The trouble is, a lot of the Red Pill approach to life assumes a near telepathic assumption of negative intentions in others. Is it often right? Sure it is. But it’s almost impossible to live happily if you are endlessly paranoid and jaded about the intentions of everyone around you. If every woman is a hot mess of whorish desire and nothing else but a lying cunt of a hamster justifying her Alpha male sperm seeking… well it gets tiring being on edge after a while. Likewise every man is a third wheel seeking an opportunity and plots behind your back, pumping you for information about your woman, seeking to make a run into the endzone the moment you blink too slowly.You can't maintain a combat edge indefinitely. Eventually, you break down. At some point, you have to take a few chosen others on trust, men and women. People do mature, people do change, people do surmount their baser instincts.
I don't recommend choosing illusion over reality, but it is also important to understand that the potential for doing evil is not the same as actually committing it. And experiencing temptation is not action.
Knowing that a woman does not belong on a pedestal is not synonymous with believing that she dwells in a sewer. The fact of female fallibility should not lead one to assume that they are subhuman, and the fact of sexual inequality should not be confused with male infallibility.
261 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 261 of 261DT, this is a serious question. Why not just do something to become attractive to the type of women you are attracted to and who would be worthy of getting married to?
@Markku
"You are moving on to a different claim altogether. Your original one was that Nate's first sentence was incoherent with the rest. So, before we move on, do you admit that you were wrong about this?"
No. Your semantic argument is nothing but a useless self-defense. Again, "given the context, it is clear Nate is using 'prove' as 'indicate.'"
Nate's post was an attempt to "save face" by using opaque semantics.
Different T is starting to sound like Asher.
He still ain't got no chili.
@Toby
"Let us see you correct it then, eh?
Show us the corrected version."
You need to be shown how the question, "Why didn't you think to bring me a sweater or a change of clothes?!" is not "designed to rule out those that won't produce offspring that survive and reproduce, and/or won't be able to adequately protect said offspring?"
Again, "What is the value of an asset that must be spoon-fed?" (Though this would be closer to requiring a neo-natal feeding tube.)
Nate's post was an attempt to "save face" by using opaque semantics.
How did educating idiots became an attempt to save face?
"Why not just do something to become attractive to the type of women you are attracted to"
It is unclear why you assume this has not been done.
"and who would be worthy of getting married to?"
For what purpose?
You need to be shown how the question, "Why didn't you think to bring me a sweater or a change of clothes?!" is not "designed to rule out those that won't produce offspring that survive and reproduce, and/or won't be able to adequately protect said offspring?"
By standing up to her and not cowering, he's shown an ability to stand up for her against someone else.
Again...if a man won't even stand up to his woman, how is he going to protect his woman from someone else?
You need to be shown how the question, "Why didn't you think to bring me a sweater or a change of clothes?!" is not "designed to rule out those that won't produce offspring that survive and reproduce, and/or won't be able to adequately protect said offspring?"
Why do I have to prove your position?
Do you really have to be reminded that THAT is what you are claiming, that shit-tests ARE NOT designed to rule out those that won't produce offspring that survive and reproduce, and/or won't be able to adequately protect said offspring.
~Jesus Facepalm~
It is unclear why you assume this has not been done.
Because of your bitching and your bitterness towards women.
Here's a hint: alphas don't hate women.
@Josh
It seems most of the posters commenting have the "the same desperate desire that all behavior fit neatly into your view of 'evolutionary fitness mechanisms,'" which is very strange given that many, if not all of you, label yourselves "christian."
Show us the correct statement, Different T.
Show us the correct definition of shit-tests.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
You could look at Eve giving Adam the apple as history's first shit test.
@Josh
"Because of your bitching and your bitterness towards women.
Here's a hint: alphas don't hate women."
Again:
Your projections regarding me are not only erroneous, they are false.
"Female nature is female nature. Shit tests are female nature. As I pointed out, shit testing is also male nature."
Correct. Apparently your projections disallow reading comprehesion.
Again "My posts have regarded females (and some males) trying to turn shit tests into something "good." They have also involved men creating a "virtue" out of the ability to pass female shit tests."
My posts have regarded females (and some males) trying to turn shit tests into something "good." They have also involved men creating a "virtue" out of the ability to pass female shit tests.
That's astraw man, because no one is arguing that shit tests are good. They just are. And passing shit tests isn't a virtue, it's just useful.
"Why do I have to prove your position?"
You do not.
"Do you really have to be reminded that THAT is what you are claiming, that shit-tests ARE NOT designed to rule out those that won't produce offspring that survive and reproduce, and/or won't be able to adequately protect said offspring."
Again, "What is the value of an asset that must be spoon-fed?" (Though this would be closer to requiring a neo-natal feeding tube.)
"That's astraw man, because no one is arguing that shit tests are good. They just are. And passing shit tests isn't a virtue, it's just useful."
Acknowledged and disagree.
Again, "for some reason (likely because you consider yourself adept at passing shit tests and therefore elevate your propensity into a virtue) you continue to consider the ability to pass female shit tests as a 'fitness indicator.'"
Good.
Your position, therefore upon you fall the onus to defend it.
Now, correct the statement " the shit test is not designed to prove 'fitness' ".
"Good.
Your position, therefore upon you fall the onus to defend it."
Your incorrect conceptions, "therefore upon you fall the onus to [correct] it."
Again, "for some reason (likely because you consider yourself adept at passing shit tests and therefore elevate your propensity into a virtue) you continue to consider the ability to pass female shit tests as a 'fitness indicator.'"
Your words, not mine. And now you're recycling old comments. Your argument style is saying, "nu-uh" over and over.
Your incorrect conceptions, "therefore upon you fall the onus to [correct] it."
No. Positions are defended.
You claim that Nate's statement is incorrect.
Now prove it. Correct the allegedly incorrect statement.
Or are you not capable of doing it?
"And now you're recycling old comments."
Yes, apparently reading comprehension cannot be assumed.
"Your argument style is [pointing at the 'wrong-way' sign] over and over."
2+2=4
Different T: "that's incorrect!"
Nate, Markku, Toby et al: "correct it"
*Crickets*
Hahaha! You win the thread, Josh.
"No. Positions are defended."
When needed.
"You claim that Nate's statement is incorrect."
Yes.
"Now prove it. Correct the allegedly incorrect statement."
No.
"Or are you not capable of doing it?"
Again, What is the value of an asset that must be spoon-fed?" (Though this would be closer to requiring a neo-natal feeding tube.) In other words, why do you feel entitled to have your mistakes corrected for you?
why do you feel entitled to have your mistakes corrected for you?
So I'm Nate now?
2+2=4
"People... the shit test is designed to rule out those that won't produce offspring that survive and reproduce, and/or won't be able to adequately protect said offspring. It doesn't conclusively prove that the entire other group will do so, it just rules out some of those who won't. The group that is left will be filtered further by other means."
+
"Moses had a first wife. She left him, went back to daddy in Midian.
She got mad at Moses and his God because God forced Moses to circumcise his sons. Moses had been putting it off because of the wife's resistance to it. An angel of the Lord came to kill Moses for the disobediance. The wife finally relented and performed the circumcision herself. Immediately in disgust she threw the still bloody foreskins at Moses' feet, screamed something about his God being bloody and cruel and then went home to daddy.
Was Moses close to God? Yes he was. Did that save him from an unfaithful wife? No it did not."
=
?
@Toby
"Different T,
It would be best for you to shut up and listen."
Indicates you agree with Nate.
Ya don't think Moses abdicating leadership, forcing his wife to take action to save him, by doing something he had been commanded to do, was failing a shit test?
"Ya don't think Moses abdicating leadership, forcing his wife to take action to save him, by doing something he had been commanded to do, was failing a shit test? "
hamsterwheel.gif
Indicates you agree with Nate.
Very good! Now there is an improvement!
Seems like treating you like a child is effective.
First, Nate said 2+2=4
Then you said its wrong.
I ask you to provide the correct statement.
You do not not because.... mistakes of others should not be corrected.
But you expect us to take your word for it? That the statement is wrong? Without anything to show us why it is wrong?
