salsafan

Huh ? If I am not the one who do not get it, then why did you respond with SUUUUUCH outrage ? "for Chris's sake, you're just making it up as you go along!" What exactly am I making up? You asked me why and I explained why. Do you know SOME psychology 101 ??? Oh alright then. Up to you.

So, based on your outrage and response, I went and actually googled Satan to find out the story behind Satan. You know what I was thinking? I thought to myself, how true and inline with my sentiment of how Satan was. The sin that he has was "pride". (Plus greed, if you like.) How did I guess that ? Ahh... a mystery. http://www.markbeast.com/satan/history-of-satan.htm You may say that: - Lucifer was jealous of Jesus' relationship with God. - Lucifer was quite spoiled by God because he was created so wonderfully such that it gave him a bit of a big head. Therefore it gave him the negative sin of Pride. - Lucifer did not have to pander to his own feeling of jealously by acting out and rallying some of the angels to side with him and therefore create a division in heaven.

Are you really sure that it is "I" who do not get it, or that you want to hear me say certain expected things ? So I presume God is Gordon and Sam is Satan ??? So who is Chris then in your little story ?

The whole idea is that, the project must go on. It is life's journey. One must also consider his own action in the long term scope of the project. How does it affect someone else, and what his action does, and if it achieve any results at all. Gordon was given or rather, destined with the role to do what he is supposed to do. Sam was also given a role, but he refused that role, and then started a fight. As Sam does not sit within the hierarchy of the project, obviously it will affect the project. If Sam did his role, and worked hard to support the project. One day Gordon may see that he has more projects and will give Sam his own project to do. It is a test of Sam's tolerance, and determination. Also, it is a test of Sams trust in Gordon too. Sam needs to learn this in order to be where Gordon is at. Sam can either recognise the test. Or he can think of himself only. When Sam does not think of himself, sometimes he may recognise the actual test put before him as destined. The skills that he must learn, builds up to be where Gordon is. Yet, if he has not proved himself, or tried, then why and how can he be as good as Gordon ? Instead, Sam let his own greed overcloud his own judgment of the situation. Sam did not know that but Gordon has been given the role to also monitor his progress and check to fill in gaps where he has missing knowledge too, to be a more rounded Sam to do Gordon's job in the future. Sam also did not know the trick to being more effective is to look inside of himself, to find compassion and happiness, which will allow him to the job so much more easily, with passion and with ease. What is inside his soul will come out into his external world.

You may want to try and contact an actual editor for one of the sections. If you express your desire that you want your piece to be edited by them, or to proof read by them, then I am sure that they may find someone inhouse to write the article and so forth. http://www.menshealth.co.uk/about/contact-us I took the liberty to check out some online sites for you to see if there are articles too. Many charities do not have articles on there. I found one with videos. I do not know how you feel about that. But maybe you can contact that one to see if they will also accept written articles to post on their site? http://www.mankindcounselling.org.uk/index.php If you want any more info and resources, you can always check out the other sites too. I found them from here. http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/malerape2.php

If you study Freud, he thinks that everyone has to go through the individuation process. Which at the end of the search is being your true Self. Some may argue that, this true Self, is also one's destiny in life. Finding and achieving that peaceful fulfillment within ourselves. There are many great people in this life time that really excel at themselves and using the best of what they were born with to really make a mark. That is, if One believes that they were born with skills and such that, it is their own destiny to find a way to utilise the best of that skill. To me, the true altruism depends on how much good or bad you have done in the world. One has to decide against ethical and moral values whether their action adds value to society, or devalues in society. Hitler used others for his own gain. Mother Teresa gave her own self for others. The difference is that, one has to think in the bigger picture sense how their own actions impact others. How many, and in what way will things happen. I agree to a point that each of us, is doing something for our own self. However, that is not the sole purpose though. Each of us can be in a win-win, co-dependent situation. I thought that is what being in a harmonic society is all about. Each person gets a little of of their share, and put forth a little bit of their desire too. People change over time. Just because I do not want to pay tax in my 20s, does not mean that I do not want to pay my tax in my 50s. When I can afford to do so. Society should cater for all, within reason.

