German FKK Clubs - Lounge and chat area

[Pistons]

No one cares about free will versus determinism arguments because it is not a pragmatic topic. They will always lead to a nihilistic end.

Let me just expand on this one:

1. I just pointed to how the deterministic approach was pragmatic in my response to Neurosynth above.

2. Regarding the nihilistic end, it depends on what you mean by that. But assuming you mean that I will find the results I want to seek out, then you are wrong. Because that is why Popper says what he says: In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.

So we test the hypothesis. In other words, the scientific approach. Before they are tested, they are only assumptions. But of course, if you take an assumption for a fact, then it can be nihilistic.

But you can always have these puppeteers, or octopuses who tries to distort our views. Due to their power over us. I must add that this power to act as a puppeteer (or octopus) is not a choice they take, but a result of the medium they have been put into. Examples of such octopuses who distorts our views, are all forms of mass media. And all forms of cult hierarchy and leaders. And that is a very wide distinction.

A problem just arises with all of this we call 'conspiracy theories'. Because they cannot 100% be falsified. So we cannot be 100% sure about them. They are assumptions. But given the Machiavellian theory on secrecy, the entire state apparatus forces these ideas forth. And they have their own merits too. As a criticism of the Machiavellian approach. Which I honestly think was a joke to begin with.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...elli-all-wrong

P.S: I would not vote for Donald Trump. But he is smart in the way that he does not allways make his stance so obvious at first hands. While many other politicians make their stance on trade and international organizations clear way in advance. Before the deals are made.

[Pistons]

Dropping a line about existential philosophy, doesn't make one smart. It just means you watched a 10 minute YouTube video..

OK then. Given your logic. Dropping a line on being a doctor who has studied genetics doesn't make you a doctor. It just makes you a high school student who has seen a 10 minute youtube film and read one page at school about A, T, C and G. And general kindergarden stuff about DNA and RNA.

[Pistons]

Here is what you said.

He "turned gay" to "find comfort. " That indicates an intention to change. It indicates you think making a choice to change attraction is possible. When I pointed out that attraction is not a choice, your (purely political and unscientific) disagreement with that couldn't have been more clear.

Congratulations on finding 5 quotes where absolutely none of them says I used the word choice! The 'turned gay' to 'find comfort' is a deterministic reaction to an environment. It does not mean he chose it.

Takedown: blah blah blah. Again you don't even understand determinism. And what it leads to is merely assumptions, as nobody knows. Saying anything else is definitely nihilistic!. Narrow minds are unable to think, I know. But that is why people should stop with their own facist ideology. Like cult behavior, and not oppress people with other viewpoints.

(And you also didn't hit all the links regarding misspellings).

[Polyamorist]

I agree with Polyamorist here. His stance is backed pretty well by anthropological theory. There was also a leaked document from CIA in the 70's, referred to in several books, claiming that the reason women got the power to vote, and the push for feminism was approved, was to sex starve men in order to make men work harder.

Jazakallah, Pistons, dead right. Gloria Steinem for one was notorious for working with the CIA. Meanwhile the philanthropic arm of the CIA, the Ford Foundation, funded feminism in the universities, creating the first Women's Studies program in San Diego in 1969 and hundreds more after that. It's also a big funder of Planned Parenthood.

[Neurosynth]

I never wrote it was a choice either. . . . I just reread all my posts here, and I definitely never did write anyone chooses anything. Please quote me on that. And don't edit a quote if you want to continue with your fake news. . . .

Here is what you said.

. . . Another guy I knew once was gay. He lived in a big city with over 5 million people. Had been rejected by several girls early in his life, and eventually turned gay to find comfort. . . .

He "turned gay" to "find comfort. " That indicates an intention to change. It indicates you think making a choice to change attraction is possible. When I pointed out that attraction is not a choice, your (purely political and unscientific) disagreement with that couldn't have been more clear.

LOL, give me a break! Take your sjw ideas elsewhere. Because on me they don't stick. I follow logic and not media stories fed to the general public zombie listeners.
. . . And your assumptions throughout your comment puts you straight into the neoliberal box defining category Nick the g talks about. .

And as if that wasn't enough, you go further in raising know-nothing political bias over science.

. . . Media companies get extremely well paid in order to force through paradigm changes on grand scales. One such thing is the 'global warming'. So not all paradigm changes happens organically. Some do, but also some are forced through with the help of the media.

There's more of course. And what it all has in common is a knee-jerk rejection of any science that provides evidence counter to your politics. As if given a choice between the American Psychological Association and some random guy on the internet, we should go with the latter.

3. I was arguing in favor of you wasting my bandwidth. Nothing else. Because you don't seem to want to read. You just seem to want to assume.

Oh I read. It's just that unlike you I don't think wearing a MAGA hat "Trumps" expertise in matters of science. I don't limit my reading to politicians who think that facts, evidence, and scientific objectivity should bend to their greed.

[Takedown]

1. Post #12834:

2. I never wrote it was a choice either. Simply due to choice being an illusion (read: determinism). Something I referred to over 5 times in the last discussion in this thread too. Just 1-2 weeks ago.

I just reread all my posts here, and I definitely never did write anyone chooses anything. Please quote me on that. And don't edit a quote if you want to continue with your fake news. This was an assumption you made. And I suspect it was due to you not understanding what determinism really is.

Mispellings and typos are one thing. The consistent use of incorrect words and lack of appropriate punctuation completely alters the meaning of your sentences. Often times, they are incomprehensible.

No one cares about free will versus determinism arguments because it is not a pragmatic topic. They will always lead to a nihilistic end. One would think you would take a hint from the lack of responses to the habitual introduction of abstract topics that serve no purpose. Dropping a line about existential philosophy, doesn't make one smart. It just means you watched a 10 minute YouTube video.

Also there is something to be said about other people who habitually use proverbs and quotations. A well placed quotation is effective in conveying complex idioms. Their overuse displays the ability inability to communicate original thought.

[Pistons]

I agree with Polyamorist here. His stance is backed pretty well by anthropological theory. There was also a leaked document from CIA in the 70's, referred to in several books, claiming that the reason women got the power to vote, and the push for feminism was approved, was to sex starve men in order to make men work harder.

Call it a conspiracy theory if you want. I call it logic. And a bit of machiavellianism.

[Pistons]

I never said that. I said sexual preference is not a choice. If it's 100% caused by genetics, it's not a choice. If it's 100% caused by environment, it's not a choice. And if it's a combination, it's not a choice.

And if Greece had a "gyness (sic) culture" it was only possible because there was attraction.

So now you are contradicting yourself. Which do you believe, that sexual orientation can or cannot be a matter of choice? You were opposed to the notion that orientation is not a choice. I. e. You were arguing in favor of orientation being a choice. Now you are saying that, essentially, nothing is a choice.

Make up your mind.

1. Post #12834:

I am for example sometimes lazy with my spelling, especially outside of work when I write on a phone. Because I just type fast and don't mind with spellchecking too much. It looks incredibly unprofessional you might say.

Here are two opposite takes on how to look at misspellings:

https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/17...fessional.html

https://gizmodo.com/study-people-who...rks-1767969516

So basically, a misspelling is claimed to seem unprofessional. This has gone so far as that nobody would object to it. And not strangely so due to how school teachers grade you on your spelling. But also, if you believe in that, science claims you are also a jerk. Since even if you don't always point it out, you may think so without saying it.

[Deleted by Admin]

2. I never wrote it was a choice either. Simply due to choice being an illusion (read: determinism). Something I referred to over 5 times in the last discussion in this thread too. Just 1-2 weeks ago.

I just reread all my posts here, and I definitely never did write anyone chooses anything. Please quote me on that. And don't edit a quote if you want to continue with your fake news. This was an assumption you made. And I suspect it was due to you not understanding what determinism really is.

3. I was arguing in favor of you wasting my bandwidth. Nothing else. Because you don't seem to want to read. You just seem to want to assume.

[Pistons]

So you object to feminism because men can't have 20 orgasms a day? This is why society should oppress women and deny them equal rights under the law and in social practice?

What's next, because black men have (slightly) longer penises, they should also be oppressed by white men?

Do you even know what feminism means?

Can you please stop wasting my bandwidth with useless assumption regarding things I have never uttered? Take your fake news elsewhere.

[XXL]

Cui bono? Big employers.

Here is a reminder of Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...y_of_Needs.svg....

Food is at the base of the pyramid, but so is sex. What happens if there is a constant sexual deficit as with many young American males? ...

Eerh no, sex is not at the base of the Maslow pyramid. More like at the upper middle it seems.

Making big employers the primary winners is just a re-serving of marxist conspiracy theories. Women are the winners. Women will stop trading sex for resources as soon as they can get one tenth of the same resources through other means.

That's why in Today's world we now have cities of 15 to 20 millions with hardly any opportunity for a non wealthy straight man to get laid. Very sad and not at all what we would have predicted some 40 years ago when cheap air travel put sex travel within reach of the average man.

[Nick The G]

Here is a reminder of Maslow's hierarchy of needs:....

Well, here is a reminder of a later form of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (revised model dating from 1970), some of the levels are not indicated in the english version of Wikipedia:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:...ach_Maslow.png

Abraham Maslow died 1970. From 1980 on until nowadays, Ken Wilber has developed his "integral theory" model which is far more complex and differentiated. Again, (only) in the german version of wikipedia, there is a summary table showing different levels indicating human development under different perspectives (section "Theorie der Ebenen"). One of the columns in this table (far left) is the Maslow hierarchy.

Human beings are for sure a bit more complex than Maslows model, suited mainly for the western societies.

[Polyamorist]

Why on earth is anyone against this in mostly well regulated societies done openly and with the full enthusiastic consent and entrepreneurial girls trying to attract customers in a meritocracy? Who wants to consign us to barren Savannah with no food to starve?

Cui bono? Big employers.

The 19th century "They'll work harder if they're hungry" evolved to the 20th century "They'll work harder if they're not screwing all the time and smoking weed. " America in particular is like a big experiment in sex deprivation. And in a way this is effective: people work longer hours than in other countries. The problem is most of this by now is just makework. And soon robots (like self-driving trucks) will take the last real jobs.

Here is a reminder of Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki...y_of_Needs.svg

The idea is that you can't progress to the higher needs until you have first satisfied the basic ones. For instance if you are suffering from a toothache you won't be obsessing about gaining respect from your fellow professionals.

Food is at the base of the pyramid, but so is sex. What happens if there is a constant sexual deficit as with many young American males? The danger is that the individual remains fixed at a pre teen level of psychosexual development (Freud's latency period).

Women do not have such a problem finding sex in the US and so they can move on and develop a higher Emotional Intelligence than men -- sadly they will often use this in a manipulative way!

People who suffer a sexual gap need to fill that somehow. The need is not always going to be sublimated in a productive way. At a time of unprecedented wealth, suicides and drug overdoses are at a record high in the US. Even life expectancy has started to decline.

Meanwhile those of us guys who have finally closed the gap in the FKK world should not view this as a final shore but a base on which to continue our psychosocial development -- climbing Maslow's pyramid.

Since I am not a credentialed psychologist, some people on this thread will follow a pattern of saying I have no right to comment on these matters where "experts" from the American Psychological Association have already determined scientific truth. Well, what has the APA been up to recently?

https://medium.com/gender-studies-fo...s-a37a1ef9c0ab

So much for "science". It sounds like the organization has been taken over by Nurse Ratched types. This is an example of how the sexual dysfunction at the base of the Western individual's mind is paralleled by a dysfunction in the shared pool of knowledge: a poison of myriad fallacies circulating up through science, education, the Internet, etc. And so we must fall back on our own personal experiences to know the real truth.

"The wise man speaks of what he sees, the idiot of what he hears. " -- Old Arab saying.

[Mr Ho]

The idea is that men cannot have something not also women would have the same access to. And given girls can have sex 20 times a day, and men over time perhaps only can have sex 3 times a day (dick will go soft, and on ugly women even softer), biology makes this trade so extremely much harder to replicate in a feminist society that wants everything the same as men.

Wait till the science kicks in, I am sure soon or later men will be able to have sex 20 times per day with no problem with stronger orgasms LOL!

[Neurosynth]

The idea is that men cannot have something not also women would have the same access to. And given girls can have sex 20 times a day, and men over time perhaps only can have sex 3 times a day (dick will go soft, and on ugly women even softer), biology makes this trade so extremely much harder to replicate in a feminist society that wants everything the same as men.

So you object to feminism because men can't have 20 orgasms a day? This is why society should oppress women and deny them equal rights under the law and in social practice?

What's next, because black men have (slightly) longer penises, they should also be oppressed by white men?

Do you even know what feminism means?

[Neurosynth]

While Neurosynth has a problem since he considers genetics to be 100% at fault, and nothing else. Then boxes people into groups. This approach can 100% not answer the fact that ancient greeks had their gyness culture. And I suppose that is why Neurosynth also avoids this part of the discussion.

I never said that. I said sexual preference is not a choice. If it's 100% caused by genetics, it's not a choice. If it's 100% caused by environment, it's not a choice. And if it's a combination, it's not a choice.

And if Greece had a "gyness (sic) culture" it was only possible because there was attraction.

1. Problem is Neurosynth bases his entire criticism of my initial story on the assumption that there is something known as free will and choice. I never said that. So the entire discussion is completely flawed and seems to be based on false grounds. Determinism doesn't allow for free will or choice.
. . .

So now you are contradicting yourself. Which do you believe, that sexual orientation can or cannot be a matter of choice? You were opposed to the notion that orientation is not a choice. I. e. You were arguing in favor of orientation being a choice. Now you are saying that, essentially, nothing is a choice.

Make up your mind.