VERY offensive description of ESI-ISFj

[machintruc]

WARNING: If you don't want to be offended, STOP READING NOW.

This thread is a joke. It may even look bad for those who don't like this style of humour. You'll either like or hate this joke. I'm open to critiques though.





---

I hate ESI's so fucking much. Why do I ? I'll explain a little :

ESI's are totally retarded. Less than SEE's, but they're still retarded. They're a whole bunch of rednecks who are obsessed with morality and power.

They somehow look like a soft version of LSI. Besides, they're not as tough-minded as them. Their is adapted to rather than .

But why don't I like them ? First, because of their - ; then, because of their +.

What does - mean exactly ? It means that ESI's are full of hate. + is love, and - is hate. ESI's hate everyone of the whole mankind, except themselves, because ESI's are egocentric.

And what does + mean exactly ? It means that ESI's are precise, pushy, and goal-oriented achievers. Like other Gammas, they are obsessed with success and self-image.

ESI's are superficial capitalists. They like , but can't do by themselves. They can be found easily on trading milieux or such, doing diplomatic things.

Besides being rednecks, all ESI's are freemasons who study the Kabbalah. They see everything as attracting and repulsing, even obscure esoteric abstractions, such as hebrew letters or such. They're attracted by .

ESI's like to intimidate others. They think something like "if someone is vulnerable, he's easier to control". They like to beat their wives, because they consider them as objects. ESI's think that feminists are stupid hippie left-wingers. ESI's justify domestic violence by "that's because I love them". But the means ESI's show love is totally, totally dumb.

ESI's are attracted by LIE's. Why ? What can make them attract to each other ? Both are antisocial, paranoid, and misanthropic types. Both think that life is some kind of video game where you have to accumulate money.

LIE's are total nerds. They have a very high IQ, but besides, they're all unfriendly retards, or at best, superficially friendly. Like ESI's. If an LIE is selling you something, he'll simulate friendliness, but LIE's only friend is money. When they relate to people, it's all about fucking money.

So why are ESI's attracted to them ? I don't know, just forget about it. However ESI's don't like LIE's either. They just like the business that's running between them. For Gammas, friendship doesn't exist. Gammas see hate and hostility as a normal attitude.

Let's explain all variants of ESI's :

E1 : Work hard because it's perceived as "good". They think life is only work, and hate not to work.
E2 : Are like they love you, but they hate you. Somewhat bubbly and girly.
E3 : Liars. Total fucking liars. Their tells them not to lie, so they're likely to be frustrated and to hate their lies.
E6 : Stupid reckless nerds. Mistrusting and hostile. Look like duty fulfillers, but actually, they're just hateful nerds.
E7 : Socialites. Entertainers. They're likely to look girly, and to do girly things all the time. hmm... is their any hate in them ?
E8 : Total butches. Hateful dictators. They're likely to be mystics that are attracted by morbid imagery.

That's why it's hard to define ESI's. But who cares ? Even LIE's don't. But it's quite safe to say that ESI's are the incarnation of hate.

[emeye]

it's all about fucking money.

Sorry, no. Fucking money is not a pleasant activity.

[Expat]

ESI's are attracted by LIE's. Why ? What can make them attract to each other ? Both are antisocial, paranoid, and misanthropic types. Both think that life is some kind of video game where you have to accumulate money.

LIE's are total nerds. They have a very high IQ, but besides, they're all unfriendly retards, or at best, superficially friendly. Like ESI's. If an LIE is selling you something, he'll simulate friendliness, but LIE's only friend is money. When they relate to people, it's all about fucking money.

So why are ESI's attracted to them ? I don't know, just forget about it. However ESI's don't like LIE's either. They just like the business that's running between them. For Gammas, friendship doesn't exist. Gammas see hate and hostility as a normal attitude.

---

That's why it's hard to define ESI's. But who cares ? Even LIE's don't. But it's quite safe to say that ESI's are the incarnation of hate.

It makes total sense that you'd see it that way. LIEs and ESIs hate those who deserve to be hated.

[crazedrat]

your use of emphasis words such as "very"... "stupid"... words like total, etc. you know, universals... well anyway, your use of these words is excessive, and it ends up working against you.. where everything is emphasized, so nothing seems emphasized. Get it? Your writing style is terrible, basically.. and I wasn't offended by the description.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[crazedrat]

It makes total sense that you'd see it that way. LIEs and ESIs hate those who deserve to be hated.

that's part of what makes them hypocrites

[emeye]

that's part of what makes them hypocrites

And, thus my friends, the set of people deserving of hate grows.

[discojoe]

that's part of what makes them hypocrites

Only if you think hating something makes you deserving of hate.

(if you think that, you're stupid)

[machintruc]

your use of emphasis words such as "very"... "stupid"... words like total, etc. you know, universals... well anyway, your use of these words is excessive, and it ends up working against you.. where everything is emphasized, so nothing seems emphasized. Get it? Your writing style is terrible, basically.. and I wasn't offended by the description.

You can notice that this time, I used other words, such as "freemason" or "antisocial".

[stevENTj]

haha! Good stuff!

[Mediator Kam]

Very excessive.

nice.

[crazedrat]

Only if you think hating something makes you deserving of hate.

(if you think that, you're stupid)

How? Don't you know anything about typology? The whole idea behind it, is there are multiple perspectives on the same information. So if you are looking at information in one way, which leads you to hate how it is existing in the other way.. simultaneously from the perspective of the other way, your information is just as deserving of whatever "hate" you are perscribing to the difference in the two informations energies... It is like this: orange hates apple, because apple is different then orange. Apple looks at orange, and sees the same differential as orange sees in apple... Apple could validly claim the same hatred toward orange. But in the case of LIE, orange is trying to pretend this doesn't exist.. it is a hypocritical point of view.. where in light of a larger context you hold a self contradictory position. Hypocracy is always defined in light of the greater perspective. A hypocrites perspective does not see itself as hypocritical.. people are not consciously hypocritical; if they were, consciousness would reconcile the information and eliminate the descrepancy. Etc.
P.S.> fuck you

[discojoe]

How? Don't you know anything about typology? The whole idea behind it, is there are multiple perspectives on the same information. So if you are looking at information in one way, which leads you to hate how it is existing in the other way.. simultaneously from the perspective of the other way, your information is just as deserving of whatever "hate" you are perscribing to the difference in the two informations energies... It is like this: orange hates apple, because apple is different then orange. Apple looks at orange, and sees the same differential as orange sees in apple... Apple could validly claim the same hatred toward orange. But in the case of LIE, orange is trying to pretend this doesn't exist.. it is a hypocritical point of view.. where in light of a larger context you hold a self contradictory position. Hypocracy is always defined in light of the greater perspective. A hypocrites perspective does not see itself as hypocritical.. people are not consciously hypocritical. Etc.
P.S.> fuck you

That was perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum, and that's saying a lot.

First: hypocrisy*

Now let me paraphrase what you wrote:

"I hate John because John is "different" from me. In this case, we'll say the difference between John and myself is that John has molested my son and strangled him to death, and I have not. John also hates me, because I did not have sex with and strangle my son, so his hatred is just as valid as mine, because he sees an equal amount of difference between he and I that I see."

This in not a valid argument because you make a mistake in thinking that people hate one another simply because they're "different". Wrong. People hate each other because they see attributes that they don't like. Hating something just because it is different makes no sense. That's like saying I hate something because it is blue; blue isn't intrinsically hateable, so there has to be an attribute of blue that I hate, which in turn makes me hate the blue thing. It's not the blue that I hate, it's the attribute that I associate with blue that I therefore see in this hypothetical hated object. I don't hate John because he killed my son and I didn't. That makes no sense. I hate him because killing my son was wrong and because it directly affected me in a very negative way. I don't hate John "because he's different". I hate the "person John" because he has the attribute of "having killed my son".

With that in mind, when we look back to your affair with the orange and apple hating one another, we cannot establish any evidence to suggest hypocrisy on either side, because the existence of hypocrisy cannot derived from the known facts. All we know is that the apple and orange hate each other, but since they cannot hate each other for the sole reason that the other is different, we are left to speculate on the origins of their mutual hatred, which is irrelevant. Remember, for the hatred of either to qualify them as hypocrites, each would have to be committing a double standard against the other, hating him for doing something that he knows himself to have done, for reasons no better than those that he used to justify his own actions.

So the question arises: How does hating someone who deserves to be hated (in this instance, we'll use John the pedophile) necessarily make me a hypocrite? It's not simply difference that I'm hating, as you suggested, since that is impossible; I certainly haven't done anything similar to what John has done, nor have I committed any kind of double standard that would have in any way endorsed what John did, directly or indirectly. So what, exactly, is hypocritical about hating him? In fact, when we take away your "hating differences" fallacy, what is intrinsically hypocritical about any hatred?

The answer? Nothing. There is nothing intrinsically hypocritical about hating anything.

Incidentally, "nothing" is also the answer to what was going on in your head when you concocted such a flimsy, childish argument.

[crazedrat]

there is when you are dealing with typology; and the hatred displayed of LIE is fundamentally a hatred of non-LIEness... since we are talking about a types tendency toward hatred, the hatred being discussed is bound to the system of typology. A statement on a LIEs tendency can't be taken out of the context of LIE, and typology. If you say "LIE has a tendency toward hatred", LIE must be hating something relative to LIE; and all that is relative to LIE are the other types, unless you expand the context beyond the word LIE.. at which point you are changing the argument entirely, and I am no longer talking about what you are talking about. typology is a system of equal opposites which together dissolve themselves into equality. With your example, there is no assumption of equalized polarities, etc. With your example, there is one strong point of view and one weak point of view, and you use the extreme end subjective appeal of pedophilia for emphasis. This inequality (which is grounded in subjectivity) is not what is being discussed. the example doesn't properly fit the subject at hand. The example I gave works if you have the fundamental assumption of equal opposites which together dissolve into nothingness. Beyond this, if you remove subjectivity from the argument by unifying yourself from a limited context, you do end up with the pedophilia example being hypocritical... from the eyes of the greater workings of the universe. for example, a black poor kid grows up in the ghetto... he ends up shooting a gang member and going to prison vs. a white kid who is arguing with his brother: these two things are in light of different circumstances (where typology is bound to the same circumstances); hence, it is not possible to set up an equal polarized set of opposites... but from the eyes of the greater universe, both are results of circumstances, and from this point of view it is hypocritical to hate the black kid for murder, and not hate the white son for hitting his brother; the two circumstances are not equal, so the point of view from one to another can't be taken into account unless it is unified beyond subjectivity into the realm of an abstract form of justice. Also, as your example contains two seperate points of view, or systems... the circumstances of the pedophile, vs. the circumstances of the father, it doesn't translate properly to say "I hate the pedophile for molesting my son, so he hates me for me not molesting my son?" The contexts to not cross. It is with this philosophy in mind many biblical sayings are interpreted.... judge not unless you are to be judged, etc., there are many of them. Your excessive use of power words is something typical of a gamma type, and one thing I have to say I really hate about our quadra. What I have just said I can reword more properly for you, if you demand it.

[discojoe]

there is when you are dealing with typology; and the hatred of LIE is fundamentally a hatred of non-LIEness... since we are talking about a types tendency toward hatred, the hatred being discussed is bound to the system of typology. A statement on a LIEs tendency can't be taken out of the context of LIE, and typology. If you say "LIE has a tendency toward hatred", LIE must be hating something relative to LIE; and all that is relative to LIE are the other types, unless you expand the context beyond the word LIE.. at which point you are changing the argument entirely, and I am no longer talking about what you are talking about. typology is a system of equal opposites which together dissolve themselves into equality. With your example, there is no assumption of equalized polarities, etc. With your example, there is one strong point of view and one weak point of view, and you use the extreme end subjective appeal of pedophilia for emphasis. This inequality (which is grounded in subjectivity) is not what is being discussed. the example doesn't properly fit the subject at hand. The example I gave works if you have the fundamental assumption of equal opposites which together dissolve into nothingness. Your excessive use of power words is something typical of a gamma type, and one thing I have to say I really hate about our quadra.

Your hypothetical, perfect example or mirrored equality doesn't work, for two reasons:

1. As previously mentioned, difference cannot be the subject of hate, only the indicator of disliked qualities. So this perfectly equalized polarity that you've put forth cannot exist in reality, makes zero logical sense, and cannot be attributed to anyone's behavior or ethics.

2. If it is hypocritical to hate someone who deserves to be hated, then no one deserves to be hated, because it is wrong to hate them. Too bad this doesn't work out back in reality, because hatred is an important emotion that has always been the strongest motivating factor in the thwarting of criminals of every kind, from banishing a rapist from a village, to jailing a career thief. Both are done to protect the wellbeing of the larger, more important group. It's an emotion that is necessary for human survival, no less so for having been misused. So you're in effect saying that it is wrong for humans to survive.

Oh, and you're not gamma. Go back to your joke Ti quadra.

[discojoe]

I am not going to read or respond to your revised post, due to atrocious grammar, references to the Bible, and a seeming inability to construct paragraphs.

[crazedrat]

What I got out of what you just said, aside from the power words which make you look less powerful (ironic)... is this: without unifying seperate contexts in light of a greater abstract justice; from the eyes of the workings of the universe, it is impossible to reconcile and see hypocracy in this. If you read what I wrote carefully, you will see I agree with this. You also mention the ultimate result of my philosophy is dissolution; and you change fronts from a theoretical point of view in favor of a pragmatic point of view. This pragmatism was never what was being discussed. I am not arguing with you about that. You are changing the subject to make yourself right, where before you were wrong. I do not have time for it. I am going to repost what I said above, instead of rewriting it. The appeal to the authority of the technicalities of language leaves me with the impression you are less interested in discussing this, and more interested in one-upping me. This one-upping game has only one point: to satisfy the narcissism of those involved. Ultimately it results in a never ending cycle of subject changes, red herring arguments, dodges, compartmentalizations of focus... basically, a fucked up flow of discourse. I don't want to
play it with you anymore.

This is all that needs to be said on the original subject which was being discussed. I am repasting it so I can consider the issue closed.. :

there is when you are dealing with typology; and the hatred displayed of LIE is fundamentally a hatred of non-LIEness... since we are talking about a types tendency toward hatred, the hatred being discussed is bound to the system of typology. A statement on a LIEs tendency can't be taken out of the context of LIE, and typology. If you say "LIE has a tendency toward hatred", LIE must be hating something relative to LIE; and all that is relative to LIE are the other types, unless you expand the context beyond the word LIE.. at which point you are changing the argument entirely, and I am no longer talking about what you are talking about. typology is a system of equal opposites which together dissolve themselves into equality. With your example, there is no assumption of equalized polarities, etc. With your example, there is one strong point of view and one weak point of view, and you use the extreme end subjective appeal of pedophilia for emphasis. This inequality (which is grounded in subjectivity) is not what is being discussed. the example doesn't properly fit the subject at hand. The example I gave works if you have the fundamental assumption of equal opposites which together dissolve into nothingness. Beyond this, if you remove subjectivity from the argument by unifying yourself from a limited context, you do end up with the pedophilia example being hypocritical... from the eyes of the greater workings of the universe. for example, a black poor kid grows up in the ghetto... he ends up shooting a gang member and going to prison vs. a white kid who is arguing with his brother: these two things are in light of different circumstances (where typology is bound to the same circumstances); hence, it is not possible to set up an equal polarized set of opposites... but from the eyes of the greater universe, both are results of circumstances, and from this point of view it is hypocritical to hate the black kid for murder, and not hate the white son for hitting his brother; the two circumstances are not equal, so the point of view from one to another can't be taken into account unless it is unified beyond subjectivity into the realm of an abstract form of justice. Also, as your example contains two seperate points of view, or systems... the circumstances of the pedophile, vs. the circumstances of the father, it doesn't translate properly to say "I hate the pedophile for molesting my son, so he hates me for me not molesting my son?" The contexts to not cross. It is with this philosophy in mind many biblical sayings are interpreted.... judge not unless you are to be judged, etc., there are many of them. Your excessive use of power words is something typical of a gamma type, and one thing I have to say I really hate about our quadra. What I have just said I can reword more properly for you, if you demand it.

[discojoe]

I am not going to read or respond to your revised post, due to atrocious grammar, references to the Bible, and a seeming inability to construct paragraphs.

[crazedrat]

you made me laugh dee. i'm glad i'm not the only one who thinks so.
the fundamentalist belief the bible is just a fundamentalist belief..... such an ironic thing.
It's something only the stupidest smart people believe.
But you can't forget the language technicalities argument.

both are classic

[discojoe]

you made me laugh dee. i'm glad i'm not the only one who thinks so.
the fundamentalist belief the bible is just a fundamentalist belief..... such an ironic thing.
It's something only the stupidest smart people believe.
But you can't forget the language technicalities argument.

both are classic

How cute. You apparently think that the main obstacle here is somehow related to what I have written, and not to the near incomprehensible sludge you've managed to type out with little-to-no regard for readability.

[crazedrat]

i've deleted my other post, but i'll explain a bit here. basically i disagree Bible is nonsense or false as there is too much real-life evidence that points to super powers action on earth. crying pictures of saints, bones of saints producing aromatic liquids, visions of saints and directions, which followed, cause non-realistic events, rainbows during masses on air during dry days, saints saying truth about your your past life and people with demons starting to behave like brake-dancers overdosed on coke when near them, miraculous healing from belated stages of diseases with lots of cases (pictures of saints covered in golden chains, bracelets, etc. from people getting healed), i can go on and go on, and the funny thing, the people i actually know, close people have encountered it, or the people they know, also there are tons of articles on stuff like that by people who wouldn't lie. and i'm not talking in context of world evangelistic movement and black people (just because that's who you mostly see on tv for some reason) dancing around and after getting healed, i'm talking about Orthodox Christianity and it's history, making mostly references to Russian manifestations. i don't know anything about evangelics except that they might misinterpret some stuff or something. so yeah.

welll.. this is venturing into the realm of personal opinion. What I said to the idiot was a philosophical point using the bible as reference for a good .."analogy", and he couldn't deal with it. He couldn't make the jump from literal to philosophical bible interpretation. On a personal level 1: I consider myself christian, and believe in god 2: i think the bible speaks philosophical truth, and I also believe in philosophy... I don't see why having a literal interpretation of the bible, would disclude you from looking at it philosophically too... philosophy is a, err.. literal truth.

I am not sure, but I think you may of misinterpreted the sentance (vaguely): "the fundamentalist belief the bible is a fundamentalist belief is ironic". This is talking about the general conception of the bible & religion as fundamentalist rhetoric.. a conception which exists among many intellectuals today... & it is a statement on how this general conception has become a fundamentalist belief itself in some ways. The statement is neutral toward the bible

[crazedrat]

How cute. You apparently think that the main obstacle here is somehow related to what I have written, and not to the near incomprehensible sludge you've managed to type out with little-to-no regard for readability.

My thoughts flow from the depths of my mind.. you can't follow me down with yours. That is the problem we are having. You are stuck in book land, where technicalities determine the flow of your mind. I can speak with fellows like tcaud just fine. All the more intelligent people I speak with just fine. I have asked you to leave me alone twice. You come back with barbs. Barbs are okay, (...well, they're compensations for inadequacy, but they do no harm) but you can't use them without addressing a persons point first. If you do that, then all you are is fluff and no matter. ...and that's what you are becoming. You haven't said anything about my point. All you have done, is exagerate its supposed "unreadability". I think this is a tactic you are employing so you do not have to address what I wrote... because I made it very clear how wrong you were. There really isn't another explanation. Can you think of one? Tell me it's just toooooo unreadable again. (I'm waiting). But can you come up with something else? Like... even ask a pointed question as to where you are confused in the paragraph?

[discojoe]

What a dumb person.

[crazedrat]

i was just saying it's not possible to win with discojoe.

What type is he? LIE-Te? I have run into this .. mental redundancy with a few LIEs before now. Just wondering