Frosty

I think you'll find if you survey atheists that the predominant reason for their lack of belief in the existence of god is exactly the same as it is for lack of belief in anything else, namely the lack of evidence to support the proposition. This may or may not correlate with things such as abusive or absent fathers, you've not cited any published and peer reviewed evidence for this so I can't comment on that. However even if we hypothetically accept this as true for the sake of argument, it wouldn't alter the validity of the claim of gods existence. The source of the atheism doesn't invalidate the truth value of the claim, evidence is what we use to ascertain the truth value of the claim, anything that's not evidence is just misdirection. Given notjams posting history, I'm relatively sure we're dealing with a subtle troll here, is trolling allowed on the FDR forums?

They can't. Evolution is a scientific theory which explains the diversity and complexity of life, and atheism is a lack of belief with regards to gods existence. Neither of these things are in any way tied to morality, if you think they are then you don't understand either of them. It has not been demonstrated that objective morality necessarily requires a law giver, many of us who follow FDR believe in an objective morality which is reasoned from philosophical first principles like the NAP (Non aggression Principle) from which you can make valid and logical arguments regarding what kind of behaviour is morally bad. Time + chance + matter is what creates self aware creatures with the ability to reason, which is prerequisite for coming up with abstract ideas such as morality, the same applies for lots of other things. Maths doesn't exist in the universe outside of minds to contemplate maths, but when creatures become smart enough they can discover or create something abstract which is also objective. You've given the game away I'm afraid, the only people who make a distinction of micro and macro evolution aren't actually scientists, they're creationists. The theory of evolution that species evolve and change as they evolve due to mutations and natural selection doesn't actually distinguish between these things, which means that you don't actually understand the theory of evolution. Using terms like faith based church in a debate against atheists is actually where I draw the line and suspect that you're simply trolling, if you're not then you've been severely indoctrinated into faith based beliefs and you lack the critical thinking and intellectual rigour to differentiate between real science backed with evidence, testability and reproducibility, and that of pseudo-science that comes out of creationists which has none of those things.

I think what matters though is what is desired and preferential from the eyes of the kind of women you ideally want to be with in the long run, in this instance I was talking about the so called "unicorns" who are virtuous. Women love reading the 50 shades of grey trash are indulging in fantasy because that appeals to them emotionally, most of them will never go on to live that kind of pseudo-rape fantasy. However I'll be the first to admit that I honestly don't know what would go through the mind of a unicorn woman, if I ever meet one I'll be sure to ask them about how they see sexual promiscuity in men. I suspect it wouldn't be seen in a particularly positive light, promiscuity seems to go against the grain of long term stable monogamous relationships, a lot of women who are looking to settle down and have a serious relationship seem to announce ahead of time that they're not looking for players and PUAs and alike, I read this all the time in dating profiles of women who are looking for something more serious.

I might read up on some material by Blanchard, the more I read up on the topic the more nuance I find in the whole topic, as I mentioned before I think that there is some distinct differences in both the biology and mentality of some transgender people which goes some way to explaining why some live very normal and happy lives, and others go on to take their own life. One thing I'm also in alignment with regrading the post quoted from the RooshV forum is that the SJW movement is extremely anti-scientific and generally run on emotions and not logic.

Don't create a false dichotomy, it's plausible that even if you had things going on in your life that you look forward to, you may still miss elements of being that age.

While it's sometimes true, I don't think it's an effective way of arguing a point. If you've made a valid claim which has valid premises and valid inferences and thus must have a valid conclusion and someone rejects it then you focus on what they've rejected as a means to settle the debate. I'm fairly sure that I've never seen anything good come out of "I'm smarter than you" as an argument.

Un-noticed by who? If it's good science then I'm always interested to review it and learn from it. Anyway I'm still not 100% on my position with regards to some of these ideas, I think I stated up front early on in this thread that I'm still trying to form what I consider an informed opinion, and I'm not there yet, the science helps a lot though, it grounds the discussion in reality and makes things a bit more objective.

I've pondered this some more. Is gender subjective? Well your experience of your own gender identity sure is, but I'm pretty sure that you can measure it in some approximate way with respect to that of your society and culture. My casual understanding of gender at this point is not biological sex but rather behavioural patterns which are normally associated with your biological sex, so absent any kind of physical disability, illness, mental issues or conditioning, biological males tend to behave in masculine ways and biological females tend to behave in feminine ways. For example males tend to have more aggressive play behaviour, they favour physical conflict, females are more empathetic and interested in helping people, males tend to prefer systems they can build/manipulate. Like most human behaviour it exists on a continuum, I'm wary of arguments of binary words describing a continuum, I think these things are approximations and it's a failure of language and our ability to objectively measure that cause the confusion, rather than the idea being wrong to start with. So people can be masculine or feminine to different degrees, the same way that wet and not wet (dry) are also not binary, there's degrees of being wet but we can say that something is very wet in the same casual way we could say that someone is very feminine. There is a lot of evidence that shows that both gender and even sexual preference are rooted in biology, there's markers in our physical biology, in the structure of the brain and certain other markers such as ratio of the 2nd and 4th finger length that correspond to testosterone exposure, testosterone is what takes a female foetus which we're all born as, and turns that into a male. When we observe differences in gender both in the subjective experience which is portrayed by transgender people but also in the observed behavioural patterns they correlate very well with biological differences, so for example women who show biological signs of testosterone over exposure will have a gender identity which closer matches masculine traits rather than feminine, they're more likely to be interested in STEM fields, be interested in systems, do work as engineers rather than work with people as nurses or carers. As long as transgender and cisgender just mean your gender identity mismatch or match from your biological sex, I don't really have a problem with that. There's some issues with regards to being able to measure this on an objective scale and where exactly we draw the line between when someone is transgender or cisgender, but this is not the only valid idea that suffers this issue, it doesn't invalidate idea.

I've seen a few of his requests for donations as somewhat heavy handed, I think saying things like it's the "right thing to do" suggests that it's somehow the morally correct thing to do and so not doing it would not be moral. Maybe there's an issue of ambiguity with respect to the word "right" in this context, I'm not sure. My general rule of thumb is that if I feel someone is trying to pressure me to donate to something then I do the opposite and withhold a donation that I might otherwise give, and that's probably the case with FDR. I won't donate with appeals to it being the "right" thing to do. Donations are supposed to be voluntary and when I donate to anything I want to know that I made the conscious choice to make that donation and not that I was in any way manipulated into it, I've seen stef make appeals to emotion like this before "c'mon you know you'll feel better if you donate" etc.

This comes down to a lack of understand of trans people I think, there's a much bigger and better thread in the gender forum about this which has a lot of interesting information. There is a lot of scientific evidence that points to issues of both gender and sex being independent, typically they match and male sex matchces with masculine traits and female sex matches with feminine traits, however they can be mismatched due to biological differences that occur normally during early foetal development. Transgenderism isn't a choice and it's not a delusion and it's not normally due to psychological issues (although it can be), it's based in biological reality, although it may cause a level of mental suffering in a person who is trying to cope with mismatched biology and external stresses of society. If you're struggling to understand transgenderism then you're probably conflating biological sex (X/Y chromosomes) with gender identity. In short gender isn't something you can objectively derive, femininity and masculinity are a spectrum and are expressions of specific type of mind that is typical to males and females, so it's perfectly logical and coherent that people with biological traits closer to that of the opposite sex would have a gender identity to that close of the opposite sex. Race is loosely a distinction made in biology based on your genetic line and the biological traits it gives you, there's no logical sense in which you can identify as something which is objectively derived such as race. This Rachel Dolezal woman is clearly a bit mental, in fact you can kinda tell just from the look of her that she's a bit mental, it's hard to quantify but it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. She's just jumping on the bandwaggon of SJWs who are either mentally ill or just smart enough to cause a controvosy to make some money off.

Feminist rhetoric is primarily based on feelings and emotion, not rationality and logic. Many of them believe that things such as oppression, bullying and even rape are things which are true if you feel like they are true, which is why when you try and have a discussion with a feminist about rape and you say that rape has a specific definition and that altercations between people can be objectively classified as rape or not, you'll be accused of being a rape supporter and part of rape culture - this essentially using social pressure to silence people. These are people who feel entitled to control the freedoms of other people in order to protect their own fragile mental state, it's this behaviour that leads to us being able to silence applause and swap it out with Jazzhands. It doesn't help that such groups and ideologies attract people who have been physically or mentally abused as these people typically have much higher mental sensitivity and so require greater restriction of other peoples personal freedoms in order to operate in society.

Yeah that's interesting and confirms much of what I believe about homosexuality and transgederism, it's good to have some science behind it. I don't think any of that contradicts what I've said though.

I think this reveals some of the truth behind the situation. I'd argue that women tend to behave like this more than men, there's a really fantastic blogger/vlogger called Karen Straughan AKA GirlWriteWhat, who Stefan has had discussions with in the past. She admits up front that one of her more valuable assets as a blogger about gender issues is that she can talk about the problems of women without taking it personally. So she can discuss something like hypergamy calmly and not take it as a slight against her personally. She definitely comes across as a woman with a very male brain so this doesn't surprise me really. I guess a lot of this is down to biology, women hold all the cards when it comes to sexual reproduction and basically when it comes to relationships, eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap and this forms the basis of almost all human sexual and intimate interaction, multiple men proposition women and women get to pick between her suitors, the situation is asymmetric. Because of this women to some degree can get away with more, they can be a little bit crazy and emotionally volatile and essentially get away with it because, and I'm sorry to be crass, guys still want to fuck them. Bill Burr did a fantastic bit of standup on this which immediately rings true to certainly all men but I think most women - you can see it here and the audiences reaction is striking, there's plenty of women cheering at that, we all know its true to some degree - It's really the same thing with all bioloigically driven behaviours, you just have to have self knowledge that you have that predisposition and then be actively on the lookout for your own reactions and be able to curb them before they happen, it's something that takes mental effort to maintain. Men have similar analogues, wanting to sleep with everything that moves, even when you know the woman is crazy it's tempting to just ignore the possible consequences, men tell each other "don't stick your dick in crazy" but a lot of us still do it from time to time, I'm guilty of that. Both sexes have things to work on in order to improve the relationships between men and women and in some respect men are complicit in female behaviour because generally speaking people can only get away with what other people allow them to, if men started rejecting all crazy women then there'd be a dramatic decrease in crazy. Unfortunately it seems like today we're going the opposite way, we have a lot of feminists and SJWs who are starting to really seriously police what people can do or even say in fear that it will upset or trigger someone, we're not even allowed to appluad any more, we have to do jazzhands, it's ridiculous. Having women with self knowledge and who make an effort to buck the trend is really refreshing to hear, I think it's great you acknowledged this and you're working on it, you'll get nothing but benefit from doing so.

To be interest in, and to be able to follow more complex arguments. I don't know that philosophy is necessary to behave virtuously, you can arrive at that position through other means, you can have smart parents who raise you to behave in virtuous ways even if you don't have a grasp of why it should be the case, you might also get that behaviour in part from other dogmatic sources like the bible where some parts (certainly not all) have moral content, like thou shalt not kill/steal etc. With respect to the imbalance, the standard deviation of IQ about the mean for men and women put a higher percentage of men into the above average spectrum, lets say the 120+ region, but that difference isn't what we see on something like the FDR forums, in the meet ups, in more cerebral topics like hard science, atheism, philosophy, economics and things of that nature, there's something more widening that gap. The imbalance probably is permanent, there's a lot of SJWs that think the imbalance stems from hostile environments and social factors, but there's good evidence to show that the more free men and women are to pick their interests and careers the more unbalanced they become. It's unfortunate when you're looking for women with similar interests or you're looking for someone who might be into anarchism and libertarianism for rational reasons, but I don't know that I'd call it a problem. It's women's nature likes its man's nature to kill things to defend the tribe and sleep with as many women as possible to spread his genes about, I've seen similar arguments like this that men are capable of overcoming their nature but women aren't, I don't buy that, but certainly that in many ways men have a head start and that's just from lucky biology. To abandon something is to suggest that you're taking some kind of active action or have some moral obligation and then ceasing that, I have no such moral obligation to women and so in no sense can I abandon them. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that MGTOW is courageous and I certainly don't maintain that position, it's pretty much about as morally neutral as you can get. It's a personal philosophy of using rational and evidence based world view to opt out of systems which are toxic to men and to reject peer pressure to behave against your self interest, you're kind of skirting around this behaviour yourself by apply a level of social shaming by claiming how MGTOW isn't courageous - a lesser man might fold to that pressure to be seen as couageous by his peers and rush to save some damsel, but I won't. I don't know in what way MGTOW is a fantasy, I live life as a MGTOW quite happily and have done for a number of years now, I'm of the belief that I have a relatively good understanding of women now, I have a decent grasp on biology and evolution and some psychology, it's very much a red pill perspective, I certainly understand why most of the PUA tactics work. Women absolutely won't "love" me, everything about their biology drives them directly away from MGTOWs, in fact most women's natural reaction to MGTOWs is very real disgust, that kind of disinterest in women and abandonment of gynocentrism is a massive threat to womens power and they recoil against it quite strongly in general. Better for who? At the expense of who? I don't consider that better for me and so I'm not very motivated to take that path I'm afraid.

What I'm trying to say is: 1) IQ is necessary but not sufficient to be interested in philosophical ideas, there are other factors such as you also need to be naturally curious, intrigued, or convinced by someone you trust that there's significant benefit to putting the effort into understanding philosophy. Anecdotal experience tells me it seems to bore a large percentage of people to tears and more so women than men, less so because of IQ disparity both of the average and of the standard deviation giving us more high IQ men than women, but probably some other bioloigical component too. Statistically the differences between men/women in something like FDR community is bigger than IQ differences alone can account for. 2) I don't like talking about virtue quite as black and white as that but I would say that you're less virtuous if you're shit testing, for 2 primary reasons, first of all you're being manipulative and rude/abrasive instead of being forthright and honest, and 2nd of all if you're shit testing the odds are that it's subconsciously because you're testing for a quality which you will likely later abuse to your own benefit at the expense of someone else. 3) Sure, if someone ceases behaviour which detracts from their virtues then it's fair to consider that person more virtuous, I don't think people are damned by single actions, showing growth/change is important to recognize.

I think the conclusion is really just what I arrived at eventually myself then. There is only privacy when either: 1) You explicitly negotiate privacy in a contract with a specific party. 2) You build a system that requires a violation of the NAP in order to breach privacy. In the 2nd case which is the more general case, since you don't have contracts regarding privacy with the vast majority of people on earth, this is how most of our privacy comes about. Unfortunately with the 2nd case sometimes information isn't protected by the NAP, but rather through obscuring the information in some way that makes it hard or impossible to break, in these cases privacy comes from things like strong encryption but its vulnerable to being broken under certain circumstances. In the case of passive interception attacks on wireless networks I believe this to hold true, there is no aggression committed here. MITM attacks could reasonably be seen as fraud and so in violation of the NAP.

This is bad critique, most points I've found flaws with but I'm just going to address the first few because I don't want to waste too much time on this. 1) NAP doesn't assume non-aggression as a primary objective, this is a badly worded mess, the NAP is a principle which cannot make assumptions, people make assumptions. NAP is a principle reasoned from logic. It doesn't condemn aggression it condems the initiation of aggression, so point 1 is basically invalid. 2) NAP doesn't claim to tell you what valid options to take, this is simply outside the scope of the principle, it can only tell you whether an action is moral or not. This is like saying that the Newtonian laws of motion don't explain quantum behaviour, it's simply beyond the scope of the law to describe this. Just because you believe another moral system gives you more specific guidance on how to behave doesn't make the NAP invalid. 3) NAP allows for the response of force sufficient to stop aggression against yourself up to an including killing someone, the proportion of aggression depends on the proportion that's being used against you. Most self defence law already takes this into account because people understand in a very general way what is an appropriate amount of force. 4) NAP isn't a full set of rules for all moral behaviour, so this point is irrelevant, principles are fundamental truths from which we build more complex ideas from, morality is not completely constructed from just the NAP, there are other reasons outside of the NAP to consider not feeding a child as immoral. 5) This is wrong, the duration of the self defence is simple, it's sustain as long as there's aggression towards you, because it's the initiation of force that is immoral. If someone ceases force against you and then you attack them that is the initiation of aggression. 6) NAP is a principle for working out the morality of an action, to be valid it doesn't need to stop all aggression between people, it's not a law enforced by a state which has a record of working or not, it's just a moral principle, again you completely lack any understanding of the scope of the NAP. 7) This is where I stop, you might as well be trolling at this point. Basically you don't understand the NAP and should probably research it before trying to critique it. Understand that it has scope and that just because it can't tell you to buy a hamster or a pigeon to have as a pet doesn't make it invalid. It's either a valid principle or it isn't, it's reasoned using logic and critiques should be demonstrating why that logic is faulty, the rest of this mess isn't an argument for anything. As someone else pointed out, you clearly have another agenda and the NAP stands in your way for justifying your own brand of morality, you're attacking the NAP out of necessity which is why the rebuttals are erroneous. Approaching the NAP from a consequentialist point of view doesn't result in valid universal principles.

There's no clear violation of the NAP here, the relationship between google as a business and its customers is purely voluntary.

OK so I'm listening to the show and got past the 2nd woman (the date) and feel like I should comment before I start forgetting things. I think the argument can be made that being playful when it's obvious to someone who is smart (with an estimated 130 IQ) and is capable of understanding subtext and reading between the lines, is something that will help you create sexual attraction in some women and it could be reasonably considered to not be a violation of the NAP. I think in the case of someone at Mcdonalds close to 30 that's just straight out manipulation, I understand that was just practice but as Stef pointed out, the obvious disparity in intelligence there doesn't really tell you much about your own progress at PUA, it's the age old tactic of if you want to get better at something you need to practice against people who are on your level or preferably better. With regards to the 2nd woman on the date, this kind of playful jousting with each other with the deliberate negging and put downs is basically just the reasonably well understood shit test and seeing if you can respond to that by maintaining frame instead of getting upset means that you're in control of your emotional response and get to choose how outwardly display your response. This gives her sense that you can provide her with a solid emotional foundation of support in a potential future relationship, this allows women to indulge in their emotional side which seems to be something they enjoy doing, having that drama roller-coaster being angry/happy and always have the man as a solid rock so the relationship doesn't fall apart quickly. Or put a more simply, women giving out shit tests are testing suitability for them to continue to do that in future. If you learn to pass shit tests by intellectually understanding them and moderating your response, as you said by choosing to respond one way rather than another, then all you're doing is learning to appear more attractive to women who want to use you as an emotional punching bag, these aren't very virtuous women. So again while I understand a lot of the PUA tactics and theory, I still don't see that anyone has made the argument that it's useful for finding virtuous women. Being able to play games isn't virtuous, emotionally beating on others with shit tests isn't virtuous and it's certainly not virtuous on your part to implicitly lie by taking something which is rude and pretending like it doesn't bother you. Virtuous women will be looking for virtuous men and virtuous traits like honesty, friendliness, acceptance, commitment, and probably most of all empathy. PUA tactics in the main fail most of these basic virtues many include manipulation especially of biological triggers, that implies a level of dishonesty. So my point still remains that PUA is good if you simply want to pump and dump women for sex or casual short term relationships, but for finding quality women it's not just an inappropriate tactic but it might actually hold you back in finding a long term stable relationship. If a woman who is both virtuous and also reasonably smart, she's going to understand the manipulations, PUA isn't some secret it's known well enough that women discuss it and some women actively try and avoid men who use it. Stefan formalized that a lot better with the K/R type reproductive strategies, there is a lot of evolutionary biology at play here and in some sense both men and women are trying to fight those natural urges, for women to be hypergamous and as men to not stick our dicks into everything that moves, in order to have something more meaningful and longer lasting. My primary issue with all this is that at least in my own anecdotal experience there isn't many virtuous women interested in philosophy and understanding their own biology and trying to be better, not just in real life with people I know at work and in my personal life, but even in the FDR community itself. I'd be interested to see if the admins of FDR can do a count of the forum database and see how many people register as Male, how many as female and how many who don't pick.