People say "bad" and a lot of people seems not to really want to use this word, and that they are surprised, without rationale or reason why it is thought of as such. Though, I want to show how this is seen through my eyes of what is classed as "unethical". (Therefore "bad".) - Sam should accept that Gordon is older than him, and Gordon has a role to play. - If Sam wants to be like Gordon and aspires to BE him, than he would not really shake and topple the whole project that Gordon is trying to build. Why he is trashing it by being competitive too? - If Sam was kind, generous and compassionate, why would he feel that he needs to be competitive too? Cos if he does not harbour the selfishness of himself, then surely he too can see the effect of his actions onto the project, and that, anyone being the ultimate person to achieve the goal or aim is okay too? - Gordon shouldn't boss his friends around. He should if he was benevolent, try to keep harmony and lets his friends achieve the same goal but in their own ways or terms. However, the goal still needs to be met. - Gordon is not badmouthing Sam but to record what had happened. Cos if someone else harbours bad ill-feeling about you, why would you go and play with them? When fear sets in our heart, it is what creates selfishness to happen. If we control others, through our desire, our ways, our wants, we indirectly influences someone else, and strip them off their own Free Will. Of expression, or desire, of thinking too. Then we are said to be disturbing that harmony. Therefore creating conflict in the project itself. - Sam can be seen as a bad person because he had thought of selfish needs. Which is to be the one that controls everything cos he was jealous of Gordon. Yet, Gordon was given that role to play. Sam should accept that. Because Sam has this desire within him, and he wanted it so much that, he had to fight in the end to get what he wants, it caused disharmony. So yes, therefore Sam can be said as bad. Healthy competition with both parties knowing the score is good. Unhealthy competition whereby one does not understand the other, and you start fighting, creates disharmony, and fear, and all the bad feelings within you. Once those emotions enter your mind, then you are lost, and would not really think fairly, or with compassion for someone else.

That is your expectation of me though, right? As far as I am concerned on this thread, many people have both discussed openly in a generic manner, as well as putting their own self forward and put across their opinions, ideas, and feelings towards the subject. Well, it turned out, if one has to be clear about it all, several subjects related to sexualisation, women's liberation, sexisim, empowerment etc etc etc. Feel free to moderate the thread by the way and reduce any "nonsense" as you call it which is not inline with the original topic and post. Please do not misquote me: What relevance has page 3 got on news? What relevance and purpose does page 3 have on other members of the society? The impact and the damage has been done. It is one of the factors of how men behave so weirdly, as the idea of perception of intimidation, and raising that sexual barrier onto women and into their collective consciousness, and without dignity on individual selves any more. I was talking about "harrassment", and Mr Moron was talking of "admiration". Do you see from the viewpoint of a female how ridiculous a comment like that is ? Is he not trying to control and sexualise others more than they want to, or be seen as? Sometimes you can indeed think and know the train of thought of others and hence that is how you discuss something. However, saying that, I do not profess that I know how all these women here think. I just concur on the points made, and I did not think that you cannot read between the lines of the same sentiment here at all. Well, you can say what you like. I know that my intent, and what I wrote was true to the subject itself. Yet, it was indeed others who took this thread as a literal debating contest and not take into consideration the comments and personal opinions put forth from each individual. If you wish to do that, and you are the mod, who am I to argue ? I wrote in one post " I agree with this policy". If you must want to see the exact words coming out, I agree that page 3 should be banned. Did you not see the expression of joy as demonstrated in my thread entitled ? "Yes" ? It does mean that I am in agreement of the ban. I did write that, it should not be the job of a politician to state this, but if it must go down this route, then so be it.

Wow. Insult! Well done you. Love you too.

I can say the same for this whole thread. It is here for all to read....

