Yeah, when im not appealing to caesar humbly enough... and thats supposed to say anyrhing other than "i dont like what your sayin, but i got nothing so youre a bad person"?

Ignore me then. Checking my hehaviour is fun and all...

I dont understand categories, and every use of them is necessarily hasty, because everything is specially unique and uncomparable, yet at the same time all meaning is lexical and always reduced to categorical reasoning... and these are just rhetorical strategies that although clearly contradict... and im agreeing with and denying both principles as it suits me... you though... youre wrong when you do it.

This is all just rhetorical. No ones got nothin.

I was wrong that he was critizing the way i said it and not what i said?

What can i say to that? I ought to have sounded less confident and added more couching to avoid being perceived as too arrogant? Im not appealing to him, so i dont give a shit about that.

Like i said, i dont mind being unlikeable. Looks like im not best bud material. Doesnt make me factually mistaken, or unreasonable.

Youre critiquing the way i say things rather than what i said. Saying things with confidence and authority is pretty hot you know? Thats the ideal of how the logos presets itself, and the ladies fucking love it, lol. I highly doubt that im impressing many dudes, but ill bare that horrible burden.

I doubt that you thought much of anything of me if i didnt make much of an impression. Being taken account of is better than being the good one. Im worried about being true to myself and being conscientious, not being agreeable or congenial. Being the most liked is a narcissistic ideal.

Yeah i lived in calgary for a year, then sangudo for a year then leduc for seven months then back to sangudo for two years and now ive just moved to whitecourt because my sister and her kids are out here. I like being close to family, they empower me.

? Thats just more calling me an asshole man, and then taking a stand on high as the one being appealed to as if i want something from you. Im just answering the question about spirituality, and then expanding on the ironic implications. What you believe isnt my problem. I enjoyed reading you a lot when i first showed up on the philosophy forum a decade ago. I thought that you were pretty cool shit back then. I even tried to talk to you, but you werent interested, so im more pleased than anything that im getting it now. Youre only like 4 hours from me as well.

I see the folly of myself, and only through that the folly of mankind. But i guess just insinuating my unbelievable arrogance is a good enough retort.

"Come now let us reason together
Says the lord
Though your sins are like scarlet
They shall be as white as snow
Though they are crimson
They will become like wool." Isaiah 1:18

The root meanings of the words spirit chi and atman are all breath. The animating principle, chakra, energy, force, power, life.

Irony is a beautiful thing. The religious are the real physicalists, always tracing things back to personal experience, revalation, feeling, profession and confession, the individual, and in the case of protestantism, the complete denial of any intermediation between the individual the thr divine, the truth.The irreligious are the real immaterialists, believing first hand accounts and introspection the be worthless, the collective over the individual to take precedence (protecting the poor helpless ones from the way eviler way dumber individuals than us enlightened few) that the truth is handed down from on high, and are mouth piece repeaters of shit theyve heard from trusted authorities, that they take on pure faith in the benevolence of the process and judge your intelligence and goodness on how precisely you repeat the same things. Think how worthless flawed and wicked the individual is, and do not dare to compare oneselve with the holy geniuses and arbiters of truth, which were all just born great and predestined to do all that they do.

I laugh... and they cry.

Da buddha was a monster with arms half the size of his goddamned abdomen... he wasnt all "shreded" either like someone that lacks frame muscle development but was all filled out, rounded out opened up and unconditioned. Pure potential. Truly capable of anything a human ever has been... or so my idealizations tell me...

A terrifying beast.

Without emotion youll have zero motivation, or reason to do anything. You wouldnt get out of bed in the morning, and would just lay there and die. The epitome of rationality devoid of emotion is the completion of nihilism.

People that claim that emotions are problematic merely display aversion, and tend to look down on, and display disgust towards people they see as passionate. Since ridding themselves of emotion is impossible their own emotions simply become unconscious and their delusional inviolate self image spawns an aversion and distain and cripples their sympathy towards others...

You know what was great? Osaka on azumanga daioh's dream. In japan dreaming of mount fugi, a crane, or an eggplant on new years signifies good luck. So it shows her with a cane in one hand, an eggplant in the other and mount fugi in the background and she says "awaken". Thats what im always reminded of when i think of that.

I am just normal. When i make claims of my specialness theyre hyperbolic on purpose, to mock that attitude. Slaves and tyrants make the lamest of companions, and are in constant competition and battle attempting to climb maintain or kick someone off of the ol pyramid of dominance. Theyre full of strategies, tactics, worries and fears. They blind themselves and others in the name of progress or the better way, and all that.

Id rather be asleep through all that. Wake me up before you go go.

