Conditioning bitches

[MoreThanSmooth]

To be fair, it's not simply a case of playing to the "indoctrinations" of others here. A lot of Spidah's ideals in these threads are fundamentally obnoxious.

"Women should be treated like shyt" for example.

How would you feel if a woman started a thread saying "Guy's aren't worth shyt and should be treated like it"? I would find that both dumb and offensive.

If your ideals were conducive to treating females like humans, I'd be more open to them. But I'd rather be a "beta troll" than the kind of guy that just sees women as walking holes that can be trained like dogs.

I've had some fantastic experiences with women that didn't just involve sex. They have much more to offer than just that.

It's the same attitude Richard has when he can't understand how to talk to a woman at a party or why she doesn't want to just hop on his d*ck, only difference is you're not paying for it when you do get it.

 

[Spidah]

@Amante Silvestre : Agree with all you wrote except the insinuation (as I read it) that worthy women cannot be conditioned. Most hot women have been been socially conditioned/trained to exhibit poor behavior--and even worse rewarded for such behavior. Worthy women can be forged into troopers through boundaries, emotional connects, and giving value a/k/a feeding their needs

@Spidah: You have valid points. The delivery is where you lose the audience. Temperance of the message is a powerful instrument that opens the floodgates to a message worth hearing. You can encourage "murder" or "self-defense and assertion." Same act, different interpretation.

We don't walk into a monastery and tell monks to start fvcking. Instead, we play to their social indoctrination and use their indoctrination to serve our agenda. For example, we might tell a monk: "You serve God correct? Why do you think God gave you the ability to procreate and give life. By belying your God-given carnal desire, you are betraying God's ultimate intent, the purpose of creation and perpetuity of life."<<==This would be much more effective than telling monks, "Hey, start fvcking, because it works."

Play to the audience's needs and indoctrinated ideals, and your message becomes powerful, rather than undermined. Unless, this is strictly entertainment.

Legit points my man.

But my advice is only for aspiring alpha males. Dudes who flip out over my posts are too weak to ever be alpha males anyway.

Grown ass men shouldn't be acting so bitchy. I expect that shyt from females.

 

[guru1000]

"Women should be treated like shyt" for example.

This knee-jerk reflex you experience to this quote is part of your indoctrination. In an alternate society where it would be deemed respectful to treat other's like shlt, this statement would be rewarded, not undermined.

All your views are indoctrinated.

Right and wrong are simply social perceptions. If he were for example to write: "Treat others as they treat you," it would be more socially acceptable as it resonates with current constructs. It's behooves you to look at the biases of your current interpretations.

 

[CBear]

Legit points my man.

But my advice is only for aspiring alpha males. Dudes who flip out over my posts are too weak to ever be alpha males anyway.

Grown ass men shouldn't be acting so bitchy. I expect that shyt from females.

Who's bytching here besides you?

My ONLY problem is that you're calling yourself an "alpha" and others a "beta" for trying to debate a topic or letting their opinions known instead of staying calm like a true "alpha" would lol. If people are talking sht about you, disregard them for not taking your "advice" and move on.

But guru is right, you're delivery is way off due your attitude and this alpha/beta mindset where you have to sht on others for not agreeing with you and it makes people disregard any of you're "advice". It changes the entire message. Work on that and people will take you more seriously. That's MY advice.

It's easy to put people down behind a computer monitor but if you met half these guys that you call beta in real life, there is absolutely no doubt that you'd keep your mouth shut and your tail tucked between your legs but if you want to keep going, be my guest, just proves how tough you are with a keyboard.

 

[guru1000]

I took the liberty of operating within SoSuave constructs and replacing the "knee-jerk" words. Here's Spidah's message :

Gentlemen, to get more success with ladies you need to cultivate the art of conditioning women to how you want to be treated. Most of you don't know how to be fluid in how you operate with women. You won't find all smooth sailing with any woman. Because all women operate by emotion, they'll act up sometimes and you will have to learn to lead them by setting boundaries.

Gents, don't NEXT women for nonsense. Being a man means molding women to the way YOU want to be treated until they understand your boundaries. Most women have potential. They just need a strong man to defer to. Emotionally-weaker males don't have that strength, as they take whatever they can get, go home, and are accepting of any treatment, letting these women dominate them. That's why DJs get the women of their choice, because they aren't afraid of women, ready and able to set boundaries, and will walk away from women who do not merit their boundaries.

Gents, this is how you test for quality too. A low quality woman will not defer to your boundaries. That's how you ascertain her femininity. The type of women who wants to run the show and disrespect you, you walk away from. Feminine women will defer to you when lead them and will gladly defer to your boundaries. Watch the quality of your plates rise accordingly.

So the women who act feminine and show respect are your queens. Be good to them and don't play them. No need to. Give them respect and fuk them right.

