David Ottinger

The big head and little hands made me think of this:

I would say that they're LARPing.

Sympathy: Dude, that sucks that you went through that. Empathy: Yeah, that verbal abuse can be very taxing on the psyche. I remember when a teacher had a fit and yelled at another student. It was scary. (Btw, this is how someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize.)

Hi Liam's sister, The realization that we're sometimes susceptible to projecting our romantic desires to the point where we fall in love with a fantasy and miss the true character of the person we've projected this ideal upon is a tough pill to swallow. But, seeing the title and then reading your story, I was relieved to find that you dodged a bullet because of your wit. I think you can find a lot of satisfaction in that. You successfully shared your love with someone and discovered that not everyone is capable of reciprocating the same love back. You're now wiser and stronger as a result. Brené Brown puts an insight about love beautifully (paraphrased), "Our ability to love is contingent to the degree we love ourselves." And your capacity for love clearly exceeded his because you accept who you are and he is ashamed of himself, otherwise he would not have lied. And, worse, he then tried to undermine your capacity for love by having you question your values in hope of justifying his cowardice to be honest and vulnerable with you. These betrayals are the seeds he sows in the relationship. Do you really care to nurture that? Nathaniel Branden has some good affirmations about self-esteem that might help you through this: If people treat me discourteously or disrespectfully, it is a reflection on them, not on me. It is only a reflection on me if I accept their treatment of me as right. If someone I like does not return my feelings, it is not a reflection of my personal worth. No other individual or group has the power to determine how I will think and feel about myself. I wish you the best in your romantic endeavors.

I assume women want children. Otherwise I find there is no point in developing a romantic relationship. Hence, no. 3 "Nurturing to family and friends." There is an implication of a motherly role there, otherwise I wouldn't care if she's capable of being nurturing. She certainly isn't needed to nurture me. I'm not looking for a woman to be my mother.

Nah, I know what I like, and I'm happy with it. And, it's good to know what I'm looking for. As I stated at the end: Only the first 10 are deal breakers. I don't want her to be health and fitness minded because of me. I want her to do it for herself. And, I find that sort of self-love attractive.

Game is whatever you choose to make it, but it is simply a broad abstraction that pertains to your preparations towards projecting who you are as a man as well as your romantic interests. After that, it's left up to serendipity. Game doesn't end after you're in a relationship. For me, game is an on going commitment to making love fun and exciting. As far as traits go, these are the traits I look for: Integrity Affectionate Nurturing to family and friends Feminine Intellectual Health & Fitness Minded Down to Earth Financially responsible Unwavering loyalty Communicates honestly and openly Likes to dance Likes to go on walks Likes to stay home and cook Likes comedy Likes to travel Likes massages Blond or brunette Blue or green eyes Fair skinned Beautiful smile Curvy & Fit Does yoga Atheist or Christian Needless to say, she doesn't need to meet every single one of these, only the first 10.

Property rights are an abstraction pertaining to possession. Possession is observable. Possession is the assertion of a claim.

I find the framework presented in the OP is conflating safety and rape. An individual is indeed responsible for his/her own safety. Likewise, an individual is responsible for his/her actions. So, if we're going to look at this realistically, then we need to acknowledge that there is a level of risk no matter what one thinks ought to happen. Reality is not predisposed to adhering to our will or intent. Rather, we are subject to adhering to the ebb and flow of nature. Thus, all one can control is his/her own actions by utilizing free will. But, again, human will is not omnipotent, nor are we capable of omniscience. The best we can do is try to calculate odds and act accordingly. Ultimately, one's choices (including the diversity of those choices) is one's own responsibility as that knowledge will affect how one can respond within one's environment. An unfortunate fact of reality is that "victims" are in large part victims because they had no sense of self-defense. But, there is no such thing as 100% security. So, again, one has to play the odds. And, really, what we're getting at here is risk management. What risks are you willing to assume? So, discussing what one should and should not do is presenting moral arguments. But, distinguishing and defining what is and is not a moral act does NOT and will NOT ever change the fact that adherence to moral theories is optional. And, worse, there is nothing stopping an individual from pretending the human capacity for violence doesn't exist, or even believing it ought not exist. But, the reality is that this capacity for violence exists. In contrast, the capacity for cooperation also exists. All we can do is affect the scale -- which is what governance is all about. So, as far as the risk of rape for women is concerned, how she self-governs will affect her exposure to the human capacity for violence. And, in this specified situation, there is nothing stopping women from dreaming about their utopian ideal where they can live in an environment where this human capacity for violence doesn't exist, thus they can explore their sexuality without any threat of harm. But, that's not realistic. (And, the polar opposite of that mentality is thinking everyone is out to harm you.) And, for most women, it is understood that it is the role of men to secure safety within the environment. This is how women operate. And, there is nothing wrong with deferring that responsibility. But, women need to be self-aware enough to understand that's what they're doing. They also need to understand that the environment can be manipulated to create such security, but again that security is never absolute. Thus, women need to be mindful of which men they trust with these responsibilities because if the woman is too promiscuous, then she risks deferring that responsibility to a man who has no real concern for her well being. And, these risk issues aren't limited to women. When you look at the story of the 2 Coreys from Hollywood, the parents failed to protect their children from pedophiles. So, dealing with these risks isn't related to how one dresses, but rather with whom one is willing to associate with and to what degree. What sort of environment are you really in? What is your exit strategy in a particular environment? Is this environment safe enough to dull my senses with alcohol or drugs? All these questions in the last paragraph are risk management questions. And, everyone is responsible for managing his/her own risk regardless of what moral theories one holds as true.

Thank you for your response. These are some thoughts and observations I had: (1) Up to this point you made a distinction between morality and ethics. And then you proceed to inform me of your sense of disgust with those who do not share your ethical view, at least in this particular case. But, this doesn't answer my question. What is the moral principle here? (2) That's very interesting. You notice the lack of argument being made by the video, but you also experience the sense of disgust the video is intended to elicit in attempts to get you to accept statism or a justification for government intervention in order to impose performance of a "charitable" act. Personally, the circumstances of that drowning child do not get to me because one of my first jobs was lifeguarding. And, one of the first responses trained into you is to check for any risks to your own safety before performing a rescue. So, my emotions are already shelved as a result of learning this skill. Furthermore, in this training, you also learn that people sometimes do not naturally jump in to help. For example, if you needed to call 911, but you're the only one in the middle of the rescue, you can't stop what you're doing to make a phone call. Instead, you have to pick a bystander and deliberately delegate the task to that individual, and even tell him/her to wave down the responders. If you don't delegate, no one will act. So, an important thing to also distinguish in this drowning hypothetical is intent VS actual performance. If no one called 911, would they be immoral? If you ask people who failed to do so, "Do you not care to help others?" They might show contempt/disgust at such a notion, yet people do actually fail to perform. Interesting effect sometimes called the "Genovese syndrome." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese According to the moral argument of the video, these people who failed to call 911 are immoral. And, give your disgust for people who fail to help, I would have to conclude you concur with the moral theory alluded to in the drowning hypothetical. Now, after reading this, if you don't feel the same way, or at least have some doubt about those feelings of disgust, then we have to understand that feelings alone aren't enough to substantiate one's morals or ethics. We need something more objective. (3) I recognize that morality emerges as a result of human discourse. However, if I am to be objective with the principles, then I need to adhere to a methodology. With that said, I cannot conclude that sound moral theories are the product of society -- which in this context I find alludes to decree. And, when those decrees are centralized and enforced by a single institution, you have government. But, government is not society. 'Society' is an aggregate of the mind, and thus has no real agency to obligate anyone. More so, adherence to moral theories (i.e. virtue) cannot be achieve via compulsion as to do so is to rule by might. And, another word for that is conquest. (4) What you're arguing in favor of here is moral relativism -- which is what statist rely on in order to justify their use of might to achieve ends. i.e. "The end justifies the means." And, that's interesting that you bring up UPB when it is a logical proof that provides us with a methodology so we can pursue moral theories objectively. The theories themselves will never be absolute truths much like in physics where theories are not absolute either. But, that doesn't make scientific theories any less objective. So, why should the pursuit of sound moral theories require omniscience before they can be objective? All we need is a methodology. So, what is the moral theory being invoked by this drowning hypothetical? i.e. What is the principle here? This is what is needed to explain why or how someone can be classified as immoral. Otherwise, it is just one big grand appeal to emotional states of mind which when acted upon tend to lead to post hoc reasoning such as: "I felt disgust at the idea of not helping the drowning child because I would want to be saved if I was in that circumstance, thus because of my disgust and desire to be saved, I hold others responsible for my unfortunate circumstances." And, mind you, if someone is dealing with unresolved issues of neglect or even abandonment, this feeling to save the child can be amplified even more because of empathy. i.e. An emotional reverberation if you will. And I think this drowning hypothetical exploits those feelings of neglect. That's why the metaphoric victim has to be a child. Otherwise the emotional sleight of hand wouldn't work.

Statists have tried to use this one on me many times. And my response is something along the lines of: I missed the part that explains why I'm immoral if I don't save the child. The so called "thought experiment" just asserts that presumption as a fact. Don't appeal to my emotions. Instead, explain to me why I am morally obligated to save that child. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Donald Hoffman presents to us a new way on how we perceive reality. Simply put: Instead of our senses developing in order to provide an accurate observation of reality, the mind instead simulates reality according to biological filters that ensure reproduction.

Left VS Right dichotomy is always a relative distinction. Although, typically 'left' refers to experimental values while 'right' refers to traditional values. Basically, it's a "what could work" VS "what has worked" dichotomy. But, as you may have noticed, this is all in reference to where a government ought to allocate resources respective of where it has been focusing thus far. So, "left VS right" is a compartmentalized perspective that is defined by the current form of governance. So, it makes sense that what is "left" today may become "right" tomorrow. i.e. What could have worked proves to work, thus becomes part of what has worked as time progresses. Personally, I find the discussion of where the government's (i.e. king's) favor ought to be is a question that sets up a false dilemma, let alone begs the question, too. It begs the questions because the validity of a centralized institution is a concept that most people do not even question -- simply put, the idea of a decentralized form of governance is unheard of. So, to such people, there is nothing for sake of comparison. Government is treated axiomatically. And, much of this is thanks to public school indoctrination. People simply assume a centralized institution is necessary for there to even be a form of governance -- which omits self-governance, but that's for another day. So, as far as the false dilemma goes... With the alt-right, what that means is you have an alternative to traditional values, albeit they're still traditional values. And, this reformation of how the current left and right are polarized makes sense as the upcoming generation are gaining influence in the government. The alt-right is a reactionary movement to the SJW's swinging the pendulum too much in one direction.

It was only the 1st round. I see it as another calculated move because he was intentionally pulling his punches. My guess is he's rope-a-doping her.

Ok, that first statement in the OP is not a fact. Principles do not cease to exist because two people entered into a contract. For example, two UFC fighters walking into the Octagon do not violate the NAP because they explicitly agreed to the fight, thus they're not actually making unjustified claim of rights upon another individual. The NAP still exists, but two people simply agreed not to hold one another accountable for any violation during that specific event. Justification of a claim (i.e. the merits of a claim) ought not be confused with the forgiveness of an act*. So, where in the marital contract is it explicitly agreed upon that sex is mandatory? In other words, why does an individual need to surrender his/her sovereignty over the body in order to enter a marital contract? That is a specious requisite. "Hey honey, I know you're angry with me right now, but I'm really horny and demand sex. Oh, you won't give it to me? Well here, drink this Cosby, and that'll resolve the issue." Does that sound like marriage is being honored or destroyed? That is clearly not a situation where consideration is being honored. In the absence of consideration there is no contract. Given that marriage contracts do not have expiration dates, consideration is an ongoing element of the spousal interaction. In the event that conflict arises and those differences cannot be reconciled, then that serves as cause to end the marital contract. *Act being an exercise of a claim whether the claim is justified or not.

The patterns I've noticed is that people express their values, their perception of the self, and their desires. And, I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, who doesn't do that? Are you uncomfortable with letting women know what your type of woman is? What you want from a woman? I have no problem telling someone what qualities I'm looking for be they values or aesthetic qualities. I know what I want. More so, there are going to be plenty of candidates that are neither going to be in the state of mind that I'm looking for nor share my values. That's simply the world of variety we live in. And, to that, I say: So what? I personally don't mind meeting women of differing views and seeing what happens. It's part of the fun.

This is not a logical quarrel, so there is no reasoning with her because any attempts to reason with her will serve as a denial of her feelings thereby exacerbating her sense of abandonment. She feels what she feels. There is no changing that. Instead, you have to accept it. Hell, I doubt the content she's even focusing on matters. It's just a metaphor for her abandonment issues. "you know what's really genuinely unsettling? the degree to which men fucking do not want to sympathize with/be interested in women." Translation: Men do not want to sympathize with me and my struggles. i.e. Men are incapable of loving me. I'm not going to type out the whole thing. So, 2nd paragraph translation: Look at all these characters I identify with, and men do not care, and worse, men are incapable of being moved by female tenacity. They have no respect for female struggles, and thus strengths. Men will never be able to value me. And 3rd paragraph: Men do not want to connect with me emotionally. They just want to dominate me and be done with me. It makes me feel worthless. Anyone who seeks validation from others like this is dealing with unprocessed trauma. They're projecting that on events that remind them of that trauma. In this particular case, we're dealing with rejection/abandonment issues. I'm no psychologist or anything along those lines. So, take it for the arm chair opinions that this is.

Ok, so why is sassy or feisty a red flag? Personally, I like a woman with moxie and a sense of piquant humor. These are the top 12 qualities that are deal breakers for me, and there is a bit overlap in them, but I still see them as specific qualities: Cunty -- this is someone that takes oneself entirely too seriously. I mean to the point where one thinks his/her farts don’t stink. For a female, the stereotypical new wave feminist fits this definition perfectly. e.g. Big Red -- if you know who that is. Controlling -- this ranges from (a) not curious about how you want to live your life, yet always talking about her desires; to, (b) outright trying to tell you how to live. Modern Feminist -- there are some girls that call themselves feminists because it’s the cool thing to do. They get a day pass for the time being. It’s the ones that can’t be reasoned with because it’s part of their identity at this point. They’re just too far down that rabbit hole for me to bother. Snobby -- a girl like this will be shitty to the waitresses or other staff or will constantly remind you how bad someone is or how great they are. Virtue signaling is a common theme here. Racist/Welfare dependency advocate -- this is someone that thinks people are so weak that they need a “social safety net” to survive or progress in life. Venomous tongue -- this is someone that is overly negative day-in and day-out, and at worse destructively critical with the intent of causing emotional harm. Slob -- doesn’t respect their own property by keeping things relatively clean, including one’s own health/diet Victim/Princess mentality -- unprocessed trauma is not what I mean here. Rather, this is someone that actually gets off on playing the victim card or damsel in distress. i.e. Someone who plays the victim card to virtue signal, especially girls who are exploiting men’s desire to protect others. Attention Whore -- this does not refer to someone interested in or enjoys expressing fashion sense or body art (being make-up or tattoos), or is comfortable with being provocative. Rather, this is someone that craves attention whether it’s negative or positive. Drama Queen -- we’re not talking about the girl who expresses anger or frustration after asking you to take out the trash and you obliged, yet is still mad. Instead, we’re talking about the girl who purposely goes out of her way to create conflict. A good example is the girl that tries to make you jealous to see if you love her. Manipulative -- this isn’t the girl that tests the integrity or fortitude of a man, but rather the girl that uses those tests to see what all she can get away with in the future. She will build you up just to knock you down and get off on the power she has over you. Needy -- this is the typical clingy girl who without cause is constantly texting you to make sure you’re still interested and validating her existence, and at worse getting mad or crying when you do not give her attention, especially when you’re reasonably in the middle of something else.

Maybe get tested for sleep apnea.

If you're seeking validation (i.e. sense of self worth) from someone else, then I can see that risk-vs-reward perspective being true. But, if you take the sales approach where one doesn't impose intent upon the potential client because you understand it is simply a numbers game, then you approach freely and with the intention of building rapport and seeing where it goes from there (i.e. no prejudices) -- which appears a lot more difficult for guys online. So, unless you're looking to troll, maybe with this being the online world it's best to put yourself out there in the best light possible and leave it up to the girls to do the approaching?

Here is an analysis of what effect the Panama Papers has/had on various nations: https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/those-who-are-and-are-not-sheltered-panama-papers

Bravo on taking such a brave step. Now the journey begins. Some people will hate you and try to tear you down. Some will love you and cheer you on. And some won't care since they weren't paying attention anyways. To answer your question: What I have discovered is that the more I follow my own values the better my life is becoming.

In short... The money supply is increased at the top (i.e. "printed" into the economy). And the taxes serve to lessen this increase in supply by taking it out of circulation, usually from the middle/lower class. So, in the simplest sense, more taxes means less in circulation and less taxes means more money in circulation. Does that help?

The original is great, but I also love this cover. Pretty much sums up this topic for me.