I hope I am not crossing the line by suggesting that you have a woman's perspective. — geospiza

1. I am a woman.
2. And?

Notwithstanding that you might find your soulmate there, what kind of expectations would you have about finding Mr. Right in that setting? — geospiza

I quite literally do not think about it. I understand the balance of probability; a guy wearing footy shorts high up to his crotch and a stained navy blue singlet may unlikely be my soulmate, neither is the guy whose neck has disappeared into his muscles and who says 'I fink' instead of 'I think' but ultimately compatibility is relative. You cannot formulate a decisive list when it comes to love because that list epistemically references your social environment and is thus artificial because you seek what you are taught rather than what you actually want and who you are compatible with.

Isn't there something to be said about lightening up a little? — geospiza

Yes, because saying that is just a subtle form of coercion.

Sophisticated people know that the overture is half-serious as is the rejection. — geospiza

Reminds me of the following quote:

Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them. — Margaret Atwood

By this logic it's never moral to ever approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a romantic relationship because that sexually objectifies her and what not.

How do people ever get into a relationship in this world? Is only the woman allowed to make the first move? Does she need to wear a sign that says "interested in a relationship" around her neck? — VagabondSpectre

Indeed, if you are seeking a relationship with someone that you don't know and there a number of people that do this in various social or cultural settings for the purpose of regular sexual intercourse or to ensure approval by their social environment and when the initial objective - whatever it may be - may no longer be fulfilling, the object is disposed of and replaced. Love at first sight is also load of garbage, because the fact is that your intention to pursue a romantic relationship should always follow friendship.

You and Aug are both doing the exact same thing in different ways, that is you are seeking for entirely selfish purposes based on what you want, but through friendship one develops empathy, which enables one to give love and so you no longer desire that type of gain and turn that narcissism away to feel care and admiration for your partner. They are no longer an object but a person and when this is reciprocated a genuine bond is formed and thus one begins the process of a romantic relationship.

So yes, it is immoral to approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a sexual relationship, unless this follows you approaching a woman with the intention of getting to know them as a friend.

I don't care about elongating the pleasure of admiration and respect beyond the bedroom. Nor do I need admiration and respect to "establish meaning to my existence", nor do I find "motivating myself to become a better person" to be morally obligatory. — VagabondSpectre

To be morally conscious - which is established by friendship - is the language that enables empathy and thus ultimately love, the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world and identify other people. You thus consciously experience the world, otherwise you are doomed to remain trapped in your own limited cognitive framework, unfeeling and mindlessly controlled by your instinctual drives and an environment that dictates how you should behave. If your environment endorsed rape, would you do it? Or having sex with a prostitute who may have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery? Or be in an unloving relationship because you attain social praises?

Without morality, you are a mindless drone, a non-person.

My advice is to not go to such bars and clubs. (or places where sexual fraternization is the main attraction). — VagabondSpectre

I think you may be having some trouble being philosophical. It was rather tedious reading most of what you wrote because clearly you fail to understand what it is that I am attempting to convey, as proven below:

Strictly speaking, your notion that approaching a woman to find out if she's interested in sex is immoral because if she's not interested then she and society yata yata yata are harmed is like saying that it's immoral to make eye contact with any other human being because they might have some sensitivity that renders eye contract a traumatic experience for them. — VagabondSpectre

:-|

"Sexual objectification" isn't the same as whatever "devaluation of person-hood" is. I don't suddenly forget that sexy women are people too because I talk about their body as if I'm attracted to it... — VagabondSpectre

Care to explain your logic here?

Did I say that sexual promiscuity, etc. should be illegal or what? Identifying an activity as immoral isn't coming with the pitchfork, as I'm not trying to get him to do anything by force. I'm just discussing with him, and explaining why his behaviour is immoral. — Agustino

Explaining why his behaviour is immoral is coming at him with a pitchfork. And who are you to speak when you say the following:

I work out, I have a sexy body that I'm proud of, why would I want some tramp to enjoy it eh?... I want to have sex with a woman who deserves to have sex with me — Agustino

Just to let you know: "narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism."

What the hell is wrong with people these days... — Agustino

Indeed.

I'm saying its reasonable to approach a woman in order to find out, NOT that it's moral to assume she is ready and willing... — VagabondSpectre

It is not mutually consensual casual sex between two single adults that I find immoral, but this very assumption, this notion that it is reasonable to approach a woman to 'find out' which is enough to expose your intent and the very point I am attempting to convey. The intent that compels you to 'find out' whether a woman is sexually available is a flaw in your perception of women and this intention verifies who you are as a person. So, what happens to the woman who you approach and who is not sexually available? Who gives a shit, right? Abandon, and then next? Next what exactly? Your intention in approaching the woman to find out if she is available for casual sex is immoral; that is sexual objectification. Morality is about what is going on in your mind and the decisions that you make and the perceptions that you believe, and not about them agreeing to it or not.

So, without that perception or assumption, your intentions change. As such, you would not seek out casual sex.

So, you might feel like I'm here only to troll or to annoy, but believe it or not I have views of my own and when people, like you and Aug, suggest that I'm an immoral sinner or that the casual sex I engage in leads to rape, I'll happily write thousands and thousands of words until one of us is persuaded to the other-side or becomes fed up and goes away. — VagabondSpectre

Why do you continuously put me into the same category as Aug? I do not think you are morally depraved neither do I have a problem with sex outside of marriage, but having meaningless sex without love is, to me, degrading to my personhood. I actually believe in genuine love and I have yet to encounter someone who can see 'me' rather than my body and I refuse to share my body for a fleeting moment of sexual gratification. You yourself say:

Sex is less pleasurable with a casual partner because in addition to the orgasm you get the emotional feeling of love (additional pleasure). — VagabondSpectre

The experience of a genuinely loving relationship where I am respected and admired and likewise that I respect and admire my partner elongates that pleasurable sensation beyond the bedroom, and it establishes meaning to our existence in a mutually shared capacity that in doing so motivates us to become better people. It is not only casual sex that I have a problem with; many couples - including those that are married - are in it for convenience, dependence or tradition rather than for love and so it is an empty bind that results in the same meaninglessness as casual sex and one will never find themselves feeling pleasure neither ever progressing. But unlike, say, masturbation (which I don't think is immoral but without pornography, but please let's not get into that), there are a number of practical concerns that render casual sex problematic, the epidemiological is clear for one. The problem can thus also become practical ethics as well as morality. This is what you are refusing to discuss because you are trying to defend yourself from Aug who is coming at you with his pitchfork and torch; set that aside, we are talking rational ethics.

So, let us try to discuss the philosophical implications of the following:

The slippery slope I referred to was that you're suggesting people having casual sex will soon lead to rape. Make a strong argument as to why this will happen or the description of "slippery slope fallacy" applies perfectly. — VagabondSpectre

No. I never suggested that, you assume that because you are failing to see the philosophical problem at hand. We need to ascertain whether there is any intrinsic meaning in our sexual relations with one another - which we have come to agree as meaning formed by mutual affection and love that becomes instrumental to the pleasures that bring value to sexual activity and to our own identity or personhood - and as such, what lacks intrinsic meaning is the disvalue due to the lack of this mutual affection and love.

The source of pleasure in our sexual activity becomes the key to permissibility and so, if as stated above it has intrinsic meaning over or above the source of pleasure, likewise should the source of pleasure outweigh the intrinsic meaning, the person or the other' value is reduced below the desire to attain an orgasm. It is not to say that it will certainly lead to acts of rape or harm of another neither does it require absolute prohibition, but sociopaths can also be non-violent and we are talking morality here. The very source of our abhorrence of non-consensual acts of sexual activity.

It may appear logical to believe that casual sex is justifiable and rape is completely abhorrent, but there is certainly an inconsistency when trying to argue philosophically why acts such as rape wherein no principles - value, meaning - binds the act itself together is any different to casual sex which also lacks this binding principles.

Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"? — VagabondSpectre

I see, but then you say:

She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies. — VagabondSpectre

No objectification of women there, right?

I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them). — VagabondSpectre

Urg, yeah ok.

If someone stares at you and invades your personal space, then they're in the wrong. Merely approaching you and speaking to you however isn't something I would expect you to be upset about. — VagabondSpectre

You fail to see the point. What I am trying to convey is that he sexually objectified me and his rather aggressive reaction was certainly surprise (indeed, I can give a rather powerful greasy) because in his mind he thought girl at bar means she is sexually available as you are continuously reiterating. That type of categorisation is wrong, it is a problem in your perception, which corresponds with intent. Such a category takes away the humanity of women and his intention was not about 'me' - he could not give a shit about who I am - but what he could get out of me. The intention is merely transactional and such intent is immoral.

"Careless to one's integrity" is just as meaningless to me as half the crap Aug as been writing... Obtaining orgasms are sometimes the only value that people want out of sex, what's so wrong about that?

You employ a slippery-slope argument and suggest that sex for pleasure (as opposed to love?) will eventually lead to non-consensual sex (rape), which seems like a rather negative and presumptive view of things. Sex for pleasure is less satisfying than sex with an actual romantic lover, sure, but making casual sex out to be inherently harmful (especially along vague and subjective lines like "integrity") is just unsubstantiated prudishness. — VagabondSpectre

So why is sex for pleasure less satisfying then sex with an actual romantic lover? That is a problem in sexual ethics, there is no slippery slope but clearly you are unable to ascertain why because I see nothing but your usual desire to get a kick out of annoying religious people (and by the way, nothing like Aug considering I do not write 10,000 words of random nonsense and I am not religious).

You would need to substantiate how sex devoid of meaning - meaning of which can only be employed between a reciprocal sexual and emotional intimacy - is ethically justifiable because the absence of meaning purports that the act of sexual intercourse is solely the attainment of this orgasm. As such, having sexual intercourse with an animal for instance could become justifiable. I understand the dilemma to this paradox because consent should render the lack of emotions justifiable, but two people having meaningless sex is no different to one person having meaningless sex; it is without meaning.

In addition to this, as mentioned, there are psychosocial impacts to a culture of promiscuity as well as epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent should be to ascertain reasons why women begin to treat themselves as objects. You should take responsibility for how you act, not succumb to how others act, otherwise what is the point of your existence?

As for integrity, it is all semantics. I am of the position that meaning is founded in our responsibility to become an autonomous moral agent, that my existence and being itself is determined by my principles of morality where my motives are concerned. To be autonomous and reason and think independent from that type of blind following of ones own desires. Integrity is to say that I hold esteem and value to these principles because it provides meaning to my existence.

You say:

I don't devalue person-hoods by approaching women in bars. — VagabondSpectre

And then:

Give me a break, I just wanted to get laid, and I've had plenty of satisfied and unoffended customers. — VagabondSpectre

:-|

Customers, eh?

"Lacks acknowledgement of the person"... Give me a break and explain what you mean by this... Please... — VagabondSpectre

Perhaps you can first define what you mean when you label women as 'customers'?

leaving Bruce alone and abandoned to the world where such evil can happen. And yet, as you say, he transforms the fear into a force of good, of justice, of integrity, to stop similar events from occurring to other people such that they have their own worst fears realized. — Brian

That is the power of an autonomous will, the notion that if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, you become something else entirely that enables you to transcend such fears, fears that prevents one from leaving the herd to form their own identity. There is nothing greater in my opinion than a person who is devoted to their principles.

For me, however, I have a likeness to Evie from V for Vendetta, that it is actually love that can put an end to the very same fears. When I found that, which was not too long ago, I was finally able to say 'no' and you would need to watch the movie to understand that.

I think this existentialist viewpoint runs throughout all the films, albeit less explicitly. — Brian

There certainly is an existential theme and I think primarily on the subject of fear, certainly in the case of Batman Begins (the first half) and his transformation in the Chinese monastery. I have a strong affiliation to that deeper search for subjective peace in the name of objective righteousness and justice.

What you really fear is inside yourself. You fear your own power. You fear your anger, the drive to do great or terrible things.

When he was building his lair, the whole idea of embracing his greatest fear by being near it, as though learning to walk upright while a thorn stabs the side of your ribs, that genuinely resonates with me. There is a certain power that integrity enables.

Does it surprise you though that if you show up to certain places dressed a certain way that men assume it's O.K to approach you? Are they wrong for not assuming you're not interested or that you might get upset? — VagabondSpectre

We are talking about intention here; a couple of months ago, I went to a birthday party at a bar and while attempting to get a mocktail and having a laugh with the bartender as we both don't drink alcohol, I was approached by a man. I was wearing a simple, floral dress and I don't wear make-up except for a bit of blush because I have freckles that I hate. This man was eyeballing me earlier and he did a few other things and when I was at the bar, he intentionally brushed himself up close to me and came to whisper something to me, but as I pulled away he actually, quite literally went 'what?' really angrily. I am at a bar only because it is my friends birthday and I don't drink alcohol, yet his assumption was otherwise because his intentions were. In his mind, he took away my humanity, everything that I am and turned me into a disposable object and I was not allowed to get upset about that.

It all has to do with the circumstances which individuals can use to create a reasonable expectation of whether not a sexual pass would be taken offensively... — VagabondSpectre

Casual sex is symptomatic of a carelessness to ones own integrity and there is no value to it other than obtaining an orgasm or a fleeting sense of pleasure, ultimately targeted by those that have built a disjunctive against reciprocal significance of love or affection. They become nothing but a body that reduces the intimacy to nothing more than a mere transaction. The dilemma here is two-fold; the impact at a macro-level as mentioned below notwithstanding the psychological and epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent, but if we reduce the significance of sex to become devoid of meaning, it enables a permissibility of many acts of sexual deviation including non-consensual. Such intimacy must be reciprocal both sexually and emotionally to establish meaning.

This is what I mean by not wanting to have to consider everyone's emotional well-being to the N'th degree. — VagabondSpectre

This is not about right or wrong on a case-by-case basis and sexual objectification is not emotional, we are talking about what is going on in your mind; what is in question is your interpretation of the types of women that exist under these particular settings. This is an objectionable point of view because it brazenly assumes and overall contributes to imagined constructs that devalues personhood. It lacks the acknowledgement of the person and such assumptions form social pressures that contribute - just as marketing and mainstream media do - to a number of psychological problems where men and women become obsessed with their appearances, getting plastic surgery or drawing on eyebrows to perfect themselves, for what exactly? You're loose moral contributes to something much greater.

If you read your messages from the onset, you have done nothing but insult and degrade me and you're continuing to do so now. Calling me a dog, crazy, dishonest, shameful, hysterical, power hungry, that I should be ashamed of myself, fake and anyone convinced that I may have the right to defend myself against you is an 'idiot'. You then have the audacity to say that I lack virtue, why, because it is impossible for you to be wrong? Yeah, you point your finger at others and pretend that it is not projection, like you don't have a history calling women 'almond brains' among other hasty generalisations that would render your remarks suspiciously sexist to say the least.

Men happen to notice when a female comes onto the boards but very few women last. Not because women are incapable of discussing Philosophy but because in addition learning the tools of debate, pondering, explaining and substantiating your personal position, you come across an underpinning of 'objectification' of women that can and does exist in all of us, both female and male, just to different degrees. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Of course, and then when he says profoundly immature and insulting remarks, it is my fault too, where they will try and find some justification, any justification, to solidify their argument against me. Oh, ok, so now I hate men because I am defending myself against false assumptions made against me, that I am highly aggressive because I question the remarks made by a man so high on his moral horse that he can barely hear anything we mere mortals say below.

Next thing you know he is trying to gather as many people into a mob to convict me of being a witch. I am not going to allow any man to bring me down ever again and if this place teaches me this, then at the very least I can walk away with the addition of more tools then mere debate.

How else can it be? This is the very epistemic limitation of our cognitive processes.

However, you do give off the vibe of being a misandrist. — Heister Eggcart

Well, I don't hate men and have never said neither expressed as such. But, talking to people like him makes it very easy to become one.

Interesting opinion, however if you try you cannot cite one proper insult addressed to TL from me, yet her comments: — Agustino

Everything that you wrote was an insult.

It has zero to do with what you said to Noble Dust, it has to do with how you think about your friends, quite clearly - you think they're not worth your time, you merely tolerate them. That's not nice. — Agustino

You are morally delusional. Again, you do not know anything about me or my friends, stop assuming things and using moral superiority as an excuse to try and turn the problem to me, which only shows who is the one lacking in any sense or reason.

They certainly are ideals, but this draws back to the epistemic conditions of why we have them in the first place. "Cattiness" is real insofar as we presuppose its existence outside of our ideals. We cannot know that God exists, but the ideal enables us the noumenal experience of God and thus valid as a mind-independent reality, though inevitably doomed to the limitations of the contents of representations. Striving towards this ideal is a real experience.

Because you seem to be obsessed about saying things like that and it's not the first time you've said it, clearly. Most people don't think about people that they spend their time with that they're not worthy or they merely tolerate them. That's not kind, that's not nice, and that's not virtuous. End of story. — Agustino

I said one friendly comment to Noble Dust and you call that obsession? You are projecting your own obsession, clearly there is something wrong with you.

Stay silent, Augustino. Enough rubbish.

Did I say it was sexually provocative? :s You're sooooo confused and blinded by your ego, you don't even understand what's going on around you... — Agustino

THEN WHY SAY IT?

Listen, how is saying that going to the movies with a friend who I know I would have to tolerate because she will go on and on about topics that are of no interest to me when I could spend the time on the forums here with Noble Dust having laughs like the video he posted; how the heck you could possibly consider that to be sexually provocative is completely and unequivocally insane. We were having a laugh. And what is wrong with seeking an ideal? All I am doing is trying to understand men because of my inexperience and there is nothing wrong with that.

This is exactly on topic. Who are you to talk about women if you barely know the difference between your left and right hand? But stay silent nonetheless. It would do all of us some good.

No, I actually didn't, I said however that this may be possible, precisely because I don't know you well enough to say for certain. — Agustino

So, now you don't? So, why say this?

From the amount of time you spend talking about men on these forums, it seems that you are at least obsessed about men, and I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them. — Agustino

When? Where? And this coming after how many posts you have made in this forum about women?

THINK before you write.

Does it seem to you like I said she can't be virtuous if she wears a bikini in the right circumstances? :s — Agustino

You made it out that I seek to dominate men, am obsessed over them, when I said that I have yet to sleep with anyone. How does that even work? That is a symbol of my inherent respect for myself and my desire to be with someone who respects me just the same. And what stories? That my father was extremely violent and I grew up scared of men? You don't know me, Augustino, you are just projecting with your assumptions and pretending it to be fact because you desire to see yourself as holier than thou.

Being friendly is not being provocative, the point I was attempting to convey was that men often think what is not there.

I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them — Agustino

I think you are morally trying to compete with me. You are using the very assumptions that draw conclusions that only express your own projection on the subject, the abovementioned for instance. You seek to dominate. And by George you certainly frustrate.

No, I do not like dominating men; a woman can be virtuous and still wear a bikini.

Why am I morally obligated to be considerate of everyone's emotional well being? If I am at a night club, and a woman is dressed a certain way and showing me a certain kind of body language, why can I not assume she is competent enough to take care of her own emotions? If sex is what we both want, why do we need to toss in a bunch of extra emotions and commit to anything beyond a sexual encounter? — VagabondSpectre

It is about your choice in the end and there are a number of different possibilities that would suggest why a woman behaves in such a manner. I have not yet had sex with a man but the way that I dress and communicate can often be interpreted as provocative and highly sexual, indeed there have been many men that have become really aggressive towards me from frustration at their inability to get close to me and as a way of trying to make me comply.

You need to be weary of your assumptions and consider a number of factors that requires you to know a person first, understand who they are, where they come from and perhaps you may find that it is your own assumptions that is making you choose to believe what is essentially your desire and your lack of responsibility. Such intimacy without respect for her history, her personhood, her reasons for being their in the first place merely objectifies her into what you want, not who she is.

It's so damn cold. Love The Who.

Russell's cat is only eternal in thought, but I don't think anyone can imagine what it means to have the view point of a thing in-itself. Kant said we can't know the in-itself but he also thought the concept could be used in thought. — Cavacava

It is epistemic, the boundary of language that enables us to articulate our mental state within a world external to that state; we are required to universalise concepts like 'cattiness' and form preliminary ideals to counter this boundary and where all objects - namely cats - become one with the nature of cattiness, but never completely. Just as we cannot understand the concept of God and yet his omnipotence is clearly understood, we as humans become one - albeit imperfectly - with the nature of God, but never completely. As cats need certain requisites to become one with cattiness, these ideals enable us to ascertain the temperament, disposition and other duties familiar to the concept of God - the highest Form of Good - that we seek to attain, striving to perfect virtue that can reach beyond the learnings of social history and materialism. The process is indeed real and that would mean that God and cattiness is also real.

You are using marijuana to protect yourself from yourself. You believe that marijuana is enabling this experience when it is actually you, but you are somehow excusing yourself from this experience by pretending the source of it is external to you. Marijuana merely absorbs the fear you may have to consciously undertake this cognitive project yourself, just as some people drink alcohol to provide them with the confidence to speak to another person they may desire and if they do something immoral, simply blame the alcohol. The problem with this is that when things become difficult, you could quite simply blame the marijuana and abandon the undertaking, because the awareness of your separateness to the external world is not without its profound difficulties. It is your capacity alone, your choice that is enabling the process. That is why I said that without marijuana, the experience would be more strengthening or empowering because you would become aware that it is you and whilst upright face the devil.

Consciousness is not something 'deeper' but just is, a reflective practice that enables you to experience who you actually, genuinely are. If you are separating yourself from the false representations of the external world caused by the illusions of your ego, this splitting away is entirely your own doing.

What kind of cake? Carrot Cake with Cream Cheese frosting? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I like everything simple and homely, but carrot cake is just not good enough. Perhaps a Cartesian Apple Cake?

Sounds like a plan; NYC or Australia? What kind of cake tho? — Noble Dust

Australia, for sure. We have backyards, you see.

As long as you do no feffing then perhaps i'll consider saving you a slice.

I believe John may perhaps be attempting to explicate the idea that only the infinite knower can possess knowledge of the infinite. I am unsure, however, how objects are infinite unless he was highlighting the platonic realm of forms, as Russell said:

if the word ‘cat’ means anything, it means something which is not this or that cat, but some kind of universal cattiness. This is not born when a particular cat is born, and does not die when it dies. In fact it has no position in space or time, it is ‘eternal’.

A universal quality that renders its own existence and this is reflected through nature.

Your bromance is appealing, but alas my preference has always been a backyard wedding with a handful of people and a cake I bake myself. And lots of fairy lights. No entertainment necessary.

You two? You're both like these rams:

złoty
/ˈzlɒtɪ/
noun (pl) -tys, -ty
1.
the standard monetary unit of Poland, divided into 100 grassy


Last word in the dictionary.

For kant, things-in-themselves were independent of the wold of space and time, since space and time are mere a priori conditions of our experienced world contributed to experience by our mental faculties. — Brian

We categorise and conceptually distinguish through sensory experience within space and time where our mental state' relationship with the external world grounds our understanding. The objects within them are merely appearances that make it 'something' through the representations that we create and thus the actuality of what they are can never really be known. That is, the existence of these objects outside of our thoughts has no clear grounding and we create such meaning. His ethics becomes parallel to existential thought (particularly free-will), namely that by abandoning a naive subjectivism through objective moral rules, we are capable of universalising ethical values through reason rather than experience.

Our capacity is not merely constrained by such limitations of the abovementioned cognitive processes, but that we can transcend toward rational consistency of your reality, that you are what you do. There is an infinite totality in your existence that consists of continuously bringing yourself into being - consciousness - rather than being a passive, inert observer.

I have long sought the company of a man of true philosophical brilliance, the one who has all the answers and as I await collection for a late night sesh at the movies, ponder why I feel like I spend most of my time in the company of people I merely tolerate when it could be spent with you.

That was quite literally the best response ever. ;)

She has a painfully annoying voice. And hey, my bed may be empty of a smelly man, but it is heated, has twinkle lights and the softest blankets that I feel like a cat myself.

A woman, by the way.

That's in a box in storage.

On a side note, was that a picture of your dinner or your cats? Just checking.

As they say, keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer. I always win in the end.

Besides, it is school holidays so I will be getting paid to do no work and I am heading out to Hawaii in a few weeks so I don't want to spend money. I have a'plenty of time on my hands to ensure Hanover gives up to the sheer power of me.

My place is better than yours. Try to guess my favorite books on the mantel.

Make a statement when no one attached to this thread is on the forum so that it may go unnoticed and ill have the last word.

Are you a spokesperson for all women or are you just telling us of the sort of bad boy you adore? — Hanover

Perhaps an exaggeration, but I was trying to show that our OP is really talking about the construct of masculine aggression rather than evil. I am far from liking bad boys I can assure you, but we all admire a protective strength and loyalty in a man, someone who may have the capacity to undertake the so-called 'evil' tendencies the OP discusses while at the same time remaining moral and loving. I just assume that her understanding of evil is dubious and you yourself agree when you say then it's not evil.

And that bully you hated so much comes around, has a change of heart and decides to fight for you and protects you. — Rosalina

I am unsure whether you understand 'evil' and I believe that you may need to clarify this a bit more, as I am under the assumption you are speaking more of a masculine aggression rather than evil, a dominant figure that has the strength to fight and commit immoral acts and yet still has the heart to protect and even love, which is perhaps what you may find attractive. All women find this attractive, it is instinctual. However, a bully that shows remorse is not evil, on the contrary showing remorse itself is the very fibre of moral behaviour or 'good' - mistakes that one becomes aware of is not the same as a sociopath who does not feel empathy or sense any wrongdoing.

From a Kantian perspective, there are several different levels of evil, initially starting from a weakness in motivation or will (p*ssy is how you put it), a cowardly person who would follow (someone who would watch or gang up in groups, insult or attack someone weaker then them, turn a blind eye to something bad even if they have the ability to help). They prioritise moral choices depending on the situation.

The second are those that pretend to be good (the worst kind in my opinion), an appearance where they are able to adequately present themselves as kind and solicitous when in fact there is a deliberate interest in gaining something even if it is merely the favour of others, a type of 'selling' as they market themselves to an audience that buy their deceptively moral behaviour when they have neither the mind nor the genuine heart to be virtuous. And the third is deliberate evil, someone conscious of moral laws and values who deliberately violates and establishes immoral principles of action.

The point is that evil itself is nothing more than our will, a choice and how far we can choose to will evil maxims. This is the same for our will to being moral. It is probably why the following Socratic quote is very real:

There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.

And everything we know about the world is the world-for-us, even when discussing cosmology or quantum mechanics. Such studies are meaningless in the face of a world wholly unrelated to our experience of it. — Brian

The search for the nature and origin of the universe is a comparative to the very same search for meaning within ourselves, a survey of the source of why we are by examining themes such as the singularity that touches on naturalism and God-centred views of Being and Nature. Ultimately, all we are doing is epistemically exploring our subjective place within something greater than ourselves, our finite condition that removes us by reflectively practicing objective thought. Whether these mental states themselves are real, mind-independent properties that exist is something metaphysics has yet to answer and in the end, solipsism does have a sense of validity.

If there would be entities where nobody experienced them, they are nothing but objects and their condition is inherently valueless. Are you an object or is their value in your existence?