Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,659
31,512
Khane_sl said:
Why are you guys posting pictures of yourselves? I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Don't really care, honestly. The pic was already out there before and I am pretty much the same guy online that I am in person, so I could care less if anyone recognizes me of shoops it. I don't really feel any fear or insecurity in posting it. I understand a lot of people's desire for anonymity on the internet, I just think it is pointless and likely impossible.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
I guess the love we feel for our children is fake too? Or for our parents? A really good friend?
 
Phazael

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,659
31,512
If your child is a daughter, then she is a future used up whore you need to spin and stop from cheating on you. That is the endgame of RP logic, too?
 
Soygen

Soygen

The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
<Nazi Janitors>
28,431
44,760
Phazael_sl said:
If your child is a daughter, then she is a future used up whore you need to spin and stop from cheating on you. That is the endgame of RP logic, too?
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Why do you think the emotion of love doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
Edit - and before Dumar spouts that it isn't real, love can be examined in other mammals too, as all other complex emotions.
Click to expand...
I'll try to explain more precisely using both your own words as examples, if you're so interested (thanks for the examples, btw), which is why I assumed the language you'd use to describe the relationship with your wife in the same manner. However, this is a deep discussion that is really a tangent to RP. This has little to do with RP as a science or methodology; it's different altogether.

The 'emotion of love'is not real. A certain emotion felt at a certain time, certain situation iscalled love, which is a gigantic chasm of a difference.Love doesn't exist: it's a word used to describe a WIDE (stressing wide here) range of hormonal and psychophysiological responses and impulses to a million different types of stimuli.

Moreover, it's used so often in so many places that even any definition is beyond meaningless. I love my wife. I love to fuck sluts. I love my children. I love grandma. I love chocolate. I love WoW (ok, that's one a lie).

So, Dumar? Why is this nuance of definition important?

The problem, is, as in religion, you take that next step, and the very thing or word (god, heaven, love) used as a description for a plethora of wide-ranging, different phenomena (fire, lightning strikes, carnal desire for your wife, your mom, chocolate) is takenas real in and of itself, and is used in reverse, used retroactively, to give reasons for stuff going on in the real world.You cannot do thisif you hope to understand reality as it is.

So you can't say something like: It's because of love that we're together. No. That's a religious statement because you're using a made-up term, mental fluffstuff to give a reason for some occurrence or concrete thing in the real world. The base hormonal and psychological reasons you might be together cansometimesbe called love, but you can't cite love asthe reasonthat something concrete occurs in reality, like staying together. Otherwise, it's analogous to saying 'It's because of god that lightning struck khalid dead.' The term, god, is a made-up mental thing created by us, and you're using that term to describe a concrete event in real life.

This gets our understanding nowhere, as you're going in mental circles. We can't use this lexicon to describe relationships. We have to use real, concrete words with specific meanings if we are hoping for true epiphany, true understanding.

Which, as I said, is one of the fantastic aspects of RP-awareness: the religious vocabulary falls away.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,720
9,081
Dumar_sl said:
I'll try to explain more precisely using both your own words as examples, if you're so interested (thanks for the examples, btw), which is why I assumed the language you'd use to describe the relationship with your wife in the same manner. However, this is a deep discussion that is really a tangent to RP. This has little to do with RP as a science or methodology; it's different altogether.

The 'emotion of love'is not real. A certain emotion felt at a certain time, certain situation iscalled love, which is a gigantic chasm of a difference.Love doesn't exist: it's a word used to describe a WIDE (stressing wide here) range of hormonal and psychophysiological responses and impulses to a million different types of stimuli.

Moreover, it's used so often in so many places that even any definition is beyond meaningless. I love my wife. I love to fuck sluts. I love my children. I love grandma. I love chocolate. I love WoW (ok, that's one a lie).

So, Dumar? Why is this nuance of definition important?

The problem, is, as in religion, you take that next step, and the very thing or word (god, heaven, love) used as a description for a plethora of wide-ranging, different phenomena (fire, lightning strikes, carnal desire for your wife, your mom, chocolate) is takenas real in and of itself, and is used in reverse, used retroactively, to give reasons for stuff going on in the real world.You cannot do thisif you hope to understand reality as it is.

So you can't say something like: It's because of love that we're together. No. That's a religious statement because you're using a made-up term, mental fluffstuff to give a reason for some occurrence or concrete thing in the real world. The base hormonal and psychological reasons you might be together cansometimesbe called love, but you can't cite love asthe reasonthat something concrete occurs in reality, like staying together. Otherwise, it's analogous to saying 'It's because of god that lightning struck khalid dead.' The term, god, is a made-up mental thing created by us, and you're using that term to describe a concrete event in real life.

This gets our understanding nowhere, as you're going in mental circles. We can't use this lexicon to describe relationships. We have to use real, concrete words with specific meanings if we are hoping for true epiphany, true understanding.

Which, as I said, is one of the fantastic aspects of RP-awareness: the religious vocabulary falls away.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you're talking about. Post your picture
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
I love how he tries to paint us as the religious fanatics in all this. It is pretty hilariously transparent. Is that part of the "RP script", or something Dumar came up with on his own?
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Dumar_sl said:
I'll try to explain more precisely using both your own words as examples, if you're so interested (thanks for the examples, btw), which is why I assumed the language you'd use to describe the relationship with your wife in the same manner. However, this is a deep discussion that is really a tangent to RP. This has little to do with RP as a science or methodology; it's different altogether.

The 'emotion of love'is not real. A certain emotion felt at a certain time, certain situation iscalled love, which is a gigantic chasm of a difference.Love doesn't exist: it's a word used to describe a WIDE (stressing wide here) range of hormonal and psychophysiological responses and impulses to a million different types of stimuli.

Moreover, it's used so often in so many places that even any definition is beyond meaningless. I love my wife. I love to fuck sluts. I love my children. I love grandma. I love chocolate. I love WoW (ok, that's one a lie).

So, Dumar? Why is this nuance of definition important?

The problem, is, as in religion, you take that next step, and the very thing or word (god, heaven, love) used as a description for a plethora of wide-ranging, different phenomena (fire, lightning strikes, carnal desire for your wife, your mom, chocolate) is takenas real in and of itself, and is used in reverse, used retroactively, to give reasons for stuff going on in the real world.You cannot do thisif you hope to understand reality as it is.

So you can't say something like: It's because of love that we're together. No. That's a religious statement because you're using a made-up term, mental fluffstuff to give a reason for some occurrence or concrete thing in the real world. The base hormonal and psychological reasons you might be together cansometimesbe called love, but you can't cite love asthe reasonthat something concrete occurs in reality, like staying together. Otherwise, it's analogous to saying 'It's because of god that lightning struck khalid dead.' The term, god, is a made-up mental thing created by us, and you're using that term to describe a concrete event in real life.

This gets our understanding nowhere, as you're going in mental circles. We can't use this lexicon to describe relationships. We have to use real, concrete words with specific meanings if we are hoping for true epiphany, true understanding.

Which, as I said, is one of the fantastic aspects of RP-awareness: the religious vocabulary falls away.
Click to expand...
Except you know, love can be and is observed on the neurological level and has been important evolutionary.

Just because (as stated 100 times before) you are autistic as fuck, these complex social and neurological phenomena do in fact exist.
 
Caeden

Caeden

Golden Baronet of the Realm
7,579
12,532
Explain oxytocin effected relationships. That. That is love.

In the end, I'm starting to realize successful guys don't get this because it seems like common sense. I've been dating this girl for 6 months. I can tell you unequivocally when she's ovulating. She practically rips my clothes off during that time. So either I'm still her alpha or what? We still fuck twice a day on weekends at times.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
I've got some bad news for you guys:

"Pants" are not real. A certain article of clothing worn at certain periods of time in certain situations is called "pants", which is a gigantic chasm of a difference. Pants don't exist, it's a word used to describe a wide range of pairs of joined fabric tubes, as well as underwear in other cultures and also what a dog does when he's hot.

Moreover, it's used so often in so many places that even any definition is beyond meaningless. My slacks are pants. My trousers are pants. My jeans are pants. I wear pants in public. I wear pants in private. I wash some pants in the washing machine. I dry clean some pants. Some pants are "dress pants". Some pants are "casual". Some pants are expensive and only worn on special occasions. Some pants are paint-stained and worn when renovating.

So, Tanoomba? Why is this nuance of definition important?

The problem, is, as in religion, you take that next step, and the very thing or word ("cheese", "eyebrows", "pants") used as a description for a plethora of wide-ranging, different phenomena (what you wear, what you buy, what you wash, what you coordinate with your shirt) is taken as real in and of itself, and is used in reverse, used retroactively, to give descriptions of things being worn in the real world. You cannot do this if you hope to understand reality as it is.

So you can't say something like: "These pants are really comfortable." No. No! Bad boy. Bad! That's a religious statement because you're using a made-up term, mental fluffstuff to express a concrete level of comfort experienced in the real world. The fabric and how it's stitched may sometimes be referred to as "comfortable", but you can't cite "pants" as the reason that you are experiencing comfort in reality. Otherwise, it's analogous to saying 'It's because of cheese that my uncle's arteries are clogged.' The term "cheese" is a made-up mental thing created by us, and you're using that term to describe a concrete event in real life.

This gets our understanding nowhere, as you're going in mental circles. We can't use this lexicon to describe what we wear. We have to use real, concrete words with specific meanings if we are hoping for true epiphany, true understanding.
 
Pasteton

Pasteton

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,733
1,918
I consider Antarius and tanoomba/aamina (same person?) as two opposite extremes. Which is worse/more annoying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.