What the hell is Game? You are so dead spot on regarding a variety of subjects, I can't help but think you might know something about relationships as well, but I simply fail to understand how the information at the Game blog promotes marriage. Granted, the blog is not geared towards women and our unique set of problems, but I still don't think I understand men or the male/female dynamic any more today than I did 6 months ago. As a recovering feminist, vegan, radical environmentalist, Dead Head, I feel like I missed a MAJOR part of my development as a woman, and hence my personal life has been tweaked slightly as a result, but I still don't know how exactly.To paraphrase my previous definition, Game is the conscious and synthetic adoption of the attitudes, behaviors, perspectives, strategies, and tactics of men with high socio-sexual rank by men of lower socio-sexual rank with the objective of raising their socio-sexual status and increasing their success with women. This is not the definition that most Game bloggers would utilize, but it is one they would recognize as being closely related to their definitions. Since I take a more abstract and analytical approach to the subject, it should not surprise anyone that my definition is less focused and practical than most.
Again, I know the blog is geared towards men, but if ever you or Spacebunny feel the urge to address what you perceive as some of the consequences of modernity on the female psyche, and how that makes us deficient as a spouse, the information might be useful to more than just me. The area I (and probably other females as well) still struggle with is how these nutty ideologies have warped our ability to relate to men in a meaningful and fulfilling way. I should be the one perhaps to give the advice, having lived through such lunacy, but I never really had a normal model to begin with, so I don't know what I should be returning to.
Gotta thank you for the time you take to educate us. Cyberspace has been a TOTAL BLESSING for those of us brainwashed by establishment schools. Between the Bible and the Internet, there may be hope for this generation after all.
My purpose is not to promote marriage. My purpose is to understand and expose the truth of intersexual relations, to oppose the equalitarian and feminist ideologies, and to defend traditional American society and Western civilization. While marriage has historically been a major pillar of both American society and Western civilization, the perversion of the institution by Western governments has actually rendered it a force for societal and civilizational decline, if not collapse, in many aspects. This is why I cannot unilaterally endorse marriage for all men in all cases, but rather, insist that under the present regime, it can only be risked by Christian men marrying genuinely Christian women, since this group at least has the potential for placing the traditional spiritual element of the sacrament above the legal element of the government-licensed relationship.
I find the request for more information on female deficiencies from a woman to be both encouraging and a little ironic. I've tried to be circumspect about not always hammering on that particular subject; some would probably say that I haven't been circumspect enough. But I'll think about it, particularly the way in which feminist ideology has rendered women less capable of marrying or sustaining happy, successful marriages, and post on the subject in the coming weeks. And perhaps I can better explain the male perspective in a manner that women can readily grasp; there is somewhat of a fish-water problem for which I will have to consciously correct.
However, I can assure KT that even if she feels she doesn't understand men yet, she has taken a massive intellectual step forward in identifying what she does not know. This is the first and foremost step towards knowledge. It's rather like learning a language. You learn a few words here and there, and you're very pleased with how well you "speak" French or whatever simply because you can say a few words and exchange a few pleasantries. But as your ability increases, you suddenly hit the point where you stop paying attention to what you have learned and recognize how much more you don't know. That's the point at which you truly begin to learn the language. And that is the point at which KT is with regards to men and the reality of intersexual relations.
45 comments:
It occurs to me that there may be a catch-22 here. For a woman to get as far down the rabbit hole as KT has, she probably needs to be fairly intelligent. And yet, the more intelligent she is, the more difficult it may be for her to accept the main red pill truth that a woman needs to accept: men are more capable than women in many ways, especially in the workplace, which she's been taught is the most important area of human endeavor.
The corollary is that women are more capable in the home, nurturing a family and making a pleasant place to live, but that's been devalued by feminism. She has to upend her value system so that in recognizing the proper roles of men and women she isn't consigning herself to a "worthless" role.
She's been taught that women are smarter (better) than men, and since she's smart herself, she's seen proof of that in her own case many times. Ultimately, to be happy she's going to have to submit to a man, and that's going to be difficult as long as she sees them all as dummies. That probably explains the quest that extends into the 40s for The One, as smart, educated women hunt for a guy who outsmarts them in addition to giving them the usual tingles.
Her question suggests that such women may be reachable, though.
