Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Deprecator

  • Rank


  • MBTI


  • Gender
  1. In terms of hours played and money spent World of Warcraft would win by an astronomical landslide. Of course that was back in '04, '05 and '06 when the game was actually good. In terms of the game's progression to the present day I'd compare it to an old girl friend who was once smoking hot but has since gained a tremendous amount of weight; as much as I try not to judge others for wanting to play I still can't help but see it as a sign of desperation on their part.
  2. Nothing about this was imagined; all I ever did was quote you, and since then you've tried spinning your "true" intention behind that quote in a variety of ways. While I'd agree with your point that a virgin can have plenty of conversations with women about their experiences, I'd disagree with you if you thought that a person could have a lot of sex with a variety of women and not hear a great deal about their experiences in the process. In my experience these two go hand and hand, and as long as there's any kind of correlation between these results then you're making an implication, regardless of whether or not this implication was intentional. You could of said "I disagree with you because in my experience X, Y and Z," but you opted not to. You went ahead with a cold read and instead decided to volunteer your own speculation about my clear "lack of experience with women" instead. Perhaps I'm getting colder with my cold reads when I openly speculate about your profound and excessive experience with other men (to be fair, going from very hot to hot would still mean I'm getting colder), though in my defense I do have a terrible history of following the precedence set by other people.
  3. If you think this has happened then I'd like to know what specific event you're referring to. Even using the most notorious of examples, the National Socialist German Workers Party got less than a third of the vote when they first came into power and from there the vast majority of the individuals complicit in ensuing events later claimed they were merely following orders, a sentiment repeatedly echoed with similar atrocities committed in other administrations across the world and throughout history, such as with the American solders who were complicit in the My Lai Massacre. While in either case there are going to be individuals deriving pleasure from committing such atrocities, I'd argue that they are the overwhelming minority; in contrast, far more participants do eventually express remorse or shame at having committed these acts and wish they could go back and NOT repeat those actions. That said, if you think that historical atrocities in any way invalidates the "greater good" theory then I think you're greatly disillusioned with how the theory works, as applying it will still rate these atrocities as highly unethical. I really don't think you understand suffering if you think that protecting a person's trust issues justifies the deprivation of a person's hardwired biological drives. "Not getting raped or lied to" isn't a biological imperative. In contrast, having sex (or not going your entire life with getting any) is undoubtedly a biological imperative. Lying or resorting to violence to meet the requirements of a biological imperative, when no ethical other options are realistically available, is absolutely justified, even more so when you're not directly interfering with the biological imperative of another while doing so. Historically you've seen this time and time again with people who are hungry when they shamelessly commit the most indecent of human acts to satiate that drive for food. So no, I'm not going pull a sea blue and try to tell them how unethical their actions are if they are starving and they think lying to me will get them food when there just happens to be no other feasible alternative. Interesting. I think that first and foremost, a person's main obligation is to satisfy the needs of their biological drives (i.e. food, water, etc), preferably in an manner that doesn't harm others (this is often the most efficient way). If meeting these needs in an ethical manner is not possible then the second obligation wold be to satisfy the needs of the biological drive in an unethical manner. Once these drives have been satiated then (and only then) does it become worthwhile to bring up this fancy ethics talk about how there's some type of fundamental "obligation" to not inflict harm onto another. Did I say that? I don't remember what I stated exactly but I do remember deleting a paragraph because when I reread it I thought it was poorly worded, and since then you've continued to harp on what I might or might not have said repeatedly. Either way I don't think that acting out of a self interest that doesn't harm other people (i.e. buying an identical product for a cheaper price to save money) is synonymous with engaging in unethical behavior or otherwise being a sociopath. If you'd feel bad by "screwing someone over" then by not stealing you're actively avoiding feelings of guilt or self-criticism, which might become more and more enhanced the less you felt you needed the money if you did decide steal it. If the person you want to be (i.e. a person who doesn't steal or