Deliberate Consent Violation

[Fixed Cross]

Im rather disgusted that someone who defines consent violation as rape can get away with very deliberately, overtly and enduringly violating the consent of the one active moderator here and that this leads to the removal of said moderator. I don't know if it was the mod who voluntarily gave up her role or if it was taken from her, what is clear is that a person who is clearly mentally ill was allowed to spread extremely perverse narrative without any resistance.

For those who haven't discerned the logic of the depravity: the perpetrator first defined all acts of consent violation as rape, and then goes on to violate the consent of a particular woman for months on end. Thus, in his own words, raping her over and over. A sick person who gets away with his sadism because because he is mentally ill and people take pity on him, where no attention is paid to the victims of his behaviour.

Ive warned about this perp before, he is spreading very subversive and insidious psychological error and damage, but was later inspired by PM from a compassionate poster to take pity on him because of his mental illness, and be more tolerant - but this was clearly a mistake.

[Ecmandu]

I would say that posters like Karpel and silhouette who actually don't misrepresent me like you just did, probably at least in one case look at me as a division of labor. I'm taking on some very serious stuff daily, perhaps so they don't have to.

That said, no, I am far from stating that all consent violations are rape.

The person who's name should never be spoken, has deeper mental issues than I do.

I'll make this extremely clear: sexually signaling towards a woman for the initial approach sequence is a much worse crime than killing someone. One has no self defense clause, the second one does.

The damage being done to the species because of men hitting on women and women accepting them is mindblowingly severe.

[Fixed Cross]

Look, person.

Your method is simple.

Your first act is to declare that all acts are consent violation and consent violation is no different from rape.
If any declaration was ever to represent a consent violation such a declaration as yours is a good candidate.

Now you have both insulted and accused everyone of your readers of heinous things, and you have made it clear that you, yourself, are deliberately violating your readers consent, and we know what this means in your mind.

So you are at the very least inserting psychological trauma and guilt in peoples psyches and without offering any kind of tools or remedy. Sadistic to the core and wherever challenged by reason, cowardly withdrawing - your writing does not deserve to be treated as philosophy.

[Ecmandu]

Actually, I explicitly laid out the sequence the species needs to use to have yes means yes SEXUAL relationships. It's called "the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species"

[Fixed Cross]

Hallucinatory otherworldliness no one does well to try to understand. Practically impossible and useless so you're not succeeding at anything but eating away at logical and ethical values on a subconscious level. Seems harmless to some, seems vile to others - I can see both sides. But now Ive seen the effect you have had - to remove the one dedicated moderator that this site had left by spreading your abhorrent life hating error with impunity.

[Ecmandu]

Hallucinatory otherworldliness no one does well to try to understand. Practically impossible and useless so you're not succeeding at anything but eating away at logical and ethical values on a subconscious level. Seems harmless to some, seems vile to others - I can see both sides. But now Ive seen the effect you have had - to remove the one dedicated moderator that this site had left.

I discuss thing on two levels:

Solutions for the mundane world (the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species)

Solutions for the non mundane world - your woowoo spiritual stuff.

Here's the deal. It's the most severe crime against humanity that exists to berate the argument about no means yes signaling sexually.

You're all doing it. I've done it. I feel horrible for it.

Beyond reproach? Where in my discourses have I left wiggle room for me hitting on a woman?

Sexual signaling a woman.

Nowhere.

If I have any complex, it's the Cassandra complex.

You guys just don't listen.

[Fixed Cross]

For remedy, describe what a non-rapist reality looks like in practice.
A dialogue perhaps, which does not include consent violations.
Create value.

[Fixed Cross]

Hallucinatory otherworldliness no one does well to try to understand. Practically impossible and useless so you're not succeeding at anything but eating away at logical and ethical values on a subconscious level. Seems harmless to some, seems vile to others - I can see both sides. But now Ive seen the effect you have had - to remove the one dedicated moderator that this site had left.

I discuss thing on two levels:

Solutions for the mundane world (the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species)

Solutions for the non mundane world - your woowoo spiritual stuff.

Here's the deal. It's the most severe crime against humanity that exists to berate the argument about no means yes signaling sexually.

You're all doing it. I've done it. I feel horrible for it.

Beyond reproach? Where in my discourses have I left wiggle room for me hitting on a woman?

Sexual signaling a woman.

Nowhere.

If I have any complex, it's the Cassandra complex.

You guys just don't listen.

This is sheer mindless rambling that instantly goes off any time you are confronted with the possibility of being accountable for yourself.

[Ecmandu]

For remedy, describe what a non-rapist reality looks like in practice.
A dialogue perhaps, which does not include consent violations.
Create value.

Men and women have to reverse their no means yes "karma" (for lack of a better word). One analogy that I use is if you want to take mud off your hands, you dip them in water etc... (the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species)

The sex of this species has no positive value yet.

Just negative.

Just use search and look up "ecmandu 5 stages"

[Fixed Cross]

Your substanceless blipping of terms youve made meaningful to yourself isn't working. Only the negative trigger words youve stolen from culture are powerful.

It isn't your fault. On many men it is a punishing time and women are being transformed through being used and idolized at the same time into a basic sex-warrior class, a first of new classes to be born. Something very heady its happening to prepare for an ascent of technological supremacy during thousands of years to come.
Men are screaming to prevent the maturation of the sex-instinct - and this panic is presented as a calm type of metaphysics.
For psychotics there is nothing besides the psychosis to draw strength from.
But this is an illusion. There is everything.
Discovery.
Not rape.
Uncover. Because she put the fabric there to be lifted.

[Fixed Cross]

Where we value we violate the consent of that which wants that no value exists.
Valuing a virgin -

[Ecmandu]

Try being with a woman sexually by never sending a sexual signal.

You'll find that it's impossible.

You'll find that the reverse is not true of women.

Now what is a sexual signal?

Usually ornate behavior.

What do you think this ornate behavior is doing to the planet?

It's destroying it.

I'm actually not saying anything that evolutionary psychologists disagree with.

I'm just more detail oriented.

[Fixed Cross]

Voila. You're also putting the blame on nature for her own destruction.

Nice going, rapist-lawyerman.

[Mowk]

Uncover. Because she put the fabric there to be lifted.

[Ecmandu]

Voila. You're also putting the blame on nature for her own destruction.

Nice going, rapist-lawyerman.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Humans not being taught how to best handle a sex dimorphic species is a massive ball drop on your deities.

They dropped the ball.

I'm trying to fix it.

As technology replaces workers, there needs to be a new way to make money:

Making people perpetually sick and having taxes foot the bill.

Cancer has already been cured, there's just no money in cures.

These are the men who can be with any woman in the world sexually.

Of course, they don't tell the women this.

That's the way of the world right now, and it's just because of sex.

New diseases, subtler ones are being researched heavily so that everyone will eventually be on medication.

Don't you find it the least bit disturbing that it's actually legal to say "if you are allergic to X medication, don't take it"

How do you know unless you've taken it!?!?!

But this disclaimer covers their asses.

We're not warring over oil.

We're warring over mating rights.

You just can't see yet.

I'm not the bad guy here.

You'd like to think that because you haven't made the transition yet.

[Carleas]

Ecmandu's greatest sin (so far as his participation on ILP is concerned) is in choosing one of the most harrowing topics one can discuss, and blithely treating it as just another idea.

That's bad, and I've talked to him about why he shouldn't do that, and why this topic, and others like it, need much much more delicacy than he's giving it. It's bad for the site, because it makes it uncomfortable to use and uncomfortable to be associated with. It's bad for users, because as much as philosophy takes stepping outside the world to look back and examine it, people remain people, remain a part of the world, with fears and feelings and experiences that painfully indelicate discussions can't help but recall. It's hard to be reminded of it for people who only know the pain through empathy, and it's got to be hell for people who have a pain they are made to relive.

But while it isn't just another idea, it is also an idea. It's a painful idea, an uncomfortable idea, a traumatic idea, but it is still an idea, still subject to consideration, dissection, theorizing.

Ecmandu's second greatest sin is just not formulating a particularly coherent theory of the topic he's trying to theorize. I don't mean that he's wrong, I mean that I find his style of developing the idea makes his argument incomprehensible. I've talked to him about this too. That's not usually that big a problem, we all struggle to express some of our ideas, particularly ones we're still trying to wrap our heads around. But here, it combines and compounds with the fact that any discussion on the topic is going to suck. It's cutting open the chest without the tools to complete the surgery or close the wound.

But being unable to philosophize well on an idea is also permitted. Often the only way to develop the theory, to get into the idea enough to make sense of it, is to make a mess of it and then try to pick up the pieces. Learning requires failing, understanding requires being able to be wrong. Or incomprehensible.

So Ecmandu is doing two things that are bad-but-permitted, and he's doing them together in a way that makes them really especially bad. That sucks. But I also think it should be permitted.

Ecmandu, I'm not sure if you understand why it's really especially bad, or if you even believe the people who have told you that it's really especially bad. I think you see yourself as white knighting for people, and I do see the nobility in that intention. But if your motive is the well-being of the people you're talking about, you have to take seriously the possibility that the discussion itself is harmful. That's not to say it can't or shouldn't be discussed at all, but it shouldn't be discussed casually, indelicately. Treat it like the fire it is: keep it small, keep it contained, try not to burn people.

[Mowk]

But being unable to philosophize well on an idea is also permitted.

Gee, I really gotta thank you for that among other things.

There's no trick Ecmandu, be such a gentle man that she hits on you. That does happen too. Then no means no until you both say yes. Your argument is unconvincing. Pick it up, dust it off, and try again. Gently.

The way she held her little finger so while she lit her bong, melted my heart, and then she dropped it, and I was smitten. Get out, explore the world, me thinks your theory is entirely too biographical. And you haven't met my wife. She's learned me a thing or two.

[Fixed Cross]

Good post Mowk.

In general,

"However, the voice of the rationalist is a sound social reaction, it is an act of self-defense by society against the dangers of being dominated by uncontrollable forces such as a saint proclaiming a revelation or a madman affirming the products of his sick imagination, and finally a fraud who wants to convert others to his views for the sake of his egoistic and unworthy purposes. It is better to rely on the safe but modest nourishment of reason than, in fear of missing the voice of ‘Truth’, to let oneself be fed with all sorts of uncontrollable nourishment which may more often be poisonous than healthy and beneficial." - Kazimierz Adjukiewicz

And for whoever is clever enough to relate this to astrology I say again: it is, indeed, not at all without danger.

[Ecmandu]

But being unable to philosophize well on an idea is also permitted.

Gee, I really gotta thank you for that among other things.

There's no trick Ecmandu, be such a gentle man that she hits on you. That does happen too. Then no means no until you both say yes. Your argument is unconvincing. Pick it up, dust it off, and try again. Gently.

The way she held her little finger so while she lit her bong, melted my heart, and then she dropped it, and I was smitten. Get out, explore the world, me thinks your theory is entirely too biographical. And you haven't met my wife. She's learned me a thing or two.

See, neither you or fixed cross has actually studied me.

I wrote about the three objectifications:

Tall
Large Penis
Money

Money beats the other two every time

BUT, If you have none of these three things, the THREE ABUSES!!! work better!!

In no particular order:

Sexual jealousy: If a man sleeps with another woman and confesses it, and she says something like, "Cool, I hope you were safe and had a good time, wanna go to the park today?" The man will think he hit the jackpot! He DEFINITELY won't leave her!

If a woman sleeps with another man and she confesses it, IF he says something like, "Cool, I hope you were safe and that you enjoyed yourself"
The woman will flip the fuck out!! "You don't love me anymore…". Actually what he's doing is loving her for who she is, and he's not SEXUALLY JEALOUS!! If he got mad at her or her other sex partner, beat her or beat him, or he curled up and sobbed etc… she will think he still loves her. If he's not sexually jealous, she will leave the relationship immediately!
This is a big difference between men and women, a difference which conditions men to be sexually jealous in order to secure a mate, which causes species conflict where it simply doesn't have to be there is women were wired differently.

