Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 85
  1. #41
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,307
    Reputation
    10654
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    I dont think this discussion will yield any fruit as you seem to be more concerned with winning than getting at the truth but lest you think I chickened out let me respond to clarify why I think our conversation will not be productive .
    I think you have decided that it yields no fruit, I want to keep the dialogue open. And please sir, understand that I do not seek hostility, or to ''win''; even if there is such a thing as ''winning'' in a dialogue like this. I don't think of you as a ''chicken'' either. I actually enjoy reading your posts and find them insightful.

    First of all, you keep using ad hominem attacks rather than discuss the validity of my ideas, you refer to me as naive at first and then you question my intellect.
    I don't think of you as Naive, I think that a certain aspect of the concepts you have shared don't actually match up with the reality which I experience on a daily basis. Not in some laboratory, or some academic institution, but on the everyday level. And I have clearly outlined that the concept ''things have a way of working themselves out" is actually not the case.

    There are people who manipulate, coerce and do all manner of things to get what they want, and "Karma" brings nothing their way. I know about many such people. And those people who "Karma" does eventually strike back at, have clearly known from the very beginning things would end badly but decided to enjoy things in the present moment, and made a calculated decision.

    Similar to how women interact with many men, they manipulate, coerce, and milk them at every opportunity. By the time they are 50 / 60, who cares if no one wants them? They enjoyed it while it lasted.

    Furthermore, you seem to think that religion or any form of mysticism being invoked, by default makes the ideas null and void. Most civilisations were built around that idea which you consider so trivial and beneath contempt. And the product of its extraction is what we are seeing in society today with people in despair and some acting like farm animals. Far be it from me to advocate religion or even mysticism to any one but I think it is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water . In the desire to get away from the shackles of archaic religiousity most people have shackled themselves with post modern nihilism.
    Sure, I do see that religion benefits, but again when you say "society", who do you actually mean? When I have looked at the history, I see religion as just one other way that ''a man must toil and a woman must benefit off his toil". Pretty much most religions are like that, with some slight differences here and there.

    Even I would concede that without religion, there would have been no science. Why? because science is after all the heir to christian rigour. Newton was a fervent christian, Ibn al Haytham was a devout muslim.

    And with regards to nihilism and post modernism, they are not the same thing. Nihilism is the rejection of any moral values, post-modernism is just a distrust of a meta narrative, and nihilism is just one more meta narrative as far as post modernists are concerned.

    So with my above explanation I am sure you will understand why I think its best we agree to disagree . Maybe next time we might be able to have an argument in good faith. Cheers
    Sure. I won't carry the dialogue longer, if you feel this is best.
    A mother cannot raise a boy to be a man, not because he needs a father figure; but because she favours team vagina over her own son.

    Tradcon women are the most manipulative of all kinds of women, because they infect you with false hope.
    Radfems are your best friend, because they hate you and verbalise it - that's honesty!

    The red pill rage is a process which takes many many years - so be kind and patient with yourself.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,307
    Reputation
    10654
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    I was unable to understand what you wanted to convey in your post, so please forgive me if I get something wrong. But regarding the above statement, isnt it true for any act ? As far as I understand, all groups are always trying to get into power. Be it feminists, communists, nazis, right-wing, left-wing, tradcons ... or any other group based on ideology.

    What does being in power actually mean... it means ability to exert your ways on other group by force, which can be direct violence or a threat of that. It can also mean the ability to outrightly eliminate other group, by killing them or exiling them from any territory. In both the above cases, what you get in the end is, a society where everyone follows same ideology, either willingly or unwillingly. And being in a society where everyone, or most people adhere to the same ideology which you adhere to willingly, can be amazing, atleast for short term. You have same goals, same way of doing things, same way of solving problems, there is less conflict, less friction.

    But even if two different groups have same goals, they may have very different methods. And the way reality works, not all methods are equal when it comes to yielding results. Some methods will be superior, some will be inferior, some will APPEAR superior in theory but will turn out to be crap, some opposite.
    It is true in one sense that every interaction you have is a power play, but not all groups are cognisant of that or are willing to admit it. Some groups know they are involved in a power play, but will pretend not to know when it becomes inconvenient and you put them on the spot (radical feminists, white knights come to mind). Others are simply unaware.

    "Truth" on the level of theory is not the highest value, rather the truth of the ''everyday'', the truth of "daily existence" in this current, modern, mechanised, technicised society which you and I inhabit. This is why I don't want MGTOW to become just another ideology "men are intelligent, they can build space ships, women are emotional, they cannot become an engineer". This kind of thinking will become the end of MGTOW if we decide to follow this narrow path. It just doesn't correspond to the "everyday" existence. The "everyday" existence is that women are privileged, an very often at the expense of men, and civilisational collapse, even if it were to happen to a very drastic extension would not change the theory which I have repeated "a man must toil, and a woman must benefit off his toil".

    MGTOW is the exception, but it is almost insignificant if you think about how Society will bend over backwards to press the average man. No matter which civilisation collapse happens, can you tell me a time when "a man must toil and a woman must benefit off his toil" hasn't applied since the inception of the modern human?

    And this leads on to the efficacy of methods, which you have outlined. On the level of theory, yes men in general are more intellectually able than women, but how does this actually manifest in the real world? Does it manifest for the benefit of the average man?

    When a tyre punctures, there will be very few women who can fix it, but many men who can. And what do these men actually get in the end? Do they actually gain anything of benefit? Aside from the ability to fix a tyre? They will most likely get a thank you and no more.

    It is like a man who says "I enjoy going out and paying for drinks and dinners, I feel a man should do that because it is the manly thing to do". Meanwhile that very same man is broke by the end of the month.

    Do you see where I am trying to go with this argument?
    A mother cannot raise a boy to be a man, not because he needs a father figure; but because she favours team vagina over her own son.

    Tradcon women are the most manipulative of all kinds of women, because they infect you with false hope.
    Radfems are your best friend, because they hate you and verbalise it - that's honesty!

    The red pill rage is a process which takes many many years - so be kind and patient with yourself.

  3. #43
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    462
    Reputation
    1258
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    It is true in one sense that every interaction you have is a power play, but not all groups are cognisant of that or are willing to admit it. Some groups know they are involved in a power play, but will pretend not to know when it becomes inconvenient and you put them on the spot (radical feminists, white knights come to mind). Others are simply unaware.
    Completely agree there. The power play is so ubiquitous that if any philosophy or political group says it DOES NOT do it, its being laughably hypocritical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    "Truth" on the level of theory is not the highest value, rather the truth of the ''everyday'', the truth of "daily existence" in this current, modern, mechanised, technicised society which you and I inhabit. This is why I don't want MGTOW to become just another ideology "men are intelligent, they can build space ships, women are emotional, they cannot become an engineer". This kind of thinking will become the end of MGTOW if we decide to follow this narrow path. It just doesn't correspond to the "everyday" existence. The "everyday" existence is that women are privileged, an very often at the expense of men, and civilisational collapse, even if it were to happen to a very drastic extension would not change the theory which I have repeated "a man must toil, and a woman must benefit off his toil".

    MGTOW is the exception, but it is almost insignificant if you think about how Society will bend over backwards to press the average man. No matter which civilisation collapse happens, can you tell me a time when "a man must toil and a woman must benefit off his toil" hasn't applied since the inception of the modern human?

    And this leads on to the efficacy of methods, which you have outlined. On the level of theory, yes men in general are more intellectually able than women, but how does this actually manifest in the real world? Does it manifest for the benefit of the average man?

    When a tyre punctures, there will be very few women who can fix it, but many men who can. And what do these men actually get in the end? Do they actually gain anything of benefit? Aside from the ability to fix a tyre? They will most likely get a thank you and no more.

    It is like a man who says "I enjoy going out and paying for drinks and dinners, I feel a man should do that because it is the manly thing to do". Meanwhile that very same man is broke by the end of the month.
    Men will always toil, there is no argument here. Its not because men put women on pedestal or follow some religious ideology, its because men get results. If there is a group whose men dont work for the society, fight its wars, etc will be conquered and eliminated by other groups. Women cant fight men in actual wars, they will be captured. Women cant do all the dirty/hard work men of society because they simply wont have the desired (and required) output for the continuation of society.

    There is no problem if men know and admit the above fact, and always remember that they OWN the fruits of their labor. If I put in terms of going out and eating, I'll say a man has so much wealth that he goes out everyday to eat, and eats his fill. He may or may not let someone share the food, and even if he shares, the food is HIS first.

    But men are losing that sense. They do so much work to get a "chance" with the princesses, without realizing that they can work for themselves. This is one of the basic things MGTOW teaches us, that our work and its benefits are ours, and we can (and will) keep it for ourselves if the society decides to be a spoilt bitch. The very fact that MGTOW is needed is itself the sign of the very collapse we talk about.

    Now on everyday benefits of men being better in terms of fixing tyres, well, now we have tyres to fix instead of wooden wheels of carts or bruises at the feet of horses etc. It IS benefiting average man, he also gets to enjoy the advancement of technology, which is brought about by smart men. And its not just smart men, there are many other men who do so much dirty and hard jobs which are crucial for us. I am thankful to anybody who is employed to clean roads and drainages and stuff, and who does his work diligently making my neighborhood stink less and less disease prone. I am damn sure women arent doing that.

    My point is, we men collectively enjoy the benefits of our work, some of us do the dirty/stinky (but extremely important) jobs which no one else will do, some of us will do the jobs which require a genius, some of us will put themselves in the line of danger when an enemy aggresses on us, etc. This is WHY the collapse of society is a concern for us. Our collective benefits to each other will decrease, and this will drag the society down resulting in the "collapse".
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  4. #44
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,307
    Reputation
    10654
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    But men are losing that sense. They do so much work to get a "chance" with the princesses, without realizing that they can work for themselves. This is one of the basic things MGTOW teaches us, that our work and its benefits are ours, and we can (and will) keep it for ourselves if the society decides to be a spoilt bitch. The very fact that MGTOW is needed is itself the sign of the very collapse we talk about.
    I think we are in agreement. My position has always been that MGTOW is unique because it gives you the license to say. 'what a minute, if people are not appreciating my efforts, then don't I disregard them and tell them to fuck themselves?' Even if they are in dire need.

    MGTOW gives you the license to demand a fair treatment from others.

    My main difference between African Daoist (and I think you as well) is that I do not want to toil for society. Women and other anti male entities need to go and fuck themselves.

    And furthermore, appealing to religion, ancient wisdom, or even material ideologies like confucianism or communism is no good. Why? Because at the core of all these ideologies is the notion 'a man must toil, and a woman must benefit off his toil'.

    The collapse of society should be a concern only so far as we gain to benefit something from rescuing said society. If we ''toil'' and things go back to business as usual after all the hard work and effort, then I say let society go fuck itself.

    This where I think many MGTOW misunderstand the current paradigm. They do not know that an appeal to history (religion, ancient wisdom) is actually not in their favour and is one more trap of the gynocracy.

    I am not worried about you rkspsm, but there are just too many MGTOW who cannot tell the tree from the forest in regards to this matter.
    A mother cannot raise a boy to be a man, not because he needs a father figure; but because she favours team vagina over her own son.

    Tradcon women are the most manipulative of all kinds of women, because they infect you with false hope.
    Radfems are your best friend, because they hate you and verbalise it - that's honesty!

    The red pill rage is a process which takes many many years - so be kind and patient with yourself.

  5. #45
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    462
    Reputation
    1258
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    I think we are in agreement. My position has always been that MGTOW is unique because it gives you the license to say. 'what a minute, if people are not appreciating my efforts, then don't I disregard them and tell them to fuck themselves?' Even if they are in dire need.
    Yeah, that I was thinking too, we were always in agreement, just that the differences in our immediate personal situation might affected in how we interpret and say that same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    My main difference between African Daoist (and I think you as well) is that I do not want to toil for society. Women and other anti male entities need to go and fuck themselves.

    And furthermore, appealing to religion, ancient wisdom, or even material ideologies like confucianism or communism is no good. Why? Because at the core of all these ideologies is the notion 'a man must toil, and a woman must benefit off his toil'.

    The collapse of society should be a concern only so far as we gain to benefit something from rescuing said society. If we ''toil'' and things go back to business as usual after all the hard work and effort, then I say let society go fuck itself.
    Neither do I, nor I tell anyone to "toil". In that other thread by Bonobo Protocol, I was vehemently in favor of doing little work as revolt against heavy and unfair taxation.

    What I say is, that sometimes we work hard, just for ourselves. My work may not be as gruelling as some of the really absurd kind of physical work other people in this forum have done, but still, I do work 7 days a week, almost all day and never take holidays. I dont do that for society or women, I just do it because I like it, I will have it no other way. And I am fine with someone sharing my work, or in other words, working in a team, as long as they share my values, and are interested in sharing the benefits (as in cooperation/team-game). Toiling for women or society ? FUCK NO !!

    Regarding ancient religion or wisdom, I also dont have much liking for them. I believe that some of the religions tried to tell us some real truths, but they used the lies and fictionalisms (and sometimes extremely cryptic language) to spread the truth. It makes them almost hypocritical in my eyes. But probably it was needed, I can never know, which brings me to my last point (regarding our differences).

    Whenever we have any knowledge, say the knowledge of how women think and behave, we will apply it to our surroundings, the immediate daily lives of ours. But we will often make two adjustments, which are made even in the fields of mathematics and computer science (which are like, most truth based fields probably). These two adjustments reduce the effort or cost, sometimes by a HUGE amount.

    The first adjustment is exploiting the special circumstance. Say I give you a well shuffled selected deck of cards, with a number on it, and tell you to find a card with a certain specific number, you will probably have to look at each card one by one. But if the same deck is arranged in numerical order, you can almost guess where the number will be, and start looking at there only.

    The second adjustment is heuristics. We forego the general theory because some of its clauses are too exotic and are not needed for our immediate problem. Like many laws in physics. If we take into account relativity or quantum physics, the equations of many common things become absurdly complex, because they have to explain things which happen at very high speeds (comparable to light) or at very small scale (atoms). But in day to day lives, they are not needed. We can do fine with classical newtonian physics.

