/lit/ - Literature

>>23397923
> All of these "arguments" which are in fact just angry rhetoric apply to your religion as well retard
There's no annihilationist doctrine or practice in Christianity (unless you're a JW or something; I'm Orthodox). We have permanent souls with continuity of experience and our metaphysics is grounded in a personal God. There's no ambiguity on any of these points. You're talking total nonsense if you're not just too stupid to see the obvious difference there.

> Also, what does bringing up some degenerate /trash/ thread unprompted say about you?
It says that I can recognize a pattern when I see one. It's the same initiatory annihilationism through a different means.

I'm glad that you're at least responding, but please try to be more honest about it.

>>23395462
This is exactly the kind of dishonest-if-not-outright-stupid word game that makes me want to cave every "locician"-so-called's head in.

You've loaded the question. Inductive judgements are not logical, although it may be logical to make one if you have limited information with which to make a descision. It makes sense to pragmatically make an educated guess about a pattern continuing into the future if you don't have any other more solid options.

The chicken, however, made an inductive judgement with no pragmatic reason to do so. The chicken has no agency one way or the other in this situation. It was not logical for the chicken to assume that the farmer would be back.

It is not logical for an agnostic with no special revelation to assume that the sun will come up tomorrow.

>>23266830
> Please explain what this means
By default, men percieve women as a doorway to immortality (through the continuation of the line); this is hard-wired into the lizard brain and doesn't need to be conscious. They percieve women as radiating a sort of visceral life-force, and are drawn to "consume" them sexually for this reason.

With some training and encouragement, however, men can be taught to understand that the "life force" they percieve isn't "from" the woman but "through" the woman: she needs a man's seed in order to have that power. If you stroke his sexual ego the right way, you can get a man to see his own virility the way women do--as a vital, visceral life-power. Once that's accomplished, the logical conclusions begin to work themselves out. They realize that this applies to other men, and that they can "consume" one another as well.

My brother has always had good luck with women. Until it came up in conversation, he had no idea that anyone likes balls. The blissful ignorance of the straight man who has never taken his eyes off the lady.

The women are the sticks, by the way. From your response I'm not sure if that was clear.


>>23266839
> You're saying that female attraction is proportional to appearance/status and inversely proportional to promiscuity?
If a man 'can' get more women, he's more attractive--but except in rare cases what the women wants is for him to be able to get more women but commit to her. Both of these simultaneously factor into her attraction-pursuit-process, and I use that hyphenation because I'm not sure if the attraction and the 'scheme' are actually distinct in her experience. Sometimes she'll make him less competitive in the sexual market (making him uglier etc) in order to secure commitment, without realizing that in the process she loses her attraction to him. That may be what you meant. You're right to notice the issue that can arise.

> evolutionary psychology
I'm aware of human female estrus, which is confirmed. I think the way I'd characterize it is that when she's off-estrus, certain components of her attraction-axis have less emphasis (they fall back more on stability). I'd be wary of using evolutionary psychology to make broad theories about behavior. Even if you're an evolutionist, it's still basically just making up stories in the majority of cases. It's best to stick to the phenomenology to see how things fit together in the here and now.

>>23242854
I'm one of those native furfags attempting to sublimate that homoeroticism away from sex for largely religious reasons (its actually super easy since you're right about most male stuff being "gay"; that's why Baki is a hit). The only rough spot is the ritual life-force transfer, but I think the struggle to emulate another man's virtues likely fills that role when you take into account the role of ascesis in divinization. Homosexuality is largely redundant and a shortcut that (like all modern sexuality) immanentizes religious impulses and immortality-feelings to the lizard brain.

You say interesting stuff but if I hear "lived experience" one more time I'm going to blow a gasket.