Deliberate Consent Violation

In case you weren’t following the last post…

The apology from the gods is that I get to live out the rest of my natural life.

I was murdered and sent to hell.

From your perspective, I was resurrected, but then again, all of you were.

I’m not the only being able to see the Easter eggs of a resurrected world, many still have some memory.

What happened to everyone is something in the spirit world called “seamless”.

This means that you didn’t notice the transition.

Some beings (like me for obvious reasons) are given this sight, and most aren’t. I don’t know why beings besides me are also given the sight of knowing the world has been “changed” (resurrected) . — they must be very confused.

Read the last two posts.

I’m going to put this to you very simply:

When I’m not allowed to say to a woman who’s interested in me, “you seem like someone to get to know better, would you like to meet me on a more intimate context (“for a date” for the douchebags, it’s not as articulate) sometime?”

I’m going to make all the creators personally feel her and my pain.

That’s my revenge on the creators.

I plan to exact it with ruthlessness.

I will make them feel heartbreak they never even knew was possible, I will send them to the depths of a hell they never even comprehended - human emotions - I will cause them so much pain and suffering, they’ll beg for eternal death.

That’s my punishment for them. And trust me, they deserve it.

I’m going to find every being possible that made it impossible for me to ask a woman on a date, and I will hell them.

I once stated that I gained every power used against me in my life.

Most of these powers are sending people to hell.

Thanks but no thanks to the gods, this is what I know best.

You folks on these boards… you’re not my targets …

You’re on my radar, but not targets. I’m hunting gods, not humans.

Explain it. Your word is not good enough.

So you don’t claim to be sinless, let’s still compare our relative egresses. You don’t seem to realize, I agree the world is messed up. And we attempt to change our ways so we do it less.

It is not for me to judge how you hit on women or claim you don’t, that’s wasn’t what I was asking. What are you doing to reduce waste, to use less resources, to grow your own food, what are you doing that is directly related to the problems you sight when you say the earth is being destroyed. I don’t care about your no means yes relationships, they don’t directly address the problem of the earth being destroyed either. Fill in the gaps.

I am unsure if you are even aware of what a fact is. You haven’t demonstrated it in our discussions thus far. You make wild claims of fact but they are so easily dismissed.

You are right, I agree I wouldn’t believe you. I am made of star dust too my friend. Made of stuff 400 billion years old, that doesn’t make me 400 billion years old.

Well you can think so, anyway. But how can that be validated. You have a wonderful and rich imagination, but facts don’t depend on that.

You quote yourself too often.

So let me get this straight, when you were born you were interested in time dilated portals and you sent yourself to one, when you were born. So you have the dharma of every ones eternal sins. If the sins are eternal what can be done about them, they are eternal. You can’t remember but the math added up to 400 billion years. And I am to take your word for it, yet you have no proof or can share no facts at all. And you spent all this time in hell, but as it was a time dilation you are still chronologically young and your thinking is rather immaturely motivated.

Well, It, like any personal experience is merely anecdotal, so don’t take it too hard if I don’t give your account any credence. I wasn’t there.

So you believe you are powerful and people half way across the globe you’ve possessed like robots. That sounds like there could be some witnesses, some independent verification. Do you know these people you possessed. Do you have a name or a city they lived in? So, you estimate you have a lot of power.

Wouldn’t it be more direct to use that power to save a little energy, prevent a little waste from ending up in the land fill. Preventing a species from going extinct. You know, something more useful of all that power. Your claims are rather difficult to take seriously.

Did I mention you quote yourself too much.

Let’s compare our CO2 foot prints, that seems a more rationally valid issue directly related to damage humans are doing to our ecosystems. Let’s compare something comparable.

You’re not speaking rationally. You may have the experience, but sadly to say it could also be a form of a psychotic separation from reality. I’m not saying it is but at least recognize it could be rationally explained as such. Anything valid a third party could use to separate your experience from that of a break from reality?

I don’t expect you to take my word for anything. That’s why I look things up, provide references in an argument. Here’s a link that expresses a similar experience that has been evaluated by some peer revue.

I am sorry man, but if you believe my head is fucked up, there’s an origins story to grapple with.

You are sort of moving backward with regard to well thought out arguments. Perhaps simple is all you got? You’ve got something rational, bring it.

That’s really all a good teacher lives for. I provide a bridge to understanding. I am sure a lot of what is learned isn’t going to be used to save the planet. What I have taught provides capacity, the most dreadful question I have about my job is will it be used wisely? That is not my choice to make. I can teach someone to fish but if they over harvest fish?

I relate a few personal experiences within the nature of understanding during the course of a class. I don’t say god whispered the answer in my ear. It is explained in a relatable fashion as an Ah! experience, a moment of insight. I can’t explain where they come from, these inspirations, but if I can relate them in a manner that makes sense to students and that aids them getting them from where they are to where they want to be there is benefit as potential.

Take some time and bring your experiences into the real world. As inspiration they can be anything you imagine, but exercise some care with how you relate them to learning. You loose credibility if you come off like a crack pot that has lost touch with reality. But if you can translate these experiences in a manner that is relatable, you may find teaching is your calling.

The way you are approaching these circumstances fairly guarantees you a negative sum outcome. None zero sure, but worse.

Really putting good effort into that karmic balance thing huh? How many gods are there? I’ve guessed maybe one, but perhaps less.

I get manic at times and say more than I should.

That said: the root problem in the mundane world is human sexuality. Neither men or women know how to have consensual sex yet.

When you go up the ladder to the spiritual problems, then the biggest problem is lack of hyperdimensional mirror realities.

I can see why you’d call come of what I’m saying psychosis.

Here’s the deal though. Everything I’m saying about human sexuality is based on common knowledge / observation and/or true by definition. That can’t be interpreted as psychosis.

I call upon silhouette to weigh in in whether my argument possesses logical or evidentiary fallacies about human sexuality.

Silhouette can parse my sentences without cherry picking.

The cherry picking by the way, is that the one post I made that defended and explicated my ideas (as requested) was never quoted from.

So, I posit the other posters as disingenuous.

Forget the spiritual stuff silhouette, just focus on this tiny tidbit of the magnitude of my teachings.

viewtopic.php?p=2743413#p2743413

Do you say, “my wife” or not.

This is where you separate the psychopaths from the non psychopaths … non psychopaths are HORRIFIED to call ANY being “mine”

A countries legality is no excuse to horde someone sexually.

Here’s the deal.

I’m not really after the humans, although you really do frustrate me. I’m after the beings who brainwashed you.

I’ve heard the phrase before that we’re not destroying the planet, just ourselves.

Every since tesla, we’ve known how to blow up earth.

The question is if anyone does it.

Even more to the point. A desert planet like mars is no planet at all.

Upside down smile.

Of course I said my ‘wife’.

My fellow planeteer, I think you take a first person identification a bit too figuratively.

Do you actually believe that expression is one of possessive ownership rather then self identification of who she married? My god man you take yourself too seriously. It’s a social contract, one of intention to stand by another person through think and thin. Too take their cares as your own. To share and cooperate, to be yin to their yang. It’s a recognition of love on going, a soul mate sort of acknowledgement.

Psychopaths might get hung up, not being able to draw a distinction. Lost their grip. If you’re on meds, you may have missed your last dose, Manic and all, as you’ve explained.

Man that is some psychotic thinking. A monogamous relationship yields protection. I’m not going sleeping around and risk exposing her to some some fucked up disease cause I’ve got to get my rocks off, and I hope she does the same for me. That’s her choice. I couldn’t stop her if I tried. We’re clean, and I intend to stay that way. I hope she does too.

You don’t get to define the deal.