Prove what claims? Who has to prove and for what and why ? Method A - Being considerate - "Hi, please let me know what you think. I did not understand why you said that I was thinking about Satanic thoughts, or the actions that I did was classed as Satanic in your mind at all. Why did you say this ?" Method B - Being inconsiderate. "Prove it! No, you were WRONG. Satan was not real. That is illogical ! That is not true. " I do not know about you, but you seem to have this construct in your mind as to what you expect a discussion will go. You also seem to control the way it is supposed to go too. Again, do you not think that there is a difference in one's intent to one's actions? Why do you expect that others can understand your action and words easily ? When you do not even take into consideration the words and actions of others by their terms ? To me, being considerate is taking into their consideration of feelings and thoughts. Taking care and being respectful to ask about their thoughts and not also deduct from a rational point asap what you think they meant, than what they intended to mean. Fair enough. Then indulge me. Why did you created this thread to begin with? What did you hope to achieve from making it? Right. That is your choice. So why do you not accept other people's choices too ? The way I understand all this is that, each of us have a moral radar within ourselves. Any religious concepts and philosophy of life has a duality concept embedded within it. Good Vs Bad. God Vs Satan. Good Vs Evil. Ying vs Yang. Fighting Vs Peace. Chaos Vs Harmony. Man needs a qualifier to stop and reflect before action. Having religion in one's life is merely to take control of one's life by thinking first before acting. "Was I right" is really what any one should ask of themselves. As once you have performed the action without thoughts, then you lose an important part of self control. We should indeed think that Satan is the opposite of God, in order to force reflection of the situation or action that one thinks about before acting out.

No, I did not claim that you said something that you did not mean. I wrote that you must have thought this. You think that what I write is what I think you said. No. I write, cos that is what I think you think on the subject. I presume that you already know about the subject in order to debate it. If you have looked at the subject itself, and covered the different angles and understand it quite a bit yourself. Then there should not be your "I did not say" comments. Do you see other people having an issue on other threads? If you do not understand what Women's Lib was about or what female empowerment means. Then may I rudely suggests that you should stay off the thread? Or unless you have something very specific to say about the legality angle of banning page 3. Cos what you seem to be saying is pretty old now. I am insulted that you implied something that I did not mean too. Cos it is clear with my interaction with you that we think VERY differently. That is for sure! All I can say is. I do not want to go down this personal route any longer. I think I have said enough between you and I. I now know how you tick, and it does not even make sense, and you do not acknowledge where you went wrong with interjecting before and so forth. Fine. Rootsbooster, I apologise for confusing you, and can you please let this go now?

*Deep breathes* I do not know how you think. Feelings of people. People are real. Humans are real. Human have needs. Needs and desire become choices. Choices becomes votes. Votes create the democratic process. Some people decide based on their "own logic". Other people decide based on their "own feelings". Both are as equal and as valid too. You are not them. They are not you. Hence it is democratic. If each person was true to the democratic process, then they should be truthful to themselves, and vote as according to their own view on the matter. It should represent them. I do not know what you are now on about, and the context that you are on about here. Though I will attempt at this, and bring you back to the history of the thread. The feelings that I am talking of is not of the models. Feelings of the existence of page 3, and of the collective image, and representation of the society is also at discussion here. What relevance has page 3 got on news? What relevance and purpose does page 3 have on other members of the society? The impact and the damage has been done. It is one of the factors of how men behave so weirdly, as the idea of perception of intimidation, and raising that sexual barrier onto women and into their collective consciousness, and without dignity on individual selves any more. That is the most important point here. I accept that each person has an opinion of their own. Yet, some people make sweeping generalisation on the opposite sex, which they have absolutely no entitlement to whatsoever. Just want to clear that point there. When others are from that gender and are discussing and sharing ideas of the issues that one encounters from being a female, other posters should not interject and play random tag and be expected to get away with a valid point, and not see them as obtuse. Cos you cannot tell what I think. Why should you ? There are indeed commonalities in a gender, so it is not like there is not either. Yet, at the same time, I am not one of those people who have these "blanket mindset" to think that is what it will be like for all. Cos there are so many factors that comes into play. I thought that being sexist is marginalising a sex with limitation on them? Yet, why can I as a member of the female group cannot declare my opinion or desire, or wants without even being labelled, criticised and so forth ? To be frank, I do not want to see nude pictures in a newspaper period. I do not fancy David Beckham. I do not see any relevance in seeing naked or semi naked pictures in a public space. Cos you are a part of the collective when in public. Doing so, does not mean that one is shy of one's body or has inhibition. To me, there is a time and place for things, and the choices for individuals still exist. Though, not in a public way. Although, I can see that people seems to find it more and more accepting to flaunt and see naked bodies everywhere. I know that we have changed as a nation, but it is going to the extreme and ridiculous. As people are more open, the increase and decline of any family structure, or civilities have lessened. We can be like Sweden. Though, do we want to be like Sweden ? 1 Dad, 7 children. 7 Mums ? That is where it will head towards.