The second one is PROCLIVITY TO MARRY!!! Mowk!!!

Within seconds a woman can tell if you are into procuring human slaves, all you have to do is to say, "Yeah my buddy and I drank hard last night"… what this does to the female ear, is the she knows that you talk about people as property of yours. Notice you said "my wife!!"
People don't own each other, never have, never will. People abuse each other, but they don't own them.

Another contradiction that women seek (contradiction is a form of conspicuous consumption (if you contradict yourself and you still exist, it tricks the mind into believing you have supernatural powers)), is the actual proclivity to marry: ownership psychology (this is MY husband or MY wife) /celebrations of the zero sum nature of ones reality (which is the antithesis of all that's good that occurs (translation of desirable states, rather than encryption of desirable states)- "Im the only winner for this partner and everyone else lost!" /victor mentality, antitrust contract (making someone say what they're going to say and do forever, instead of simply trusting them))

The alternative is non ceremonious dedication to non contradiction.

That's all some evil ass hit, and women need to see some of it to have sex with you.

The third one is approach escalation: This includes sexual signaling. Approach escalation can be as simple as driving a very loud modified vehicle, causing noise pollution and getting people mad at you, but since they were mad, but couldn't hurt you or even yell at you, you are seen as a supernatural being to females, a god. All females ONLY respond to approach escalation, but each one has a different approach escalation that they respond to. In a sex dimorphic species, any type of initial escalation (including proclivity to marry and sexual jealousy (you can signal sexual jealousy by making up a story about how bad it was that one of YOUR friends (see! property language) had HIS wife (marriage proclivity) cheat on him (sexual jealousy).

It's very easy to get all three abuses into every phrase you speak. These abuses are destroying the planet, women ONLY consent to at least some shred of the three abuses. If you don't use them at all, it's impossible to have sexual contact with a female. They ONLY look for evidence that you are destroying the planet to consent to have sex with you.

[Mowk]

Why would I study you? Are you an object of study?

I find 'your' world view to be an immature one. Particularly framed by the thinking that: tall, large penis and money are the scale by which you measure value.

3 strikes, I am neither tall, have a large penis or had money, when we began dating. I didn't even have a particularly nice car.

And on to your notion of abuse. In no particular order.
Well my orange Datsun would disagree with you. I have never been a noisy individual, with a fair respect for an others right not to listen to my stereo blasting across the camp ground.

The notion of a proclivity to marry is an interesting one. We dated for nearly seven years before we married. It was getting to the point of a common law marriage anyway. Marriage is a social contract as much as one between two individuals. It is also a legal one, which comes with certain responsibilities. We chose not to have children, but marriage affords a male certain rights and obligations with regard to children. This notion of sexual jealousy also reveals your lack of maturity in thought. Having a little self respect preempts notions of jealousy.

My friend, I think you overly literalize a first person identification. If I rented an apartment and asked you if you wanted to come over to my house and watch the game, I can assure you I would be under no such thinking that I owned the property. If I were to sing My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing; would you assume I owned the country as if a commodity? If speaking with Paul, a friend from Mexico, and asked: In your country do you practice any Halloween traditions, do you believe I think he owns the country? Mine or my is simple a reference to self. People exclaim "My God!" do you believe they own god, as a possession, or are implying that they own god?

My wife, the women who married me, is quite the environmentalist. If she believed I did not share her respect for nature, I assure you she wouldn't have had sex with me.

We do not consent to industry raping the planet. We do not consent to the idea of ownership of land entitling one to ownership of the resources within the property or to the exclusive use of large tracks of land to declare as private property. We do not feel the animals that visit the feeders we set out, are our animals, just because they happen to be eating the seed we put out for them. A certain degree of being forced to live with in a system is to blame for a large part of our circumstances. If I do not mow the grass that grows in the yard, the city will fine us for it. The city needs me to own the property, so they can tax it to have a revenue for the services they provide.

