It’s also said–particularly by those of the Vox Day Alpha Game Plan persuasion–that an understanding of Game unlocks the secrets of a contented existence; not just in marital or sexual relations but across the human experience. In other words, it would open one’s eyes to the various things that the Neoreactionary and Dark Enlightenment folks have been going on about. With that in mind, let’s look at his definition of Game; written in response to my very first post in the Men’s Sphere, and hosted by my friend Dalrock.Who said anything about "success in the world" or "worldly success"? Cane Caldo is playing exactly the same game as Peter Boghossian and other atheist apologists who redefine faith in order to attack Christian faith. And in the process of doing so, he's made the same mistake as Karl Marx did with the labor theory of value. Success is not objective. It may be worldly or it may be spiritual. Success is subjective. It is defined by the one who seeks it. In the case of Game, it is literally in the eye of the beholder.
Vox Day: "A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them."
So, Game–in it’s broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized.
If you want to be rich, imitate the self-made wealthy naturals. If you want to date beautiful women, imitate the natural players. If you want a healthy marriage, imitate the happily married.
I’m not the first to see this contrast between the story of Christ and the stories of worldly success, but I just wanted to lay it out very clear....Which is fine, but Cane is committing a simple category error here. Chesterton may have stated the foolishness of calling success good, but I simply haven't done that. I mentioned success. Cane is the one who called it good in order to attack it. Now, I do think that knowledge of Game is good because I think that Game is true. And if it is true, then it behooves the Christian man to know it, so that his actions are in accord with reality rather than with indoctrination to which he has been subjected.
62 comments:
"I haven't [called success good]."
"Game is...artificial simulat[ion] [of successful natural behaviors]"
"[K]nowledge of Game is good...so that...actions are in accord with reality"
So we're slicing the baloney pretty thin, here, huh?
So we're slicing the baloney pretty thin, here, huh?
No, you're simply begging the question.
Whatever is true is good. The statement that Game is true is the statement that Game is good. Game is concerned about the things of the world; i.e., it is worldly.
I've always liked your writings Vox, and I've had your links up since I started, but the argument you're using and the title you chose both point out that your concern is to feel like you won the argument rather than recognize the truth.
His argument is totally incoherent, I don't know why you even bothered responding. It's simply interposing Chesterton quotes with brief quotes of yours, and then pretending that so doing has magically placed you in opposition to what is good and right.
Christ succeeded in everything He did. His success was infinitely greater than earthly success, not less than it. To imply that attempting to act in a way that ensures a successful outcome is morally wrong seems more akin to nihilism than to the teachings of scripture.
Of course, since he seems to think taking Chesterton out of context to call all success bad is the correct approach, I suppose failing to provide anything like a rational argument means he won. Heh.
I don't know why it's so hard to separate the knowledge of Game from every possible application of it.
@Cail
"I don't know why it's so hard to separate the knowledge of Game from every possible application of it."
Because foundations matter, Cail.
"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"
Gentlemen, there is also a time when the wisdom of elders has to be put aside, this is one of the core struggle between Game v Faith, in a way it is intellectual conceit to bind present generations with past wisdom.
Life is dynamism, things change, Faith does not change, society however, does. Like it or not.
The true, the good, and the beautiful are separate categories, Cane.
Perfect enemy of the good.
More than conquerors, not less, not other than.
My working definition of Game is behavioral traits women find viscerally attractive. It's an aspect of life on earth. Christian opposition to this I think is excessively spiritual. We're physical beings and the physical world is fundamentally good, so it's not either/or. Just like it's not bad to exercise and eat well with a mind to meet success in the physical realm of health.
Whatever is true is good. The statement that Game is true is the statement that Game is good. Game is concerned about the things of the world; i.e., it is worldly.
Based on your logic, we should not only avoid Game, but eating and wearing clothes as well.
the argument you're using and the title you chose both point out that your concern is to feel like you won the argument rather than recognize the truth.
I don't feel like I won the argument, Cane. There is no argument. You're simply spouting nonsense here.
@Beefy
"What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"
The foundation must be Jerusalem. Good and corroborating things can be found in Athens, but the reference must be Jerusalem.
The true, the good, and the beautiful are separate categories, Cane.
A descriptor does not a category make. Put down the system and step away.
Perfect enemy of the good.
Now this is a category error.
@Vox
Based on your logic, we should not only avoid Game, but eating and wearing clothes as well.