Come get me. You’ve got “all these powers”, I give you my permission. If you can’t, then you’ve got nothing but a psychologically interesting break from reality. If you can’t, you should seek out some help immediately. If you can, well I’m not all that attached to humanity anyway, it’s a self conceded psychotic species that has no respect for life. Not it’s own, not any other. The planets been smacked up side the head on more then one occasion, and life carried on. I say smack it again.

Don’t go disrespecting Mars now.

Unless you’re going to get back on some path to recovery, I shouldn’t be encouraging you. I get a sense you’ve had altercations with authorities in your past.

Do you want to get into this with me mowk …??

Ok.

If I was a psychopath trying to get laid, the first thing I’d do is buy a hat with a pot leaf on it and wear a sports jersey.

Even wearing a sports jersey, let alone watching games shows your conspicuous consumption aggression. You come across like you’re mister innocent here. You’re not.

The subconscious mind interprets “my wife” differently than “the woman I’m with”. You’re abusing the subconscious mind with mind control techniques to show evidence that you abuse people and are interested in procuring human slaves JUST to get a woman to fuck you. It’s detestable.

I bet you’re one of those douchebags who asks how peoples day is going!!

There is a factual answer to this question which makes the question irrelevant “there are some things I appreciate about the day.”

But I bet you’re one of those guys who occasionally says “fine” instead.

This signals to females that you are “fine” with all of the horrors of the world. She will see you as the Dick psychopathic fuck you actually are and fuck you.

See, the thing is mowk, you’re EXTREMELY naive.

I have a discipline you can’t even imagine right now, you’d have to be my student for years.

Getting your dream girl to have sex with me is not hard.

Having a yes means yes sexual realationship requires that you crawl out of your shell and grow up.

Diseases in polyamory aren’t an issue.

Sex is so stratified, that almost any woman you sleep with has fucked 10,000 men (through proxy as well)

If you had more polyamory and less stratification, it’d actually be SAFER!!

But you don’t know things like this.

You don’t like my tone??

I don’t like your ignorant smugness.

You’re destroying the planet WAY more than I am.

I do.
Bring it. Not that bullshit in your previous post.
Bring it. Be honest with me.

I brought it. You called it bullshit.

Mowk, you are so pussy whipped that you can’t tell right from wrong even when explicated.

You try to come off as the more cordial poster, but in real life, you are the viscous aggressor.

I have every right to talk to you the way I do, because the way you talk to me is a billion times worse.

My judgement of you stands:

You are EXTREMELY naive!!!

That’s not a crime.

But let’s not pretend like you’re a fucking saint here.

Do you see the creep; obviously not. Starting out talking about you and slowly shifting focus away from your self.

So answer me, have you had altercations with authorities. Can you even tell what honesty is?

Tell us how you’ll control my will like a robot then do it. And let’s make it interesting, like I’m a robot, control me such that I am convinced utterly and totally your argument is the god’s honest truth, any one of them. Prove it. Stop your fucking song and dance around the pokie and prove it.

You have as much time as required. Fold a little time portal and do it yesterday. I’ll dance with you. I am not an innocent or any fuckin’ saint. Never claimed I was. I’ll dance with you too. I’ve stuck my nose in worse shit before. And let’s compare our CO2 foot prints just for fun. Let’s play the less guilty game. Let’s play your game. I’m tapping my toe now to that beat.

Use your self proclaimed fantastic power. Your hyperdimensional mirror realities. Your time has come to walk it. Show me some worn leather. Let it go. You hate me. Use your power Luke.

Bring it. I grant you what ever permission your code requires. Nothing is stopping you.

One warning down, two to go, I’ll spend number two on you. You’re worth it aren’t you? I think so.

I don’t mind weighing in on the contents of the link, as I’ve already covered the topic on other threads.
I’m not “in anyone’s camp” here, I’m just explaining the current state of Ethology based on scientific evidence and theory - in relation to the contents of the link.

In the link, you address the “Three Abuses”, and they all certainly feature in common female behaviour, but they’re completely understandable considering the female role in human reproduction.
They all boil down to the fact that sexual reproduction is far more physiologically costly to the female than the male.

The logic that follows from this simple but fundamental fact is that if a female is to get pregnant, if they’re not predisposed to having the maximum investment in their offspring, they’re incurring a large physiological cost with not enough reproductive benefit to better ensure the continued reproductive success of their descendants that carry their genetic code and taught cultural values. By contrast, the male incurs almost no physiological cost in distributing his seed, so he can comfortably live a life of promiscuity gambling on the continued reproductive success of at least a large enough minority of many descendants. In short: a female requires quality investment in her offspring, and a male can simply rely on quantity of offspring to likely get similar levels of success. This is why a female slut is blamed and a male slut is praised.

If males and females do not behave in accordance with these optimal mating strategies, less of their genetics and teachings will get passed on than those who behave more in accordance with these optimal mating strategies, and those who deviate will die out over time - making it a natural necessity that the “three abuses” will prevail, regardless of how you might feel about this fact. In this way there is an expected double standard.

From what I gather, you term the “Three Abuses” as 1) Sexual Jealousy, 2) Proclivity to Marry and 3) Approach Escalation:

1. A female does better to forgo sexual jealousy and forgive a cheating male who has reproduced with them, if only to maintain his investment in her offspring with this male, and not in his offspring with another female. As you say, if a female does this, he will be less likely to leave her. This is why a female will react more negatively to male emotional affairs with other females than simple physical affairs that mean nothing to him.
   By contrast, a male who forgoes sexual jealousy and forgives a cheating female is not showing a sufficient dedication to keeping her to himself over all other females and away from all male competition, and thereby not communicating sufficient likelihood to stick with her and maximally invest in their offspring that have cost her far more than him. Additionally, a male that does not act with sexual jealousy and hostility is not communicating the ability to win encounters with other males in general, and the willingness and ability to gain maximum resources to benefit their offspring over competing offspring.
   Again, it’s not necessarily an overt or conscious instinct, it is just the instinct that get passed down the most by humans that are successful at reproducing. It’s an inevitable emergence, regardless of morals and how things could be “better” if they were done otherwise. Nature selects according to pragmatic success, not morality.

2. Likewise, proclivity to marry communicates a specific dedication to one female over others, like a costly (and therefore honest) promise to forego reproducing with other females in favour of maximally investing in the offspring of just one special female. This is somewhat against the interests of males adopting the promiscuity strategy either consciously or unconsciously (which only works best at younger ages), but it also benefits a man who has chosen to invest in his offspring by serving to ward off other men and claiming exclusive ownership of his chosen female, which serves as a kind of guarantee that her offspring that the male is investing in is most likely his own rather than secretly the offspring of another competing male. This will be why single mothers are more “easy”, because if they can’t have the investment of the biological father, they need to incentivise the investment of another male by communicating a willingness to have less demanding sexual relations and to imply the potential to mother the new male’s offspring alongside offspring that is not theirs in a compromise.

3. The sexual signaling of approach escalation would be to communicate dominance. Dominant males need not care about adverse consequences because they are implying that they can easily provide investment in offspring even at the cost of others and their environment. Even the provokation of others is being communicated as not a concern due to the implied ability to deal with any hostility as trivial. It’s a guarantee of being able to provide so well and invest so easily that even intentionally inviting conflict and obstacle is no problem in the face of their strength and fitness. Costly signaling is an honest guarantee because the weak would not dare invite obstruction into their lives for fear they would not be able to deal with it - this is known as Zahavian Signaling.