Women have a monopoly on sex because of biological programming guiding their behaviour to be reserved, cautious and selective. The hypergamy of women evolved because it benefited the spread of the genes to be selective for mates which could provide/protect, men who were good provider/protectors got to mate and pass on their genes so men are predisposed to take pay over the odds to breed and pass on their genes. The problem is that our environment changed relatively fast (in evolutionary time scales) and our biology hasn't caught up since genetic changes are normally quite slow, so we have these biological predispositions left over. We no longer have the stress of our environment selecting our genes because as intelligent beings we've managed to control the environment and everyone is basically provided for no matter how their genes turn out or really how they behave. So we have Collusion wouldn't work in the free market as sustaining collusion requires everyone to participate, and not everyone will there's just too much variance in people and their behaviour. Womens general bias for a lack of interest in philosophy and other similar intellectual pursuits is likely just biological as well, this sort of stuff just doesn't interest and stimulate women in the same way it does men, in the main they much prefer emotional experience over intellectual satisfaction. A lot of that is to do with testosterone I think, an over exposure for anyone during foetal development including women is what creates a stronger preference for systems compared to people and compels things like STEM study, womens lack of testosterone leaves them desiring more empathetic pursuits, dealing with and helping people, that's why they tend to be care workers, nurses and things like that. We're just wired differently despite what the SJWs and feminists would have us believe.

No, I'm not trying to have it both ways. You asked if it was my preference and I answered, yes it's my personal preference because I have a preference at this point in my life to seek virtuous women (if any women at all), however that was not always the case, at other points in my life I cared less about virtue and simply was interested in friends with benefits type of relationships, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion, as long as you're honest about your intentions. You're attempting to tie these two things together and they're not related strongly in that way, the kind of thing you seek out doesn't necessarily reflect your own virtue, HOW you go about getting what you want is what reflects your own virtue. If you want someone who isn't interested in virtue in her partner then that's fine that itself doesn't make you morally inferior, but if you're manipulating people using the more heavy handed PUA tactics then hell yes that's immoral, I think it has been established now that some strong PUA tactics are violations of the NAP. You've incorrectly extrapolated my argument to things like "deserving of happiness", I of course never said such a thing and quite frankly I'm more than a little frustrated you're representing it this way, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I've made it quite clear that some PUAs are moral and some are immoral, I don't need to have studied all the moral tactics to make the claim that some PUA tactics are immoral. I've started listening to the linked show but your section must be further in and I haven't got to it yet, I will do when I have time and probably comment. Given what you written there are plenty of conversations between people who are sexually interested in each other which require reading through the lines and teasing out if you're both on the same page with the double meaning, it's often done as playfulness. If you have a fairly strong reason to believe that you're both being playful and there is a level of subtext (which is something you can reasonably test in conversation) then we can consider the manipulation or the game at play to be consensual. But there's also a number of other things we've already covered which are clearly not acceptable such as outright lies and more insidious forms of manipulation. So we can say with some confidence that there is some things we can take from PUA which are good and some which are bad, you don't need to study PUA in great depth to understand that. For the record I'm not anti-PUA, I'm just of the opinion that the NAP is valid and that some PUA tactics are in violation of the NAP. That the rest of the tactics are fine morally speaking but will probably lead you to find people who are less interested in virtue because people more interested in virtue will probably recoil against them rather than be manipulated by them. Basically use the right tool for the job, if you're after someone who is themselves interested in virtue, then just be yourself, don't try and manipulate the situation, be honest and forthright.

With respect to the response about mentality I'm saying that it's my personal reaction to that specific circumstance but I would also argue that these warning signs are the kind of things that people would look for if they're after a virtuous partners. If you're not concerned with this then you probably not after someone terribly virtuous, which is why I've said in the past that PUA is good for picking up specific types of women but more virtuous women with self knowledge are likely to be aware of these tactics and see them as off putting. With respect to explicit lies in some PUA tactics it remains my argument that these are fraud and hence immoral by the standards of the NAP and UPB. I just want to clarify I'm talking about 2 different things in the same post, I'm talking about some PUA actions being immoral and in addition I'm talking about PUAs tactics not being appropriate when looking for virtuous women (people, really), I think Stefan has made that point in past videos, that a virtuous woman is going to have a bit of self knowledge and she's going to avoid the obvious players.

