I understand Tramp's logic behind women, yet I only partially agree:
I think most women fail to become humans, yet they are not born as not humans.

Were they able to escape the sad logistics of their kind,
they could possibly develop abstract thinking and become humane.

But this way of living is socially unacceptable and we all know how social women are.

So how can a rational man cope with a reality where he is condemned to fucking human-looking mammals,
while in the meantime he feels obliged by his inner voice to keep his own perspective alive?

You need to get out of your own fucking head.

Seriously.

Go watch the sun rise and understand that you inhabit a time and space that exists in the blink of an eye to the universe.

Don't engage in deep philosophy that renders you less capable of living a happy life than a chimpanzee might. Men and women have co-existed since they existed at all. Stop trying to put ridiculous labels on things in order to create some kind of bizarre, self-destructive world view.

You are not culturing a deeper understanding of the world.

You are culturing a mental illness.

I wished to sum up the extreme right-wing understanding of the redpill theory through my own eyes. I can see the level-minded approach to it, yet I feel extreme right-wingers have something to say about social conditioning and its often fatal consequences.

Blackpill Forums ---------->

*humanlike mammals...

Wow Malidon, you're so deep. Confirmation that lefties are indeed our intellectual superiors. Please Malidon, do enlighten us more about the virtues of male feminism and lead me into the light out of my current darkness. Also, it's Drumpf, not Tramp.

Quote: (07-08-2017 06:01 AM)Malidon Wrote:  

[1] "...they could possibly develop abstract thinking and become humane."

[2] "So how can a rational man cope with a reality where he is condemned to fucking human-looking mammals..."

[1] The classical Greeks thought similar to you about women in the sense that women did not appear or behave or think like men at all. The Greeks were really good at showing the extreme differences where it almost appears that women not human. But that view would not be doing a service to the Greek playwrights if one argued that women are not human. They are human because we can reproduce with them and belong to the species H. sapiens.

It is largely due to how women perceive the world. Take a log for example, although it could be anything. It has a true weight say 100 lbs. We all have an idea on how heavy it is that's why whenever we go to pick it up we know what strength we need. The weight might be 100 lbs. for both sexes but is heavier to a woman. So then you have the difference in how the sexes perceive the world since men are more then capable of moving nature while women cannot in the way a man can because everything is too hard and exhausting to move, build, defend etc. for a woman.

Due to child bearing women have a different general purpose in life. Their hips and breasts don't enable them to run faster. Their bone structure enables them to bare children in the womb instead. So again they cannot do things a well as a man in things that men are naturally prone to.

Because of these physical constraints compared to men, women think differently. One being that since they cannot efficiently move nature they cannot create things the way a man can nor are they capable of abstract thought in the way a man being that their perception of what is real (100 lbs.) is limited which leads to limited creativity opportunities including strong machines and the like to do the job for them since making a machine requires a lot of muscle. That is why they cannot see things the way we see them.

That is why women cannot think like a man. Instead they either get someone else to do things for them or they study something as best they can which is why they are prone to attention to detail. Since they are weaker, both in creativity and in strength, that is why they desire the strongest and smartest men but more importantly the strongest leadership and the best (Alpha-males or some king of Alpha concept).

Personally, this also leads me to believe that a woman does not have free-will the same as a man since it appears that their only real practical adaptation to the environment is based on causation and reaction and not original ideas to solve problems as well all women seem to do is follow the strongest around.

Obviously women do make some kind of personal choices like choosing an alpha-male "provider" rather then marrying daddy government which is in many cases is more profitable but bad for society following strength is clearly what a woman prioritizes. And being a follower is something a woman clearly cannot escape.

[2] Women are attractive and they only get more attractive the more womanly they are. It's not a good idea to not care about how "intelligent" they are about economics or other man stuff. In fact in my mind that tells me they probably are not good at being mother since they spend all their time at a desk trying to mimic a man.

I suggest you go talk to actual women and not western chicks. Also read more Red pill stuff like Rational Male and The Way of Men.

Relevant XKCD:

Edit of: Natorder809 in this thread:

This:
"(Alpha-males or some king of Alpha concept)."

Should read:
"(alpha-males or some king of alpha concept)."

This:
"...not original ideas to solve problems as well all women seem to do is follow the strongest around."

Should read:
"...not original ideas to solve problems. And all women seem to do is follow the strongest around."

This:
"...choices like choosing an alpha-male "provider" rather then..."

Should read:

"...choices like choosing an alpha-male (provider) rather then..."

What the fuck is going on in this thread.

Malidon. Go outside, talk to girls. That's all you need to do for now. There's more to it but instead of getting all crazy with theories and bullshit keep it simple. Read bang maybe but I would keep it at that. After you fuck a few girls, hopefully find at least one you genuinely enjoy being with and realize you don't have the skills to get what you want out of your interactions then start filling in the gaps in your knowledge.

Quote: (07-08-2017 04:47 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

What the fuck is going on in this thread.

Malidon. Go outside, talk to girls. That's all you need to do for now. There's more to it but instead of getting all crazy with theories and bullshit keep it simple. Read bang maybe but I would keep it at that. After you fuck a few girls, hopefully find at least one you genuinely enjoy being with and realize you don't have the skills to get what you want out of your interactions then start filling in the gaps in your knowledge.

This is a thread about a guy that is possibly confusing differences between the sexes and what it means to be a man and a woman. He seems to relate being human with being male and not female. He further seems to argue that that a female must learn to be not unlike a male to become fully human.

I disagree with those arguments. When someone knows something, which we all know that women don't think like men, there must be an explanation for that. But in order to back up what you know and the general forum knows, then you must attempt to prove that your view is the correct view. My stance certainly is much better then OP's and a man is not going know unless he knows a little about himself, how women are different then him, and what being a man is. In fact, I would question someone on this forum that might disagree with me that women are suited to other things then men and behaving like a man is not attractive compared to women that like being mothers and being on the good side of femininity.

Bang is a great start and Day Bang to game chicks in you immediate environment and will definitely help you in the future. Since OP is more interested in human sexual dimorphism he will not figure out the difference between an man and an actual woman without actually talking or gaming them and there are not as many in the west as there are in other cultures. If you cultivate your own manhood and talk to or game a woman that equally works on herself, or greater (working just as hard on you as you working on yourself), on being a woman then I guarantee you will see just how different the sexes are. you will get a much healthier view but you must work on yourself.

He is the type of guy where it takes an incredible amount of brain power to turn off a thought like that. He wont get as far if he ignores that. He has to figure out the sex differences on a deeper level while gaming chicks.

Since when do the differences of "how" a woman thinks matter when fucking her?

If its that much of an issue for then go fuck a man aka "faggot mammal"

Quote: (07-08-2017 04:03 PM)Natorder809 Wrote:  

Edit of: Natorder809 in this thread:

This:
"(Alpha-males or some king of Alpha concept)."

Should read:
"(alpha-males or some king of alpha concept)."

This:
"...not original ideas to solve problems as well all women seem to do is follow the strongest around."

Should read:
"...not original ideas to solve problems. And all women seem to do is follow the strongest around."

This:
"...choices like choosing an alpha-male "provider" rather then..."

Should read:

"...choices like choosing an alpha-male (provider) rather then..."

Your corrections are actually worse than the originals, bub.

Oh, and I hope we can all agree that calling women "human-looking mammals" is some Elliot Rodgers level sociopathy.

This thread sucks.

Quote: (07-08-2017 08:34 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

Quote: (07-08-2017 04:03 PM)Natorder809 Wrote:  

Edit of: Natorder809 in this thread:

This:
"(Alpha-males or some king of Alpha concept)."

Should read:
"(alpha-males or some king of alpha concept)."

This:
"...not original ideas to solve problems as well all women seem to do is follow the strongest around."

Should read:
"...not original ideas to solve problems. And all women seem to do is follow the strongest around."

This:
"...choices like choosing an alpha-male "provider" rather then..."

Should read:

"...choices like choosing an alpha-male (provider) rather then..."

Your corrections are actually worse than the originals, bub.

Oh, and I hope we can all agree that calling women "human-looking mammals" is some Elliot Rodgers level sociopathy.

I was thinking more Silence of the Lambs making a suit out of an animals(female humans) skin type sociopathy.

Women are children, mentally. Do not expect more from them. Love them for what they are.

/thread

Quote: (07-08-2017 08:34 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

Quote: (07-08-2017 04:03 PM)Natorder809 Wrote:  

Edit of: Natorder809 in this thread:

This:
"(Alpha-males or some king of Alpha concept)."

Should read:
"(alpha-males or some king of alpha concept)."

This:
"...not original ideas to solve problems as well all women seem to do is follow the strongest around."

Should read:
"...not original ideas to solve problems. And all women seem to do is follow the strongest around."

This:
"...choices like choosing an alpha-male "provider" rather then..."

Should read:

"...choices like choosing an alpha-male (provider) rather then..."

Your corrections are actually worse than the originals, bub.

Oh, and I hope we can all agree that calling women "human-looking mammals" is some Elliot Rodgers level sociopathy.

Best attempt so far although the corrections are not worse. Sometimes it's a good idea to back things up and figure things out yourself. The concept is simple: make an observation, and then describe it. Figuring out the why is difficult to put into words either going form the bottom up or the the top down. Proving something from the bottom up is more challenging.

I don't know, I find it interesting.

Yes, it should be more entertaining going out to the gentleman that thinks this sucks.

I've never heard of "human looking mammals" before I saw this thread for the record but people who think that can drop that mindset with the proper direction if you will as a possibility.

I suggested they are mammals because they love sex and humanlike because they still wish to appeal as graceful. Abstract thinking is not masculine or feminine per se, it's simply humane: thus I am sure Womanosphere will come to full existence soon after educated women realise the fact marketing has neutralised their potential for so long. As for my perspective, I think it is in accordance with the redpill guidance suggesting we have to meditate our way through sociosexual dimorphism. Yet I think the timing was correct for my thread after Tramp's anachronistic statements.

fucking human-looking mammals: sleeping with humanlike mammals
keep his own perspective alive: keep his own spirit free

Whenever I see a "deep" philosophy thread with a low post no rep OP and a low post no rep contributor giving a 500 word diatribe in response I immediately get the impression that they're the same person trying to create an elaborate interaction to springboard themselves out of the pit of irrelevance.

Probably I'm just paranoid.

Quote: (07-09-2017 02:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Whenever I see a "deep" philosophy thread with a low post no rep OP and a low post no rep contributor giving a 500 word diatribe in response I immediately get the impression that they're the same person trying to create an elaborate interaction to springboard themselves out of the pit of irrelevance.

Probably I'm just paranoid.

I got the same impression, weird huh?

Quote: (07-09-2017 02:07 AM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Quote: (07-09-2017 02:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Whenever I see a "deep" philosophy thread with a low post no rep OP and a low post no rep contributor giving a 500 word diatribe in response I immediately get the impression that they're the same person trying to create an elaborate interaction to springboard themselves out of the pit of irrelevance.

Probably I'm just paranoid.

I got the same impression, weird huh?

It's a matter of patterns, paranoia is nothing but full-blown patternism.

Topic title and thread content have nothing to do with each other. The more you desperately try to fit in, the more you stand out for all the wrong reasons.

It seems that OP is one of those dudes who thinks he can disguise a shitty argument by using as many five-dollar words as possible.

Or should I say:

It is apparent that the primary author of this particular series is of the opinion that a veil of bombast and verbosity is sufficient to conceal the inherent lack of substance contained in his rather elementary pontifications.

Actual portrait of OP (most do not know this).

Quote: (07-09-2017 03:50 AM)thebassist Wrote:  

Actual portrait of OP (most do not know this).

Here's some actual video footage of OP pontificating.