Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

Tanoomba · Sep 12, 2014

Nah. All I chop up are poorly-erected strawmen.

lurkingdirk · Sep 12, 2014

Just to point out the flaw that the others will jump on, you can hold pants in your hand. You can't hold love in your hand.

Unless you call my dick love. You can hold that in your hand anytime.

Phazael · Sep 12, 2014

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
According to Dumar and Antarius the fact that I am 6' makes me at least a 6 right off the bat so I added 0 points for the rest of me!!

I'd bump you up a point for standing in uniform next to R.Lee Ermy at least.

Erronius · Sep 12, 2014

Dumar_sl said:
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.

You say this like you've never had a woman grapefruit you.

Lithose · Sep 12, 2014

Dumar_sl said:
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).

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.

Hmm. (Below conversation from last year)

************************************************** ****************

Lithose_sl said:
Long and short, your reality, is predicated on how your brain interprets signals brought to it by sensory organs. Those signals are reality, for you. In a jar or in your skull, it doesn't matter as long the signals are the same and the rules of the world match.

Dumar_sl said:
With the statements recently, the obvious reductionist influence is obvious.By stating reality issimply justcomposed of sensory inputsand that you actually would prefer your brain in a jar, you're falling very deep into reductionism.

The problem with this position is that it describes reality only by the constituent parts that make up the ability to experience it- it doesn't describe realityas is. It ignores any downward causation of the system: that is, the whole of the system may exert influence on the parts that make up that whole. Reductionism completely ignores this and most emergent properties. For example, if reality is just a collection of inputs, how am I am able to discern, differentiate, and realize that reality may not be a collection of inputs? That's an emergent property of consciousness; it'snota property actualized by the underlying parts that facilitate consciousness itself.

Hmmmmm......

Dumar_sl said:
When I think of that bitch that cheated on me last month with my best friend, and I feel angry and pissed off, what's happening?

Lithose_sl said:
You received a set of signals indicating chemicals were exchanged between two people which you established in your consciousness under certain indicators (Most likely photons interacting with optic nerves, various molecules captured by membranes in your nose and mouth, and stimulation of auditory nerves). This new sensory information altered your perception of the state of your relationships--IE your consciousness. If the sensory stimulation had been sent via Matrix or through the real world, the alteration in your perception would have been net result the same IF the sensory information was the same. Wouldn't it have? (Yes. Yes it would.) Which means your mind did not alter the reality, rather it formed reality based off of sensory input. (And FROM there, the reality can be quite moddable--some guys will hate her, some might forgive ect.)

(There were other arguments also; just illustrating the train of thought by Dumar at the time--that consciousness can affect reality. That there is more to these systems than just chemicals and responses; that consciousness itself has power over those stimuli/responses.)

Dumar_sl said:
When I think of that bitch, there was no stimulibut the thought itself: it is the product of the emergent system, my consciousness, and in turn, this product hasan effecton the apparatuses that cause that very system to emerge, as well as the system, my consciousness. I'm sitting here responding to monkeys hammering away on their keyboards, and I thought of her. And after a few moments of reflection, I'm now pissed off and angry. That's downward causation as defined in philosophy becausemy consciousness and what facilitates it has been affected by my consciousness.

*********************************************

So, this conversation, about a year ago, Dumar argues that there are things beyond stimuli and the neurochemical responses which affect reality. That love, or anger, is, in fact, made up of both stimulianda separate consciousness whichaffectsthe reality of the stimuli. Something that isbeyond being quantifiable.

But today, he's saying that things like love are merely a product of those stimuli and the chemical reactions to them (No long speeches about how consciousness can affect or change them)....Hmm...Didwecause Redpill Dumar? Khalid, I, Zzz, and Hodj were all in that thread.... What havewedone.......Science, what haveyoudone!

Abefroman · Sep 12, 2014

How many fucking people are you going to break Lithose until you are happy?

Haast · Sep 12, 2014

Note to self: never argue with Lithose and his goddamn infinite memory.

Ridas · Sep 12, 2014

With great power, comes great responsibility, Lithose. You cant just run around and win every argument, Lithose. We have feelings too.

Cad · Sep 12, 2014

One thing I learned from Lithose is that regardless of which side he is arguing, Dumar uses philosophy-style words in an unbelievably broad and senseless fashion to where I can't even tell what the fuck he's talking about, and I decipher words for a fucking living.

Lightning Lord Rule · Sep 12, 2014

So on one side, we have Dumar, but on the other side we have:

and

and a guy who was taken in by the Megan Fox of Hooking.

Clearly we should all listen to these guys, they must know everything about getting tons of pussy! I can now throw out all that RP shit and listen to you 3 paragons of manliness.

(Oh, and btw Lithose, I think you're right, I remember linking to Rational Male's SMV chart in that thread last year, or someone did.)

Phazael · Sep 12, 2014

If that last picture is a photo of Suieneg, then he probably is better than a six....

But seriously, who do you think is happier in life, the three of us you just ripped on or Dumar (Senior Member of Cult of the Month Club), Dead Eyes Antman, Trollface ("I am not a virgin! I banged two single moms!"), or even yourself? Clue here: Its not the guy impressing granola girls at starbucks with his vast Marxist manifesto or the dude fisting random women at Walmart packing lots. And its not like we missed out on getting tons of pussy, either. Even my fat ass scored on occasion back in the day, though I did have the advantages of a sense of humor, being a good singer, and (most importantly) not being a complete aspie shut-in who worries if I am ever going to get my dick wet 24/7. This is all I can think of when I read those RP/PUA circle jerks:

This is not a discussion about getting tons of pussy. Its about those three dipshits acting like the concept of treating dumpster fire women like shit to get laid a lot is the neckbeard equivalent of discovering the cure for cancer. The rest of us are more concerned about long term life fulfillment and not being an antisocial pussy hound misogynist who obsesses over being 3" to short or spinning plates. The end game of just getting laid was over for us after our mid 20s. These guys are so overpowered by their own dicks that they have not grown out of it and are rationalizing their antisocial bullshit with this whole pseudoscience cult bullshit that they treat as gospel. It has rendered them so socially inept for the normal world that they apparently find no problem with referring to other people's wives as used up whores.

I guess it is better than roofy raping girls at the bar? Yay RedPill?

But thanks for proving my point about why I posted my pic. It must suck being so insecure that you alpha studs of pure pussy magnetism can't risk putting up your pictures next to my fat ass without feeling self conscious about it.

Dumar_sl · Sep 12, 2014

Absolutely Lith, even myself, with a terrible memory, remember well that conversation and how exhausting it was. Maybe we'll have another, sans hodj.

As I said previously, this is diverging from RP into real philosophy and even linguistics here. With these next posts we'll start getting into word spaghetti dinner.

We have to keep in mindpreciselywhat we're talking about, the specific meanings of words and our topic at hand. I have no doubt that there is some effect from consciousness on our biology and physiology, and you can see my argument for it in the previous quotes. Butconsciousnessis not the same thing asreasoned thought: consciousness is simply awareness, and we cannot conflate the two. I'm consciously thinking of my hotass girlfriend waiting for me at home tonight in sexy lingerie, for example: this produces arousal and amorous feelings, a downward causation from my consciousness to my underlying physiology. No one should disagree with this (well, except Lith and hodj back in the day, pure reductionists!). This isnotthe same thing as merationally making a choice on attractionin my head, deciding my wife is attractive based on reasoned thinking, and that choice therefore then causing limbic arousal, which never, ever happens - ever, in men or women.

We have to be specific and use words appropriately, else it will be a cafeteria of word spaghetti (which will probably happen anyway).

Lightning Lord Rule · Sep 12, 2014

Phazael_sl said:
butthurt

So having identity politics played back on you isn't any fun? Huh, who knew.

As far as your point about playing the field and how it's not fulfilling. I'll tell you what I would find unfulfilling, being a fat guy with a fat wife (your words). I'd rather be forever alone than in that scenario. Presented with the options of:

1. Settling for a fat girl and marrying her
2. Being forever alone
3. Playing the field and trying to get laid occasionally

I choose option 3. You chose option 1, and more power to you if that's what makes you happy. I don't see the need to hate on option one though, if that's your thing, while you see the need to hate on option 3.

Khane · Sep 12, 2014

Dumar_sl said:
Absolutely Lith, even myself, with a terrible memory, remember well that conversation and how exhausting it was. Maybe we'll have another, sans hodj.

As I said previously, this is diverging from RP into real philosophy and even linguistics here. With these next posts we'll start getting into word spaghetti dinner.

We have to keep in mindpreciselywhat we're talking about, the specific meanings of words and our topic at hand. I have no doubt that there is some effect from consciousness on our biology and physiology, and you can see my argument for it in the previous quotes. Butconsciousnessis not the same thing asreasoned thought: consciousness is simply awareness, and we cannot conflate the two. I'm consciously thinking of my hotass girlfriend waiting for me at home tonight in sexy lingerie, for example: this produces arousal and amorous feelings, a downward causation from my consciousness to my underlying physiology. No one should disagree with this (well, except Lith and hodj back in the day, pure reductionists!). This isnotthe same thing as merationally making a choice on attractionin my head, deciding my wife is attractive based on reasoned thinking, and that choice therefore then causing limbic arousal, which never, ever happens - ever, in men or women.

We have to be specific and use words appropriately, else it will be a cafeteria of word spaghetti (which will probably happen anyway).

I believe youthinkyou are a master of rhetoric. You certainly speak in nothing but rhetoric. However, you are so bad at it nobody gives a shit about what you're saying and therefore you persuade no one.

Phazael · Sep 12, 2014

Dumar_sl said:
As I said previously, this is diverging from RP into real philosophy and even linguistics here.

Dumar admitting that RP is bullshit and not real science of any type, in black and white; followed by a paragraph of yarblegarble nonsense words and verbage to make him sound smarter while actually saying nothing.

You are treading into Melrin levels of lack of self awareness. No wonder you think consciousness and reasoned thought are completely separate. You don't even think about what is coming out of your mouth when you type. Sure, I guess if getting your dick in the hole is all you give a shit about you will never feel attraction to someone based on personality or intelligence (among a bunch of non physical criteria for attraction), but those of us who have progressed above the amoeba level of mental evolution do actually respond to and care about that shit.

khalid · Sep 12, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
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.

Nice.

Jim Russel · Sep 12, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
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.

my god, shut up.

Dumar_sl · Sep 12, 2014

Mixing awareness with rationality? Sigh, tomato or meat sauce?!

ZyyzYzzy · Sep 12, 2014

Dumar_sl said:
Absolutely Lith, even myself, with a terrible memory, remember well that conversation and how exhausting it was. Maybe we'll have another, sans hodj.

As I said previously, this is diverging from RP into real philosophy and even linguistics here. With these next posts we'll start getting into word spaghetti dinner.

We have to keep in mindpreciselywhat we're talking about, the specific meanings of words and our topic at hand. I have no doubt that there is some effect from consciousness on our biology and physiology, and you can see my argument for it in the previous quotes. Butconsciousnessis not the same thing asreasoned thought: consciousness is simply awareness, and we cannot conflate the two. I'm consciously thinking of my hotass girlfriend waiting for me at home tonight in sexy lingerie, for example: this produces arousal and amorous feelings, a downward causation from my consciousness to my underlying physiology. No one should disagree with this (well, except Lith and hodj back in the day, pure reductionists!). This isnotthe same thing as merationally making a choice on attractionin my head, deciding my wife is attractive based on reasoned thinking, and that choice therefore then causing limbic arousal, which never, ever happens - ever, in men or women.

We have to be specific and use words appropriately, else it will be a cafeteria of word spaghetti (which will probably happen anyway).

Tell us how love isn't a real thing.

Phazael · Sep 12, 2014

Lightning Lord Rule_sl said:
So having identity politics played back on you isn't any fun? Huh, who knew.

As far as your point about playing the field and how it's not fulfilling. I'll tell you what I would find unfulfilling, being a fat guy with a fat wife (your words). I'd rather be forever alone than in that scenario. Presented with the options of:

1. Settling for a fat girl and marrying her
2. Being forever alone
3. Playing the field and trying to get laid occasionally

I choose option 3. You chose option 1, and more power to you if that's what makes you happy. I don't see the need to hate on option one though, if that's your thing, while you see the need to hate on option 3.

Guess I hit a nerve here, eh? The fact that you consider it settling tells me you don't understand anything outside of the Beavis mindset you are in (there you go, RP crowd a new pseudoscience term you can add to the collection!) go realize that settling had nothing to do with it. I am married because I love my wife and we have tons of hobbies, views, and interests in common. And its great because anytime we want to do something we like to do, we just do it without having to put up some fake bullshit persona that is not who we really are just to go out and troll "damaged goods".

News flash: When you get older and your dick starts to wear out and women your own age stop looking like supermodels, you are going to need a better plan than "work out and treat women like shit to blow my wad tonight" for your life. I get option three (I was there in my late teens and early twenties, myself, fatness and all), but basing a life plan around the basest of animal impulses puts you on the path to be J49 or option 2. Its not that I hate option 3 on your list, its that I find it cringe worthy that this whole subset of Beavis Men are using this relentless need to get laid as an excuse to A) treat normal women like trash and B) justify creating this false persona for themselves. How can you be even remotely surprised that women (even normal ones) are attracted to the real you when you aren't even being the real you? It is antisocial, counter productive, and frankly justifies and institutionalizes this whole subset of damaged people (men AND women) acting the way they do. I was actually trying to be helpful (at least to Antarius) until one of you freaks suggested it was ok to walk up to someone's wife and say she was a used up whore. If the world really operated by the kind of lizard brain caveman shit you guys treat like the word of god, then you would have received an ass beating for even suggesting that as acceptable behavior. Fortunately for the RP Koolaid drinkers, we get to have this spirited debate instead.

Sure I guess if you are rich when you hit old age, you too can take selfies of yourself rubbing your shriveled dick against some girl too young and stupid to even be your grand daughter, like Jerry Jones. Most well adjusted people would not find that fulfilling and very few men are rich enough to have a steady supply of gold digging whores on hand to maintain that lofty goal. I hope your retirement plan is good, because if it isn't you are going to be "settling" for option 2. I plan on dying fat and happy of cholesterol poisoning or alcohol induced kidney failure in the next twenty years knowing that I married my best friend and enjoyed every minute of my life after I "settled".

By the way, when do we get to see what a real alpha he man pussy slayer looks like? I am curious to see this mythical unicorn of manliness and how we all measure up to you guys.

Red Pill Thread 2.0: Neckbeard Revenge

ジョーディーすれいやー

AssHat Taint

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

<WoW Guild Officer>

Buzzfeed Editor

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Lord Nagafen Raider

Pay to play forum

scientia potentia est

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

shitlord

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast

Got something right about marriage

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

Unelected Mod

Lord Nagafen Raider

shitlord

RIP USA

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard