we're talking about human females and not zebra females — Heister Eggcart

There was a popular pre-WWII eastern European group of female performers whose nightclub act featured their appearing totally nude, except for paper mache zebra heads and black hooves. Sometimes stripes of black and white paint were cleverly applied to their luscious bodies. They would run around the nightclub, whinnying, tastefully titillating the men, emphasis on tits, undoing bits of men's clothing, and such frivolities.

You might have been discussing whether their lives were worth living.

If Herr Heister Eggcart can't know that all human life isn't worth the suffering, then by extension I would assume that Monsieur Agustino can't know that human life IS worth the suffering. — Bitter Crank

:o

There was a popular pre-WWII eastern European group of female performers whose nightclub act featured their appearing totally nude, except for paper mache zebra heads and black hooves. Sometimes stripes of black and white paint were cleverly applied to their luscious bodies. They would run around the nightclub, whinnying, tastefully titillating the men, emphasis on tits, undoing bits of men's clothing, and such frivolities.

You might have been discussing whether their lives were worth living. — Bitter Crank

That's what happens when you give serfs a better class.

Now I'm confused. To be clear—

"You think I'd give it away for free?" :by this I obviously mean sex, no emotional connection whatsoever.
"Marriage is a wonderful institution" :by this I mean marriage including sex and an emotional level. However, I was being a tad sarcastic, as I never want to get married- though I do adore men.

Still creepy?

If you don't care for one actual wretched woman in Moline, how can you care about the abstraction of "the human race as a whole"? — Bitter Crank

I didn't say I didn't care. I said that's not what Agustino and I were discussing.

I think what you say here is pretty weak. What River said is not "creepy" at all, just the (apparently) honest statement of someone who doesn't want to offer sex to another in any context where there is no emotional commitment. I'd say that's healthy rather than creepy. It's more creepy to treat others' bodies as potential "amusement parks". — John

"the (apparently) honest statement of someone who doesn't want to offer sex to another in any context where there is no emotional commitment," is fine. As I've gotten older, old, I have no interest in sex with someone I have no intimate connection with. River said in another post that she was being sarcastic. That's also fine. I'm a big fan of sarcasm.

You think I'd give it away for free?" :by this I obviously mean sex, no emotional connection whatsoever.
"Marriage is a wonderful institution" :by this I mean marriage including sex and an emotional level. However, I was being a tad sarcastic — River

Yes, I understood what you meant. But I took "giving it away for free" literally, as an expression of your attitude towards marriage as a transaction. That's what I reacted to. As I said in a previous post:

Did I misunderstand? If I did I apologize. I thought you were referring to selling physical and emotional intimacy rather than giving it away for free. Marriage as an economic transaction. Commitment for sex. If that's what you meant, I stand by creepy. If not, I retract the post. — T Clark

Perhaps I wouldn't have misunderstood if you had not been conversing with Agustino, who is not shy about expressing his disrespect for women.

And so now a diversion into the wisdom of affirmative action? Nothing I've said hinted at whether affirmative action programs were morally, Constitutionally, or pragmatically sound. What I pointed to was the injustice of discrimination, not to whether our legislatures have properly addressed the evil.

Regardless, it is likely we share the same conclusions on this subject, but I'd suspect for differing reasons because I tend to look at law very pragmatically, and I see such programs as offering little good and usually to those least needy, but all of this is a major degression and topic shift. — Hanover

Agustino always has some bugbear in mind, a generalized target, whether it's cultural marxism or feminism or progressives or whatever, and that leads him to conflate independent claims and positions. If he sees a claim that strikes him as a bit too lefty, he then attributes to you all kinds of other claims, claims that go together in his caricature.

I do something like this myself, because often what I'm arguing against is ideology. But in this case, the two positions Agustino is lumping together really are best treated as independent: like you, I think that the relegation of women to subservient roles is historical and social, but I am no great fan of affirmative action.

If Herr Heister Eggcart can't know that all human life isn't worth the suffering, then by extension I would assume that Monsieur Agustino can't know that human life IS worth the suffering. — Bitter Crank

You're right, if you read my posts, you'd see I've already acted in this manner.

Is life on earth worth the suffering? — T Clark

I wouldn't claim to know the answer to that. — Agustino

Perhaps I wouldn't have misunderstood if you had not been conversing with Agustino, who is not shy about expressing his disrespect for women. — T Clark

:s This is just false. I have a lot of respect for women, there's no problem there.

And I don't think you should be the one telling me anything about disrespect to women, granted that you've probably disrespected every single woman in this thread, by assuming the worst about them, not reading their comments properly and so on. Really, it's quite pathetic. You're the one talking about respecting women, when lo and behold, you've probably been the absolute worst at it in this entire thread.

I have a lot of respect for women — Agustino

Indeed, women are precious creatures whose virtue must be protected from the temptations of licentiousness. ;)

This is just false. I have a lot of respect for women, there's no problem there. — Agustino

I'm sure some of your best friends are women.

And I don't think you should be the one telling me anything about disrespect to women, granted that you've probably disrespected every single woman in this thread, by assuming the worst about them, not reading their comments properly and so on. Really, it's quite pathetic. You're the one talking about respecting women, when lo and behold, you've probably been the absolute worst at it in this entire thread. — Agustino

Please elucidate, specifically, how I have "disrespected every single woman in this thread." Checking my posts, I can't find anything. Or are you counting the times I assumed that women were men? That was presumptuous on my part, and I think it reflects an unexamined bias. I don't see how that makes it disrespectful. My mistakes didn't change the substance of my posts.

Your outrage is hollow.

Your outrage is hollow. — T Clark

Why would I be outraged? :s

Please elucidate, specifically, how I have "disrespected every single woman in this thread." Checking my posts, I can't find anything. Or are you counting the times I assumed that women were men? That was presumptuous on my part, and I think it reflects an unexamined bias. I don't see how that makes it disrespectful. My mistakes didn't change the substance of my posts. — T Clark

I'm just stating a simple fact that you've been the most disrespectful in here to pretty much all the women in this thread, calling their thoughts creepy (multiple times, by the way, and to multiple women), shouting rhetorical and imbecile question at them like "Are you married? Do you have a wife? A sister?", telling them that from your precious experience what they say comes from people who don't like women very much and other such bullshit. Really, if you want to know the truth, I think you should be ashamed of your behaviour, and the fact you don't even admit to it doesn't do you much good.

I'm just stating a simple fact that you've been the most disrespectful in here to pretty much all the women in this thread, calling their thoughts creepy (multiple times, by the way, and to multiple women), shouting rhetorical and imbecile question at them like "Are you married? Do you have a wife? A sister?", telling them that from your precious experience what they say comes from people who don't like women very much and other such bullshit. Really, if you want to know the truth, I think you should be ashamed of your behaviour, and the fact you don't even admit to it doesn't do you much good. — Agustino

You sound kind of outraged to me. Although it seems like a kind of empty, rhetorical outrage to distract from the fact that you don't have anything substantive to offer. At least on this website, it is not disrespectful to argue, criticize statements perhaps in a blunt or ironic manner, ask irritating questions, or annoy someone. Men or women.

All my supposed crimes listed above are pretty much par for the course here on the Philosophy Forum. I have treated the women on this thread the way I treat the men. All in all, my behavior here has been generally respectful and appropriate, but certainly not perfect.

All this talking about women this and women think that and woman behave such and such. All coming from men.

Telling.

As an authority on the subject of women, I can assure you that we are different from one another and any attempt to rationalise gender-bias particularly through evolutionary or biological differences uncovers more about you as a person.

The act of submission and domination is psychological and gender is irrelevant. The anxiety of losing control provokes measures that seek domination of another and enables a masking of this powerlessness, conversely and likewise such submission to a dominant force is born from the same anxiety but respond by transferring control. Such psychological sado-masochism is a intentional programme - just like fascist ideology - where the abuse by the dominant enables the doubt and the very impairment that provokes submission.

A 'relationship' is the dominating force; a dialectic or struggle whether individuals or socially since what we psychological experience moves outside of the human mind and projects objectively to external objects and interactions we have with others. If you are submissive or dominating, you choose to be and psychological maturity or a healthy relationship involves an equal/shared respect and admiration for one another' individuality, where the only submission is to the trust in the love you have for the other. It is why relationships can make a person feel vulnerable.

The acceptance of our separateness or individuality (self-consciousness) in a Hegelian sense prevents unhealthy relationships both individually and socially, which is why I have never submitted neither can anyone dominate me because I have never trusted neither loved anyone enough.

You sound kind of outraged to me. Although it seems like a kind of empty, rhetorical outrage to distract from the fact that you don't have anything substantive to offer. — T Clark

Given the kind of judgement you've shown in this thread, I think it's quite safe to say you're absolutely wrong, and the worst bit is that you don't even know it. Your self-righteous attitude does nothing except prove this even more.

All this talking about women this and women think that and woman behave such and such. All coming from men. — TimeLine

You haven't read through this thread then. There have been a couple of females who seem to concur with Thinker's opinion.

Given the kind of judgement you've shown in this thread, I think it's quite safe to say you're absolutely wrong, and the worst bit is that you don't even know it. — Agustino

I know you are, but what am I?

because I have never trusted neither loved anyone enough. — TimeLine

Do you think not trusting and not loving anyone enough is a virtue? :s

As an authority on the subject of women, I can assure you that we are different from one another and any attempt to rationalise gender-bias particularly through evolutionary or biological differences uncovers more about you as a person. — TimeLine

Why?

The act of submission and domination is psychological and gender is irrelevant. — TimeLine

Gender is completely irrelevant? What's your justification for this?

A 'relationship' is the dominating force; a dialectic or struggle whether individuals or socially since what we psychological experience moves outside of the human mind and projects objectively to external objects and interactions we have with others. — TimeLine

?????????

If you are submissive or dominating, you choose to be — TimeLine

So, the dominating psychopathic manipulator consciously chose to be mentally ill? You're gonna have to defend this wild suggestion.

The acceptance of our separateness or individuality (self-consciousness) in a Hegelian sense prevents unhealthy relationships both individually and socially, which is why I have never submitted neither can anyone dominate me because I have never trusted neither loved anyone enough. — TimeLine

It actually seems like you're dominated by your own unwillingness to trust or love anyone.

Ironic.

*Yawn

????????? — Heister Eggcart

TimeLine's posts always read like they were generated with a POMO-essay generator, like this one. A bunch of writing which has no beginning, no middle, and no end, much like a tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING! Damn Shakespeare, he knew it all along >:O

All this talking about women this and women think that and woman behave such and such. All coming from men.

Telling. — TimeLine

Speaking for myself, most of my posts have been about what is and what is not respectful to women. You are no more qualified to address that than I am.

As an authority on the subject of women, I can assure you that we are different from one another and any attempt to rationalise gender-bias particularly through evolutionary or biological differences uncovers more about you as a person. — TimeLine

As an authority on the subject of people, I agree that many of the posts on this thread say more about the poster than about women.

The anxiety of losing control provokes measures that seek domination of another and enables a masking of this powerlessness, conversely and likewise such submission to a dominant force is born from the same anxiety but respond by transferring control. — TimeLine

Submission and dominance are basic human, animal, experiences. It's not primarily a political act or a symptom of anxiety. Puppies play dominance games. Good sex can allow partners to switch roles between dominant and submissive. At work, when I'm in charge and I will be held accountable for the quality of the work performed, I'm dominant. When I'm working for someone else, I usually have no problem being submissive to decisions made by others. Usually. The guy who will take the rap should be the guy that runs things.

Speaking for myself, most of my posts have been about what is and what is not respectful to women. You are no more qualified to address that than I am. — T Clark

I have no problem with your posts, but as you can see from those two morons you continue to try and rationalise with and who merely exemplify the point I was attempting to make about abusive/dominating characteristics stemming from psychopathology, I do wonder why you bother. All women are all different so there is no gender in the subject and its relevance is farcical.

I have no problem with your posts, but as you can see from those two morons you continue to try and rationalise with and who merely exemplify the point I was attempting to make about abusive/dominating characteristics stemming from psychopathology, I do wonder why you bother. All women are all different so there is no gender in the subject and its relevance is farcical. — TimeLine

Three reasons for interacting with Agustino and friends:

[1] I'm a high-energy, aggressive, impetuous, competitive person. Learning to deal effectively and honorably with difficult people is spiritual training. Not joking.
[2] The only thing better than a good idea is a bad idea. We learn more about what we believe and its justifiability by bashing heads with people we disagree strongly with than we do talking with people we agree with.
[3) It isn't the truth that matters, it's what we can convince people of. I'll never persuade Agustino, but I learn how to be more persuasive.

That is just like barking back at a dog and trying to justify why you would do that.

Deleted — Heister Eggcart

>:O LOL poor TimeLine, I think she's a good person at heart, but it's just that arrogance and pride blind her from being more compassionate.

I do respect TimeLine, despite most of her writings nowadays being nonsense. She's not a bad person, at least not willingly one.

I'm a high-energy, aggressive, impetuous, competitive person. — T Clark

And at one and the same time you lack self motivation. Something ain't adding up.

The only thing better than a good idea is a bad idea. — T Clark

Ooooh, the wisdom!

It isn't the truth that matters, it's what we can convince people of. — T Clark

Riiiiight, it's all about the propaganda! >:O

And at one and the same time you lack self motivation. Something ain't adding up. — Agustino

I see you and me sitting on rocking chairs on the porch of the Old Philosopher's Home sometime in the future. Both of us slipping into a cloud of dementia. You keep saying "you lack self-motivation, you lack self-motivation, you lack self-motivation." I just eat my pudding.

Ooooh, the wisdom! — Agustino

In case it wasn't clear, when I said "bad ideas" I was talking about yours.

Riiiiight, it's all about the propaganda! — Agustino

I've participated in least five "What is truth" threads. I'm sure you have been on at least as many. It's not a good time to start up a new one now.

That is just like barking back at a dog and trying to justify why you would do that. — TimeLine

The reasons I gave you are serious. I get more out of the back and forth with Agustino than I do with people I agree with more and who are more polite. I wasn't suggesting that my reasons were good reasons for you or that I think you should bark.

I thought of a fourth reason - it's fun.

I thought of a fourth reason - it's fun. — T Clark

I think you will find that people like TimeLine do not find it at all fun having others disagree with them. For some it's easier to always think inside the box and not out. Then again, I wonder why these sorts of people are on an internet forum, the function of which is to provide an arena for strangers to debate reasonably, but crankily. Maybe it's just the, "I like to hear myself talk" sort of thing.