Integrating Mind and Body

First, let's clear one thing up: humans don't have (((instincts))), only reflexes.

That is, one's disposition towards sexuality is entirely rational- from imitation to a fully thought out sexual philosophy- with most people being a compromise between these 2 extremes. If you shirk the notion that you choose your sexual philosophy, then you're doomed to living a sexual philosophy that you believe you can't change- when you can.

Given that Sup Forums skews towards both asociality and high intelligence, Sup Forums is predisposed to thinking in lieu of imitation. And given society's cost/benefit of marriage and family, a Pollack's sexual philosophy skews towards traps- traps offer a comparable sexual experience to that of women, without the detriment of children or the female temperament.

You are a man, be rational.

>Why is this always posted.
It's truth, and it counters the Jewish lie that we have inherent vices over which we exercise diminished control.
>Do you get paid.
No.
>Is it a bit. Is it some sort of agenda?
I enjoy helping Sup Forums improve themselves.

How rational is the choice in taste of foods you do/don't like?

>How rational is the choice in taste of foods you do/don't like?
Sensory response are not rational. The foods you choose, are.

Skews towards high intelligence? You are new here.

Right they're rationally chosen based on the pleasure response of the sensory receptors, which are not rational. So why couldn't sexuality be the same?

>why not the same
Because sex is pleasurable with both sexes

but what if i don't like other peoples dicks or assholes?

How wouldn't this run into evolutionary problems? Nature wouldn't risk making sex with both sexes equally as pleasurable, there needs to be an instinct to breed with the gender capable of breeding with you

>be product of millions of years of sexual selection
>nah bro i choose how i work

lmao

>but what if i don't like other peoples dicks or assholes?
Your values enable you to get over that, just like with vag.

The mechanism, the mind, is what you're referring to, enabling is to survive countless generations

Sexual reproduction predates the mind by a few billion years

>there needs to be an instinct
The mind's ability to choose is adaptable, but not instinct. Instinct does not need to exist.

> Just like with vag.
Vaginas don't turn you on at all, do they?

>
>Sexual reproduction predates the mind by a few billion years
True. But this does not mean that the mind did not relieve instinct.

>> Just like with vag.
>Vaginas don't turn you on at all, do they?
I'll fuck vag, but vag is still gross.

Would you eat from a vag?

dude. if you have to think this hard about sexuality no matter which way you wanna swing you need to fucking kill yourself. Your gay, whatever. That doesn't make what you like normal, or mentally sound. If you aren't wired to even try and seek out another body with the requisite parts to reproduce with then your as productive to our collective genetic development as a bee that tries to pollinate plastic flowers. You might feel good doing it and fulfill some part of you thats driven to do this but ultimately your just an unproductive waste of space.

Read darwin or freud or anything

>if you don't act to reproduce, then either there is no instinct, or people have different instincts
Which is it?

>Read darwin or freud or anything

Darwin explains proliferation, not the mechanics of it.

Drive Theory states that our actions are driven by subconscious urges- which are
innate and unchosen, which we cannot vanquish, only suppress.
The fact is that we are act according to our values- which are consciously chosen.
>but how do we learn to eat and fuck?
By sensory response and/or imitation.
>but we don't choose to breath
That is not action, as one does not choose to breathe- it's autonomous action.

The fact is that we are not born with drives, and that our actions are the result of us acting to achieve our values. Just as you choose to be fat, you choose to be gay.

By mechanics, I mean the ACTIONS of beings.

The fuck is that even supposed to mean? Your looking for knots here in a biological necessity that prehates our humanity when there's like only 2% of you weird fucks out there. Just because something feels good, does not mean its good for you. Your just sick in the head, its as simple as that.

Do gays have no instincts, or different instincts?

Also, read post related, might clear up your intellectual frustrations.

The instinct you have as an anomalous mistake that shouldn't even be bothered with. I mean to say its better for everyone involved to pretend it doesn't even exist its such a colossal waste of time.

You give yourself an award for choosing to be a dumbass rather than being born one. same waste of time, matter and energy whether you think its instinctual or not.

Protip: there are no instincts. Instincts are simply the way psychologists describe phenomena they don't know the root of, and degenerates blame their actions on.

now your just being pedantic

>waste of time
You're attributing nature's motive to people. Also, it should be noted that individuals can act to promote/preserve their kind WHILE sacrificing themselves. All animals, including humans, do this. And that genetic material can promote itself while predisposing it's carriers to sacrifice. That is, the ability to choose to be gay is good for a population

>use broad terms such that I may never have to make any specific point
T. Jew

Nature isn't some fucking god. I woulden't even say its real. and if it is, the behavior of humanity is as much a part of it as anything else. And whatever it is about gay people that makes them these outstanding citizens, nature sure coulden't find a way to pass it along except by exposing children to it. So I could hardly say natures motives are anything more than the best it can get away with at any given time.