You know what, I am not going to quote you. Cos again, you are being you, and not being considerate. You should absolutely study Christianity, cos you will need it. I have been trying to point out where you have been wrong in this thread, (in terms of religion and Christianity's viewpoint, yet you cannot relate to this even when I do this.) You cannot see it for yourself. No wonder you are asking why Satan is a bad person! I do not think that you have that "reflective" method instilled within yourself in order to grow. To me, it is SO obvious. Maybe you need to find your own spiritual self, or at least find a way to rationalise this Christianity business into your own mindset, cos I think you have no clue. Therefore it creates a situation whereby you seems to displace your own actions, projection of Self onto others.

To be frank with you, I do not see ALL "rational" discussions as being obtuse. HOWEVER, there is a time, place, AND flow, in how one approaches a subject. Is it a scientific one that may excel with rational and logical deduction ? Is it a general currents affair discussion where each member of he society has a right to a view ? Is it a personal issue, which needs and requires sympathy, empathy and just understanding, learning, and accepting ? The obtusiveness comes in when one, anyone, decides to use rationality to bulldoze and create a "fight" situation in a thread or topic on a personal issue, or a topic that is not rationalisable. If you continue to do that, you cause conflict. That is simple enough to describe it. When feelings are involved, well... should there be rationality ? If I may be so bold to say this, but the thread was not doing so well... and hence it caught my attention. Lots of thoughts came to mind. "Why he is saying that, when he means the other?" "Now he is making fun of someone else rather than be adult about it and find another way to explain." "Now he is taking the mick, cos he is impatient." "They agreed that it was not literal and now reverting back to this again??"

You know what, I should create a term, Masculinists ?? Which is those who really just argues for the sake of it, and do not see it from the other person's viewpoint, or consideration of their feelings at all. Time and place for everything balances all. Bulldozed over one gender's needs over that of the other is called controlling ! I so do not need to read details such as those mentioned on the level of nudity... I can see how the masculine image is kept up to standard.

By the way. Are you getting personal here? Let me ask you this truthful question too. Are you really a man, or are you a woman who do and can empathize ?

Do you have any consideration for other people's feelings??!?! Or are you not capable of it, and just think what is written is true, and that people think and write what they say?! Maybe during your logical deduction you forgot to add "feelings" into the equation.

Oh, we may as well use proper stats like self proclaimed religious individuals, and lump those into the mix as well, and forget that rationalists and non-believers hold no responsibility to the world's ills in any way shape or form at all.

Well, show me where "I" have said something that I don't mean to say, but you screws up MY intent any way ! Myself and Suffragette1 was on the same page on those points. Exactly why did you and Mr Moron just misquote, misunderstands and make it all dramatic? Such antagonisms....

Maybe cos these are the roots that causes those stupid trees to grow ? Sexualisation of people, papers reporting any old rubbish, and readers get brainwashed by them as well... all the rest. People don't stop to think about their own actions, and just go along blindly cos it makes them feel good. Rather than stopping and thinking about what this is about and seeing, and doing something that adds value to society. Hm... If anyone touches the subject of porn, won't the men put up a big fight about that, even though it is pretty sleezy in my eyes too ? All you need is someone with a "but it serves a purpose"... Often than not, those arguments turn into stupid silly ones of, "if it does not exist in society, then women will be in danger" or something of that sort of talks would be implied.