Do I agree the planet is being destroyed, of course not. Do I believe we are destroying ourselves and a lot of other life with how 'we' collectively treat the planet, yes. Do I believe my wife and I are doing less destroying then the collective we, comparatively speaking. yes.

Your preposition, the planet is being destroyed for sex, is not well thought out. It is being destroyed out of a lack of respect. People who lack respect for others can pretty much be exchanged for all your conclusions. I am not inclined to your subjective point of view. Your framing of the problems humanity face, isn't going to solve any problems, because you are mistaken in the cause.

[Ecmandu]

You just don't get it dude.

I stated that the three abuses are MORE powerful than the three objectifications.

You're trying to defend "my" language.

It's one of the three abuses.

This isn't your planet.

You need to realize that you and the woman you live with are abusers.

You say you learn a lot from YOUR wife. She's just a common female, and you are just a common male.

[Fixed Cross]

"People exclaim "My God!" do you believe they own god, as a possession, or are implying that they own god?"

"Having a little self respect preempts notions of jealousy."

"Your preposition, the planet is being destroyed for sex, is not well thought out. It is being destroyed out of a lack of respect."


wise sayings

[Ecmandu]

"People exclaim "My God!" do you believe they own god, as a possession, or are implying that they own god?"

"Having a little self respect preempts notions of jealousy."

"Your preposition, the planet is being destroyed for sex, is not well thought out. It is being destroyed out of a lack of respect."


wise sayings

Fixed cross:

The Lord's Prayer opens with "our father who art in heaven"

It's already teaching ownership language in the ONLY thing the entire bible tells us to say.

You guys just don't fucking get it.

This is ownership language.

You guys are forced to speak it to fit into society, because beings 10,000 years ago dropped the ball on all of planet earth.

Another form of conspicuous consumption by men is to watch and/or participate in any sport or game. Females will have sex with you if you watch football for example.

Honestly, you guys have zero clue what you're talking about. You're just on the witness stand trying to transparently defend yourselves as abusers.

[Ecmandu]

You guys bitch and complain.

Think about it.

What do you think an actual higher intelligence would say to all of you. A being a trillion years old.

Pretty much what I'm saying to you.

It's hard to say this to people with tact.

This is what carleas was talking about.

You guys are fucked in the head.

I'm explaining this to you in a very simple way.

Perhaps I need to explain it more simply.

You guys are fucked in the head.

[Mowk]

You need to realize that you and the woman you live with are abusers.

I agree, but in degree I abuse much less then others. It is a fact of industry, of consumerism. We are not in a position to cold turkey the society in which we live. We recognize the degree we are guilty and work toward it's reduction. You use your computer quite a bit, no? Abuse. I can't stop you, but I can reduce my participation in it. I'd be happy to compare our CO2 foot prints. I would be happy to compare our per person waste generation. I'd be happy to compare how many miles we drive, how much you and I abuse the planet. I'd be happy to compare our means of living. I'd be happy to compare our energy use. All you do is bitch about, but I see no evidence you are actually doing anything about "your" abuse.

Let's share some stories about what we are practically doing to change the abuses, and stop just bitching about it. That is the extant of all I've seen you do.

I recognize the abuse, but I also recognize it hasn't much to do with the way you frame the problem either.

Let's not get all you're fucked in the head. That just shows a lack of respect, which is much closer to how I would frame the problems.

You guys bitch and complain.

That's sweet, The whole world bitches and complains, I could hardly categorize you as free of the malady. I don't think of your point of view as having higher intelligence or of being a trillion years old. No that is not at all how I would categorize you. You've got a real over inflated sense of self importance. You treat everyone I've seen you interact with with little personal respect, rather, with contempt.

Perhaps I need to explain it more simply.

Perhaps you should try the opposite, explain it in far greater detail, show us how complex your thinking capacity is, how thoroughly you've thought it out. Your reductive capacity isn't working so well.

I've stated a few times now, how more than willing I am to discuss it with you. But if your criticism is as complicated as "your're fucked in the head", then we aren't going to make it very far down that road and I will likely come to the conclusion you didn't really have much of a point after all.

Your thinking evidences a certain lack of clarity and discernment.

Think about it.