Homosexuality is parasitical to heterosexuality.
It cannot replicate itself, unless it contradicts itself…and it emerges as a dysfunction of heterosexuality.
Your social activism is noted and has nothing to do with the topic.
You’re obv a closet value ontologist.
Ive always caused you to freak out and become completely irrational. Since I developed VO you became obsessed with me, for years on end dedicating threads on your forum to trying to distort what Ive written.
Obviously im not just talking about love. An electron values a proton. Its called attraction. Not love. Atoms value each other in their own terms, thus forming molecules.
Valuing only becomes conscious in - consciousness. All consciousness is valuing.
But you could not possibly grasp that. Many people a lot smarter than you have trouble with it.
You claim some sort of evolutionary superiority but you are an actual primate - at least when you try to confront me.
Stick to your primitive topics.
1 Like
Are you James S Saint?
No, but James’ idea of anentropic self-harmony played a part in the coming-about of VO.
He had high expectations of where I would take VO, saw it as a potential weapon against global tyranny, a tool for creating self-sovereign humanity. Unfortunately I never was able to take it that far. Bad luck on the way.
I fear James is dead, but if he is Im sure he is doing well.
My circumcised buddy…your arrogance and self-aggrandizement is what irks me.
Moron… interactivity is the word you need.
Not love…not value…not friendship…interactivity, mioron…as in Energy.
Your use of the term ‘value’ is meant to imply more than a moron, like you, can rationalize, without exposing his motives and his superstitious nature.
I know your kind uses words to manipulate, but it will not work on me.
You replaced ‘love’ mixed it with Schopenhauer’s ‘will’ and came up with a revised edition of the same crap..Dreaming of becoming another Nietzsche, when all you are is a pathetic pharisee.
Yes, moron…only life can judge and evaluate…not lifeless matter…so your idiotic concept is psychological, not ontological.
Moron…interacitvity…as in energy, means attraction AND repulsion.
AND repulsion, hypocrite.
Both are essential to life.
That you insist on using a term that implies more than you can deliver, speaks to your motives…a classic messianic circumcised Abrahamic manipulator.
I hope you find more gullible, needy imbeciles, like the few that you have…your infamous van clan of Montreal.
I repeat…nothing about you interests me…except your hypocrisy and that arrogance…that in your face, undeserved insufferable arrogance.
Tell them about your telekinesis, hypocrite.
Tell them about your supernatural abilities.
Tell them about those lights in Montreal…flickering as you biked by…
HA!!!
Turd.
No you primate, interactivity means precisely nothing. Valuing, a very particular type of interactivity, explains life, and the coming about of it from the quark.
And clearly I am your number one obsession over the years, you always responded to my posts with your barbaric babbling, at one point virtually dedicating your entire forum to slandering me (and in the process demonstrating the unsoundness of the truly base mind), where I have maybe once deemed it worthy of responding to something you came up with.
Look at how utterly triggered and literally hysterical this *** gets when it is confronted with high-order conceptuality. Thats been like that for over a decade.
You are the personification of the degradation of the west.
Quark? …valuing …from a quark? Well, I suppose it makes about as much sense as valuing from a meat machine. …or anything else, for that matter.
Can you please make a new thread and explain value ontology… hit all the essential points “affectance” James S Saint found so promising?
I would be most grateful. Feel free to tag me in it.
The topic is homosexuality…
Perhaps a better term than “parasite” is “pest creature”. A pest creature, or vermin is a creature which reproduces uncontrollably while bringing about reduced quality of life to the host. Example, rats, roaches, bedbugs etc. This are characterized by uncontrollable and rapid heterosexual reproduction, overpopulation, etc.
Homosexuals can replicate themselves, but I can see your perspective, as homosexuals tend to not reproduce, thus loosely could be viewed as an ancillary to the main organism.
What seems to occur is bisexuals eventually will produce homosexuals in the population, and in turn the homosexual may or may not reproduce. Reproduction is often from social norms encouraging heterosexual reproduction, and without that, the odds of them reproducing is much lower.
In overpopulated societies such as modern societies, social pressures for homosexuals to engage in heterosexual activities is not needed to maintain the human population quotas, and also just makes it harder for heterosexuals and bisexuals to find a mate
What observations have you made that make it seem like this?
I find it deplorable that anyone would be labeled as a rodent. Obviously, we are not meant for mere survival (or insatiable gluttony), and only the good should be reproduced and live forever. Who among us is perfect? It is only by grace that we get to have these relationships.
Homosexuality, bisexuality, and any other kind of divergent sexuality would never happen if we were happy with our biological situations, and sexually faithful (consent respecting) in our minds. What was sexual life like before the first consent violation?
If we could go back and live in that experience (an ethical problem in and of itself… Quantum Leap fans…), we would color it with our own. It is something from which we exiled ourselves (and others we initiated).
Would there be any possible way to nurture two brand new babies into adulthood without any taint of consent violation?
Shouldn’t we be teaching them (and so ourselves) to be happy in the skin they are in, and not to do anything in their minds they would not have consent to do in their behavior— and that if something is good for the mind, it should also be good for the behavior, and vice versa?
I’m not talking about becoming prudes who experience zero pleasure and zero joy and zero life. I think if we survive only on the “bread” of the mind, we become spiritually anorexic, if none of it comes to fruition in our behavior. And if the dreams of the mind are enslaved to impulse, when it comes to fruition in behavior, we become… spiritually morbidly obese & diabetic. Malnourished in both cases.
…but not rodents!
What is this based on? Research and studies? You sound very confident that you’re correct, you must have a really good source for this.
no, I just make shit up.
It does appear that way…
1 Like
Things are always as they appear.
Uhhh… wut? Please see previous request.
That^ is how you frame this?… or is there a better example than the below?
The challenge here is trying to find out the characteristics of the enigmatic, monolithic, omni-gay. Just as many online offer and seek broad advice, rather than tailored, adding to the difficulty…
Just as a computer is better understood after it is categorized into subtypes and types of those subtypes… You have desktops and then you have mobile phones and then you have gaming consoles… of desktops you have Windows or Linux, of Windows you have Windows 10, Windows 8, or Windows 7…
Chris Crocker, always used to claim that they are gay, gay, gay… Now saying they are trans… mtf, have the wrong body… How much of a person’s self-identication is determined by technology and peer pressure? If there was a button to turn one’s self female, how many men would push it? Just to feel dominated by a handsome stud. Rather than the current “tech” of waiting years and still looking like an ogre… Already how many men, how many gamers, seem to consistently pick female avatars and play as female characters, in first person mode…
And with a filter like that, you would be able to categorize the “true gays” from the “quasi gays”, the ones that are just women in men’s bodies… And from there, you might have three categories of “true gays”… The true gay who wants handsome studs… then the “next-gen” true gay who wants anime handsome studs with chiseled abs… then the other “true gay”, the one who wants to fuck anything that moves and has a penis, most would naturally feel disgust… this type of gay, is not analogous to a female… if you look at many species, such as flies for example, a female fly will reject 99.5% of male advance… Being a male in many species is brutal and miserable, an uphill struggle to gain female approval and be loved… is it possible that there is a fourth type of gay, one shaped by this, wishing to escape hypergamy and misery?
Then… finding the desires, the humanity, the brain… Recognizing that my takes, my preferences, are OBJECTIVE not SUBJECTIVE… unlike others which are purely subjective… other gamers which are delusional, post fake reviews, and lack culture, while I spit facts and tell it like it is… Just as with games also here. Why is it that large asses, wide hips are attractive? Is it subjective? Why is it that consumers are 90% female? Why is it that a lot of advertising and advertisement pictures, “sexualize” females, showing wide hips? Why is it that most females want to be penetrated, and not penetrate? What do you do when you fuck somebody in the ass? What do you grab onto? You grab onto their waist. Do you hold onto some vertical geometry, like some type of retard? Or do you hold onto angled geometry, so that there is something to grab on to? When you sit on something, how much cushion do you want? When you fuck something, how much cushion do you want? This would exactly determine how big, how soft, how much muscle of ass do you want…
When a woman has cone-tits, bell-tits, do you find that attractive? Or do you prefer large idealized anime breasts? Small-to-medium size? Or very large ones that give off cow-vibes? Maybe some gays first saw women with cone-tits, bell-tits, which color their perception of all women. Maybe some straights saw women with idealized anime tits, which color all their perception and interactions with women. Maybe bisexuals are without bias and without prejudice…
Also the jello factor… many women have a “jello factor”… lack of muscularity… lack of chiseled abs… maybe some gays are not into that and it colors their perception… makes you wonder if they found a body building chick, with a masculine personality, and she put on a strap-on… would they still be gay… idk…
Objective, not subjective…
I was watching ASMR the other day… A female on there, sounding squeaky, high pitch, Tinny sounds, not woody sounds… do you want to hear a high pitch sine wave tone like that… do you want to hear nails on a chalkboard…? Subjective or objective? I listened to a gay man ASMR… much more relaxing of sounds… Objective not subjective… he wore lipstick, the lipstick looked repulsive to me… objective not subjective… maybe a different shade of lipstick would have looked good on him… in another video he didnt have any and looked better… objective not subjective… not every man is the same, some types of lipstick might make them look repulsive, other types of lipstick might make them look good, it depends on geometry, shape, etc. Objective not subjective… there are some Female ASMR that is not squeaky, tinny, and annoying… some Female ASMR that is good…
Back in the day, Tom cruise was not heeded more than an idol. A secular idol to be worshipped for his manhood incorporated from all kinds of stuff, as young man looking so-so confused created a James Dean archetype, a longing to be a throwback into a more innocent era, to literally be absorbed into the film of life, like the last picture show, or even more so, my own private Idaho.
West Hollywood glamor girls , transient but glorious bums of the heyday when the levy turned dry and that Chevy stuck in dried mud represented pre-mad max tupes, who reeled forward and the end of even that epoch, showed the last band up in the bay, where salty dogs knew what will happen, but kept the show going for fear of the rea reel coming , and the machine was bound to repeat it’s cycle of deliverance into a lost innocence.
They stood in the bars, transfixed statues, wondering if it was dad or mom screwed up, or whether they just screwed uncaring.
Then came the hemoglobins, who pondered genes or memes, and that really was an optically derived sensation, particularized and found better the higher logic that could eliminate oof the either or confusion and deliver into the more blaming in and/. Or, that appeared to lift angelically into the soul of angelic apprehension, , Michael Angelically besuited to all who stared upon that eternal visage, supported by down below, arches rising heavenward , while coming to no analogy of similarly acquired terrors.
The secular politics of that heavenward gaze overlayed it’s ontological heathendom, there was no looking back, men over the age of forty some of them suicided way before that viral will offensively attacked the mirror who wrote Dorian into hundreds times grey, cornered at every corner by those who analyzed that haughty look of sons and their lovers, as if the younger could learn anything from his older brother.
The thing is, that the will to the power to control, is the key to all erected weapons of destruction, and the say back need not be a warning of not looking back, eye into the abysmal depth, that live asexually could guarantee by some sense of a superlative force which chose to bestow on us the benefit of doubt.
Please do not out me on account , but do fathom the sweet song that came before an asexual cell became two.