• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gesundheit

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. Well, that seems terrible. But I would take it with a grain of salt. It could easily be propaganda. What's the backstory behind the accusation? This is the important question here. Also, what far worse than that?
  2. The mistake here is defining ultimate reality through consciousness as if consciousness is ultimate reality. It simply is not. Reality is not infinite consciousness. Reality is an infinite nothingness that is capable of imagining consciousness. Consciousness is just a tiny portion of infinity. Consciousness is actually not very different from thought, it's just a different manifestation/form of thoughts. Are you conscious of thoughts? Or are you thinking about consciousness? There's no difference. All of it is imagination couched within nothingness. So, you're left with not-knowing anything outside of imagination. And that's pretty much expected because, by definition, you know-not nothing.
  3. Lol. And I thought nobody was ideological about gender.
  4. Good. Don't get close to those and you'll be fine. They're masculine and unattractive, anyway.
  5. No, this is factually false. Nobody is that ideological about gender. Most false accusations are motivated by desire for money or out of hurt.
  6. I don't think there's any legal system that sentences 20 years for rape. So you might be imagining things a lot worse than they are. Usually when a woman falsely accuses a man, she's after his money, so she would be careful not to throw him in jail. If a woman seriously wanted to throw a man in jail, that means he's actually hurt her so bad that she wanted to get back at him through illegal means, because she couldn't get justice through the law because she's socially disadvantaged and the man was a jerk to her while thinking he would get away with it, so he probably deserves it. Otherwise, she would have to be completely nuts to falsely accuse him. There are basically no other options out of those three.
  7. It depends on the culture. For example, in my country, if a girl was raped by someone, they usually marry her to her rapist to avoid public shame, because having sex before marriage is a great shame here, especially for women. So, even if she was raped, her folks would try to hide and suppress that story, and then they would communicate with the rapist family in order to arrange a marriage, and then after a few days of marriage, they get their daughter divorced so that she's known to be not virgin anymore. The rapist gets away without any damage.
  8. You're right. The truth is that criminals get away very rarely.
  9. Of course society is biased. Otherwise, there would be only men or only women. Bias is what creates identity. And not all bias is bad. Some of it is even good, for example the reason why we enjoy hot sex is the bias, aka the masculine-feminine polarity. If everyone would be 100% unbiased, then all women would become men, or all men would become women, however society would want. As well, our bodies are inherently different, so it's fair and justified to be biased in certain things. And I get what you mean, but don't forget that women face similar challenges and sometimes even more. A man can have sex with as many women as he wants without being shamed or marginalized. A woman will be called a slut for engaging with two men. That's society. Some things work for your advantage, and some other don't. Everyone faces different challenges. The challenges won't likely go away anytime soon, so it's kinda pointless to waste time complaining about them.
  10. Notice that the you that is asking the question is not the same you that will receive the answer. So, what does it matter?
  11. I've literally got sick with the solipsism threads and posts spamming the forum every now and then. I don't know how to put this other than to say that God has blessed me with the final answer for you, guys. So, I will share it with you here hoping that this will be a pill that will get you past this confusion once and for all. Okay, ready? So, the same way you've convinced yourself with the concept Direct Experience and how "important" or "true" it is, I would like to introduce you to another concept that I like to call Indirect Experience. Indirect experience is not at all mysterious or hard to understand. It is simply the experience that you are not currently having, but rather thinking about. Thinking about something is an indirect experience of it. For example, you have directly experienced an ice-cream cone in the past. But now, as you're reading this, you're thinking about that experience. So, right now for you, the ice-cream cone is an indirect experience. Now, apply this to other beings. Do you believe there are other sentient beings? Well, the answer doesn't really matter, because the question itself is framed wrong. A proper way of asking the question would be something like this: There seems to be other beings that seem independent of my perception of them. How can I know that they're real like me? And here's where understanding indirect experience is critical. Because you can actually have conversations with these beings and get a glimpse of their direct experiences by indirectly experiencing their experiences through imagination. So, when a person tells you about the most delicious plate, it's an indirect experience for you. And you can turn it into a direct experience by actually going and tasting that delicious plate they told you about. And then after that, you will have achieved direct experience of the plate, and you will be left with indirect experience, which is basically your thoughts about it. Now, it's important to tackle the issue of truth here, because the concept direct experience claims to provide absolute truth, or at least a close relationship to it. So, where does indirect experience stand from truth? Well, the truth is that what other people say can be either true or false. So, it's not really a problem of what indirect experience can yield, because it can yield anything, it's more about how it's understood and applied. In other words, indirect experience is neither true or false by itself alone. It requires your validation for it to be true. For example, if someone says that the moon is green, you go look outside and see if it's green for you. That'll determine whether the direct experience claimed by the other person is true for you or not. If you look at the moon and don't find it green, you'll know that your direct experience is different from what they're saying. You won't necessarily have to prove or disprove their claims. You can live knowing that everyone perceives the world differently, and that some people don't tell the truth about their direct experience from time to time. If you're going to be smart and tell me that indirect experience is the same thing as imagination, well, you're right. They're the same thing, and that's precisely the point, because when you say imagination as opposed to "direct experience", it seems to you as if they're two different things. But what you don't realize is that reality is infinite imagination, as Leo puts it. Just get this idea out of your head that there is somehow a distinction between actuality and imagination, because they're literally the same thing. If you haven't yet realized that reality is infinite imagination, notice that direct experience = indirect experience. So, by definition, all experience = imagination. That being said, I hope that I will never have to read another solip-fucking-sistic post for the remainder of my life. Thanks.
  12. This is false. The law is not biased towards any specific gender. In very rare cases, the people representing the law can make mistakes or be unfair with both men and women. But that's the exception, not the rule. A woman that has been raped could also face unfair judgment and the criminal might escape. Now imagine being raped without being able to prove it, but instead you get charged or sentenced for false accusation. And on top of all that you will just have to continue living with all that while knowing that the rapist is still out there.
  13. @Parththakkar12 Also, consider the opposite case. Consider that a woman who barely escaped being raped could not come forward about it and point to the criminal, because the crime didn't actually happen, even though it was intended. At best, she could get a restraining order against him. Consider how that woman would feel about going out while knowing that that criminal is out there and could possibly reach to her again.
  14. Stay silent about what? False accusation is a crime that only a criminal would do, similar to rape. Most women are ordinary people, like most guys. Rapists are rare, and false accusing women are rare. And actually, it's harder to prove rape than to disprove it. So, female victims have a disadvantage here. For example, if a woman was weak after the incident and didn't act on it quickly because she couldn't face people, then she would likely lose the case. Can you imagine how hard it is to hold yourself together after being raped? I'm not saying false accusations are fine, but they're a lot less frequent than sexual harassment and violence against women. So you shouldn't make generalizations. Yes, mistakes happen because judges are not Gods. The mistakes have n specific bias towards a specific gender. Doctors make mistakes and patients die, too. It's rare, but there's a law system that deals with that, too.