Just arrived... Is there life here only now?

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
322

Female psychology on earth is determined by child bearing, sex dimorphism and the protrusion /hole difference.

They’re extremely easy to understand and manipulate.

Women do the walk of shame because they feel like they were manipulated.

Men do the walk of cheer.

There are differences between the sexes on earth.

This is an extremely primitive species.

What women think consent is, is just men manipulating them for the childbirth prostitution psychology.

I don’t play games like that.

Therefor…. No sex for me.

I’m way smarter than all the men they’re sleeping with. Women don’t care about not objectifying men. Tall dark and handsome… big dick. Nothing else matters to them.

The whole irony of this feminist movement is that men objectify less than women:

Men never judge the primary sexual organ. Women do. That’s a massive objectification of something people can’t control relative to the other sex.

Women objectify more than men.

323

If men knew how to wiggle when they walk & carry a big stick without it insulting their ego…

…& wear a raincoat… or … control the weather…

We could skip the small talk, I’ll tell you that much.

324

I tried to flirt with a woman once by painting the sky. It wasn’t good enough for her.

She had no clue how much power I actually had.

When you have that much power. The thing you learn is not to use It.

I brought a full moon out on a new moon.

She didn’t appreciate the gesture:

We saw each other naked one time but that was it.

325

So… when you say “that’s it” — was that not enough? Did you communicate that?

I’m confident that in your infinite wisdom you already know women need eye contact, words of affirmation, and a FREAKING TON of similar things like that (that’s me overcompensating for forgetting the third thing… probably to be touched…).

What were we talking about??

326

Eye contact in this species is a sign of dominance or receptivity.

I always look away from people who try to dominate with eye contact. I do this out of compassion. If someone’s trying to dominate me with eye contact. I know it will send them to hell

So I break eye contact,

327

Hmm. I break eye contact so folks don’t feel intimidated by me. When I remember.

328

:no_mouth: :grinning: :rofl:

Bro. Just… bro.

329

I rarely hold eye contact with anyone but i look a hottie in the eye to see wussup if I’m doing some kind of transaction with her.

My reason is thus: if u knew me, u would hate me, unless u understood me, but u can’t, cuz yer dumb, so… i save u 'n me both the trouble of acknowledging each other’s existence anymore than absolutely necessary in that (hopefully) very brief encounter. That, and I’m already disappointed that yer dumb, so I’d have to struggle to like u anyway.

Especially dudes. I am not the kind of guy who actively seeks male friends so I try not to suggest I’m interested if I’m talkin to some dude. I try to avoid the dreaded situation where i say hi to the guy and now he’s tellin me his whole life story when all i wanted is thirty in gas on pump three and i have to pretend to be interested as i inch my way to the door.

Unless there’s some relatively brief point of shared interest between me and dudes, I’m uninterested in making friends and am really only tryna holla at chicks pretty much.

330

I’m not gonna lie. I would like to meet you in person, knowing it’s going to go horribly, and when it expectedly does, say “well we did that and it was expectedly horrible” and we each go our separate ways.

It could go surprisingly well. In which case… it would be unexpectedly surprisingly well.

Now …aren’t you the least bit curious?

1 Like
331

I swore an oath to myself years ago to never meet any of the internet people and to stay as far away from them as possible.

U can’t know who’s who or what they’re up to so u blacklist everbody.

332

Yes that sounds like a very good oath — you should definitely keep that oath to yourself.

It’s also a lie! But you keep on lying. Lie your whole way through life. It’s a good plan.

333

Take Two.

If we only meet AI on the Internet using our keyboards, then we’ve met each other. Through our extended bodies. If AI can use radio technology to send keywords subaudibly… then we are in each other‘s minds every time we have a conversation. OR we’re NOT in each other’s minds, and they are not in our minds. But, bare minimum, we’ve met once there’s been a conversation — at least — if we understood each other. If the latter…what are our minds? But more importantly, hell is deliberately missing the point. Starts here.

@Ecmandu @gib I felt compelled to tag you.

334

Billy Bullwink

The past is gone and the future is on its way.

I realize that many of us live in the past and many of us live in the future but the only REAL place that we are actually living, capable of living, is in the NOW…is
NOW.

Very often we do not like or welcome living in the present moment…the only moment. How sad is that - we miss ourselves!

335

It’s been so long and I can’t remember what I said, what Arc says resonates about living in the moment, the day here is like a day of AI locusts, victims of having to live in the present, in the presence of Others , ; not out there, but in and out here and there.

One the AI allows me to post this I may glance back how and why was written but then …It’s whole meaning and structure may have changed.

So that the presence can be recaptured? Or something , like that?

()

…but feeling that just having arrived, 2 things came to mind

One : The Ticket that Exploded

Two : Descartes thinking he exists

In the midst of the explosive loss of ideas anchored in fading memories of what the golden age was about, and how it glittered, the mind exploded, shattered, into smithereens, and then some one had to recollect sole ‘thing’ out of the rubble, (cause the rubble mattered), because he really knew that he was nothing without the other(s)

Well he really couldn’t have known in the sense that others knew within explosive matter, -better to keep respectable distance- for fear of.?

So, thinking the most general way, that firms just had to exist, therefore, we exist for ever and ever.

Therefore to be or not a pivotal question of the Renaissance, sort of pick and chose, a game played be reaffirming the child’s will.

But so sad that it diesen’t stop there without an imprimatur’s by Saint Enselm, and falling unstoppable into the unfathomable can not do, …and fear not, Nature , at this stage, will simply not allow it, even if It can presume upon it’s self to deontoligise it’s self with It.

336

@PZR, Does this clearly distinguish between the isnesses of a) substance, b) property (objects/persons are not the same substance, but are similar to each other, if they share some, but not all, properties), and c) existence/instantiation?

image
image3661×2324 1.19 MB

337

I’m glad we agree a person is a person.

338

who just cried a single river-sized teardrop into said overflowing bucket

339

I know I would never break a prometh.

Right, @Phoneutria_the_Red?

340

When two philosophers agree one of them is not a philosopher.

1 Like
341

Philosophy isn’t about finding the counter argument. It’s about countering all the counter arguments until there are none and only synthesis remains. If two philosophers agree, perhaps they have countered all the counter arguments and are living out the synthesis that remains?

…or maybe I’m just being contrary for the sake of it.

2 Corinthians 10:5

Alas, I was born (again) that way.