Elliot Rodger, the Supreme Gentleman and his mass shooting [split from Psychology of the beautiful g

[DaviPop]

Wasn't Eric Harris, the psychopathic one of the duo, the main instigator, and did he not just hate everyone for existential reasons and not because of any personal grudges?

I would argue that the belief that you deserve the right to serve as misanthropic judge, jury, and executioner is a fairly entitled viewpoint.

 

[Variform]

He was a pathological narcissist and his youtube videos were hilarious, a shame the cops didn't get him before he killed people. If you can't go on because you are a virgin at 22 you kill yourself not a bunch of other people.

Are you also a crazy narcissist Variform? :S

Yes and no. First I think we all have a measure of narcissism, but the word is so tainted we all deny it.

Narcissism is really self-importance. And we need that to survive. Without it, we could not even eat, so we stay alive. We must necessarily believe we have the right to food.
Narcissism is more a psychological term. The name of a personality disorder or personality deviance from a norm. But we all go too far in our self-importance at times. Believing we are entitled.

So if anyone denies a dose of narcissism within themselves is in denial and a danger to others, because not to recognize the 'evil' within is to fall prone to it. Remember Anakin Skywalker. He became Darth Vader. Heheh :-) Darth Rodger.

My narcissism is just the same as yours. But maybe I have a little more because I have a personality disorder. And that beats me down so much that I compensate. To be honest, without this compensation I'd be dead. Without some narcissism and self-righteous entitlement I would have given up. That is why I still want a true love in my life. It is a source of hope in some ways.

It is my ego struggling to remain alive. You have to allow me this narcissism as a survival and coping strategy.

And it is a cute little narcissism, of no danger to anyone. I am 'crazy' because of my PD. And because of my upbringing. The emotional neglect and stuff. Sometimes, parents ARE to blame!

I will never shoot anyone. My slight narcissism is barely bigger than anybody else's here. And it is in balance with my altruism and empathy. To friends I have always felt a very great loyalty. That is why I hurt so bad when they leave me.

On the scale of altruism and empathy and understanding and the ability to get into someone's head I believe I score higher than many people. No, I am no danger to anyone but myself. I am a control freak. With desperate control and coping mechanism I maintain order and status quo. I am the King of Status Quo. For me nothing ever changes.

Even in my depression I remain in control. That is why it is called dysthymia. The cycles of depression are long and mild, like low waves through existence.

To be that way disables a quick response approach to problem solving. Change is very hard for me. I am 'crazy' but maintain it well. I could never let myself go in a killing spree. I could not, I would get into the skin of the victims and it would destroy me to think someone that loved them would be left behind, alone. I know loneliness. I want a true love so bad, and for me to kill someone and deny that to both is unthinkable.

Surely I will off myself before doing that.

 

[Variform]

I'm reading his manifesto and besides the fact that it is frightfully dull one thing that strikes me is the similarity between himself and other bitter, entitled killers who decide to make their personal frustrations everyone's problem. Namely, the Columbine Killers and the Unabomber.

The "dull" part, is that in your opinion related to his quite normal childhood? Nothing all that special happens, apart from the fact his parents seem to keep moving to new hones.

Did these other killers leave manifestos? I think I'd be interested in reading more.

It's not merely that he was ostracized, but the sense of entitlement and privilege swelled to what seems pathology. They have a remarkable sense of personal exceptionalism.

Yes, it did swell pathologically. If that had been addressed properly by a psychologist, we might never have known his name.

But I mentioned this before. Some people feel things very deeply. And the scale of depth of feeling is equal to the pathology that it can fuel.

I sense in Elliot the same issue I have. This great and deep vulnerability. I have mentioned this before too. No one replies to it. There is something missing, a sense of relativity. When he gets hurt, he gets hurt really badly. It scars.
You see, my brother sent me a letter in response to me asking for information about my childhood, that I need for the ADHD diagnostics in two weeks.

He said as a child I was always blaming myself very harshly when I fell off my bike or hurt myself. I blamed myself for it, is his opinion. I'd get mad at myself.

One thing: his view may not be right. Because, what sort of child will first blame itself and does not want to be cuddled when hurt? Already at age 4 and later I must have been different. Why?

So I believe that Elliot shared this peculiarity. I do sense it in him. He gets hurt and it explodes out of proportion.

Underneath his sense of entitlement is despair. A deep feeling of inadequacy, he blames himself for not being a better skateboarder. He can never live up to his own expectations. So his narcissism just appears to be his main issue, but there is something underneath, a self-loathing, a sense of not being adequate, a lack of relativity and a very harsh self-judgment.

I think these things come from feeling emotions differently and too deeply. That is why I so much resist the superficial and easy to make diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder.

What strikes me about Elliot Rodger is that it seems before he found WoW he didn't have any hobbies that he didn't gain except as a way to receive social acceptance and become what he calls "cool".

Yes, he lacks a sense of self. And his parents were unable to enhance it. His father was never there, his step mother he didn't get along with too well. His mother was a sort of 'enabler' in that she set him up for play dates, so he never learned to go out and find friends on his own, or keep them.

He is like me, he loved his mother so much more than his father, he clung to her. And yet she screwed him up just as much as his dad. Elliot doesn't really see it though.

What do you think about what I wrote? Have you any thoughts about it? Could it be true that some people are born with a very thin skin and feel things very deeply, much more so than most then people?

 

[Beowulf]

Personally I can not tolerate seeing this guy anymore. But i also don't like some of the western feminists who made this into such a huge thing. Being born in a third world country has shown me exactly how much these western feminists have lost the true vision of feminism. There are more important things then complaining about why you have the right to not get googly eyed at the bar just because you happen to wear a short skirt. Meanwhile while a girl in Pakistan is being stoned to death for choosing her love as her husband and a 15 year old girl in kurdistan was killed and mutilated by her 45 year old husband. And dont even mention women in Saudi Arabia, they still can't drive.

As for this lunatic he just happens to be a mental case who happened to fall in the category of being a "nice guy". He fell hard for the misconception that you either are a nice guy or a douchebag who degrades women. Someone should have told him you can still be alpha and a "nice guy". Its just about standing up for yourself and not sucking up to your significant other just because she is a women. By doing that you not only respect yourself but you respect your relationship and her.

Also fuck his sunglasses.


Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

 

[Cherry Cola]

Personally I can not tolerate seeing this guy anymore. But i also don't like some of the western feminists who made this into such a huge thing. Being born in a third world country has shown me exactly how much these western feminists have lost the true vision of feminism. There are more important things then complaining about why you have the right to not get googly eyed at the bar just because you happen to wear a short skirt. Meanwhile while a girl in Pakistan is being stoned to death for choosing her love as her husband and a 15 year old girl in kurdistan was killed and mutilated by her 45 year old husband. And dont even mention women in Saudi Arabia, they still can't drive.