This is it; your fundamental error: My argument isn't based on logic, but revelation. You have based your viewpoint on Athens instead of Jerusalem.
Good to see you noticed that as well Mr Vox, suspect the anti Game contingent does not realize the box they have created. The thinking goes if this world is the enemies, and all fleshly things are bad, then why even bother to eat, that is only perpetuating the adversaries agenda.
Why Chesterson and not Emerson? B/c the narrative requires Chesterson, and the White Knight Factory demands Chesterson be adhered to, much to the Christian Man's loss
"No, you're simply begging the question."
I'm pointing out ambiguities in your reasoning. Hypotheses non fingo.
The problem with game is that you are falsifying yourself towards someone else for the purpose of getting a reaction you deem as 'good'. It is exactly the opposite of the example Jesus gave, and it shows where Vox's true sympathies lie. You are really a Machiavellian, not a Christian. That you attempt to justify evil actions (falsification and manipulation) by the outcome just further goes to show that.
To deem game a "praexeology" is to weasel your way out of a moral issue. Game is "just a tool" in the same way that humans are just nails. In other words, not at all, except to a psychopath.
Well newtonsfoot, as I read your comment, it strikes me that his is what male hamsterization looks like. Mental gymnastics, false premises, anything to avoid the glaringly obvious, si fallor sum one supposes
This is it; your fundamental error: My argument isn't based on logic, but revelation. You have based your viewpoint on Athens instead of Jerusalem.
Again, you're simply spouting nonsense. Since you are not going to marry, you are not going to engage in any sexual relations, and you are not going to have any children, obviously Game is not for you. That's fine. You are to be admired for your spiritual gifts.
For the rest of us, Game is much-needed truth required to help us penetrate the world's lies and navigate the complexities of intersexual relations.
The problem with game is that you are falsifying yourself towards someone else for the purpose of getting a reaction you deem as 'good'.
Then you just be yourself. Be a good little Churchian. See how that works for you. It's not as if anyone ever said that we should judge the truth of things by their consequences, right?
@Cane:
The foundation must be Jerusalem. Good and corroborating things can be found in Athens, but the reference must be Jerusalem.
We are in accord sir. If Christian men are buying what the PUAs are selling, then I think we Christians need to reconsider how we go about evangelizing. In the end, the only success that matters is if God judges us to be among the sheep or the goats. If men are ultimately led to capital T truth through the small t truths of Game, I'm not going to judge. "He that is not against us is for us."
The problem with game is that you are falsifying yourself towards someone else for the purpose of getting a reaction you deem as 'good'.
Perhaps there is falsification in some men. In others, game simply allows access to their true nature.
For these guys I would say that game is the sloughing off of the behaviours, attitudes, and thought processes inculcated in young [mostly white] men by liberal-feminist society.
Game is the uncovering of man's true masculinity, in order to become a 'Born Again Alpha/Sigma'.
game:truth::evolution:fact
Here is the problem, Christian Men are mostly operating in a turn of the century construct, "be a good man, be there for her she will be there for you, be overly humble, house, wife, 2 kids, picket fence"
none of which are bad things per se, however, society has shifted, now that paradigm will look like:
"she is probably has several lovers besides you, she has better things to do then be there for you, and she got the house in the divorce and child support for the 2 kids"
And folks wonder why the Red Pill and Game appeals to men?
Basically, "teachers" are instructing men how to be beggars at their own funerals, let's just charge the machine gun nest or volunteer for a firing squad.
Titus Adronacus, not Romeo my friends.
@newtonsfoot said...
The problem with game is that you are falsifying yourself towards someone else for the purpose of getting a reaction you deem as 'good'.
_________
1 Corinthians 9:19-22; "19 For since I am free from all I can make myself a slave to all, in order to gain even more people. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law. 21 To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. 22 To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some."
There is nothing dishonest about adapting to your environment and those around you. I'd even go so far as to say it is the appropriate thing to do. It's better to behave in a manner that inspires positive reaction from those around you. Best not to tower above the weak nor cower below the strong.
Wives may not say it because they have been programmed not to, but they ride constant waves in the ocean of their emotions and appreicate a man who is a rock they can cling to. They resent a man who is a life-preserver that protects them from drowning but makes them dizzy because it just goes with the waves.
