So you want her to read the link, then go fuck herself, then not speak to you, then go fuck herself again? Why in that order?Originally Posted by crazedrat
Oh wait! I know why!
(scroll down for the answer)
BECAUSE YOU'RE A FUCKING VIRGIN LOLOLOLOLOL
Okay, first off.. don't use three or four words in a row which mean the same thing; and don't use emphasis words, in efforts to try and make it sound like you have a point. It is annoying.
I want you (and anyone who cares to participate) to tell me, once and for all (and with legitimate reasonings).. in the name of hell, what type would create all of this shit: (this is only from two threads)
EIE? That's fucking rediculous.
Have you ever met a Beta type? Seriously...
K, here we go. All of the INTp ranting I've done on this board. I want you to look at this, and either do 1 of 2 things. 1: explain to me what type I am, and be coherent. Only say something if you actually know what you are talking about. 2: leave me the fuck alone about my type, because you know nothing.
As that description stands, the function order goes like this:
the producing line: Si>Te/Fe>Ni/Se>Ti/Fi>Ne
the reviewing line: Ne>Fi/Ti>Se/Ni>Fe/Te>Si
And this is an XXXX process, where information can always be interpreted to relation to another function; and requires no complex of thoughts for interpreting a foreign function into a dominant function.. etc. but accepts information in an immediate fashion, and transforms it in an immediate fashion.
There is the illusion this is an INTp thought process. This occurs because the INTP-Ni process is formally the same as the first half of both the producing line, and the reviewing line, of the XXXX process.
The INTp-Ni process is like this:
Si>Te/Fe>Ni
Ne>Fi/Ti>Se
where relations between Si abstractions are established as Te statements; and an array of these statements creates a coherent Fe impression, which fixes a Ni potential for change in the name of existential balance.
This information is reviewed in terms of its Ne potential of freedom, which informs a Fi impression of constraint. This Fi impression consists of the workings of Ti, the coherence of which determines the integrity of the circumstance Se.
The other four blocks are the superego and id blocks...
This issue is worthy of four or five well written essays. I do not feel like doing this; ... it is such a word game. and I think you (the only one who cares) can fill in the blanks.
The ways inwhich we've been thinking about socionics thus far have pertained to informations form, and have not directly examined the relevence of content. Socionics is an analysis of transformations in the form of information, among other things. The assumption is the existence of information. In order to understand what holds us back from a faith process (XXXx) we must begin thinking of what it is which fixes us into our dominant mode of processing; and that is what I think should be called a construct, which is a web of logic.., or content, or a web of information, which pre-exists for transformation.. the form of this construct predetermining its preceding possibilities for transformation, and the possibilities of future information which may be processed into the construct. Thus, as the scale of our construct expands in the name of coherence, we compartmentalize into a dominant information form; a sociotype...
I will give an example of how a construct breaks down into a sociotype, using INTp-Ni (and the distinction is relevent.. there is a clear difference between the subtypes using this system)
I said a construct is like a web.. in order to appreciate this, you might want to think in terms of Wittgenstein, or some post modernist ideology. I am not verbally capable of wording what I am trying to say minus the condition you have an acute awareness of these things. We are imagining a web together.. If you do not understand post modernism then you will end up asking me questions like "what differentiates the dot from the big collection of dots seen as a whole".. etc. The answer is, there is no difference... they are the same thing; and a dot can be looked at, in itself, as another connection of dots relative to one another, and defining it. It is all a matter of perspective shifting
There are different forms of relations of objects, in a construct. We are imagining a web consisting of dots and lines.
1: The elemental parts, and their relations to one another (dots, and lines between the dots) is the first block (for INTp-Ni above, it is Si>Te.. where Si is the dot, and Te is the line).
