Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: i guess the only reason there aren't already IRA style murals of PZ and the struggle is that none of these people ever go outside.

Topic: Thread for self righteous men (Read 6209 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #725
And Dave digs like no man has dug before!!!
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #726
Oh boy here we go again on a week-long self-righteous preaching rant.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #727
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.

And you were promptly schooled on what the word 'average' means, so it was a dumb response to begin with. You're so desperate to 'prove borealis is full of shit' that you put yourself in these really awkward situations.

Besides which, most 'old geezers', provided they haven't got a serious medical condition that interferes with their plumbing, are 'sprightly enough' to have sexual intercourse. Have you not heard about the unfortunate prevalence of STDs in senior housing? They aren't catching gonorrhea from toilet seats.

Also the whole concept is disgusting. 'Young hotties' - Jesus Christ Dave, why the hell would you use that term to describe a 15 year old girl?
On the farming page, just posted a Australian Mohair web sight to prove that specially bred Dairy goats don't need anything but grass.  It was silly and wrong. :stopper: :stopper: :stopper:
ETA: He used a big font, and was super condescending.  It was kind of funny.
He's flailing.
  • Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 06:00:47 PM by Seven Popes
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sun Jan 14 2018 19:59:03 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
you suck at truth detection. (And spelling)

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #728
Oh boy here we go again on a week-long self-righteous preaching rant.

Then quit trying to justify your gross written attitude towards young girls, Dave. You're coming across as a real creep, and believe it or not, no one here wants to believe that's the real Dave Hawkins. It's revolting.

Do you see anyone anywhere on TR drooling over really young girls? No, you don't. You're the exception here.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #729
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.

And you were promptly schooled on what the word 'average' means, so it was a dumb response to begin with. You're so desperate to 'prove borealis is full of shit' that you put yourself in these really awkward situations.

Besides which, most 'old geezers', provided they haven't got a serious medical condition that interferes with their plumbing, are 'sprightly enough' to have sexual intercourse. Have you not heard about the unfortunate prevalence of STDs in senior housing? They aren't catching gonorrhea from toilet seats.

Also the whole concept is disgusting. 'Young hotties' - Jesus Christ Dave, why the hell would you use that term to describe a 15 year old girl?
Not to put too fine a point on this, but I suspect he used the term because it's culturally appropriate in his culture. It's easy to forget sometimes that we are in the middle of a massive cultural upheaval where the old order is being overturned and no one exactly knows what the new order will look like yet. The principle of equity which is the hallmark of the rising tide is intimately tied to the idea of privilege which is a very difficult concept for people to understand if they haven't been exposed to it and if they happen to enjoy that privilege. I have a lot of academic knowledge (and have taught it as part of a curriculum to college students) and significant real-world experience using the concept in the contexts of community engagement and homeless youth and I still have to shut up and let my judgments lie dormant in lots of cases. My defaults are often from the old order. I don't rightly know where the lines are any more in many cases. It's hard to square the massive positive impact that, say, Bill Cosby had on the cause of civil rights, with his behavior towards women. It makes it a little hard for me to be as upset as some people get over his behavior even though his behavior was disturbingly twisted and objectively horrible. It's easier to not be offended at, say Garrison Kiellor or Al Franken because their transgressions weren't, say, 30 or 40 actual rapes. But also because we are all significantly richer for their contributions. I don't know who Weinstein is or what movies he made so I don't know what we would lose if his contributions were erased from the public record, but I do know in Keillor's case and it's a tragedy IMO. Firing someone is one thing but erasing a history that contributes to intellectual and maybe even spiritual growth is quite another. It's easy for some people to go there. Not for all. Even though I am versed in the new ethics, my conditioning happened in a very different time and there are plenty of occasions where I recognize that.

While there are plenty of people who seem to have a very solid grasp of the new ethics, there are also plenty of people who are trying but it still doesn't come naturally. Then there are people who straight up resist. They are loathe to relinquish the power of their privilege especially since it isn't visible to those who are exercising it. It's hard for the out of work poor southern white kkk xian dumbfuck to see that they are willing to use violence only to ensure that someone else is at the actual bottom of the totem pole. They lap up the stupid shit their masters feed them because they are being assured that someone else will never be able to pass them on the economic totem pole. That kind of existence barely qualifies for an example of freewill, IMO. Products of place and time with no concept of how to go about adapting to new circumstances or maybe even no concept that adaptation is useful, believing instead that enough rage will force the world to remain as it was when norms were established.

Norms are incredibly powerful things. Our values determine our behavior to such a massive extent that the most critical skill humans have is the ability to examine and assess our own personal values in the context of decisions we make. The inability to do that is the most cruel of disabilities because always on the horizon is an external social pressure suggesting that the sufferer is missing something but with actually no tools available to even assess the question because the 'thing' the individual is missing has a different 'thing' in its place.

Many, maybe most, men are constantly dealing with conflicting signals from the brain and the balls. How we deal with that conflict has a tremendous amount to do with how we learn to deal with it. It is not the sort of thing that is easy to sit down and think deeply on and arrive at a universal answer completely independently. We have to learn the boundary conditions. It helps if we begin with, it's not appropriate to make another person do anything they don't want to for personal gratification. If that one tries to slip in there very far down the line, it's already missed the point where an individual establishes the priorities and types of personal gratifications and so becomes secondary to what has already been established regarding those priorities. One of the perqs to being a rock star was culturally established to be unlimited sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The ends to which men used to assume power naturally be put include tons of sex with whatever kinks they might have developed over time. It takes an entirely new cultural background to make locker-room talk unacceptable in a locker-room. I do think we are moving that way though. But it's not surprising to see Dave make the formulaic 1970's red-piller type responses because that was the value structure he absorbed and his ability to examine his own values is notoriously nonexistent. He values women as individuals but has a separate box for women as objects for men to enjoy. Of course, he wants to believe that they enjoy it too because otherwise he'd have to examine his beliefs. But fortunately he doesn't have to because he just assumes that women mostly enjoy the role of whore and it's the line that divides right from wrong when women don't want to act the role of whores. Which makes severe complication in a marriage situation I'd guess. It's a defect not to want to put out at whatever your husband commands. That's where those 'at what point did the value get assimilated' situations become clear. Is the husband master? Does that come first?

I wrote this big long post because I have been thinking about the cultural divide a lot lately. A relative  supports Trump just as mindlessly and just as cluelessly as Dave does and I'm having some trouble squaring the fact that the mindset cannot even see that it is derivative of and enabling of actual Nazi ideology with the fact that the mindset is so horrible. I want to smash it like a cockroach, but I also want to leave idiots alone since they already have enough hardship in their worlds. There is no difficulty marginalizing their beliefs and values, it's easy to just say I'm not interested in Nazi propaganda, but it's hard to engage with it in a humane way and I have to remind myself that the changes are so dramatic that it's possible to feel some empathy for those who may enable horrors through pure ignorance. If humanity snuffs itself, it makes no difference if I was pissed off at those who contributed to the specific causes.

Ethics really are situational in some aspects. We may abhor the idea of infanticide and condemn cultural traditions that accepted it as justifiable, but the alternative was doubtlessly worse in some distant time or place. Child brides are horrible things. But starvation is too. Being a Nazi enabler/sympathizer (excuse me, 'the least racist people anyone's ever seen') in the US though, well, where and what is the appropriate response to it?

Worse, it's being promulgated through propaganda pitching it as an existential crisis while Wall Street keeps taking steep rents and laughing at how easy divide and conquer is. That gets easier to do when you control the reins of government and can actually make life an existential crises for the weakest group. That primes the fearful and inoculates them against the tools needed for adaptation. If you can stunt adaptive behavior, you can control the behavior of individuals easily by making the logical case for actions that certain values demand.

Wow. That's my first WoT in years.

ETA2: It's hard for me to be grateful enough for my good fortune of having really strong women for grandmothers, mother, wife, and daughters.
  • Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 07:19:58 PM by Testy Calibrate
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #730
Quote
It's hard to square the massive positive impact that, say, Bill Cosby had on the cause of civil rights, with his behavior towards women. It makes it a little hard for me to be as upset as some people get over his behavior even though his behavior was disturbingly twisted and objectively horrible. It's easier to not be offended at, say Garrison Kiellor or Al Franken because their transgressions weren't, say, 30 or 40 actual rapes. But also because we are all significantly richer for their contributions.

Hmmm what is the exchange rate like? Say, 2-3 assaults per cultural contribution? :P

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #731
Many, maybe most, men are constantly dealing with conflicting signals from the brain and the balls.

