The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
- Status
Really?
Bells said:
Not to be mean, but do you even read this stuff?Bells said:
That would be a corollary, yes. I think everyone agrees that survival is not the SOLE concern though, once again it's just that this topic gives rise to such obstinance. It's part of the reason actual progress to consensus is so difficult.
ahh, i see,
you use sockpuppets.
and also, this line of yours speaks volumes.
please show this then.
amusing,
think about what i'm complaining about, can you do that ?
then explain what you think why i do it.
sole2
sole [sōl]
adj
1. only: only one
the sole reason
2. exclusive: belonging to one person or group
has sole responsibility for the department
3. unfettered: free from the interference of others
I have other accounts on different forums, not sockpuppets, but under a different name.
How far back in your post history would I have to look to find a post in which you're not merely whining?
Is there anyone here that you feel is competent enough to have a discussion in physics with you, if so, who? Name 'em.
yes exactly, sockpupptes(shrugs)
i only use krash661 every forum i go on,
think about why.
since i have to repeat since you can not comprehend,
" if you actually read anything i have posted on any forum i have been on,since i have been posting, "
yes, some,
as for naming them
just use your brain and look at who i confront and who i explain to.
it's that simple.
use this thread as an example, start from the beginning of this thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141801-Reality-as-Self-Contained
That's not really a physics topic, but oh well.
Several members are being accused of being rape advocates and misogynists, myself included.
I am not a rape advocate or misogynist. I would appreciate it, if you could ease up on your pointless bickering.
Thanks!
On Superficiality, and Other Notes
#25:
And it just goes on from there.
Like #31:
You described his misogyny while writing it off in his defense. And that swooning romanticization?
What do you think he expects of that "love"?
To feel her love? What does that mean to you? What do you think it means to feel the love of a possession one is entitled to? What is the basis of that love?
Yeah. Poor him.
I suppose my question is at what point you accept the ravings of someone even you would acknowledge suffered some sort of antisocial personality disorder at face value. Because that's what you've done. Where the psychologically dysfunctional are accurate, or as close to as anyone can be, is in describing what they perceive. Whether and how that perception engages reality is its own question; it sounds so innocent and boyish and attractive, how he was afraid of women, doesn't it? But what does all that actually mean?
The guy is crazy enough to do all that, but sane enough that we should read his manifesto as a straightforward, undistorted account of real history?
You know how you solve domestic violence when you stick to superficial expressions? You tell the victim that the abuser is doing it out of love—after all, that's what the abuser said, right?—and set about therapeutically assisting that victim with the task of being so loved. Which is why psychologists, social workers, and other such specialists don't stick with the superficial expressions. Such expressions are suggestive, even indicative on some occasions. But the one thing they aren't is consistently accurate.
I suppose one odd way to look at it is if you have a sibling. My brother and I to this day fight, well, like brothers. And, of course, we hang together, anyway, instead of hanging separately. That's part of what such filial brotherhood involves, according to my conditioning. But anybody trying to read him and predict his behavior based on history needs to be exceptionally careful. To wit, I'm forty-one years old. I can recall the racism we encountered, each our own, in our little exurbian childhood paradise. We had an argument eighteen years ago when a childhood chapter finally came to a head. I accused him of setting racist classmates on me; he did not deny. In fact, he hit me with the one answer he had that makes sense: What the hell was I supposed to do? He was nine. What the hell was he supposed to do to get the heat off them except set them on someone else? That's how it went in my corner of the Universe, and ethnic minorities were told to act more white, or, more specifically, that they could combat the perception of bullying and racism by being more like everyone else. But that memory arose as it did, when it did. Incidentally, a black friend who considered us both white as can be, as our friendships were still under construction at the time, happened to witness that exchange and the conversation that surrounded it, and after that moment never again protested when one of us discussed perceptions of discrimination by white people against ethnic minorities. It was a learning day for all of us.
A year later, we had one of those affirmative action measures on our ballot. That same friend asked my brother why he supported it: "But you went to college on an ethnic scholarship!" he reminded. The answer? Yeah, but that was a private school.
Shortly after that election, one of my brother's longest friends called him a Republican in a discussion over pizza and beer. Not like an insult, just a statement of observed fact. My brother interrupted whatever point the guy was trying to make and pitched a fit about not being a Republican, and how dare anyone presume he's a Republican! And what happened next was interesting; rarely do his friends challenge him so directly—indeed, this is one of the only such moments I can recall. They explained to him that ever since they've known him, he's backed Republican candidates, taken the conservative position on ballot measures, and argued fluently from the right wing. And let us be clear; it wasn't until the end of the first Dubya term that he finally abandoned the Republicans altogether, in favor of a "they're all the same" libertarian pout while secretly voting for Democrats.
Good heavens, during the early days of the war, my brother and I argued ferociously about how Bush was going about it. I remember making the point that after the war, what will stabilize the society is education and economy, and arguing that we could throw the war money into an actual nation-building effort and try to avoid all the killing. My brother, a tribal American, actually dared argue the old fire-water point; it would be cruel to raise the Afghani standard of living so dramatically.
A few days ago, my brother posted a brief, firm commentary on Facebook, responding to commenters after a friend noted the trademark rescinsion. To anyone who doesn't know him, it looks like the typical, barely-patient recitation of the civilized version of the response. To those who do know him, it is significant how near to absolutely exploding on this issue he is.
But here's the thing: As I said, I'm forty-one years old. I adore my brother, and always have. He's smarter than hell, and all those things we say of folks we admire. But I'm forty-one years old, and last week was the first time anyone who knows him has ever seen evidence that yes, he is, in fact, in this fight.
He would resent the preceding sentence from here to eternity, but it's true that nobody can recall actually witnessing him throw down at all in this.
Much like the Republican thing, he would resent the implications of racism. But those who aren't, say, me, who has known him throughout the whole of my life, the superficial record is tremendously conflicting and suggestive that his sympathies were with racists. If we stick with the superficial, that's the appropriate reading. But for those who can look beyond that shiny façade, he's simply been keeping his head down because he thinks he can't win—he's as cynically political as I am. The reason he's showing now is that everyone knows that on this issue, it's now or never, and the scent of racism's wounds are thick in the wind. This is his methodology, and the analysis the only consistently accurate one.
Your argument keeps the discussion focused on the most superficial aspects, the proverbial shiny things to fascinate a person. The omission of a dialectic of neurosis from historical discourse often leaves us confused by the counterintuitive and contradictory bits and pieces that don't actually fit together, and this results in part from failing to account for human frailty (i.e., irrationality) and the fact that we do, actually, have some useful insight into how those devices of the mind work.
As you said, Elliot Rodger told us why he did it. Where you run astray is in trying to keep the analysis superficial.
Gary Lee Ridgway hated "prostitutes", but we might notice how hard it is to find any dead gigolos by his hand; the Green River Killer focused on women he perceived to be prostitutes.
Like I said, cleaning up the neighborhood.
But is an allegedly religiously inspired hatred of prostitutes really all there is to it?
The "Green River Killed": There could be many, many more, but no men.
I suppose we could say so, if we really, really wanted.
One wonders, though, what it will take to get our society to undertake a rational, substantive, useful discussion of misogyny. We tend, as a society, to avoid the deeper analysis because it is sticky and complex and confusing. It's like a question of femdom I once encountered here: The woman must dress up to specification, recite the lines just so, and then physically abuse the male partner. As someone I discussed this with once tried to explain, this means the woman is empowered. As I countered, the whole point was the male's gratification and only after she met aesthetic and performance standards, and therefore constituted a sex toy. If you look at it according to the most basic description, a sexual ritual in which a woman kicks a man in the 'nads, then sure, that's all there is to it. If you look at what brings the femdom sector to prominence, however, we're talking about hired labor meeting quality standards in order to gratify a male. The psychoanalysis of any given male pursuing those situations is astounding, but in truth we're not going to be able to crack that nut (ha!) until sex and gender parity in society is much closer to reality. One of the most general, tacit objections to this sort of analysis is one that people have a lot of difficulty giving voice: In cycles of victimization and perpetration, it is extremely difficult to mark the transformative thresholds. That is to say, the dominated male customer might be responding to his own sense of victimization—e.g., prior sexual abuse, bad relationship outcomes with women, &c.—but marking the point at which victim becomes perpetrator is very, very difficult, and also emotionally unsettling to an exceptional degree.
But people generally need to look deeper if their purpose is understanding instead of mere gossip or tavern talk. And on this occasion, I would propose that if you're befuddled or offended by the points you're asking for links to—in this case, "His views on women, which ones? Where? Link, please."—it might well be that you're taking Elliot Rodger at face value, and not looking any deeper.
Trooper said:
#25:
"He was right, though. Women do reward aggressive and obnoxious behavior, reinforcing the idea that manhood is attained through power. Most of them are drawn to men who demonstrate confidence, stubbornness, and risk-taking tendencies, i.e. the high Machs. Why? Because therein lies 'the challenge'."
And it just goes on from there.
Like #31:
"I don't think he hated women as much as he feared them. They became his narrative, a status symbol, an answer to all his problems. Just like most people feel that they can gain social status from material gains, he thought having a girlfriend would solve all his problems."
You described his misogyny while writing it off in his defense. And that swooning romanticization?
"And then he saw a beautiful girl while out for a walk.
I was scared. I was scared that she might view me as nothing but an inferior insect whose presence ruins her atmosphere. Her beauty was intoxicating! And then, just as we passed each other, she actually looked at me. She looked at me and smiled. Most girls never even deigned to look at me, and this one actually looked at me and smiled. I had never felt so euphoric in my life.
One smile.
One smile was all it took to brighten my entire day. The power that beautiful women have is unbelievable. They can temporarily turn a desperate boy's whole world around just by smiling.
I can only imagine how heavenly it would be to walk with a beautiful girlfriend down that street. My life would be complete if I get to do that. It would be the epitome of gratifying perfection. To have a beautiful blonde girl by my side, to feel her hand clasping my own as we walk everywhere together,to feel her love! ....
I was scared. I was scared that she might view me as nothing but an inferior insect whose presence ruins her atmosphere. Her beauty was intoxicating! And then, just as we passed each other, she actually looked at me. She looked at me and smiled. Most girls never even deigned to look at me, and this one actually looked at me and smiled. I had never felt so euphoric in my life.
One smile.
One smile was all it took to brighten my entire day. The power that beautiful women have is unbelievable. They can temporarily turn a desperate boy's whole world around just by smiling.
I can only imagine how heavenly it would be to walk with a beautiful girlfriend down that street. My life would be complete if I get to do that. It would be the epitome of gratifying perfection. To have a beautiful blonde girl by my side, to feel her hand clasping my own as we walk everywhere together,to feel her love! ....
What do you think he expects of that "love"?
To feel her love? What does that mean to you? What do you think it means to feel the love of a possession one is entitled to? What is the basis of that love?
Yeah. Poor him.
I suppose my question is at what point you accept the ravings of someone even you would acknowledge suffered some sort of antisocial personality disorder at face value. Because that's what you've done. Where the psychologically dysfunctional are accurate, or as close to as anyone can be, is in describing what they perceive. Whether and how that perception engages reality is its own question; it sounds so innocent and boyish and attractive, how he was afraid of women, doesn't it? But what does all that actually mean?
The guy is crazy enough to do all that, but sane enough that we should read his manifesto as a straightforward, undistorted account of real history?
You know how you solve domestic violence when you stick to superficial expressions? You tell the victim that the abuser is doing it out of love—after all, that's what the abuser said, right?—and set about therapeutically assisting that victim with the task of being so loved. Which is why psychologists, social workers, and other such specialists don't stick with the superficial expressions. Such expressions are suggestive, even indicative on some occasions. But the one thing they aren't is consistently accurate.
I suppose one odd way to look at it is if you have a sibling. My brother and I to this day fight, well, like brothers. And, of course, we hang together, anyway, instead of hanging separately. That's part of what such filial brotherhood involves, according to my conditioning. But anybody trying to read him and predict his behavior based on history needs to be exceptionally careful. To wit, I'm forty-one years old. I can recall the racism we encountered, each our own, in our little exurbian childhood paradise. We had an argument eighteen years ago when a childhood chapter finally came to a head. I accused him of setting racist classmates on me; he did not deny. In fact, he hit me with the one answer he had that makes sense: What the hell was I supposed to do? He was nine. What the hell was he supposed to do to get the heat off them except set them on someone else? That's how it went in my corner of the Universe, and ethnic minorities were told to act more white, or, more specifically, that they could combat the perception of bullying and racism by being more like everyone else. But that memory arose as it did, when it did. Incidentally, a black friend who considered us both white as can be, as our friendships were still under construction at the time, happened to witness that exchange and the conversation that surrounded it, and after that moment never again protested when one of us discussed perceptions of discrimination by white people against ethnic minorities. It was a learning day for all of us.
A year later, we had one of those affirmative action measures on our ballot. That same friend asked my brother why he supported it: "But you went to college on an ethnic scholarship!" he reminded. The answer? Yeah, but that was a private school.
Shortly after that election, one of my brother's longest friends called him a Republican in a discussion over pizza and beer. Not like an insult, just a statement of observed fact. My brother interrupted whatever point the guy was trying to make and pitched a fit about not being a Republican, and how dare anyone presume he's a Republican! And what happened next was interesting; rarely do his friends challenge him so directly—indeed, this is one of the only such moments I can recall. They explained to him that ever since they've known him, he's backed Republican candidates, taken the conservative position on ballot measures, and argued fluently from the right wing. And let us be clear; it wasn't until the end of the first Dubya term that he finally abandoned the Republicans altogether, in favor of a "they're all the same" libertarian pout while secretly voting for Democrats.
Good heavens, during the early days of the war, my brother and I argued ferociously about how Bush was going about it. I remember making the point that after the war, what will stabilize the society is education and economy, and arguing that we could throw the war money into an actual nation-building effort and try to avoid all the killing. My brother, a tribal American, actually dared argue the old fire-water point; it would be cruel to raise the Afghani standard of living so dramatically.
A few days ago, my brother posted a brief, firm commentary on Facebook, responding to commenters after a friend noted the trademark rescinsion. To anyone who doesn't know him, it looks like the typical, barely-patient recitation of the civilized version of the response. To those who do know him, it is significant how near to absolutely exploding on this issue he is.
But here's the thing: As I said, I'm forty-one years old. I adore my brother, and always have. He's smarter than hell, and all those things we say of folks we admire. But I'm forty-one years old, and last week was the first time anyone who knows him has ever seen evidence that yes, he is, in fact, in this fight.
He would resent the preceding sentence from here to eternity, but it's true that nobody can recall actually witnessing him throw down at all in this.
Much like the Republican thing, he would resent the implications of racism. But those who aren't, say, me, who has known him throughout the whole of my life, the superficial record is tremendously conflicting and suggestive that his sympathies were with racists. If we stick with the superficial, that's the appropriate reading. But for those who can look beyond that shiny façade, he's simply been keeping his head down because he thinks he can't win—he's as cynically political as I am. The reason he's showing now is that everyone knows that on this issue, it's now or never, and the scent of racism's wounds are thick in the wind. This is his methodology, and the analysis the only consistently accurate one.
Your argument keeps the discussion focused on the most superficial aspects, the proverbial shiny things to fascinate a person. The omission of a dialectic of neurosis from historical discourse often leaves us confused by the counterintuitive and contradictory bits and pieces that don't actually fit together, and this results in part from failing to account for human frailty (i.e., irrationality) and the fact that we do, actually, have some useful insight into how those devices of the mind work.
As you said, Elliot Rodger told us why he did it. Where you run astray is in trying to keep the analysis superficial.
Gary Lee Ridgway hated "prostitutes", but we might notice how hard it is to find any dead gigolos by his hand; the Green River Killer focused on women he perceived to be prostitutes.
Like I said, cleaning up the neighborhood.