    And we all are doing those two in our daily lives. And they are effective no doubt in that. Your methods in your daily life and my methods in my daily life. But when I talk about collapse or anything which relates to society or civilization I am mainly seeking a general theory, with heuristics and special individual scenarios removed. And this is kind of hard, because a general theory should be able to explain my life, your life, and life of everyone else. And even when you do get to a theory, it will still be a theory, falsified at the next evidence which goes against it. And even when its not falsified, it wont be applicable in day to day life. Nobody likes to apply quantum physics to a football...

    Unless you want to do it only for the sake of it. Which is what I sometimes try to do, looking for general theories to explain societies. And when I do this, only then I can see similarities between what I believe a society as a whole should do vs what some religions believe they should do. Some similarities only, of course, not everything same.
    Last edited by rkspsm; March 21, 2020 at 2:19 PM.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    698
    Reputation
    2099
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    This where I think many MGTOW misunderstand the current paradigm. They do not know that an appeal to history (religion, ancient wisdom) is actually not in their favour and is one more trap of the gynocracy.
    I take slight umbrage at this statement not because it is incorrect, but because it highlights MGTOW. I don't believe anybody totally understands the 'current paradigm' and to highlight MGTOW in this way seems a bit unfair. That being said we hold ourselves up to a higher standard than the average Joe so maybe you have a point.

    If you've read my opinions on 'isms then you know that I am in total agreement with you r.e. appeals to history. All 'isms are forms of control, for better or worse. Catholicism, Judaism, Capitalism, Socialism, and even science.

    O.K. science isn't technically an ism but it is becoming as much of a religion as any other in so far as people believe every word science has to offer even though they (scientists) are forever saying 'we got that wrong' or 'we just don't know'. People love to be led. BAAAA.

    Or maybe it's not that they love to be led but are willing to be led. Let's face it, there's so much info at our fingertips these days that you can literally pick almost any subject and spend a lifetime studying it without reading the same article twice. We get to pick and choose our interests and leave the rest.

    My only criticism is that most of us (humans) are so easily sidetracked from the things that are truly important - sure that's the job of the polititians, military and clergy. It's all too complicated for most of us unless we apply our own moral values, and as we know most of these have been imposed by the very peoples we are trying to assess.

    The only answer is dissociation from all who espouse any kind of doctrine. Thinking for ourselves is the only answer, admitted or not we all have our own set of rules we live by, but it's difficult when all the info we have comes from untrustwothy sources.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  7. #47
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,307
    Reputation
    10654
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    admitted or not we all have our own set of rules we live by
    Yes, indeed sir. And this is precisely why I advocate for the ''everyday truth'' as opposed to the truth of religion, ancient wisdom, or even science.

    I should very much like to thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of many scientists, who I myself, put much trust in them to give me the ''full picture''. Scumbags like Hitchens and Sam Harris, who constantly attack religion and talk about how terrible the clergy is, they do not speak about the massive damage atheist ideologies have inflicted upon society.

    Atheistic ideologies have killed way way way more people than any religion, at any time. And before people say "what about the Catholic Church?" I have studied the Catholic Church in much depth, and they have, in my opinion done a lot less damage and a lot more good for the caring and wellbeing of humanity.

    I don't believe anybody totally understands the 'current paradigm' and to highlight MGTOW in this way seems a bit unfair
    Again, going back to the "everyday truth". If you, as a man, as an average or below average man (like me, short, overweight and working office drone), ask yourself on the everyday interactional level, is what I am doing for myself or for others?

    What do I gain to benefit from taking so and so action? And before believing in said moral code, or narrative, ask yourself, is this narrative just another way the gynocracy will benefit from my toils for free? I strongly believe most men, even MGTOW men, are unaware of just how deep the rabbit hole goes when it comes female and societal manipulation.

    Again, the question has to be asked 'does this benefit me?'. I have wallowed in nihilism for many, many years, and it was a hugely therapeutic exercise, which is why I vehemently oppose the idea that there is "one narrative" that will help said MGTOW.

    Which is why I think scumbags like Jordan Peterson is not working for the MGTOW or even the Male Cause, because he advocates a specific narrative.

    We know what the narrative is, allow me to outline below:

    - Socrates and greek wisdom / logic BCE 400s. GOOD
    - Christianity and the civilisation ''taming'' of the barbarian instinct the start of the common era. GOOD
    - Medieval times; Catholic Church went wild and their excess had to be ''curbed'' 900 - 1300s BAD
    - reformation; freedom of speech, freedom of worship 1500s , Luther and Calvin. GOOD.
    - The Enlightenment (science, reason, evidence, and "progress") think French Revolution 1700 - 1800. GOOD.
    - Post Enlightenment = BAD.

    This is the tradcon narrative in general in the western world at least.

    If you think the way I do about any narrative, you'll actually realise there are good and bad times for men at any epoch. I in fact think this epoch of rampant man hating feminism, is far superior to the enlightenment era. Because I have many choices which weren't available to me. So I am in disagreement when any MGTOW declares, "oh actually yes, it was better at so and so time, men could discipline their wives in the Middle Ages"... YES YES YES, but, they had a very shitty life and were forced and shamed into marriage.

    I don't have to get married now, I can self sustain myself until death, so the medieval narrative doesn't so so good now does it? And this is actually partly to feminist activism (not the man hating variety of course), so now feminisms isn't totally bad. I never take anything at face value.

    I don't care what stats you bring, what evidence, whatever appeals to any narrative, whether said narrative is religious, systematic, political, I want to know first and foremost "By buying into this narrative, will I end up toiling and have women/society benefit off my toil?"

    What I am saying that no matter what narrative, if you end up toiling for a woman/society without IMMEDIATE, DIRECT BENEFIT on the everyday level, then you really being duped. That is why I advocate the "everyday truth". Otherwise, you should be extremely cautious, and standoffish because most people are out there to do you bad.

    What I do not what to happen is for MGTOW to end being a get together of some men who have a particularly view and they end in circle jerk comforting themselves "women aren't suited for engineering, men are good at building space ships".

    Really? Women are currently outpacing us in any section of society and all we can do is mental masturbation to comfort ourselves!!!!!!!

    We have to see the intricacies of the paradigm and not ''gloss'' over any potential manipulations!! Which by subscribing to a narrative will DEFINITELY HAPPEN, because the mentality becomes rigid and you become prime targets for manipulation and extraction of resources.

    Then, all that ends up happening is we fall back into the actual, eternal narrative, which society will do their best to sustain "a man must toil and a woman must benefit off his toil". This is the truth in my home of Saudi Arabia (extremely patriarchal society), in Vanuatu islands, in Ireland, and in any other country you can think off.

    A simple example would be the abortion issue in Ireland. Many woman are now speaking out against abortion. Some, even feminist have changed their minds, but do you know why that is? I think I have right answer.

    The reason is not because said women has seen some videos, or the disgusting scene of an aborted foetus. But actually, they know FULL WELL the man hating, "Liberal" agenda has gone too far and now they need to "pull the brakes". If the agenda moves too quickly, then people will notice and revolt (Brexit, Trump election).