All other women merit neither your time nor attention. Enjoy.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

It all goes back to conditioning

Which you don't do.

You're just delusional or you talk to retarded girls.

 

[MoreThanSmooth]

This knee-jerk reflex you experience to this quote is part of your indoctrination. In an alternate society where it would be deemed respectful to treat other's like shlt, this statement would be rewarded, not undermined.

All your views are indoctrinated.

Right and wrong are simply social perceptions. If he were for example to write: "Treat others as they treat you," it would be more socially acceptable as it resonates with current constructs. It's behooves you to look at the biases of your current interpretations.

The reason moralism and altruism is ingrained in society is because it's ingrained in humans by their very nature. We are social animals designed to co-operate and look out for each other.

Psychopathic behaviour in which you treat others like s**t all the time isn't merely culturally inappropriate, it's just straight up unpleasant. And I don't think it's something anyone should aspire to.

Imagine you murdered a kid for cash. Would you feel bad? Of course. Is that because it's been indoctrinated into you by society, or because that action is totally repulsive by it's very nature? The latter, almost certainly.

There's more to morality than simple cultural mores. If everyone around me agreed murder was a great idea, I would still fundamentally disagree with them.

I'm not saying you can't be firm with people who are trying to screw you over or disempower you, but there's a big difference between that and mimicking the actions of a psychopath with an empathy defect. Which is what Spidah is encouraging.

 

[guru1000]

Going off on a tangent, but still relevant. Let's use your following extreme example, and perhaps it may expand your awareness.

Imagine you murdered a kid for cash. Would you feel bad? Of course. Is that because it's been indoctrinated into you by society, or because that action is totally repulsive by it's very nature? The latter, almost certainly.

Under current constructs, it is perceived that our present existence on Earth is the end-all, and the act of stripping one from this existential plane is a morally-corrupt act committed only by the morally-bankrupt. This is true ONLY in accordance with our perception of reality.

However, IF society viewed our Earthly existence as the "hell" plane, and upon death we graduate to "life" a/k/a the heaven plane, then our existence taken away from this plane would be construed as a blessing, and you would be morally corrupt by abandoning others in "hell" and not to "life."

Let's look at the words used as social anchors that shape the audience's interpretation:

"Murdered": This is socially-construed as an evil act.
"Murdered a kid for cash": Now you are representing an evil act upon an innocent for an evil purpose, money.

In the alternate reality described above, if one said: "provided a blessing by assisting a child leave hell and go to heaven," we would not understand the sentence in the same manner in which we interpret your sentence in the here and now.

For those who don't quite understand the above yet, this is not to be confused with enabling murder in our current interpretation of "reality," but simply using your extreme example, a hyperbole, to explore the biases in our interpretation and how present social indoctrination and biases give meaning to those words.

As for Spidah, if you surrender your biases and read the message, you get Post 28. Big distinction in deferring to biases there and a message.

 

[MoreThanSmooth]

Under current constructs, it is perceived that our present existence on Earth is the end-all, and the act of stripping one from this existential plane is a morally-corrupt act committed only by the morally-bankrupt. This is true ONLY in accordance with our perception of reality.

However, IF society viewed our Earthly existence as the "hell" plane, and upon death we graduate to "life" a/k/a the heaven plane, then our existence taken away from this plane would be construed as a blessing, and you would be morally corrupt by abandoning others in "hell" and not to "life."

Let's look at the words used as social anchors that shape the audience's interpretation:

"Murdered": This is socially-construed as an evil act.
"Murdered a kid for cash": Now you are representing an evil act upon an innocent for an evil purpose, money.

In the alternate reality described above, if one said: "provided a blessing by assisting a child leave hell and go to heaven," we would not understand the sentence in the same manner in which we interpret your sentence in the here and now.

For those who don't quite understand the above yet, this is not to be confused with enabling murder in our current interpretation of "reality," but simply using your extreme example, a hyperbole, to explore the biases in our interpretation and how present social indoctrination and biases give meaning to those words.

As for Spidah, if you surrender your biases and read the message, you get Post 28. Big distinction in deferring to biases there and a message.

Sorry Guru, I can't really follow your reasoning here. This is basically shifting the goalposts to excuse morally dubious behaviour, under the guise of "social constructs" and differences of perspective.

I'm going to follow this tangent a little further because I think it's important, even if it's not the original thread topic.

If something is widely considered immoral, it's usually for a sensible reason, not merely a perception problem of people who are short sighted.

Killing causes initial suffering to the victim. It also removes their ability to do anything else in this plane of reality, ever...this is not in doubt. This is REALITY, not "a reality", it is ACTUAL reality.

You have taken away the remaining natural years of their life. It also causes loss to the family of the victim, who will never see or be able to interact that person again.

Tell someone who's father was murdered that "Hey kid, maybe he's just ascended to another plane of reality, chin up. Change your social perspective!" will not be received well.

This is because the negative effects of an immoral action (in this case killing) are not social constructs or just matters of perception - these are real consequences experienced in reality due to an action. Hence humans have largely decided killing is wrong because of the tangible, horrible effects it has on others. Killing has been labelled with the pejorative, emotive term "murder" because:

1. It's a legal definition of taking another's life
2. There is a collective distaste for the sadism and cruelty inherent in taking another's life, especially the defenceless.

If I steal all your money, and then rationalise that in another reality money causes cancer...that does not mean stealing all your money is without consequence or a fine thing to do.

Sorry, I was "assisting you in the unburdening of your material assets so that you may ascend to a higher plane of understanding." Bulls**t, isn't it?

The laws or reality around us are physical and immutable, and morality is a mechanism to more fairly balance the real consequences of actions carried out in the reality we live in.

 

[guru1000]

Sorry Guru, I can't really follow your reasoning here. This is basically shifting the goalposts to excuse morally dubious behaviour, under the guise of "social constructs" and differences of perspective.

I'm going to follow this tangent a little further because I think it's important, even if it's not the original thread topic.

If something is widely considered immoral, it's usually for a sensible reason, not merely a perception problem of people who are short sighted.

Killing causes initial suffering to the victim. It also removes their ability to do anything else in this plane of reality, ever...this is not in doubt. This is REALITY, not "a reality", it is ACTUAL reality.

"Suffering" is, again, a socially-contrived word which carries a negative connotation. However, it is well settled among some that "challenge" is a prerequisite to evolve, and your purpose in corporeal form is to evolve, and thus by avoiding challenge (that was necessary for you specifically), you belie your carnal purpose.

Again interpretation.

The rest of your post rests on the present interpretation of reality of "death" being "death," as opposed to "death" being "life," thus is moot in the context of the discussion. Although religion tries to rationalize and distinguish "good" from "bad," religion fails miserably in the objective face that if the "Universe" were good, how could it enable "bad" ?? The logic some have transcended to IS there is no "bad," as "bad" events are socially-contrived concepts necessary to experience, evolve, and to be ultimately "good."

You're still young. Much of this will not resonate with you for a while, if ever, and that OK. It would take many challenges in one's life and a willingness to be fluid by interpretation to truly understand this.

What's important here is for you to understand two things:

1) You interpret words through socially-indoctrinated lens. You have done this;

2) Trying to censure someone will only incite him to continue. If you want to add to the discussion, reward the positive nuggets with suggestions for the "negative." You haven't done this.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

Going off on a tangent, but still relevant. Let's use your following extreme example, and perhaps it may expand your awareness.


Under current constructs, it is perceived that our present existence on Earth is the end-all, and the act of stripping one from this existential plane is a morally-corrupt act committed only by the morally-bankrupt. This is true ONLY in accordance with our perception of reality.

However, IF society viewed our Earthly existence as the "hell" plane, and upon death we graduate to "life" a/k/a the heaven plane, then our existence taken away from this plane would be construed as a blessing, and you would be morally corrupt by abandoning others in "hell" and not to "life."

Let's look at the words used as social anchors that shape the audience's interpretation:

"Murdered": This is socially-construed as an evil act.
"Murdered a kid for cash": Now you are representing an evil act upon an innocent for an evil purpose, money.

In the alternate reality described above, if one said: "provided a blessing by assisting a child leave hell and go to heaven," we would not understand the sentence in the same manner in which we interpret your sentence in the here and now.

For those who don't quite understand the above yet, this is not to be confused with enabling murder in our current interpretation of "reality," but simply using your extreme example, a hyperbole, to explore the biases in our interpretation and how present social indoctrination and biases give meaning to those words.

As for Spidah, if you surrender your biases and read the message, you get Post 28. Big distinction in deferring to biases there and a message.

Maybe the experience of life on Earth is different for different people.

A multimillionaire playboy who fvcks supermodels every day might consider it heaven.

A person who became a quadriplegic and spent his entire life in a wheelchair needing constant care paralyzed from neck down might consider it hell. (PS: I broke my neck when I was younger and am very lucky not to be a quadriplegic. I got out of it with just partial paralysis of my left hand and sensory loss on my right half, for anyone who cares to know that if you didn't already).

There has never been any afterlife that is proven, and I'm 99.99999% positive that it's been disproven and that we are objectively no more "special" than the atoms that make up our body, which will rot back into the Earth when we die.

 

[flowtheory]

There has never been any afterlife that is proven, and I'm 99.99999% positive that it's been disproven and that we are objectively no more "special" than the atoms that make up our body, which will rot back into the Earth when we die.

It’s been disproven hey?

 

[guru1000]

There has never been any afterlife that is proven, and I'm 99.99999% positive that it's been disproven and that we are objectively no more "special" than the atoms that make up our body, which will rot back into the Earth when we die.

4,500+ accounts of testimonial evidence demonstrating consciousness exists beyond “death”—vs.—zero accounts contrariwise.

http://www.nderf.org/Archives/NDERF_NDEs.html

In arguendo, even if you could successfully refute 4500+ testimonies, there is zero embodying evidence demonstrating that consciousness collapses at "death."

 

[MoreThanSmooth]

4,500+ accounts of testimonial evidence demonstrating consciousness exists beyond “death”—vs.—zero accounts contrariwise.

http://www.nderf.org/Archives/NDERF_NDEs.html

In arguendo, even if you could successfully refute 4500+ testimonies, there is zero embodying evidence demonstrating that consciousness collapses at "death."

Actually, I'm fairly sure there's way more than "zero" evidence saying consciousness collapses at death, because there are tons of people that say they saw nothing at all and simply lost all their senses for a few minutes or whatever, like a jump forward in time.

Only the other week I was reading about a British Marine who was shot in the torso by a Taliban sniper. He nearly bled out and he said he wasn't scared of death because "It was like falling asleep, and I remember nothing at all but black after my eyes closed." Once he woke up he was in a hospital and didn't remember any of the time after passing out.

Not saying I dispute the near-death-experience visions. There is a particularly fascinating case documented by a neuroscientist's personal NDE. But to say there is no other evidence against it is a bit disingenous here.

"Since I have recovered from the surgery and the coma, I have had some experiences with communication from the other side. Now that I know that the spirits are there, I have had communication with my father. I have seen some spirits come through who want to communicate to others through me. Most of the time, they just want to comfort the one who has lost a loved one. They want to let them know they are in a great place. "

Quote from the site there. Stuff like this makes me doubt the authenticity of some of these claims. I can buy her original experience, but claiming she can now talk to spirits afterwards? Err, yeah, okay...

 

[guru1000]

Actually, I'm fairly sure there's way more than "zero" evidence saying consciousness collapses at death, because there are tons of people that say they saw nothing at all and simply lost all their senses for a few minutes or whatever, like a jump forward in time.

Only the other week I was reading about a British Marine who was shot in the torso by a Taliban sniper. He nearly bled out and he said he wasn't scared of death because "It was like falling asleep, and I remember nothing at all but black after my eyes closed." Once he woke up he was in a hospital and didn't remember any of the time after passing out.

If he remembered nothing but black that means he remembered black and thus was conscious. If he were alive at that time of remembering black, and could not remember when he was legally dead, that does not negate "consciousness after death" anymore than saying "I didn't dream because I can't remember it."

"Since I have recovered from the surgery and the coma, I have had some experiences with communication from the other side. Now that I know that the spirits are there, I have had communication with my father. I have seen some spirits come through who want to communicate to others through me. Most of the time, they just want to comfort the one who has lost a loved one. They want to let them know they are in a great place. "

Quote from the site there. Stuff like this makes me doubt the authenticity of some of these claims. I can buy her original experience, but claiming she can now talk to spirits afterwards? Err, yeah, okay...

Some of it is out there, I agree. In some stories, consciousness was specific and detailed, while clinically dead: https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence/people-have-ndes-while-brain-dead.html

 

[Macaframalama]

I took the liberty of operating within SoSuave constructs and replacing the "knee-jerk" words. Here's Spidah's message :

Yea, I called the autistic angle. It's like the kid reads a chapter of The Rational Male and comes back trying to put it in his own uneducated words, with a bravado spin on it. It reads like if autistic rapper Chief Keef would have written TRM.

 

[Spidah]

I'm not saying you can't be firm with people who are trying to screw you over or disempower you, but there's a big difference between that and mimicking the actions of a psychopath with an empathy defect. Which is what Spidah is encouraging.

Stop being a damn drama queen. Ain't nothing I said psychopathic. Said treat trifling bitches the same way they treat weak ass beta males. Lie, cheat, flake, ghost, and ignore. Ain't nobody talking about no violence or killing. Chill the fuk out.

Your ass is too concerned about what's good for bitches. Beta male shyt.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Stop being a damn drama queen. Ain't nothing I said psychopathic. Said treat trifling bitches the same way they treat weak ass beta males. Lie, cheat, flake, ghost, and ignore. Ain't nobody talking about no violence or killing. Chill the fuk out.

Your ass is too concerned about what's good for bitches. Beta male shyt.

100. They need to be treated like that.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

100. They need to be treated like that.

Sometimes it helps them grow as people . They receive the same kharma they dish.

 

[guru1000]

Ain't nobody talking about no violence or killing.

And even then ... pshhh.