions. Want to very much at whatever costs keep the faith in what you call order.
It’s your choice. And choice, being a change that occurs merely within one’s mind, does not bother me per se. But the moment your choice converts to a negative real life action, which includes Internet propaganda you’ve been engaging in last couple of weeks, is the moment you declare war on me (and not only me, but also on anyone with a shred of self-respect.)
Your assertion that “nothing is going to change your mind” regarding the supposed “fact” that morality is an “illusion, delusion, error, contradiction” goes on to show, contrary to what Aussenseite was hoping for, that you are not at all interested in the possibility of you being sick and in need of help.
You are not here to exchange ideas, but to promote, so Aussenseite is wrong, and I am right.
You have also refused to respond to my question. You didn’t answer what kind of evidence you want. But given that you’re now saying that nothing will change your mind, I suppose that not even evidence would change your mind? But then, why did you bother defending your position by claiming that there is no evidence for morality? It makes no sense.
You say that morality is a contradiction, but really, the only one who is a contradiction here is you.
That’s the problem with true believers like you. There is just no swaying you either way.
Oh well, to be honest I like having people like you around within the world in that is more fun watching you fall. Cheers.
But it is not me saying that “nothing is going to change my mind”. It is not me avoiding every kind of discussion. But you. It is you who cannot be “swayed”, which is to say, helped.
You are a true believer. You act like a believer. It is you repeating yourself over and over again without ever interacting with the other.
I’ll ask you again: what kind of evidence do you demand?
This is a simple question. Yet, you refuse to answer it.
You have to believe in something to be a true believer. My position is rather easy in that I am not the one positing something.
That’s all on you son…
I’m positing an absence of something where you on the other hand are positing the direct opposite.
Now, please think of some other kind of bullshit you can litter or posit within this thread. 
Malignant Anus, you are very confused. You have written 2 long fucking posts in which the first 20% you vaguely address me but assume that I advocate positions I don’t advocate, in the other 80% you just rant, so I will ignore that.
My actual position on morality:
I am a naturalist, and this extends to my positions regarding morality as well. It’s a tool we have evolved to survive. Different groups will therefore have different moral codes depending on their circumstances. The consequence of this kind of understanding is that there are no moral absolutes, and no objective morality. Morality is an intersubjective human construct constructed by a group of humans co-existing in a particular space and time. Humans have the innate POTENTIAL to learn morality, and morality is partially based on things which are innate, like empathy, but particular moral laws such as ‘thou shoult not rape/murder/thieve’ are a consequence of circumstance, and not innate.
As for rape specifically, my position depends on the specific circumstances surrounding the particular case. If the woman is the kind of woman I consider decent, then rape is bad. If she is not, then I don’t care what happens to her.
I do not want to be rude, but I do not really think that your logic stands scrutiny.
A belief is a belief regardless of whether it is a belief in an existence or an absence. You chose your stance. So it is a belief.
You are not simply neutral. Neutrality implies that you did not choose your stance. And you did choose your stance.
The fact that you believe in a negative, rather than in a positive, does not make your choice automatically superior. Would it be better if I thought that you do not exist? What do you think?
What you’re doing right now is called manipulation. You are inventing lies in order to make your stance artificially look superior.
I am, after all, willing to give you evidence, but you have yet to tell me what kind of evidence you demand.
In fact, you have yet to confirm that you really are seeking evidence, and not merely pretending that you do.
Magnus, you’re right on about this, I’ve been hounding hahaha, that in order to consistently make an argument, that objective morality is necessarily the situation, otherwise there is contradiction, and more so, manipulation… I simply call it conspicuous consumption to show dominance.
For outsiders post, the moment you declare everything relative, you have made an absolute, meaning, it’s relative that there’s no absolute !!
If you argue equality of relative of absolute and relative of lack of absolute, then you have a situation where the motivation to post equals zero, thus, the very fact of posting leads to contradiction.
To try to get around this is to say there is no such thing as contradiction, which would make a post look like this “ifbosugp1360 ivocuspjlv5” - the inability to respond in context.
Read above post…
If everything is relative, the relative is relative…
That’s easier to understand.
To ArseBiter:
You are very confused.
It’s a good thing that you will ignore that (good for your survival.)
Your actual position on morality is exactly as I predicted it to be.
Yes, I know. You are a slave.
Absolutely. Naturalists see everything in terms of survival.
I am not surprised that you say that. Everything we have is just a tool we have evolved to survive. That’s how naturalists, survivalists, tribalists and other egoists think.
Oh really?
But that is a consequence of a kind of understanding that is degenerate. You are interpeting everything in terms of survival, so it is perfectly understandable that you think that there are no moral absolutes, or any kind of absolutes at all, since absolutes, being strict, risk survival.
True. But what is not true is that that morality is true morality. It is not. It is false morality. It is, in fact, no morality at all. It’s just an instinct of self-preservation dressed up as morality.
And why is it not true morality? Is it simply because it is subordinated to survival?
It is because it is subordinated to survival, but only because such a subordination has consequences that are immoral.
True morality is about respect. False morality is about need.
Do you understand?
False morality is willing to sacrifice respect for the sake of need. And that’s precisely what happens most of the time.
People of false morality – we call them tribalists – bond not out of respect, but out of need (to have fun, to have sex, to survive, etc.) Their social relations are based on the sadomasochistic exchange of disrespectfulness. They go something like “I will let you bully me but only if you let me bully you afterwards”. It’s a bit more complex than that. Perhaps more generally, their “morality” is based on the promise of some future reward – usually an opportunity to bully other people – for the bullying that has to be endured in the present.
Naturally, since you are a naturalist, the only kind of “morality” you can understand is the natural one, which as I said, is not really a morality, but a pretense adopted out of need.
False morality is indeed learned. But I never spoke of false morality in the first place.
So you just declare yourself to be right, Malignant Anus. Fine then.
I do put my principles above survival, respect as well, but certainly not what YOU consider to be respect, and my principles are very different from your own, namely, they’re not degenerate. And my morality is true, yours is false.
There. Since you’re all about declarations, I only see it fit that I respond in kind.
And see, my declarations are true while yours are false. Though, this is just another declaration.
There’s really no helping individuals who have no eyes to see. I find it more humorous to go ahead and let them keep their idiotic beliefs. It does neither you or me any harm in doing so for their loss can only be our gain.
No, that’s what you do. Your contribution to this thread is non-existent. You came here merely to mock and to make declarations. I, on the other hand, am the only person posting here.
You have no principles.
And you have no respect.
And your “principles” are degenerate.
And you have no morality.
And it is you who are making declarations.
No, your declarations are false and my declarations are true. And yes, this is yet another declaration on your part.
You have to be really arrogant to expect anything more than a physical assault. You came here and mocked me. The only thing I owe you is a sledgehammer right in your face. Any person with at least a shred of self-respect would understand this. Yet, you somethow think that I am supposed to respond to you with detailed elaboration.
This is the extent of your degeneration.
Not to mention that, despite the fact that you’re the guilty side here, I am still the one offering you, as well as HaHaHa, a possibility of discussion.
But you aren’t, actually. All you are offering is threats and finger pointing.
Please point out to me where Hahaha stated, in any way, that he wanted to rape women.