    But actually the woman who have now had an ''epiphany" about abortion or trump or Brexit, do you ACTUALLY think they care about men, society? they don't. They are shrewd enough to not to bite off the hand that feeds them.

    Once things have "calmed down" and once the storm has settled, they will be back on the bandwagon of the gynocracy.

    MARK MY WORDS JACKOFF!! women are manipulative, highly intelligent creatures, and they are ALWAYS ALWAYS ROOTING FOR TEAM VAGINA, yes sorry to say including my and (probably) your mother/sister and female siblings too!
    A mother cannot raise a boy to be a man, not because he needs a father figure; but because she favours team vagina over her own son.

    Tradcon women are the most manipulative of all kinds of women, because they infect you with false hope.
    Radfems are your best friend, because they hate you and verbalise it - that's honesty!

    The red pill rage is a process which takes many many years - so be kind and patient with yourself.

  8. #48
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    462
    Reputation
    1258
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    The only answer is dissociation from all who espouse any kind of doctrine. Thinking for ourselves is the only answer, admitted or not we all have our own set of rules we live by, but it's difficult when all the info we have comes from untrustwothy sources.
    Well, you propose Individual...*gasp*...ISM !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    ...even science.

    O.K. science isn't technically an ism but it is becoming as much of a religion as any other in so far as people believe every word science has to offer even though they (scientists) are forever saying 'we got that wrong' or 'we just don't know'. People love to be led. BAAAA.
    I'll admit, I am a devout follower of scientific method, which I described few posts ago. And guilty as charged, it is a religion. The people I follow say it explicitly that scientific method needs to be followed "to the letter", otherwise it will become pseudo science and fictionalism. The only problem is, that its hard, its very very hard, because scientific method is designed to counter all our biases.

    But one question to you, and its a criticism of Individualism, and because what you propose is very near to that if not exactly that (I am not well versed with the exact definition of Individualism).

    The question is, what if I am wrong with my own set of rules ? What if I am critically wrong and I discover it at a very late stage ? Say discovering female nature in a divorce court. Can you suggest some way to figure out our own mistakes before getting a solid spank in the behind ? And from "some way" I mean some algorithm to figure out which theory/truth from a set of theories/propositions makes most sense. That algorithm must be able to work even if my own brain is acting against me.

    Maybe you will say merely asking for an *algorithm* for any and everything is in itself a religion (a variant of science you can say). And therefore, the only algorithm you might propose is to not to try to find algorithms for every problem. If that is the case, then I think that the people like me have extremely low trust of themselves, much lower than what an average person trusts himself. But unlike the average sheeple, we dont trust other people either. This means we can neither follow ourselves nor the usual doctrines or religions. The scientific religion is probably the only choice as far as I can think of.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  9. #49
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    462
    Reputation
    1258
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    Really? Women are currently outpacing us in any section of society and all we can do is mental masturbation to comfort ourselves!!!!!!!
    And where is this "outpacing" happening, may I ask ? Do you mean to say that we will be seeing lists such as these within few decades from now, with women "outpacing" men ? Notice Da Vinci there if you didnt look closely enough.

    Now for the IMMEDIATE and DIRECT life experience of myself :

    I am a programmer, and sometimes I study recent developments in this area of mathematics they call lambda calculus, or sometimes formal verification. Its an ongoing research field. I saw no women "outpacing" there ? In fact I dont remember ANY woman there.

    Then I use several open source software for my work, both writing code AND artistic work, none of the women there when it comes to tech. They are usually found in documentation teams or marketing teams. Yeah those are important, I m not understating their work at any level, its just that they are NOT outpacing when the rubber meets the road of actual technical complexity.

    Then, if I go some years back, women at my school or college, LOL. Those who knew me, go tell them that they might be "outpacing" me or some of the other men, if they might be earning more in some job. They will laugh.

    I dont intend to brag about my own life, but please, dont bolden and underline immediate and direct life experience because your sample space is just you and some more people around you, and then assume that similar life experience is for other men here.

    If by outpacing do you mean simply that they have more social influence and money ? If that is the case then, atleast you should say it explicitly. If all you consider is immediate effect then all research must be completely pointless. Because there are observations and theories which take centuries to bear any fruit, and those men (yes, just men here) often dont become rich or anything in their entire life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    I in fact think this epoch of rampant man hating feminism, is far superior to the enlightenment era.
    Yes it is, and not just because I have so many options. But also because now I have the ability to stand on the shoulders of giants. Great men in history who have done astounding work for the civilization. They didnt do it for me, they did it because they were enjoyed their work, earned a living and in many cases even for their families.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    women are manipulative, highly intelligent creatures
    I find them rather dumb to be honest. They cant last even for 5 minutes. In my personal experience, debating with them is like driving a tank on public roads. You wont even know when some dumb car just got flattened.

    Point is, if you dont want to toil for anything, dont. You shouldnt be forced to toil for anyone, thats the whole point of a fair society. But if you are saying that anything which is not relevant in immediate and direct vicinity of someone is pure garbage, then you are essentially insulting and shitting on every man whose work is meant to benefit someone else far away, in space or in time. I enjoy toiling alongside these men, they are brothers, I enjoy the benefits of their work, and hope they will enjoy the benefit of my work sometime in future. I dont care if some women also end up getting some profits.

    There is no gynocracy in the "religion" of "scientific method". In fact, based on what I know of them, they are even LESS gynocratic than most MGTOWs I have seen. They are about men benefiting other men, getting more returns than the sum of individual parts, by cooperation and team game. And I am not talking about corporate jobs, church, family or similar other plantations.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  10. #50
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,307
    Reputation
    10654
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    I dont intend to brag about my own life, but please, dont bolden and underline immediate and direct life experience because your sample space is just you and some more people around you, and then assume that similar life experience is for other men here.
    That is why I mentioned, that I am speaking from my own point of view, and it is up to other MGTOW to figure out which path they choose. As long as they don't delude themselves. Case in point, the abortion issue in Ireland. My good friend Conor thought that women had changed their opinion. I pointed out that actually, they were just "pulling the brakes".

    If by outpacing do you mean simply that they have more social influence and money ? If that is the case then, atleast you should say it explicitly. If all you consider is immediate effect then all research must be completely pointless. Because there are observations and theories which take centuries to bear any fruit, and those men (yes, just men here) often dont become rich or anything in their entire life.
    Part of the "outpacing" I talked about earlier, means that women will outpace men in the academic, corporate world. It will of course mean that they will have even more social influence and money.

    I don't know where you are from or which city you live, but my work has allowed me to live and work in many large, mechanised cities, including Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, London, Paris, Brussels. It's a part of my job. And the trend I am seeing is that there are more women in positions of power. Yes, sometimes because they are good at lying and manipulating, but in some cases they are working harder and "outpacing" men.

    I find them rather dumb to be honest. They cant last even for 5 minutes. In my personal experience, debating with them is like driving a tank on public roads.
    I don't know about that. I think maybe this has been your experience, but from my experience, and the women I meet as clients, suppliers, potential networking opportunities, they are very different to the kind you describe. So maybe it depends on location.

