Gender (E)valuation

Females are born with inherent (meta)physical Value, even if they are very fugly, because males need Sex.

Males are born with NO inherent (meta)physical Value, no matter what, because both males & females do not need other males.


This becomes apparent in extreme population imbalances. Within a population of 1000 females and 1 male, peace is very probable because the male can have sex with all females without difficulty. However within a population of 1000 males and 1 female, war is very probable because the males will want to 'possess' or 'capture' or 'keep' the female to themselves, alone, to ensure their genetic seed is passed-on. All the other males violently will fight to the death for this "control" over the lone female. Those males who are weaker, and would die in fighting, may become homosexuals to placate their sexual desires. In fact, this probably is the very cause/origin of homosexuality.

Furthermore all moral affects of modern "civilization" are the result of forced monogamy and population/social engineering practices by Religious and Cultural leaders. This becomes necessary because 1 woman per man results in the lowest level of infighting conflict. That monogamy can become virtuous absolutely is Artificial.

Regardless, since monogamy can become observed within other animal species (ducks for example), the moralistic aspect of monogamy contextually can become Naturalized. But that doesn't make monogamy 'moral' per se. What it does do is signify a social adaptation correlating to social mechanics of specific species of animals.


(This is how you do "philosophy" Mayflower. Pay attention. You may learn something.)

Username wrote:Females are born with inherent (meta)physical Value, even if they are very fugly, because males need Sex.

Males are born with NO inherent (meta)physical Value, no matter what, because both males & females do not need other males.


This becomes apparent in extreme population imbalances. Within a population of 1000 females and 1 male, peace is very probable because the male can have sex with all females without difficulty. However within a population of 1000 males and 1 female, war is very probable because the males will want to 'possess' or 'capture' or 'keep' the female to themselves, alone, to ensure their genetic seed is passed-on. All the other males violently will fight to the death for this "control" over the lone female. Those males who are weaker, and would die in fighting, may become homosexuals to placate their sexual desires. In fact, this probably is the very cause/origin of homosexuality.

Furthermore all moral affects of modern "civilization" are the result of forced monogamy and population/social engineering practices by Religious and Cultural leaders. This becomes necessary because 1 woman per man results in the lowest level of infighting conflict. That monogamy can become virtuous absolutely is Artificial.

Regardless, since monogamy can become observed within other animal species (ducks for example), the moralistic aspect of monogamy contextually can become Naturalized. But that doesn't make monogamy 'moral' per se. What it does do is signify a social adaptation correlating to social mechanics of specific species of animals.


(This is how you do "philosophy" Mayflower. Pay attention. You may learn something.)

Possibly usable. Freudian perhaps and terribly outdated, but it has come to my attention lately that evolution of the mind has not exactly been running on all cylinders in this world. I can work with you if you want, but we have to do some warp speed stuff. Leave that to me.

Start: The desire for control over perceived "other" is a sign of mental illness. Do you agree or disagree? If I do decide to create a total revolution of mind on Earth, I can only accept certain militia into the force. You have to prove to me your worth, and in your own unique way.

At present I will consider you a valuable soldier in a war against ignorance.

Mayflow wrote:Possibly usable. Freudian perhaps and terribly outdated, but it has come to my attention lately that evolution of the mind has not exactly been running on all cylinders in this world. I can work with you if you want, but we have to do some warp speed stuff. Leave that to me.

Start: The desire for control over perceived "other" is a sign of mental illness. Do you agree or disagree? If I do decide to create a total revolution of mind on Earth, I can only accept certain militia into the force. You have to prove to me your worth, and in your own unique way.

At present I will consider you a valuable soldier in a war against ignorance.

[ Yawwwwwn.... ]

So boring, you do not merit a proper response from me today.

Username wrote:

Mayflow wrote:Possibly usable. Freudian perhaps and terribly outdated, but it has come to my attention lately that evolution of the mind has not exactly been running on all cylinders in this world. I can work with you if you want, but we have to do some warp speed stuff. Leave that to me.

Start: The desire for control over perceived "other" is a sign of mental illness. Do you agree or disagree? If I do decide to create a total revolution of mind on Earth, I can only accept certain militia into the force. You have to prove to me your worth, and in your own unique way.

At present I will consider you a valuable soldier in a war against ignorance.

[ Yawwwwwn.... ]

So boring, you do not merit a proper response from me today.

I think my life will go on anyways, and if you haven't warrior abilities to give, so be it. I am not in suite of non-warriors, because I can do it alone if I need to. You are free to champion other wars, but if they are all about stupid things like farts and males are super to the nonmales, I will take you down personally every time until you show me something better. Now, baby, think it over as long as you wish and dream over it or whatever, but I do expect an appropriate response.

Feminine, child games....

I do not cohere to your words, bitch. You cohere, bend, and break against mined.

My points are not "up-for-discussion". You either accept them 100% or fuck-off.

Don't waste my precious time with your inane bullshit.

Mayflow wrote:terribly outdated

You are 'outdated'. You are not useful, to anyone, not even yourself. That's how pathetic your "thinking" is.

Mayflow wrote:but it has come to my attention lately that evolution of the mind has not exactly been running on all cylinders in this world.

You don't even know what "evolution of the mind" means, idiot.

Mayflow wrote:I can work with you if you want,

Why would I want a child to "work with" me? You can't do any 'work' and you're female. You don't know what 'work' is.

Males have always, always done all the 'hard' and 'difficult' work in human history.

While females stayed home, in their comfy beds, cleaning baby poop, and developing a severely false sense of self esteem.

Mayflow wrote:Start: The desire for control over perceived "other" is a sign of mental illness.

Then you are mentally ill, idiot.

All people attempt to control all other people, to different degrees. Some (like me) control others (like you) a great deal while others (you again) have no real power.

Mayflow wrote:You have to prove to me your worth

No, you prove your worth to me or you'll get hurt.

You have nothing worthwhile, no value, to me. I could talk to a homeless bum on the street and produce a more conductive & conducive conversation then I will ever have with a stupid woman like yourself.

Mayflow wrote:At present I will consider you a valuable soldier in a war against ignorance.

It doesn't matter what you "consider" me.

You have no Authority in this world or the next one.

Admit it and Accept it. You know this is true.

FYI, I do dislike spanking a child, like you Mayflower, but it is necessary for a good father to do sometimes.

It hurts me more than it hurts you.... Well my father always used to tell me that; it maybe false.

But you lack discipline and you need to understand who "The Man" is, and, respect that fact (Me).

I know it's difficult for you..... to become subservient to another. But that is the nature & mechanic of the male-female relationship.


Males only can tolerate inferior men and women in their presence. Otherwise, males suppress and repress natural, psychological tendencies to retaliate using force and violence. Thedoc is biting at the bit, for example, because he wants to "attack me" and "defend you", as per his 'male' natural inclination/instinct. He wants to become "top dog" while waiting in the shadows.

How did I "earn" my position here? Easy, this forum was created for me and me alone. That entitles me to use it, this area, to construct a demagogue of words and statements, aimed to do what I will do. Words are important, when & if, words have meaning.

Do your words have meaning? And to whom??


I can teach many people many things. Unfortunate the fact is, that I disrespect and cannot tolerate the presence of all except a few, or none. I dislike other people because people's false sense of "Pride" often blinds them from many, many important discoveries and visions of life. I can hold your hand, a little girl's hand, and guide her into the Heavens, to see sights no other will see in his/her lifetime. I could do that, if I want to.

But I don't want to. Nobody inspires me on this planet you humans call "Earth". Yet I still year for 'inspiration'.

I need that 'connection' with another..... badly.


Are you hearing this??

The (meta)physical worth/value/virtue of a woman/female automatically, instantly, instinctively, intuitively becomes tied-to her Beauty. This is why women who are ugly or old become 'inferior' human beings. Furthermore those (females) who become 'beyond' the peak-value of existence, 16-25 year old sexually attractive, gorgeous, beautiful, fertile, young, virgins.... more deeply understand and appreciate the value of knowledge & wisdom.

Wisdom is the ultimate "backup" plan, regardless of sex, race, age, size, ugliness, etc.

If a man/woman is Ultra-wise then he/she theoretically can 'rape' others (of the opposite or same-sex) without negative consequences. It's about Power. And Power is Sex. And Sex is Power. Imposing Sex is powerful.... that is what 'life' is all about after all.


Women despise men because our Judgment, our Discrimination of (female) Beauty is what puts any particular female into a 'good' or 'bad' mood. For example, if I call a dumb bitch "cute" or "ugly" then she appropriately will reactive in the positive or negative. Women universally admire 'Beauty' because this is their very 'Purpose' in life, to exist as passive "beautiful" sex-objects for Alpha Males. In fact I even doubt that 'Activity' in a woman/female is a good thing. Activity within a female/woman may signal degeneration and/or weakness. I completely haven't thought-out that prospect, yet. But I will when I get more "think-time" over the next few years.

Women resent men because we (males) utilize the power of "Beauty-Judgment". That is what I will 'coin' this term: "Beauty-Judgment". That we (males) withhold this Power, over all females/women, puts them all at a metaphysical Disadvantage. Women are forced into appeasing the masculine/male social Standards of Beauty. In fact this is why many young girls become annorexic/bulemic. They want to "become noticed" by the Alpha Male, and (falsely) believe that if they purge their bodies into the correct 'shape' or 'form', that the Alpha Male will notice them (as beautiful) and fuck them.

That is the feminine "highest hope" in life. That is her 'ideal'. She wants to "change (physical) forms" into a Standard of Beauty beyond her level of (mental) comprehension. Because she truly doesn't know what makes herself "beautiful" to (alpha) males. She wants to know. All women/females want to know this (knowledge/fact/science/wisdom). And such knowledge would become invaluable to all females. Because all females want that (masculine) Power. Become the ultimate "Sex-object" seems the one and only route to this Success.

If this is true, and it seems to me it is, then women fundamentally....... philosophically... must understand the difference and division between what is 'active' and 'passive' beauty. THAT is a big problem. Because women are not very intelligent creatures in the first place.


Hmmmm... I had something else to state but I forgot. I'll remember it tomorrow.

Something about 'feminine' beauty.


One last point before I go, of course..... for males, we don't need "beauty". And this is why males are 'Free' and females are 'Slaves' (to men). Males are 'Free' because Standards of Beauty both do NOT judge our Value/Virtue (in Moral terms) AND.... and...... women cannot Judge beauty. Women metaphysically cannot judge beauty because they do not understand the male sexual-impulse "to fuck" other women. It seems females simply do not understand this because women are not suited toward the highest-end of metaphysical 'control' over other entities/things/objects/subjects/etc.

It is about 'control' over other things/people.

Thus Mayflower is wrong, and stupid, when she claims that 'controlling' other things/people is a psychological dysfunction/weakness.

In fact this proves her 'femaleness'. She physically..... mentally does not understand/recognize/see the UTILITY of (sexual) domination. Because she is, in fact, the sex-object herself. She does not know or conceive 'control'. She is WHAT is controlled (by male Beauty-Judgment). She "opens herself" or "spreads her legs" to the label: Beauty.

If she could become made into a Queen... by a mere Beauty-Judgment or "Beauty-Distinction" then she automatically would do so.


In fact I will go further to state that women (and also inferior men) desire to know/understand "Beauty-Judgment".

Regardless this is a power all males have (over all females). I do not even need to confine this to gender.

It is an act of 'fucking' by the "male-member" ~ a metaphorical act of labeling. Beauty is the label.


Tomorrow I need to remember about "labeling" beauty. That's important. Anyway, that's it for the night.

I will consider taking pity on you and helping you out of this silly quagmire of thought processing that keeps you on a level 2 Awareness level. I originally thought you were on level 3. Level 2's are emotionally needy. In your case, this will include additional treatments as you also seem very delusional and probably were not nurtured well enough by your mommy.

State something useful or shut-up. You're boring.

I suppose I ought to become bored by the plebs though; such is the curse of Superior Intelligence.

Username wrote:State something useful or shut-up. You're boring.

I suppose I ought to become bored by the plebs though; such is the curse of Superior Intelligence.

You really think your intelligence superior to mine? I totally doubt it. You seem like an emotionally needy little boy to me. I do think you have some usable mental abilities, and since your real momma maybe couldn't help you much (as it seems) I suppose I could try. Why the misogamy? Do you hate your mommy?

Mayflow wrote:

Username wrote:State something useful or shut-up. You're boring.

I suppose I ought to become bored by the plebs though; such is the curse of Superior Intelligence.

You really think your intelligence superior to mine? I totally doubt it. You seem like an emotionally needy little boy to me. I do think you have some usable mental abilities, and since your real momma maybe couldn't help you much (as it seems) I suppose I could try. Why the misogamy? Do you hate your mommy?

Emotions = Intelligence ?

Ehnt! Wrong, try again. And I probably am more emotionally stable than you are, too, faggot.

The difference between you and I is that I am interesting-enough to attack. While you are too boring and stupid, only worth ignoring. In fact, giving you attention is too good for you. I think I will desist in this soon enough. So enjoy your attention while it lasts (it won't last much longer).

Username wrote:

Mayflow wrote:

Username wrote:State something useful or shut-up. You're boring.

I suppose I ought to become bored by the plebs though; such is the curse of Superior Intelligence.

You really think your intelligence superior to mine? I totally doubt it. You seem like an emotionally needy little boy to me. I do think you have some usable mental abilities, and since your real momma maybe couldn't help you much (as it seems) I suppose I could try. Why the misogamy? Do you hate your mommy?

Emotions = Intelligence ?

Ehnt! Wrong, try again. And I probably am more emotionally stable than you are, too, faggot.

The difference between you and I is that I am interesting-enough to attack. While you are too boring and stupid, only worth ignoring. In fact, giving you attention is too good for you. I think I will desist in this soon enough. So enjoy your attention while it lasts (it won't last much longer).

It won't matter. With no changes to your attitude, I'll never reply to another post of yours. Bye bye.

Username wrote:Females are born with inherent (meta)physical Value, even if they are very fugly, because males need Sex.

Males are born with NO inherent (meta)physical Value, no matter what, because both males & females do not need other males.

Why do you put meta in brackets?

This becomes apparent in extreme population imbalances. Within a population of 1000 females and 1 male, peace is very probable because the male can have sex with all females without difficulty.

Are we talking about humans here? Can you show me a population of 1000 women and 1 man? Is this population independent and totally isolated from other populations?

However within a population of 1000 males and 1 female, war is very probable because the males will want to 'possess' or 'capture' or 'keep' the female to themselves, alone, to ensure their genetic seed is passed-on. All the other males violently will fight to the death for this "control" over the lone female. Those males who are weaker, and would die in fighting, may become homosexuals to placate their sexual desires. In fact, this probably is the very cause/origin of homosexuality.

#

No, it's because men like you are just so damn attractive that other men choose you over the fugly women. You have more (meta)physical value to men than fugly women do. It's something to do with your arrogance I think. It's almost child like and obviously gays and paedos are similar in what they look for in a sexual partner.

On a more serious note, the males do not "fight to the death" but "put on displays" to attract the female. Can you please demonstrate where in nature males fight to the death, as opposed to merely fighting to establish dominance, or even, not fighting at all, but using some other technique. Do you understand evolution at all? Not all species are the same. (It's the difference that makes them a species)

Regardless, since monogamy can become observed within other animal species (ducks for example),

Not in the mallard ducks... You know they gang rape and the gay ones are even prone to necrophilia? You meant penguins. Penguins are monogamous. There is a famous film about it. It's called march of the penguins.

the moralistic aspect of monogamy contextually can become Naturalized. But that doesn't make monogamy 'moral' per se. What it does do is signify a social adaptation correlating to social mechanics of specific species of animals.

I agree that "what is natural is not necessarily moral" but that is because morals, as I think you say, are artificial social constructs designed to achieve a homogeneous social bond enabling cohesion and cooperation. But by now I have forgotten what the point of what you wrote is...

(This is how you do "philosophy" Mayflower. Pay attention. You may learn something.)

No, you start with a premise and then give a reason without examining the reason at all. You say "A, because B". and then you say "C, because D". However, you fail to actually examine B or D philosophically, you simply assume they are correct.

How is it that males "need sex" but females don't? What is it about the sex that males need? Are you talking about modern males, or "male" as in, all species all places and all time?
And how can a male not need another male if you need a male (in sexed species) to reproduce? You see why your generalised statements are meaningless?

You then use a specific example (ducks, incorrectly) to move to a generalised statement which has no philosophical value to anybody. You haven't really shown why your statements about men and women have value, or even why they are true. You have simply rambled on about monogamy and morals, showing poor understanding of population dynamics and evolutionary traits designed to attract females. Have you ever considered a career as an MMA fighter? I think you'd like it.


All you've done is run your fingers over your keyboard, but you know what they say: "An infinite number of monkeys..."

My only question to McChoice is, given the preceding thread, why did you even bother?

Good question. I guess I had hoped to be able to ruffle his feathers once more, but after receiving another pm, it is quite clear that he is not going to come out of the woodwork.
Shame too, because I had some great questions about bee hives and ant colonies.

Hmmmm, Ask them anyhow, there might be something relavent to the forum in general.