"some would probably say that I haven't been circumspect enough." I agree. The Western world, the realms of Churchianity, and even a lot of manosphere blogging is about "manning up". How men should make changes in some way or another, and that they have a responsibility to make these changes (which depends on who's telling you to man up). If Game shows us anything, its the dark realities of feminism, and the female psyche. Doesn't that make you think that there need not be just "manning up", but also "womanning up?"
VD,
You continue to strike ever closer to the root.
"However, I can assure KT that even if she feels she doesn't understand men yet, she has taken a massive intellectual step forward in identifying what she does not know."
The step is as much spiritual as intellectual, and its the big one, and not just for women.
(1) Smaller family sizes led fathers to raise their daughters to be the sons they didn't get to have.
(2) Not being men, those daughters were bad at it, so have acted like bad men.
(3) The worst man is one who mistakes himself for God, and thus is unaware of his own fallenness/opportunities to improve his life/learn.
KT,
I'm looking forward to what Vox has to say in the coming weeks regarding your request.
Yesterday I asked him if he could spend a bit of time addressing those men who are in a happy second marriage, yet still have to beat back the inevitable grown step-kid dilemmas.
Maye he can kill two birds with one stone, as women like you tend to try again, and end up with men like me.
The kids just sort of orbit out there, waiting for the opportunity to screw up their lives and needing money, while shunniong advice and offering guilt trips and manipulation in return for the "loans".
This was posted here some time ago: "Thoughts on Female Suffrage and in Vindication of Woman's True Rights." By Mrs. Madeline Vinton Dahlgren 1871
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=19950_O_16
It's been a great addition to our homeschool curriculum. The author is very wise to the true nature of women. And her admonishments from almost 150 years ago are eerily prophetic.
If I might suggest KT begin her journey by reading Athol Kay's blog and MMSLP '11, to lay some comprehensive groundwork about the Red Pill and Game, that would be an excellent place to begin. Once she understands the nomenclature and the concepts, then she can participate in the discussion more effectively, and understand what it is we're trying to say.
In terms of why and how feminism screwed things up, I humbly offer my own perspective on it: The Great Hamster Manifesto (http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/04/great-hamster-manifesto-its-trap.html). It details how feminism lied to you and why. And it should help put things into perspective when it comes to the emerging masculine attitudes, and how they might be instructive toward this aspect of your life.
Good luck, KT. And Vox, as usual, your concise and powerful posts are always thoughtful. I trust your judgement in regards to your chosen subject. There's a reason I come here every day.
The average guy, unequipped with red pill knowledge, after enough exposure to physically adult women will come to one conclusion, women are clinically insane by his standards. He's been told all his life that women are just like men. Therefore his expectations are the same as they are for men and he is sorely disappointed by the experience.
The women in his life never do anything that would make him think they are adults. They are never rational except as they rationalize their behaviors. They avoid responsibility like the plague. They mistake their emotions for objective reality. They make major life decisions based on those emotions. And finally they seem to gleefully seek to destroy their own lives while being oblivious to their own role in that destruction.
He may have eventually noticed how easy it is to manipulate a woman's emotions to his benefit but it just makes him feel dirty if he has any kind of conscience, even if he gets her to do things that are actually in her best interests. Here's why, he is seeing these women as he sees men and to manipulate a man in that way is to have no respect for that man and little respect for yourself because you stooped low enough to manipulate another man. But this is the blue pill point of view.
The red pill knowledge for men in this situation is to see her as you would a little sister. She really doesn't know any better. It is your responsibility to set her straight and keep her safe even if you have to be stern to do it. She will love and respect you for it, if she doesn't put you in prison instead.
Here's the real mind-frack for women. You've been operating on the same false assumptions as the men, number one false assumption being 'women are just like men'. The difference in the situation being this false assumption concerns who you are as a person, your very inborn nature. The falsehood being fed to you can bring about a soul destroying level of cognitive dissonance.
You've been told one thing but your inborn nature is telling you something else. You probably haven't learned or been taught how to know yourself and society isn't making it easy to learn about yourself either. This goes beyond the typical chase after worldly pleasures that ultimately end up being hollow. These lies foisted on us by feminism are destructive to what it is to be a woman as you were created by God.
The false assumption enumerated above should do the same thing for men as it does for women but here is where the differences between men and women play their role to men's benefit. You see, lots of guys don't give a crap about what other people think. We want to be who we are by our own measure or by a measure that is worth being compared to, like our Creator. Men please themselves or God, women are made to please men. That's why men can shrug off the lies of feminism easier than women. That and feminism fosters cultural war on men. but that's another subject for another time.
The purpose of modern thinking or "the collapse of society" is to put each gender's weakness as their strength.
Women were not built to have a mind frame of a man...constant competition, leading, solving problems, having sex with as many people as possible. They were never meant to be put on a pedestal either...they are helpers. That's not coming from me...that's God design.
Men were not meant to have deep emotional investment with women...especially negative emotions. You can have some...but try to make her your therapist or priest and she'll be out the door. Go to other guys or God with your problems. Men are not meant to have women be their life purpose...or look to them for guidance.
The battle of the sexes would cease overnight...if we accepted who we are. I don't feel right having a woman lead me...she doesn't feel right taking the lead.
"He's been told all his life that women are just like men."
No, better than men! More intelligent! More studious! More morally pure! More mature! Women civilize men, don't you know! Without women, we'd still be grunting primitives living in caves!
I would recommend Rollo's site for women wanting awareness. Today's post would be a hilarious good place to start.
http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/the-fade-away/#comments
Nah:
You forgot more "spiritual" also. I heard that once from a new age type talking to my sister. That actually boiled down means more emotional based than rational of course, which is something feminists either try to avoid admitting or imply is more noble and morally superior to being rationally based.
KT,
As one of VD's female readers, allow me to congratulate you on this big step forward. You won't regret it.
While you're waiting for VD's follow-ups, I encourage you to read Dr. Laura's The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. It will answer some of your questions, and it will also provide a framework for Girl Game. If you have any qualms about her, not to worry -- I was a bit dubious, but the book turned out to be quite informative and helpful. A large portion of it is based on contributions from her male listeners, so you'll definitely get a male POV on what makes a woman both deficient and sufficient as a wife.
Vox, I'll be interested to see what you come out with if you do write for this request.
@KT if she's reading
There's a good amount of writing on wives and femininity in the Sphere, its just scattered around because most of us write for men. Besides the already mentioned Athol, here's a few names and blogs that write for women that I thoroughly enjoy and would recommend. I'll type them out so that the comment doesn't get stuck in moderation:
Stingray
Verus conditio . wordpress . com
Christian Wife that reads a lot of the sphere and has good things to say on both ways to be a feminine Christian wife and the man's view of such.
BB
bbsezmore . wordpress . com
Another Christian wife. Sadly she hasn't written anything new for two months. Hoping she comes back, but there's good stuff in her archives
Doh, hit post before the last one
Red Pill Wifey
redpillwifey . wordpress . com
Haven't dug much into her posts or archives, but I hear good things about her constantly.
Wonder how this article would add to the course of this comment thread.
http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00631-rise-post-familialism-humanitys-future
KT,
Look at private man blog. "The feminine attracts the masculine." You need to understand this and then work on it.
Jeff
Game is the conscious and synthetic adoption of the attitudes, behaviors, perspectives, strategies, and tactics of men with high socio-sexual rank by men of lower socio-sexual rank with the objective of raising their socio-sexual status and increasing their success with women.
I'd make one addition to this definition. Game is also the conscious reminder for a man of high socio-sexual rank to maintain the attitudes, behaviors etc. of that rank and not sink back into the mass of mediocrity.
I think there are a lot more 18 year old alphas than there are 35 year old alphas. Too many guys lose their edge because they get to a point where they are happy and comfortable and stop pushing themselves. Game is a reminder that you lose out if you do that.
I'd make one addition to this definition. Game is also the conscious reminder for a man of high socio-sexual rank to maintain the attitudes, behaviors etc. of that rank and not sink back into the mass of mediocrity.
I think there are a lot more 18 year old alphas than there are 35 year old alphas. Too many guys lose their edge because they get to a point where they are happy and comfortable and stop pushing themselves. Game is a reminder that you lose out if you do that.
I think that's a salient point. Younger men by definition have lower rank, but they tend to offset it by being less introspective and less infected by the gammatization of society.
Thinking over my understanding of things from youth to middle age, I would say Game in its most natural sense is just ebullience: a man doing what he feels like doing and saying when he's feeling good about himself and good about life, with no need to apologize for anything.
Ergo you can see the result of decades of man-shaming and elevation of the feminine.