You do know what OPINION means?
Apparently you are unable or unwilling to move past your useless self defenses.
Apparently you are not tall enough for this ride.
It would benefit you to attempt to formulate an answer to "What is the value of an asset that must be spoon-fed?"
Is the spoon full of chili?
you continue to consider the ability to pass female shit tests as a 'fitness indicator.'"
No. Women consider it a fitness indicator. Just like men consider a nice figure a fitness indicator for a woman. You can complain about it, moan that it isn't fair and that men should value a fat woman for the beauty of her karma and that women should value a doormat for his... luxurious hair?, but all you're doing is complaining that gravity sucks.
Personally, I find gravity very useful overall, even through it occasionally creates problems.
Gravity is evil and mean!
@Jack
Are you stating, "according to Men, female shit tests are not a fitness indicator?"
Are you stating, "according to Men, female shit tests are not a fitness indicator?"
No, I'm stating that purple oranges grow on banana trees. Or I might as well be, given your lack of reading comprehension.
"No" as a response to "you continue to consider the ability to pass female shit tests as a 'fitness indicator.'"
Indicates that you disagree.
"Women consider it a fitness indicator."
The emphasis on women indicates the predicate refers to women apart from men. Which leads to: Men do NOT "consider the ability to pass female shit tests as a 'fitness indicator.'"
Where is the comprehension failure?
Different T : you are not so different from our friend Tad.
Tad, is that you?
Let us all remember that Tad is a Lamda, not a Gamma.
... and if we are going to talk about circumcision, I'd like to make a call-out to my friend Acxsiom and let's really throw down.
I'd certainly not correlate Mose's wife being insanely pissed off at Moses and going back her father for forcing her to allow parts of her son's bodies to be forcibly removed to being "unfaithful".
Altering people's bodies, specifically and only those of (what will someday be) men is an unconscionable, morally corrupt and should-be-illegal act which would provide a perfect reasoning for any wife to leave her husband, should she be forced by him against her will do to so to their child.
Leaving a man because she thinks she has found a "more fit" male vs leaving a man because she has been forced to remove parts of her sons bodies against her will and without their consent isn't even remotely comparable. It isn't on a level playing field. It isn't even the same SPORT!
WTF man, really? Is this really the basis of the argument you have been defending for 200+ posts?
"Leaving a man because she thinks she has found a more fit" male'"
If you have documented instances of this it would be useful. A search for "wife leaves for richer man" did not return any meaningful results. It is likely many here have anecdotal stories of this, but the posters in this discussion would likely begin rationalizing them away.
Don't try to change the subject, you weaselly snake.
@Mina
The Moses example was being used as it is the only documented instance of "Leaving a man because she thinks she has found a 'more fit' male" currently available.
The post at 8:20 AM would have more impact if it read:
2+2=4
"People... the shit test is designed to rule out those that won't produce offspring that survive and reproduce, and/or won't be able to adequately protect said offspring. It doesn't conclusively prove that the entire other group will do so, it just rules out some of those who won't. The group that is left will be filtered further by other means."
+
"Better documented example of a female 'Leaving a man because she thinks she has found a more fit' male"
=
?
Nate's post was an attempt to "save face" by using opaque semantics.
Again, direct quote from Nate's post:
"People... the shit test is not designed to prove "fitness". It is a control question. It is a test of minimum will and courage.
The premise does not establish a ceiling but it does establish a minimum. "
An attempt to save face, IN THE SAME POST, IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES?
And remember that you said:
Your first sentence contradicts the rest of the quote.
So, the incoherency you need to show has to be between two things in the same post. Or, you could always admit that you were talking out of your ass.
F*ck you asshole. I want to know if you are, in some area of that tiny pea-brain of yours, equating a woman leaving a man because she feels he is "less fit" (YOUR words) to Mose's wife moving home to her father because her husband forced her to cut off parts of her male child's penis.
Your creative use of copy / paste isn't fooling anyone, least of all me.
You are a dirty-dealing, ignorant, pile of male bovine excrement who gets his cheap thrills seeing smart people like those on this board waste their time to try to communicate with you in any meaningful way.
I am done with you. What a waste of electrons.
@Markku
"So, the incoherency you need to show has to be between two things in the same post."
Realize what you are doing is nothing more than erecting a useless self-defending semantics argument.
Again, fitness cannot be proven like a mathematical equation can be proven. Proof of fitness is actual "[production of] offspring that survive and reproduce."
If you use the transitive property for "prove 'fitness'" it yields: "the shit test is not designed to [produce] offspring that survive and reproduce." Clearly, this is not what Nate meant. Again, "given the context, it is clear Nate is using 'prove' as 'indicate.'" Therefore, the first sentence contradicts the rest of the quote.
"I want to know if you are, in some area of that tiny pea-brain of yours, equating a woman leaving a man because she feels he is "less fit" (YOUR words) to Mose's wife moving home to her father because her husband forced her to cut off parts of her male child's penis. "
contradicts
"I am done with you. What a waste of electrons."
No it doesn't contradict at all. My question was rhetorical because I already know the answer - I don't need your affirmation on that.
Now. I am done wasting another electron on you.
Just wanted to make sure it was clear that we can all see your (completely retarded, illogical, small-minded) point.
Again, "given the context, it is clear Nate is using 'prove' as 'indicate.'" Therefore, the first sentence contradicts the rest of the quote.
Again, of course it means "indicate", and in the following part he tells exactly how it indicates, as opposed to proving: By ruling out those that definitely aren't fit, even though it doesn't yet prove that the remainder IS fit.
"Not at all. It is not correct. Nate is trying to force a huge array of behaviors into a box labeled "behaviors resulting from an evolutionary fitness mechanism." "
No you blithering idiot. Evolution has nothing to do with it.
Neither does breeding actually. Its about the female instinct to seek out the STRONG to protect her. This need is wired into them by GOD. Not by evolution. They seek strength. They shit test to test for strength and courage. The same reasons MEN shit test.
Again.. they are testing if you have the strength, will, and courage, to stand up to them. They cannot then say you'll face off everything that comes up... but they do know you're brave and capable enough to at least deal with them... so you're not a total pussy.
The object of shit testing is not to find the most stupendous badass ever... even though they would love that dearly. They just want to make sure you're not a big pussy.
@Nate
"They shit test to test for strength and courage."
Again, you are trying to force a huge array of behaviors into a neat little box that you apparently label "behavior resulting from the GOD given instinct to find the STRONG to protect her."
"The same reasons MEN shit test."
This is not fully accurate.
There is a certain Asher-ness to this discussion.
This discussion is a direct assault to these posters' worldview. Whether Nate and the rest of them claim the models of behavior are based on "evolutionary fitness mechanisms" or "some God given female instinct," the error remains. As they are unable or unwilling to move past self defenses, the discussion is stalled.
What is their error?
Did Vox come with a discussion AI bot and is toying with us?
@Josh
"What is their error?"
For at least the third time, "trying to force a huge array of behaviors into a neat little box." In other words, reinterpreting all behavior so that it fits into their narrow view.
Additionally, why did you ask me "What are your views, what are your solutions?"
And then completely ignore the response of "If you mean on a personal level: cultivate integrity, honesty, loyalty and learn to evaluate others so as to attain and exhibit proper deference."
Asher, where's your patrol?
the moron is giant
A period of sheer misogynistic rage and resentment is a very natural and healthy stage on the journey from "product of modern feminist society" to "own man".
Getting stuck there permanently, not so good, unless you're a comedian, a blogger and the like.
Eventually, you outgrow it, as I did, and realize that women are actually pretty wonderful, as long as you take very little of what they say seriously and maintain a firm guiding hand.
Different T, thanks for showing a new reader very quickly that mina, Josh, Jack and all of the others trying to wrestle with your obtuseness are worth listening to.
I will continue to read here, though not anything you write if this thread is representative. Stop trying to sound clever and just answer some of the very straightforward questions that have been asked as generous opportunities to get your point across.
I'm no red pill expert but you sound very much like you're nursing wounds that were probably brought about, in part, by your own lack of balls.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.