"Being yourself" doesn't have to mean being a pissinyourpants wuss. This is an identity the gamer community has set up to excuse their own failures and weakness and justify the falsifying aspects of game. There are plenty of men who are ambitious, well liked and willing to take risks and who have never heard of game, who don't artificially delay their texts, or "agree and amplify" to everything, or hit on women within earshot of their girlfriends to provoke jealousy or any of the other things that are really the core of game and make it controversial.
Self improvement, ambition, dynamism is one thing. Deceit, manipulation, calculated cunning is another.
What game apologists do is dump everything into the game bin and when you object to the latter aspects they say you're rejecting the former. Game is manipulation, cunning, and deceit. Those are the only novel aspects of intersex relations that game brings to the discussion. The rest has always been simple self improvement and masculine development.
Saying the evil feminist conspiracy has stripped masculinity of its traditional identity is fine, it's one thing to argue. But now what game advocates are trying to do is usher it back in under the umbrella of game with all the other dubious behavior thrown in. It behooves people who think of themselves as concerned with moral behavior to separate those aspects and analyze them.
"..behavior thrown in. It behooves people who think of themselves as concerned with moral behavior to separate those aspects and analyze them...."
This I agree with, Christian Male Game is the process of realizing what is happening, how it relates to you, and how it most likely will effect a inter sexual relationships, and in a way, relationships in general
IE, a man is a man is a man
Remove the "musts" that society foists upon us, replace them with "she should or I won't" and that is basic Christian man game.
Things are so out of balance now, I read a blog post "leave her better then you found her"..no thought was given to "leave him better than you found him", it's all on the male, nothing is on the female.
"Being yourself" doesn't have to mean being a pissinyourpants wuss. This is an identity the gamer community has set up to excuse their own failures and weakness and justify the falsifying aspects of game.
Your statement doesn't even make any sense. No one in the Game community excuses any of their own weaknesses or failures, indeed, the basic concept depends upon ACKNOWLEDGING that what you are doing is not working and doing something different.
Game is manipulation, cunning, and deceit.
You are lying. It's a bit ironic to see a liar complaining that someone else is practicing deceit, especially when they are not.
Look, you can go away and be yourself. No one said you have to do anything. But, and here is the important part: you can go away. I could not possibly care less what you think or what you have to say. Because you're not a person who is concerned with moral behavior, as you are observably a liar.
I agree that Game as Vox and others have described it is more akin to understanding the physical processes of the World/Universe, categorized as "truth". How we choose to live in accordance with God and those around us and make use of that "truth" is based on what we know of God's will, described as "Truth".
Hypothesis: We can draw generalized knowledge that demonstrates some degree of reproducibility and predictability from what we observe of human interactions, specifically socio-sexual interactions.
For the sake of "truth", does the Null Hypothesis exist? This appears to be a neutral question.
I gain knowledge of the "truth" of gravity or thermodynamics or nuclear reactions by observations of the World/Universe. The knowledge remains in many respects neutral until I choose to apply what I have learned to how I and those around me live with each other according to "Truth". I can make a power reactor to heat homes or a nuclear weapon to destroy cities, based on my understanding knowledge of "truth" relative to some fissionable materials. This choice is guided by how "Truth" is revealed to me and how I choose to apply "Truth" in my life.
I don't see Vox advocating people applying "Game" knowledge as a part of the foundation of "Truth", but rather advocating that what is observed makes Game part of "truth"--a neutral position relative to "Truth".
--Mr.A is Mr.A
OT(?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glennon-melton/the-questions-that-will-save-your-relationships_b_4618254.html
women don't understands that questions are sometimes just platitudes, not meant to invoke deep questions of existential crisis, OR explanation of their momentary feelings over an entire span of time.
Cane,
Unlike Vox, I believe your non-sensical thrashings about here are the last resistance before a conversion, so i'll take another stab:
"Whatever is true is good"
If a man holds a knife to my throat and asks for the whereabouts of my wife, telling the truth would be exactly bad, not good. Yes, the world always undervalues truth, and especially so in this age, but the solution is not to pretend that truth and goodness are the same. Big T truth? Yes, but we all fall short of the glory of God. Have you sold all you have and given it to the poor? Is that not Christ's instruction for those who want to BE perfect, like yourself?
I'm more focused on becoming more perfect through the practice of spiritual discipline.
"The statement that Game is true is the statement that Game is good."
Vox's definition of game is about awareness of base human nature, especially base female nature. It is the rediscovery of Original Sin (heck, given where Churchianity is these days, sin at all) in an age that mistakenly thought itself beyond such primitive concerns. One cannot transcend what one pretends does not exist, especially when one is fallen, as all humans are. Your prescription is akin to advocating the cure of cancer by pretending it doesn't exist and condemning all knowledge of it.
"Game is concerned about the things of the world; i.e., it is worldly."
Damn straight. The world our God made in his overflowing hesed. Get over yourself.
The problem is that churchian above-it-all blue-pillery is profoundly anti-evangelical. It was the courage demonstrated by the martyrs in an age similar to our own that allowed the early church to spread like wildfire. Now we show to the world naive, enervated childmen who follow everything their mommies tell them, and wonder where all the young people went.
When churchians and sundry prudes object to "Game" (so called), I suspect that they're not very erudite for if they were they would recognize that "Game" concepts are nothing more than repetitions of old time wisdom. As a matter of fact, the old sources are often better in that they are poetic and lovely, lacking the crudity and the fatuous reductionism of most of the "Game" blogosphere.
Take for example Verdi's Rigoletto. Everyone has heard the famous opening solo La Donna e Mobile, but most English speakers like me don't know what he's saying. Here's the translation:
Woman is flighty
Like a feather in the wind,
She changes her voice — and her mind.
Always sweet,
Pretty face,
In tears or in laughter, — she is always lying.
Always miserable
Is he who trusts her,
He who confides in her — his unwary heart!
Yet one never feels
Fully happy
Who on that bosom — does not drink love!
This is a hyperbolic perspective from a very caddish character, of course, but the message resonates well with the so called "Game" scene. "Always miserable/ Is he who trusts her" is a perfect description of the hapless beta, is it not?
[Second attempt; what's wrong with the comment system?]
When churchians and sundry prudes object to "Game" (so called), I suspect that they're not very erudite for if they were they would recognize that "Game" concepts are nothing more than repetitions of old time wisdom. As a matter of fact, the old sources are often better in that they are poetic and lovely, lacking the crudity and the fatuous reductionism of most of the "Game" blogosphere.
Take for example Verdi's Rigoletto. Everyone has heard the famous opening solo La Donna e Mobile, but most English speakers like me don't know what he's saying. Here's the translation:
Woman is flighty
Like a feather in the wind,
She changes her voice — and her mind.
Always sweet,
Pretty face,
In tears or in laughter, — she is always lying.
Always miserable
Is he who trusts her,
He who confides in her — his unwary heart!
Yet one never feels
Fully happy
Who on that bosom — does not drink love!
This is a hyperbolic perspective from a very caddish character, of course, but the message resonates well with the so called "Game" scene. "Always miserable/ Is he who trusts her" is a perfect description of the hapless beta, is it not?
Newtonsfoot,
"You are really a Machiavellian, not a Christian."
We live in a time like Machiavelli where the church/media/schools preach an impossibly effeminate Christianity progressivism while often behaving in the exact opposite manner itself, often brazenly (see Pope Sixtus sending assassins the Cathedral on Easter Sunday in Machiavelli's Florence). Like Machiavelli, Vox and other game writers are describing this world as it is.
Is this the only way things can be? Not at all - other ages have had better women, better churches, and better government than one sees in our SMP/MMP or Machiavelli's hopelessly fractured Italia. But it is the very denial of truth and bald-faced hypocrisy of present churchianity/progressivism and the church in Machiavelli's day that makes things suck so bad in both cases.
Shoot the messenger all you like - Machiavelli is still read, and widely.
Krul,
See also Cosi Fan Tutte, beginning to end.
"Your statement doesn't even make any sense. No one in the Game community excuses any of their own weaknesses or failures, indeed, the basic concept depends upon ACKNOWLEDGING that what you are doing is not working and doing something different."
If people are willing to change for what they deem is a better example, more power to them. What I'm referring to is the common lament, so common that the alt-right game community seems to turn on it, that modern culture has brainwashed them into being pussies or otherwise prevented them from becoming the men they deep down should have been.
That's just blaming someone else. If you're that easily cowed, what kind of man deep down are you really? Which goes to the next point.
"You are lying. It's a bit ironic to see a liar complaining that someone else is practicing deceit, especially when they are not."
Are you getting the vapors? Take a step back and a deep breath and consider what I said the next sentence down: what game brings that is novel to intersex relations are recommendations to deceive, to falsify and to be cunning. The rest is just masculine development as its always been. Grandpa didn't need to know game to know that he needed to portray an image of strength and vitality.
If you've got a counterpoint to that I'd like to hear it. If you're going to shriek "liar!" and plug your ears save it.
This is it; your fundamental error: My argument isn't based on logic, but revelation. You have based your viewpoint on Athens instead of Jerusalem.
Cane, I'm sure in your head this sounded really cool, but it really just makes you look like a big silly.
Cane is playing fast and loose with "truth."
Ontological truth simply is "what is." Gravity is truth. The fact that I am divorced is truth. "Two plus two is four" is truth. Some of the things that fall under the umbrella of ontological truth, from a Christian perspective are good (Christ is risen); some are bad (I sin); and some are amoral (the earth is the third planet from the Sun).
Game is response to the ontological truth of what women in general are like. Because it can be observed to be effective, it also can be considered to be "truth."
Game can be used sinfully, such as in the PUA community, to encourage and to capitalize on the nature of women (both as a result of creation and as a result of the Fall). Game can be used in a redemptive sense as well, in both mate selection (Proverbs has countless verses on avoiding the wrong kind of women), and in fulfilling the commandments for a husband to lead the wife (1 Peter 3 and Ephesians 5, most explicitly).
Unless someone can pinpoint how "Game" MUST include those elements that run contrary to Scripture (i.e. sexual immorality), or how it paints a false picture of human nature, or how its non-PUA tactics themselves somehow are sinful, then this argument should be put to rest once and for all.
Game is not everything under the sun that deals with women's nature. To make it that is just to set up an ideology for the purpose of creating in and out groups.
The truth of women's nature is just that. That is one thing, and game is the set of tactics and behaviors intended to exploit that nature. Furthermore, it is specifically the set of tactics and behaviors that are novel to the field - which is to say not the traditional notions of masculine development that have always been considered appropriate and effective in getting a mate. To separate game from all of that is the only sane way to evaluate it on it's merits.
How is game different and novel from the knowledge we had before, are these claims effective, appropriate, and moral? That is the question, not who believes in game and who doesn't, defining game as everything about women.
@newtonsfoot
Game is not everything under the sun that deals with women's nature
That isn't anymore true than saying that "physics is everything under the sun that deals with mechanical nature". Physics is the STUDY of the mechanical rules that govern natural objects.
And similarly "game" is the study of the rules that govern women's emotional state.
The definition Vox uses is:
"A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them."
"the conscious attempt to observe and understand" certain properties is effectively the same as saying the study of those properties.
The problem I have with what you originally wrote is that you imply that "game" is the thing, whereas I am pointing out that "game" is the study of the thing.
Well the study and practical application with the intention of banging chicks..
I was worried that maybe my argument was off, and that physics was actually defined as the properties of nature. The wiki article states that:
"Physics (from Greek φυσική (ἐπιστήμη), i.e. "knowledge of nature", from φύσις, physis, i.e. "nature"[1][2][3][4][5]) is the natural science that involves the study of matter[6] and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.[7] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.[8][9][10]"
whew.
How is game different and novel from the knowledge we had before, are these claims effective, appropriate, and moral?
It is that same knowledge as promulgated originally by godless nerds, after Christendom dropped the ball in passing it on to the next generation and started actively sabotaging it instead. We're trying to pick up the pieces of this disaster and separate the knowledge from the amoral applications, but I see that the saboteurs are still with us.
Are you getting the vapors?
No, gamma boy, I am not. I said you are a liar because you lied. You cannot deny it without lying again.
Take a step back and a deep breath and consider what I said the next sentence down: what game brings that is novel to intersex relations are recommendations to deceive, to falsify and to be cunning.
Right, deception is a novelty in intersexual relations. As I said, you're a liar. You are an unrepentant and repeated liar.
If you've got a counterpoint to that I'd like to hear it. If you're going to shriek "liar!" and plug your ears save it.
There is no other counterpoint necessary. You are lying. You have lied repeatedly. You're wedded to your delusions and you clearly have nothing to add to the conversation except your whining and your lying.
You write like a passive-aggressive woman, inventing "vapors" and "shrieking". What are you going to do next, threaten not to have sex with me?
Look, if some "godless nerds" spent a few years experimenting with people and discovered that presenting bad, bland food in a way that made it seem tasty made people eat it and they called that practice, say, "gastrogame", would you suddenly lump everything that was previously known about cooking and nutrition or the study of those fields under the new banner "gastrogame"? And when people looked to determine whether such a thing was a worthy practice or not, would you say gastrogame was "truth", just a tool, a praexeology, or some other nonsense? No, gastrogame would refer to the specific practices those godless nerds employed in deceiving people and the merits of them. It would be the only sane way of analyzing the topic.
"
There is no other counterpoint necessary. You are lying. You have lied repeatedly. You're wedded to your delusions and you clearly have nothing to add to the conversation except your whining and your lying.
You write like a passive-aggressive woman, inventing "vapors" and "shrieking". What are you going to do next, threaten not to have sex with me?"
Look I'm interested in the issue, if your determination is that I'm a lying liar that lies and that's all you have to say about it, let's just agree to disagree.
Look, if some "godless nerds" spent a few years experimenting with people and discovered that presenting bad, bland food in a way that made it seem tasty made people eat it and they called that practice, say, "gastrogame", would you suddenly lump everything that was previously known about cooking and nutrition or the study of those fields under the new banner "gastrogame"?
If it was merely a few years, then no. By that time, the terminology wouldn't have become so established. But this has gone on for at least one and a half decade. No point in trying to change it NOW.
I was originally awoken to Game in the first wave, when you had to read about this stuff in Usenet. I have seen almost the entire history. Although not Mystery himself, but a few guys who took that stuff to Finnish newsgroups.
"bad, bland food"
Begging the question.
Also wildly inaccurate. Whatever game is, by any definition it is not bland.
Your hypothetical does match up oddly well with the fraudulent Food Pyramid, the blue-pill of nutrition.
I nominate Long Lost Friend's comment as a starting point for any further debate.
"But this has gone on for at least one and a half decade."
The insights that Game has rediscovered go back to Homer and almost certainly beyond.
"newtonsfoot said...
...The rest is just masculine development as its always been. Grandpa didn't need to know game to know that he needed to portray an image of strength and vitality."
And as Markku has pointed out, young men today don't have fathers much less grandfathers to mentor them in close to 50% of US households. Your grandfather very likely had both his father and 2 grandfathers, many uncles and cousins who could and did mentor him while growing up. The process today is broken and needs recovery to aid young men in understanding masculinity.
"Look, if some "godless nerds" spent a few years experimenting with people and discovered that presenting bad, bland food in a way that made it seem tasty made people eat it and they called that practice, say, "gastrogame", would you suddenly lump everything that was previously known about cooking and nutrition or the study of those fields under the new banner "gastrogame"?"
We do this all the time in science and engineering. Often these "practices" become engineering disciplines. What is Aerospace Engineering but statics & kinetics, classical mechanics, fluid mechanics, a little thermodynamics, coupled with metallurgy, and recently the study of composite materials (materials science).
It usually begins with an independent engineer or researcher who spots an interesting behavior and begins to follow it. If it is "real" or "true", then science gets into the act at some point to formalize why things seem to operate the way they do, then ultimately it becomes a discipline of a science or engineering branch.
"And when people looked to determine whether such a thing was a worthy practice or not, would you say gastrogame was "truth", just a tool, a praexeology, or some other nonsense? No, gastrogame would refer to the specific practices those godless nerds employed in deceiving people and the merits of them. It would be the only sane way of analyzing the topic."
You are working your way down a rabbit hole with this argument. Aerodynamics is a subset of both physics and mechanical engineering (generalizing), which in turn are subsets of natural philosophy, which is a subset of philosophy. All you are arguing is that we shouldn't split these investigations of the World/Universe out from the larger umbrella study of "Philosophy"? What you demand is contrary to how science and engineering advance.
-- Mr.A is Mr.A
Vox, this entry is pearls before retarded swine.
As was said a few threads back: "Game is simply a tool".
Funny enough, so are these moron detractors. Reading this shite is not helping my headache.
@ Unknown: whether a father is present or not doesn't matter in the damned least IF, like my own father, he is stepped in idiotic feminist garbage himself. It is actually nauseating to see.
I spent all but the last 13 or so years steeped in the feminist agenda. Anyone spouting that garbage gets nothing but a enmity from me.
I'm with Vox: women are emotional children. Good ones are to be treasured, loved and honoured. Most need to be watched closely and broken in like unruly horses.
"Deceit, manipulation, calculated cunning is another."
Sounds like King David, a man after God's own heart. Or maybe Rahab the Harlot. Or like Sampson when he asked to be led to the temple pillars. Etc. It all depends on one's motivation. If it's to save your marriage, all's fair.
At my household, I ended my wife's sex strike with tons of manipulation and we're both happier as a result. It's like we're newlyweds all over again. My wife said that she wasn't attracted to me anymore. I used every trick in the book--flirting with women in front of her, talking about old girlfriends and why they were attracted to me, telling her that she wasn't very attractive to me anymore, showing off my biceps after lifting weights, telling her I was going to look for a girlfriend and cut her off if I found one. She realized that she was still very much attracted to me and that she was punishing herself more than she was punishing me.
The ice witch has disappeared and I'm left with a delightful, sweet, fun, warm sprite! Deception--but even more manipulation--was essential to saving my marriage. Motivation is key. I was certainly as manipulative as hell! And my wife is glad I was! I've kept my vows and that's what matters.
I love how these anti-gamers say that all Grandpa had to do was "be masculine". He dint' need no steenking 'game'... Have you watched any movies from the 30s and 40s? Have you watched "I Love Lucy?" In 2-3 short generations our culture lost touch with these obviousities. Strong and masculine "with honor, sir" has never been "all that is needed".
The culture of the West has told us these truths over and over again. In addition to the operas mentioned above, just read the translation to the Habanera aria from "Carmen" (lyrics sung by a woman to any man trying to woo her). The implication being that if you let the woman set the frame, you will be in for a rough ride indeed.
And have you ever read the Old Testament? Yes, those men in the Scriptures didn't need no game to understand women. They didn't have to ever remind themselves that unsubmissive women are unhappy women... oh no, never! The New Testament didn't have to remind women several times to submit to husbands and not to deny them sexually. Of course not! Because those men didn't need no steenking Game! Or... do the New Testament commandments on marriage only make sense in the light of these truths? Truths which didn't need to be called "game" in the past but were still just as necessary. Seems clear that those New Testament passages are trying to help women game themselves into happier marriages, and urging men to assume as much.
Piss and moan all you like but life has ever been this way.
Cane Caldo should ask the question - Is marriage worldly?
If yes, then is marriage immoral?
AG, you were only deceptive if you lied. Learning to shut up (something I am working on) is a strong trait. Threatening to leave may be pushing it, though it may truly have been more than a threat.
Cane,
We have to live in this world. How do we do that without any "worldly wisdom"? Note the parable were Jesus noted that the men of this world were wiser than those in the Kingdom of God.
Principles of sales are principles of sales. You shouldn't manipulate people, but leading them and motivating them is clearly a Scriptural concept if done to increase your success in life, whether that be not starving or having a strong marriage. Are you really going to argue that it is more Biblical to let your marriage go to pot in the name of "revelation"?
Good heavens. It seems that very few people are yet capable of reading even simple sentences and comprehending them.
Sometimes, I wonder if the people would be much more intelligent and reasonable if only they had access to a dictionary, and the wherewithal to use it. Then I realize that the Free Dictionary is available online to everyone: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
I presume this is a sign that humanity is doomed and that 90% of public discourse will involve repeatedly linking idiots to definitions of even the most simple words. At least, that seems to occupy most of my efforts at discourse.
"The statement that Game is true is the statement that Game is good."
Let's substitute fallen nature of man for game.
"The statement that the fallen nature of man is true is the statement that the fallen nature of man is good."
What basically all anti-gamers do is try and broaden the definition of game. Here Cane is demanding that we not distinguish between knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. Others demand that we not distinguish between the study and practice of game, often even demanding that we include in the definition of game the practice of it to it's most hedonistic excesses. And in doing so they are trying to limit the precision of thought. Presumably because more precise thought would reveal them to be naked and ashamed, trying to cover their own insecurities and neurosis.
"Finally brethren, whatsoever is true, whatsoever is honest ... Think on these things." Phillipians 4:8 - - Carry on Vox!
"The problem with game is that you are falsifying yourself towards someone else..."
This seems to be the easiest and most common critique of Game. I used to think this way myself. It's apparent to me, though, that people who buy this line of thinking are simply conflating Game with the ends to which PUAs employ knowledge of it. One may as well denounce the understanding of canine nature on the grounds that such knowledge will lead one to pursue the "worldly success" of not getting bit.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.