This site operates on behavior. So if you play gullible publicly, then it will give you the catfish and such directly into your inbox once it figures out your behavior. That takes a while, say six months.
If it thinks you're not gullible it will send them into your "message requests".
If you don't respond, it stops sending their posts to your feed. So they have to physically look through the profiles for even the message to reach "message requests".
It's been a few months since I have had a catfish. But I have been on here for years. I once got a lot of them. Year's ago.
@DeWayfarer The site I just left had a ton of them and it was blatantly obvious. I had female friends on the site I knew irl, that would tell me about "girls" that would message them and be nice, then suddenly turned their conversation sexual and perverted. Like one girl told me, "why would every woman on here want to know about my sex life"?
@WizardofOz so you know, if your feed seems a little slow the forums are a good place to meet people not on your feed. Once you start liking their post or even follow them you'll see more of them on your feed.
@DeWayfarer I had no idea what "catfish" means and checked it out. It is an espionage technique of the CIA and MI6 for acquiring assets and exploiting them.
@sree251 catfish is a term for those attempting to take advantage of others. Usually monetarily. And most often it's women or men posing as women. Yet can be referring to men.
@DeWayfarer I understand the meaning of the term now. It's preying on others. This is what espionage is, exploiting people for selfish gains.
In examining my own reason for being here, I have to admit that I am a catfisher because my identity is fictitious. Why I am here is the question. I do fit the definition of a catfisher even if I am not a conventional one as described on the internet.
@DeWayfarer [quote] catfish is a term for those [b]attempting to take advantage of others. [/b]Usually monetarily. And most often it's women or men posing as women. Yet can be referring to men. [/quote]
Thanks for this reply. I am not here to take advantage of anyone. I don't need anything except minds to bounce my ideas off.
@DeWayfarer [quote] have you ever thought of making your own morals? [/quote]
Yes, but I would put it differently. Right and wrong is a matter of perception.
We all share the same worldview like a bunch of computers operating on the same program. I eat animals and think nothing of culling hundreds of thousands of chickens gassing them to death and incinerating their carcasses to stop the spread of bird flu. I can't eat a human being or kill one until it has been reclassified as food or vermin. This is how we demonize other humans, see them as terrorists before we send in the gunships to wipe them off the face of the earth.
Is morality a matter of convention? If it is, then the group defines what is right and wrong. To make my own morals, I would have to remove myself from the group. Jesus removed himself from the group when he said that we must love each other unconditionally, even the enemy. No killing. If you are struck, turn the other cheek.
Going against convention is making your own morality. What do you say?
@sree251 [quote]Yes, but I would put it differently. Right and wrong is a matter of perception [/quote]
Yes ... but...
[quote]We all share the same worldview like a bunch of computers operating on the same program. [/quote]
... wrong!
It is a matter of perception. Or even better a matter of perspective.
No two peoples senses are the same. In fact no two brains are the same. And to take it even further even each person body sense of time is not the same. Quite literally the taller you are the more your delay in your reactions to anything.
Ever wonder why few can catch a mouse when it's so much smaller than us? It's nerve to brain reactions are faster than us. Yet even no two mice are the same. Some are quicker than others.
Morality is just as much as a perspective as a physical sense. No two people sense of what is right and wrong is the same.
Yet this is where beliefs come in as well as that saying comes in. We all think in generalities. NEVER in specifics. What is right and what is wrong is usually from the individual "perspective". Yet over all we adhere the majority consensus of morality.
Even when it's contrary to our individual beliefs.
1. For instance there are many that believe "little white lies" are ok. For them it might be the Truth is more harmful than to lie a little. That is one perspective.
2. Yet if you take extremist that person might say any lie is harmful.
3. Again a different perspective. A totally selfish person might say that lying is a matter of opinion, in order to justify their own lies.
All three perspectives and more can be found in any belief system.
In Hindu, the later in 3, is found in the left hand path. In naturalists it can be found in true survivalist. In Christianity in can be found in politicians. For what is diplomacy but a matter of opinion. And overt lying is acceptable.
[quote]We all share the same worldview like a bunch of computers operating on the same program.[/quote]
No we don't.
We are not carbon copies of each other. We infinitely different from each other. Go to any town or city counsel session. They never agree 100% of the time! In fact there's usually arguments over any given issue. Yet this is where the little white lie concept comes in. They usually COMPROMISE! For the sake of the majority.
The majority is never right, though !
I have yet to find anyone, in my whole 64 years of life, that has agreed with me more than 60% of the time on moral issues! And that's a rare occurrence!
[quote]To make my own morals, I would have to remove myself from the group. [/quote] You have anyway. By the very fact you say you had said ...
[quote][u]I can never be sure of my own integrity[/u]. Moral sickness is insidious. [/quote] Whose morality? Whose perspective?
And if you are referring of the majority. Then you run into this fallacy...
Once again...
The only way to get around this is to create your own morals. Right by your own perspectives.
Not mine, not Christianity, and most certainly not the majority of the whole world!
Only 34% of the whole world are Christian BTW. And that is slowly decreasing. Because over population. Like in India and China. Not to mention Africa.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/continents
So whose morality? The Zo é tribe of Brazil?
They are a matriarchal (run by women), polygamistic, nudists society!
I totally respect them for being so controversial in all three areas at once .🤣
Yet Christians would utterly destroy their society if they weren't a proscribed tribe by the Brazilian government.
So are Christians right in their total insistence in the destruction of the Zo é tribes morales?
I say absolutely NO! They are irrefutably wrong! Even the morality of attempting to do so is irrefutablely WRONG! Leave them alone! Let them live how they wish to live! It's worked for them for hundreds of years before even the Inca civilization.
This is why the Brazilian government is MORALLY right in proscribing the whole Zo é tribe area of Brazil from ANYONE!
If you believe the majority of the billionaires of this world share the same morality as the lower classes, you are ignoring the reality of billionaires morals. For each and every one of them are spitting on the lower classes every day by the hour. Irregardless of their individual beliefs!
They have their own morals, separate from their own hypocritical beliefs!
So you wish someone else's morality and be controlled by that morality? Or are you going to make your own? 🤷🏻♂️