The same can be said about tons of western issues, they pale in comparison with those in poorer and/or less developed countries, does that mean we should ignore any and all such issues? I don't think so and I don't think it's realistic to assume we could.

 

[Base groove]

People, please. The problem will solve itself. The epicentre of Western problems is ... where?

Correct. California. What are you doing, drinking in LA?

It's going to be underwater in what, like, 60* years or less?

*e4

 

[DaviPop]

The "dull" part, is that in your opinion related to his quite normal childhood? Nothing all that special happens, apart from the fact his parents seem to keep moving to new hones.

The dull part is that he goes into agonizing detail about very rote and insignificant parts of his life. He was clearly a person who thought his existence was more significant than it was.

What do you think about what I wrote? Have you any thoughts about it? Could it be true that some people are born with a very thin skin and feel things very deeply, much more so than most then people?

I think it's very possible, I know some children that just seem very sensitive. However that's getting into a nature vs nurture argument from which I think there is no return...

 

[Jennywocky]

The dull part is that he goes into agonizing detail about very rote and insignificant parts of his life. He was clearly a person who thought his existence was more significant than it was.

to springboard off that, I tend to dissect large portions of my life in similar ways... or used to. It happened when I was very much trapped within my own head, was lacking social skills, had no real deep relationships, and felt like I had no voice in the world. It was such a lonely place to be (and that's one word I would use to describe my existence for many of those years, and even now at times).

When you have a lot of insight and sensitive and think deeply about things and have no way to expend that energy in the exernal world, applying it to active pursuits, it ends up being used to dissect the mundane in excruciating detail.

That's not necessarily bad in itself, but essentially none of who I was was having any real visible impact. Does that necessarily matter? Maybe not, in terms of the length of eternity since all of our efforts inevitably will go to naught anyway regardless of how productive we temporarily seemed... but I think where it can be a problem is in the negative emotional resonance it creates -- obsessing about one aspect of existence that amounts to little while agonizing over our powerlessness in another, and since it's resonance within a closed system, it can sometimes build and build and build until it erupts into that sphere where we feel we are powerless, causing a lot of damage when it explodes.


...

I do totally believe that some people are more "sensitive" to stimuli than others, whether it's raw stimulation from the environment or emotional stimulation (i.e., how one's specific body and mind responds to that stimulation). But sensitivity cannot really be evaluated by its own sensitivity, we evaluate it based on where it leads.

Sensitivity used to understand, explore, learn, and adapt seems to be a positive force, a nurturing force that takes an organism through the natural stages of growth on many levels.

Sensitivity used to dismiss, embitter, destroy, inflict cruelty does not follow this growth pattern, it is the growth and connection disrupter and leads to terminaton of the life process not just for oneself but potentially for others.

We make choices in how we respond to our reactions to stimulation, based on what our end goal is, what we value, what we desire, what we care about. If you esteem life, it leads to life; if you esteem death, it leads there as well.

I have had many cause to hurt people in my life, if that is the direction I wanted to go, but despise being trapped within myself for so many years, that's not where I wanted to go with it. I wanted something more, something bigger. I really think the embrace of growth and life regardless of any pain involved is a major factor in how these things turn out. If we want small petty things without long-lasting value, then that's where we end up.

Of course, even that is subjective as well, but it's the most sense i've been able to make of things. I value the life/growth process which allows for pain and eventually the cycle to continue back around, versus the "self-gratification" model that can disrupt the life process -- the latter is kind of a cancerous twisting of the life process that devours itself.

 

[TBerg]

The dull part is that he goes into agonizing detail about very rote and insignificant parts of his life. He was clearly a person who thought his existence was more significant than it was.

Is it wrong to derive global implications from local details?

 

[DaviPop]

No but do you really need a whole paragraph to tell us that when you were in second grade you wanted a shiny Charizard card a whole lot?

 

[TBerg]

No but do you really need a whole paragraph to tell us that when you were in second grade you wanted a shiny Charizard card a whole lot?

That's not insignificant to young children.

 

[DaviPop]

He wrote it in his early twenties. He wanted a shiny Charizard card and then he got one. He spends a paragraph on that.

 

[TBerg]

He wrote it in his early twenties. He wanted a shiny Charizard card and then he got one. He spends a paragraph on that.

It tracks his need for affirmation. You can follow childish needs becoming more mature needs. The archetypes are the same, but the symbols change.

 

[DaviPop]

What I'm saying is that he leaves it at that, though. He doesn't really wax poetic/crazy about it like Eric Harris and his manifesto isn't an attempt to justify his misanthropy with Neo-Luddite sociopolitical posturing like the Unabomber. He's just really dull.

Though in his dullness he's also more honest than Harris or the Unabomber. It's less like a manifesto through most of it and more like a diary. He's like the Taylor Swift of murderers.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes and no. First I think we all have a measure of narcissism, but the word is so tainted we all deny it.

Narcissism is really self-importance. And we need that to survive. Without it, we could not even eat, so we stay alive. We must necessarily believe we have the right to food.
Narcissism is more a psychological term. The name of a personality disorder or personality deviance from a norm. But we all go too far in our self-importance at times. Believing we are entitled.

So if anyone denies a dose of narcissism within themselves is in denial and a danger to others, because not to recognize the 'evil' within is to fall prone to it. Remember Anakin Skywalker. He became Darth Vader. Heheh :-) Darth Rodger.

My narcissism is just the same as yours. But maybe I have a little more because I have a personality disorder. And that beats me down so much that I compensate. To be honest, without this compensation I'd be dead. Without some narcissism and self-righteous entitlement I would have given up. That is why I still want a true love in my life. It is a source of hope in some ways.

It is my ego struggling to remain alive. You have to allow me this narcissism as a survival and coping strategy.

And it is a cute little narcissism, of no danger to anyone. I am 'crazy' because of my PD. And because of my upbringing. The emotional neglect and stuff. Sometimes, parents ARE to blame!

I will never shoot anyone. My slight narcissism is barely bigger than anybody else's here. And it is in balance with my altruism and empathy. To friends I have always felt a very great loyalty. That is why I hurt so bad when they leave me.

On the scale of altruism and empathy and understanding and the ability to get into someone's head I believe I score higher than many people. No, I am no danger to anyone but myself. I am a control freak. With desperate control and coping mechanism I maintain order and status quo. I am the King of Status Quo. For me nothing ever changes.