We understand each other to a lesser extent over the phone, and we're all auspies on the intertubes or over texts. Thats way people continually improperly infer your disposition or emotional states in online discussions... and youre all able to survive my presence without being crushed by my overwhelming spiritual pressure.

How we understand others is bodily. Thats where the real meaning comes from. You mirror them bodily. So that the meaning is action. If you cant do it, then you cant really understand what theyre saying, and when you repeat it, it wouldnt mean the same thing, because you wont be able to do what theyre doing when they say it.

Im just listening to the radio unpacking and cleaning up, dont want to actually use my phone data for that atm.

Satan is identified as the adversary. One of reactive egotistical rebellion. In order to be free, the possibility for rebellion always exist. Pretty much everything from ignorance is forgivable though...

In the beginning the world was formless and void, and then there was the word, and the word was God, and the word was with God.

It goes something like that right? God is the logos. There is a reason that Aristotle was such a big deal to the church founders. Adam gave everything it's name. Adam was in communion with God in the garden and gave everything it's name. Jesus attained the kingdom again, and become the second adam.

The meaning, the forms the word, the categories. The unintelligible through which all else is rendered intelligible. The ground.

Read a book... don't listen modern rabble rousers.

That would make you the boxer.

Or to put it in another way. Talk about what you know, and if you don't know it, don't say it.

Ideologies are counter productive, rather than required. Intentions are much better. Praxis exclusively, no need for doxa. Doxa over praxis is precisely what endangers the entire enterprise -- as it merely reflects the appearance of what grows out of praxis.

My parents raised German short haired pointers when I was a kid (I once got expelled from school after being sent to the guidance councilor and disagreeing with her about a poster of a Dog on her wall clearly not being a lab, but a weimaraner), my Dad used to train them for hunting too. He trained them on verbal commands, gestures, and also the whistle.

I like Dogs and everything, but even cats want more of my attention than I'm usually willing to give them. When I talk to someone for too long, but cat will start attacking them. I think that they feel there to be an unfair distribution of my attention... but there's plenty of me to go around.

The physical difference is one between explosive power, and stamina. Weight, and endurance. Not in every conceivable way, in every single physical competition imaginable, and not without some significant reasons that don't reduce to biology.

It's far from just a hard truth that softies and sjw just won't admit or something...

The idea that men must fight wars, or do dangerous stuff because they're more physically capable may be something you would want to believe, but it's because males are less biologically valuable. Losing a single female reduces population growth, but not true of losing a male, because a single male can impregnate more than one female, but not true of the reverse.

It would never make biological sense to make the females more risk taking, regardless of any gaps in competence.

Oh, oh, I'm so triggered and harmed. Got me back for being such a big meanie. My big ugly ass nose. Oh nose!

The human body is the most beautiful thing in existence. Lets be grown ups, and criticize people on substantial, rather than superficial and self-centered fronts.

As I've said, I've only seen evaluations. I'm not doing it right, rather than actually being mistake or counter-factual in any way. I'm a bad boy. So so sassy. Doubly sassy.

Evaluation is something we do when we're picking, or deciding. When we're being appealed to, or approached. It isn't appropriate when we're knee deep involved, or on the inside.

It's not a matter of appeal. Do it or else.

I told you that it depends, and it's based on the structure of how things are put together based on attention given and money spent (in my opinion), and also that men beat women in explosive power, but not endurance. All of this means that I'm in no way denying that men's teams would generally beat women's. What have I said that makes you think I'm denying this? What kind of point do you think you're making in having me concede this? Be direct, and stop with the insinuations.

What did you mean that you can't say somethings other than people will not like it and disagree with you? What did that mean other than that you'd be victimized? You just don't want to say that you are because I'm telling you that you are. So sassy.

Lots of evaluations, not any actual points. I will victimize you now. I thought you were a woman at first, but I see now that you've just been feminized through homoromaticism. What do I keep saying about irony? That's to return an evaluation, rather than a real point.

I did agree with the gap, but based on important qualifications, and with skepticism, with real significant points of real factors that I think are difficult to deny may instantiate some disadvantages -- but even without that, my endurance vs body weight suggestion I believe holds strong in all sports.

You're not making points. You've made an assertion that you don't feel needs supporting, or arguing for, and then insinuated that you're oh so victimized for it, and everyone is all wicked for disagreeing, and while not making actual points, and speculating on motivations for disagreeing with the all so obvious, you decide that it is actually everyone that disagrees that only sees motives for disagreeing, and only responds to motives when that is literally 100% of all you've done here.

Am I victimizing you now? I do get that unbelievably frequently...

As I like to tell everyone, golf and women's volleyball are the only real spectator sports.

I believe that my rationale holds strong for why women are better at marathons, and, not to sounds paranoid, as it isn't something that is easy to prove, but I suspect that they're still structured in such a way to accommodate males, rather than females.