...

Does anybody still visit this website?

A response should suffice as a "yes".

I do i have been busy but I am able to drop by. I have noticed very little conversation here. And so where have you been my friend? I have missed you.

sooooooooooo where are you???????

kriswest wrote:

I do i have been busy but I am able to drop by. I have noticed very little conversation here.

Yes, our child molester/pedophile friend has left us alone, taken all of the thinkers and males, and created his own little spin-off version of a forum.

kriswest wrote:

And so where have you been my friend?

Around.

By.

Through.

Near.

Far.

Over there.

Over here.

kriswest wrote:

I have missed you.

I have missed you too baby.

Yes, I have been to that clone site through mistake. I still wander over there from time to time Its a wierd little place. I swear its the same person talking o themselves with different personnas. I think the thinkers there are just there because of orneriness. Satyr likes to poke at weakness like a bully poking at another's open sores. He kills me. the others pick at the ummm,, peds and others pretty much for the same reason. Its a wierd site.
He/she took any females too not just males. Well darlin ,if you get lemons make lemonade.. All those that left just makes room for new and interesting folks, Right?

kriswest wrote:

Yes, I have been to that clone site through mistake. I still wander over there from time to time Its a wierd little place. I swear its the same person talking o themselves with different personnas. I think the thinkers there are just there because of orneriness.

Yes, you are correct. Jean or whatever his name is pretends he can fool people by creating multiple identities and talking with himself.

It gives the forum a delusion that there is a conversation going on when there is not. I do not believe his tactic is helping his cause.

Then again, raping prepubescent girls is a hard sell these days...lol!

kriswest wrote:

Satyr likes to poke at weakness like a bully poking at another's open sores. He kills me.

His style is too amazing to look away really. He excels at what he does. He is more malicious than I am which affords him more fun.

kriswest wrote:

the others pick at the ummm,, peds and others pretty much for the same reason. Its a wierd site.

He/she took any females too not just males.

For some reason, I often doubt there were ever any females on this website or the other except for yourself...hmmm.

kriswest wrote:

Well darlin ,if you get lemons make lemonade.. All those that left just makes room for new and interesting folks, Right?

I am just chilling out, content within myself, for the most part.

I am still looking for more female victims around my cave though.

It is fun...I suppose.

Well, Unreasonable, what can I say?...

It seems desertion has taken effect much more than continuity for this website.

I have been posting on the "newer" more refined version of the dissidents forum, located at-dissidentsphilosophy.lifediscussion.net.

Satyr, has re-registered there, along with some other known users from this one, however, there appears to be an over-taking of these Arab/Muslim users advocating their religious slope.

I was recently banned from there due to an essay i had written, evidently, critical philosophical analysis is abhorred.

in any case, I enjoy reading your work Unreasonable, if you continue to visit here, so will I.

Sure I will be around. I have nothing else to do.

Is it not an "irony" that Jean the Child Molester created a "Free Speech" only to promote his own views on pedophilia ("child-love") and then bans any view contrary to his?? At least I had the nerve on this website not to ban any particular people, even when they relentlessly-pressured me to do so. He will learn the hard way...that promoting pedophilia/rape is a hard sell to make. And he is no Devils Advocate.

Feel free to come and go here as you please.

Yes a true dissident allows free speech even if it is distatsteful. You cannot fight what is hidden or banned you can only let it fester and grow when you keep it in the dark,,, much like mold.


Sorry I can't prove my gender here, there is a place where my photo is up but, I do not advertise it. if you would be so kind to take my word for it I would apreciate it.


Jean/ Nikki is a person of issues. I think a shrink would run away.

kriswest wrote:

Yes a true dissident allows free speech even if it is distatsteful. You cannot fight what is hidden or banned you can only let it fester and grow when you keep it in the dark,,, much like mold.

...I have a mold problem in my bathroom, coincidence?

Then again I only pay $350.00 for this place.

kriswest wrote:

Sorry I can't prove my gender here, there is a place where my photo is up but, I do not advertise it. if you would be so kind to take my word for it I would apreciate it.

I was not inferring that you are male, babe, because I know you are female.

I meant that I question the validity of any poster on Jeans website.

I sometimes feel compelled to believe he creates new User IDs and pictures to promote his pedophilia.

kriswest wrote:

Jean/ Nikki is a person of issues. I think a shrink would run away.

Well I am more like Kinsey so I do the opposite of running away. I look closer.

Unfortunately for me though, Jean ran away after I got under his skin.

