That would make you the only heterosexual male in all of human history who isn’t – which we both know isn’t true.
Everything you’ve ever done and currently do to be with women sexually, I would knowingly intentionally do to rape them.
Please stop deeming men rapists and women willing victims, or I will remove this (and similar) thread(s) from public view… this is not up for discussion.
That’s interesting, because instead of not having it for discussion, I would invite you personally to the board debate forums to debate me.
I don’t have much interest in adding to this thread.
I do have interest in your response to this thread.
It was buries 10 threads deep before you responded, I was done with it.
Cool, then I can slip in a last word on the matter.
Purpose of all life?.. Living.
Money, hos and clothes.
Clearly for all you doofuses ecmandu is a social engineer who uses tactics to get sexually insecure men to think about becoming rapists. He uses a moral position as a mask over an apparent information he is extending, namely that to get laid you need to violate consent. He knows no one gives a shit about his purported purpose, that people only get agitated (stimulated) by what he is saying about the opportunities in the here and now.
And yachts with jetskis dude. And fresh fish prepared by said hos without clothes, but with shoes. Heels or sneakers no matter.
I’m not really much of a social engineer, more like a cosmic engineer. Letting you know how this world works is what I do when I’m bored. People should never get defensive about logic, but alas.
I do not endorse or condone rape.
I’m in it for hyperdimensional mirror realities for all existents.
I already know that humans can’t handle the truth with their conscious minds. I say these things because I am lonely and bored. Not because I expect, action, understanding or results.
Boredom is the devils pillow.
If you think I’m of the devil, then I must assuredly tell you, the devil is quite a wonderful person.
and gracefully humble. And perhaps humility is over rated.
Humility is the by-product of wisdom.
I know in a zero sum world that if I win, I lose.
The arrogance of the unwise thinking they are winners.
Let me clarify this:
In a zero sum world, if I win, I lose, and if I lose, I lose, except for spreading the non zero sum words or less zero sum than others.
All life purpose solves as non zero sum and non consent violating, the more someone does this, the more purpose they have, when it is 100%, they have absolute, pure and infinite purpose.
Many people on these boards are terrified of my teachings, because they want that kill, metaphorically speaking, that victory in a zero sum world.
Ultimately, all people come to me. The chasm of the meaninglessness of their lives searches for the only thing that can help them; the hope at the bottom of Pandora’s box: consent.
For my own cognition could you explain anything you have won or lost, and what was really won or lost? Big pictures.
The non zero sum desirability and the lack of consent violation are the only measures of life and goodness.
You can judge me in those criteria.
How?
You speak of winning and losing. And I have asked what you have won and lost. I am simply attempting to sum things up.
Common. Game theory, not physics.
It means that if someone wins another her loses.
+1 + -1 = 0
Hence the term “zero sum”
How do you determine the + or -? Perhaps notions of winning and loosing aren’t Boolean values. Certainly at face value… but what about beneath that? Can you factor in all the variables?
If someone wins over mutually exclusive desires, it’s considered zero sum. If someone wins of the same mutual desire, it is also considered zero sum.
In game theory, there are only 3 possible outcomes …
Win/win
Win/lose
Lose/lose
Win/win is the entire book of all struggles of ethics and morality; it’s billions of times more powerful than the golden rule.
In game theory? How does that apply? Is >this< a game?
I asked how a win or a loss is determined? In >this< Big Picture.
So you present a very simplified diorama of the win/lose picture.
I would counter Entity A and Entity B argue over Resource R. Whether A or B wins, doesn’t require resource R to by applied positively or negatively. How do you factor in what a plus on one side and a minus on the other side constitutes? You have simplified an equation that involves so many cultural factors, resources, human capacity into a boolean system of on’s and offs, and only three possible combinations.
I can imagine how it might be done but were Pen and Teller fouled?
Which of the three versions would you wish to attach me to?
I try not to judge you, But your ideas are fair game.