If I was a jew I woulden't be trying to tell someone to stop being a faggot. Spreading faggotry is about as jewish as it gets right before you start sacrificing children. which in a way this is already about.

>whatever it is about gay people that makes them these outstanding citizens, nature sure coulden't find a way to pass it along except by exposing children to it.
Gay people CHOOSE to be gay- and the mind is what enables it.
That said, exposing homos to children may help them CHOOSE to be gay- as we often I'm imitate those we see most. But what were imitating is not fucking the same sex, but rather the values that lead to homosexual behaviour.
The reason you can recognise homosexuals is because they have different values than heterosexuals.

Jews don't promote faggotry, but do provide the incentives that encourage it.

Food preferences change according to nutritional needs.

If you're malnourished you will crave foods that would make you otherwise puke.

If it was purely a choice then exposure wouldent really do that much would it. If either paradigm is within ones control and you are aware natively that you can be either gay or not then being around other gay people wouldn't really do anything. But the very nature of being requires that you are the product of a heterosexual relationship. Being born outside of that environment is not a choice at all and woulden't require any force or change in paradigm from the natural state in order to perceive its value. Youa re saying yourself that these values are equal to heterosexual values, but by their very nature they do not come all on their own; pre arranged by nature.
Saying you don't promote something you provide incentives to is a twist of words only a jew would would have the audacity for.

Transgenderism is completely biologically based what’s the problem here?

>Food preferences change according to nutritional needs.
True.
>If you're malnourished you will crave foods that would make you otherwise puke.
Such chemical reaction is given to the brain, which the mind can proceed to seek.

>Transgenderism is completely biologically based what’s the problem here?
No. Transgenderism is a mentally deficient person's actions.

>If it was purely a choice then exposure wouldent really do that much would it.
We are not born knowing how to act, and we act by imitating those around us. We are not likely to do X if we don't see others doing X.

>the very nature of being requires that you are the product of a heterosexual relationship. Being born outside of that environment is not a choice at all and woulden't require any force or change in paradigm from the natural state in order to perceive its value.

I would not say they valuing proliferation is a value of anyone who does not value themself- that is, heterosexual sexuality's values are dependent upon the individual.

>youa are saying yourself that these values are equal to heterosexual values
No. Gays have high time preference, in general. And they don't value life much

>Saying you don't promote something you provide incentives to is a twist of words only a jew would would have the audacity for.
I'm simply being specific.

Regarding promotion/incentives: Jews don't want homosexuality, they want weakness (in order to survive as parasites). This distinction is important because while Jews benefit from a fragmented society, they don't benefit from gays- which are nature's reaction to overpopulation- which is not happening, but the illusion is being caused by effects of Jewish parasitism.

>>We are not born knowing how to act, and we act by imitating those around us. We are not likely to do X if we don't see others doing X.
We are likely to figure out babies only come out of vaginas and there's no other way to do it without having to imitate anyone.


>>I would not say they valuing proliferation is a value of anyone who does not value themself- that is, heterosexual sexuality's values are dependent upon the individual.
hard to make individuals without heterosexual values. Your values require ours to exist but not the other way around. I would like to say it makes sense you are now reversing your statement that our respective values are not equal but really you don't. It comes back to my point right here where you say.
>No. Gays have high time preference, in general. And they don't value life much
If these values are not equal to each other as you say, and that homosexual values "dont value life much" Then why the fuck should they be treated with anything more than contempt? or given any kind of accommodation at all? Those that value life would be in direct opposition to you. I would say we have given you too much at this point.


>I'm simply being specific.
Nobody with a good head on their shoulders would trust you, knowing what you have said here. And really, how you think they could treat you otherwise is beyond me.

>Regarding promotion/incentives: Jews don't want homosexuality, they want weakness (in order to survive as parasites). This distinction is important because while Jews benefit from a fragmented society, they don't benefit from gays- which are nature's reaction to overpopulation- which is not happening, but the illusion is being caused by effects of Jewish parasitism.
Gays are not just a sign of a fragmented society, they are a part of its accelerated decline into greater weakness. As you have said yourself you have ways of perpetuating yourselves by getting exposure to children...

>>>We are not born knowing how to act, and we act by imitating those around us. We are not likely to do X if we don't see others doing X.
>We are likely to figure out babies only come out of vaginas and there's no other way to do it without having to imitate anyone.

I'm not saying that not knowing this is causing people to be homosexual. I am saying that valuing proliferation is preceded by valuing oneself.
>>>I would not say that valuing proliferation is a value of anyone who does not value themself- that is, heterosexual sexuality's values are dependent upon the individual.
>hard to make individuals without heterosexual values. Your values require ours to exist but not the other way around.
One's values need not be possessed by one's parents.
>I would like to say it makes sense you are now reversing your statement that our respective values are not being equal.
First, I'm not gay.
Second, didn't mean to say this.

>>Gays have high time preference, in general. And they don't value life much
>If these values are not equal to each other as you say, and that homosexual values "dont value life much" Then why the fuck should they be treated with anything more than contempt? or given any kind of accommodation at all?

There is a difference between allowing and accommodating. While both are the purview of government, I'd say that the best course is to do the former, but not that latter...but only pragmatically.
>Those that value life would be in direct opposition to you.
Hoppean communities could eliminate this conflict WITHIN the community.

>>I'm simply being specific.
>Nobody with a good head on their shoulders would trust you, knowing what you have said here.
I value accuracy, which you, for whatever reason, are suspicious of.

>>Regarding promotion/incentives: Jews don't want homosexuality, they want weakness (in order to survive as parasites). This distinction is important because while Jews benefit from a fragmented society, they don't benefit from gays- which are nature's reaction to overpopulation- which is not happening, but the illusion is being caused by effects of Jewish parasitism.
>Gays are not just a sign of a fragmented society, they are a part of its accelerated decline into greater weakness.
Gays cause more weakness, but a parasite is dependent upon its host maintaining its life. And I don't agree that the benefit of the weakness from gays is worth the cost (his much it hurts society.) Rather, gays are an unintended consequence.

really. I cant even see what you are trying to say at this point.
>One's values need not be possessed by one's parents.
How do you read this as possession? Nobody here is talking about possession. Don't even try to pull more incoherent musings out of your ass to peddle as some sage wisdom that we must be enlightened with.
You have had the last of my (you's). Its like you dont even want to make sense of anything. Its just about jumbling everything up until the words you say are so meaningless you yourself cant even make sense of what your saying.
>>First, I'm not gay. Second, didn't mean to say this.
You don't know how to make any sense of your ideas in a way that anyone would ever bother with. I appear to be the only autist that will take it this far and even I cant make shit from shinola here. You can only getting attention by being provocative. About as substantive as an actual faggot as it is.

>>There is a difference between allowing and accommodating...... but only pragmatically
By your very description there is nothing pragmatic about homosexuality. Allowing it to exist would be extenuation of the same. and whatever it is you are trying to say here its close enough to faggotry it should be ended aswell. even after you can figure out how to put two and two together here. If this isn't a slide thread really, shame on you. Your articulation is bad, and you should feel bad. If your so wise then the odis is on you to make this simple enough us lowly morons can make sense of what you really meant to say.

More meandering without a care of making any actual sense. You think this is smart because you can pull strings apart until everyone gets lost but really you cant even make whatever it is your original statement is clear along the way in the least bit. If you had anything productive to say at all this would be grounded. I'm sure of it now more than ever this is a slide thread.

>without the detriment of children or the female temperament

Can't this argument be used for fucking waifu body pillows or some shit too? With the added benefit of also not having a dick in your ass?

>you're using nuance and strict definitions to confuse and slide
I'm not.

That may be right. Your certainly not nuanced, and if you kept to your own definitions you could make sense of yourself to boot. You care more about making points than trying to be understood. If you are sincere try and see past your own autism. It seems worse than mine, to which I might just feel a little sorry for you.

>onus is on you
The thing is that explaining contrarian ideas is burdened by one's understanding of accepted ideas. And differing understandings not corrected lead to unintended quarrels

>nuance
I have written nuanced posts, but no one reads them. And I agree with Kant, in that an idea is easy to understand if not made so easy to understand.

You get 99% of what I'm saying, but, like me, seem to distrust and fight those who mean no harm.

That said, I am working to better explain myself by the methods available. I make posts, find the misunderstandings, and integrate them into my future posts. It's an evolution.

would you feel his faux-milkers if he asked if you wanted to?