He reacted violently when I questioned him about raping children. It indicates to me he is very insecure with his sexuality.


If he is in fact a pedophile then why is he not proud of it? But I also realize he can be incriminated for being open on the internet.

So much for Free Speech then...

Unreasonable wrote:

Unfortunately for me though, Jean ran away after I got under his skin.

He reacted violently when I questioned him about raping children. It indicates to me he is very insecure with his sexuality.


If he is in fact a pedophile then why is he not proud of it? But I also realize he can be incriminated for being open on the internet.

So much for Free Speech then...

Funny you should mention this "jean" character, (if that is his/her real name or identity), becoming vexed by you, because he had took a bit of a liking to me in particular assuming i was an anarchist-which I'm not. He and I had corresponded with each other on numerous occasions with private messages after he had delegated me the powers of a moderator. he explained to me that vulgarity and aggressive behavior should be restrained, and instead compassion and understanding utilized-which further strengthens the possibility it is a female.

After i had read your essay unreasonable, of human sexuality, i found it compelling and correct in its wares. This "jean" told me he disliked you and warned me not to imitate the (according to him) "reprobate" style attributable to you, otherwise he would ban me.

He told me "His writing has no heart"
To which i replied "what does "heart" have to do with philosophy?"
To which he feebly retorted "just don't write like him."

LOL!

I found it to be a direct recommendation to write an essay exemplifying that of analytical philosophy, which was titled "The Absolute". Saytr enjoyed it. And than the private message came from him/her explaining that i was "warned" against that type of writing, and than POP! i was banned. LOL!

system-hater, you were not banned for your essay.

You were banned two weeks later -- at your, out of the blue, request.

Yes, we are very fond of you.

No, we didn't say to you that we don't like, Unreasonable, we said that we don't like his reason or style. We like him very much. He was invited to join us.

And, we do not care for calling people "stupid" and much worse. There are far greater issues as stake with philosophy. That is why we left here exactly.

Every effort has been made to respect free-speech. You are the only member to have been banned, at your request. The only posts to have been deleted were those deleted by you with the mod tools you had; despite which, we might add, you were not removed from the mod group.

We have a high regard for people's privacy, that is why we deleted your userID, named Deleteme, it exposed internet socks. Certain exigencies are necessary to fullfil the mission; tactically it must not make sense to you, but there are strategic aims of which you are not aware. This project is serious and legitimate.

We thank-you for your participation up to this point, you are welcome to return if you suppost the "Mission".

And we are also very fond of you kris, we regret that we have sometimes disagreed.

What can I say??

The pursuit for Philosophy may produce many casualties. Am I responsible? Perhaps I am. I hope not.

All I know is that I am willing to sacrifice a great deal of things, to learn and know. I will have to take a look at your essay, System-Hater.


And Hadji/Jean,

I am still interested to hear of your sexual conquests of girl-love if you ever feel more open discussing it.

But keep in mind that nothing is private to me and I may at times feel compelled to announce your views openly.

I mean you obviously want to legitimize, rationalize, or justify your drive toward child molestation. I am willing to listen.


Just be prepared to lose your argument based on moral principle. Because other than that, I see no reason to oppose little girl-love.

I wondered how long it would take for you to show up here Hadji.

You can't control others if one truly believes in free speech and dissidence.

Your above reply to SH shows a need to control and dictate. A mission on a dissident forum? Free speech support but only to a point? Banning?

Your obssesions control you. You need to control what is in you for freedom in your own self. Otherwise youare driven to control what is outside you and that makes for a difficult life. What surrounds us is not easily controlled. It must be allowed to be.

UR on this forum has made your forum pale by comparision. A clone never is as full and rich as the original. A clone always tries and fails to be what it came from. You should have given your forum another name and a cleaner slate.

kriswest wrote:

I wondered how long it would take for you to show up here Hadji.

You can't control others if one truly believes in free speech and dissidence.

Your above reply to SH shows a need to control and dictate. A mission on a dissident forum? Free speech support but only to a point? Banning?

Jean/Hadji/etc. believes he is not a dictator when he is.

But dictators conform to nobody's rules except their own. They believe they can do whatever they want. Molesting small children is a good example here.

kriswest wrote:

Your obssesions control you. You need to control what is in you for freedom in your own self. Otherwise youare driven to control what is outside you and that makes for a difficult life. What surrounds us is not easily controlled. It must be allowed to be.