But is an allegedly religiously inspired hatred of prostitutes really all there is to it?
The "Green River Killed": There could be many, many more, but no men.
I suppose we could say so, if we really, really wanted.
One wonders, though, what it will take to get our society to undertake a rational, substantive, useful discussion of misogyny. We tend, as a society, to avoid the deeper analysis because it is sticky and complex and confusing. It's like a question of femdom I once encountered here: The woman must dress up to specification, recite the lines just so, and then physically abuse the male partner. As someone I discussed this with once tried to explain, this means the woman is empowered. As I countered, the whole point was the male's gratification and only after she met aesthetic and performance standards, and therefore constituted a sex toy. If you look at it according to the most basic description, a sexual ritual in which a woman kicks a man in the 'nads, then sure, that's all there is to it. If you look at what brings the femdom sector to prominence, however, we're talking about hired labor meeting quality standards in order to gratify a male. The psychoanalysis of any given male pursuing those situations is astounding, but in truth we're not going to be able to crack that nut (ha!) until sex and gender parity in society is much closer to reality. One of the most general, tacit objections to this sort of analysis is one that people have a lot of difficulty giving voice: In cycles of victimization and perpetration, it is extremely difficult to mark the transformative thresholds. That is to say, the dominated male customer might be responding to his own sense of victimization—e.g., prior sexual abuse, bad relationship outcomes with women, &c.—but marking the point at which victim becomes perpetrator is very, very difficult, and also emotionally unsettling to an exceptional degree.
But people generally need to look deeper if their purpose is understanding instead of mere gossip or tavern talk. And on this occasion, I would propose that if you're befuddled or offended by the points you're asking for links to—in this case, "His views on women, which ones? Where? Link, please."—it might well be that you're taking Elliot Rodger at face value, and not looking any deeper.
Are women attracted to bad boys?
Jeremy Meeks
I agree with Capracus. I too, think he viewed them, not only as prizes, but the judges, as well. Elliot Rodger was a misanthrope.
This still does not make me a rape advocate or misogynist.
Last edited:
please explain why it is not.
comical
think about what was stated by these individuals and you, then maybe it will be clear to you.
also, i personally did not.
was it not you who initiated this conversation between you and i ?
do not back out now.
so again,
since you conveniently sidestepped this, i have to ask again,
" I've argued with you before on another forum, "
please show this.
"Go, I say go away boy, you bother me."
so what's with the support of person is question then,
ad·vo·cate
vt [ádvə kàyt] (past and past participle ad·vo·cat·ed, present participle ad·vo·cat·ing, 3rd person present singular ad·vo·cates)
recommend or support something: to support or speak in favor of something
it's massively obvious.
other wise this conversation would not even exist as it does.
it's that simple.
you seen this topic and the first feelings you had was " offended" if not,
you would have not even commented.
so the question is why were you offended enough to comment about how " it's not all men " kind of comment ?
,
i wasn't.
then it lead to your support (which is massively obvious) of implying it's the women's fault.
seriously?
i'm just as shocked to have read that.
then you resorted to this nonsense,
WTF do you think you did with your previous post(#34) of that ?
exactly what bells stated,
unbelievable.
Let's.
Originally posted by krash661
how is he qualified to say it is gibberish ?
Originally posted by krash661
sorry, it doubled posted.
anyways,
how is he qualified to say it is gibberish ?
so basically you are saying to " dumb it down " for him ?,
i thought he was intelligent.
first,
this is apples to oranges comparison.
and second,
no i would not call it gibberish,
it's a language i do not know,
so i would say,
" i do not understand "
it's that simple.
ahh i see, you seem to think this is an arguing game.
so again,
when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
" if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"
Originally posted by krash661
how can i, you can not even understand what's written already, even tho it's simple, but not the simplest.
like a said,
when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
" if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"
Originally posted by krash661
now that you think you have some kind of of understanding,
what exactly are you doing ?
nothing more than exactly what i stated you were trying to do, ridiculing.
unbelievable.
Originally posted by krash661
amusing
ok, i'll show you something.
it shows that i have the capability to understand over others due to the fact i was educated properly in the field of sciences,
unlike the want to be-s that are responding.(get it?)
it that simple.
and also, do you ever listen to your own nonsense?
i'm the one trolling?
did you not respond with a bunch of want to be intellect nonsense, and yet never addressed the actual topic
just like what you are trying to claim i did?
well i see my responses that pertain to the topic.
where's yours?
pathetic.
you're making your self obvious here of who's the actual troll.
so please continue with your want to be intellect with out addressing the topic nonsense.
ahh yes, the typical ignoramus nonsense.
funny , you think this is religious stuff?
hm, and you think you understand something of science,comical.
what a joke you are,
why are even still allowed to post here.
you have no clue what science is, all you think you know is what ever link you click on.
unbelievable.
please continue to show what a fool you are.
this is far beyond for you, just stick to the history channel without running your mouth and you will be fine.
yes, it's called tier one
which you are clueless on. it's that simple.
what do i care what you think or believe. you're meaningless to me.
it's funny you would attempt this.
what a massive joke this is.
and also, what's funny is,
everyone who screams " troll "(which are the actual troll-ers),
i bet,
thinks it derives from a character under a bridge.
but the reality is,(which they are clueless on) it's
derived from the meaning of fishing trolling.
comical.
Originally posted by krash661
the key element here is consciousness.
it appears the ridicule-rs(actual trolls) are clueless on anything about consciousness,
but yet some how continue to ridicule.
consciousness is the " god "
they see this word,
and instantly their flawed auto pilot thinking is initiated.
it's amusing
Originally posted by krash661
ok , i understand.
Originally posted by krash661
no, try again.
at least read all post.
still not interested in discussing , i see.
( shakes head)
Originally posted by krash661
unfortunately,
it's meaningless and irrelevant what your flawed mentality comes up with.
like i never heard about the way i talk/write ?
i do not like to type or write, i'm vocal,
so it leads to me to do less as possible.
it's also amusing you would base such a thing on how an individual writes/ talks,
are you seriously implying my writing implies i'm not educated,
why would it ? i choose how i talk and write, not the education given to me.
no one has claimed you have to accept or believe anything i'm saying.
you are massively clueless of what is science, all you think you know or even understand is what ever link you click on. nothing else.
also, no one claimed you have to continue in this topic.
now again, if you are not interested in the topic,
the simplest thing to do is just shut up and move on already.
:argue:
please tell me what do you know about working underground,
without seeing daylight for most of the time,
working 16-20 hours a day, majority of the time seven days of the week,
3 1/2 or so weeks of the month.
what do you know about trying to find places to sleep in labs and such.
please tell me.
Originally posted by krash661
it doesn't help because of the mind processing it.
it's that simple.
what i posted in that link is very simple.
maybe the problem is you need a dictionary ?
" yes,
just like time/space, it's reality/physical state
time gives reality, space gives physical state.
this is where physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences is supposed to occur.
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.
now, what would be the " god " consciousness is where metaphysics is supposed to occur. "
Originally posted by krash661
tell me what words you are having problems with.
because this is the exact reason why you can not comprehend my simple explanations.
Originally posted by krash661
hilarious,
obviously still continuing with the pathetic nonsense.
unbelievable.
ohh no.. (scared)
will i lose my job ?
i'm just curious,
but what/how many degrees do you have?
what scientist career do you have ?
Originally posted by krash661
i'm the troll?
i'm not the one with the continuous pathetic " want to be " intellect responses.
and yet, you spew about,
" of how your question is relevant to anything "
amusing
and there's no need to answer, it's obvious.
also, you still can not understand by my little comment of physical state and non physical state and the link, pertains ?
hm.
Originally posted by krash661
what a joke, (these pathetic individuals are a dime a dozen around here)
ahh another one.
seriously??
you can not see it also,
wow,
just another ignoramus who is looking for an argument.
and also,since you can not comprehend either, i was making a point with that guy from the beginning.
the point was, he was doing nothing more than looking for an argument.
it's that simple, just like your " want to be " nonsense.
it's obvious by his ridiculing with a pathetic claim of not understanding,but yet can ridicule.
then that other ignoramus and now you.
unbelievable.
and yet, none of you can not comprehend my simple explanation using only six words,
" physical state and non physical state. "
and if you're not the actual troll,
then why comment?
just ignore and move on.
why did you have to get involved?
Originally posted by krash661
he's describing a level of consciousness between a physical state and non physical state,
which leads to such things as,
Originally posted by krash661
ahh i see, you also want to ridicule.
typical.
Originally posted by krash661
for now on my responses will be this post, and this post only
Originally posted by krash661
why is it gibberish ?
Originally posted by krash661
that doesn't answer the question at all.
it just implies you do not understand what is stated.
so then you turn around and say it's gibberish?
when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
" if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"
Originally posted by krash661
quit diverting and answer the question.
agian,
why is it gibberish ?
Originally posted by krash661
comical,this is becoming pathetic.
so now you have resorted to making up your own flawed thought of my question.
unbelievably hilarious. ,
so once again,
quit diverting and answer the question.
why is it gibberish ?
Originally posted by krash661
i wasn't the one who claimed gibberish, only because of lack of comprehension.
so, who was the one actually trolling ?
you are obvious to me
Originally posted by krash661
comical,
just another " want to be intellect ",
you seem to think this is an arguing game.
Originally Posted by krash661
ok, you got me this one last time,
you know just as well i as i do,
that was not the reality.
i read that guys nonsense all the time.
he claimed gibberish only to say not true. nothing more.
and again, if it is a lack of comprehension,
why did he not look up words that he does not understand.
in order to understand.
as you read his nonsense, you will see him claim to be so intelligent.
and yet, he could not understand what that said,
when in fact, there is nothing wrong with the language as you put it,which is also comical.
the bottom line is,
it's simple to understand and you are just trying to argue due to the fact you think you're some kind of intellect.
well, i haven't seen it yet,
just the typical pathetic nonsense that goes on here.
it's pathetically amusing.
and both of you are no where near qualified to claim it is gibberish.
just a couple of ignoramuses trying to find an argument.
that's why i asked "why is it gibberish".
so why couldn't that guy just say ,
"explain, i do not understand ".
it's only because of what i stated, and nothing more.
here are his exact words,
" Why do you repeat this Langan jibberish? Why don't you study other thinkers too? "
now it's obvious that is not a comprehension problem, but an attitude problem.
Originally posted by krash661
massively comical, there are no " his personal terms ". every word used is an actual established word,
like i continue to say,
" when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"
" Now as you have defined those two terms, this statement makes no sense whatsoever. How is triality (a space/time/object unity/relationship) composed of telesis (realm of pure potentiality outside the universe)? How does that even make sense? "
hilarious.
this is far beyond for you.
this is higher levels of sciences,
which obviously you can not conceive.
and now that you have some kind of of understanding,
what exactly are you doing ?
nothing more than exactly what i stated you were trying to(ridicule).
it's pathetic.
Originally posted by krash661
yes, yes..
more pathetic nonsense,
what a joke.
(shrugs)
yes, because gibberish IS USED AS " i do not understand"
what a obvious joke that is also.
Originally posted by krash661
yes go ahead and report,
what do i care.
funny, both of you think your " slick "
but both of you are massively obvious to me.
i seen what exactly was going to occur.
exactly what was shown.
pathetic.
Originally posted by krash661
funny,
you still do not understand ?(and yet is still ridiculing)
is it not obvious ?
wow.
it's also obvious that you are not even interested in understand.
from your own comments,
it appears you are just interested in ridiculing.
Originally posted by krash661
so now you have resorted to putting words in mouth?
again, unbelievable.
what a joke you are.
things like this is what i work on as an actual scientist.
i work on tier one sciences.
but you will not even understand what that is.
so please, continue to be an obvious pathetic joke, because it's amusing.
also,
how do you ridicule, when you do not even understand what's written.
comical.
i'm just curious,
but what/how many degrees do you have?
what scientist career do you have ?
Originally posted by krash661
comical..
what's so hard about understanding,
physical state and non physical state.
unbelievable.
it's amazing how individuals can spew and ridicule without even understanding what they are spewing about.
this is unbelievably pathetic.
is this what it all has come to with the want to be-s and such.
again, pathetic.
Originally posted by krash661
yes, yes..
more pathetic nonsense.
unfortunately,
what i work on does not get published in mainstream.
it's beyond that.
ohh no.. (scared)
will i lose my job ?
" comical..
what's so hard about understanding,
physical state and non physical state. "
also,
refer to this post,
Originally posted by krash661
no.
the joke is one is part of the individuals that are spewing about something one can not even conceive.
that's a joke.
Originally posted by krash661
this one post should help with that,
all in all, i'm done with this pathetic nonsense.
i'm getting yelled at by my superior for messing around.
Originally posted by krash661
consciousness would be the " god ".
consciousness is the platform for reality.
the question is,
" WTF is consciousness " and " what is its function " and it's " mechanics " and it's " mechanism ".
and how the F*** are experiencing such a thing
also,
keep in mind,many levels of consciousness,
the problem is,
how to advance to higher levels of consciousness to be able to go from physical form to non physical form then back to physical form,
and still function as an organic machine(human or such)
Originally posted by krash661
think of the restraint is the brain(physical form)it restricts(limits) access to which are called levels.
it's like floor levels in an apartment building.
frequencies and other such methods can access levels.
including so called drugs.
or just the old fashion way of input(learning and such)(which is primitive)
when able to access such levels, access to a cosmic intelligence is more accessible.
but even then, it's still limited, higher access is need to levels of what this topic is referring to.
basically tapping into energy it's self.(consciousness)
now from here it,
it should make sense when the greats talk of reality and not being real.
einstein, tesla, bohr ,ramanujan and such.(as a joke, morpheus)
ever here of inter-dimensional beings ?
Originally posted by krash661
yes, yes.....
AND I'M THE ONE TROLLING(as you put it) ???? (shrugs)
i see my responses that pertain to the topic.
where's yours?
no, what resolved it for me with them is,
they showed that they are actually interested in discussing the topic.
not arguing like some still.:argue
you make yourself obvious, and do not realize it )
comical,as if i was completely.
i work with a team of actual scientist.(can you say the same ?)
also, why would i not ?
this was the point of being educated and receiving a PhD, then lead to my career.
do you see how pathetic and ridiculous you sound yet ?
this topic alone is support.
no one has claimed you have to accept or believe anything i'm saying.
also, no one claimed you have to continue in this topic,
without addressing the actual topic.:argue:
if you do not want to pertain to this discussion,
then the simplest thing is to just shut up.
it's that simple. move on already.
how is he qualified to say it is gibberish ?
Originally posted by krash661
sorry, it doubled posted.
anyways,
how is he qualified to say it is gibberish ?
so basically you are saying to " dumb it down " for him ?,
i thought he was intelligent.
first,
this is apples to oranges comparison.
and second,
no i would not call it gibberish,
it's a language i do not know,
so i would say,
" i do not understand "
it's that simple.
ahh i see, you seem to think this is an arguing game.
so again,
when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
" if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"
Originally posted by krash661
how can i, you can not even understand what's written already, even tho it's simple, but not the simplest.
like a said,
when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
" if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"
Originally posted by krash661
now that you think you have some kind of of understanding,
what exactly are you doing ?
nothing more than exactly what i stated you were trying to do, ridiculing.
unbelievable.
Originally posted by krash661
amusing
ok, i'll show you something.
it shows that i have the capability to understand over others due to the fact i was educated properly in the field of sciences,
unlike the want to be-s that are responding.(get it?)
it that simple.
and also, do you ever listen to your own nonsense?
i'm the one trolling?
did you not respond with a bunch of want to be intellect nonsense, and yet never addressed the actual topic
just like what you are trying to claim i did?
well i see my responses that pertain to the topic.
where's yours?
pathetic.
you're making your self obvious here of who's the actual troll.
so please continue with your want to be intellect with out addressing the topic nonsense.
ahh yes, the typical ignoramus nonsense.
funny , you think this is religious stuff?
hm, and you think you understand something of science,comical.
what a joke you are,
why are even still allowed to post here.
you have no clue what science is, all you think you know is what ever link you click on.
unbelievable.
please continue to show what a fool you are.
this is far beyond for you, just stick to the history channel without running your mouth and you will be fine.
yes, it's called tier one
which you are clueless on. it's that simple.
what do i care what you think or believe. you're meaningless to me.
it's funny you would attempt this.
what a massive joke this is.
and also, what's funny is,
everyone who screams " troll "(which are the actual troll-ers),
i bet,
thinks it derives from a character under a bridge.
but the reality is,(which they are clueless on) it's
derived from the meaning of fishing trolling.
comical.
Originally posted by krash661
the key element here is consciousness.
it appears the ridicule-rs(actual trolls) are clueless on anything about consciousness,
but yet some how continue to ridicule.
consciousness is the " god "
they see this word,
and instantly their flawed auto pilot thinking is initiated.
it's amusing
Originally posted by krash661
ok , i understand.
Originally posted by krash661
no, try again.
at least read all post.
still not interested in discussing , i see.
( shakes head)
Originally posted by krash661
unfortunately,
it's meaningless and irrelevant what your flawed mentality comes up with.
like i never heard about the way i talk/write ?
i do not like to type or write, i'm vocal,
so it leads to me to do less as possible.
it's also amusing you would base such a thing on how an individual writes/ talks,
are you seriously implying my writing implies i'm not educated,
why would it ? i choose how i talk and write, not the education given to me.
no one has claimed you have to accept or believe anything i'm saying.
you are massively clueless of what is science, all you think you know or even understand is what ever link you click on. nothing else.
also, no one claimed you have to continue in this topic.
now again, if you are not interested in the topic,
the simplest thing to do is just shut up and move on already.
:argue:
please tell me what do you know about working underground,
without seeing daylight for most of the time,
working 16-20 hours a day, majority of the time seven days of the week,
3 1/2 or so weeks of the month.
what do you know about trying to find places to sleep in labs and such.
please tell me.
Originally posted by krash661
it doesn't help because of the mind processing it.
it's that simple.
what i posted in that link is very simple.
maybe the problem is you need a dictionary ?
" yes,
just like time/space, it's reality/physical state
time gives reality, space gives physical state.
this is where physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences is supposed to occur.
individual consciousness(as you, your self)(or individuals in general,or all conscious living entities) gives a platform for all
this is where the wave function collapse, physics/mathematics(what's the difference?) and other sciences supposed to occur.
now, what would be the " god " consciousness is where metaphysics is supposed to occur. "
Originally posted by krash661
tell me what words you are having problems with.
because this is the exact reason why you can not comprehend my simple explanations.
Originally posted by krash661
hilarious,
obviously still continuing with the pathetic nonsense.
unbelievable.
ohh no.. (scared)
will i lose my job ?
i'm just curious,
but what/how many degrees do you have?
what scientist career do you have ?
Originally posted by krash661
i'm the troll?
i'm not the one with the continuous pathetic " want to be " intellect responses.
and yet, you spew about,
" of how your question is relevant to anything "
amusing
and there's no need to answer, it's obvious.
also, you still can not understand by my little comment of physical state and non physical state and the link, pertains ?
hm.
Originally posted by krash661
what a joke, (these pathetic individuals are a dime a dozen around here)
ahh another one.
seriously??
you can not see it also,
wow,
just another ignoramus who is looking for an argument.
and also,since you can not comprehend either, i was making a point with that guy from the beginning.
the point was, he was doing nothing more than looking for an argument.
it's that simple, just like your " want to be " nonsense.
it's obvious by his ridiculing with a pathetic claim of not understanding,but yet can ridicule.
then that other ignoramus and now you.
unbelievable.
and yet, none of you can not comprehend my simple explanation using only six words,
" physical state and non physical state. "
and if you're not the actual troll,
then why comment?
just ignore and move on.
why did you have to get involved?
Originally posted by krash661
he's describing a level of consciousness between a physical state and non physical state,
which leads to such things as,
Originally posted by krash661
ahh i see, you also want to ridicule.
typical.
Originally posted by krash661
for now on my responses will be this post, and this post only
Originally posted by krash661
why is it gibberish ?
Originally posted by krash661
that doesn't answer the question at all.
it just implies you do not understand what is stated.
so then you turn around and say it's gibberish?
when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
" if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"
Originally posted by krash661
quit diverting and answer the question.
agian,
why is it gibberish ?
Originally posted by krash661
comical,this is becoming pathetic.
so now you have resorted to making up your own flawed thought of my question.
unbelievably hilarious. ,
so once again,
quit diverting and answer the question.
why is it gibberish ?
Originally posted by krash661
i wasn't the one who claimed gibberish, only because of lack of comprehension.
so, who was the one actually trolling ?
you are obvious to me
Originally posted by krash661
comical,
just another " want to be intellect ",
you seem to think this is an arguing game.
Originally Posted by krash661
ok, you got me this one last time,
you know just as well i as i do,
that was not the reality.
i read that guys nonsense all the time.
he claimed gibberish only to say not true. nothing more.
and again, if it is a lack of comprehension,
why did he not look up words that he does not understand.
in order to understand.
as you read his nonsense, you will see him claim to be so intelligent.
and yet, he could not understand what that said,
when in fact, there is nothing wrong with the language as you put it,which is also comical.
the bottom line is,
it's simple to understand and you are just trying to argue due to the fact you think you're some kind of intellect.
well, i haven't seen it yet,
just the typical pathetic nonsense that goes on here.
it's pathetically amusing.
and both of you are no where near qualified to claim it is gibberish.
just a couple of ignoramuses trying to find an argument.
that's why i asked "why is it gibberish".
so why couldn't that guy just say ,
"explain, i do not understand ".
it's only because of what i stated, and nothing more.
here are his exact words,
" Why do you repeat this Langan jibberish? Why don't you study other thinkers too? "
now it's obvious that is not a comprehension problem, but an attitude problem.
Originally posted by krash661
massively comical, there are no " his personal terms ". every word used is an actual established word,
like i continue to say,
" when i was in college,
my english instructor once said,
if you do not know a word or it's meaning, look it up"
" Now as you have defined those two terms, this statement makes no sense whatsoever. How is triality (a space/time/object unity/relationship) composed of telesis (realm of pure potentiality outside the universe)? How does that even make sense? "
hilarious.
this is far beyond for you.
this is higher levels of sciences,
which obviously you can not conceive.
and now that you have some kind of of understanding,
what exactly are you doing ?
nothing more than exactly what i stated you were trying to(ridicule).
it's pathetic.
Originally posted by krash661
yes, yes..
more pathetic nonsense,
what a joke.
(shrugs)
yes, because gibberish IS USED AS " i do not understand"
what a obvious joke that is also.
Originally posted by krash661
yes go ahead and report,
what do i care.
funny, both of you think your " slick "
but both of you are massively obvious to me.
i seen what exactly was going to occur.
exactly what was shown.
pathetic.
Originally posted by krash661
funny,
you still do not understand ?(and yet is still ridiculing)
is it not obvious ?
wow.
it's also obvious that you are not even interested in understand.
from your own comments,
it appears you are just interested in ridiculing.
Originally posted by krash661
so now you have resorted to putting words in mouth?
again, unbelievable.
what a joke you are.
things like this is what i work on as an actual scientist.
i work on tier one sciences.
but you will not even understand what that is.
so please, continue to be an obvious pathetic joke, because it's amusing.
also,
how do you ridicule, when you do not even understand what's written.
comical.
i'm just curious,
but what/how many degrees do you have?
what scientist career do you have ?
Originally posted by krash661
comical..
what's so hard about understanding,
physical state and non physical state.
unbelievable.
it's amazing how individuals can spew and ridicule without even understanding what they are spewing about.
this is unbelievably pathetic.
is this what it all has come to with the want to be-s and such.
again, pathetic.
Originally posted by krash661
yes, yes..
more pathetic nonsense.
unfortunately,
what i work on does not get published in mainstream.
it's beyond that.
ohh no.. (scared)
will i lose my job ?
" comical..
what's so hard about understanding,
physical state and non physical state. "
also,
refer to this post,
Originally posted by krash661
no.
the joke is one is part of the individuals that are spewing about something one can not even conceive.
that's a joke.
Originally posted by krash661
this one post should help with that,
all in all, i'm done with this pathetic nonsense.
i'm getting yelled at by my superior for messing around.
Originally posted by krash661
consciousness would be the " god ".
consciousness is the platform for reality.
the question is,
" WTF is consciousness " and " what is its function " and it's " mechanics " and it's " mechanism ".
and how the F*** are experiencing such a thing
also,
keep in mind,many levels of consciousness,
the problem is,
how to advance to higher levels of consciousness to be able to go from physical form to non physical form then back to physical form,
and still function as an organic machine(human or such)
Originally posted by krash661
think of the restraint is the brain(physical form)it restricts(limits) access to which are called levels.
it's like floor levels in an apartment building.
frequencies and other such methods can access levels.
including so called drugs.
or just the old fashion way of input(learning and such)(which is primitive)
when able to access such levels, access to a cosmic intelligence is more accessible.
but even then, it's still limited, higher access is need to levels of what this topic is referring to.
basically tapping into energy it's self.(consciousness)
now from here it,
it should make sense when the greats talk of reality and not being real.
einstein, tesla, bohr ,ramanujan and such.(as a joke, morpheus)
ever here of inter-dimensional beings ?
Originally posted by krash661
yes, yes.....
AND I'M THE ONE TROLLING(as you put it) ???? (shrugs)
i see my responses that pertain to the topic.
where's yours?
no, what resolved it for me with them is,
they showed that they are actually interested in discussing the topic.
not arguing like some still.:argue
you make yourself obvious, and do not realize it )comical,as if i was completely.
i work with a team of actual scientist.(can you say the same ?)
also, why would i not ?
this was the point of being educated and receiving a PhD, then lead to my career.
do you see how pathetic and ridiculous you sound yet ?
this topic alone is support.
no one has claimed you have to accept or believe anything i'm saying.
also, no one claimed you have to continue in this topic,
without addressing the actual topic.:argue:
if you do not want to pertain to this discussion,
then the simplest thing is to just shut up.
it's that simple. move on already.
was it not you who initiated this conversation between you and i ?
do not back out now.
so again,
since you conveniently sidestepped this, i have to ask again,
" I've argued with you before on another forum, "
please show this.
key elements of the conversation which you are conveniently sidestepping, or ignoring, which ever words you prefer,
- Status