Try 751, 2.... onwards. You could have left it, nipped it in the bud, but you did not. Talking behind someone's back is also considered as b!tchy in some books. Sorry, talking badly in front of them, rather. (I did read the threads.) Ok. Right. I do not want to fight with you, but as you asked. Please read my posts, and understand what I was saying, give some courtesy and give it time to understand and internalise what I wrote from my perspective, and wear MY hat for once. Not your own, but my hat. I am often pretty moral in my decisions and viewpoints. History of flow. What caused what to happen ? Who was the offensive, and who was the defensive ? I joined and wrote post 742. I said I agree with those points. (Cos I knew that those who were rationalists won't understand it in their terms if it was not paraphrased in another way for them to understand it.) Post 743. I took that as an obtuse comment. Shouldn't it be that simple? The answer is YES ! God and Satan in the spiritual sense are just mere concepts, metaphors, ideas, theory. Man uses it to think "is this good, or is this bad". That is all. Post 744, I genuinely was trying to talk to you. Post 746 - Why the sulking? Why the skepticisms? I was talking in a general sense, and you took that so personally. There are many other people that are similar in thinking in a rational way, on topics that cannot be rationalised to the tee. 747 - Anyhow, as you took it personally, I too took it personally from this point onwards, as you responded. 748 - I try to detach the personal angle from that and went back to being more general about the subject. 749 - I was so annoyed at this point, cos you seem to be so obtuse on the subject. I can say that I was so frustrated that you do not seem to understand it at all. Then I also felt I had to defend myself on my posts and approach. I threw in other ideas to make you understand the difference between yourself, your thought process, and me and my thought process. 750 - I do not get that. Why did you assume that I was there to challenge you ? If you read some of my post, it was both with intent to make you understand, and annoyance at some of your obtusiveness. You were so oblivious to the very obvious, which is really annoying. I could've responded to you and ask daft questions like, "do you know what is an apple", just to be mean, and force your thought process down a different way. 751,2.... those posts between yourself and Karis was not exactly welcoming, is it ? Discussional forum - Yes, I understand what it means. However, it is very obvious to me when I read through some of the posts on this thread that, there were deliberate obtusiveness for the sake of logical deduction or whatever on someone else's words, and took it wrongly, and therefore threw the supposed "discussion" out of the window. To me, from someone who is more empathetic, doing so, is absolutely rude and obtuse. Cos why would you take something out of context? The subject itself is not a logical one and can be deducted anyhow. Most people interprets it and uses it as a way to define one's life path. Exactly why would anyone not see the most obvious ?

I was not quoting you to tell you. I was writing to tell you my thoughts on the matter. As you claim that you do not understand it. I claim that I do understand it. The concept of being a Satan, having Satanic thoughts are simple. Take a good example of how we interact. You insult me, and you also b!tch about me, in my worldview, that is acting in an evil way. There is prove, it exists, it happened. Yet, if that went through your mindset and it was filtered out. Why and how you cannot put yourself in my shoes, from my viewpoint, and stop and think? By not writing, or responding with anger, is stopping Satan from taking hold of your thought process, and then you exerting onto the world in verbal form. IF you do that, and compute, and think in a way which is more balanced, and possibly Godly (i.e. checking whether she had a point or not, and from where she is standing, whether she is right or not), then in some sense, you have fought off the evil thoughts, and suggestion by your Satan (or dark Self). You have to remember that you said that you are trying to understand others, and here I am, being one of these others who do understand, accepts and acknowledges spirituality is saying to you, but all you can do, is to fight back. That is also the issue here. Freud explains this pretty well. That each person has an Ego. Plus they can live in their Shadow too. (Which is possibly where Satan resides.)

This is how you are seen to someone else who is different to yourself, and who is more empathetic than you are a rationalist and who do not deduce and break every point down to its supposed logical desire. i.e. your desire.

You are absolutely taking the mick. No arguing or fighting? Oh my gosh. If people stand up and leave the thread, then that is their indicator. If some people who thinks so differently than the way you do, also do not even remotely enter this thread, they too are making a statement. So, there were a lot of people b!tching about someone else leaving, cos they have been harassed off the thread maybe ? Being obtuse and challenging for the sake of it? Yet, you call this as "wanting to know" the difference? I mean, are you for real ? The way you "question" others on personal subjects like religion, and continuously questioning, than asking in a polite manner, is also indeed challenging. FYI, there is the intent of someone, and then there is the action and interpretation of someone else on the receiving end. Since you never and have not put yourself into the shoes of the other person to explain and to carry on the subject, exactly what do you expect? If one presumes you already know the subject, then why discuss? Yet, one also presumes that you should have some ideas on the subject, instead of being obtuse for obtuse sake.