2: There is then the whole construct. Viewed alone, (as a dot itself), and then viewed in terms of its possibility for interaction outside itself (a complex process which i have yet to explain clearly. The construct has no external awareness, but does have an awareness of internal tension which creates a tendency to return to existential balance). For INTp-Ni, this is Fe>Ni, where the construct as a whole is Fe, and the awareness of this constructs existential balance potential is Ni.
Those were what I am thinking of as the producing functions... which start from the atomic part of the construct, and work upward toward the final relevence of the construct (existential balance tendency). This is what we call the ego block; and it motivated toward the development of the integrity of the construct.
I will write the other three blocks tomorrow.. superego, id, superid. This is probably enough for now
Alot of work still needs to be done describing the processes.. defining the terms. Once it is done though, the system can be used to interpret thins most people consider beyond the grasp of psychology.. anything which you can break down into fundamental elements, you can interpret using this system.. you can also construct from the ground up a coherent construct in the name of a particular socionic impression. For example, I've been experimenting with writing INTp-Ni poetry and music (by breaking music down into elements)
Alot of work needs to go into defining the intricate workings of the dominant function, and its awareness of existential integrity (the awareness the construct does not exist.. or the motivated drive to return a construct to a state of nonexistance; equilibrium... yin yang)
Yes.. there are definitly language problems with what I wrote. The different ways you can look at the same thing.. and call it opposite names, is confusing. There are also parts of what I said which I am not completely sure about; and particularly the role of the dominant function in relation to the construct .. has yet to be clarified. Vaguely, in my mind, the ego is motivated toward achieving "id" in light of the "superego"; i.e., achieving the super-id... and discovering where the dominant function is motivated toward, may involve bringing into the equation the other blocks, and looking at everything simultaneously.
It is also possible the language I used is tainted by the particular sociotype which I was describing.. INTp-Ni.. which is a progressive sociotype.
When I say things like "elemental parts".. what exactly these elemental parts are, is up for specification; and it could be the elemental parts possess a liberal quality as units, but form together in a progressive fashion.
A big question I have, is what change is in the name of. I vaguely implied it was in the name of returning to a state of equilibrium. ... or it could even be in the name of defying equilibrium. But change can't be a shot in the dark. There has to be a relative standpoint between the information which exists, and its potential for existing in an alternative form; the most universal alternative form being "nothingness"...
There is alot which needs to be investigated.
IMO, to return to your original post.. the process you described as (XXXx) can exist only in light of the lack of a construct.. it is a faith process. related to the mental dynamics of religious experiences... religious beliefs, and so on
There are a few things not set in my mind about it, though.
1: this dual type business is a matter of content, and discussing the integrity of a construct. So would a person X be INTp-ESFj in one sense (let's say I'm coherent in socionics)... but INTp-(something else) in another sense (where I'm inadequate in this area of life).
The problem is a construct is limited in relevence to the information it contains. And a persons mind contains multiple information constructs... etc. With IM, these merge... with the dual type, there isn't a reason I can see they would have to be merged. They are contingent on the construct itself... they don't have a part in its formation
2: That the dual type notation is slightly misleading. For example.. an INTp-ESFj is not concerned with the superid, ego, or superid blocks of an ESFj... but only with the ego functions of an ESFj.
The tendency toward the id and superid, is the tendency toward the dissolution of society. This is thought of as sorrow in light of the existance of society... from the eyes of chaos and the universe, it is a neutral process, and a return to most natural being... sorrow; negative emotions... are contingent on the existance of positive emotions.. and without positive (that is, the stable society) there is no possibility for negative. XXXx suggests a dissolution of social order.
If the ego were to finally triumph, it would be because it had dissolved itself.
also... you say +Ni-Te... (as an example of how you are notating the ego block) but this doesn't express the whole functioning of the ego block... it goes like this: (For INTp) Si>Te/Fe>Ni.. where Te consists of Si, and Ni consists of Fe, and Fe is a consolidation of Te.
There hasn't been enough attention payed to how the blocks function on a microscopic level.
