Women cannot be "Strong" and VICTIMS at the same time...

Pandora,

It is called the halo effect and not such an easy thing to do away with jnfortunately. lol I really just do not get it at all. Thoroughly brain-washed.

verywellmind.com/what-is-th … ct-2795906

What did trump do for humanity exactly?

That is one definition of evil but not the only one. If I drown a bunch of innocent men I am pretty much evil. If I ban the cure of cancer I am pretty much evil. If I bomb other countries for oil and zionism I am evil. Et etcetera. I can’t believe I’m actually having to waste my breathe explaining this to you. Even a child would understand this, this is like pre-K stuff. I can’t believe that I actually have to explain there are other forms of evil besides rape, but this is 2018 so who knows.

As for cheating, it only occurs because someone’s needs are not met. Often is the case someone will settle for a relationship they don’t really want because they were rejected by the person they really love. So the person they are in a relationship with wasn’t their first choice and so can never really satisfy them.

lordoflight

I was not suggesting that the above were the only forms of evil. Those were the two which first came to me. You may have asked the question: Is this all you see?

.

Agreed.

Agreed.

If human beings human lives are destroyed because of greed, whether for money, power or land, that to me is evil.

What about to bring a war to a close earlier and to save the men and women in that war who MIGHT die as a result of the war going on for another year or so. What about the bombs which were dropped on Iwo Jima and Nagasaki which killed or caused such great bodily harm to innocent children, women and men? Do you consider the bombing of those people to be evil or simply some necessary collateral damage?

I wonder what many of the men who served in the Armed Forces thought of their own survival while Innocents were destroyed? Do you think many of them went along with those who decided to play God?

That to me was evil!!!

Well, I am sure that if you think about it for a little while you will come to realize that that is the nature of belief. You did not give enough thought to what I was saying and your bias toward me (evidently) led you to believe that those were the only two things which I thought to be evil which is quite absurd when you think about it. I may not be brilliant as some in here are but I am far from stupid and I count myself to be very intelligent in ways.

Really? Would you like to perhaps re-think that or was that just facetious nonsense?

If you cannot believe something that is the moment in which you must doubt your belief or even your un-belief.

Or believes that their needs are not being met.

ONLY? I am not so sure that I would say ONLY. A man goes into a bar. Had a bad and a tiresome day. This man never cheated before and would perhaps never consider cheating. A woman saunters up to him, a woman who could care less who the man was, who took advantage of how he was feeling at the moment, of his having had more than a few drinks, of his vulnerability. He forgets who he really is and what is important to him and allows himself to be taken in by this woman’s so-called kind and thoughtful words to him, her so-called empathy and compassion, and voila, he is hers for the night. I suppose one can say that the man did feel that his needs were not being met at that moment.

But men and women also cheat because they feel they have a right to - it is their privilege because of who they think they are. It is their ego and their narcissism which tells them so.
Does the hedonist think that his needs are not being met?

One may say that this may have to do with the inability to delay gratification which is one of the signs of maturity in a man or a woman.
So tell me, who is to blame in this scenario, who is to be held responsible here? The person who rejected them or the person who could not wait, who did not value him/her -self and who was not capable of being alone until the so-called right one was found?

What I see is that I feel like I’m being baited and trolled.
What I see is what everyone else can see.

I find it funny how women label men who treat them bad as egoistic narcissists. While most women in America are egoistic narcissists, as default.

Femsplaining. People who have a low or muted sex drive, who don’t comprehend that going for years without getting laid will cause mental illness in someone whos more virile. Some people still are well in their 40’s looking for “Mrs. Right”.

lordoflight

My suggestion to you was and is a legitimate one.

Your perception is flawed in this regard ~ our feelings are not always grounded in reality.
I am not even sure that I would know how to bait and troll. Point out to me where you think you see this and I will give it some thought.
What I see/saw is that I was trying to draw you out for discussion but you made of yourself some kind of fish.

That in itself is a very presumptuous statement. You may have to spell that out. We all see with different eyes at times. Do not stand on the shoulders of others.

"While most women…That is a very biased opinion. If you take the time to LOOK, you will note that I said…

But men and women also cheat…

But I will give you this. You have a point. There are INDIVIDUAL women who feel as you say but the same goes for INDIVIDUAL men. Neither have a monopoly on that bias and tunnel vision.

Did I say anything about going for years…? I was speaking about having value for one’s self and understanding of what one may look for in a mate and allowing one’s self the time to wait and maybe get to know one’s self and maybe why the relationship went wrong in the first place.