It's not fraud in that case because the example you gave doesn't have an explicit lie in it therefore can't be fraud and can't be immoral. If the prior depression in this example is supposed to be the thing being hidden then it would be fraud if you were directly asked if you had a good childhood and you lied and said yes when in fact you know you didn't. If the other person fell in love with you or an aspect of you which they had made assumptions about such that your childhood was good then that's their erroneous assumption. I'm genuinely unsure why you're asking this hypothetical, but it gives me the impression of what I was talking about before, where virtuous people would be cautious about how they represent themselves and wouldn't look for opportunities to gain that edge, where it seems like some people (maybe or maybe not yourself) which look to push that boundary, if you need to ever inquire about where the line is then you're looking to walk it as finely as possible? I don't know - that's not an accusation by the way. Put into a hypothetical reverse station to illustrate a point, if you were a female interested in me, but we got into a discussion about some virtue like what kinds of actions are considered cheating, is having sex with another person cheating? What about flirting with them? What about touching their arm a little, what about a cheeky wink, getting more and more gentle until we tease out that line of appropriateness...that would SCREAM alarm bells to me that you likely want to misbehave and want to know where that line is so you can walk it, where as I'm more interested in a woman who is going to be faithful to an arbitrarily high degree and consider all those things as inappropriate. To me this would be a bad indicator of faithfulness and in turn be a bad indicator of virtue in general, so I'm wary of this behaviour. I hope that analogy made sense, and again I genuinely don't know why you framed that hypothetical, I don't know if it's for clarity on what I'm saying or to try and tease out the line of where PUA might be fraudulent or not, if it's form then I guess that was all redundant, but I think it illustrates my point.

I don't think women need me, or any man, there's many independent women out there today but I just don't think they're very happy in that position, statistically men do just fine outside of relationships where as happiness in women has been steadily declining for decades. I never said they're not biologically fit nor socially fit to learn things on their own that is a pretty severe misrepresentation of what I said, I'm saying that young people are dumb (men and women equally) and women naturally get all their SMV early in one large lump sum, where men generally have to earn that over decades of hard work. That's just a biological reality which puts women at an advantage early on by getting all that stuff for free but it has 2 downsides, firstly they're the dumbest they're every going to be at that age, and secondly it's a jackpot with a timer on it and at 30 it's going away fast. I've reached a position in life (I keep referring to this as easy mode) where income is way higher than I need, I have stability and future prospects, I'm only set to increase in SMV over time as I get more confident and more wealthy and have more self knowledge, and the more life is good the more I'm weary about selecting modern women into that who represent a bad deal at best and financial and legal liability at worst. As the SMVs cross women leave the realm of holding all cards in the relationship to the opposite being true, men statistically with more resources and stability and women with a biological clock and a penchant for wanting to avoid becoming the unmarried cat lady. As that balance of power tips I find myself less interested in the women who wasted their 20's, if they don't know basic philosophy by now and have some self knowledge then they probably wont ever have it, it's not my job to teach them that. I don't know what "nero with a fiddle" means so I can't comment on that.

Outside of pre-existing mental issues, I don't buy this. Lots of people are treated badly in society for a huge array of different reasons, yes it's a very bad thing this happens but most people don't kill themselves over it and a lot of those people use practical strategies to end bullying by conforming in ways they'd prefer not to. I was bullied as a kid at school for a long time for no real other reason than I was new in an area and kids were tough on new kids, that was physically being attacked and verbally abused almost daily, you just adjust to fit in, I saw this in many other kids as well, especially the more niche groups such as the nerds (back then isn't what it's like now). Yet we have plenty of trans people who do not need to transition and do not kill themselves yet they undergo roughly same amount of peer pressure from religious groups and transphobes etc, so that doesn't really make any sense. Again I think this comes down to psychological issues with some trans people and separating out and acknowledging that we're talking about 2 different things here which aren't mutually exclusive, which is biologically having a brain similar to the other sex and also in addition to that having some kind of psychological issues possibly caused or related to this mis-match. There's something distinctly different between someone who's born with a different brain and shrugs it off as simply "well this is a problem but lets deal with it practically" and "I need to mutilate my own body in order to stop this perpetual bad feeling". There really isn't a lot of correlation there, the people who go through sex changes aren't doing it to get more acceptance from everyone else, if anything presenting as the opposite sex just draws more attention and more negativity from others, they're doing because they're in some kind of inner turmoil adn the hope is that physical changes will heal psychological issues. The vast majority of post-ops are obviously not the sex they're trying to present as and that draws way more attention from someone who basically just presents as their biological sex. If memory serves the suicide rate of post-ops is somewhat higher than those who haven't transitioned, I don't think anyone but the most out of touch with reality would have expectations that interactions with the rest of society is going to be easier post-op, it vastly increases your exposure, will likely alienate you from friends, there will be hiring biases, massively shrunken dating pool, etc.