However, fake-it-till-you-make-it is an excellent strategy for getting there. In general, it's been well established that acting happy tends to make you happy. Adopting positive body language and attitudes *makes* you more positive, and makes others react to you in a more positive way. Game is just a special formulization of that for men in relating to women.
Good god, what kind of man advocates "fake it till you make it"? Masculinity is about authenticity you morons, not just success.
Good god, what kind of man advocates "fake it till you make it"? Masculinity is about authenticity you morons, not just success.
What is authenticity?
What does it mean to be authentic?
What is authentic masculinity?
The Brooklyn hipster is "authentic", but is he masculine?
Everyone, even naturals, must at times "fake it" until they "make it" that's how people learn and become competent with new skills/habits/etc.
You would tell someone trying to work his bench up to 300 to stop benching 200 because that's "faking it", and he should only bench once he can bench his goal weight.
But, go ahead and just be yourself...
"authenticity"
I'm not really sure what authenticity is good for. If being you isn't working, change you and then be that.
Otherwise the mild-mannered, weak willed man would be more masculine than the one who asserts confidence he doesn't fully feel. Which is silly.
"Masculinity is about authenticity you morons, not just success."
Once you can fake that, you've got it made.
Agree with VD, Jack, Rycamor on definition of game. Not just about the low aping the high, although successful civilizations have been about creating the maximal number of legitimate status sources to bring out the best in the highest number of (otherwise low) men.
Given the systematic deprogramming of men that went on under PC feminism, game is also about training men of (latent, depending on circumstances) high socio-sexual rank how such a man acts.
Of course, much of that will originally have come naturally, but depending on the severity of the deprogramming, some of it may have been bred out of him/much anti-game bred in.
For me, it's felt like a remembering; a coming back into my own.
I am a 45 year old wife and mother. I've been married for 22 years. If you are a Christian,I recommend these books. They've helped me tremendously:
Fascinating Womanhood by Helen Andelin
Created to be His Helpmeet by Debi Pearl
The Excellent Wife by Martha Peace
Me? Obey Him? by Elizabeth Rice Handford
The Privilege of Being a Woman by Alice Von Hildebrand
facepalm said...
Good god, what kind of man advocates "fake it till you make it"? Masculinity is about authenticity you morons, not just success.
It's just a catchphrase, y'know, for purposes of illustration. When you go on a business meeting, do you just wear what's "you", or do you put on your best business suit, groom yourself, shave, shine your shoes, take care not to slouch? I mean, that's faking it, right? You don't normally wear a business suit, nor are you always perfectly groomed. But doing so puts you in a better frame of mind, and makes your potential clients or collaborators more receptive to your ideas. Do it enough, and people just start to see you as a suit-and-tie kind of guy. The action does affect the individual.
Maybe another way to put it is Game is:
a) an understanding of the cues other people (especially women) subconsciously use to evaluate a man's social status
b) strategies for a man to achieve greater control over the cues he is sending.
Part A is controversial because it often paints women in a poor light, but it's really no different than any philosophy that acknowledges human imperfection. For women troubled by that, take the attitude that if you know your own weaknesses, you are better prepared to mitigate them.
Part B is controversial because of the "fake it till you make it" aspect, but I think that only applies to certain strategies that seek to only alter surface perceptions. The better, longer term strategies, are about strengthening a man's character and inner strength.
I completely agree with Desiderius about successful civilizations attempting to maximize opportunities for male success. A highly lucrative strategy is to realize that women have a mostly binary scale for grading men - acceptable or not acceptable. Moving more men into the "acceptable" category doesn't deprive the men already there of opportunities, it just means a greater number of men are pulling their weight and contributing vs checking out and going their own way.
There are enough women to go around, in other words, assuming we stop squandering so many by filling their heads full of feminist crap.
When you go on a business meeting, do you just wear what's "you", or do you put on your best business suit, groom yourself, shave, shine your shoes, take care not to slouch? I mean, that's faking it, right?
BUT THAT ISN'T BEING AUTHENTIC AT ALL! IT'S BETTER TO BE A SLOB AND A LOSER IF YOU'RE BEING TRUE TO YOURSELF!
I was in a really crappy mood when I went to the Qwik-E-Mart today on my lunch break.
Normally, I would have sucked it up and been polite to the dude behind the counter even though I thought his hair looked stupid.
But just before I went in I read facepalm's erudite takedown of "faking it" so I told him I though he was a grimy slob and that I hoped he died and that anyone who felt sad about his death would deserve to feel awful because they were stupid enough to care about him.
I was just being myself. Thanks, facepalm!
KT:
If you're still reading:
"One of the things I think women need to face up to is their darker natures. Women are just as capable of evil as are men, since we are all human and all are fallen. Feminism has largely succeeded in suppressing knowledge and acknowledgment of how women can be just as evil as men can, if not more so.
We're told women are the more nurturing sex, more gentle, more loving, and more commitment-oriented. We're told women are more intuitive and romantic. Women are all about love, men are "just about sex". We're told that men are prone to cheat on their marriages and women never, never cheat, no not ever.
But here's some of the truth.
1. Women's capacity for verbal cruelty far and away outstrips anything I've ever seen any man do. Women can be downright vicious with their words.
2. Women's hypergamous natures, if they are indulged, can cause a woman to do nearly anything to satisfy it, including sexual acts with alphas they would not even consider doing with beta husbands. A woman who cheats on a husband is often reported to engage with her lover in sexual acts she refused with her husband.
3. Given the right man, right time, right circumstances and low risk of detection, many women will cheat on a husband or boyfriend.
4. Women are not attracted to traits like male loyalty, fidelity, industriousness, kindness, steadfastness, dignity or honesty. Women desire them in a husband, but really don't care about them when it comes to raw attractiveness.
5. Wife cheating is nearly always fatal to a marriage. When a wife cheats she is 100% done with the marriage and she does not love her husband as a husband. She will never see the husband the same way again, and she certainly will never see him as a lover or sex partner again.
6. Sex with a number of different men damages a woman's ability to pair bond long term to one particular man. In some cases that ability appears to be completely destroyed. The number varies widely depending on the particular woman.
deti
Ian, read you Great Hamster Manifesto post. Good points, though you need to think through your politics a lot more. Evolutionary Psychology hasn't done much beyond handwaving and GWB's administration was extremely far from "small government."
To avoid whiskerburn, I have a tip for Facepalm: before engaging in your namesake, next time shave your hand first.
I'm just being authentic, man.
Lol @ little danny boy. As if getting laid justifies whatever means you use to get there. Some Christian you are.
Hey guess what, stealing can make you rich! You got a problem with that? Well then enjoy starving!
You guys are like the despertely poor who have no alternative but to steal to eat, and then you rationalize the immoral nature of the means of getting what you want away.
facepalm, you expose yourself.
You clearly only see Vox's expressed definition and purpose of game - "raising their socio-sexual status," "increasing their success with women," and "...understand and expose the truth of intersexual relations, to oppose the equalitarian and feminist ideologies, and to defend traditional American society and Western civilization" - as (your words) getting laid.
You are a bit out-gunned, but do continue, it is highly amusing.
SarasDaughter - I'm not sure why you're talking or why you even feel justified in having an opinion. You're the kind of person who, if they aren't told by someone else what is right and wrong, is totally lost. Your life history is probably one of being constantly corrected, which would explain your submission to someone on the internet in the matter of life opinions. I'll give you a hint: those can be determined by thinking, it's not easy and if you're inclined towards deception, an impediment. Needless to say it would be very difficult for a woman, and it's rare to come across one that does. You're not one of them, so shoo.
isn't it amazing how women pay attention to men only after men break free from thier conditioning? When they're the "nice guys" they get ignored, then they get "game" and women want to convert them back.
"Game" is the use of manipulation to achieve an objective.
As it applies to sex and pickup-artistry (PUA), that was more about internet marketing than any actual attempts to seduce women. In 1998, a number of people (myself included) shared a bunch of tactics that worked spectacularly well with women, but then the media and internet marketers co-opted the movement.
From there, the audience dropped the ball, as it refused to consider the impact of milliosn of men, rather than hundreds, trying familiar, rather than new, tactics, on a (relatively) increasingly small number of women. The "hottie in every bed" promise could never be fulfilled. We tell men they can become PUAs yet there's no way to teach 100 percent of men how to get the top 5-10 percent of women. It's not sustainable.
Inevitably, as the alpha males copied the "game" that was working for inferior men, we reverted to the norms, much like Blackjack did after Beat The Dealer was published, yet the audience didn't bother to notice. Why not? The audience was never a fan of Neil Strauss until the media TOLD them to be. How many people actually think for themselves and judge creative works without reviewer or media influence? Very few. They look for what's popular and just play follow-the-winner.
The entire PUA movement was diluted as it mainstreamed, to make it more appealing to a mass, mixed-gender audience. Things like MLTR (harmes), freezouts, wrongfooting, and other staples of the original movement were dropped, in favor of this notion that these are great guys who just needed to get noticed, and then they'd revert to good boyfriends once the game was over.
This ignored the true cause of the social cancer -- women and scarcity -- because no one wants to hear that they are among the 90-95 percent of men for whom the "game" is rigged against. You can teach someone how to play perfect musical chairs, but someone is still going to be standing when the music stops. You could write a perfect book on how to be a boxing champion, yet how many readers can win the title?
The correct direction in which to take this movement is to teach men not to waste money on women they aren't having sex with, to not subsidize the alpha males.
I'm not saying men should give up at all. I'm saying that avoiding exploitation is the starting point for all game, and it's one men overlook.
The worst thing about the mainstreaming of game is that it's becoming diluted to the point where it's supposed to mean just being masculine. It's gotten to the point where a middle aged guy who's never banged anyone but his wife of twenty years is a game guru because he won't do the dishes when his wife tells him to. Game is about picking up young attractive women, and these women rarely care about a "good" "masculine" man. They want to be thrilled, entertained and seduced while they ride the carousel. They'll want a good strong man when they're ready to get married.
"in the matter of life opinions. I'll give you a hint: those can be determined by thinking..." - facepalm
I really hope you don't have children.
I can't fathom someone who believes that thinking individuals who are in submission to no one wiser than themselves can come up with good life opinions.
You are correct, it is extraordinarily rare to come across a woman who, without input from wise men, can discern right from wrong. Might I say an impossibility.
I can't fathom someone who believes that thinking individuals who are in submission to no one wiser than themselves can come up with good life opinions.
Sure they can, not that they wouldn't make mistakes.
You are correct, it is extraordinarily rare to come across a woman who, without input from wise men, can discern right from wrong. Might I say an impossibility.
Most of the time, they can't even tell who's wise and who isn't.
"Most of the time, they can't even tell who's wise and who isn't." - facepalm
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. Matthew 7:17
Surely you don't object to a woman submitting to this source.
Fruit inspecting isn't that complicated.
Women are told that men and women are alike yet are baffled that SOMEHOW men have different needs than them and need game to attract women. It is bizarre that they need to be told of such a technique.
Is it their business to know?
Game is what men do. It is a game. The game is played on women to get women. That is all they need to know.
Game is used regardless of whether a woman is a feminist or traditional. It suggests there are some female characteristics are immutable.
Game is best used to bed (conquer) women. The lesser uses, yet still effective, is establish romantic relationships and marriages. To go further, game (if properly tailored) can be used to establish dominance in a marital relationship; however game should not be abused in such a context.
I do hesitate on recommending game in a Christian relationship. It might still have its uses, but if the woman is sufficiently submissive, the best route is Biblical gender roles.
"I really hope you don't have children."
I hate this sort of arguing.
Regardless if one is a good or bad parent, one cannot argue when one doesn't exist. This what feminism and liberism gotten us closer to the grave.
And I can't really tell if "facepalm" or "SarahsDaughter" is the better parent. IT IS ridiculous to assume "SarahsDaughter" is better for what she is claiming to say.
What anyone reading assumes regarding who is the better parent is irrelevant.
What you know now is that I fundamentally reject the notion that children will develop good life opinions based on their own thoughts. I parent accordingly you can judge it accordingly, it matters nothing to me.
What you witnessed is facepalm's attempt to insult me. He did it wrong.
Actually, I did it right. Your opinions are those of others. Whether they are right or wrong, the point is that you don't understand why, because you don't form your own opinions. Because you don't think. Therefore, don't engage in thoughtful discussion unless you're willing to go through the process.
I would be fascinated to hear your original opinions. Those that have resulted from your thoughts alone without influence. Those from which you're entitled to engage in thoughtful discussion.
You're absolutely right. My opinions are those of others. They come from men like Socrates, Jesus, my husband, and many others.
Here I've been misled to believe there is nothing new, only truths revealed. But I'll be damned, Facepalm, the prophet, has come to deliver original thought and opinion. Go on now, I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting anxiously...
Ok, so shut up and listen.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.