screws people over) isn't consistent with the person you are (person who takes 5,000 and gets away with it) then real, tangible emotional distress can result. A person can steal the 5,000 out of self interest, while also not steal the 5,000 out of self interest. Regardless of which direction the pendulum wings, I believe that self-interest is the underlying motivation. Obviously it's not an exact science because (with women especially) "irrational" behavior kicks in, which would be engaging in behavior that is not in their alleged self interest. For an example, lets take a female who wants to wear skimpy clothing, drink a lot at a bar and then invite multiple guys she just met back to her place. Individually there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of these actions, but collectively this might be irrational because it seems like she's saying one thing with her words (that she doesn't want to get raped) and another thing entirely different with her actions. And of course, afterwards the only way she gets to save face is by playing the rape card, which might mean marching on the streets and publicly declaring to everyone that "no means no." And most people would not want to traumatize someone for life for personal pleasure (to be fair I don't think that lifelong trauma is the norm, and some rape victims won't report any trauma at all). Sadly, women want to get the best of both worlds; they want to actively use sex exclusively as a means of acquiring resources and thereby restricting who has access to it for a considerable segment of the population, AND they want to argue that lying to get sex is always unethical under all circumstances (which it undoubtedly would be if the perpetrator had access to consensual sex). These statements undoubtedly preclude one another and as a result they're going to have to pick either one or the other and then go with that. Women can say that it's their body and they get to do what they want with it until they're blue in the face; attempting to widely restrict who has access to it will just cause some men to disagree. And to be fair, attempting to restrict some women from sex might cause them to disagree too, but it just happens that this occurs at a significantly decreased frequency, if at all.
  4. I was truly upset by this game, RM did not deserve to lose. Thankfully the game doesn't have to matter; RM can still win their remaining fixtures but it's not going to be pretty. And honestly I'm more upset with Bale injuring himself every game than I am with the actual loss; it's like he's paper and hopelessly fluttering to the slightest breeze. When they first got him I thought he'd be the edge they needed and since then they've won 2/3 CL titles and still vying for 3/4, but now I'm worried that he'll pull an owen hargreaves, never see a full game again and they'll lose the extra edge that previously got them past the semis.
  5. Yeah now that you mention it I'm starting to think I might be heterophobic. A guy and a girl making out? Ew. They should get a room and keep it private because I certainly don't care to see that. Girl and another girl making out? Wow, I just want to applaud them for their outstanding bravery and hope that others might dare to follow in their footsteps.
  6. You must think even worse of humanity than I previously thought if you realistically believe that 2 million people would derive satisfaction from the death of an innocent person, as opposed to the vast majority of them being upset that an innocent person was being harmed. A far more realistic scenario is that 1 very twisted person out of the multitudes would be able to derive satisfaction by murdering another. In most cases this would be profoundly unethical; it wouldn't be unprecedented for the victim to want to live and be absolutely mortified by the thought of being murdered, and in terms of "greater good," the twisted person's pleasure wouldn't come close to trumping the victim's instinctive inclination to live. However, if the 'victim' were genuinely depressed and didn't care much for life, then this 'murder' (murder is a arbitrary legal definition that varies by jurisdiction) very quickly translates to 'assisted suicide,' and a symbiotic relationship is formed where both parties work together to achieve complementary goals. Hardly unethical at all at this point, even if certain legal definitions might still technically classify it as murder. So if a person is experiencing great suffering at the hand of violence then it is not unethical to lie in order to prevent further violence (and curtail suffering). However, if a person is experiencing great suffering at the hand of something other than violence, then it is unethical to lie in order to curtail this suffering? Right, I don't know what I was thinking. In what crazy, twisted universe is suffering still suffering regardless of its cause. I must say that I am truly disturbed if you seriously consider this to be the standard within ethics. The classic example is walking by someone who is drowning; for whatever reason they could be trapped in such an enclosure where there's no leverage to pull themselves out and will drown if not helped by another. With your philosophy there is no obligation to save them and you're in the clear ethically if you had nothing at all to do with their situation. Still, I'd like to think that most people with even the tiniest shred of human decency, would not only do their best to pull them out and save them (even if doing so was slightly inconvenient to them), but would also do so without the expectation that they'd receive anything in return. So for all the non-sadists who are in any way effected by the suffering of another, there is undoubtedly an obligation to relieve the suffering of another, especially when doing so is of very little inconvenience to them (i.e. the pain/ inconvenience inflicted to the rescuer pales considerably when compared to the relief experienced by the rescuee). I know I would always try to help if I was able, though the only thing that might make me pause and reconsider is if it were a female who I knew would never in a million years extend me the same courtesy, and for no better reason than because doing so might "devalue" her in the eyes of someone providing her with financial resources. So in the end it's interesting how not acting would be classified as "highly unethical" based on my greater good theory, but would still be perfectly ethical with your minimalist theory. lol? Is there a reason (outside of resenting men and wanting to think the worse of them) why you'd think that I'd think it'd go this way? I I certainly didn't make a claim one way or another because I'm happier whichever way it goes; if some of them become more hostile then it's easier for me to weed out those who'd I'd consider unworthy of my time and energy, and get to focus exclusively on those whose flirtations were legitimately genuine. Your views suggest that you do in fact have extensive experience with men; tragically I think you can only have so much experience with men before you run into some bad apples, and it sounds like these bad apples have motivated you to question your sexuality, settle down and embrace minimalism as grounds to justify your profound indifference to the suffering of others.
  7. I voted cute, but I want to say that the image I had imagined when I thought of two guys kissing looked nothing like the image provided in the OP, which definitely looks gross. Heterosexual public displays of affection are such the overwhelming majority where I live that on the off chance I do happen to see something like 2 girls or 2 guys holding hands then I think it's absolutely adorable.
  8. Lol what? I can only imagine how little you must think of humanity if you realistically think that the death of 20 innocent people are going to somehow make 200 other people so gleefully happy that it would somehow supersede the collective morbidness associated with those 20 innocent individuals coming to terms with their immediate demise. I don't want to get too ahead of myself though; if other feminists resented men half as much as you seem to then maybe you could find 199 others who'd get off to the death or castration of 20 random men. Yes, if you're a female who is inclined to use sex as a means to acquire resources (as opposed to a goal in and of itself) then I can see why you might see this cause as trivial or non-consequential. Though if lying to alleviate such unbearable suffering is so profoundly unethical then why don't you entertain me and provide me with an example in which lying would be considered far more noble? Just for the sake of context so I can see where you're coming from with this ground breaking ethical theory of yours. I'm genuinely trying, so I'll take your advice and start from a practical perspective. Practically, if feminists criticized flirty women who didn't put out for not putting out, and this criticism led to reform with this type of behavior, then this reform might significantly curtail incentives men might possess to lie. But this would mean that you're getting to the root cause of the problem as opposed ruthlessly attacking the symptom, an approach that defies all standards associated with modern day feminist logic.
  9. If you say so. Based on my "greater good" theory then this behavior would be undoubtedly and unequivocally classified as ethical behavior. Though if whatever theory of ethics you're using is so black and white as to suggest that "lying is bad," then sure. Call it unethical. Somehow with feminists it's always, "men who lie are sleazy dirt bags who only think of themselves" and it's never "flirty women who don't put out are stuck up, blue balling bitches who only think of themselves." Go figure.
  10. The one CL draw I didn't want to see. Juve and monaco both must be happy; either team would be underdogs against either madrid team over 2 legs, but against 1 leg they have a shot. Atletico plays such negative football (I think they're the one team no one ever wants to play, including RM and Barca); not very fun to watch but it's what Barcelona and real Madrid have produced as an option to counter their dominance. Now I want to see real madrid vs monoco in the final. They're two attacking attacking oriented teams that have been scoring left and right like there's no tomorrow, so that final would truly be a marvel to watch. Sadly I think monoco players are too young and simply lack the experience to beat juventus, who are the one team that can sit back and defend, having just left barca scoreless over 2 legs.
  11. Sorry, but this is just flat out wrong, and saying this stuff makes it difficult for me to take you seriously. It's not bull shit at all if there are inherent, anatomical, social and physiological differences between men and women. For an example, I could advocate that women should be forced to urinate using a man's urinal; by many accounts this would be messy and not very practical, but either way I don't think defending myself by saying "Hey, I'm just holding women to the same standards of behavior as men" would really justify this view or belief that is clearly misogynistic. Even trends associated with non-anatomical differences are inalienable. For an example, in terms of ability to acquire sex men and women again have fundamental differences between the two of them. While women may enjoy sex (again, a very counter-intuitive conclusion that I've been forced to accept with great reluctance), they typically fair far better when going without it, and have far less interest in it initially. This is the fundamental basis for why prostitution exists at all; if men came anywhere close to a woman's ability to "just not think about it" or "be perfectly fine when going without it" then I daresay the whole prostitution industry would collapse. Of course. People shouldn't commit date rape. At the same time I want to point out that opting for option number 2 didn't have to depend on rape. "Not taking no for an answer" could just as well have been "lying in such a way that makes her more malleable." For an example, lots of women won't sleep with someone unless they feel like there might be long term potential, or otherwise won't feel comfortable with the act unless they feel their partner is invested into them emotionally. Even lying to someone like Holli about their profound interest in roller coasters might help set things in motion. On either count, feigning emotional interest or professing a non-existent interest in a long term possibility of marriage or kids can help greatly with making someone a more willing participant. Now I sometimes get the feeling that women don't like it when this happens (might need to collect more data on this one to confirm), but either way I don't think her being lied to is any worse for her than a guy suffering from the fate of option number 1 (which seems to be a very real possibility for some guys). Again, women can't understand the magnitude of this significance because for them sex often just isn't a big deal; they already have lots of interest from hundreds of guys, and are far more inclined to use sex as a means to acquire resources as opposed to using resources as a means to acquire sex. These fundamental and undeniable differences really makes me question your notion that it's perfectly fine to "hold men and women to the same standards," and lots of your outrageous claims are very consistent with a deep, simmering resentment towards a wide variety of men. Gender studies, motorcycles, castration and intersectionnal feminism? Hey, don't mind me because I never would have come up with this. Where are your stories and how does one become qualified to read them? If nothing else I've only ever commended you (quite genuinely I might add) for your truly remarkable propensity for imagination. And if you're looking for inspiration I would most certainly recommend The Magician by Somerset Maugham. It classically depicts 2 men of completely polarized archetypes battling fiercely for the affection of the young, fickle female who hasn't the faintest idea of what she wants. One man was a walking manifestation of the chivalry and respect so often associated with a proper English gentleman, and the other man was a scoundrel willing to resort to all sorts of underhanded tactics and deception. The open contempt between the males was truly remarkable, and after the mudslinging, chest pumping and back and forth ridicule that inevitably accumulated into a good, old-fashioned scuffle, I daresay... well TLDR: I don't think that openness and honesty paid off in the end.
  12. Okay, I'm posting this video exclusively for you, Holli. I don't know why I bother though, because as a person obsessed with roller coasters it'll be impossible for you to become awe struck by the raw, uninhibited passion and instead just focus on all the "warning signs." If you think the men in the video need to be genuinely worried about maintaining attachment to certain appendages then we clearly have different experiences with people. And other than castration, what do you mean exactly by "fucked over?" Like if she sleeps with me just once, doesn't come back for more and then I need to rethink everything I thought I once knew about the universe? Thank you, but I'll take my chances. Wrong. The context around that quote (that SB purposely left out) specifically stated that I wouldn't commit those actions even if I knew I wouldn't go to jail (or if they were legal). The rest of your unwarranted speculation falls apart after this. I don't believe a truly selfless act exists, and that "genuinely caring about other people" will more often than not also benefit your own personal interests. As such almost all people would fall into this category. But sure... use a super edgy label if you have to. ...... added to this post 15 minutes later: No one; I was not saying she was condoning it. I was just curious as to how'd they be classified. If arguing against rape and violence is "sociopathic reasoning" then what is slashing tires classified as? I don't know how I could of made that any more clear. Is this more sociopathic reasoning or is it some other type of reasoning? Clearly you guys are the experts on the taxonomy of moral virtue.
  13. And it's a good thing too; women are typically terrible at giving advice on how to get sex. I can just imagine it now; first chapter on why you should just be yourself and the second chapter on the importance of openness and honesty. Women don't know what they want. So many of them love to be told what to do, how to do it, when to do it; they like to be controlled but it's impossible for them to request this because they don't know it yet, or if they do know it then they're much too ashamed to admit it openly. For an example, lets take a former partner of mine who marries for financial gain. She may genuinely love her husband and wants him to be happy because lets face it, he's a great guy who makes an even better father. But every once in a while she just can't help herself and she visits me. He's oblivious to the things that she secretly wants and never in a millions years is she able to tell him because society tells her she should be ashamed of these things. And for another example, lets use the OP (who openly admits to being fickle); she loves him and wants him to be her friend but doesn't know if she can see him that way and thinks she might be an asexual. She keeps going back and forth and back and forth and then finally when confronted directly by her friend all she can do is burst out into tears. Sounds like she doesn't have the faintest idea of what she wants, a trend I'm all too familiar with based on my extensive experience with women. Sure. If you absolutely hate men and want them to be miserable (typical vibe I get from feminists here who sound rather obsessed with castration) then this is absolutely great advice to give. Bravo. You got me on a quote that I deleted because I thought it was poorly worded and would be too easily taken out of context (which you ended up doing). But if you think that openly condemning rape, violence, derogatory/ demeaning slurs or judging someone for their romantic history is an indicator of sociopathic reasoning, then what type of reasoning leads to the justification of the behaviors presented here: Holli, these things may be possible, but I'm not able to play around a romantic partner with malicious intentions. If you're at all familiar with poker the equivalent would be if you're in a cash game and are up against a loose, aggressive player and you've hit a set with no flush or straight possibilities. The opponent may have a higher set in this situation, though never in a million years am I able to play around this. Similarly, if for whatever reason a female I'm trying to sleep with possesses sinister intentions towards me, then never in a million years will I be able to play around that. All I know is that, outside of my inherent, hardwired desire to do anything I can to sleep with them, I harbor absolutely no maliciousness or ill-will of any kind towards them, and I'd be absolutely thrilled if this sentiment could be in any way reciprocated. I really wish you'd enlighten us with the specifics of this groundbreaking ethical theory of yours. A better example would be this. Option 1: A guy befriends a girl and they get along great. One day they're alone and drinking together and he tries kissing her, and while she may respond positively initially, she prevents him from going further and eventually tells him that she just sees him as a friend. He meets another girl and befriends her and the same thing happens. He goes from girl to girl to girl and time and time again they keep telling him the same thing; "you're a super great guy and one day you'll make another girl super happy." TLDR: he dies a lonely and depressed virgin. Option 2: Now lets take this same guy and revisit the first scenario when he's alone and drinking with his friend. He's confident, assertive and dominant and just absolutely refuses to take no for an answer. Initially she was convinced that she didn't want that to happen but now that it has she's very grateful that it did. She eagerly revisits him afterward, and as this trend continues other girls become interested and before you know it, he's getting more tail than most other guys could ever hope to get if they lived multiple lifetimes. TLDR: He's very happy when he dies and looks back at all those amazing memories with fondness. So I get it. As a feminist who likes talking about castration you hate most men and want them to be miserable, so you advocate repeatedly about informed consent this and informed consent that, and as a result, you think men should always go for option 1.
  14. If going down on someone for several hours is what constitutes "an amazing experience that could potentially crush your soul," then I don't know. My testicles are fully functioning and intact so I really can't say how'd I react if I didn't have them.
  15. Nice catch. While what I said wasn't inaccurate, a more complete version of that quote would have said "people" as opposed to "women." And taylor swift? I don't know anything about baseball so I'm not "going after" him at all. Though if he's engaged in similar behavior then his behavior should be condemned as well.