Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Believe in Dawkins? We can fix that.

Topic: Ben wants to talk about rape (Read 683 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #50
It's no wonder that you guys believe that copying errors created the biosphere.
It's also no wonder why you keep repeating this moronic lie every time you're cornered.
No matter how often it's explained to you that no one thinks that.
And no matter how remotely it's (not) related to whatever the subject at hand.
Oh but they do.

That's why the Third Way was born.

  • Faid
Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #51
Desperate to change the subject again, huh?
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: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #52
On the very thread you yourself started to avoid derails, no less.

True to form as always.
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: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #53
Holy shit.

Galactic facepalm.

The mindfuckery is deep.

Lack of counter-argument noted.

On giving, though, you could argue the Buddhist way: If you give just to feel good yourself, you won't get any heavenly credits for it. If you transfer a sum to a charity, because of group pressure or whatever, that act in itself won't award you positive fruits of karma.

The thing is, as I see it, to have giving just for the joy to see he recipient happy (or by helping in other ways, as the case may be) become so second nature that you don't reflect on what you feel (or "pay"), but solely on that you have helped a fellow being.

  • Faid
Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #54
Of course, Epicurus would argue that giving to someone you love offers gratification to yourself by the mere act of seeing the one you love happy. Paul would concur and add to that the proposed universal feeling of Christian love for all others.

Dave would say "Whaaaaaaaa?".
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.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #55
Of course, Epicurus would argue that giving to someone you love offers gratification to yourself by the mere act of seeing the one you love happy. Paul would concur and add to that the proposed universal feeling of Christian love for all others.

Dave would say "Whaaaaaaaa?".
... and then try to change the subject with some idiotic iteration of "You guys believe copying errors created the biosphere!!!!1!"
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #56
Holy shit.

Galactic facepalm.

The mindfuckery is deep.

Lack of counter-argument noted.

On giving, though, you could argue the Buddhist way: If you give just to feel good yourself, you won't get any heavenly credits for it. If you transfer a sum to a charity, because of group pressure or whatever, that act in itself won't award you positive fruits of karma.

The thing is, as I see it, to have giving just for the joy to see he recipient happy (or by helping in other ways, as the case may be) become so second nature that you don't reflect on what you feel (or "pay"), but solely on that you have helped a fellow being.
Yes, giving for the sake of giving is a very fulfilling thing. It is our human tendency not to do so [1] but when we do, we feel good afterwards.

Now I will say that this has its limits. For example, I don't think I wouldn't give for the sake of giving to the Sears Corporation if they never gave me anything in return, i e a paycheck.
for example, when we are mad at someone we are tempted to call them names like fuckface
  • Last Edit: March 29, 2018, 10:07:05 AM by Dave Hawkins

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #57
I get it alright..
I don't think you do, but I would genuinely like for you to prove me wrong here. Can you explain the point I was making in your own words?
Dave?

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #58
Holy shit.

Galactic facepalm.

The mindfuckery is deep.

Lack of counter-argument noted.

On giving, though, you could argue the Buddhist way: If you give just to feel good yourself, you won't get any heavenly credits for it. If you transfer a sum to a charity, because of group pressure or whatever, that act in itself won't award you positive fruits of karma.

The thing is, as I see it, to have giving just for the joy to see he recipient happy (or by helping in other ways, as the case may be) become so second nature that you don't reflect on what you feel (or "pay"), but solely on that you have helped a fellow being.
Yes, giving for the sake of giving is a very fulfilling thing. It is our human tendency not to do [1] but when we do, we feel good afterwards.

Now I will say that this has its limits. For example, I don't think I wouldn't give for the sake of giving to the Sears Corporation if they never gave me anything in return, i e a paycheck.
I'm not mad at you, fuckface. I'm just trying to give you some faint idea of the visceral revulsion some of your 'ideas' engender in sane people. You could learn from this, but you choose not to.
for example, when we are mad at someone we are tempted to call them names like fuckface
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #59
Dave is using a truly godawfully stupid metaphor here, but the metaphor is clear.
Dave, let me ask you: if you give someone something out of love, or do something to please them out of love, what does it COST you?
The cost usually comes in what is put into that love. The time and effort it takes to maintain that love. Of course, by this metaphor, even rape isn't "free". Nothing is the only thing that is free, with this metaphor.

The metaphor is the same as the one used in "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." If you are getting something, it comes from somewhere, and if someone is giving it to you, they are doing so for a reason that cam be traced back to you eventually. Of course, this entirely transactional view of humanity is deeply cynical and all but requires viewing human beings as slot machines: you put something in, maybe you get something out. This is especially true when you lack any understanding of emergent properties - it is possible to see this view with the understanding that social behavior can emerge from this.
To be fair to Dave, he has a legitimate reason to view sexuality in transactional terms, as it is inconceivable that any sane human would engage in anything even remotely intimate with him without receiving substantial payment in return.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #60
People don't like an up-close-and-personal glimpse of successful people who are walking The Road Less Traveled because it makes them feel threatened.

Just a reminder that this forum is open for public viewing. So your rather unique & unconventional pov on numerous topics, along with your full posting history, would be open to scrutiny in the local community where you live and your place of employment. Should they become aware of it. 

Don't be that guy, ttp. Please.

Would it seriously break your heart if word got out that Dave Hawkins is a Nazi and a rape apologist?

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #61
Valor and Fred should get a room.  Dunno who pays who tho.

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #62
shut the fuck up

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #63
Tough guy

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #64
Nazi

  • Faid
Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #65
Ben wanted to talk about rape.

Dave didn't.

/thread
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: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #66
Pretty much, except that I didn't actually want to talk about rape. That was Dave's mischaracterization of my callout post. All I was actually doing was pointing out that, as always, Dave is either too much of a coward or just too fucking oblivious to do even a cursory amount of self-analysis. He reinforced that yet again in this thread.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #67
Pretty much, except that I didn't actually want to talk about rape. That was Dave's mischaracterization of my callout post. All I was actually doing was pointing out that, as always, Dave is either too much of a coward or just too fucking oblivious to do even a cursory amount of self-analysis. He reinforced that yet again in this thread.
A thread he started.
Are we there yet?

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #68
so how is talking about rape with Republican Dave going?

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #69
so how is talking about rape with Republican Dave going?

Dave is a man of action. Not a man of talk.
  • Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 01:36:41 PM by madmardigan

Re: Ben wants to talk about rape
Reply #70
so how is talking about rape with Republican Dave going?

Dave is more of an action guy than a talk guy.

Woohoo!