Rebounds are a dime a dozen and what do they actually do except satisfy one’s sexual needs for a little while and then what? It is back to square one and the little lonesome dove. I am not so sure that going for years without sex will cause mental illness (sounds like a myth to me) as long as one uses that sex drive, that libido in creative and purposeful ways.

More than any previous human being.
That you aren’t aware proves you were never empathic with the worlds peoples.

The relief among hundreds of millions is tremendous. The hatred for him of the modern western left is demonic, pure undiluted malice.

Trump, is a spoiled brat and a narcissist, who has no problem lying straight through his teeth and who can only see his own reflection wherever he looks (which also makes him a perfect dumb puppet). There is a fine line between displaying confidence and displaying arrogance, and he’s walking on the wrong side of the line. But it’s not coincidental, as I believe that’s what he is and that’s exactly what is being pushed. He’s our new King Midas, who will take any piece of shit and try to turn it into a gold standard. Corruption? So what. Nepotism? So what? Felony convictions? Yes, so what? Unbridled greed? That’s right! and so? …Fortunately for him, he’s only a poster boy for the powers that rally behind him and tell him what to do. (Without them and on his own, he’d be as blind as a bat because he cannot see beyond his own, or rather his father’s, imago). And the real enemies are the directors behind him (the crooks and cronies) who are pushing the narcissistic image of Captain America onto the rest of the world. These are the people who concern me the most, as they seem to imagine themselves living in some kind of juvenile fantasy superhero comic book saga; choosing to push exaggerated confidence (blatant arrogance) as the norm. Display of power without any reproach or accountability.

youtube.com/watch?v=wk4wBvqWsUY
And this is the president I, the ingrate, should be thankful for.

youtube.com/watch?v=L1Lb1c2WML8

Your post seems very emotion-oriented Pandora.

I think a lot of people cannot stand Trump because he is a patriot who loves his country, and truly wants to improve US.

Most people seem to hate America and want US to fail. Trump wants US to succeed. Those who speak against Trump maybe full of self-hatred and suicidal nihilism, wanting to take out patriots and anybody who is positive or optimistic about the future.

First and foremost, Trump loves himself, or whatever glorified delusion of himself he has in his mind. And being openly arrogant is not a way to stop people from wanting US to fail.
(neither is bombing their homelands)

In politics, disregarding, or being blind to others’ interests is sloppy and irresponsible use of power.

youtube.com/watch?v=PfoRDgJPCAg
Yes, somebody give this guy a Nobel Prize already.

Edit: and this is not a matter of optimism vs. nihilism, but of delusional optimism vs. realism.

nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/ … ulism.html

Jakob, there have been 45 presidents of the US. Can you please point out to me exactly what positive results Trump has caused and done for this country and for the world.

There has been 45 presidents and yet at this still early point you can say that he has done more dismissing what others have done.
Seriously, can you enumerate these things and show me the proof, the evidence ~ based in reality, not based in Trump’s world view of himself.
You make him sound like a god but what I see is more to the point, what pandora sees.

The Psychology Behind Donald Trump’s Unwavering Support
Research explains why Donald Trump maintains support despite shocking behavior.

There’s no doubt that Donald Trump has said many things that would have been political suicide for any other Republican candidate. And almost every time he made one of these shocking statements, political analysts on both the left and the right predicted that he’d lose supporters because of it. But as we have clearly seen over the past year, they were dead wrong every time. Trump appears to be almost totally bulletproof.

The only thing that might be more perplexing than the psychology of Donald Trump is the psychology of his supporters. In their eyes, The Donald can do no wrong. Even Trump himself seems to be astonished by this phenomenon. “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”

Senator John McCain, who has been a regular target for Trump during his campaign, has a simple explanation for his unwavering support. “What he did was he fired up the crazies.”

While the former Republican presidential nominee may be on to something, he doesn’t exactly provide a very satisfying scientific explanation. So how exactly are Trump loyalists psychologically or neurologically different from everyone else? What is going on in their brains that makes them so blindly devoted?

  1. The Dunning-Kruger Effect

Some believe that many of those who support Donald Trump do so because of ignorance — basically they are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it’s ever been, they simply take his word for it.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to try to reach those people through political ads, expert opinions, and logical arguments that educate with facts. Except none of those things seem to be swaying any Trump supporters from his side, despite great efforts to deliver this information to them directly.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed. This creates a double burden.

Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, “The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment.” Essentially, they’re not smart enough to realize they’re dumb.

And if one is under the illusion that they have sufficient or even superior knowledge, then they have no reason to defer to anyone else’s judgment. This helps explain why even nonpartisan experts — like military generals and Independent former Mayor of New York/billionaire CEO Michael Bloomberg — as well as some respected Republican politicians, don’t seem to be able to say anything that can change the minds of loyal Trump followers.

Out of immense frustration, some of us may feel the urge to shake a Trump supporter and say, “Hey! Don’t you realize that he’s an idiot?!” No. They don’t. That may be hard to fathom, but that’s the nature of the Dunning-Kruger effect — one’s ignorance is completely invisible to them.

  1. Hypersensitivity to Threat

Science has unequivocally shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A 2008 study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing images.

So how does this help explain the unbridled loyalty of Trump supporters? These brain responses are automatic, and not influenced by logic or reason. As long as Trump continues his fear mongering by constantly portraying Muslims and Mexican immigrants as imminent dangers, many conservative brains will involuntarily light up like light bulbs being controlled by a switch. Fear keeps his followers energized and focused on safety. And when you think you’ve found your protector, you become less concerned with remarks that would normally be seen as highly offensive.

  1. Terror Management Theory

A well-supported theory from social psychology, called Terror Management Theory, explains why Trump’s fear mongering is doubly effective.

The theory is based on the fact that humans have a unique awareness of their own mortality. The inevitably of one’s death creates existential terror and anxiety that is always residing below the surface. In order to manage this terror, humans adopt cultural worldviews — like religions, political ideologies, and national identities — that act as a buffer by instilling life with meaning and value.

Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. Hundreds of studies have confirmed this hypothesis, and some have specifically shown that triggering thoughts of death tends to shift people towards the right.

Not only do death reminders increase nationalism, they influence actual voting habits in favor of more conservative presidential candidates. And more disturbingly, in a study with American students, scientists found that making mortality salient increased support for extreme military interventions by American forces that could kill thousands of civilians overseas. Interestingly, the effect was present only in conservatives, which can likely be attributed to their heightened fear response.

By constantly emphasizing existential threat, Trump creates a psychological condition that makes the brain respond positively rather than negatively to bigoted statements and divisive rhetoric. Liberals and Independents who have been puzzled over why Trump hasn’t lost supporters after such highly offensive comments need look no further than Terror Management Theory.

  1. High Attentional Engagement

According to a recent study that monitored brain activity while participants watched 40 minutes of political ads and debate clips from the presidential candidates, Donald Trump is unique in his ability to keep the brain engaged. While Hillary Clinton could only hold attention for so long, Trump kept both attention and emotional arousal high throughout the viewing session. This pattern of activity was seen even when Trump made remarks that individuals didn’t necessarily agree with. His showmanship and simple messages clearly resonate at a visceral level.

Essentially, the loyalty of Trump supporters may in part be explained by America’s addiction with entertainment and reality TV. To some, it doesn’t matter what Trump actually says because he’s so amusing to watch. With Donald, you are always left wondering what outrageous thing he is going to say or do next. He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained.

Of course these explanations do not apply to all Trump supporters. In fact, some are likely intelligent people who know better, but are supporting Trump to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the system. They may have such distaste for the establishment and Hillary Clinton that their vote for Trump is a symbolic middle finger directed at Washington.

So what can we do to potentially change the minds of Trump loyalists before voting day in November? As a cognitive neuroscientist, it grieves me to say that there may be nothing we can do. The overwhelming majority of these people may be beyond reach, at least in the short term. The best we can do is to motivate everyone else to get out to the booths and check the box that doesn’t belong to a narcissistic nationalist who has the potential to damage the nation beyond repair.

I decided to copy and paste this article here instead of just posting the hyperlink. Those with such a halo effect toward Trump might not even stop to read it. Their minds are already made up. There has not been much that has changed since the above was written except perhaps for those who voted for Trump and have the sense to now regret it.

Is this country really in a far better place than it was before because of him? Mira!

Strength and Honour!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn9Ulh0oIN0[/youtube]

Domestic Abuse and the Fault of Women

Much domestic violence and abuse, men hitting, punching, and beating women occurs because a low-quality male “scores” a high-quality female, and refuses to “let her go”.

Once a woman gives-up her virginity, or sex, to a low-quality male then the low-quality male believes he “owns” her. She is his property. And this is accurate. Because women giving-up sex is a form of Investment. Females willingly, choosingly, give-up a large piece of Self-worth, Self-esteem, and Self-confidence to a male, when he “scores” her. Females often feel that domestic violence is “my fault” because they have already led the male on, and given positive and affirmative signals.

Many times women are “surprised” by a male, previously acting as a “nice-guy”, who then becomes aggressive, abusive, mean, or “evil” when the relationship is on the rocks. Females are “surprised” when the male turns on her, and begins to exert violence and fear, in order to keep her locked under his control. I believe this is due to a lack of education, wisdom, and intelligence, in many women. Many females have an average and low intelligence, and cannot recognize the signs of a potentially-abusive boyfriend.

Women are responsible for domestic violence, against them, when Sex is put in the larger perspective. The statistics show that rape and domestic violence is mostly caused by “boyfriends” or husbands. But how could that be possible, unless the female has already given him sexual-rites and access? The main problem is, women are never held accountable for anything, in general, and seen as innocent-victims, when truthfully, they willfully and choosingly “picked” such mates and males to begin with. Rather domestic violence and “men are evil” come after-the-fact, after the abuse, and after the female is already in far over her head. She regrets her (mistaken, poor choice) and wants to re-neg. She wants out, and believes, that the rest of society ‘owes’ her forgiveness and compassion for the choices she already made, willingly.

I’m not implying that women and females trapped in abusive relationships “deserve to be in them” or “don’t deserve out of them”. Rather I’m saying that women are partially, or wholly, responsible for entering into them, especially when females are young.

The main method of preventing such occurrences are the presence of a strong, Prideful father, who can protect his daughter, or brothers who could also perform the same function. This is why daughters and women with strong-caring fathers, generally are not abused by boyfriends, men, or husbands, compared to single-mother or divorced-mother daughters.

In the end, all fault and responsibility is put onto the ‘male’ gender. Men are responsible for the abuse (not women for choosing to begin the relationship). And men are responsible for “fixing” it. Men are also responsible for Patronage and being “good fathers”. Feminism will never concede responsibility, on behalf of the female gender, ever.

This is why Women are discounted in general, deserve disrespect, or even contempt. If a whole gender absolutely refuses any form of culpability, capability for responsibility, and absolute victimhood, then they must be treated as such – absolute victims, incapable of any form authority, leadership, or self-responsibility. Absolute Dependents, never Independent. If Feminism truly wanted “Independence”, or any woman wanted “equal respect with men”, then women would band-together and begin taking responsibility for anything. But they don’t. And they won’t. And so, women cannot be respected (morally) for their poor choices throughout life.

Certainly women are responsible for ignoring warning signs. I can’t see where this would ever make them wholly responsible for the behavior of the men - and reading the previous post this is one of the options and the main thrust of the post is to give them most of the responsiblity. If the men are mere automatons who inevitably respond with violence after the courtship…iow if we view them as pure natural beings simply living out the essence in a predetermined manner, then we can hardly on the other hand view women as free agents who caused the relationship, and caused the man to get violent. She would be her version of an automaton. And the men are also responsible for playing the nicey, nice bullshit courtship game and not knowing themselves enough to realize they probably hate the woman they are courting. And the men are responsible for getting involved with women who will make them go violent.

There are many people who see women as pure victims and that seems useless to me. It means the women can do nothing to avoid problems, they might as well throw a dart at a map and choose their partner by the address. But we also don’t have to pretend that men have to go to violence when they don’t get what they want. I mean, seriously, if you hate the person you are with the way they are, leave. Or do everything short of violence to see if some kind of postive change can start.

But that’s right, if you raise the level to violence you better have a damn good excuse. And ‘she doesn’t want me anymore’ just doesn’t cut it. Or ‘she thinks she gets to decide things also’, just doesn’t cut it. Men need to man up and actually feel their fucking feelings, like many men actually do. Violence in relationships, especially something regular is an addiction. It is self-medicating. They do not want to feel helpless, which they do feel. They do not want to feel their fear, which is there. So they hit, because this seems like taking some kind of control. It’s a pussy move. It’s hiding from the pain that is always possible in relationships. Or hiding from not being treated like a master to a slave. Or hiding from the loss of control we all have when we want something.

That’s fucking right, it fucking hurts. Relationships can fucking hurt. Deal with that shit without self-medicating.

Of course having good father helps any child with anything. Having a mother who respects herself in relation to the father will also help the daughter not put up with people who feel creepy or give off little warning signs as the courtship moves towards marriage or partnership.

Honest parents who actually know what they are feeling and who they are, of course that would help. Fathers treating their daughters with respect and not using violence, that also helps. Getting into some insightful discussions of people and their motives, desires, foibles, bullshit, confusion, self-delusions, etc…that all can help to. FAmilies often do not talk about the most important things. The traditional stoic male father sitting on his emotions, except for occasional anger, has not protected women. A real insight into all that is in men as she grows up is much better prevention.

But you go up to violence, you need a better excuse then the person who does not go up to violence.

It is sexist to present men’s violence as simply a determined thing. They are like robots in this model. Only the woman can prevent being hit.

I do get that this is coming as a response to cultural elements that see women as having no part in consequences, but throwing a weird distorted view of men out really doesn’t help.

That violence is fear-based. I am not saying that anger isn’t in there also. But the choice to up the ante to violence, that’s because they are afraid.

FAthers need to show their sons that actually feeling fear and grief and being able to speak from that are also not helping anybody get a grounded view of what is happening.

And this does not mean that only soft emotions are OK. Anger and rage have their place, but I see men skipping over any feeling that makes them feel too weak, even those feelings ARE their feelings. And I see men living out lives as partial humans. Women certainly do this also, with their own distorted mirror version.

ORANGE MAN BAD

Thanathots

Your statement begs the question: Do you not believe in fairness, justice and balance?
I was being facetious when I wrote that BUT I think that both men and women need to learn to have regard for one another, at least under sane, normal circumstances. Aside from that, it is far beyond tricky. Insofar as what I wrote above, that might become a slippery slope. I am not sure just how that would work out.

Very often what we expect[ed] is what we get, no more nor less.
I will try to imagine that somewhere in the future I will not see your insults towards other posters.
One thing I will say for you though is that it is not women alone who have a monopoly on these kind of posts. That may be a positive.

“Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.” If you’re aiming for something, even if you don’t achieve it, you’ll still be somewhere better than where you started. You can achieve other great things while trying to do your first, even if you don’t achieve your original goal.

Which rights are you speaking about ~ those inalienable rights which we are all entitled to unless we abuse them and lose them?
I am not sure what you mean by defeat men in conflict. It seems to me that women are still fighting to receive the same rights which many men had in the past and still are denying them whether due to fear or lack of consciousness. Those fearful men with a lack of consciousness who still believe that they are living in a patriarchal world, and perhaps in a sense we still are (I do not know) would try to deny women the same rights as they have, those same rights which women already have a RIGHT too. The more these men try to put women down, the higher these women rise up to meet the challenge.

[/quote]
What do women have to do to show their competence and so-called worthiness? Go off to war and fight, become firefighters, become police officers, become whatever they choose to while some men still live in caves, stand in solidarity and report their sexual abusers? et cetera, et cetera…what came about long before and shall come about in the future…

Have a good day.

Rights aren’t inalienable and nobody is entitled to anything. Claims of entitlement are parasitic.

What are you not sure about? Men would have to be awfully stupid and weakened to give women rights for free. If women manage to defeat men, aka wound them until they cannot fight back or kill them, then they can have their rights.

If they cannot or if they don’t even dare to try, then they can’t have their rights.

The problem is that society and humanity in-general, puts the responsibility of average men at 75-100%. Women have 25-0% responsibility. So it’s “not fair”. I’m not saying that it should be. I simply want to demonstrate how, in-reality, females have very low moral standards. Men, and women, do not expect much “responsibility” from women, mostly because of the female irrational and emotional mentality. Women cannot be trusted; because women cannot reason. And women are morally bankrupt, because they are not, and continually refuse to be 100% self-responsible, and take responsibility for others.

It seems to me that when women do try to take responsibility “actually it is my fault that my boyfriend punched me in the face a few times” that society responds with “No-no-no, you are an innocent little angel, VICTIM, and it’s actually not your fault AT ALL”. So it’s negative-negative. Even when women may feel inclined to take responsibility, (Modern-Feminist) society rebukes them, and keeps them morally-void.

I’m not saying it’s impossible for women to have a Moral, Responsible status. I do believe it can occur, and probably in the most Noble and intelligent of women. However, even those (most noble) types, will still only gain a fraction of Morality (Self-responsibility) compared to men. So even then, it will not be “fair”, and definitely not “equal”.

I don’t believe in Equality though. Women should be accepted as a low Moral status, having a low expectation for Self-Responsibility, in-general.

Most domestic violence and abuse could be prevented by women, by screening their mates better and longer, which intelligent women do anyway. Intelligent women tend not to allow low-quality males to have power over them. And intelligent women, almost always, have a strong-father figure present in their lives, or brothers, who would further protect her honor and integrity. Lower intelligent women, average, do not. It’s not a coincidence, that such women come from single-parent, single-mother, absent-father homes.

Males can be stupid and morally bankrupt too, not just women. But the point of this thread, and the ongoing point, is that women are viewed by society at large, and “Feminism”, to be completely innocent.

Low-intelligent, low-quality males, obviously are more Emotional and thus would be prone to use violence (the Male-advantage) over a girlfriend, to keep her put, and to live in fear. It happens very often. Especially when a low-quality male scores an attractive, beautiful, pretty girlfriend.