Are they, though? This is one of those ideas that loads of people seem to take for granted, that they treat as self-evident. We also used to take for granted that women constantly received irrational impulses from their wombs, and that this explained that they were simply not as suitable for positions of authority and responsibility, so we still use the word hysteria to describe a lack of rational control.

Why is it that when we look for an explanation for standards of male behavior, we are so comfortable saying "Ah well, you know. Men will be men, because Testicles!" as if that explains anything?

It is always tempting to explain the status quo as a sort of biological inevitability. But in this case that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It is not sexual attraction that is the problem. It is the way men feel entitled to express it. My balls are plenty active, but I do not think that they are transmitting the message that it is OK to press my advances on anyone. It is not like I am receiving a complex set of instructions from them, or from wherever my sex-drive comes from.

I get the feeling that what we are doing is a bit like pretending that experiencing a craving for cheeseburgers is just natural and inevitable. Superficially that may seem true enough, while still being too simplistic an explanation to be useful, with the added drawback that it makes cheeseburgers seem like the only possible outcome.

Because strictly speaking, what we crave is fat. We have learned to *associate* cheeseburgers with fat, hence the mere image of a cheeseburger can make us hungry.

But the impulse itself is not towards cheeseburgers, and the existence of this impulse does not make cheeseburgers somehow inevitable. The cheeseburger is a cultural thing, a recipe for something that satisfies an appetite, but it is not the only possible one. It is just that we have been allowed, by ourselves and others, to be lazily unhealthy, and this has resulted in some unfortunate conditioning.

Are we not kind of doing the same thing when we say "Ah well. Men will always receive conflicting messages from their balls and their brains"? Pretending that the conditioning is the same as the impulse, because it makes for a convenient way to explain the status quo?

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #732
Oh boy here we go again on a week-long self-righteous preaching rant.

Then quit trying to justify your gross written attitude towards young girls, Dave. You're coming across as a real creep, and believe it or not, no one here wants to believe that's the real Dave Hawkins. It's revolting.

Do you see anyone anywhere on TR drooling over really young girls? No, you don't. You're the exception here.
I'm not going to quit anything I'm doing unless I perceive it to be wrong.  And your spin and misrepresentation and manipulation won't make me perceive anything to be wrong - except that you're a being a dick.  (I suppose you like the word "dick" better than "bitch" ... whatever ... today's modern women and all that I guess)  I don't think you realize just how much you lie and misrepresent with almost every post.  This one, for instance.  Look what you wrote.

Quote
Do you see anyone anywhere on TR drooling over really young girls? No, you don't. You're the exception here.

A half truth at best if I'm generous.  You can do better.  You really are capable of making 100% truthful statements Borealis.  Here ... I'll help you ...

Your statement above makes it sound like Dave Hawkins goes to shopping malls and drools over young girls.  I don't.  (But I AM honest unlike most men here and I will admit that if a female - regardless of age - is "displaying her wares" I'm going to notice and like it.  There is not a red blooded man on the face of the earth that won't, trust me.  Not going to stand there and drool - I'll move on along - but I will notice and like it.  Who wouldn't?  Why do you think "Playboy: entertainment for men" did so well?)  If you didn't like my woo hoo comment, then object in an honest way, not a dishonest, half-truth, manipulative sort of way.  I have no problem with people objecting.  It's one reason I post here - I want to find out if there are any objections to my practices which hold water.  So if you want to object, object honestly ... that is, first of all, acknowledge the true topic of the convo - longevity and healthiness of indigenous peoples - object to THAT if you have a fair objection, then note in passing something like "By the way, Dave, that woo hoo comment makes it sound as if you are promoting child marriage ... I'm sure you're not, but it came across that way to me." 

THAT would be an honest comment coming from you and it would cause me to respect your integrity more.  Then I would have come back and said "Oh sorry.  No I'm not in favor of child marriage, I was really woo hooing the whole situation ... woo hoo that the old guy seems fit and healthy even at 70 ... woo hoo that he won a pretty young bride (presumably she picked him over others) ... woo hoo bc the white teacher seemed to be woo hooing as well."

But no.  You people opt for spin and hyperbole and manipulative behavior and I lose respect for you.

I'm telling you ... LYING ... in all it's forms is killing our civilization.
  • Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 02:30:13 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • Fenrir
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #733
Stop whining.

It's pathetic.
It's what plants crave.

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #734
Ahhhh.  Persecuted Dave.  I wondered when that little gopher would stick out his head.
Someone grab a crowbar, he's managed to nail himself to the cross again.

Dave Hawkins on 11-23-2015, The  poor boy is easily triggered: 
Also it doesn't help that you are a woman ... I've had some bad experiences with super controlling manipulative women in my life and I now react really strongly to that.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #735
LYING

is the problem.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #736
One form of lying is "control of discourse" because people are getting a false picture of what's being said ... here's what Julian Assange had to say about this today ...


  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #737
LYING

is the problem.
I would encourage you to stop, but to be realistic, I suspect you can't, Dave.
Dave Hawkins on 11-23-2015, The  poor boy is easily triggered: 
Also it doesn't help that you are a woman ... I've had some bad experiences with super controlling manipulative women in my life and I now react really strongly to that.

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #738
One form of lying is "control of discourse" because people are getting a false picture of what's being said ... here's what Julian Assange had to say about this today ...


Broken link?
Dave, your infamous "pivots" are a key example of "control of discourse", along with ignoring questions, changing the subject, and asking that questions you can't answer be moved to other threads, which you ignore.
I suspect you have been accused of being manipulative.
Hence your IKYABWAI.
Dave Hawkins on 11-23-2015, The  poor boy is easily triggered: 
Also it doesn't help that you are a woman ... I've had some bad experiences with super controlling manipulative women in my life and I now react really strongly to that.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #739
Dave, I pointed out to you ages ago that it is your stupid attempts at justifying cheering some child bride being bartered away for cows that is bringing out the creepy. But you forged right ahead and tried to re-define "child" in stead.

Like you saying "I will admit that if a female - regardless of age - is "displaying her wares" I'm going to notice and like it."

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #740
One form of lying is "control of discourse" because people are getting a false picture of what's being said ... here's what Julian Assange had to say about this today ...


Yes, eventually, sort of, maybe.
Nation-states are an increasingly inadequate system for ordering the world.
Having global corporations in charge is not guaranteed to be worse.

But, first things first.
The Lieutenant Colonel of the KGB that has been dictator to the propaganda ( = control of discourse ) world champion nation-state for close to 20 years needs to have his hold on social media reduced.
Not listening to the dictator's slave Julian Assange would help with that.
  • Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 03:47:25 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • Faid
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #741
LYING

is the problem.
Yes.

It is.

When others say something about you, you SPIN it in the worst possible light (as in, 'drooling over young girls' becomes going to malls and stalking them), and then you call them "liars" for supposedly propagating that hyperbole.

But when YOU accuse others, you naturally assume the worst possible and most far-fetched option (like, Faid is "self-righteous", a pedophile I knew was the same, Faid might just be like him).
And when you get called out on that, you refuse to recant because you were supposedly only "raising the possibility"!

Hypocricy has become your second skin, dave.

Tell me: When we first objected to your 'woo hoo' post, what was your initial response?

Was it to say "come on people, chill, I'm just saying 'woo hoo' because that guy lived to an old age and remained healthy enough to happily marry"?

It wasn't, was it?

Instead, your FIRST response was a lecturing on how it's a 'biological drive' to be attracted to 'young female' bodies, and how we were all pretending to claim otherwise. Because Playboy centerfolds or something.

You understood damn well what this was about, dave.

Stop pretending.

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #742
One form of lying is "control of discourse" because people are getting a false picture of what's being said ... here's what Julian Assange had to say about this today ...


Speaking of "control of discourse", dave: Remember when Assange told Trump Jr. his dad should not accept the results of the election if he lost, because it would trigger a 'discussion' on 'corruption'? And that it would be good for Trump's future endeavors as well?


You sure know how to pick them, dave.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #743
Dave, I pointed out to you ages ago that it is your stupid attempts at justifying cheering some child bride being bartered away for cows that is bringing out the creepy. But you forged right ahead and tried to re-define "child" in stead.

Like you saying "I will admit that if a female - regardless of age - is "displaying her wares" I'm going to notice and like it."
with this post you are confirming that you are not honest. I had hope for you in the beginning, but now I think you are becoming like Faid who is probably the most dishonest person at this forum.
  • Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 03:59:21 AM by Dave Hawkins

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #744
One form of lying is "control of discourse" because people are getting a false picture of what's being said ... here's what Julian Assange had to say about this today ...


Yes, eventually, sort of, maybe.
Nation-states are an increasingly inadequate system for ordering the world.
Having global corporations in charge is not guaranteed to be worse.

But, first things first.
The Lieutenant Colonel of the KGB that has been dictator to the propaganda ( = control of discourse ) world champion nation-state for close to 20 years needs to have his hold on social media reduced.
Not listening to the dictator's slave Julian Assange would help with that.
interesting perspective. You have got my attention with your emphasis on Putin and what you think he's doing.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #745
Dave, I pointed out to you ages ago that it is your stupid attempts at justifying cheering some child bride being bartered away for cows that is bringing out the creepy. But you forged right ahead and tried to re-define "child" in stead.

Like you saying "I will admit that if a female - regardless of age - is "displaying her wares" I'm going to notice and like it."
with this post you are confirming that you are not honest.

...normally that is followed by "because" and then something substantive, Dave.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #746
There's no point in explaining to you anymore. It's a waste of time with fundamentally dishonest people.

Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #747
Ah, you lack the courage of your conviction, Dave! But then that is no great surprise to anyone here.

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #748
One form of lying is "control of discourse" because people are getting a false picture of what's being said ... here's what Julian Assange had to say about this today ...


Broken link?
Dave, your infamous "pivots" are a key example of "control of discourse", along with ignoring questions, changing the subject, and asking that questions you can't answer be moved to other threads, which you ignore.
I suspect you have been accused of being manipulative.
Hence your IKYABWAI.
No, U.
Dave Hawkins on 11-23-2015, The  poor boy is easily triggered: 
Also it doesn't help that you are a woman ... I've had some bad experiences with super controlling manipulative women in my life and I now react really strongly to that.

  • Faid
Re: Thread for self righteous men
Reply #749
I mean, look at this pile of hogwash:

o if you want to object, object honestly ... that is, first of all, acknowledge the true topic of the convo - longevity and healthiness of indigenous peoples - object to THAT if you have a fair objection, then note in passing something like "By the way, Dave, that woo hoo comment makes it sound as if you are promoting child marriage ... I'm sure you're not, but it came across that way to me."

THAT would be an honest comment coming from you and it would cause me to respect your integrity more. 
Then I would have come back and said "Oh sorry.  No I'm not in favor of child marriage, I was really woo hooing the whole situation ... woo hoo that the old guy seems fit and healthy even at 70 ... woo hoo that he won a pretty young bride (presumably she picked him over others) ... woo hoo bc the white teacher seemed to be woo hooing as well."
Dave, that was, more or less, what ACTUALLY happened. When you posted that comment, people responded to the whole Maasai nutrition thing. I was the first to comment on your 'woo hoo', and I said this:
Quote
Dave. Everything else besides, "woo hoo" is NOT a remark people should make after that statement.
And Borealis first accused the woman who wrote the article, not you:
Quote
Note how she cheerfully dismisses the harm caused by child marriages (one of the things that concerns the organisation, since the girls may be as young as 9 or 10 married to old men), "haha, lucky men!". I wouldn't trust her to have enough awareness to notice if girls were underweight.
And, as you see, she did that as an indication that the lady shouldn't be trusted regarding Maasai nourishment!
So you had every opportunity to give us your speech- How did it go, again? Oh right: ""Oh sorry.  No I'm not in favor of child marriage, I was really woo hooing the whole situation ... woo hoo that the old guy seems fit and healthy even at 70 ... woo hoo that he won a pretty young bride (presumably she picked him over others) [LOL]... woo hoo bc the white teacher seemed to be woo hooing as well."

Except you didn't say that, did you? THIS is what you FIRST said on the matter:
Quote
Oh come on.  Cut the moralistic crap.

It's not much different from YOUR mind in this respect ... which naturally thinks sexual thoughts upon seeing a shapely woman displaying her curves (whether she's 15 or 50) ... all that matters is puberty ... when the curves start to develop, men notice.  Period.  End of story. If you deny that you have these thoughts, then you are lying (or you are gay).  It's a quite natural physiological response in most men ... much as male dog responds to a female dog in heat.  And it forms the basis of the "sex sells" industry in the marketing world.  Come on, man.  Be real.

I rest my case.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.