Aetherous

Question for all (which I am attempting to make into a poll). I've encountered a situation that I think is good to be addressed by the community and/or moderators. Scenario: Would it be okay if I made a thread in my personal practice forum, where I used your screenname in the thread title without your permission, where I continued to harass you after having been asked to stop by you, where I insult you with what I think are true terms regarding you despite you saying that you are feeling insulted by those terms, where I delete any responses you make (because we are able to moderate our own PPFs) so that essentially, you cannot defend yourself in that thread with your name as the title? I tend to think that it should not be allowed here. I should not be able to basically make negative threads about other members in my PPF. Do you agree? Thanks for your opinions. And FYI, the issue between myself and that member is over and doesn't need to be discussed...but this is a general question of how this forum should work for all of us. Should the same scenario happen to others besides myself?

Nice explanation, but what is TTB? (just kidding!)

This poll had nothing to do with the current situation involving BKA.

Agreed. Unless you really want to, of course. But you're a nice presence here BKA, and from what I could tell, you were very helpful in your tech position. Accusations about giving MPG access are likely only because you showed quite a bit of mercy toward him in times where others would have not.

None of us speak for all members of our skin color or race. I don't speak for all whites in saying that my family had no part in slavery, manifest destiny, anything illegal or infringing on others, etc...other white Europeans did some horrible things. Some did some great things. Many were like my ancestors. A native American doesn't speak for all of his ancestors and fellow NAs...we all speak for ourselves alone. To say that the people currently living in America were not welcomed here by the NAs of that time is only half true. There was actually welcoming, coexisting, treaties and agreements of lands. There was also bloodshed. Keep in mind that the NAs of the time didn't agree with each other. For a NA to say today that no one else except those of NA blood are welcome on this land, is delusional at best, although I get how they feel. At times our society seems horrible. At times it seems like it would have been better back in the day, before "the white man came"...because we assume it was a lot of freedom, not owing anything to anyone, etc. But if you consider that tribes were everywhere, it was probably similar to the situation today. You were likely bothered by people who you didn't know if you ventured off, and if you were with people you knew, they expected things of you that you disagreed with.

Pretty sure Canada wouldn't be the way it is today without the US having been formed...that goes for the rest of the world, too, including the UK. The world we live in today is not at all similar to the world of 1776...how might things have been different if the US hadn't broken away? Some would speculate not very different at all, knowing only the spirit of the era they're born and raised in...but I would speculate that the world would have continued on as it had at that time. Much different than today! http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-declaration-of-independence-the-words-heard-around-the-world-1404415089

Why?

I just finished the first season (8 episodes) of this show yesterday. Basically, it's great. It's about two detectives who investigate some pretty dark "ritual" style killings. So the subject matter, the vibe, some of the things shown, are not for all audiences and might/will likely disturb some/most people. To me, it's McConaughey's best role so far in his career. Lately he's been doing really well as an actor with unusual roles like in Mud, and Dallas Buyer's Club...but his acting as Rustin Cohle in True Detective stands out, to me. The character is also extremely interesting. Besides the good acting, T Bone Burnett does the soundtrack to the season (he also did O Brother Where Art Thou, for instance, which had great music). He actually included a song by The Melvins in this show, which was awesome and the first time that's ever happened. It totally fits the scene that he included it in. There's also this article and the comments below it (big spoiler alert, only read after viewing) at the Vigiliant Citizen website, which begins to scratch the surface of this first season in a particular way. Cool to look at the show through that lens. I don't think they covered nearly enough of the symbolism and various "occult" things hinted at (not referring to the "ritual" stuff, but actually a lot of what's here and there in the script). Hope you enjoy it as well, if you're up for checking it out.

I think there are GREAT results to be gained by doing freeweight exercises (especially the squat, deadlift, overhead press, etc). But in my opinion, these great results stop once you reach a certain point...basically it's only great when it's still a moderate exercise. It will build your body at that level (which is a very good thing), but it doesn't begin to build "bulk" until you're lifting more than you should. People who are sore or tired after workouts, who feel the need to eat a certain way to gain more muscle, etc...they're doing it wrong. I like the Stronglifts approach of starting out with an empty bar, and adding 2.5 lbs to each side of the bar, each time you workout. That way, the sore phase lasts the first two weeks when you really aren't lifting enough to cause any damage. You're slowly adapting the nervous system to the exercises, and the strength is truly built this way. We gain strength by progressive overload, or basically by lifting more than we did last time...so doing this methodical approach is best. After 3 or 4 months, there are excellent results...you will look and feel very healthy, not big...basically your frame will become normal and good looking. If you start out with a small and weak looking frame, you will be looking more athletic after a few months of methodical weight training. My ideal approach would be to do a phase of weight training like this, maybe 4-5 months...then once you're lifting weights that are too challenging, switch to another form of exercise for a few months. When you start the weight training back up, lower all of the weights by 50% and begin again at that lower level...basically so you're always at the moderate level of intensity when lifting. It's tempting to go beyond that moderate intensity, because you're making big gains in strength and you want to see how far you can take it and how good you can become in comparison to others at the gym. For people whose priority is strength, rather than health, there's another approach which is to continually push until the strength plateaus (until you can't do all of the reps), and then ratchet the weight down a little bit next time and continue progressing again...basically trying to always push past the plateaus. So that's good for the strength first/don't care about health approach. But if the goal is health, then moderate intensity should be the focus rather than how much weight you can squat...it should be thought of as a nervous system building exercise rather than a strength building or muscle bulking one. There's a big difference between bodybuilding and weight training. Body building focuses on making the muscles big. Weight training is basically just a form of resistance, which is good for health. It's excellent for spiritual development. Why? Because it's excellent for the health of the body.

Hope you like it, man. I have a feeling that not everyone will...probably a love it or hate it kind of show.

My bad, a moderator responded in the thread in question as I was making this.

Guys, if you don't believe in Mo Pai level 1, you have new age dillusions.

For anyone capable of integrity, this earlier explanation of the handbag comment will suffice: http://thetaobums.com/topic/35145-are-men-generally-more-conscious-than-women/?p=554633 It should be obvious to anyone that I don't think all women only care about handbags being on sale this weekend. But some do...and that's proof that not all women are more conscious than men. Get it yet? That was all that was being said there. Something you agree with. Anyway, Tyler, I'm reporting you for harassing me with your last post, and also for attempting to twist my words so that they are a breaking of the forum rules. I hope you will drop the issue now.

Who said "all women"? Not me. Please don't put words in my mouth and try to make me look bad. I can do that well enough myself, and don't require your assistance.

That's what you want to think...I don't weasel my way out of situations, or "walk it back" as you say. I also didn't say anything sexist...in fact, I stated a TRUTH. A truth which was solely to disprove the sexist notion that "women are more conscious than men". (which you disagree with by the way, in stating that neither sex is more conscious than the other. Why not focus on the fact that we agree?) You accuse me of being "hateful", when actually I think it's the reverse. You are the one spreading hatred here, Tyler. I actually said something kind to you in particular, and said nothing bad about WOMEN...but that's not what you want to focus on, is it, Tyler? I'm done here. If you address me again in an attempt to stir up shit (which is entirely what this was), you'll be met with silence.

It's the trend these days to assume that gender roles are contrived, invented, unjustly enforced, and almost completely bogus. Our culture basically unconsciously believes and teaches this to all of us, at least since the 1960s. I'm of the opposite opinion. I think men do better when they have the masculine gender role as their ideal, and that men experience bad effects if they don't believe in masculinity, or if they think they are or should be feminine. Not saying that anyone's personal life choices are wrong. Maybe straying away from the idea of a gender role will actually bring about positive results (which are more akin to true masculinity, than the misunderstood gender role of it). Just saying that males do better when there are masculine role models they can look up to, and masculine wisdom they can apply to their own lives. Not knowing who you are, not knowing what you stand for, what you should strive for, how to live...how can these things be good at all? I do agree that the gender roles can be bad if forced upon people...for instance, telling a boy he needs to man up and play football or something. Our society turns out false men, these days (you know the type, loud obnoxious fatass football watchers who have bikini babe posters in their man caves, etc). True manhood is still there, but it isn't understood as true manhood...for instance, a jovial/care free/friendly/helping attitude, I view as being more truly masculine...than a father being dismissive and agitated by his young son and yelling at him to be more of a man. That type of father isn't a man at all...he can't even handle his own emotions, and doesn't even have love for his own kid. In my view, true masculinity is compassion itself...not what we see today in adult men. So basically...gender roles say something, but can we understand the whole truth of what they're saying after all of these years of having forgotten what a true man really is? It's not that manhood is lost...it's just that it's not clearly defined. Maybe it's even intentionally muddled.

You misunderstood my post and took only one sentence out of the context of the post. Later on in that thread, I explained that sentence more to make it totally clear that it was not an insult to women. If you continue to assert that it was insulting, I'll be willing to copy and paste the links to those 2 posts here. I did not insult you, Tyler, nor did I intend to at any time.

*Tyler did some facepalm thing in response to my inquiry which didn't copy over when using the quote feature* I personally think it's just a common reaction of most people (men and women) to feel like women are being insulted in a discussion that involves women...when in fact, everyone here has been generally courteous. But if myself and others missed a woman being insulted here at this forum, please point it out so that we can end that kind of thing. No one should feel insulted by others here.

When and where did this happen?

This thread kind of exploded while I was at work... But on the ideas that were being discussed of an "entitled" attitude about sexuality and relationships...I totally get that guys will try to understand how women work and try to change themselves in order to try and make it work with them. Not saying it's a good idea, but I truly get it as a single guy. It's natural for men and women to get together. Sex is natural. Developing a good relationship with the other, is a higher form of natural. This idea of Seth's, that a man should not compromise his integrity in order to get something he wants, is great. This is a spiritual forum, so it's natural to discuss a more "spiritual warrior" kind of way of life. A real man can go without sex (or without getting what he thinks he wants, in any area of life) for a while in order to live with integrity. What is the worth of something you got for less than nothing (like getting pretty much a purely sexual relationship, as a result of behaving a way that's not natural to yourself)? For most guys I think it wouldn't be worth that much, after a time of experiencing that kind of thing. Unfulfilling relationships are boring and pointless. Wouldn't it be better to avoid most of the bad relationships that may happen, by having true integrity? It'd be worth more. It'd be more challenging, which makes it worth more (all of the virtues make life harder, yet more rewarding). Here's something to store in the back of your mind: try for a great relationship (where you treat someone well), instead of getting sex. And try to be a great person to everyone you know, instead of just getting a great relationship. In order to receive, you have to give. Live a life of character...a true man isn't concerned with what he can get out of life, he's only concerned with what he does in this life; the former is a reactive or even passive way of living, but the latter is proactive and leads to fulfillment. Some ideas to contemplate.

This is just off the top of my head, but I think John of Patmos wrote the Book of Revelation, and he had never met Jesus personally. He didn't get the forgiveness memo, or didn't personally comprehend it if he did get it. Not claiming the book should be discounted or something. But this can explain the seeming contradiction.

He killed 4 men, 2 women, and injured some other people. It wasn't a woman kill spree. I agree with pretty much all of your post, though. How our society and its boys tend to view women in sexuality is harmful to everyone. We don't have enough of the right kinds of role models out there for this.

Since it's also said after times that he healed people, I think it's just a general saying...not meant only for that one woman, but for everyone. I guess it could be thought that sin causes sickness or bad situations to happen...so to avoid those things in the future, try to live better. We're all supposed to stop sinning, or try as best we can, according to Jesus' teaching. "Try to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect". Part of not sinning simply includes forgiving others.

If someone is a legitimate feminist, aiming for proper (basically equal rights) treatment of women, I would never call them a feminazi. They are the furthest thing from that. Whatever goes beyond that is fair game, though...because it actually is fascist and radical. The Radical Feminist movement may have been strong back in the day, but it's influenced the majority's view of feminism in general today...many "feminist" views are too extreme today. As the article says, the term is definitely intended to shut those people up. I do believe they need to stop their crusade and rethink a more sensible approach. There is no actual patriarchy in my view, especially today...I guess we can just disagree. No use continuing back and forth; "I disagree", "so do I", "good because I truly disagree", etc. If we have "proof" we could present that. For instance, Hillary Clinton was recently Secretary of State and also a Senator and is likely running for President next time around (I fearfully suspect she's going to win). Lots of places have female authority figures...for instance schools, or various jobs, or police departments. In my perspective, there is a lot of women running things...especially in most homes and families, women make most of the decisions over men. I actually believe we live in a kind of matriarchy, especially considering how our culture and the law in our society treats women versus men, rather than having equality, or a preferential treatment of men. Anyway, I don't mean to be a "bum" toward you or try to make you feel unwelcome, Tyler. You are welcome here. This is just people disagreeing...no negativity.

There's also this phenomenon: