The purpose of all life

[Ecmandu]

Evidence is really hard for a lot of people to understand. Important to note, it that it rarely makes certain that which is is evidence of. Less likely is that it makes something both certain and universally true. This is actually really easy. Disproving a claim of universal truth...I mean, all sex is rape. Come on man. If you believe that then there's something about evidence and logic or about your data that you're failing to comprehend.

All sex doesn't have to be rape, it just happens to be the case in this species that it was and still is.

It doesn't have to be. But in order for that to be the case, relationships at every juncture need to conform to "yes means yes" messaging, not even I've pulled that off.

All you have is a bunch of men who don't want to see themselves as rapists and a bunch of women who don't want to see themselves as going after only rapists. Your defense is not factual, but irrationality fomented by the need to see ones self better than they really are, to hide from reality. And to not take responsibility as an adult.

[Mr Reasonable]

You do realize that a whole lot of women have crazy rape fantasies right? Like they want their hair pulled, they want to be held down while they pretend to try and get away. They say things to you at dinner like, "The harder you pull my hair the more wet my pussy gets."

How do you explain that?

[Mr Reasonable]

Should I conduct a study where the majority of women that I interview hit that demographic?

[Ecmandu]

You do realize that a whole lot of women have crazy rape fantasies right? Like they want their hair pulled, they want to be held down while they pretend to try and get away. They say things to you at dinner like, "The harder you pull my hair the more wet my pussy gets."

How do you explain that?

I am well aware that 30% of women have on a regular basis, what are called "highly erotic rape fantasies". The first theory of this was that women were simulating something likely to happen to them so they could rehearse their response. The researches were shocked when they interviewed the women, the true reason was the sense of power it gave the woman that a man couldn't control himself.

What's understood about this is not that any woman actually wants to be raped, but that women on a lesser scale are ALL looking for that "no means yes" signal, which is the type of rape that I'm describing.

It's still rape.

Nobody in their right mind sends out "no means yes" to the species or universe.

It's a mental defect. Maybe just youth.

Try asking women someday if they think mean women get all the sex and men.

They'll tell you the question is inappropriate

The reason they say that is because they know nicer women get most the sex and meaner men get most the sex, it triggers their denial system.

[Mr Reasonable]

You can't just change the definition of rape to mean some abstract thing that everyone does and then say that everyone is raping everyone. And even if you could, you'd still be wrong because not everyone would be doing the same thing. People can have different reasons for the same behaviors. You want human psychology to be as cut and dried as a computer program, but it's not.

[Ecmandu]

You can't just change the definition of rape to mean some abstract thing that everyone does and then say that everyone is raping everyone. And even if you could, you'd still be wrong because not everyone would be doing the same thing. People can have different reasons for the same behaviors. You want human psychology to be as cut and dried as a computer program, but it's not.

I'm not changing the definition of rape.

Women are having their sexual consent manufactured by 3.5 billion men. This is very easy to demonstrate because of the sex dimorphic aversion that is a tell in most women relative to men. The remaining women are about playing mind reading games. The answer is "no" for first approaches and escalations towards women. That's how all subconscious minds filter this information.

No means yes is a form of Stockholm syndrome...

I've seen tens of thousands of men who think they are "the man" by raping the mentally defective or young. You are one such man.

The aversions are uniform, not diverse as you'd seem to want. They are there because men are more physically threatening.

Part of the sex dimorphism in men is also the dimorphism of weapons and training.

If for some hypothetical reason, men went to war against women. All the women would be dead and men still alive.

This means from the subconscious of women, even a 4 foot tall man is more threatening than a 7 foot tall woman.

All of this factors into the aversion response of women, and aversion responses are actual "no's".

They are not "yes's"

Since the nature is sexual and we are dealing with cognitive age issues, it is statutory rape. This contradicts a female wanting to believe that she is a fully mature woman. Just like someone with Down's syndrome does.

Men have a more sophisticated understanding of human sexuality because the stratification women impose upon them causes them to be hypersexual (think about it all the time) while the satiated women hardly ever think of sex.

This adds a statutory rape element to the mix.

The good guys say the stuff I'm saying to have consensual partners, and the bad boys are the asshole through omission, statutory rapists from the manufactured consent.

[Mr Reasonable]

I think you're being sexist by implying that women aren't capable of consent, and that men have that kind of control over them. I'm also a little offended that you just said that I rape young and mentally defective women.

[Mr Reasonable]

I feel like you have a misguided view of how women really work and think, and that it's causing you to have certain experiences with them and from those experiences you are forming biases that you seek to confirm with obscure, 30 year old studies from a far away island.

Women aren't weak at all. And not all people who are fucking are in relationships where the guy would win the fight between them. There are fat girls fucking skinny guys and those women could beat up their boyfriends if they wanted.

Also, manufacturing consent in another person? That's nonsense. It's not a moral crime to come to an agreement with another person. People can agree, and do agree to have sex all the time. No matter what kind of hairbrained, stockholm syndrome stuff you try and say, it's a demonstrable, repeatable, observable fact. On top of that, they self report it, they video tape it, and millions of people are going to do it today without calling the cops on each other.

Those are tough realities to overcome if you want to prove your theory. And no amount of calling them mentally ill or defective, or insulting their ability to act as agents for themselves is going to work.

There's a reason why everyone you talk about this to rejects it as absurd, and it isn't because you're some advanced thinker who's way ahead of everyone. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't prove a thing either. And rearranging definitions of rape, or of consent until you've made a deductive argument from a now false premise doesn't either.

[lordoflight]

You do realize that a whole lot of women have crazy rape fantasies right? Like they want their hair pulled, they want to be held down while they pretend to try and get away. They say things to you at dinner like, "The harder you pull my hair the more wet my pussy gets."

How do you explain that?

I am well aware that 30% of women have on a regular basis, what are called "highly erotic rape fantasies". The first theory of this was that women were simulating something likely to happen to them so they could rehearse their response. The researches were shocked when they interviewed the women, the true reason was the sense of power it gave the woman that a man couldn't control himself.

What's understood about this is not that any woman actually wants to be raped, but that women on a lesser scale are ALL looking for that "no means yes" signal, which is the type of rape that I'm describing.

It's still rape.

Nobody in their right mind sends out "no means yes" to the species or universe.

It's a mental defect. Maybe just youth.

Try asking women someday if they think mean women get all the sex and men.

They'll tell you the question is inappropriate

The reason they say that is because they know nicer women get most the sex and meaner men get most the sex, it triggers their denial system.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE THE GOATMAN SAYS ALL WOMEN ARE LESBIANS??? SOMEONE TOLD ME MR. GOAT SAID IT AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THE POST IS.

Women are autogynephiles, faux lesbians, disgusted by males, yet attracted to certain males such as chads, the chads channels their narcissistic power... women crave power above all else, that is why they like to date powerful men.

It's not rape because its consensual, a woman agrees to this, many women crave cocks to fill their holes, its like a power energy transfer, increasing their narcissism. The meaner a man is the more power she feels, so that is why they lust for assholes.

Women being mentally ill, fickle and unstable narcissists isn't a defect, its the norm.

Most feminine women are bisexual, the women who are strictly heterosexual tend to be rigid and masculine. At least that's how I see it, but I'm open to the possibility of being wrong.

[Ecmandu]

I feel like you have a misguided view of how women really work and think, and that it's causing you to have certain experiences with them and from those experiences you are forming biases that you seek to confirm with obscure, 30 year old studies from a far away island.

Women aren't weak at all. And not all people who are fucking are in relationships where the guy would win the fight between them. There are fat girls fucking skinny guys and those women could beat up their boyfriends if they wanted.

Also, manufacturing consent in another person? That's nonsense. It's not a moral crime to come to an agreement with another person. People can agree, and do agree to have sex all the time. No matter what kind of hairbrained, stockholm syndrome stuff you try and say, it's a demonstrable, repeatable, observable fact. On top of that, they self report it, they video tape it, and millions of people are going to do it today without calling the cops on each other.

Those are tough realities to overcome if you want to prove your theory. And no amount of calling them mentally ill or defective, or insulting their ability to act as agents for themselves is going to work.

There's a reason why everyone you talk about this to rejects it as absurd, and it isn't because you're some advanced thinker who's way ahead of everyone. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't prove a thing either. And rearranging definitions of rape, or of consent until you've made a deductive argument from a now false premise doesn't either.

The 30 year old study was done in Minnesota ...

It's the most (famous) cited study in all of sex research, and evolutionary psychology.

I already told you that but you chose to ignore it.

Similar studies done in the early 2000's show the same active principle --

Females have broad aversion to sexual signaling from men, than men do from women.

It's a species fact. Not junk science.

This means that relative to men, females are a "no" to sexual signaling.

Any guy who sends a signal first is a guy who says "I don't care about the first "no". That's how the subconscious mind filters this species fact.

If the women accepts from this point, the entire relationship is a "no means yes" relationship.

You're the guy denying basic species facts, and assuming if you keep saying it, it will be true.

Do me a favor some day.

Get a cute girl, and you.

Walk around to any woman you can find, do this thousands of times "wanna fuck?, wanna fuck? Wanna fuck?..."

See how long it takes to land your ass in prison.

Now have the girl do the same to men. Watch how quickly they say " yes"

EVERYONE !! In this species knows that women are more threatened by advances from men, than men from women..

EVERYONE!! In this species knows it is a reflexive aversion to sex dimorphism, even if they don't know those complicated words.

You too, know this.

So cut out the bullshit you need to say to sound smoothe for the ladies, and actually own what everyone in this species knows.

[Mowk]

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations.

Life has no other purpose.

If this never happens or is impossible, then life can be objectively concluded to be meaningless.

Three pages and nothing has been discussed how this relates to "all life". So far you've addressed a fraction of one species, and none of the studies make any attempt to rule out cultural conditioning. Rather they are surveying for it. Not every encounter between the sexes of this species is sexual. Renting bowling shoes as example. That was a size ten right? Yes.

How does the eradication of consent violations affect an example of life that doesn't sexually reproduce?

Study up on the sexuality of Clown fish and make your case that it pertains to any other life form then human. Culture, likely has more to do with this "not a 'no' or' yes' means anything but what it means question" then anything instinctual to the species.

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations.

I don't think you've quite thought the above through.

[lordoflight]

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations.

Life has no other purpose.

If this never happens or is impossible, then life can be objectively concluded to be meaningless.

Three pages and nothing has been discussed how this relates to "all life". So far you've addressed a fraction of one species, and none of the studies make any attempt to rule out cultural conditioning. Rather they are surveying for it. Not every encounter between the sexes of this species is sexual. Renting bowling shoes as example. That was a size ten right? Yes.

How does the eradication of consent violations affect an example of life that doesn't sexually reproduce?

Study up on the sexuality of Clown fish and make your case that it pertains to any other life form then human. Culture, likely has more to do with this "not a 'no' or' yes' means anything but what it means question" then anything instinctual to the species.

When Ecmandu talks about CONSENT he isn't just talking about SEX. He is talking about making everyone's wishes come true. For instance, a poor person who wants a lambo, but cannot get a lambo, is being violated of consent.
It is hard enough having to debate Ecmandu when newcomers come online and botch it all up.

[Mowk]

It is hard enough having to debate Ecmandu when newcomers come online and botch it all up.

Yeah, I can see your point. But the environment doesn't give consent. I didn't give consent to be here, how could I, I wasn't here to consent. Too soon to say but I'll likely not be consenting to death either.

So hypothetically... If consent didn't matter before I got here, and isn't going to matter once I'm dead, then why is it the purpose to life again? Seems life goes on regardless. Yes?

[Ecmandu]

It is hard enough having to debate Ecmandu when newcomers come online and botch it all up.

Yeah, I can see your point. But the environment doesn't give consent. I didn't give consent to be here, how could I, I wasn't here to consent. Too soon to say but I'll likely not be consenting to death either.

So hypothetically... If consent didn't matter before I got here, and isn't going to matter once I'm dead, then why is it the purpose to life again? Seems life goes on regardless. Yes?

Yes. And we can make conclusions about this.

Consent is the most important topic of minds.

So here's the deal. You disagree with me.

So, should you then shout from everywhere that the purpose of life is to violate consent?

How about we start with you!

We MAY have not consented to be born, yet the moment we are, we become consenting or non consenting beings.

It's like saying the leading cause of death is birth, birth is also the leading cause of life!

[Mowk]

I was cooking in the kitchen and the wife was talking to her dad, and across three rooms I heard the most delightful laughter. My wife is in love with her father. It makes me smile.

I'll catch up with your reply after dinner.

[Mowk]

Yes. And we can make conclusions about this.

Consent is the most important topic of minds.

So here's the deal. You disagree with me.

So, should you then shout from everywhere that the purpose of life is to violate consent?

The deal is this:

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations

And me thinking you haven't thought it out. You did claim it was inclusive of all life.

[Ecmandu]

Yes. And we can make conclusions about this.

Consent is the most important topic of minds.

So here's the deal. You disagree with me.

So, should you then shout from everywhere that the purpose of life is to violate consent?

The deal is this:

The purpose of all life is to completely eradicate all consent violations

And me thinking you haven't thought it out. You did claim it was inclusive of all life, the notion of a mind wasn't inferred in your statement of a condition as fact.

Any being from a microbe to a human has a desire/ aversion orientation - it is conscious.

I'm not really sure why this particular word game is important to you - as the key point is that consent is the core issue for all beings.

Consent violation is not an abstract world of words unto themselves -

It is the foundation of the passion that flows through all living beings -

The defining characteristic of "down to earth "

[lordoflight]

I was cooking in the kitchen and the wife was talking to her dad, and across three rooms I heard the most delightful laughter. My wife is in love with her father. It makes me smile.

I'll catch up with your reply after dinner.

That sounds kind of...creepy

Any being from a microbe to a human has a desire/ aversion orientation - it is conscious.

I'm not really sure why this particular word game is important to you - as the key point is that consent is the core issue for all beings.

Consent violation is not an abstract world of words unto themselves -

It is the foundation of the passion that flows through all living beings -

The defining characteristic of "down to earth "

I am the yin to Ecmandu's yang.

Ecmandu is obsessed with this consent thing.

But he isn't aware of the other problem this universe has.

Boredom.

Imagine a wild animal, just in the woods, gets everything he wants, but just sitting there on a field, bored, nothing to do, has no purpose, everything he consented to but, just this feeling of being bored.

Also im yin because, i keep asking ecmandu to provide evidence of anything, he never does, where is the evidence microbes have consciousness, where is the evidence he or anybody else has genie powers to grant everyone's wish, no evidence, never has evidence

[Mowk]

Boredom appears radically subjective. I'm not sure yeast cultures experience boredom. But it is a more intriguing stretch than consent violations.

I don't think love in a sincere form, is at all creepy.

On some meta-level the kernel of the impetus to evolve could be a sort of universal boredom. What the fuck... let's try this. It sort of matches up with the example of a duck billed platypus.

And maybe if a yeast culture isn't bored today, a tomorrow may come when it is.

It does seem like there is a purpose in there somewhere. But where?

[surreptitious75]

Any being from a microbe to a human has a desire / aversion orientation - it is conscious

Consent violation is not an abstract world of words unto themselves

It is the foundation of the passion that flows through all living beings

All beings may have a desire / aversion orientation but the degree to which this is experienced isnt the same
I also dont think something as primitive as microbes are intelligent enough to know what consent violation is
And passion doesnt flow through all human beings and you dont know if it flows through all other living things

[Mowk]

Any being from a microbe to a human has a desire/ aversion orientation - it is conscious.

I'm thinking this capacity is a few rungs up the evolutionary ladder. I get some sense there is a form of consciousness that is all pervasive, but I am unsure if the door swings both ways.

The universe is aware of me and the microbe, I am aware of the microbe and have questions about the universe. Is the microbe aware of me or the potential of the universe? We'd have to redefine notions of cognition in the process.

Giv 'er a swing. I'm curious and not bored.

Maybe creation can't be explained by boredom alone.

[Mowk]

And passion doesnt flow through all human beings and you dont know if it flows through all other living things

Well? Passion may, reasons vary. Is it fair to say that someone else is as passionate about something else as you are? Compassion may not flow through us all equally.

[Mowk]

I am also inclined to the notion that because it is not all of it, It may be some of it.

[Ecmandu]

I was cooking in the kitchen and the wife was talking to her dad, and across three rooms I heard the most delightful laughter. My wife is in love with her father. It makes me smile.

I'll catch up with your reply after dinner.

That sounds kind of...creepy

Any being from a microbe to a human has a desire/ aversion orientation - it is conscious.

I'm not really sure why this particular word game is important to you - as the key point is that consent is the core issue for all beings.

Consent violation is not an abstract world of words unto themselves -

It is the foundation of the passion that flows through all living beings -

The defining characteristic of "down to earth "

I am the yin to Ecmandu's yang.

Ecmandu is obsessed with this consent thing.

But he isn't aware of the other problem this universe has.

Boredom.

Imagine a wild animal, just in the woods, gets everything he wants, but just sitting there on a field, bored, nothing to do, has no purpose, everything he consented to but, just this feeling of being bored.

Also im yin because, i keep asking ecmandu to provide evidence of anything, he never does, where is the evidence microbes have consciousness, where is the evidence he or anybody else has genie powers to grant everyone's wish, no evidence, never has evidence

I often say to people, "don't tell the universe that you're bored, because you'll be sent to hell and hell is never boring"

More to the point though, I have solved the problem of boredom with hyper dimensional mirrors:

Imagine reflecting anyone just as they are in their platonic form and never pushing the "no" button.

Oh my... I wish I could just download my brain into you right now, because this is a VERY long post, or just talk to you walking down the sidewalk.

[Ecmandu]

Any being from a microbe to a human has a desire / aversion orientation - it is conscious

Consent violation is not an abstract world of words unto themselves

It is the foundation of the passion that flows through all living beings

All beings may have a desire / aversion orientation but the degree to which this is experienced isnt the same
I also dont think something as primitive as microbes are intelligent enough to know what consent violation is
And passion doesnt flow through all human beings and you dont know if it flows through all other living things

Think further what desire / aversion constitutes.

What it truly implies.