    But if you are saying that anything which is not relevant in immediate and direct vicinity of someone is pure garbage, then you are essentially insulting and shitting on every man whose work is meant to benefit someone else far away, in space or in time.
    If you think about technological advancements, iPhones say. Obviously they have made out lives much easier. But go further and think about Tinder. Tinder has meant that the hypergamy in society has been "turned up full volume". It's no longer a girl choosing between 5/6 guys in her local pub, but she gets to choose from millions.

    Do you think the creators of the Tinder, who are all men (Sean Rad, Jonathan Badeen, Justin Mateen, Joe Munoz, Dinesh Moorjani) foresaw that? so this is a case in which technological progress has, at least somewhat undermined normal romantic encounters. In that sense, it is more "regress" than "progress", if you get my gist.

    It is up to the gentlemen here to decide what is "progress"/"regress". I am simply highlighting what usually tends to be ''glossed'' over.

    I enjoy toiling alongside these men, they are brothers, I enjoy the benefits of their work, and hope they will enjoy the benefit of my work sometime in future. I dont care if some women also end up getting some profits.
    That is fine for you, as long as you are fair enough to give men other options. You mentioned it already, so that is fine.

    There is no gynocracy in the "religion" of "scientific method".
    First of all, I don't believe that the scientific method is gynocentric. I never mentioned it, in any of my posts. I think you have misunderstood. I think that science, as an institution has become co-opted to suit the gynocentric agenda. Case in point, Richard Dawkins was confronted by a woman about circumcision. She asked him "why don't you talk out more about circumcision and the harm it inflicts on young boys". He ignored her and didn't want to have the conversation.

    There has been huge amount of studies linking circumcision with all manner of negative psychological impacts on a young boy; and yet Richard Dawkins (who is a very intelligent and reputable scientist) refused to engage in the debate with the lady who asked him.

    In one way, that is a sign that science is actually gynocentric, or at least silent towards subjects which could piss off the gynocracy.
    A mother cannot raise a boy to be a man, not because he needs a father figure; but because she favours team vagina over her own son.

    Tradcon women are the most manipulative of all kinds of women, because they infect you with false hope.
    Radfems are your best friend, because they hate you and verbalise it - that's honesty!

    The red pill rage is a process which takes many many years - so be kind and patient with yourself.

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    698
    Reputation
    2099
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    Well, you propose Individual...*gasp*...ISM !!!
    LOL. But seriously if others want to slap a label on thinking then that’s up to them.

    I should also point out that many philosophies have much to offer, for example most religions have themes around don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie – these IMO are good tenets to live by, but even these have their exceptions.

    My problem isn’t with following a set of precepts, but choose which one’s are applicable and practical to you from various sources. No, my problem is when people doggedly follow the dictates of others simply because it is part the particular doctrine they have become enamoured or indeed indoctrinated with; they give up their individuality and in many cases their ability to think.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    I'll admit, I am a devout follower of scientific method, which I described few posts ago. And guilty as charged, it is a religion. The people I follow say it explicitly that scientific method needs to be followed "to the letter", otherwise it will become pseudo science and fictionalism. The only problem is, that its hard, its very very hard, because scientific method is designed to counter all our biases.
    Here is a picture representing basic scientific method:



    https://www.sciencebuddies.org/scien...entific-method

    Forgive me if I’m missing something, but don’t each of us use some sort of similar process when trying to figure out difficult situations?

    This is fine for individuals as they can give priorities to those emotional responses that are important to them. You can say beer is bad for your health, is addictive, and gets you into trouble and therefore should be avoided at all costs (and many do), but many also put the fact that they enjoy the feeling (emotion) enough to partake anyway even knowing the pitfalls.

    And it’s this disparity between the physical and emotional that I have a problem with. Yes scientific method works quite well with the physical when applied properly, but it cannot even begin to address the emotional on a group level; we as an emotional species are simply too varied. Yes you can identify general trends, but even then they are rarely representative of the majority.

    Even without getting into how this could be implemented, I have a massive problem with ANYONE dictating to me how I should think (not you, but every philosophy attempts this in some form).

    For the greater good, which I often but not always benefit from I can accept certain restrictions on my actions whether they are legal or social, but I refuse point blank to accept any restrictions on my thinking. Once you go down that road you stop being you and become a pawn for other people to control and manipulate; no more than a puppet.

    By all means I encourage others to explore different philosophies, but only to take from them those parts that work for you whether that’s for practical personal gains or self-enlightenment. To follow any of them without criticism is begging to be indoctrinated, and to expect others to be bound by them is called dictatorship.

    As for science specifically, it is just as full of contradictions as anything else. Nonsense? I cite three things:

    1. Quantum Mechanics. Newtonian physics gives us a very good representation of how the observable world works, but when we cannot see things because they’re so small all these observable facts have to be thrown out the window and we have to depend solely on all this wildly complicated mathematics which describes solid objects moving through each other or existing in more than one place at the same time.

    2. Relativity. Light always travels at the same speed relative to you (approx. three hundred million metres/sec) no matter how fast you are travelling.

    3. The speed of light is measured as a function of the metre. The metre is now measured as a function of the speed of light. This is circular reasoning and prevents relativity from being even questioned.

    Does this make sense to you because it sounds like bollocks to me?

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    But one question to you, and its a criticism of Individualism, and because what you propose is very near to that if not exactly that (I am not well versed with the exact definition of Individualism).

    The question is, what if I am wrong with my own set of rules ? What if I am critically wrong and I discover it at a very late stage ? Say discovering female nature in a divorce court. Can you suggest some way to figure out our own mistakes before getting a solid spank in the behind ? And from "some way" I mean some algorithm to figure out which theory/truth from a set of theories/propositions makes most sense. That algorithm must be able to work even if my own brain is acting against me.

    Maybe you will say merely asking for an *algorithm* for any and everything is in itself a religion (a variant of science you can say). And therefore, the only algorithm you might propose is to not to try to find algorithms for every problem. If that is the case, then I think that the people like me have extremely low trust of themselves, much lower than what an average person trusts himself. But unlike the average sheeple, we dont trust other people either. This means we can neither follow ourselves nor the usual doctrines or religions.
    Don’t underestimate yourself. You’re here aren’t you? You are more than capable of finding your own way in this maze. Will you make mistakes? Sure you will, but at least they’ll be your mistakes which are sure to happen anyway, why compound this by adding someone else’s mistakes to your own?

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    The scientific religion is probably the only choice as far as I can think of.
    My question, why make just one choice? Why not take the best from science, religion and any other source you come across. I've read many of your posts and you are a very intelligent guy. I'll say it again - you are more than capable. Make up your own mind and go your own way.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  12. #52
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    462
    Reputation
    1258
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    Part of the "outpacing" I talked about earlier, means that women will outpace men in the academic, corporate world.
    ...
    Yes, sometimes because they are good at lying and manipulating, but in some cases they are working harder and "outpacing" men.
    ...
    women I meet as clients, suppliers, potential networking opportunities, they are very different to the kind you describe.
    Yes, this actually clarifies. Our differences come from differences in our opinion of what is considered outpacing. You are talking about regular men and women in corporate world, cities, and with the kind of jobs you find there.

    My opinion of progress, was quite different. I was talking about extremes. It is a well known fact, and this I mentioned at other places too, that if you look at the IQ bell curve of men and women, the women are gathered more at center. The curve for men is flatter. Which means in average white collar job, where there is no physical work, women were always able to outpace men.

    The area where women never outpaced men, is pushing the limits of civilization. Which can mean both mental and physical. Mental being geniuses, inventors and physical being waging war and winning, physical war.

    The point is, there is no evidence in history which points out that the differences between men and women, at average or at extremes, ever changed. Its just that in modern societies, there are many white collar jobs, which neither require you to be a genius, nor a physical fighter. And yes, you are right about mechanized societies here, its the result of that. The creation of those white collar jobs I mean, which brings me to :

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    so this is a case in which technological progress has, at least somewhat undermined normal romantic encounters. In that sense, it is more "regress" than "progress", if you get my gist.

    It is up to the gentlemen here to decide what is "progress"/"regress". I am simply highlighting what usually tends to be ''glossed'' over.
    Jackoff started a thread long time ago on technology ethics, I said there which I think makes sense here too. When you are building something new which didnt exist, there is only so much you can predict how it will affect the society. This is part of progress, bad/inefficient things will be invented first before its fixed in some way. Think of pollution produced from vehicles. Nowadays we have better mechanisms to control the fumes coming out of vehicles, but to develop those mechanisms, you gotta first invent the vehicles and motor engine first.

    The modern technology is a signature aspect of this era, and we are only about 100-120 years into it. Go back that time, and most of the world was still quite primitive.

    There is no way to escape the bad effects of technology on the society, its price which must be paid. The other option is to regress back to iron age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    I think that science, as an institution has become co-opted to suit the gynocentric agenda
    Oh, if you meant institution then we are in agreement. All such institutions, which are global in scale, be it church, or corporate world, or science, are gynocentric, because yeah, women do have the capability to seize political power when there is no physical war going on.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  13. #53
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    462
    Reputation
    1258
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    And it’s this disparity between the physical and emotional that I have a problem with. Yes scientific method works quite well with the physical when applied properly, but it cannot even begin to address the emotional on a group level; we as an emotional species are simply too varied. Yes you can identify general trends, but even then they are rarely representative of the majority.
    Exactly, which the figure was missing. When there is a complex phenomenon, it means it requires more thorough analysis than whatever is done in the past. The purpose of looking at social "emotion" through scientific lenses is not to figure out if most of them will like beer or not (lol), but to figure out what kind of patterns are self-sustaining and what kind of patterns are not. If any theory can represent it better than others, then it becomes the "king of the hill", unless some new theory comes along.

    Also, if you look at social conflict, representing majority isnt even needed. Whenever any real physical conflict breaks out, maybe because of decades of problems, like wars for revolutions, its only a very small minority which actually takes part in conflict. For American Revolution, I heard the figure was just 3%. So even if your theory can predict, with sufficient good accuracy, that those 3% of society will begin talking with lead instead of their mouth, then its worthwhile enough to be studied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    1. Quantum Mechanics. Newtonian physics gives us a very good representation of how the observable world works, but when we cannot see things because they’re so small all these observable facts have to be thrown out the window and we have to depend solely on all this wildly complicated mathematics which describes solid objects moving through each other or existing in more than one place at the same time.

    2. Relativity. Light always travels at the same speed relative to you (approx. three hundred million metres/sec) no matter how fast you are travelling.

    3. The speed of light is measured as a function of the metre. The metre is now measured as a function of the speed of light. This is circular reasoning and prevents relativity from being even questioned.

    Does this make sense to you because it sounds like bollocks to me?
    It actually does make sense. And the answer is same as what I gave for the social aspect, and that is, these are really complex things with some really weird observations. Its not possible to formulate a theory in words and not sound like total lunatic. The actual observations exist in the form absurdly complex mathematical expressions. And I heard someone say, that its futile to convert those to words, its better to let them stay there in terms of symbols and formulas. These things like particles moving into one another, speed of light etc, have such observations which need these absurd theories to explain. You can either sound weird but still be moderately aligned with observations, or you can sound normal and sane while being totally out of touch with the data.

    And that is why its so exciting !

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    Don’t underestimate yourself. You’re here aren’t you? You are more than capable of finding your own way in this maze. Will you make mistakes? Sure you will, but at least they’ll be your mistakes which are sure to happen anyway, why compound this by adding someone else’s mistakes to your own?

    My question, why make just one choice? Why not take the best from science, religion and any other source you come across. I've read many of your posts and you are a very intelligent guy. I'll say it again - you are more than capable. Make up your own mind and go your own way.
    Well, the scientific method doesnt give me anything to follow, but just to filter out the lies from truths. And so far, in almost all cases, the things MGTOW says, comes on top of most other things, which is why I am here ! And yeah I agree on taking best from science, religion and other sources, and that is what I am trying to do. I dont talk shit about religions, because there are many things there which actually make lots of sense, and there are many things in science which doesnt, and thats because, like Opaque mentioned in last post, which I agree, science as an institution is also quite cucked. They themselves dont follow scientific method at many places.

    But, if I go that analogy, then scientific method becomes like a "landmine detector", lies being the landmines. I will step all over the place, but rely on that to keep me from triggering any mines. Which means it becomes, which you questioned in your post, not a doctrine, but a way of thinking !
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    698
    Reputation
    2099
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    Atheistic ideologies have killed way way way more people than any religion, at any time. And before people say "what about the Catholic Church?" I have studied the Catholic Church in much depth, and they have, in my opinion done a lot less damage and a lot more good for the caring and wellbeing of humanity.
    Could you maybe give some examples of atheistic ideologies? I describe myself usually as atheist (sometimes agnostic). To me all this means is that I don’t believe in a deity or an afterlife, atheism is a lack of belief in a particular paradigm and definitely not an ideology. For example if verifiable evidence was to come along that proves me wrong, so be it.

    But that doesn’t mean groups of atheists couldn’t form and develop ideologies of their own. I’m curious (as always).

    But to say these ideologies have killed more people than religions, I’m very dubious sir. For the most part up until very recently anyone declaring themselves atheist would result in ostracisation and often death, a situation that remains in many parts of the world even today.

    And as for the Catholic Church, yes they have done much good but again, up until recently this was mostly reserved for their own. Catholic schools, for example, only accepted Catholic pupils where they could continue the indoctrination keeping us subservient (you’ve probably heard of Catholic guilt), actively overstating the good that they do while never mentioning their faults.

    Never once in my years in Catholic schools did I ever hear mention of The Treaty of Zaragoza where the Catholic Church basically divvied up the world into ‘areas of influence’ where non-Catholics would and should be converted or removed, and for removed read killed and pillaged.

    Neither did I hear of Indulgences. Basically this is (was?) a practice of buying forgiveness for your sins, often with money and even sometimes in advance of the ‘sin’ that was about to be committed.

    These are only two instances and I speak only of Catholicism because that is the religion I was brought up with and finally rejected, but I assume other religions have similar skeletons.

    The Catholic Church is no paradigm of morality.


    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    MARK MY WORDS JACKOFF!! women are manipulative, highly intelligent creatures, and they are ALWAYS ALWAYS ROOTING FOR TEAM VAGINA, yes sorry to say including my and (probably) your mother/sister and female siblings too!
    Of this I have no doubts, except maybe about their level of intelligence. I think human intelligence (male and female) is drastically overrated, but I am in total agreement that they should not be underestimated.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    698
    Reputation
    2099
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by rkspsm View Post
    It actually does make sense. And the answer is same as what I gave for the social aspect, and that is, these are really complex things with some really weird observations. Its not possible to formulate a theory in words and not sound like total lunatic. The actual observations exist in the form absurdly complex mathematical expressions. And I heard someone say, that its futile to convert those to words, its better to let them stay there in terms of symbols and formulas. These things like particles moving into one another, speed of light etc, have such observations which need these absurd theories to explain. You can either sound weird but still be moderately aligned with observations, or you can sound normal and sane while being totally out of touch with the data.

    And that is why its so exciting !
    Exciting? O.K. I'll concede that - if like me one is interested in such things. But exciting obviously doesn't translate to correct.

    I don't want this to evolve into a debate about science but if you or anyone else is interested in other explanations over and above my own knowledge on the subject (which wouldn't be that difficult) here's a link to an excellent site exploring those other possibilities in detail by a physicist.

    Alternative Physics
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  16. #56
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    462
    Reputation
    1258
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    Exciting? O.K. I'll concede that - if like me one is interested in such things. But exciting obviously doesn't translate to correct.

    I don't want this to evolve into a debate about science but if you or anyone else is interested in other explanations over and above my own knowledge on the subject (which wouldn't be that difficult) here's a link to an excellent site exploring those other possibilities in detail by a physicist.

    Alternative Physics
    Well, I find it exciting in much the same way I find red pill is exciting. The physics tells us that the reality has more than what meets the eye. When I was preparing for entrance exams for engineering colleges, physics and maths were most interesting to me. I somewhat loathed chemistry (put X and put Y and you get Z... yeah whatever /rolleyes). Though I realized soon, that the education system and institutions of research, not just in my country, but even abroad, are mired in corruption and politics. Which is why I made programming as my career, I find it equally interesting, and I can develop my career away from politics (and people in general lol).

    Thanks for the link though ! It has some very good and interesting topics to read !
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  17. #57
    Senior Member Opaque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Planet Earth/Northern Hemisphere/Land of Low wages & High taxes
    Posts
    1,307
    Reputation
    10654
    Type
    Sagacious

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Could you maybe give some examples of atheistic ideologies?
    Communism. Single handedly has killed more humans than all the religions combined, throughout all human eras. This is the most disgusting ideology. It is anti-human, it is nihilistic, seeks power at any cost and will not hesitate to starve its' own population to achieve its' goal.

    100 million deaths in the 20th century alone.

    And as for the Catholic Church, yes they have done much good but again, up until recently this was mostly reserved for their own. Catholic schools, for example, only accepted Catholic pupils where they could continue the indoctrination keeping us subservient (you’ve probably heard of Catholic guilt), actively overstating the good that they do while never mentioning their faults.
    Not entirely true. The Middle East is full of catholic schools. They take muslims, and other non catholics. Agreed on the guilt and indoctrination. But you cannot deny the quality of education is VERY GOOD.

    Neither did I hear of Indulgences. Basically this is (was?) a practice of buying forgiveness for your sins, often with money and even sometimes in advance of the ‘sin’ that was about to be committed.
    again. This is why I always say you have to question the narrative. The narrative you (and I) grew up in is the modern western narrative which tells you that the Catholic Church was practicing indulgences and ripping people off for a promise of heaven. This of course did occur, but not to the extent you think it did.

    Indulgences were and are still illegal. No Pope ever legalised indulgences by decree. And you cannot be saved by an indulgence. You have to repent, believe and do good works for your salvation. That has always been catholic doctrine.

    This isn't to say the Catholic Church has no blood on its' hands, but it means we need to question, question and further question the narrative.
    A mother cannot raise a boy to be a man, not because he needs a father figure; but because she favours team vagina over her own son.

    Tradcon women are the most manipulative of all kinds of women, because they infect you with false hope.
    Radfems are your best friend, because they hate you and verbalise it - that's honesty!

    The red pill rage is a process which takes many many years - so be kind and patient with yourself.

  18. #58
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    462
    Reputation
    1258
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackoff View Post
    Could you maybe give some examples of atheistic ideologies? I describe myself usually as atheist (sometimes agnostic). To me all this means is that I don’t believe in a deity or an afterlife, atheism is a lack of belief in a particular paradigm and definitely not an ideology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    Communism. Single handedly has killed more humans than all the religions combined, throughout all human eras. This is the most disgusting ideology. It is anti-human, it is nihilistic, seeks power at any cost and will not hesitate to starve its' own population to achieve its' goal.
    That is a very good example of a real example of why being entirely neutral or indifferent is also an ideology. I wasnt fully joking when I said (to Jackoff) that he is proposing Individualism.

    Individualism or Atheism, or giving-zero-fkism can actually be dangerous to people who are otherwise dont have any parasitic intentions. I am not giving any example here, but merely proposing a scenario, or a thinking out loud exercise you can say, in an attempt to demonstrate. I pick two cases.

    Case-1: A very well functioning religious/traditionalist society, without any religious parasites or church/mosque/temple influence.

    This type of society functions on the aspects of religion which tell people to behave morally. A person acting morally is less likely to be a parasite to the society, more likely to be honest, and will have more sense of belonging to the group as a whole. Now all those things require a discipline, and a large number of people arent capable of maintaining it all the time. They will try to indulge in petty immoral or dishonest acts from time to time, because of any short term / immediate incentive or benefit they are getting. To put a check on that, you need to be vigilant. Let us suppose that there are some good and strong men in that society who can do that, but they will never be nearly enough.

    So what the religions do, and this is where my hypothesis begins, is they instill a belief in a very efficient, but fictitious vigilante : God. God knows everything, sees everything, hears everything, and he will punish you for bad deeds. The result ? The cost of vigilance comes down. Suddenly an infeasible task from economic point of view, became possible and practical.

    Now, if you try to mix with that society as an Individualist/Atheist, you are a SERIOUS trouble. Even if you dont intend to harm them in any way, shape or form, you will shake that belief that there is a vigilante. You will bring back the cost of vigilance. The people around you will start to realize that there is really nobody watching them and they can get away with little things here and there. And it will set off a chain reaction. You became the CAUSE of unstability and decline of society, not by being a bad person at all, but by simply being a non-believer.

    Case-2: A Propertarian Society.

    Propertarianism is built around the idea of absolute scientific method in everything. Lying to the public is an offense. It deals with the cost of vigilance against dishonesty in a bit different way than the above religious society. It cannot do the God thing to *ENFORCE* anything because that will amount to lying, so what it does is extreme intolerance to even the smallest of crimes. Intolerance doesnt mean that the person will be thrown in a Gulag or shot in the public square to serve as an example. It means that there will be some punishment for the crime, like a fine or a ticket, and it will keep increasing for repeated offenses, eventually leading to more stricter and harsher punishments.

    Note that this philosophy, most of the time, doesnt have anything against Individualism. In fact it is one of the biggest supporter of this. Your body, your time, your resources, are your "property" (a very well defined and technical term here). And you have the right AND DUTY to protect those. And this has absolutely no problem with Atheism, I mean an atheist isnt lying about anything.

    Then how come an Individualist/Atheist is a problem ? They are, but not directly. They are simply a weak link in the chain. Every person in this society is part of a chain, to defend against any ideology which leads to parasitism (communism, marxism, feminism, what not). This individualistic guy, who is not a propertarian, will show more TOLERANCE towards lying, because freedom of speech is an individualist expression. So yeah, they wont be punished or anything, but propertarians wont be 100% in sync with individualists. The individualists will see them as fascists, and from the other side, the propertarians will see him as a potential weakness that can be exploited by the enemies.

    So my concluding point is, what I said few posts ago. Every behavior can potentially become a group strategy. And every group strategy will have their enemies, their friends, and everything between two extremes. You cannot say you are outside a group just because you believe you are, by being outside of one "box" (the term Jackoff quoted few posts above), you get yourself inside another, or you create a box which will eventually accumulate a group.
    "Truth is enough." - Curt Doolittle
    "Truth, and violence to enforce it." - Eli Harman

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    698
    Reputation
    2099
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Quote Originally Posted by Opaque View Post
    Communism. Single handedly has killed more humans than all the religions combined, throughout all human eras. This is the most disgusting ideology. It is anti-human, it is nihilistic, seeks power at any cost and will not hesitate to starve its' own population to achieve its' goal.

    100 million deaths in the 20th century alone.



    Not entirely true. The Middle East is full of catholic schools. They take muslims, and other non catholics. Agreed on the guilt and indoctrination. But you cannot deny the quality of education is VERY GOOD.



    again. This is why I always say you have to question the narrative. The narrative you (and I) grew up in is the modern western narrative which tells you that the Catholic Church was practicing indulgences and ripping people off for a promise of heaven. This of course did occur, but not to the extent you think it did.

    Indulgences were and are still illegal. No Pope ever legalised indulgences by decree. And you cannot be saved by an indulgence. You have to repent, believe and do good works for your salvation. That has always been catholic doctrine.

    This isn't to say the Catholic Church has no blood on its' hands, but it means we need to question, question and further question the narrative.
    Communism was anti status quo.

    Religion fell into that category being seen as a problem to the ‘new regime’ but that was only one of many. Communism is seen as atheistic only because religion was seen as a major problem to their objectives and so had to be brought under control. This was political and militaristic in nature and had little or nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in and of itself. In short it had nothing to do with atheism except in so far as one has to have diminished regard for religious views to follow such a doctrine, so in that sense it may be considered atheistic in nature but that IMO does a disservice to atheism: just like MGTOW atheism is non-political, it is just a non-acceptance of the narrative being fed to us.

    As for Indulgences, I agree that the narrative states that people were being promised the keys to gates of Heaven, but when you ‘question the narrative’ as you say what was really happening was something quite different.

    People with power and influence were committing offenses against church doctrine, offenses that were clearly stated should result in excommunication and that would mean the end of their power base and that could not be tolerated. Indulgences were little more than a sap to the powers that be because anything else would mean war between church and state.

    As for its legality, I assume you mean within the church and not government. So, within the church were they ever made illegal? All things are legal until made illegal and I am unaware of any such ruling, that being said I’m in no way knowledgeable in this area so maybe I’m mistaken.

    With regards to the education system I agree that Catholic schools rank amongst the best in the world. Now. Up until fairly recently (say 60 years or so ago) they taught only enough to gain acceptance (in poorer communities anyway) so they could continue their indoctrination. Here in Ireland it wasn’t until lay teachers began to be employed in catholic run schools that things began to change. As to why this happened I am unsure if it was due to social pressures or legislation – I’ll have to look into that. Up until then we were made believe all service for ourselves was sinful and this continued into my own education up until the early 1980’s – be a good little slave.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    698
    Reputation
    2099
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Sense of Fair Play

    Hmm, another box of worms to be opened and investigated.

    Individualism or Atheism, or giving-zero-fkism can actually be dangerous to people who are otherwise dont have any parasitic intentions.
    I hope by this you don’t mean to equate individualism (whatever that is), atheism and giving-zero-fkism (nihilism). These are very different things and while one may lead to another in some form or other, so could many other aspects of humanity lead one to these concepts.

    With regards you interpreting my comments as being individualistic in nature here are two definitions on individualism.

    1. The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
    2. A social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.

    (Edit: In my enthusiasm I forgot to put a link to the source of the above definitions, so here it is:
    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/individualism )

    The first I agree with 100%, the second not so much. I try to be independent and self-reliant but within the constraints of collective and state control. The rule of law is necessary. Societal rules are necessary. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be questioned when they become imbalanced.

    Now, if you try to mix with that society as an Individualist/Atheist, you are a SERIOUS trouble.
    Not so. This is true only if you have bad intentions and that applies equally to those who claim to be following the faith. In fact religion serves as a shield – I can’t be a bad person because I attend my religious duties. Atheism does away with this pretence.

    The people around you will start to realize that there is really nobody watching them and they can get away with little things here and there. And it will set off a chain reaction.
    This I agree with and in the short term this is a problem, however in the long term people, society and legislation will adjust or fall apart and this is maybe your point that sheeple need something to drive fear into them over and above human involvement, to keep them in check as it were. But this is an illusion that seems to work for many but only results in making them susceptible to those that, as you say, don’t give a fk.

    Propertarianism is built around the idea of absolute scientific method in everything.
    Wrong. Propertarianism is built around treating every dispute as a property dispute, hence the name, but we won’t get into that one again eh!

    Then how come an Individualist/Atheist is a problem ?
    Please, if nothing more than a favour to me stop equating individualism with atheism they have little if anything to do with each other.

    This individualistic guy, who is not a propertarian, will show more TOLERANCE towards lying, because freedom of speech is an individualist expression.
    Again, not so. Freedom of speech is important, incredibly important. It is the vocalisation of your beliefs and nothing more. Lying is something different entirely, it is the vocalisation of things in which you don’t believe. In fact lying could be considered the opposite of free speech.

    You cannot say you are outside a group just because you believe you are, by being outside of one "box" (the term Jackoff quoted few posts above), you get yourself inside another, or you create a box which will eventually accumulate a group.
    Hmm. Maybe so, but these ‘boxes’ are created by others to make you fit into ‘their’ narrative, it is not my narrative. It’s nothing different to people calling you gay just because you don’t want to get involved romantically with women. Fuck everyone that tries to put me into a box, they’re likely to get a very unpleasant surprise.
    Last edited by Jackoff; March 24, 2020 at 2:36 AM.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes


Similar Threads

  1. A fair and balanced system!
    By Jackoff in forum Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 9, 2020, 4:08 PM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: May 20, 2018, 10:09 PM
  3. Turn around is fair play
    By The_Joker in forum Lounge
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 3, 2016, 6:43 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 5, 2015, 12:07 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 28, 2015, 10:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •