A Forever Alone Dude kills 7 girls and himself and posted a bunch of creepy videos

I just watched a Sam Harris lecture where he touched upon free will and sociopaths and other good stuff.

One thing he said was, essentially, "I am lucky that I don't have sociopathic thoughts or desires...Ultimately, I can't take credit for not being a sociopath."

i guess his videos are now set to private. =/

Men will happily shag down. Women will only shag at their level or upwards. Once you understand this, you'll understand war, Islamic fundamentalism and every maggot cocked loser's fucking and fighting revenge fantasy.

So carrying on with that logic then, pity fucks are a myth. ... I don't usually read this thread but when i do it's to see what kakapo has to say in it.

  On 5/27/2014 at 12:13 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 5/27/2014 at 11:34 AM, kakapo said:

Men will happily shag down. Women will only shag at their level or upwards.

sexist nonsense. if you're merely being jockular I'll look the other way but I hope you don't think this is some sort of universal truth or something.

It's a generalisation rather than universal truth, but I think it rings true.

don't know what this "level" thing is you're on about

everyone does the level thing. it's a social illness.

women - don't make any sense

amirite?

epic lol

lel

no

there are two kinds of guys *edit* people

assholes

not assholes

this level thing you speak of is just for guys

hence the whole "ooh she's a 7 and a half" type talk

what does the text in your signature say, chaos? is it a cool poem? i bet it's a cool poem

nice topic change Foil, it's part of a long mantra to the Goddess Devi this part means the following:

"To you who defeated the negative qualities

of excess and sparseness,
Giver of the blessings of the creative capacity,
We bow to you
Grant us your form, Grant us victory,
Grant us welfare, remove all hostility"

http://www.adishakti.org/forum/devi_the_mother_goddess_who_resides_within_the_divine_essence_of_every_being_10-28-2004.htm

Now that is scientific fact—there's no real evidence for it—but it is scientific fact

All this talk about sex being overrated makes me feel very special because I find it the greatest thing about being alive. I'm that superficial.

Ok, he was a psychopath imbecil. Someone was definitely right about attractiveness not being in a vacuum. After reading about the guy, I get how much of a paranoid, sexist, chauvinistic, full of himself prick he was. He was being treated with strong medication for years. But I get that him being a full time idiot didn't attract other people.

  On 5/27/2014 at 1:53 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 5/27/2014 at 12:54 PM, kakapo said:

 

  On 5/27/2014 at 12:13 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 5/27/2014 at 11:34 AM, kakapo said:

Men will happily shag down. Women will only shag at their level or upwards.

sexist nonsense. if you're merely being jockular I'll look the other way but I hope you don't think this is some sort of universal truth or something.

It's a generalisation rather than universal truth, but I think it rings true.

the problem with generalisations is that they exclude the people that don't fit into the thing you're asserting which renders the whole thing moot in the first place. by all means, add 'generally speaking' to negate this, but be prepared to defend yourself.

 

There is no problem with generalizations when talking about things generally. And generally it is instinctively beholden upon the female of the species to find the best available mate. Human females being from the class of higher order social animals, are also aware of their own status, therefore they will make that judgement over the fitness of a potential mate in the context of their own social standing. Anecdotally proving this, if one is to visit areas inhabited by those of a lower socio-economic class, you'll hearteningly find that fitter birds than the baseline (or is that ceiling) of your area, will make themselves open and available to that reasonably dressed gentleman that doesn't talk through a thick drawling brogue. heeh.

i blame Freud

  On 5/27/2014 at 12:54 PM, kakapo said:

 

  On 5/27/2014 at 12:13 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 5/27/2014 at 11:34 AM, kakapo said:

Men will happily shag down. Women will only shag at their level or upwards.

sexist nonsense. if you're merely being jockular I'll look the other way but I hope you don't think this is some sort of universal truth or something.

It's a generalisation rather than universal truth, but I think it rings true.

As MadameChaos and others kind of stated, yah HWAT IS LEVELS?!

Fucking bullshit bullshit, that only applies if you believe in it. If some hobag comes to you like, "Ahahaha, fuck you, you don't make enough money for me and you ugly and you dunno who I know", just be like, "AHAHAHAHAHA!!!" then fucking zoom off in your 1985 white Lamborghini Countach, peaking on DMT and Salvia Divinorum. That hobag bitch don't know shit about dancing with the IDM Lazer Tribe from 50,000 BC in 7 simultaneous dimensions in that massive wheel of destiny, controlling every particle of Existence itself by mere Consciousness and telepathy with Greys at 180 MPH in the autobahn of Jupiter.

“Sicknesses, especially those affecting nerves and head, are signs that the defensive strength of the strong natures is lacking; precisely this is suggested by irritability, so pleasure and displeasure become foreground problems.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

''LOL''

- Arthur Schopenhauer

"I like to put on hardcore when I have to clean my apartment, which I hate to do, but it's motivational. I like old heavy metal when I'm outside working on my car. Music has definite functions for me."

- freud

Not shagging down is a perfectly sensible thing to do, not sure why you think I'm suggesting (some/most/all/no) women are thick for acting like this.

I'm confused Madame, are you suggesting women don't make value judgements about (potential)sexual partners? It may not be as louche as a decimal scale, but come on.

The internet has done something strange to human discourse. Unless you have a legion of peer reviewed papers under your arm, you're a troll out to undermine the sincerely held beliefs of everyone else in the universe, and indeed the very fabric of their self.

This isn't the New Scientist, it's ok to talk in generalisations and anecdote.

As an Alpha male with several analogue and modular synths and a large idm record collection, I have no problem with this status quo as I'm at the top of the pyramid with the largest possible selection of mates. I do feel sorry for those males below me though.

you keep telling yourself about the levels thing, it's obvious some people need it to prop themselves up with (not that you do necessarily).

it's far easier to judge yourself on worldly possessions and social status than to actually consider if you are a decent human being.

i think this is exactly the problem the young man in question had.

  On 5/27/2014 at 2:20 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

EDIT: talking to delet not peace

 

bollocks mate. digging yourself a hole here IMO. I wouldn't make generalisations unless I had experienced the world and the people in it outside of my own sheltered westernised society. it's simply not my place to assume I know what 51% of the population is up to in a generalised sense. if I was going to make assumptions about music production or something a bit closer to home, different story. but when it comes to an entire group of people who are all involved in different lifestyles, interests, occupations, etc it's a little broad for my tastes.

When we say that humans love, are interested in love and are moved to love. These are all generalizations, but you would agree that love cuts across all 'lifestyles, interests, occupations etc' irrespective of the fact that some small percentage of each demographic may be sociopathic or such an egoist that love is not something which inhabits their being. Still though, in general love is part of the human condition, it effects all of us fleshbags. So to do matters of sexual selection, people can't think away what is innate to their very being, all they can do is think of justifications that overlap the underlying motivations behind their actions, as a salve to protect their egos, sense of fair play. For example, "oh he wasn't right for me because of blahdeeblah" and so on and so forth.

Sure peace there are those of us that hopefully live outside these boundaries, or think that we are in any case. Whether or not this is a deterministic leash luckily none of this troubles me because i'm not in the mate finding business.

  On 5/27/2014 at 2:29 PM, Friendly Foil said:

"I like to put on hardcore when I have to clean my apartment, which I hate to do, but it's motivational. I like old heavy metal when I'm outside working on my car. Music has definite functions for me."

- freud

lol

  On 5/27/2014 at 2:35 PM, MadameChaos said:

you keep telling yourself about the levels thing, it's obvious some people need it to prop themselves up with (not that you do necessarily).

 

it's far easier to judge yourself on worldly possessions and social status than to actually consider if you are a decent human being.

 

i think this is exactly the problem the young man in question had.

Not all men and women use the same yardstick so to speak, that would be a generalisation too far.

  On 5/27/2014 at 2:39 PM, kakapo said:

 

  On 5/27/2014 at 2:35 PM, MadameChaos said:

you keep telling yourself about the levels thing, it's obvious some people need it to prop themselves up with (not that you do necessarily).

 

it's far easier to judge yourself on worldly possessions and social status than to actually consider if you are a decent human being.

 

i think this is exactly the problem the young man in question had.

Not all men and women use the same yardstick so to speak, that would be a generalisation too far.

 

madame, the criteria by which you judge 'a decent human being' are also quantifiable and so gradeable. To paraphrase kakapo said, what is so frightening about understanding our nature, it's not wrong or right, it just is?

the difference here is judging someone by what they are rather than what they have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza