Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:30 am

Dear Echoes, look at this picture. You say man-woman, woman loves man.
I sit at Taco Bell listening in to the radio. Hear a song sang by a black woman. "You beat me to the punch". Song is about a woman who wants to flirt with a man. Woman, wants to flirt with a man. Next song...woman wants to kiss a man. Woman wants to flirt with a man. Woman wants to kiss a man.

Look at this picture.
Image
This is an example of a masculine man.

Now take a shower, Clear your mind. Sit down and think. Do you really think, deep down, deep in your heart and bones, that Women lust after this man? That women, when they get home, fantasize lust and fantasize about kissing this man? Do you, in your heart of hearts, really believe this? That women, truly, love men?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:45 am

Your argument is fallacious because you go from talking about men in general to one specific man that you deliberately chose
And you failed to mention the fact that women are attracted to things other than physicality and one of those things is money

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6155
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:33 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:45 am
Your argument is fallacious because you go from talking about men in general to one specific man that you deliberately chose
And you failed to mention the fact that women are attracted to things other than physicality and one of those things is money
It's not that they are attracted to money, it's more that money gives a man confidence and it's the confidence that is attractive.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6155
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:04 am

That guy's just fugly.

What about this guy?

Image

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:48 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:04 am
That guy's just fugly.

What about this guy?

Image
You tell me. You're a woman right? Do you ever have raunchy fantasies about this dude?

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:49 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:45 am
Your argument is fallacious because you go from talking about men in general to one specific man that you deliberately chose
And you failed to mention the fact that women are attracted to things other than physicality and one of those things is money
No, women just want money. And they want to get money easily. Using men is the easiest way to get money.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:46 am

Women must lust after those kinds of men cause there are a lot of them around. Same for fat ugly women, a lot of guys like them.

While men have always wanted attractive women, the earliest evidence I can find of a doctrine that men should select only the prettiest of women comes from the cynic school in Athens. These man had no money, but we insisted early on on decent looking women. Think we made the right choice.

Women are deeply attracted to money, and status, and anything the leading females of society has. Thing is, once they have it, they will proceed to cheat on the male they are with generally. They have compunctions sometimes involving concepts of layalty and monogamy and laws, etc.... but a great many will.

I myself keep a standard. My standard is, if they like me, then they must not be worthwhile. I would never date a woman willing to date me, I prefer them classy.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 518
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:02 am

That guy wouldn't even pass in amateur porn.

What the fuck even are these threads? At this point I wish both of you would just leave.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:35 am

These threads are his schitzo ramblings. He gets an emotional high from the confrontation. I myself use basic rhetorical replies back, laced with basic humor and logical devices. It a basic form of pedagogy. He is a exceptionally slow learner, and quite repetitive, but got him to accept a few concepts central to debate over time.

Issue is, while it is atrocious how Trixie does it, everyone else does it as well, just isn't as obvious when you yourself do it. For example, let's say you SOAS have this outburst two days from now, or two weeks from now, or later on.... you would still challenge me on a ad hom basis for bothering to reply to Trixie's games. Problem is, you yourself would be doing the same thing. You just wouldn't identify with the behavor, and think your being annoyed and associating me with the cause is justified. Same goes with Trixie. That's schitzophrenia, even a sane person can exhibit the mental patterns of it. These sorts of people flood Internet forums.

The concept of logical fallacies are designed to negate certain patterns of thinking to avoid unreasonable paradox and absurdities from arising in discussions, as well as conclusions. As a Stoic, I know this too damn well, but also know it was always incredibly weak to assert it as the basis of a true philosophy. Each personality has it's favorites, and we project deficiencies upon others based on a general disregard for a reserve or a acceptance for a chain of thought.

Trixie obviously isn't as advanced as you are in philosophy, and you obviously are not as advanced as I am. Had you been as advanced as me, you would of known that in philosophy, it is usually the ones who know how things work, have to spend time with those that don't, and this involves more than a reasoned argument, but also explaining to the, the mechanics of how things works, literally opening up new ways of thinking they've never been exposed to before.

Trixie is limited, but can, I believe in time, expand. He has in small degrees since I've met him. In early Stoicism, under Zeno of Citrum, we made the crucial mistake of mocking and npbanishimg from Stoicism a certain Cynic who had ADD. That minor annoyance he had made up the greater bulk of his philosophy that survives today (Arius Didymus, Stoic Ethics). The medieval concept of the Dunce is derived from it, as well as the Holy Fool (was a cynic Christian practice). Today it has touched far too many aspects of our civilization. We've applied suppositions of useful and useless people, first developed then, to people in far later ages, such as George Bernard Shaw and Hitler advocating the death of people not belonging to the master race, degenerates.

It was a very minor mistake at first, but one that lasted several thousand years. So forgive me for being well read enough in history and philosophy, and cognizant enough of the original sin of my order, that I take time to work with those who are less able and experienced in philosophy. Know my scope and experience, as well as the varied background I have far outmatches already anything you can ever hope to achieve in your lifetime, and will surely on multiple occasions Show to you other facets of my character and abilities. With Trixie, and with most, a general comedic crudeness is all the preferred method, as it is the behavior that is the least intimidating, most inclusive and open, as well as exciting. Excitement is essential, as that's when our emotions are unified, and the mind most open. There is a method to my madness, and it is most sane and foreward thinking.

My recommendation to you is to consider the motivations of people who are annoying, and ask yourself why they differ from you. Ask yourself on a basis of a theory of mind, how they view you, and vice versa. Ask yourself about the mechanics of the rheoric being used in relation to the psychology they are displaying. If they are limited and repetitive, why so? Do they show the capacity for different responses, of adaptation and change?

Trixie does. He is compulsive and predictable. This is only the umpteenth time he has done a Madonna Whore like switchup, asking me to compare the aesthetics and form of people or situations, but so many damn philosophers do essentially this, some quite famous, that I don't really don't mind. Why should I treat the limited, compulsive ramblings of a genius any different from a compulsive schitzophrenic? Neither seem to be digging any deeper than the other on a similar issue, just in Trixie's case, it comes off as ignorant and offensive and malformed (because it is) while in Umburto Eco's case it is so amazing because he qualifies as a mainstream philosopher because he can write books.

Doesn't matter much to me either way. They both dig equally deep, and at a similar rate. I don't mind the labors and time spent getting Trixie up to speed, as I have to do it with everyone anyway. My great horror upon entering into philosophy, going to public debates was discovering just how limp minded and slow thinking most people are. It really bothered me for a long time. People with advanced degrees, experts.... nothing, I could run circles around them in thought. Realized I needed to substantially readjust my approach to philosophy. The people making the most mistakes tended to come to the cleverest of conclusions. The ones who bucked the trends. Trixie is very predictable, but also bucks the trend at times. Learning how he thinks has taught me a lot about how people think in general. Exploring how you think.... not going to be so interesting. I know, I know..... I don't know you, you have done some amazing things. You can see in my laziness in spelling and form you are already better..... you'll find out soon enough, a few times over it doesn't work that way with me. I'm messy and sloppy because I can afford to be, for a diamond is still amazing even when not polished.

So I will take my time with Trixie, or anyone for that matter, join in the games of Homo Ludens, talk like a pirate, and will annoy the hell out of people when they slowly realize I'm the most amazing, complex, and deep person they've ever met. I just prefer the whoppi cushion over pretending to appreciate Mozart in order to fit in to preconceptions of what qualifies as a philosopher. Etiquette and fitting into shallow mores isn't the crux that we should be aiming for. Abandoning those on the quest for philosophy isn't the ethic we should endorse.

Trixie is a flawed human, but no more so than you. He seeks out philosophy forums, and I will continue to associate with him, for I am a philosopher, and will try to make amends for a history full of neglect. Foucault's ship of fools never existed, but this does. I stand by my position, and hold the high ground in doing so.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6155
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:53 am

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:35 am
These threads are his schitzo ramblings. He gets an emotional high from the confrontation. I myself use basic rhetorical replies back, laced with basic humor and logical devices. It a basic form of pedagogy. He is a exceptionally slow learner, and quite repetitive, but got him to accept a few concepts central to debate over time.

Issue is, while it is atrocious how Trixie does it, everyone else does it as well, just isn't as obvious when you yourself do it. For example, let's say you SOAS have this outburst two days from now, or two weeks from now, or later on.... you would still challenge me on a ad hom basis for bothering to reply to Trixie's games. Problem is, you yourself would be doing the same thing. You just wouldn't identify with the behavor, and think your being annoyed and associating me with the cause is justified. Same goes with Trixie. That's schitzophrenia, even a sane person can exhibit the mental patterns of it. These sorts of people flood Internet forums.

The concept of logical fallacies are designed to negate certain patterns of thinking to avoid unreasonable paradox and absurdities from arising in discussions, as well as conclusions. As a Stoic, I know this too damn well, but also know it was always incredibly weak to assert it as the basis of a true philosophy. Each personality has it's favorites, and we project deficiencies upon others based on a general disregard for a reserve or a acceptance for a chain of thought.

Trixie obviously isn't as advanced as you are in philosophy, and you obviously are not as advanced as I am. Had you been as advanced as me, you would of known that in philosophy, it is usually the ones who know how things work, have to spend time with those that don't, and this involves more than a reasoned argument, but also explaining to the, the mechanics of how things works, literally opening up new ways of thinking they've never been exposed to before.

Trixie is limited, but can, I believe in time, expand. He has in small degrees since I've met him. In early Stoicism, under Zeno of Citrum, we made the crucial mistake of mocking and npbanishimg from Stoicism a certain Cynic who had ADD. That minor annoyance he had made up the greater bulk of his philosophy that survives today (Arius Didymus, Stoic Ethics). The medieval concept of the Dunce is derived from it, as well as the Holy Fool (was a cynic Christian practice). Today it has touched far too many aspects of our civilization. We've applied suppositions of useful and useless people, first developed then, to people in far later ages, such as George Bernard Shaw and Hitler advocating the death of people not belonging to the master race, degenerates.

It was a very minor mistake at first, but one that lasted several thousand years. So forgive me for being well read enough in history and philosophy, and cognizant enough of the original sin of my order, that I take time to work with those who are less able and experienced in philosophy. Know my scope and experience, as well as the varied background I have far outmatches already anything you can ever hope to achieve in your lifetime, and will surely on multiple occasions Show to you other facets of my character and abilities. With Trixie, and with most, a general comedic crudeness is all the preferred method, as it is the behavior that is the least intimidating, most inclusive and open, as well as exciting. Excitement is essential, as that's when our emotions are unified, and the mind most open. There is a method to my madness, and it is most sane and foreward thinking.

My recommendation to you is to consider the motivations of people who are annoying, and ask yourself why they differ from you. Ask yourself on a basis of a theory of mind, how they view you, and vice versa. Ask yourself about the mechanics of the rheoric being used in relation to the psychology they are displaying. If they are limited and repetitive, why so? Do they show the capacity for different responses, of adaptation and change?

Trixie does. He is compulsive and predictable. This is only the umpteenth time he has done a Madonna Whore like switchup, asking me to compare the aesthetics and form of people or situations, but so many damn philosophers do essentially this, some quite famous, that I don't really don't mind. Why should I treat the limited, compulsive ramblings of a genius any different from a compulsive schitzophrenic? Neither seem to be digging any deeper than the other on a similar issue, just in Trixie's case, it comes off as ignorant and offensive and malformed (because it is) while in Umburto Eco's case it is so amazing because he qualifies as a mainstream philosopher because he can write books.

Doesn't matter much to me either way. They both dig equally deep, and at a similar rate. I don't mind the labors and time spent getting Trixie up to speed, as I have to do it with everyone anyway. My great horror upon entering into philosophy, going to public debates was discovering just how limp minded and slow thinking most people are. It really bothered me for a long time. People with advanced degrees, experts.... nothing, I could run circles around them in thought. Realized I needed to substantially readjust my approach to philosophy. The people making the most mistakes tended to come to the cleverest of conclusions. The ones who bucked the trends. Trixie is very predictable, but also bucks the trend at times. Learning how he thinks has taught me a lot about how people think in general. Exploring how you think.... not going to be so interesting. I know, I know..... I don't know you, you have done some amazing things. You can see in my laziness in spelling and form you are already better..... you'll find out soon enough, a few times over it doesn't work that way with me. I'm messy and sloppy because I can afford to be, for a diamond is still amazing even when not polished.

So I will take my time with Trixie, or anyone for that matter, join in the games of Homo Ludens, talk like a pirate, and will annoy the hell out of people when they slowly realize I'm the most amazing, complex, and deep person they've ever met. I just prefer the whoppi cushion over pretending to appreciate Mozart in order to fit in to preconceptions of what qualifies as a philosopher. Etiquette and fitting into shallow mores isn't the crux that we should be aiming for. Abandoning those on the quest for philosophy isn't the ethic we should endorse.

Trixie is a flawed human, but no more so than you. He seeks out philosophy forums, and I will continue to associate with him, for I am a philosopher, and will try to make amends for a history full of neglect. Foucault's ship of fools never existed, but this does. I stand by my position, and hold the high ground in doing so.
Who's the schizophrenic?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:20 am

I think her slowness to learn is more due to her being stuck in the same pattern of thinking rather than her
lacking in intelligence. But you could say that about any one so it is not something exclusive to Trixie. I try
to be as open minded as possible but I can be stuck in my own pattern of thinking the same as any one else

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:44 pm

I actively break my pattern when I read a text. It can be damaging to a extent when I read a foreign religious text, I realize the issue after I come out of it. I push myself as far into it as possible. Same goes for a debate, I'm almost like a method actor, in trying to grasp the thought patterns of others, predicting what they read, where it will lead. Lots of scanning of facial expressions during a debate.

It is quite possible to bust you, but even I have obvious patterns. But some of it is per place and circumstance..... but individuals can learn to change. Lord Nelson the sea pirate was able to switch it up, many noted this about him, was shocking.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:10 pm

I think the older I get the less I know and that is actually a very good place to be since it stops the mind from
becoming too set in its ways. No one has a monopoly on wisdom for there is always going to be something one
has got wrong. Intellectual growth for me will not stop untill I am dead or no longer have the capacity to learn

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:44 pm

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:35 am
So I will take my time with Trixie, or anyone for that matter, join in the games of Homo Ludens, talk like a pirate, and will annoy the hell out of people when they slowly realize I'm the most amazing, complex, and deep person they've ever met. I just prefer the whoppi cushion over pretending to appreciate Mozart in order to fit in to preconceptions of what qualifies as a philosopher. Etiquette and fitting into shallow mores isn't the crux that we should be aiming for. Abandoning those on the quest for philosophy isn't the ethic we should endorse.

Trixie is a flawed human, but no more so than you.
You sound like an extreme narcissist, gurl.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Women's Sexuality question for Echoes.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:47 pm

Ah, you think changing the pattern of thinking has something to do with knowledge. It doesn't. A fact is still a fact, just you use it differently. Someone who was a physicist and suffers a crash, and switches over to becoming a artist due to limited brain trauma is thinking in a different mode. Them may remember many of the facts of their old scientific self, but the expression will churn out differently. Essentially the same person in body, same thinking, but new mode.

His can happen late in age. Look at Swedenborg, he had a dramatic awakening as far as his thinking process was concerned. He didn't loose his former self, but gained in conjunction other traits of thinking associated with very different personality types.

Given Schitzophrenics have more or less all the modes of thought a normal person has, just is a bit limited at points (can't guarantee forcing debate will grow it back, but it will strengthen aspects before and after it, make him better, higher functioning) Trixie has the capacity like others to expand personality wise, use consciously feedback loops in thinking and reasoning he never used before, much like all of here learning and interpreting one another. He isn't a lost cause. A terrible burden at times, with the perverted repetitive replies, but who's subconscious isn't constantly slamming them with some thinking you wouldn't otherwise want the world to know! It happens on a near constant basis. Trixie wears it on his sleeve. Can't help a lot of it, thou I've seen him hide aspects of it.

He is okay. What isn't okay is be impulse throwing everyone out. Doesn't lead us to learn more about ourselves. If you grasped what was going on in his mind, and how it related to your own thinking process, it would disturb and distract you less. Being of a different culture or political persuasion shouldn't be the cause of shutting others out as well. I am a systematic effort to learn from as many kinds of people as possible, from all over the world. That is the ancient cosmopolitan ideal.

And I am a extreme narcissist, self absorbed, Trixie. I spend the day looking at my own reflection and lapping the water with kisses. I can't help I look that good, but I do keep well hydrated as a result.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests