Originally posted on THE PSYCHO LINGUIST:
When somebody has “called the game” (my term) which is naming the “form of conquest” (my term) that the psychopath is using, the psychopath will “double down” that is they will repeat the process or pattern emphatically. This happens for a number of reasons, first of all psychopaths can’t be reformed, second of all by repeating the pattern deliberately they are communicating to you that they are not sorry, and they are not going to stop, they don’t recognize anybodies authority over them to judge them because they are above reason.
The form of the conquest is also intimately connected with the issues that the psychopath has. It symbolizes to them the way in which they are making the world right. Having presupposed their own authority to judge and punish the world, and being in relationship with their issues and acting on their issues and moving from emotional morbidity at the same time not wanting to be mentally and emotionally sound, they want to acquaint everybody with their issues, they want to reify their issues in everybody’s mind. They have to go about business in the same way, this is the Modus operandi, that allows multiple crimes to be connected to the same individual, in their patterns and processes they tell you who they are and why they are doing what they are doing. They can’t help but telegraph their issues, this is one of the premises of Shared state theory of communication, you communicate whatever state you are in. Psychopaths have to use psychopathic means.
Originally posted on RARE QUOTES:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creeping normality refers to the way a major change can be accepted as the normal situation if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments, when it would be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step or short period. Examples would be a change in job responsibilities or a change in a medical condition.
Jared Diamond has invoked the concept (as well as that of landscape amnesia) in attempting to explain why in the course of long-term environmental degradation, Easter Island natives would, seemingly irrationally, chop down the last tree:
Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.
Originally posted on Antitheist Fail :
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός – syllogismos – “conclusion,” “inference”) is a kind of logical argument in which deductive reasoning is used to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
In its earliest form, defined by Aristotle, from the combination of a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise), a conclusion is deduced . For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise) and that Socrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form (without sentence-terminating periods):
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
I catch a lot of flack for my ideas about the differences between men and women and a lot of that flack comes from feminazis, gomers, vagina worshipers, highly educated idiots and children that have been indoctrinated into man hate. The reason that happens is because this is America the most feminized country on the planet. The problem is this, it doesn’t matter how many morons agree with one another, it doesn’t make them more correct. The tyranny of the stupid majority cannot go unchecked.
You have been propagandized into thinking that there is no difference between masculinity and femininity and this creates a disparate impact in favor of femininity. This prejudice is not only dangerous for relationships and to the stability of america it is dangerous for individuals. Women in america think that their is a magickal force that protects them from evil and bad things happening to them and they are right, that magickal force is American men.
If you are familiar with my theories on the male brain and the female brain you know that I consider the true uncorrupted male brain to be sociopathic (not the pussified western male mind) and the female mind is psychopathic, and the psychopath is an over coddled child.
Aristotle’s views on women
“The slave is wholly lacking the deliberative element; the female has it but it lacks authority; the child has it but it is incomplete”
Differences between male and female
Aristotle believed that nature ordained not only physical differences between male and female but mental differences as well. By comparison to man, he argued, woman is “more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive … more compassionate[,] … more easily moved to tears[,] … more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike[,] … more prone to despondency and less hopeful[,] … more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, of more retentive memory [and] … also more wakeful; more shrinking [and] more difficult to rouse to action” (History of Animals, 608b. 1-14). Moreover, in accord with his society’s custom of allowing girls and women to eat only half as much as boys and men, he added that woman “requires a smaller quantity of nutriment” (History of Animals, 608b. 14)  Aristotle wrote extensively on his views of the nature of semen. His views on how a child’s sex is decided have since been abandoned.
He wrote that only fair skinned women, not darker skinned women, had a sexual discharge and climaxed. He also believed this discharge could be increased by eating of pungent foods. Aristotle thought a woman’s sexual discharge was akin to that of an infertile or amputated male’s. He concluded that both sexes contributed to the material of generation, but that the female’s contribution was in her discharge (as in a male’s) rather than within the ovary.
His idea of procreation was an active, ensouling masculine element bringing life to a passive female element.
While Aristotle reduced women’s roles in society, and promoted the idea that women should receive less food and nourishment than males, he also criticised the results: a woman, he thought, was then more compassionate, more opinionated, more apt to scold and to strike. He stated that women are more prone to despondency, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of having a better memory. wikipedia
Book cover of an edition ofOikonomikos from 1830.
Therefore it befits not a man of sound mind to bestow his person promiscuously, or have random intercourse with women; for otherwise the base-born will share in the rights of his lawful children, and his wife will be robbed of her honor due, and shame be attached to his sons.And it is fitting that he should approach his wife in honor, full of self-restraint and awe; and in his conversation with her, should use only the words of a right-minded man, suggesting only such acts as are themselves lawful and honorable. Aristotle’s thought that a wife was best honored when she saw that her husband was faithful to her, and that he had no preference for another woman; but before all others loves, trusts her and holds her as his own. Aristotle wrote that a husband should secure the agreement, loyalty, and devotion of his wife, so that whether he himself is present or not, there may be no difference in her attitude towards him, since she realizes that they are alike guardians of the common interests; and so when he is away she may feel that to her no man is kinder or more virtuous or more truly hers than her own husband.
I might remind you that every civilization that stopped studying Aristotle fell into the dark ages. The word Oikonomikos is where the English word economics comes from and the word oikos means house. How is our economy doing? As women have increased in “rights” and by rights I mean power without responsibility, the right to wage a propaganda war against masculinity, the right to get divorced on a whim, the right to have disposable relationships with men and sell themselves to the highest bidder while at the same time not wanting to be thought of as sex objects, the right to not suffer or struggle for the success of a relationship, how has our American economy fared? How has the marriage unit fared? How is relationship doing?
Men and women are not the same, when you make a false forced equality between them you upset the flow of energy between the poles. Rain does not fall up, and water does not flow up hill. Women enter into relationship and immediately start turning the man that they are attracted to into a woman, and when they have succeeded they move on to the next man. It is a conquest of the ego. But you are sabotaging yourselves, historically there is a pattern that repeats, women that turn their men into women have no defense when foreign invaders come and take the women and rape them. The men have no incentive to defend the women having had a life time of abuse from women and having been successfully turned into women they also don’t have the ability to wage war even if they wanted to. The women, now having a child, kind of want to keep and raise the child and they are thus assimilated into another culture. I am not making this stuff up. Genghis Khan is related to more people on the earth than any other single person, and he was the most prolific rapist in history.
American women, you are not winning a victory over men, you are defeating yourselves…
Women are fickle emotional creatures incapable of being reasonable an analytical consistently, when you make a woman’s emotional thinking the equal of a man’s intellectual reasoning, you destroy the possibility of a rational relationship. This pattern is destroying the educational system, the economy, America and the world, it is ruining everything that was good about America.
What is funny is watching this ugly feminazi stonewalling Leslie, she is operating on a slippery slope, seeing years of feminist propaganda being flushed down the toilette where it belongs. Her entire empire that was created for her by man hating women that she wants to pass on to all of her Amazonian little man hating daughters is going bye bye. The subjugation of the American Male is coming to an end, or at least it better if we want to survive. Stop homogenizing the sexes, they were created different for a reason, respect it.
Mung (computer term)
Mung or munge is computer jargon for a series of changes to a piece of data, which are often well defined and individually reversible, but which transform the original item into an unrecognizable form. The changes may be destructive, for example by corrupting a computer file, or simply concealing, for example changes to an email address to disguise it fromspambots.
The term was coined in 1958 in the Tech Model Railroad Club at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1960 the backronym ”Mash Until No Good” was created to describe Mung, and a while after it was revised to “Mung Until No Good”, making it one of the first recursive acronyms. It lived on as a recursive command in the editing language TECO.
Usages of the term appear in munged password (a strong, secure password created through character substitution), data munging (cleaning data from one “raw” form into a structured, purged one) and address munging (disguising an e-mail address).
Munging may also describe the constructive operation of tying together systems and interfaces that were not specifically designed to interoperate (often using the Perl programming language). Munging can also describe the processing or filtering of raw data into another form.
Munging implies destruction[dubious – discuss]—to make large-scale and irrevocable changes to a file and to destroy it. Hence in the early text-adventure game Zork, also known as Dungeon, the user could mung an object and thereby destroy it (making it impossible to finish the game if the object was an important item).