MrCapitalism

Very helpful! Why aren't you guys married?

Do you find him sexually attractive (your friend's fiance)?

Principles are not enforced by nature, they are validated by it.

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, it's a very difficult question for me to answer. The first answer that came to my mind was: "it hasn't," I don't find the message particularly inspiring or helpful. Unfortunately, I think I'm drawn to it because it seems to be accurate. after mulling over it for a week, I think I can try another answer. It helps to put things into perspective. I'm a "Nice Guy" born and raised. It's helped me to realize why I think this way, how I was taught to think about it, why it gets me the results in relationships that it does, and where I fit in the grand scheme of the dating market. This site in particular (NO-MAAM blogspot) I think does a great job of presenting the material from a nice guy perspective, and as such is supportive and justifies my learned mating strategy, even if it is a failure.

The wife is guilty of committing the fundamental and universal sin of (b) by allowing herself to die. This "universal rule" logically cannot exist without one person becoming automatically guilty of breaking it (said dying person). Therefore this ethical rule fails the test of universality. Now only have one ethical rule left, (a) "Stealing in wrong." There are no logical problems with this rule, nobody has to be automatically guilty of breaking it in the process, so it remains.

Have you guys seen the "MGTOW Manifesto"? This is advertised as the founding document of MGTOW http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2001/02/mgtow-manifesto.html This site has an excellent e-book on the subject that I am rereading.

I like the "he-man woman haters club (now accepting female listeners)" Perhaps this can be a temporary subtopic? My personal experience is that Men's Rights is a 'philosophical story arc' or 'flavor of the year' for Freedomain radio. As a longer time listener, I can remember other issues that were highlighted for a short time, including; Alternative theories to health and diet, Intellectual property, and Psychohistory. While I think these are all important to the conversation, my experience has been that the focus was shifted to each of these subjects for a period of several months, before the show went into a different direction. I feel that the same will happen to the issue of Men's Rights. It will never 'go away,' but at some point I am sure that it will cease to be an important focal point. Thoughts?

Rothbard adds this note to page 990 of my edition of MES (2nd Scholarly) It may be the case that Mises was taking a more all-encompassing overview of economic theory, and Rothbard narrowed the definition to better suit his goals, which were to demonstrate the negative effects of intervention as opposed to market forces.

At first I had a desire to criticize your argument, but after some though I just couldn't find a satisfactory argument against your claim. Then I realized the reason it was so difficult to respond is that I think you're absolutely correct! Since a Gold standard is really a shorthand for saying "free market money production" the argument makes perfect sense. Gold is produced privately just like everything else, with no central plan, and with the goal of achieving profit for the producer. So under your scenario if production doubles and gold remains the same, then each gold ounce is capable of purchasing twice as many goods as it once was, for the same mining costs.

Wouldn't the employees just quit and go work somewhere else? If all the employers tried to cut wages to increase profits, wouldn't the employees just start their own businesses and out compete their old shops by bidding away the workers?

Fire your higher paid employees, and then hire then back at the lower wage rate. They're happy to have a job, you're happy to pay them less. Morale problem solved! What about the effect the rate of inflation will have on decisions concerning saving, borrowing, or investing?

If you block her number you won't have this problem.But you don't want to block her number.

Looks to me like you're trying to get laid. Not that it's in any way a bad thing. But, it's the best justification for putting up with this much abuse. If you were having a sexual relationship with a woman who was faithful, dependable, loving and supportive, would you be wasting your time with this woman? What if you even had the prospect of dating such a woman, would you return any of these girls texts? If this is true, then it would be helpful to accept the reality of the situation.

Looks like he tried to put in a time stamp of 62m47s

This is her conclusion: "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more." I can understand that this seems like a description of what she saw, but this is her conclusion. Your posted comment is a speculation. She has an unidentified aircraft which is flying in a manner consistent with a military aircraft. She is not concluding that it is in fact military; she has no way of knowing that. Her conclusion is that the aircraft is unidentified because she doesn't have enough data. Passenger carrying aircraft don't fly in the same manner as military aircraft, because they don't have the same goals. However that doesn't mean it's impossible to fly like the military with a passenger aircraft. Considering that the supposed hijackers have the intent to use a passenger aircraft for tactical purposes, they will operate it in a consistent manner. They're not going to care about it's limitations, normal maneuvers, or passenger safety. It will look like a military flight because it is a military flight for all intents and purposes.

I think you read a little too much into this article. She says the radar contact was 'unidentified' and was maneuvering like a military aircraft, not that it was, in fact, a military aircraft.

Wow what a great point! Also, I wonder if she unconsciously cheated on him as a final test to see if he had low enough self esteem for her to marry... In any case, the (maybe) PUA unwittingly helped to put the brakes on a dysfunctional relationship, or to try and put the final nail in it (if they hadn't called).

The flight profile was not conductive to the formation of noticeable wake vortices. The aircraft was "clean" (landing gear and flaps retracted), at a low angle of attack (low lift), and a high speed (elongated the vortex cones substantially). This phenomenon would cease to occur as soon as the wings stop creating lift. The 414mph value you stated is most likely the maximum certified speed for the aircraft at sea level, which is set for control ability and structural limits. 580mph is 140% of the maximum... not a terribly high exceedance in the grand scheme of things. A doubling of airspeed results in a quadrupling of drag/ thrust required. So this 40% increase needs...what... double the thrust for the max certified sea-level speed? That doesn't seem out of the question. My guess is you are assuming these aircraft are achieving these speeds with engine thrust alone? This assumes level flight. Maybe the thrust was augmented by a shallow descent? Regarding your the "planes must slow on impact and pieces left behind" here's a plane disintegrating at full speed. I understand the sides of the WTC are not solid blocks of concrete, but considering they gave as well as the aircraft structure I can see the aircraft "disappearing" into the side of the building. Any parts which separate from the plane are still going to end up in the building. Perhaps the aircraft structure didn't so much 'tear through' the steel so much as it 'overstressed it' with sheer brute force.. I have no idea.. that part makes me very suspicious. Helicopter pilots are very aware of the dangers posed by 2-3" diameter steel power lines. They cut through a helicopter like "a hot knife through butter." I don't really care if 9/11 was real or not. But I am interested in aviation. EDIT: I forgot to add.. flying little propeller planes is no easy feat! :-)

Why is the need to have these threads every 3 months unlimited?

One of his first podcasts if I remember correctly was "how to interpret the news," I thought he did an amazing job with it even though I think he was a little premature to jump to some of his conclusions. I really like the guy.

Aaron Clary has a lot of really good videos which channel this backlash. (Warning: Strong Language)

I don't know if what I write will be considered a defense of Pickup Artistry, but I feel I can see the issue from both sides. This is all MHO of course.I believe I used these techniques and ideas to achieve the last sexual relationship I was in. Subsequently, I avoided sexual relations and remained celibate for 8 years and counting (half by choice, half 'involuntary', TLDR I'm picky).A lot of the responses are reacting negatively to the OP's confrontational and dismissive tone. As a response to these complaints, batman1337 is defending his 'frame'. Realize this is a learned skill via pickup/fast seduction. Conscious or not (I bet conscious), he's using his inner game in this forum. It really is a lifestyle change, and a change in way of thinking for him. You guys are criticizing his assertive, manipulative tone; his lack of empathy, and self-knowledge, his immediate offensive stance. We should understand these are skills that he uses to experience sexuality with women. He put in some mental effort to be able to so easily do this (maybe even unconsciously at this point). And, I have no doubt this is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if it has other benefits outside of heterosexual relationships.We're going to try and convince him this behavior is undesirable and wrong. He most likely thought this when he first started with PUA. A big portion of the 'inner-game' was becoming ethically convinced that this attitude is virtuous. This was a barrier I was unwilling to overcome. We're not going to be able to change that, easily. The pickup-artist is specifically targeting the animal instincts within women, and overcoming societal barriers, to capture their attention and become the object of their desire. It's an indictment of the dysfunctional dating market.I can understand the reaction to Stef's conversation with the PUA. Stef mentioned that the caller was using these skills to attract the kind of girls that would fall for them, while unintentionally turning off virtuous and intelligent girls (the ones that can see through PUA). The reaction they would experience in theory is the reaction the OP is getting in this thread, albeit from a majority male audience. I think Stef said the girls would basically go "eww." But I think what the caller and Stef neglected to mention was how a person gets to become a PUA in the first place. Of course 'naturals' (people who naturally exhibit this behavior/mindset) are born this way, and so have no need to practice game... they just do it. But batman1337 was at some point not-a-PUA. Was he experiencing meaningful relationships with genuine virtuous women, and then decided to learn game and become a PUA? I submit the answer is no. The opposite of PUA is AFC, which stands for "Average, Frustrated Chump." I think the 'frustrated' adjective is very true.OP, please tell us what kind of person you were before becoming PUA, and what the dating outcomes were. Can you contrast them with the outcomes now?We suggest to these PUAs that they should stop playing games with women, and to be genuine, honest, and open. I think the existence of the phenomenon of PUA is a criticism of that approach. For a large portion of men, that just ain't working. I completely agree with Stef, all you're going to do batman is filter girls of the kind of quality that will fall for the games. If you stop playing the games, then you're going to get the kind of girls that don't play games. I think your choice to use Pickup gives a glimpse as to how that dating strategy works out (I cautiously throw in my 8 years of celibacy).My biggest compliant about pickup/fast seduction is that IMHO it works. It works really well. It's an effective tool for men to navigate the dating scene, at least until it gets defeated by women at some point in the future, when the rules of the game change again. I think it's a sign of just how damaged the whole process is. I mean, think of how crazy this is. The OP is a (I assume) able bodied and intelligent male. He's got a biological mother and father who had sexual intercourse to conceive him. Beyond that, his existence is possible because of millions of years of males and females having sex and producing offspring. He's got millions of years of evolution to be an excellent male component to this dance, and yet he has to resort to pickup skills and 'inner game' to get sexual fulfillment. Why the hell is this so hard for so many men? It's almost as bad as having seminars and books to practice effective breathing! Modern society has so badly destroyed the dating scene that he's taken the mindset of ignoring it altogether, and reverting to purely evolutionary mechanisms to get his needs net. This is not in any way an ideal situation, a good portion of the rules of modern life lifted our species out of the animal lifestyle.

There's a similar podcast series in the premium section.

On a recent show a caller was trying to compare evolution with religious thinking. Disregarding the content of the conversation, as soon as the caller began speaking at any length, I unconsciously recognized him as a person with religious thinking. This was some moments before he declared that he was a Christian. I attribute this to the tone of his voice. It seems near universal amongst religious believers, and I can detect them as soon as they speak, especially regarding anything tangentially about their religion. My best (and probably inaccurate) attempt at describing the tone is: relaxed, subdued, aloof, coming from a position of superiority, or an emotional detachment, and very empathetic or sympathetic. I recognize it in a great many religious that I talk to. I have a step brother which is deep in the Mormon faith, and he can't help but talk in this tone. His ex wife also uses this tone, although it isn't pronounced as his. Does anybody have any theories as to the source of this? Is it related to believing that reality is fundamentally a lie? Why are these people so easy to spot just based on how they talk.

1.) One must be demonstrate purposeful action. This is commonly referred to as human action and it occurs any time an entity acts with the intention of achieving a desired outcome. 2a). The intended property must be unowned (in a state of nature...having no previous claims as property by acting individuals), or its previous owner must voluntarily transfer ownership. 2b). The owner must exert ownership by transferring it from a state of nature into something which has value to the owner, and which must be exclusively controlled in order to extract that value. That's my best cliff-notes explanation based on my research and understanding.