If you reverse the ego process you have Ni>Fe/Te>Si... this is the superego block. This is a check on the coherence of the ego block... the information moves coherently "forward" in the ego... its ability to move coherently "backward" (what is called the superego) is a measure of its wholistic coherence. If both these functions are working, what you have is a system of social order which energy is being exerted to maintain. (this energy is responsible for conflict, war, and ultimately the destruction of everything outside the social order [think of the world, and our society.. then think about global warming])
There is the INTp Id: Se>Ti/Fi>Ne (where the ego is Si>Te/Fe>Ni, and the superego is Ni>Fe/Te>Si)... To the superego, the functions of the id are opposite, in similar descending order (opposite, meaning Ni to Se... Fe to Ti... etc.). This means the id and the superego combine into nothingness. From here you can say to the ego, the id is the dissolution of the imperative for coherence within the structure of the egos existance. This means the Id is the egos tendency to collapse itself, where the superego is the egos tendency to stabilize itself. The id is the longing for return to a lack of a social structure... longing to return to animal man; and beyond that, longing to live in the moment, without a construct limiting the motions of life and mind..
There is the superid, Ne>Fi/Ti>Se (where the ego is Si>Te/Fe>Ni) ... the superid consists of the opposite functions of the ego...; where opposites exist simultaneously, you have social dissolution. This is the place where the collapse of the id and the stability of the superego have combined in light of the ego.. what you have left is no extended thought process; only a directed adapted, directly transforming mind.
That is what XXXx is.. An INTp-ESFp.... or an INTp who has achieved social dissolution, is no longer an INTp. There is no ego left, it has been disolved... And this was being discussed earlier with ego death.
The ultimate goal of the blocks is to achieve social dissolution, mental dissolution; and to return to a chaotic way of life..
This means living without planning, or without saving, or without thinking... or without gaining, etc. Living in the moment, accepting the moment as chaotic.. looking at chaos and being one with chaos; and from there, having a tendency toward the maintenance of chaos... and having no fear to die; living the way an animal lives, basically. That is how it was before society began to grow, and dictate thinking and life.
id, superego, superid, ego... etc., is a different perspective on the same information. And this information, is the construct, and the construct... is also called the society.
Now from here you are talking of this thing called "dual type theory", and all I can see it is.. is a statement on the coherence of the construct; and how this construct is viewed (in terms of coherence) from the perspective of the different information blocks.
My critique on the way you are going about describing dual type theory right now:
1: you are painting "dual type" as seperate from IM type, where it is derived from the blocks themselves, and their relations to one another. It should be called something more like "development level"
2: From what I wrote up there, I have the impression there will be a number of dual type notations which cannot exist, or there will be a number of dual types which are notated differently, but are expressing the same information dynamics.. for example, ego says XXXX... superid says YYYY..... they mean the same thing, said from opposite "sides". Like.. an INTp-ENFj may be the same thing as an INTp-ISTj. There is a better way of notating development of the persons construct... which talks about the blocks themselves more directly.
3: The function dynamics of the dual type theory.. remain vague and undefined
4: At first glance it would seem possible to be developed in certain areas, and underdeveloped in other areas... meaning a person could be multiple dual types. If that is true, i can see dual type theory being useful for describing characteristics of a type from different perspectives of their development.. but not pinning a particular type into a dual type
Change of subject.
I am thinking INTp-Te has function blocks like this:
Ne>Fi/Fe>Ni ego
Si>Te/Ti>Se superid
Ni>Fe/Fi>Ne superego
Se>Ti/Te>Si id
Perceptions of Ne potential change inform an Fi internal imperative for their achievement. These Fi imperatives are seen as an array of possible Fe states of being, the most relevent of which is adopted into immediate consciousness as a singular Fe impression. This Fe state of affairs dictates its Ni possibilities of change preceding.
And that INTp-Te has Te as their primary superid function... similar to how an INTp-Ni has Fi as its primary superid function... INTj-Ti has Si as its primary superid function, etc. The illusion INTp-Te has thinking in its ego function, comes from the dual introverted nature of its ego.
^HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's not about who's right, it's about what's right.
explain this: There are two people.. one has never seen an SUV, the other has seen an SUV. To one, the word "car" encompasses in his mind and includes the concept of SUV.. to the other, the word "car" is foreign to SUV. These are essentially two different words. Hence, the meaning of car is defined subjectively based on experience.
Or take the example of Joe, a man timewarped here from 1936; and a man who's never seen an SUV, or anything which remotely resembles one.
The guy who's never seen an SUV (named Joe) says to the guy who has seen an SUV (named Billy.. Billy is from 2008)
Joe: Hey Billy, what the hell is that thing?
Billy: That's a car Joe! Where are you from?
Joe: I didn't know what that thing was! That's a car?!
if you are correct, how is it possible that this conversation is unfolding (and do you accept this as a natural flow of conversation) ..?
Can you tell me I am wrong, and give me an absolute definition for car? Even where the word car itself (and the idea of car) is a construct of our own making (I mean.. men created words)
Also.. what did the word car mean before SUVs were invented, and how did it mean something different after they were invented? Was the word car to the exclusion of SUV "objectively wrong" before it included the idea of SUV?
Or is there an underlying tie between a regular car and SUV which qualify them both as "cars"; and so the definition of car didn't change after the invention of the SUV- only the application of the word. ?
But if that is true, this suggests there must remain at all times a single commonality which all cars share.
But then what the fuck is going to happen to the word car after we invent flying cars, and why won't we be calling them airplanes?
...
But then how about the word "game" (I think this is the example Wittgenstein uses)
What is the objective meaning of the word game?
You can have jacks, and that is considered a game.. and something like dodgeball; and they are similar in a number of ways... they both involve a ball, they both have the objective of "winning"... and so on. But then you can also find examples of games which have none of these qualities, yet we still define them as games. Playing mind games.. there is no ball, there is no "winning" .. or is winning now used in a different sense? How about a person who plays the game of losing?
What happens to the word game when I invent a new game.?
Or how about something that isn't fun, but is still a game, like hunting.. where one person may call it a game since they enjoy it.. but the person next to them does not enjoy it, and doesn't call it a game. They say "life and death is not a game"
Yeah, objectively define what the word game means for me.
If this question is answered in your objectivity bullshit then ignore it, and I'll talk about it tomorrow.
Or even better, refer me to a post-Wittgenstein philosopher who refutes what Wittgenstein concluded on the subject, & arrives at a new conclusion, so I can read up on it by myself.. and not have to endure your cockiness
You know, now that I think about it, thats really all I'd prefer from you.. a referal. I'll admit Wittgenstein was the first and last philosophy book I ever read.. after I read it I thought to myself "there is no need to read anything else.. it is all babble". But maybe I'm wrong, so educate me
Here is where I stand in how I think of words now. Maybe you can tell me where I am wrong. :
In a system of thought (like ideas in science) pieces of information support one another. If a new piece of information enters into the system of thought, the old pieces of information now have a reformed meaning in their relevance to this new piece of information. A good way to think of this is to examine a word, and think of a word as a system of thought. Like the word cars I used earlier. Before SUVs were invented the idea of a car was different then what it became afterwards. Do you agree? (Answer this question, then move on)
k. Before SUVs you may look at a landcruiser and say "that car performs average on gas mileage". After SUVs were invented you will look at a landcruiser and say "I wish I had a landcruiser instead of my SUV.. Landcruiser is a good gas saving car".
etc.
The meaning of each piece of information has changed in light of the new piece of information. Land cruiser now has a new relativity to SUV, and is defined in its relation to it in a new way.
What you are saying is, essentially (from what I can see), that the meaning of Land Cruiser.. or anything.. is objective and does not change.
You are saying meaning is not relative.
If meaning is not relative then how is it possible to define something? What do we define things using? A relativist would say "a thing is defined by its relation to other things". One of the first lines in the Tractatus is "the world consists of facts, not of things"; where a "fact" is considered to be a relation between things; and things are considered to be "states of affairs" or "arrays of facts" ..
If that's not how it works, then tell me how is it possible for words to have meaning (how do we define words)?
So you are saying words like "water" are spawned from and bound to reality or something? So I can be drinking gatorade and say "this is my water" because it has an abstract similarity to water. Then I can be taking a piss and say "polluted water" .. and there is no similarity between the gatorade & the piss (this is really arguable, but just accept it for what I am saying); but they do have an abstract similarity in that they both share something with the essence of water. ... (Is that right- yes or no)
I can see how that works with things, but not with words which are descriptions of things... words which "tie two things together".
Like the word "fat" ... it is different then water. How can you call something fat if you don't have a subjective impression of something similar but thinner?
Even with this, it still seems like it could be said most peoples minds & words are "lost in subjectivity". For that reason relativism will still have use in understanding certain situations, even if it is not coherent from the greater point of view.. it is reflective of what is happening
Yes, that is a good way of describing the stupidity of Expat and Joy... and others.
Well... you said "yes both gatorade and piss contain H2o" ... what if i say "it's time to give my car some water" when I fill it up with gasoline. .. ? (there is not h2o in gasoline) ... from your outlook on words is this sentence coherent? In the statement, the word water is being used to describe what the gasoline does for the car
That is where I am still confused. Information, thought of objectively, possesses a fixed potential for relations to other objects. These potentials can be thought of as what define it as an object. But the objects potential for relativity exists innately, before it is defined.. before any actual relation is established. (as Phaedrus pointed out..).
I see it playing out something like this, though I have not yet recorded the specific workings of this system:
First off, there are the simple object potentials. A certain Ni potential supresses Fe potential... A certain Se potential supresses Ti potential; an objects potential in one sense will be its lack of potential in another sense. As of right now the object & its potential is what we refer to as the I.M. type; & we already have the language for coherently describing object potential.
And I.M. type is considered to be a part of the realm of content. An I.M. type is an objective, fixed potential energy system. Where a type is objective, and dual type will be considered "relative" typology... concerning relations between the types.
Dual type will be a matter of how objects interact with one another, in light of each objects specific I.M. potential, to form relations between the two. (& here is where we get dynamics like superid fulfillment, ego maintenance... etc. Each dual type interaction will have a specific effect on the objects of the dual type [their coherence, their meaning; their emotive energy, etc.])
Simple so far... and that is the model we have. It is coherent.
The trouble with this is it is limited in scope.. it doesn't apply well to the specific situation.
Right now our model is functioning in an ideal world.
To correct this problem, & have our model "meet with the specific universe", we must expound the models dynamics onto themselves exponentially. From this there is something called an "elemental object", and then a "complex object" ... where an elemental object is the simple I.M. type, and a complex object is a combination of I.M. types in different structural senses, the dynamics of these combinations being defined by how elemental objects interact relative to one another through dual type. And these relative elemental objects seen as a whole would form a coherent "complex object impression" from which you can spring fourth a relativity to other complex objects in the form of a "complex dual type" .........
etc.
The potential for specificity becomes exponentialized.
I am not sure the systems potential for specificity is infinite, or just huge...
It seems to follow directly in the footsteps of the Tractatus.
It is almost like we would have to merge our theory with string theory, where right now it is functioning at the level of the theory of relativity.
Once you reach the point of defining complex objects consisting of elemental parts relative to one another, you have merged objectivism with relativism, & you have the capacity to describe objects of any nature coherently.
Hope that made a shred of sense.
The sad thing is, it probably took him like two hours to write all that.
EIE, IEI does not rant like that. ? Do they? I really want your opinion, I don't want bullshit on this.
Dude... do you read? I am copy pasting shit I've written in the past to try to give you information from which to judge which type you think I am. I want a coherent argument from you regarding my type. If you are not willing to give me this argument, then I am asking you to stfu. Does that make sense?
lol
i've turned myself on a lot. it sort of goes like this: i take a shower, i inspect myself in the mirror...i realize that what im lookin at isn't half bad...i imagine someone enjoying it too...and then what they'd do if they were enjoying it....and then the turned-on feeling comes and hence, i am masturbating "to myself".
i have nice breasts, fairly decent anyway. i enjoy um.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
Yeah, though mainly English.
You want a coherent argument? Okay. INFp makes the most sense. It "would explain why you are such an idiot".
I see where you're coming from with this... but in spite of this I'm not really interested in having an in depth debate with you about your type. I was just offering my impressions of what I've been seeing from you, that's all. I don't feel obligated to get into it if I don't feel like it because you are free to simply agree or disagree, as is anyone else.
However, if it bothers you when I point out the evidence of Fe dominance I see, I'll try to lay off. Should I take your "stfu" to mean that this is the case? I'll just put you back on ignore (resulting in my no longer seeing the evidence of Fe dominance and feeling a need to point it out).
I see where you're coming from with this... but in spite of this I'm not really interested in having an in depth debate with you about your type. I was just offering my impressions of what I've been seeing from you, that's all. I don't feel obligated to get into it if I don't feel like it because you are free to simply agree or disagree, as is anyone else.
i second this
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
Wow.. you are disgusting
For calling your bluff?
um... how was i bluffing? No, I am serious. ESFps are very vain.. most of the females are bisexual, so it wouldn't suprise me if they masturbated to themselves. her picture made the thought pop into my mind, because it is a vain picture (which also tries to pretend it isn't vain). so i asked it in all seriousness.. and i have no reason to doubt her reply, as ESFps also have this certain "what is wrong with anything at all" mindset.. it would not suprise me if this mindset extended as far as masturbating to yourself. It's kind of a literal interpretation of "go fuck yourself"; where I was about to tell her to go fuck herself, but then I realized she probably, in a certain sense, already does
x 10000000000
It's inappropriate to ask questions like that if you're going to respond the way you did.
And I might add that you just went from being an asshole to being creepy.
You must be ESE Joy.
right... that's the most logical and probable explanation for your being creepy
.
I thought so too, and I usually don't read flame war threads. I even took crazedrat off ignore for the time being because of this thread.
Joy, don't preach to me. You're a lesbian, it's time you started acting like one.
Nice way to dodge the Te/Fi in the conversation and fall back on trying to use social roles to your advantage.
.
What fucking Te? Where ? Quote me some god damn Te you fucking lesbian!
Since you did not say a word about my quoted texts (you know, the ones which were like books of Te), ... I duno. Do you like, fucking select what you want to select and turn it into something consciously and intentionally? What I mean is, are you completely fucking blind to any evidence contrary to a preconceived opinion you have, and do you select only specific details which support your preconceived opinions from which to formulate your thoughts (and for perhaps greater insight, is this what is meant by Si polr? I think so)... As a secondary question to this- is this a conscious thought process, or do you do it automatically.. like your brain is a dead zombie on autopilot, spewing out retardation everywhere it goes. ? I don't get it Joy, I want to KILL you. I mean really, I would rape and kill you. Rape-and-kill-rape-and-kill-rape-rape-RAPE-and-kill (your new song)
.
Gamma = Te/Fi (well, and Ni/Se, but you get the idea)
Anyways, responding to people by trying to demean them through use of social roles is NOT an ILI behavior. That's the type of thing they'd be least comfortable doing, but it seems to be one of your default responses.
no, that is actually what we are most comfortable doing. That is why it is PoLR Fe. It is kind of like your Si. PoLR means "very fucked up and nonsensical function"... for simple terms. k? my displays of Fe are (in case you havent noticed) negative. Fe in a dominant position focuses on maintaining social order...... k?
Social order, is social stability. Social stability translates into being ~nice~. k?
Do you think I am nice Joy?
...
What would you call the typical ILI response "You are an idiot".
That is a negative display of Fe, is it not?
But according to you, any display of Fe should disqualify said person from being ILI!
When I see someone say "you are an idiot"... or some variation of this, the first thing which pops into my mind is "ILI". You would agree?
Examine your own PoLR function Si. You respond to pretty much every thing I say with a Si statement. What is a Si statement? It is a one liner on what "simply is". That is your fucking signature move Joy. But what makes this Si PoLR for you? You don't make any god damn sense when you use it. k? Get it?
Rape-Kill_r4p3!
You're correct, I didn't read your long posts, and it's because I don't want to. I simply do not feel like putting forth the effort, and I see no reason why I should be obligated to.Since you did not say a word about my quoted texts (you know, the ones which were like books of Te), ... I duno. Do you like, fucking select what you want to select and turn it into something consciously and intentionally? What I mean is, are you completely fucking blind to any evidence contrary to a preconceived opinion you have, and do you select only specific details which support your preconceived opinions from which to formulate your thoughts (and for perhaps greater insight, is this what is meant by Si polr? I think so)... As a secondary question to this- is this a conscious thought process, or do you do it automatically.. like your brain is a dead zombie on autopilot, spewing out retardation everywhere it goes. ?
Yeah... you're creepy. I'm putting you back on ignore now.I don't get it Joy, I want to KILL you. I mean really, I would rape and kill you. Rape-and-kill-rape-and-kill-rape-rape-RAPE-and-kill (your new song)
I mentally raped and killed Joy, and shut her up. I exposed the ESFp as a self masturbator. I shut up the ISFj-Fi. I beat our entire quadra. I am victorious. And I am also now King of Gamma
So after being humiliated and exposed as the pathetic troll you are, you resort to being shockingly offensive to "shut us up" and be "victorious"?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Having learned English as a foreign language, I never understood why so many people say "try and". Glad to know that it indeed makes no sense.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Yes -- let us merge that theory with string theory, going beyond the mere theory of relativity. Let us follow the footsteps of the Tractatus.
Absolutely brilliant. *bows to crazedrat*
um... how was i bluffing? No, I am serious. ESFps are very vain.. most of the females are bisexual, so it wouldn't suprise me if they masturbated to themselves. her picture made the thought pop into my mind, because it is a vain picture (which also tries to pretend it isn't vain). so i asked it in all seriousness.. and i have no reason to doubt her reply, as ESFps also have this certain "what is wrong with anything at all" mindset.. it would not suprise me if this mindset extended as far as masturbating to yourself. It's kind of a literal interpretation of "go fuck yourself"; where I was about to tell her to go fuck herself, but then I realized she probably, in a certain sense, already does
disgusting eh? i'd like that explained i think...because, sexuality is disgusting? i also think you might have missed the point to the statement in your sig. it isn't so much that i want to have sex with myself, it is that someone in the world wants to have sex with ME and that, in itself, has the possibility of turning me on.
see, i'm very aware that sex is only a small part of life, but also a very important one. i'm not ashamed of my need to procreate...because in my mind, thats the only reason sex feelings so good...to give us more incentive to breed. why humans and whatever other creatures need to experience pleasure in order to find the incentive, i do not know. you talk about being into sex as if it is a disgusting, sinful thing you know...that isn't helping you prove your're not an internet virgin (loljk)
it's funny how you have no idea about the story behind the avatar, but lets discuss it for the sake of wasting time until a certain plane arrives. the original picture was taken as a joke, to display something i bought (whip). when taken, it was mean't to show to only one person, however, i showed it to one OTHER person and they suggested i use it for an avatar for a while...because it's funny. THE END! oh, and how exactly is it pretending not to be vain?
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
It's cool that we can joke about raping people now.
Posting Permissions