In summary, the simple disparity in physiological cost of reproduction for each sex makes these “Three Abuses” inevitable, however detrimental their cost to social living and environment. Nature doesn’t care about that, it just passes on what works however you feel about it. The only way to really evolve beyond this without invoking force is for it to somehow be preferable for all to cooperate economically and share resources. This way, no competition over resources and social dominance will have an impact on the success of your offspring relative to the offspring of others - it will all be shared out equally. However, this is decadent as factors that indicate reproductive fitness will dilute and there will no longer be any incentive to choose the strong over the weak. Both women and men will resolve to procreating as much as possible, else genetics that don’t result in this will be phased out by genetics that do. We’d become more like Bonobos.

Bring it. Use your powers. She does as she pleases.

I challenge you to use all the great power you have at your disposal. All your bragging. All your bravado about how you challenge gods. Bring it. Quit your distractions, Ecmandu.

Let’s see the worn leather. Let’s see that 400 billion year old try.

You’ve got just one thing to prove here. I’ll quote you your words. Prove you are sane.

Find just one where I claimed to be a saint. I’ll dance with you on any plane you choose to any song you choose.

Start walking your talk, or risk it is just babble.

Show me your focus. Walk it. Create a time portal and do it yesterday. You say you have the power. You claim you’ve been to hell and back.

Bring it.

That is quite a story. You left out a few details. You leveled these arguments to ‘whom’, and ‘who’ found ‘them’ guilty?
Is hell a synonym for a mental institution?

I wonder how far philosophy encourages insanity. Far out thoughts are one thing. Efforts to form a coherent philosophy, another. By what measure? Confronting the insane with their insanity, is not likely an appropriate healing path. Bold magic marker or a fine lined pen.

Silhouette, much of your post strikes me as an evolutionary just-so story, and one that ostensibly explains only a caricature of human sexual differences. Human mating patterns haven’t always and everywhere resembled those most prominent in the modern west, and alternative strategies can find stable equilibriums:

1. In some cultures, women have been expected to be sexually active with multiple men through pregnancy, and this makes sense as a strategy for the woman, because paternal confusion means a greater likelihood of paternal investment from multiple men. It makes sense for the actual father if it means that his offspring have additional support. Bonobo sexual politics use similar promiscuity for group bonding, which benefits the individuals so long as it benefits the group.

2. Pair-bonding is a viable strategy for both partners. Humans are predominantly a k-species, bearing few offspring at high expense, so paternal investment is rewarded by increasing the success of the fewer offspring. The same strategy is used in other pair-bonding species. But pair bonding isn’t the only form of human sexual bonding. Harems are common in many cultures, and some cultures are effectively communal in their parenting.

3. In many human cultures, women are more highly ornamented than men, but it isn’t by any means universal. In western culture, women’s sexual signaling is more flamboyant. In the middle east, women don’t sexually signal at all.

Human sexual politics are heavily influenced by culture and other ‘nurture’, and they vary significantly over space and time. Moreover, the connection between sex and behavior/preference within a cultural context is often weaker than your description makes it seem. Human preferences form overlapping distributions, so that while there are some overall trends, it is not very predictive of the preference of a particular man or woman (controlling for e.g. culture, wealth, health, etc.).

Evolutionary game theory is way more complicated than you and Ecmandu are making it seem.

To be fair, confronting the sane with their faults is also not usually an effective way of getting them to acknowledge and correct their faults.

Carleas,

You are by far the most congenial poster on ILP.

I don’t want to offend your long well thought out post, but I fear I must …

We are a sex dimorphic species.

There are laws that objectively get triggered for sex dimorphic species. They are immutable.

Sexual signaling from men in a sex dimorphic species is a sex crime.

It’s also the only thing that works.

This causes obvious problems in the psychologies of humans. Problems that are better done away with.

I understand all the investment arguments.

What my motto here is, is “better communication for better outcomes”

We’re not doing that, I’m trying.

As far as mowk is concerned …

Monk is taunting me to be evil.

I’m not taking the bait to prove myself … thankfully there are posters here who actually understand that.