That is correct Kris. The world 'outside' must succumb to the world 'inside' but not through active force.

kriswest wrote:

UR on this forum has made your forum pale by comparision. A clone never is as full and rich as the original. A clone always tries and fails to be what it came from. You should have given your forum another name and a cleaner slate.

He believed that he could imitate Free Speech when this is no easy task. One cannot imitate Freedom. One can only be Free for Freedom.

You are right. Unfortunately many hate such responsibility or fear it.

kriswest wrote:

You are right. Unfortunately many hate such responsibility or fear it.

Also there is somewhat of a seemingly genetic capacity for responsibility.

Some people seem like they are just "born" to lead (in responsibility). And I am willing to believe that.

For example, if I had a daughter then I would not want her to just be molested by a guy who goes around molesting dozens, if not hundreds of defenseless girls.


I want her to save her virginity until she is married to a man of real power, and leadership, who is mature enough to accept responsibilities.

I am of the acceptance that as a man, i must be responsible for *EVERY* action i take, against my own life and the lives of others.

I would imagine, that if i didn't, i would desecrate my nature as a man.

I simply do not have the luxury to be careless, even though i can be at times.

system-hater wrote:

I am of the acceptance that as a man, i must be responsible for *EVERY* action i take, against my own life and the lives of others.

I would imagine, that if i didn't, i would desecrate my nature as a man.

I simply do not have the luxury to be careless, even though i can be at times.

This is probably due to your ancestry as well as your prenatal and postnatal care.

In today's Western World this kind of accountability is disrespected by Liberals who contrarily believe that nobody is responsible for anything. (nihilistic)

Unreasonable wrote:

This is probably due to your ancestry as well as your prenatal and postnatal care.

I had no father in my life as a child.

However, my brother stood in where my father vacated and commandeered the role of the male figure, building my masculine traits.

I am eternally grateful to my brother for this act of responsibility on his part, otherwise, i assume my mother would have feminized me severely, (not that it would have been her fault).

Quote :

In today's Western World this kind of accountability is disrespected by Liberals who contrarily believe that nobody is responsible for anything. (nihilistic)

The atheistic uprising is also contributing to this ongoing travesty.

Genes do play a part in behavior true.....
What has me laughing is picturing a daughter of yours being compliant to her Daddy's wishes. ROFL You best lock her up cuz genes play a part in personality. I do believe you would have a strong daughter that follows her own concerns not Daddy's.

SH, a mother can only feminize a male if is is prone to it in the first place. It would be dominant submissive. In such a case the mother would have the dominant personality while the son would have a submissive one. If both are dominant the male will be masculine.

kriswest wrote:

SH, a mother can only feminize a male if is is prone to it in the first place.

Yes...okay. and male children are *ALWAYS* prone to it, whether another male figure is present or not.

What's your point?

Quote :

It would be dominant submissive. In such a case the mother would have the dominant personality while the son would have a submissive one.

Any growing developing child suffuses a submissive personality regardless of the gender. That is the natural condition of childhood. All children are "psychologically" predisposed to submit to the shaping and molding of parental imposition, even though some are not exposed to it.

Quote :

If both are dominant the male will be masculine.

incorrect.

The child cannot be dominant, if it can only be *susceptible* to dominance in the early stages of life.

All children "inevitably" must learn and imitate what they see from their environment or other human beings, before they can develop any "independent" traits.

Haven't spent much time around alot of kids eh?? Books do not explain real life very well.
You are repeating what you have read not what you have experienced or observed.
male children are not prone to it
All children do not have submissive personalitiies
All kids do not imitate what they see and learn.


Most humans are submissive
Most humans require acceptance
Most humans must have a leader.

True or false to the above three?

kriswest wrote:

Books do not explain real life very well.

You'd be surprised if you read a good quantity of them.

Quote :

You are repeating what you have read not what you have experienced or observed.

i am not "repeating" anything. Only discussing it, expounding on it, illustrating it etc, from how I've absorbed it, whether it be experience or reading material.

Quote :

male children are not prone to it
All children do not have submissive personalitiies
All kids do not imitate what they see and learn.

All subjective statements with no reasoning behind them. Try again.



Most humans are submissive-false. ALL humans are submissive to *INFLUENCE*.
Most humans require acceptance-false. Acceptance is no "requirement".
Most humans must have a leader.-false. Most humans **prefer** to be lead by someone capable of leading them, however, again this is nothing more than a predisposition.

Quote :

True or false to the above three?

I just wanted to see how you view humanity , that is why I asked the questions. You have a dismal view.