Even in my depression I remain in control. That is why it is called dysthymia. The cycles of depression are long and mild, like low waves through existence.

To be that way disables a quick response approach to problem solving. Change is very hard for me. I am 'crazy' but maintain it well. I could never let myself go in a killing spree. I could not, I would get into the skin of the victims and it would destroy me to think someone that loved them would be left behind, alone. I know loneliness. I want a true love so bad, and for me to kill someone and deny that to both is unthinkable.

Surely I will off myself before doing that.

Pathological narcissism not narcissism. Ie Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Yes we can all be said to possess narcissistic traits, which in turns means we are all narcissists in a sense, but how is that relevant? Elliot was a crazy narcissist just like Breivik.

Perhaps both of them had shity childhoods, then again there are a lot more people who've had shity childhoods than there are pathological narcissists, and psychopaths. Indeed one does not even need to have suffered as a child in order to be either of them.

Elliot Rodger could just as well be a rotten apple and not anything more than that. Even if his childhood was really miserable it need not be what made him the cunt he was.

 

[DaviPop]

What I find interesting about spree killers like Elliot Rodgers is that they do not come from particularly troubled childhoods. Their youth and adolescence are pretty normal for the most part. I think people put unnecessary emphasis on the role of troubled childhoods or *insert hot-topic mental illness here/the-too-often-applied-antisocial-personality-disorder*, at least in cases such as these.

One thing I think we would benefit from is more examining people like Elliot Rodgers as one of us, because really his views and attitudes are not that far outside of the norm especially for straight men within his age group.

We can call him crazy or damaged or whathaveyou all we want but the fact remains he was able to find multiple online communities of people that shared his bitterness, his inflated sense of self-importance, his inability to take responsibility for his life, and his unrealistic sense of entitlement to women's bodies. And while those forums he frequented are mostly people who exist on the fringes of gender politics more importantly an overwhelming majority of those people had normal childhoods, they are living normal lives, and they will grow old and die without leaving a trail of bodies in their wake.

And of course you need to take into account the degrees of overlap that this angry fringe shares with a Patriarchal culture that teaches young white men that they are entitled to the bodies of women which also enables them to direct anger more appropriately directed at themselves at women in general.

And also the fact that Elliot Rodgers straight-laced, affluent whiteness (he was half-Malaysian but he clearly favored his Euro-side and passed as such) is probably what allowed him to squirm away from the cops when they came knocking. If he was poorer or darker-skinned it probably wouldn't have mattered how "polite" he was to the cops, they would've maced him, kicked him in the nuts, found and taken his gun and their police report wouldn't have reflected how "polite" he was.

The primary difference between Elliot Rodger and MRA's is that he decided to make his problems everyone else's and the primary difference between MRA's and our wider culture is that MRA's fester in frustration. IMO.

 

[Variform]

to springboard off that, I tend to dissect large portions of my life in similar ways... or used to. It happened when I was very much trapped within my own head, was lacking social skills, had no real deep relationships, and felt like I had no voice in the world. It was such a lonely place to be (and that's one word I would use to describe my existence for many of those years, and even now at times).

You are on a roll today. This describes it so well. It is where I am now, hopefully not for much longer.

When you have a lot of insight and sensitive and think deeply about things and have no way to expend that energy in the exernal world, applying it to active pursuits, it ends up being used to dissect the mundane in excruciating detail.

What is going on today?!?! This is the third post that makes me want to write 'I love you'. LOL!

This is a gem, this is so incredibly true. You should get a fuckin' reward for psychoanalytic insight!

That's not necessarily bad in itself, but essentially none of who I was was having any real visible impact. Does that necessarily matter? Maybe not, in terms of the length of eternity since all of our efforts inevitably will go to naught anyway regardless of how productive we temporarily seemed... but I think where it can be a problem is in the negative emotional resonance it creates -- obsessing about one aspect of existence that amounts to little while agonizing over our powerlessness in another, and since it's resonance within a closed system, it can sometimes build and build and build until it erupts into that sphere where we feel we are powerless, causing a lot of damage when it explodes.

This is all porn to me really. Your insight is flawless.

I do totally believe that some people are more "sensitive" to stimuli than others, whether it's raw stimulation from the environment or emotional stimulation (i.e., how one's specific body and mind responds to that stimulation). But sensitivity cannot really be evaluated by its own sensitivity, we evaluate it based on where it leads.

Sensitivity used to understand, explore, learn, and adapt seems to be a positive force, a nurturing force that takes an organism through the natural stages of growth on many levels.

Sensitivity used to dismiss, embitter, destroy, inflict cruelty does not follow this growth pattern, it is the growth and connection disrupter and leads to terminaton of the life process not just for oneself but potentially for others.

We make choices in how we respond to our reactions to stimulation, based on what our end goal is, what we value, what we desire, what we care about. If you esteem life, it leads to life; if you esteem death, it leads there as well.

I have had many cause to hurt people in my life, if that is the direction I wanted to go, but despise being trapped within myself for so many years, that's not where I wanted to go with it. I wanted something more, something bigger. I really think the embrace of growth and life regardless of any pain involved is a major factor in how these things turn out. If we want small petty things without long-lasting value, then that's where we end up.

Of course, even that is subjective as well, but it's the most sense i've been able to make of things. I value the life/growth process which allows for pain and eventually the cycle to continue back around, versus the "self-gratification" model that can disrupt the life process -- the latter is kind of a cancerous twisting of the life process that devours itself.

A very hopeful message.

 

[Variform]

What I'm saying is that he leaves it at that, though. He doesn't really wax poetic/crazy about it like Eric Harris and his manifesto isn't an attempt to justify his misanthropy with Neo-Luddite sociopolitical posturing like the Unabomber. He's just really dull.

Though in his dullness he's also more honest than Harris or the Unabomber. It's less like a manifesto through most of it and more like a diary. He's like the Taylor Swift of murderers.

Yes it is a diary or sorts. You get that. So. Why do you get annoyed by this paragraph about a card?

He writes about it because it had significance for him. In his mind this was a big deal. He writes about his life, his thoughts, then you get annoyed by the content?

He is dull yes. Nothing much happens in those early years.

But I read a little on wiki about this Harris guy. I found it telling that he also moved a lot, because of his fathers military job. Could this uprooting of children, at least in some children, be really detrimental to their psyche?

 

[tobbA]

And of course you need to take into account the degrees of overlap that this angry fringe shares with a Patriarchal culture that teaches young white men that they are entitled to the bodies of women which also enables them to direct anger more appropriately directed at themselves at women in general.

I wouldn't have a problem with the notion that we live in a culture that teaches "young white men" to be sexist towards women if young white men actually were more sexist towards women or more likely to be rapists than people of any other ethnicity. But they aren't, which makes the argument pretty flawed.

 

[TBerg]

But I read a little on wiki about this Harris guy. I found it telling that he also moved a lot, because of his fathers military job. Could this uprooting of children, at least in some children, be really detrimental to their psyche?

By most accounts, Harris had very good parents, able to see things that parents normally see in their children. He was just a psychopath able to conceal his true nature, like any other competent psychopath. Psychopaths view love as merely a form of manipulation.

 

[DaviPop]

I wouldn't have a problem with the notion that we live in a culture that teaches "young white men" to be sexist towards women if young white men actually were more sexist towards women or more likely to be rapists than people of any other ethnicity. But they aren't, which makes the argument pretty flawed.

All men are taught that they are entitled to the bodies of women, but young, white, affluent, cis-gendered, heterosexual white men are taught that they are the most attractive and the most successful. Thus they are the most deserving of women's bodies.

Note that Elliot Rodgers expressed great hostility towards less-affluent men of color dating white women, feeling he was more deserving of those women because of his self-perceived whiteness and his higher perceived socio-economic status. Elliot Rodgers blames his half-Malaysian ethnicity for his inability to attract women and perceives Asian men as "ugly" and less-deserving of the affection of the prized white women.

This viewpoint is not unique to Elliot Rodgers and is expressed more subtly in our culture at large.

 

[deadpixel]

Heres what we know about criminals.

They arent law abiding people, Do you people honestly think that banning guns will stop criminals from getting them if they want to use them? Do you think a ban on guns will make criminals turn their guns in? A ban on guns will only take guns out of the hands of people who use them for protection and it wont change a thing for criminals. They will still have them regardless and it will render law abiding citizens defenseless, all the while giving criminals the upper hand. A right to bear arms was put into place for a reason, take that away from us and what is next? freedom of speech?

With that being said, a ban on guns COULD be effective but it would take a LONG time for it to show any effectiveness.

I do not own a gun, I've never even shot one, I dont have a problem with guns. Its a fact of the matter.

 

[Variform]

Guns aren't the issue I am sad to have to say. It is the american mind set. Combine guns with american infantile living and you get american society.

What is infantile is this shallow level of thinking, that if you take guns away from 'law abiding citizens' all hell will break loose. Utter nonsense of course.

But then again, what american can ever hope to compare his own country to other nations? In Europe, guns aren't a problem. Yes criminals have them, and they use them too. But gun violence is not an issue here much. Yes some incidents occur. Guns are used by heavy criminals to liquidate each other.

Guns are used by teens that rob jewelry stores and so on. But we don't want american situations or conditions here. We look down upon that gun system of america. americans are a people that can't handle their guns. It is proven on a daily basis.

On one side you have this greed in society, the promotion of the value that money is everything. Then you allow yourself to buy guns. And look what happens. Gun violence, people feel they are entitled to being rich.

Now look at Canada. 3 dead policemen. This is extremely rare there. Americans are just morons and infantile as people go. You cannot handle guns, so give it up. The whole idea that a citizen needs a gun against a criminal is stupid because when the moment supreme comes, you won't shoot any cunt.

An Alaskan woman told me once that when a burglar would enter her house, she would wait with shooting him so that when he fell over, he would fall inside the doorstep. So that the police would not be able to arrest her for misuse of a firearm, by just shooting like a mad person.

And then my friend voer here told me and I quote literally: "I doubt there is anything in that house that is worth more than a human life."

 

[TBerg]

Where are you from, Variform?

 

[Lot]

Are we still going on about this?

 

[TBerg]

Are we still going on about this?

It all involves juicy matters like gender, Los Angeles, American gun culture, and mass shootings...so YES!

 

[tobbA]

All men are taught that they are entitled to the bodies of women, but young, white, affluent, cis-gendered, heterosexual white men are taught that they are the most attractive and the most successful. Thus they are the most deserving of women's bodies.

So if white men are more encouraged than others to feel like they have a right to womens bodies, why are they less likely to be rapists than men of other ethnicities?

Note that Elliot Rodgers expressed great hostility towards less-affluent men of color dating white women, feeling he was more deserving of those women because of his self-perceived whiteness and his higher perceived socio-economic status. Elliot Rodgers blames his half-Malaysian ethnicity for his inability to attract women and perceives Asian men as "ugly" and less-deserving of the affection of the prized white women.

That just makes him a racist asshole. (And pretty stupid.) Doesn't say anything about what our culture tells white men to be.

I mean, sure. Belonging to a majority and the ethnic group with the highest socio-economic status probably makes a person more likely to feel superior to others. Especially if that person has a propensity for such a thing and/or ends up in an environment where that kind of thinking is common. But that isn't really the same thing as saying that all young white men are taught to think that way.

This viewpoint is not unique to Elliot Rodgers

It probably isn't. But I bet there is more than one person who thinks they have the right to have sex children too. Or dead people. It doesn't mean our culture somehow subtly encourages people to be pedophiles or necrophiliacs.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Re: Psychology of the beautiful gyal.

Wtf?!!? Do you WANT and INSIST on breaking your marriage? Do you really thyink that ebcause your wife is okayw ith it, that it will not cause problems? My god, why do people insist on getting on Jerry Springer?!?

Alright, I'll just cut this short. Whatever you say from here on is just...tainted.
Makes no sense anymore to reply.

"I'm not so sure I could've gone to age 22, 25, or 26 without having had a woman at least once. That must be so damn terrible!!! So I relate to Elliot immensely, as well as others here. He's in good company with males like us who often don't win out."

Yeah, that is why you don't have the right to start inviting extra people into your rwelationship. You should know better. Because you are killing your marriage and then you won't have anyone. You should be fucking greatful you have a girl at all, yet you insist on being an idiot.

We have already added a third person into the mix from time to time and neither of us had a problem with it. So I fail to see how your reaction is at all substantiated. Attempt to explain -- quickly. I will not tolerate illogicality. Note that with incredible seriousness. Your response is close to annoying me to no end.

Not everyone has what appears to be a mindless traditional attitude towards marriage on your part. If a third person is added to a marriage on either end without permission, then there is certainly a problem. That is called infidelity. But when both parties openly agree to introduce third persons, there is no problem. So explain how the latter is problematic for a relationship or marriage? It makes no sense. Perhaps what you're saying makes sense with respect to the average couple. But my wife is an INTJ and I am an INTP. We are unconventional and rational about sex and love. And our relationship has never been seriously tainted by these harmless activities. lol -- You need to learn to lighten up.

But again, if you still see a problem, please articulate the issue clearly. So far, you are making a host of faulty assumptions. Namely, (1) that adding a third person to the mix automatically puts a marriage in jeopardy (which is nonsense), (2) that when a rational individual (particularly a very intelligent and reasonable INTJ) agrees to a certain form of activity, that she will nonetheless still find it problematic in some fashion or another (which is highly implausible), and (3) that engaging in rationally agreed upon threesomes is at all akin to the kind of sloppy and questionable and mindless behavior that lands people on Jerry Springer (which is extremely ridiculous). And from (1) you seem to have also fallaciously reasoned that (5) I have no right to add a third person to my marriage from time to time. But unless assumption (1) is supported with sufficient logic and weight, (5) does not at all follow. Hence, I see no reason to take your "conclusions" (that I have no right to add a third person to my marriage) seriously. You need to substantiate your claims and many spurious assumptions, my friend, before you can seriously accuse me of "killing" my marriage. lol

(Additionally, how is adding a third person "being an idiot"? I think this additional conclusion also stems from a few of the previous three assumptions you've made. But again, it is highly questionable thay any of your assumptions here actually hold water. It is up to you to support and justify the questionable assumptions you've put forward. Good luck!)

P.S., I am an undergraduate philosophy major at the moment, and I plan on applying for graduate school for philosophy somewhere, next year. One professor said I have a rare talent for philosophy, while another jokingly called me "brilliant," while another spoke of one of my works as "subtle and sophisticated," while another said "your ability denotes a quality school program" and "you have a very great raw material and operate at a much higher level than most undergraduates (including myself at your stage)," while one said I have "philosopher written all over" me (and this last professor actually constantly told everyone my name in class last semester, as he became increasingly obsessed with my philosophical ability). I ended up grading for the last professor last semester, and I also did Supplemental Instruction for the professor who called me "brilliant." I taught students basic ethics, and it was a most rewarding experience (and I may grade for another this summer, as he has asked me to prepare for the task). In sum, most of my professors like me and many have said great things of my ability. I wrote a paper about God recently that many of them liked. In fact, a brilliant young philosophy professor at a website once told me (about three or four years ago) that I should become one. And I have always agreed with him since. He said I had talent for this type of work.

So long story short, my thinking ability is noted by many professors. Take care in responding, as I will carefully scrutinize and attack whatever you say with strong logical skill. Just be warned. I think it is very dubious that your assumptions here actually hold any weight at all. But I suppose I will allow you to try, should you choose. lol --- GOOD LUCK!

For sex? No. But that isn't particularly wacko is it.

No one has said anything about what is or is not "wacko." The point here is that Elliot appeared to have a strong problem with purchasing sex or attention from women. Anything else is off point. So elaborate and explain how your response is at all intelligible. Thanks. Again, I do not tolerate even an ounce of illogicality.

He wanted to be normal and liked and respected for who he was. Don't we all.

As for aiming high or low... I don't know. We all have certain preferences. The first girl I fell in love with was blonde. But I been in love with all hair colors I think.

Well, I suppose it is plausible to suppose he had basic psychological needs, including respect and appreciation. Yet it is also plausible that the also needed to have earned these things naturally, with no external aid (i.e. "handouts"). He wanted some woman to honestly give him the time of day. Merely buying someone's respect or appreciation, for him, was insufficient. It's as simple as that.

Would you really? I don't think so.

Yes, I would. At all having the experience of sex (with anyone), even if it means I must dish out some cash, is far superior to going without an ounce of this extremely distinct experience (often) of pleasure. Elliot was merely far too hung up on his own needlessly rigorous standards. That's all.

He suffered from social anxiety. I don't think it would be possible for him. I suffer from it too and I would be too scared. I considered it myself. But I couldn't see myself going to the local red light district. And being in .nl, it is very easy to do it and you won't even have to fear arrest.

(About social anxiety:-) So do I. And your point is? Even with social anxiety, a paid woman will know how to make the moves and attempt to break down communication barriers, even if she has to use non-verbal communication to get the job done. Hence, being able to speak back need not detract from the experience. So this "excuse" is moot.

Besides, at what point does one make this decision? I wanted sex at 14. It took 14 years. So tell me at what age would I have made the decision? 22? 26? Or already at 20? It doesn't work like that, cause you hope and pray and what have you and it just never happens.

One will make the decision when it becomes absolutely unbearable that the opposite sex has ignored for so long. When one clearly understands that the chances of the opposite sex naturally offering sex is virtually non-existent, one then needs to do what is necessary to satisfy one's impulses and urges. It's really that simple. I fail to see how this question of "when do I make the decision?" is a true problem.

That is how I looked at it, I am sure he did too. And he was right. Every man should be able to be appreciated by someone.

Every man should be able to do many things (possibly even fly). But this does not mean that we should interact with reality in such an irrational and absurd way that we put up walls so high that we are never satisfied or pleased with anything, and ultimately feel trapped in a situation that ends in extreme violence and tragedy. Even if men should be appreciated (as well as women by men), the reality is that this doesn't always happen for everyone. And when that happens, you gotta do what you gotta do to get what you need -- even if that means paying someone. That's it.

Thank you. Hoe subtle of you.

Just being blunt. I know no other way to be.

I can't really respond to these comments about evolution. Possibly an INTP trait, to drag it to the ultimate scope of it all. But may main issue is society, not evolution. Everyone should be able to get a girl. THAt is evolution. All this talk about selection, that is what Elliot constantly talked about.

Everyone should be able to get a girl? True. But society has no serious obligation to make sure that this should happen. It's insane to suppose there should be some system in place which makes sure all people have a mate; to do so would be to limit the natural freedom of citizens who should be able to personally choose who they give their atttention, affection, respect, and appreciation to. Hence, this is nothing less than mindless idealism. It will never happen. It could not happen. Unless of course people begin to see no point in their basic freedom to choose a partner.... lol -- not gonna happen. (Hopefully you are not of the same irrational mindset as Elliot, here. Do you also have a problem with evolutionary dynamics and trends?)

So, no. Evolutionary trends and realistic occurrences and dynamics is what Elliot ultimately had a problem with. How people naturally behave and work on a basic level is what he despised (as women are simply hardwired to prefer certain men to others). Evolutionarily speaking, Elliot did not luck out. He drew a short straw. Hence, his idealism prevented him from accepting this harsh fact. So his problems do seem to come down to being incapable of coping with the harsh reality of evolutionary selection. Society is largely irrelevant to this guy's true issues.

The problem isn't evolution, it is society. And how we are taught from birth to like certain traits in males and females. Look at advertising. The brand 'Axe' does it shamelessly. 'Spray this scent on you and women cannot control themselves and will storm you to have sex'. That is basically the message.

No. It was clearly evolutionary selection that bothered this guy. He didn't complain that his culture was the problem -- that he could simply move away from his culture and adopt the preferable habits of another society. He had a problem with women -- altogether -- (who would likely have ignored him in any other society, though of course ours is much less friendly to men like him), and many if not virtually all societies on the planet may pose a problem to men who simply do not get women on an evolutionary level. It's really that simple. (Imagine Elliot being placed on a giant world-wide poll that asked if women would have sex with him versus someone like Brad Pitt. You seriously think most females on the planet, on a basic level, would choose Elliot over Pitt? Get real. Brad Pitt has what women want on a basic evolutionary level. That's it. It's like comparing carrots to chocolate. People love sweets -- not healthy food, regardless of culture. It's evolution. Go read up. Evolutionary psychology is a great place to start.)

There is a post on how to improve society. Well, let's make advertising illegal. That will help prevent more mass killings than anything else.

I fail to see the point of this remark... I fail to see how advertising is the problem, here. Are you saying that if we simply market nerds and make them look sexy, that we will incline women to go out with and have sex with the nerdiest, most lonely men out there? lol! -- Not gonna happen. Again, what we are dealing with here is clearly hardwiring. Nothing else, really. Deal with the realities of basic biology! It's everything to this discussion of sexual selection and preference and losing out. lol.... talking about advertising is just a mindless scapegoat that fails to see or address the real problem. It's illogical.

This constant bombardment as we allow our children to watch commercials. Many people criticize 'violent games'. Even on here they blame WOW. But the fact is, we allow our kids to be deeply indoctrinated from as soon as their eyes can focus on a television. And from there on we see no fat people or very rarely. We learn to associate sex and being liked, appreciated, all those things, with beauty. We are being psychologically (Edward Bernays) manipulated.

See, precisely. Blaming school shootings on video games, television, advertising, Marilyn Manson, rap music, and all these other largely irrelevant factors is mere SCAPEGOATING. It is just looking for the cheapest and most mindlessly "apparent" explanation for some effect as can be found. But it's a farce. A true explanation for Elliot's problems lies in not in society -- but in his psychological tendency to find evolutionary trends and dynamics harmful and corrosive to his mental health and happiness. It's really that simple. The guy is like an open textbook the way he speaks about his problems. At no point does he really seem to have a problem with his society; it's how women choose!!!! That's his problem. And that's not a social issue. It's basic biology! We are animals. Elliot had a problem with the manner in which women, as animals, operate in the world (and someone women like Elliot have a problem with the manner in which men, as animals, operate in the world too!) Some women don't get men, just as Elliot got no women. It's all evolution and for those who miss out, it is pure agony. But that's life. Not every organism is going to succeed and flourish. Sad but true!!!

That fat people are not on television is irrelevant. People unlikely enjoy the sight of an overweight person, even if we saw them all over TV! Again, there is a basic way in which people do not seem to enjoy the form of an overweight person. The form of a fit person seems to excite most people, for some reason. Hence, perhaps you are getting this backward here: it is the biology that drives the social (with the social REFLECTING the basic foundations of the biological). Our basic behaviors do not largely reflect our society; they inform it. Society is largely the result of basic preferences on a vast collective scale. Hence, that society should "influence" people to engage in certain behavior, by and large, is nonsense. Surely we can be influenced to buy a coke or a meal at McDonalds, but to say that we can be influenced to like the opposite sex, or enjoy sex, or who we decide to marry is pure BS. Those things are much more hardwired than our desire to eat certain food or wear certain clothing at a particular time. (Note: surely we are manipulated in terms of what we want to eat insofar as we are inclined on a basic level to find certain things attractive. But what I mean here is that we are influenced only insofar as we already have certain preferences. Society does not altogether create what we LIKE. WE DO.) That's it.

(P.S., are you actually a feeler???)

 

[tobbA]

So long story short, my thinking ability is noted by many professors. Take care in responding, as I will carefully scrutinize and attack whatever you say with strong logical skill. Just be warned. I think it is very dubious that your assumptions here actually hold any weight at all. But I suppose I will allow you to try, should you choose. lol --- GOOD LUCK!

Oh, come on...

But of course evolution plays a part in it. We humans aren't just moldable pieces of clay that can be swayed by every whim of society. There are certain biological characteristics that will affect our behavior. And those characteristics will differ between the genders. Especially where sex is concerned.

Even if you can make the argument that societal pressures caused Elliot Rodgers behavior, that doesn't mean that his reaction to those pressures were in any way normative.

 

[Variform]

Re: Psychology of the beautiful gyal.

We have already added a third person into the mix from time to time and neither of us had a problem with it. So I fail to see how your reaction is at all substantiated. Attempt to explain -- quickly. I will not tolerate illogicality. Note that with incredible seriousness. Your response is close to annoying me to no end.

Then we have nothing to say to each other, because irrationality is part of my perception. You are overly rational. I think rationality is overrated.

Your argument seems to be based on the idea you are INTP and your partner is INTJ. You elevate these MBTI things as proof that you can handle what you are doing. But MBTI is not a proven system yet you want to claim a logical approach.

Sex and love are not rational either. But if you want to insist on pure logic you will, be in for a big surprise down the line.

You can add in extra partners as much as you like but love and sex are about feelings and subjective experiences, therefore it WILL one day come to haunt you.

All your ego-talk about how much you are loved, laughable. Do I really need to address all that, how much you are respected by your teachers? The reference to how great a philosopher you would be...hmpf. Let's just say you are not there yet.

Philosophy is not only about logical reasoning. Maybe you should discuss your sex life with your professors.

Thanks. Again, I do not tolerate even an ounce of illogicality.

LOL

It's as simple as that.

That's all.

That's it.

It's illogical.

That's it.

Seems you know it all already so I am not gonna bother.

 

[Bock]

The problem was that he had some serious aspergers (which he was diagnosed with early in his life) and he was also slightly insane and called himself the supreme gentleman while throwing crap at people because their mere presence agitated him.

Zero discussion value, guy was nuts, and even if one tries to discuss any of the larger matters that this whole ordeal might touch, those discussions would be infected from the get-go for obvious reasons.

