posted July 04, 2016 07:52 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selenite:
Well, why are you so uncomfortable with it? Everyone has 'dark' qualities. Morals are a human construct that keeps society in order, yes, but it's not shocking to me at all when people don't naturally follow a moral code that is more or less the established norm.

---

posted July 04, 2016 08:00 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannaramaa:
YES! The Cancers I know are all bossy and leaders, whereas me as an Aries is more content to not lead. Make a thread for Cancers (or the rest of the signs)!

I agree with your observations about Sags too. If anything I've noticed a common pattern of their empathy not working the same as an average person's, and they complain they feel like a machine. I think it takes a lot of energy and drains them when they have to take responsibility for something... just more random thoughts.

---

Oh wow I've actually complained about that very same quite a few times (empathy problems, feeling like a machine, etc.). Gemini moon was always blamed but now the dots are being connected.

I'm glad you've also noticed the Cancer thing. I probably will make a thread about the unseen traits of each sign

posted July 04, 2016 08:19 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selenite:
Well, why are you so uncomfortable with it? Everyone has 'dark' qualities. Morals are a human construct that keeps society in order, yes, but it's not shocking to me at all when people don't naturally follow a moral code that is more or less the established norm.

---

Oh I was only jesting my dear....do remember, I had to see some intrigue / relevancy in it all to make an entire thread about it. I mean who really knows my true intention for making this thread *blinks large Scorpio Asc eyes*. Ha just kidding about the last bit lol

In honesty I don't think you or the other Sag folk are enjoying the bad qualities in and of themselves at all (well, I would hope nobody here admires the likes of Ted Bundy lol), but rather, it is the shedding of light on extremely significant yet ignored aspects of Sag that is being admired. As Sag it's only natural that we appreciate honesty in all it's forms

You think morals are a human construct? That must be applied contextually. For example, the idea that it is morally wrong to bathe naked in public would fit the human construct category (the base is societal). As there are many places where people see absolutely nothing wrong with it (I'm from one of those places).

posted July 04, 2016 08:28 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:
We talking like... Warren Jeffs?

A sag who literally made himself a God.

---

Sooo...he and I just happen to share birthdays.

posted July 04, 2016 11:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleBlackCat:
Don't remind me. LOL! No but seriously Miley, Britney, Anna Nicole, etc are perfect examples of the dark side of Sag. However, not very good examples of them getting away with it. Hmmm...maybe in a way they do though...

---

posted July 04, 2016 11:56 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleBlackCat:

Oh I was only jesting my dear....do remember, I had to see some intrigue / relevancy in it all to make an entire thread about it. I mean who really knows my true intention for making this thread *blinks large Scorpio Asc eyes*. Ha just kidding about the last bit lol

In honesty I don't think you or the other Sag folk are enjoying the bad qualities in and of themselves at all (well, I would hope nobody here admires the likes of Ted Bundy lol), but rather, it is the shedding of light on extremely significant yet ignored aspects of Sag that is being admired. As Sag it's only natural that we appreciate honesty in all it's forms

You think morals are a human construct? That must be applied contextually. For example, the idea that it is morally wrong to bathe naked in public would fit the human construct category (the base is societal). As there are many places where people see absolutely nothing wrong with it (I'm from one of those places).

Now rape being morally wrong is in no way merely an idea constructed by humans. There literally exists laws of nature that defy society, race, age, etc. Rape would be one of those. People do not merely label it as wrong for the convenience of societal order. See? Contextual.

---

posted July 05, 2016 01:29 AM              

Let's take a look at manipulation since you cited it. Manipulation is contextual in the same way as I outlined in my previous comment that you disagreed with. If you manipulate a child into a sexual act, then that is immoral and bad. That sort of manipulation is certainly not "just another experience" for the child. However, if you manipulate a killer into thinking you ran left when you really went right, that is good. Context is important. This can even be seen in less dramatic examples. If you need to pay your rent and you've managed to get someone to spend extra on an item you are selling, that is survival. Yet if you manipulate someone into buying an item that doesn't even work at all to pay your rent, that is immoral.

It is really simple actually, but lately society has been deliberately making it appear more complex than it is. There is a difference between understanding and condoning. Subjective moral beliefs (like whether it is good or bad to bath naked outside) can be delved into. Morals based on natural laws of right and wrong can't be delved into (such as rape). You can only delve into why it was done but not why it is morally wrong (as that would make no sense since why it is wrong is obvious).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selenite:
So was I, in my initial comment.. haha. I do not agree with your point but I think I should have said more than 'social order,' of course there are some other contextual reasons for morals. Typical Sag half-assing an argument, maybe. I am just about delving deeper into peoples' reasons for their beliefs, especially on morals, lately.. Though 'belief' and 'reason' rarely seem to fit together, I just think it's interesting to ask 'why.' As a possibly deviant Sag, I would like to know why manipulating others is 'wrong,' if you can do it, and it technically doesn't really hurt anyone. Even if it does, it's hard for me to see anything wrong with things like that, because it just seems like a part of life to me. 'Manipulation' is the thing that we made up, and (while it doesn't make a difference to me) in nature, what we call 'manipulation' is just part of life; being manipulated is just another experience. Not technically good or bad in any objective sense, just like anything else.

---

posted July 05, 2016 01:33 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by DopGang:
Haha!

"Who's your queen?? I'm your queen. Now say it. SAY IT!!!"

---

Is that a quote related to the gif???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sulkyarcher:
Sagittarius is ruled by Jupiter. So I wonder if Jupiter can be occultist sometimes?

---

This is a VERY good observation. I certainly think so. Sag is very philosophical and that often leads into occult studies. Many Sag people I know are into esoteric things and Jupiter would only expand it greater.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deptic:
Here's my vedic chart --
*chart pic was here*

---

Do you find those placements to be more accurate than your regular chart?

posted July 05, 2016 02:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selenite:
So was I, in my initial comment.. haha. I do not agree with your point but I think I should have said more than 'social order,' of course there are some other contextual reasons for morals. Typical Sag half-assing an argument, maybe. I am just about delving deeper into peoples' reasons for their beliefs, especially on morals, lately.. Though 'belief' and 'reason' rarely seem to fit together, I just think it's interesting to ask 'why.' As a possibly deviant Sag, I would like to know why manipulating others is 'wrong,' if you can do it, and it technically doesn't really hurt anyone. Even if it does, it's hard for me to see anything wrong with things like that, because it just seems like a part of life to me. 'Manipulation' is the thing that we made up, and (while it doesn't make a difference to me) in nature, what we call 'manipulation' is just part of life; being manipulated is just another experience. Not technically good or bad in any objective sense, just like anything else.

---

If you manipulate someone, and no one knows it but you, and you essentially get away with it - yes, that's still wrong and it's still harmful to that person. In that situation, you're operating under the belief that you're smarter, quicker, more clever than another person, and taking full advantage of that opportunity. You're essentially forcing them to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do. Sure, you may not be physically forcing them to do it, but they're essentially making decisions based on your lie. You're taking away any chance that they had to make a decision based on the truth. That is harmful, and also wrong.

posted July 05, 2016 02:54 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by StubbornVirgo:
If you manipulate someone, and no one knows it but you, and you essentially get away with it - yes, that's still wrong and it's still harmful to that person. In that situation, you're operating under the belief that you're smarter, quicker, more clever than another person, and taking full advantage of that opportunity. You're essentially forcing them to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do. Sure, you may not be physically forcing them to do it, but they're essentially making decisions based on your lie. You're taking away any chance that they had to make a decision based on the truth. That is harmful, and also wrong.

Sorry if I sound harsh. I guess my Pluto in Scorpio/9th is waking up for this discussion.

---

posted July 05, 2016 05:31 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by StubbornVirgo:
If you manipulate someone, and no one knows it but you, and you essentially get away with it - yes, that's still wrong and it's still harmful to that person. In that situation, you're operating under the belief that you're smarter, quicker, more clever than another person, and taking full advantage of that opportunity. You're essentially forcing them to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do. Sure, you may not be physically forcing them to do it, but they're essentially making decisions based on your lie. You're taking away any chance that they had to make a decision based on the truth. That is harmful, and also wrong.

Sorry if I sound harsh. I guess my Pluto in Scorpio/9th is waking up for this discussion.

---

posted July 05, 2016 05:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannaramaa:
We all agreed to be lied to as soon as we start talking to someone else. What about telling a friend how they look in an unflattering outfit - that they love? Do we choose ethics, or what's "right" in that situation? Truth is subjective. What if four or five people agree on a point, and two disagree. Which is the truth?

---

We may all agree to be lied to, but we don't agree to be manipulated (unless we're talking about advertising and commercials - but I'm thinking about on a one-to-one basis here). There's a difference between telling someone they look good in their outfit when they really didn't because you didn't want to hurt their feelings, and telling someone they look good so that they'll give you money, etc. The intent is totally different - in the first, you're sparing your friends' feelings, but in the second you're making them feel a certain way in order to get something out of them.

My original reply was mostly targeted at the idea that manipulation is just another experience and isn't necessarily right or wrong. I guess I'm thinking about the more sinister cases (I watch a lot of crime shows) here.

This is the definition that I'm going by:

quote:

---

Full Definition of manipulate
manipulated manipulating
transitive verb
1
: to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner
2
a : to manage or utilize skillfully
b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage
3
: to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose :

---

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manipulate

I agree that the truth is subjective. Everyone has their own version of it, including those in positions of power who are supposed to "find the truth" in a situation (such as law enforcement, courts, etc.)

It seems like there should be some universal moral codes that divide what is "right" and what is "wrong" while taking into account special circumstances, though. Or at least there would be in a perfect world…

posted July 05, 2016 06:05 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannaramaa:
We all agreed to be lied to as soon as we start talking to someone else. What about telling a friend how they look in an unflattering outfit - that they love? Do we choose ethics, or what's "right" in that situation? Truth is subjective. What if four or five people agree on a point, and two disagree. Which is the truth?

---

What? No. Perhaps cat's urine looks like apple juice or something. The entire logic behind your argument is flawed by default. By that logic, a man who gets pick-pocketed actually agreed to it the moment he left his house because he was aware that pick-pocketers exist. That makes no sense. He may have increased his probability of being pick-pocketed by leaving his house but he in no way agreed / consented to it. If anyone ever commits a crime towards you don't even think about suing b/c according to you you consented to it.

Also, why does everyone keep saying right, wrong, and truth are subjective? They are not. If your friend looks awful in her favorite outfit (its like 3 sizes too small and gives her a figure like the letter W) she will not suddenly look good in it b/c you lied to her to spare feelings. The truth never changed at all, the circumstances surrounding it did. Truth is always truth. If you let your hand rest in fire it will eventually burn. If you mix equal parts red and blue you will get purple. What is subjective about either of those two things? If 100 ppl say that oranges grow as cubes and only person says they do not truth remains the same. Truth is not subjective, feelings about truth are. There is too much brainwashing going on.

posted July 05, 2016 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleBlackCat:
Is that a quote related to the gif???

---

posted July 05, 2016 08:15 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleBlackCat:

Also, why does everyone keep saying right, wrong, and truth are subjective? They are not. If your friend looks awful in her favorite outfit (its like 3 sizes too small and gives her a figure like the letter W) she will not suddenly look good in it b/c you lied to her to spare feelings. The truth never changed at all, the circumstances surrounding it did. Truth is always truth. If you let your hand rest in fire it will eventually burn. If you mix equal parts red and blue you will get purple. What is subjective about either of those two things? If 100 ppl say that oranges grow as cubes and only person says they do not truth remains the same. Truth is not subjective, feelings about truth are. There is too much brainwashing going on.

---

posted July 05, 2016 08:17 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by StubbornVirgo:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manipulate

I agree that the truth is subjective. Everyone has their own version of it, including those in positions of power who are supposed to "find the truth" in a situation (such as law enforcement, courts, etc.)

It seems like there should be some universal moral codes that divide what is "right" and what is "wrong" while taking into account special circumstances, though. Or at least there would be in a perfect world…

I'm rambling. Goodnight LL.

---

If you're agreeing to be lied to (it's from the link I posted below, disclaimer that I may have taken it out of context) you are also agreeing to be manipulated because lying is manipulation by default.

posted July 05, 2016 06:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleBlackCat:
Glad you enjoyed it and that you too see what I mean

Yep, this is exactly what I noticed...that Sag can do taboo / creepy things openly and still not be "seen". There are sag ppl mentioned that are not Scorpio influenced but these two certainly are. They are Plutonic Sagittarians and yes the clothing is a dead giveaway. The Venus, Moon, and Pluto in Scorpio are touching everything. Mars in Aries only makes them that much bolder with their taboo behavior and eccentricity. If you click the instagram video you will see the dominant/submissive dynamic playing out between them. The more aggressive brother even captioned the image referring to his twin as his friend, mirror, bxtch, and his motherfxcker. Who does that? His bxtch? Really? And the mvtherfxer part
just didn't even make sense. The whole thing is abusive and disgusting. It disappoints me because I actually liked their dancing (not the incest stuff).

Anyway, with Sag I just started seeing one too many things and something sort of just clicked. Oh and you are right Jim was REALLLLYYY wild and pretty esoteric. Most Sag ppl are esoteric but again most don't notice b/c of how playful we are lol

---

yeah larry is definitely the darker and more dominating twin. its almost a kind of "shock value" factor. and their pluto conj is just crazy obvious to me with them, ooz it even in their relationship towards each other, they talk about how they have a "love/hate" relationship, and even say stuff like they wanna kill each other sometimes. To be honest, i feel like their connection extends beyond the limitations of our bodies, which is why i think it can be uncomfortable to see how really "close" they are to each other if that makes sense. like if the concept of "soul mate" wasn't limited to a lover.. is how i feel about it, but with siblings.
they are certainly bold and have very very strong presences, rather dominating.

posted July 05, 2016 10:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LittleBlackCat:
[b]WARNING: CONTAINS DISTURBING / TABOO CONTENT..

Sag has a pretty good reputation as a fun, friendly, almost harmless sign (esp. the sun). However, the symbol that represents them seems to be taken way too lightly.They are the ONLY sign in the zodiac that is a human/animal fusion. This seems to create the capacity for completely strange, wild, and even disturbing behavior (animal) that can be completely masked or rationalized by their human intelligence. The symbol is literally depicting the "lower-self" with the "higher-self" aiming for a particular target...and they do work together to reach it (whether it's for a virtuous aim or something totally heinous). I have decided that this is much more dangerous / powerful than most astrology texts let on.

Each person in the above image possess unique and diverse charts. The only recurring common theme? They are all solar Sagittarians. Not so friendly / sunny are they? Sure, I have seen some of those people sport a fun even clownish disposition. However, often even those moments reveal an undeniably sinister flicker of mischief in the otherwise sparkle filled eyes Sag ppl are known for. What I noticed during my studies is that Sagittarians are very complex. Both philosophical and shallow. Comedic and serious. Spiritual and hedonistic. The mutability seems to be illuminated by their fire. However, the illumination of their fire is often so sunny and bright that it blinds others from seeing the shadow side of this mutability. Most ppl clearly see the comedic side, but not the serious one. Most readily see Sag's love of adventuring off into fun endeavors, but not their dark journeys into taboo / evil territory.

By the time anyone becomes aware of the more disturbing side of Sagittarius, their human intellect has already found plenty of workarounds to do beastly creature-like things in your face without any ridicule whatsoever. Whether conscious or not, this is not a coincidence. There is a dark side to Sagittarius.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK...
Woody Allen has long been associated with pedophilia, something that would normally cause shunning, but he is a Sag and remains revered. Ozzy Osbourne bit the head off of a bat while on stage. It was allegedly an accident (as he claims he thought it was fake), but what grown adult uses their teeth to rip anything thrown on stage by a stranger? Who can do that and is still loved anyway? Sag, that's who. Jay-z publicly wears shirts with Alleister Crowly quotes and frequently alludes to sorcery / witchcraft, but nobody thinks it's weird. Why? He is a Sag. Trey Songz is typically seen as harmless to pretty much everyone despite highly disturbing "performances" such as the one below. He convinces two strangers to intertwine themselves in his shirt and fondle / kiss each other for his amusement. This is in no way a unique event for him and he also does a lot of sexual simulations. Normally people would see how twisted this is, but he is a Sag sooo.....

OH, BUT IT'S NOT LIMITED TO QUESTIONABLE ENTERTAINERS
There was an article written about the dangers of dating men of the Leo, Aquarius, Gemini, and Sag variety. Yet the ENTIRE comment section was literally dedicated to the evils, horrors, and complete psychological torture of Sagittarius. One would think the article was about Sag and nobody else. That is NOT a coincidence. Sagittarius, despite their warm fun-loving nature, have the capacity for ice cold rancor and sociopath-like behavior while charming you to your grave. They will mistreat you and you will love it, because they always seem to "mean well" and are just so darn fun. Clicking the screen-shot below takes you to the site.

CONTINUED BELOW...[/B]

---

posted July 06, 2016 08:00 AM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by BeholdAstarte:
yeah larry is definitely the darker and more dominating twin. its almost a kind of "shock value" factor. and their pluto conj is just crazy obvious to me with them, ooz it even in their relationship towards each other, they talk about how they have a "love/hate" relationship, and even say stuff like they wanna kill each other sometimes. To be honest, i feel like their connection extends beyond the limitations of our bodies, which is why i think it can be uncomfortable to see how really "close" they are to each other if that makes sense. like if the concept of "soul mate" wasn't limited to a lover.. is how i feel about it, but with siblings.
they are certainly bold and have very very strong presences, rather dominating.

---

Sorry in advance for the long post (and any duplicate-posts).
The one grabbing the other one's chin and forcing him to talk is actually Laurent (in the instagram clip I posted). It can be easy to confuse them but I've learned to tell them apart like 80% of the time (despite only taking interest in them 3 days ago). Laurent has a slightly fuller face and features in general (more square…even though they are twins). He is usually the one being more chatty / talkative and he is more expressive in general (almost obnoxiously so). His dancing reflects the same thing. He dances more expressive / spontaneous with a very contemporary bent to his moves (artistically rolling around on the ground, mimicking emotional pain or suffering, etc.). Very beautiful and the music will often be beautiful or emotionally stirring as well. He is passionate with no concrete direction and it shows up in everything. His Sag energy carries an Aries-like intimidation (his Aries mars is obvious).

Larry is more refined (best way to describe it). Slightly thinner more refined face / features. More composed and refined (almost fragile) demeanor. More refined, sharp, and clean dance moves (very precise). He is less talkative and when he does talk Laurent usually cuts him off. When he smiles or laughs it is with the innocent overemphasis of a toddler (the instagram clip shows this as well). Also, his two front teeth look goofier...beaver or rabbit-like (not sure why Laurent does not have that). Larry is “oddly-adorable”. His Sag energy carries a Libran quality, as his Scorpio Venus seems to radiate well. Yet, despite his delicate disposition, he is the one that dances with a harsh precision. The refinement of his dancing is not at all delicate, but rather sharp and strong with amazing control (along with rapid and distinctive footwork). He dances to gangster anthems and hard hip hop beats. He is generally seen as the better dancer.

Laurent is more blunt / aggressive yet more emotional and loves passionate music. Larry is more effeminate / quiet yet more detached and loves aggressive music.

If you watch them closely it becomes clear that Laurent dominates Larry. Notice that he is the one always touching / stroking Larry (as evidence by the first Les Twins gifs I posted). He coaxes him a lot which looks a lot like “grooming” (a term commonly used in psychology). It’s not possible to truly know who initiated the whole thing to begin with (even with Laurent’s aggressiveness), but they have definitely chosen roles (and Larry is in the more effeminate role).

Note the way Laurent ALWAYS has a possessive / dominant hand over Larry. In every photo he tends to rest some part of himself on Larry as a symbol of ownership (like a guy making others know his girlfriend is taken).

Larry seems to go with it for the most part. For example, in the below image, a fan gets very close to Laurent. Larry (just like a jealous insecure girlfriend) immediately competes for Laurent’s affection, even using his hand to give a dismissing gesture to the girl as Laurent hugs him. The girl is clearly left confused (look at her face).

However, there are times when Larry seems uncomfortable or downright embarrassed by Laurents advances (esp. if done when dancing). I’ve seen clips where Larry will blatantly try to escape Laurent’s embrace. In the gif below, Laurent has his arm over Larry’s shoulders (b/c he always shows ownership). He stares contemplatively at Larry for a moment before somewhat aggressively kissing him on the cheek. Larry reacts with an expression of disgust before getting up and walking away. This is not uncommon for Larry. At times he won’t even return a hug from Laurent, opting to just let his arms hang by his sides with obvious melancholy.