PatrickC

I agree with Dumitru, lack of empathy from the main character. I think the actor was Daniel Day Lewis who always plays nihilists really well. But I agree with the OP, a beautiful movie all the same.

Yes, I think I can concede that women were much more likely to experience prejudice, because of their vulnerability in being the child bearer. Very often by other women of course.

I'm a little doubtful about the goose and gander analogy. After all, who were all these women the men were having sex with. I'm always cautious about what I hear historically that happened to women. Given it's often been filtered through the feminist rhetoric machine. Certainly it was true that a womans life could be ruined by an out of wedlock pregnancy and a lot more worse than for a man potentially. Although there were services in which pregnant women could discreetly move to another part of the country to quietly give up their baby for adoption. Actually, this is what happened to my own mother's mother and apparently paid for by the man in question. However, there were a lot of social (peer) pressure on men to 'do the right thing'. There was also many a shotgun wedding wherein the male counterparts of her family would wade in with various threats to the man, if he didn't follow through with a marriage. Overal birth control has been a great thing for both men and women. Although these days, it's not uncommon for some women to claim they are taking the pill when they are not. My devils advocate theory of course.

We can only look forward to this with bated breath.. Perhaps some vinaigrette for the (word) salad perhaps..

My hat is still waiting to be munched!

The only comment I have, is actually a preference... Go and create this marvelous RBE world, after which if you are successful, I will gladly eat my hat.

This sounds like you have more to say. I say, say more.

This is a great point and it reflects a kind of 'state of nature' that exists in the world today. Nihilism being often the choice for many a man or woman, even if they are unsure of the term. The more extreme ends of PUA certainly exploit this tendency, which is why I don't see it as a particularly useful long term strategy. Unless of course you just want lots of babies with various women that you have no involvement with. Or relationships built on boggy ground. I am positive mind, because I still meet a few women of quality. They might not be philosophical (at least consciously). But I can often persuade them them to unlearn bad ideas with a good argument. So I don't think all is lost. But my opinion is that it's probably up to men to change things, as they have mostly done historically. Some of the more rational aspects of MGTOW, might well be a part of that change perhaps, insofar as relearning to appreciate their relationships with men again and taking their own interests as seriously as others. Particular that of women's interests, which seemingly many men can so easily toss away at the faintest complaint from the fairer sex. I'm personally enjoying my new found relationships with men that are competitive, responsible, houourable, rational, fun and so damned interesting. I'm certain there are women that are attracted to that.

Yes, it will be their actions that will dictate whether or not they will be forgiven.

I've read it too, many moons ago now. I studied quite a lot about Tibetan Buddhism in my 20's, as a part of my (unknown to me then) journey out of my families Chrsitian mythology. I certainly found it more compelling than Christianity, but I was never entirely convinced. I met a lot of dysfunction and passive aggression within a small community I knocked around with in Cambridge. Not to mention seeing the Dalai Lama swanning it around with the hoi polloi basically kidding people that his form of dictatorship was better than everyone else's. Of course dysfunction goes on in every community, even at FDR. So I'm not entirely attributing these traits to Buddhism. But I do find the forgiveness aspect a difficult one to swallow. To me forgiveness is an involuntary response to virtue. You literally have no control on whom you forgive, if that makes sense.

Ok, for clarification, because it was rather late here when I wrote my last response. I think there is a misunderstanding between how people here feel about abusive personal relationships (friends, family, lovers, colleagues) and between what you (STer) consider as an important step to better understanding abusive behaviour. I know from (anecdotal) experience how I have improved my relationships and personal life by removing these dysfunctional fellows from my life. Does this mean we have a toil free life, well of course not. I was listening to an interesting talk presented by Jordan Peterson (clinical psychologist professor) that I posted recently, about the necessity of virtue. He used the Buddhist analogy that life is suffering. Not that he is Buddhist mind, but that he concurred that suffering is very often a part of life. He also claimed that a lack of virtue can literally make people ill. Virtue he claimed, is seemingly wrapped up in the relationships that we have with other people. They can either make or break our virtue. That said, I certainly don't was to discount the possibilities that people who are untouched personally by these abusive people, that they may discover root causes that are currently beyond our grasp. Brain/genetic/psychological research are very valid lines of research I'd like to see more progress with. As to the degree of conscious/unconsciousness abusive people have of their actions is I think a scientific question and not necessarily a philosophical one. Because we simply cannot know entirely. All we can know, is the effects of their actions. Which leaves us with a philosophical decision, whether to engage or ostracise that person into or away from our personal lives.

You know STer, I find this annoying (for what its worth). My initial post didn't reject any of this. I was merely pointing out that on a personal level you have no reason to engage with your own abuser.. What others decide personally for themselves is entirely up to them of course. And if in the process they improve our understanding of human behaviour, then all the good of course.

Well, in fairness I was only claiming that anecdotally, as I suggested in that post. But to me it matters little to the abused individual, when they are attempting to escape the abuse of others.

Just wanted to say to Kevin, good point.. I would certainly support anyone, particularly a friend against abusive behaviour. Our personal feelings are not important of course to those that are sufficiently uninvolved personally to help them.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject people that are abusive towards you.

No, I think you may have misunderstood.. I meant not wanting a relationship with the people they are attempting to help.

We can only look forward to the great RBE/Armitage debate with Stefan on Dec 1st... But great catches all the same Nathan

Yes, unconsciousness of actions, I can't help feel involves a conscious decision to ignore them, at least to some degree. Whether or not there is some brain dysfunction involved, which is entirely possible. That said, it's difficult to ignore the excuses very conscious people often give them. However, I am of the opinion that it doesn't particularly matter much. Getting away from these types of people has been a very helpful strategy in avoiding as much discourse in my life as was humanly possible. But I would be most happy to fund clever people (to the degree that I could), that think they might resolve those issues without having to personally have a relationship with them.

Ok, I understand, thanks.. Yes, I also take issue with some of the more extreme ideas in MGTOW myself, but some of the more moderate types, as with PUA I can see some advantages and good arguments in them.. Of course, for me, it's mainly about self knowledge or at least attempting to engage and recognise that part of myself. Listening to these ideas and approaches doesn't seem at all redundant in that regard.. Interesting conversation.

Right, but I don't see other forms of dating as breaking the NAP, that's what I mean. Whether they are successful or not. It doesn't seem relevant, unless I'm missing something perhaps.

Right, but doesn't this apply to all forms of dating, PUA or otherwise?

I would broadly agree with you Holo Cene, when we are dealing with un-philosophical types, although there are exceptions even without philosophy. But I think you aptly portray the current state of nature for many young men and women. However, it's not clear to me why you refer to the NAP. I have my own thoughts, but was wondering whether you would clarify that point for me.

Yeah, very funny indeed. I've heard a number of people do this over the years, but many like that Canadian chap were told to give it to a bank and stump up a cheque instead. I recall failing to put a tax reference against a large payment of tax I made, despite paying via a Ltd company account They demanded that I prove the payment with my own personal bank statement. These people aren't paid to work.

I think it was interesting that you considered PUA as a form of enslaving men to women's needs. I partly agree with that to some degree. If a guy is relying on his humour to increase his status with a woman, then he is likely to fall short at some point. Either from lack of material, her boredom, his boredom or eventually just realising that he has more needs than banging a hot chick. This is why PUA tends (not always) to lead to most of those men often having quick flings or a rotation of flings with different women. In that way it seemingly suits the culture of today for both men and women. Women get their momentry alpha fix and men get laid by attractive women. As I said I don't entirely dismiss the PUA culture entirely, as it has some useful stuff that young men can unlearn about women in this hyper feminised culture we live in. But I think there is no doubting that PUA is not a useful long term strategy for better relationships.

You need to first make an argument, that doesn't solely consist of adjectives and assertions. There is nothing to refute at the moment.