MysterionMuffles

http://www.bustle.com/articles/76762-11-ways-to-be-a-trans-ally-according-to-transgender-people-themselves?utm_source=FBTraffic&utm_medium=fijifrost&utm_campaign=CMfacebook&ts_pid=2 An article on how to be a trans ally.

MMX2010, you bring up a good point. One that I totally agree with. I do recall Stef's story about meeting Christina and where she began. I've always held the belief that as long as a woman is curious and compassionate, no matter what her beliefs are, she's worth investing in. Relationships are good for two people to see the best and worst in each other, but ultimately for the sake of emotional health (as I would like to bring the thread back to its original throughline), it's best for the couple to work toward making the best of themselves in order to bring the best out of each other. If one person is resentful and not looking in themselves to see what they can improve, then they carry with them a weight of resistance, thus blocking the possibility of any growth for them as individuals and a couple. But don't assume I haven't read any PUA literature. I've read some from Chris Anderson, and although his approach rings true at a primal level, some of it seemed kind of rapey. Like using micro-escalations in your interactions (which can also be seen as micro-aggressions lol), wherin you focus on attracting a woman by physical cues. Makes sense. A woman can reject you verbally if you try to pick her up based in verbal communication, but touching and moving closer in on them, can't be rejected. I disagree with the pushiness he puts forth with that logic, as I think relying purely on physical escalation, being a primal thing, can probably only attract primal woman. There has to be a steady balance between the verbal and physical. Yes we are sexual beings and we connect viscerally, but we have evolved to also have intellectual needs, and so the verbal rapport is equally important. I've also watched some stuff by Kezia Noble, a female PUA teacher/wing girl, who taught me about standing out and having a presence, as well as the importance of passing the bitch test. I've also read David Copeland and Ron Luis's book How to Succeed With Women, front to back, and what I learned most from it is not depending female validation for my happiness, and actually living the happiest life I possibly can with or without them. Women can sniff out whether or not you're hungry for their attention, and they will test/reject/accept you accordingly. If you want her too much, but she has self respect, she will be put off by your neediness. If you want her too much, but she has no self respect, she will make damn sure you remain dependant on her affections to keep you happy. But ultimately, if you've worked on yourself enough to be happy all on your own terms, you will attract generally more mentally/emotionally healthy women. There's also Coach Corey Wayne, but he's more of a relationship expert than he is a PUA instructor, so no need to get into his stuff... So you cannot claim what I haven't read PUA material, MMX2010. I have my disagreements and assumptions with all of the literature and videos I've consumed. But ultimately, I have taken taken away the positive stuff that coincide with philosophy (like most especially the self knowledge and neurolinguistic aspects of them), and disregarded the stuff that does predicate on lying, manipulation, and simply being all about getting laid on the first date or sleeping with as many women as possible. I won't get into detail on those here, but I would like to know what you think because I think we actually are on the same page, MMX2010. The only clearest gripe I have with the PUA stuff is the material that is too focussed on simply getting laid as quick and as often as possible. But any PUA material that is actually about attracting long term relationships (such as the case with How to Succeed With Women), I will give the benefit of the doubt.

LOL I love Key and Peele...it's too bad that despite of their political satire (in such skits like Dunk the Vote and the Al Queda Meeting), that they might still be statists.

As I mentioned in my response to MMX, you are desiring exclusivity and she's not willing to accept that. Therefore, it creates some ambivelance in you. How much do you have to reason yourself into thinking that it's okay to just have her on the side, while there is that possibility she does want to work on herself and become monogomous. Whatever it is that's causing her to think she can't handle the monogomy...does she not realize she's already acting in nature without defining it for what it already is?

Oh I forgot to add, but the originality of ideas put forth can also contribute to the objective quality of fiction. Obviously most ideas have existed since the beginning of time, so to be more accurate, making fresh new takes on existing and familiar ideas. There's only really 7 basic plots in fiction that get recycled all the time. Some stories are good mixes between them, and knowing how to interweave them together also increases the objective quality of a story.

Things can be objectively good, but being enjoyed is a subjective thing. I think any fiction has objective standards to which constitutes its quality. A good fiction must: Pique your curiousity about the fate of its characters Make you empathize with the characters motivations, whether you condone their actions or not Make its philosophical argument in a way in that makes entertainment take presedence over education (thus making the educational part flow in more naturally instead of it being a 50 chapter or 2 hour lecture on morality, ethics, emotions, relationships) Have at least one character, if not the main one, have a character arc in which there's personal growth Touch upon any of the numerous human desires, and what one character will do to obtain them Be accessible; it should show its argument more than it actually tells it, if it tells you its argument at all at some point Make use of all their scenes, characters, and symbols. Anything mentioned must have a purpose as either being fundamental to the plot or at least in symbolizing a theme. There are many works of fiction that fulfilled this criteria and I would consider objectively good, but at a subjective level, I did not experience much enjoyment from them. Might be from the style, pacing, or maybe lacking in a few of these departments, but from what I've learned from writing courses and Writer's Digest magazines and writing guides, these main 7 things are usually touched upon as things that make a fiction grab a viewer's attention. On the flipside there have been "mindless" entertainment that didn't have much of an argument, but some flashy fighting that I have enjoyed, but that doesn't make the piece good. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't good. Things can be good, but also not enjoyable. Something being good can have objective merits, but enjoyment is always subjective.

I think it was well written, not just for the concept, but how clever the dialogue was, and how it keeps your curiousity piqued, then pays it off in the end. At least it did for me. I don't see how she's a leech, can you tell me how you came to that conclusion?

Don't think that women aren't capable of pedophilia because of this. They damn well are. That's so messed up though...babies and toddlers? How the hell do you even begin to be attracted to them in--no I can't even conceive of the idea.

What do people think about having friends benefits? Someone you aren't particularly dating, but get along well enough tp have sex with? Is it emotionally healthy or unhealthy to have this kind of relationship? This can also range from monogomous friends with benefits as well as polyamorous.

yeah what a shit mother. This is kinda why I LOVED the movie. The parental failure stares you in the face. That lack of listening to her son and her admission to having failed him enough for him to land in such a place. She has to pretend that it's perfect for him so she doesn't have to take responsibility for what she's done to him and what she hasn't done FOR him when he needed her the most.

http://speech.littlethings.com/9-year-old-speech/?utm_source=bmy&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=mommy This is exactly what I thought at her age when standardized testing was introduced in my school...except I had neither the articulation without F-bombs nor the courage to speak out about it.

Thank you for sharing your story...it sounds like a very difficult and I admire you trudging through it. This would be a very interesting conversation to have on the call in show...looks like a lot could be explored.

You don't need to be heard without interruption? Ok then try talking to people in the chatroom about them instead of always making it about you.

A little while back, one of my favourite bands (Affiance) made a post on Facebook asking their fans to ask them questions that they will make a Q&A video for. I asked a question and they answered it! i feel so honoured! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o--JdbOypU0#t=4m38s His thoughts resemble mine. The over emphasis on anger aspect when it should be used sparingly.

She should have also said, "mothers, have you treated your little boys so model gender, age, and relational equality?" All I hear is "I'm awesome, this many people loved my first speech and this is how much more noteriety it's gotten. Oh and here's some things you can do for gender equality...but not sufficient enough to be actionable."

Does anybody have some on deck? I've got one by a band I discovered recently. Enjoy this lyric video, hope it's as motivating to you as it is to me. To me it's about the self attack that occurs when it comes to self improvement, hence the line about breaking his own legs. People who pursue self knowledge often have a lot of pride in doing things on their own, but sometimes it's at their detrement. The other line about being sure it's not the end of his suffering, although demotivating at first glance, what I interpret it as is a reference to the suffering that comes from growth. It's painful to undo familiar patterns you've identified with, but I believe the rest of the song speaks for itself. It's a proclamation to fight through the growing pains. I would like to open the floor to anyone else to share some songs that empower them and what the lyrics mean to them.

You need serious help, but the kind you need I don't think is available from a philosophy chatroom. I totally sympathize with your situation, but it's very disruptive for you to disregard the current conversations going on at the time and basically blarping about your situation to everyone. And then any time anyone tries to challenge your narrative, you double down, or when they try to give you advice, you shoot it down and make your situation sound even more impossible than it already does. If you just want to be heard out without interruption, a chatroom isn't the place to do that.

Glad that you enjoyed it. I didn't even think of the whole Anima and Animus aspect of it so I'll keep it in mind on my rewatching of it.

I think I figured what the philosophical draw is to this game. It coincides with what Stefan talked about in There Are No Solutions. In this game, you get to make different moral choices and each of them have their own costs and benefits. Sometimes what you choose for momentary gain will cost you dearly in the long term, and sometimes vice versa. I've given the game about 3 different playthroughs and it's been interesting to see the cause and effect of your choices and look back on what really mattered.

You know that saying, just give without expecting anything in return. Is that ever possible? Or is that just a phrase to mask any virtuously selfish gain in the process? Do we do favours for others to simply create obligations in them or can we really just do things for them without expecting, or getting anything in return? Because at the end of the day, even if they don't ever repay the favour, we still usually feel good for doing things for others, which in itself is selfish. And I don't mean that in a critical way, just the facts. For instance, back in November, I went on one of those Tony Robbins Basket Brigades where I delivered turkeys and other food to poor families. On the outside, people will see that as a generous and kind thing to do, that I must really care about the poor. The truth is, I just wanted something productive to do on a Saturday morning and giving care to those less fortunate than me was just a secondary aim. I appreciated their gratitude for sure and I hate to say it, but I just saw it as your run of the mill delivery job. Except they got the food for free. What are your thoughts?

shh...what are you talking about?

http://www.earthporm.com/spanish-artist-reveals-ugly-side-society-controversial-illustrations/ This rather thought provoking, albeit hypersexualized art is a grotesque depiction of our current society. I most especially like the one of the African child chewing on The Bible. Great F U to the missionaries who go there to teach religion instead of actually feeding the hungry.

You sure you don't mean this song?

lol why's it gotta be an 80's rock tune? that song is AWESOME, Wuzzums! those synths When Stef is in a debate and has called his opponent out on flawed logic: and then when it's all over

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/12-reasons-youre-not-getting-laid-by-a-libertarian-lady/ Your thoughts? Don't these reasons apply to women in general?