 

[Lordran Nights]

Having watched the videos of ER I think this might be an ISTP thing.
For a long time I thought my Dad had Narcissistic Personality Disorder and he ticked a lot of the boxes. He’s always had a massive temper and can’t take criticism of any form or he loses it. Then I learned about MBTI etc and ISTP fits him the best. MBTI descriptions focus on the outdoors and mechanics stuff that ISTPs are good at. But Socionics descriptions highlights the authoritarian, hierarchical side and their need for order. The Socionics nickname for ISTP is “The inspector” and I initially thought someone had made a mistake and should have attributed “Inspector” to ISTJ and “Craftsman” to ISTP, but actually that’s right enough, “Inspector” is an accurate description for ISTP.
I’ve also got an ESFP sister who as narcissistic traits too but her behaviour is slightly different from my Dad’s.
I read a lot of Sam Vaknin’s website. He is someone who identifies himself as a narcissist and there is a lot of video footage of him. I think he’s an ISTP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3PZv0MS7o
His mannerisms are very similar to that of Oscar Pistorius.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMTjJZ3f_bM
And there is a definite similarity between Oscar and Elliot Rodger.
Vladimir Putin looks like ISTP too although I’m not suggesting he’s about to go shoot people. I think his use of logic is impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nWENj8gbYY


I don't know if the fact ER is drinking coffee in the video is significant, but Oscar Pistorius was a caffeine addict. Caffeine does seem to intensify emotions in some people.

 

[Rook]

@Lordran:
Your comparison with ER and OP are interesting.
I have never considered that connection, and will study it further.
I rarely take interest in these cases, but the possibility of these two being similar does intrigue me.
I guess OP also had some sense of self-entitlement.

Will have formed a more cogent opinion after watching the links.

 

[Pyropyro]

Caffeine does seem to intensify emotions in some people.

*Crushes I heart INTP cup with bare hand*

What do you say about Coffee

Seriously though, I don't think he's suffering from a Ti-Ni loop (usually produces constant troublemaking) which is the bane of ISTP's. I think he was suffering from Ti-Si (usually produces social withdrawal/risk aversion) instead.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Jesus Christ why do people have to write posts that are 3000 words?

PhilosophyKing even wrote like 1000 words on how smart and admired he is. I suggest officially declaring him pathetic.

 

[DaviPop]

So if white men are more encouraged than others to feel like they have a right to womens bodies, why are they less likely to be rapists than men of other ethnicities?

#1 - that's largely irrelevant because that attitude is not always expressed through rape
#2 - I feel the need to distinguish that they are the least likely to be convicted of rape than men of other ethnicities

That just makes him a racist asshole. (And pretty stupid.) Doesn't say anything about what our culture tells white men to be.

I mean, sure. Belonging to a majority and the ethnic group with the highest socio-economic status probably makes a person more likely to feel superior to others. Especially if that person has a propensity for such a thing and/or ends up in an environment where that kind of thinking is common. But that isn't really the same thing as saying that all young white men are taught to think that way.

You're contradicting yourself.

It probably isn't. But I bet there is more than one person who thinks they have the right to have sex children too. Or dead people. It doesn't mean our culture somehow subtly encourages people to be pedophiles or necrophiliacs.

Maybe not our culture at large, but our beliefs and values and entire personhood do not happen within a vacuum.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Oh, come on...

But of course evolution plays a part in it. We humans aren't just moldable pieces of clay that can be swayed by every whim of society. There are certain biological characteristics that will affect our behavior. And those characteristics will differ between the genders. Especially where sex is concerned.

Even if you can make the argument that societal pressures caused Elliot Rodgers behavior, that doesn't mean that his reaction to those pressures were in any way normative.

Contrary to the strict Ti mindset, external validation does matter. I'm merely sharing the fact that my thinking ability has been noted by an external party of considerable value. The moment I sense logical weakness is the moment I warn someone that they aren't dealing with a normal person. Simple as that.

Also, are you attempting to tell me that evolution is the basis of Elliot's problems, rather than societal pressures, when I in fact spend the majority of my post (a part of which you quoted) actually making that exact point? LOL... Unless of course you're being general, in which case I fail to see the point of your response.

Then we have nothing to say to each other, because irrationality is part of my perception. You are overly rational. I think rationality is overrated.

Wow. That is insane... how can one so mindlessly forgo and cast off rationality??? I fail to understand on all levels. But yes, you are very correct: I value rationality with the utmost respect. It guides my life like a sharp knife, and I sometimes use it to cut others. And since I am so rational, and you apparently are not, then I suppose our dialogue here is largely pointless. See ya.

Your argument seems to be based on the idea you are INTP and your partner is INTJ. You elevate these MBTI things as proof that you can handle what you are doing. But MBTI is not a proven system yet you want to claim a logical approach.

It's great induction, actually. Do you know what an "inductive" argument is? Given our NT natures, we are highly likely to be unconventional and rational about love and sex, as opposed to mindlessly traditional and emotional. Even if not all NT's are this way, many are. Hence, noting our types does make a difference, as it adds some level of weight to the notion that we are a very unconventional couple (like the philosophers Jean Paul-Sartre and Simon de Beauvoir). We do not often conform to normal standards. In fact, when we've had major relationship issues (MAJOR ones), we've both reacted in ways largely differing from most. When normal guys would go and grab a shotgun and chase some guy down, I just reasoned and understood the situation, calmly. That's not normal.

But anyway, you're irrational. So like you said, there's no point discussing this with you. It makes sense. Take it or leave it.

Sex and love are not rational either. But if you want to insist on pure logic you will, be in for a big surprise down the line.

Love and sex are not rational, but that doesn't mean they must be understood in terms of pure irrationality. One can definitely understand such things from a rational mindset. Simple as that.

You can add in extra partners as much as you like but love and sex are about feelings and subjective experiences, therefore it WILL one day come to haunt you.

This is extremely fallacious reasoning. Of course love and sex are about subjective feelings, but you are failing to make an obvious distinction: namely, that subjective feelings may be handled in an irrational fashion, without some level of rational control, while subjective feelings may be handled in a more rational fashion, with some level of rational control. Hence, the notion that love and sex are about subjective feelings means nothing, as it does not automatically suggest that one is at the mercy of such things. Again, many NT (rationals) are largely capable of controlling how they feel and how often they need sex, and with whom. If this is not the case for you, then I am sorry. But just know that not everyone on this planet is reduced at all times to basic emotional reactions and feelings. I certainly am not, nor is my wife. We think through emotion. Simple as that.

(It's useful here to note a nice philosophical distinction: namely, between first order and second order desires. First order desires are basic wants or needs or impulses -- like the desire to smoke a cigarette or eat chocolate. Second order desires are desires to allow yourself to indulge in your first order desires or not. Hence, first order is to "want a cigarette," while second order it either (a) "allow yourself to want a cigarette" or (b) "do not allow yourself to want a cigarette." Second order desires are either A or B. It's about controlling what happens with your basic impulses. Hence, what you are speaking about is merely first order desires (namely, subjective emotional feelings of love and sex -- in particular, to be loved by only one person without any third members, or to have sex with one or more persons). But at no point are you addressing second order desires: namely, that desire to either control or allow your basic impulses (i.e. subjective feelings). Hence, your point here is completely bankrupt and stupid. It makes no sense and I will not beat around the bush with that fact. Peace.)

Philosophy is not only about logical reasoning.

On the contrary, yes it is. (Actually, the only other thing it's about are "intuitions." Other than that, it is largely mere logical analysis and reasoning. lol)

All your ego-talk about how much you are loved, laughable. Do I really need to address all that, how much you are respected by your teachers? The reference to how great a philosopher you would be...hmpf. Let's just say you are not there yet.

I never said I was loved -- I said I was validated. There's a huge difference. And the point was to convey to you the level to which I am rationally and logically capable. I'm sure you get the point, even if you find my means to be rather abnormal. I really don't care. lol

And I would love an explanation for the notion that I am "not there yet." Surely I am not, but why you would think so is intriguing, as there is very little evidence so far, either way. In fact, you've directly ignored my philosophical attack on your assumptions and conclusions. Walk the walk. Properly defend your own blatant assumptions and conclusions with skill and perhaps I'll take you seriously. Peace.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Contrary to the strict Ti mindset, external validation does matter. I'm merely sharing the fact that my thinking ability has been noted by an external party of considerable value. The moment I sense logical weakness is the moment I warn someone that they aren't dealing with a normal person. Simple as that.

Also, are you attempting to tell me that evolution is the basis of Elliot's problems, rather than societal pressures, when I in fact spend the majority of my post (a part of which you quoted) actually making that exact point? LOL... Unless of course you're being general, in which case I fail to see the point of your response.

Thanks for the cringefest.

 

[Minuend]

Contrary to the strict Ti mindset, external validation does matter. I'm merely sharing the fact that my thinking ability has been noted by an external party of considerable value. The moment I sense logical weakness is the moment I warn someone that they aren't dealing with a normal person. Simple as that.

Erm, you're on intpforum, quite a few (most?) people are on your "level". Some even higher. Valuing your own perspective too highly might also blind you to own weaknesses, and dismiss credit where it's due.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Erm, you're on intpforum, quite a few (most?) people are on your "level". Some even higher.

Not the person to whom I am addressing, though. They made sure of that the moment they first responded. Hence, your point is invalid. (Surely there are far more capable people. Agent Intellect is one, for sure. I do not deny this. It merely has nothing to do with my words. lol)

 

[Cherry Cola]

Not the person to whom I am addressing, though. They made sure of that the moment they first responded. Hence, your point is invalid. (Surely there are far more capable people. Agent Intellect is one, for sure. I do not deny this. It merely has nothing to do with my words. lol)

Someone called you something and you responded with this:

P.S., I am an undergraduate philosophy major at the moment, and I plan on applying for graduate school for philosophy somewhere, next year. One professor said I have a rare talent for philosophy, while another jokingly called me "brilliant," while another spoke of one of my works as "subtle and sophisticated," while another said "your ability denotes a quality school program" and "you have a very great raw material and operate at a much higher level than most undergraduates (including myself at your stage)," while one said I have "philosopher written all over" me (and this last professor actually constantly told everyone my name in class last semester, as he became increasingly obsessed with my philosophical ability). I ended up grading for the last professor last semester, and I also did Supplemental Instruction for the professor who called me "brilliant." I taught students basic ethics, and it was a most rewarding experience (and I may grade for another this summer, as he has asked me to prepare for the task). In sum, most of my professors like me and many have said great things of my ability. I wrote a paper about God recently that many of them liked. In fact, a brilliant young philosophy professor at a website once told me (about three or four years ago) that I should become one. And I have always agreed with him since. He said I had talent for this type of work.

So long story short, my thinking ability is noted by many professors. Take care in responding, as I will carefully scrutinize and attack whatever you say with strong logical skill. Just be warned. I think it is very dubious that your assumptions here actually hold any weight at all. But I suppose I will allow you to try, should you choose. lol --- GOOD LUCK!

 

[Variform]

Wow. That is insane... how can one so mindlessly forgo and cast off rationality??? I fail to understand on all levels. But yes, you are very correct: I value rationality with the utmost respect. It guides my life like a sharp knife, and I sometimes use it to cut others. And since I am so rational, and you apparently are not, then I suppose our dialogue here is largely pointless. See ya.

I am very logical when I want to be. I just don't elevate it above my subjectivity. You like philosophy huh? I am a quantum philosophist :-) You try figure that one out. See if I am a particle or a wave.

Love and sex are not rational, but that doesn't mean they must be understood in terms of pure irrationality. One can definitely understand such things from a rational mindset. Simple as that.

I don't think that works very well. Some things cannot be rationalized because they are antithetical.

On the contrary, yes it is. (Actually, the only other thing it's about are "intuitions." Other than that, it is largely mere logical analysis and reasoning. lol)

Well there is the problem right there and why you, in a few years time, will be working in a dusty office far removed from the real world pondering over these issues. And you'll die in a freak accident, as one of your primary bookcases collapses and a particularly heavy copy of Plato's 'The Republic' hits you on the head. They will find your body only after two weeks, because really, who cares about the philosopher?

I never said I was loved -- I said I was validated.

You really need that, dohn-ya?


And I would love an explanation for the notion that I am "not there yet." Surely I am not, but why you would think so is intriguing, as there is very little evidence so far, either way. In fact, you've directly ignored my philosophical attack on your assumptions and conclusions. Walk the walk. Properly defend your own blatant assumptions and conclusions with skill and perhaps I'll take you seriously. Peace.

No one ought to take me seriously. Dohn-ya-know? I'm crazy. None of what I say can ever be taken truly seriously. Think about that.

 

[Cavallier]

Monogamy versus Polyamory debate (and a possibility of finally differentiating between polyamory and polygamy) has been moved to here.

 

[John_Mann]

I've changed my mind, he was an INTJ.

His Si is a Ni-Fi loop.

 

[Base groove]

I've changed my mind, he was an INTJ.

His Si is a Ni-Fi loop.

Thankyou...

gee whiz

He was an INTJ.