eschiedler

Just no, everything was wrong in this video. He's a massive mangina.

I retired at age 37 with real estate. It provides long-term monthly income. At some point you have to take your "paper gains" from currency speculation (which is what cryptocurrency investment is, fundamentally) into a different asset. So you can always look back and say.... I could have made more. I can certainly say that with real estate and other investments. Since it is speculation, you aren't a "schmuck" because you won some and lost some, that's the way it goes. The more attention a commodity gets, the more likely it is a bubble is a good rule of thumb. Another rule of thumb is that 10x asset growth is nothing. You can get more than that in some real estate deals and many other assets, particularly with leverage. Heck, you can even get that in some casinos. But whatever you choose to do, it takes time so as long as it fits into your long-term strategic plan, I'd say keep looking into your options.

The Law of Identity is not a formula - it is not derived from observation in the world. It is a bit of a misnomer to point to the Law of Identity with the "A=A" symbol. Rather, the symbol "A" would be sufficient, for to try to derive it or arrive at the Law by observation is to miss it entirely. Rather, once you understand the Law of Identity, paradoxically, you see it everywhere. It is a "pre-cognition" requirement. In order to see things in a dualistic manner, as in the example of "line and not-line", you have to follow the Law of Identity. From "A=A" you eventually derive the conclusion that the apparent duality of all things observed by consciousness is an illusion, and all empirical observations are limited in knowledge, as in they are formulas for predicting observations but are never the basis of firm knowledge. The fact that this logic is valid, however, is not an illusion. Valid logic is not equivalent to "knowledge", but rather the nature of Truth. Eric Schiedler

You asked in the OP: "Personally, I don't see how it qualifies as abuse." If you have a separate definition for what constitutes psychological abuse, that is fine. I was merely pointing out that the man/deer in the video uses the term abuse as psychological abuse, since he is not talking about physical damage. The video is pointing out that women have made a deal to trade "net" sex for "net" benefits. Then they demand to continue the relationship, presumably getting the "net" benefits, while changing what they agreed to do which was "net" sex (of course, anecdotal relationship terms notwithstanding). Thus the maker of the video sees it as ongoing abuse of the privileges granted to them by their partner - as in, within the relationship it is abusive behavior. In your first example of someone getting upset with being called out on the bs, you didn't previously have an agreement to not call them out on their bs in exchange for something from them. That is a different relationship dynamics that merit a different term - it's called a debate and you don't have a duty of care, thus you have not committed psychological abuse. In your second example, you are cutting off all business dealings. That's fine and called rejecting a trade. But presumably, the women aren't cutting their male partner from all dealings and still want to receive all the benefits from their partner while at the same time cutting off the sex in hopes that the man will have psychological discomfort of some kind. If the man doesn't have any interest in the woman for sex at all he will presumably give nothing of any kind (time or money) to the relationship and the woman's sexual withholding would not work. An attempt to manipulate is not abuse, it is an attempt to manipulate. Ongoing manipulation is under certain conditions called psychological abuse to distinguish it from physical abuse. These are terms usually used in a relationship. Physical damage outside of a relationship is often called assault or battery. Psychological manipulation outside of a relationship is often called fraud. These are the definitions of the approach used by the maker of the video. You can disagree that these terms are not valid. That's fine. Whether the terms are valid or not or accurate or not still does not answer the question of to what extent the behavior of making sex a condition for someone's action (in this case a vote) is wrong or moral.

The Deer in the video is using the idea that intense manipulation is abusive. It is not "obviously not" abuse. Knowing that someone will feel an intense deprivation or otherwise intense emotional reaction and then using that apparent soft spot or "weakness" is the very definition of taking actions that are psychologically abusive.

The seminal work by Judith Jarvis Thomson written in 1971 called "A Defense of Abortion" contains the arguments that clearly frame the issue. I will argue that it is required reading in order to debate the abortion issue rigorously. I am typing from a mobile by the work is available in complete form online and has its own Wiki (as it is rather famous). It is a short read and well written without too much "academize".

Because they don't have memory. Therefore, whatever derives from them is not timeless.

There are some parallels, but only superficially. It seems to be your interpretation, and not the interpretation of the author. The blog author put an image of women on the cover, but never really addressed the influences of sex in society on the cardinal and counterfeit virtues. The author address one point that would be important to Weininger. This is that the difference between cardinal and counterfeit virtues lies in thinking, or use of Plato's description of reason. However, this does not go far enough, as to Weininger it is very important that the basis of thinking and reason is in logic. And if you follow this to its conclusion, then you arrive at the logical genius, the genius of highest capacity for genius, who would be more like Neitzche's Uberman, and place all moral responsibility within himself. He would be the highest moral person and transcend both cardinal and counterfeit virtues. Which, by the way, the author of the blog says the wise man would agree that the counterfeit virtues have some value, and Weininger would certainly disagree with this statement.

Liberalismus: "This is just false. A table would be no less a table even if it was the only entity in the universe." If the parts, causes, and events that make up the "table" were the only thing in the universe, then it would be the entire universe. Nothing would be outside of it. There would be no way to differentiate between universe and not-universe, therefore, there would be no table and not-table. Therefore there would be no "thing" that was a table. Only parts of the universe can have an identity. "And really, you started a philosophical conversation with the conclusion that 50% of human beings should be despised by those who have thought most about them..." I made no such emotional or hysterical claims. You're making the "have you stopped beating your wife" rhetorical argument. We've derailed this thread enough from the OP who wanted to, it seems, make people aware of this book. Therefore to you I say good day.

The Law of Identity is often described, in shorthand, by the formula "A=A". The law of identity does not presuppose that something exists. It is deeper than that. It is the fact that A=A must be true and any formulation of any argument relies upon A=A. From Weininger's "Sex and Character": "The proposition A = A is axiomatic and self-evident. It is the primitive measure of truth for all other propositions; however much we may think over it we must return to this fundamental proposition. It is the principle of distinction between truth and error; and he who regards it as meaningless tautology, as was the case with Hegel and many of the later empiricists (this being not the only surprising point of contact between two schools apparently so different) is right in a fashion, but has misunderstood the nature of the proposition. A = A, the principle of all truth, cannot itself be a special truth. He who finds the proposition of identity or that of non-identity meaningless does so by his own fault. He must have expected to find in these propositions special ideas, a source of positive knowledge. But they are not in themselves knowledge, separate acts of thought, but the common standard for all acts of thought. And so they cannot be compared with other acts of thought. The rule of the process of thought must be outside thought. The proposition of identity does not add to our knowledge; it does not increase but rather founds a kingdom. " Here is a summary, offered by a group of people one of which is Dan Rowden, running a discussion board on wisdom called Genius Forums. There are many discussions about A=A there. http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=970&start=0 Dan Rowden: "A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer": Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things)." Because the Law of Identity is the basis of all thought, this must necessarily be also my view on the matter. You are objecting by also necessarily using the law of identity to say that things which exist have an identity. Therefore the Law of Identity holds.

Liberalismus: I am aware that the definition of background in this forum can be paraphrased as the child and adolescent development period, so I apologize for using the broader definition. I focused on the definition rather than the need to communicate an idea clearly. Having said that, I am more interested in the mature thought as an adult. At 23, that is only a few years of logical thinking of the highest level. That is because logic is timeless, and I'll get back to that point below. My terms are the traditional three laws of thought, or logic, called the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle and the Law of Non-Contradiction. They are not my laws, I simply use them as best I can. As such, I reject post-modernist thought that denies these laws, and all irrational thought that fails to use them. I also try to eradicate any delusion in my mind that may arise by violating these laws. As this applies to Otto's work, he uses the laws in the main thesis. Therefore, he argues his work is philosophical and not epidemiological. Although, of course, he gives examples to aid the reader. I agree with you that "certain forms of intellectualism ... involve a lot of anti-reality words". Post-modernist academia provides many examples, and I find those efforts in academia very disappointing. You said: "Those who are traumatised (sp) as children but do not exhibit this form of intellectualism typically were either subject to different traumas, or responded by not taking ideas very seriously, or would never have taken ideas seriously to begin with." Each individual experiences different cause and effect. As I stated in this post, I am not interested in the biography of thinkers if we are looking at their core arguments. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed reading a lot of history. I just read the "Don Quixote" and I loved the story and I marvel to think of the historical context that Cervantes survived the Battle of Lepanto and years of imprisonment before writing the novel. But I don't care to think of what in the author's childhood made him write down a lot of words in a book about fantasy stories and legends. The conclusion in Weiniger's book is that people who are most able to think consciously should value logic and that thoughts and conclusions based on sound logic will be true at all times and for all possible worlds. How else could it be so? It can not be otherwise. Making observations about the capacity to use consciousness (the use of logic) in men and women got him labeled as a misogynist; but of course, anybody who criticizes women is labeled a misogynist. Every major philosopher has been labeled a misogynist or has simply ignored the subject of women because they thought it was a waste to time, thus also setting themselves up for the label of misogynist. The resident Molyneux gets called a misogynist when he releases a video in which he criticizes women. So the misogynist charge is so watered down as to be meaningless - in practice it is just a shaming tactic. On a related note, I don't post here much because I am not very interested in Objectivism. But my objections to it would derail this thread. Perhaps because of that, we will find little common ground. The reason I mention it is because, due to lack of experience in the forum, I may have not written my posts in a way that is helpful to the forum readers, of which their interests I should be considerate as best I can in order to best communicate an idea. My goals in writing a post here do not include making people do extra work.

Liberalismus: "At 23 years old, 99% of background is a done deal." That's not logically possible. At all times 100% of your background is whatever happened in your life, including your actions and reactions to events. "The primary error seems to be epistemological: he is trying to describe a man and woman "perfect form" as a primary thing, with objective reality just some annoying thing that only imperfectly ever expresses these forms. " His primary work is based on logic, which he states quite clearly, and is the basis for philosophy. He describes how thought comes up with concepts and ideas, through the process of giving thoughts "character" or clarity in the mind. "This book is a fantastic instance of the general principle that "high verbal skills are the scar tissue that result from being lied to in very complex ways as a child" So genetics, nutrition, and education play little to no significant role?. What about highly UN-verbal people who are traumatized as children but are not glib as adults? I see no evidence for this observation, but it is a very colorful expression, of which Molyneux is quite apt to use for marketing his ideas. LIberalismus: "If anyone here does think it is intelligible, please provide a summarised version of the reasoning. " I have provided links in my reply above to summaries of his work, feel free to peruse them at your lesiure. Here is a website of Otto Weininger's writings, with links, of brilliant material from this young (but wise) mind. http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/ Here is an online resource, the Preface to the book: http://www.naturalth...r/000_pref.html

I run a business in real estate and have done so for over 20 years. Read and completely understand a college-level (preferably) graduate level course in both Fundamentals of Accounting and Managerial Accounting. You don't need Financial Accounting (Wall Street stuff) until you issue stocks and bonds. This looks like the current one used at my local major university: Survey of Accounting 7th Edition http://www.amazon.com/Survey-Accounting-Carl-S-Warren/dp/1285183487 Since the Middle Ages, the successful businesses mastered cash flow and double-entry bookkeeping. It's a day-to-day fundamental "blood and guts" of business. If failing to meet customer demand is the number one reason fro failure and lack of capital is number two, then poor accounting practices is number three.

First of all, it's translated badly from German and the quote is probably from the first translation. The 2006 translation is better because in German it means reject, not despise. Second of all, the complete quote says the opposite. That he is not a misogynist. He is actually REFUTING the claim that he is a misogynist. He explains it is a smear tactic. "This sort of answer never fails in its object, which is to exempt the vindicator from refuting the actual statements." What he says in the book is that we are all made of male and female sex cells, what science would later come to understand as genetics and epi-genetics. And that science demonstrates that we have all both male and female sex hormones and sex characteristics throughout our bodies. In his scientific model, the 100% male is logic and rejects the 100% female which is emotion. Remember that at the same time none of us are 100% male or 100% female in mind or body. That is his view because he is talking about ideal forms. There is no question that Weininger "rejects" the emotions in favor of logic. Having said all of that, the accusations will stand against him for all time, I suppose. Far better is to ask oneself, without even reading Weininger, questions such as: What is logic? What is thought? and how does it in arise in humans, whether male or female? It'd be nice to hear Spaceballs, who posted the quote, and to hear his interpretation, since he even went so far as to make Otto his avatar.

I can find no evidence that he came to "hate and fear" women. His reputation has been attacked by rival academics in order to obscure the brilliance of his work. His book is about understanding how thought arises in consciousness, and by necessity, how biological men and women are of intermediate forms, or contain qualities of both genders, and how this affects thinking. His primary foundation for how clear thinking occurs in all biological humans, both men and women, in his main argument is the Law of Identity of Logic: A = A If you look at the links in my above post, you will find more info on Weininger.

You've committed the Genetic Fallacy and the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. His work, such as it is, should stand on its own merit and logic.

Yes, I have read it. I highly recommend the 2006 translation, which is still available from the US publisher, I believe. The older translations are available from free on Google Books. It is a brilliant book and quite remarkable, I highly recommend it. Here is a website of Otto Weininger's writings, with links, of brilliant material from this young (but wise) mind. http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/ Here is an online resource, the Preface to the book: http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Weininger,Otto/sexchar/000_pref.html

I find it amusing that Danes are meeting on this board by writing in English instead of Danish! I did have a girlfriend from East Germany and all of the German international students often spoke in English. I'll look up to see if there are multiple native languages in Denmark (thus encouraging the use of English). I do appreciate the multi-lingual effort, but did find it amusing. All kidding aside, best of luck testing out new relationship skills!

I met a nice man who speaks English and Danish and has lived in Denmark and Switzerland. He's on this board. If you want I can point him to your post. I think not living in the same area is tough on a relationship but if you meet more people throughout Europe on this board you can "network" and socialize to meet someone suitable through friends.

Fantastic breakdown on the article, ChristopherScience. Just a quick thanks for the read. Your arguments are very sound. Good luck to you in your "own" MGTOW.

I'm in Austin. It's easy to get around here and meet.