Frosty

I don't have anything against having fun, I did that throughout my 20's, ultimately you kinda get bored of that, and there's also risk factors unless you're friends for a long time and know the person well. Also consider how the unicorn might view your past actions of sleeping around and not really taking any of it seriously. This is the flip side of the coin, finding a unicorn is hard enough by any reasonable standards I don't realistically expect i'll ever meet one, but you also have to consider that they have to be attracted to you, and what that kind of person might be attracted to. Combine the 2 things and it's a perfect storm for it basically never happening. I certainly have no realistic expectations of meeting someone like that, as I've said before I think those kinds of women are rare because the normal biological traits for women aren't conducive to them learning philosophy and embrace critical thinking etc - it's certainly not that they cannot, it's merely that they don't seem interested or stimulated by it, like I'm not stimulated by pretty looking shoes. In some sense the perfect woman is a man, most of the women who have come close(ish) to this in the past by at the very least sharing more interesting hobbies (working with computers, atheists, gamers, interested in science etc) have been these women who very obviously have that "male brain" they have next to no female friends and generally dislike female behaviour, tend to work in more technical fields, study STEM etc. This is an important factor. Women get all of their SMV right as they enter into the sexual marketplace around the age of 16, this makes them simultaneously the highest value they'll ever be but the least educated or experienced. As they gain experience and some self knowledge they age and lose SMV, by the time they're making more sensible decisions "no more dating the bad boys, I've learned my lesson, time to settle down" is a phrase you'll hear a lot, their SMV has dropped significantly not only are they likely to be post-wall but also the chance of healthy child bearing is going down as well. Quick rant regarding that: It's frustrating being a young man and having all these high value women strutting around, it's difficult seeing these people who have a lot of value, not because they worked hard at something, it was kind of inherited, or a bit like winning the genetic lottery. But I've noticed as I've entered my 30's that life as a man is now easy mode, good career, head of IT, lots of spending cash (I just dumped a load of cash last week on my first 4k monitor and a new 9.1 surround sound home theatre - woohoo) life is super stress free as a bachelor, work is going well and comforted by the almost certain fact that it'll only get better! Where as I see a lot of my female friends around me entering into their 30's unhappy, unfulfilled, a lot of them with degrees in psychology and other fluffy worthless things who are doing care jobs that kinda go no where, struggle to earn a decent living a lot of them are mid to late 20's and still living at home or with a flatmate. A lot of them are bored of the partying from their 20's and remain generally unstimulated because they don't have any hobbies or interests. It's funny reading utterly shallow profiles on dating sites for women who's "interests" are things like Tattoos?! Muscles?! Shoes and shopping. How the fucking are tattoos interesting, they're completely shallow things to talk about. I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say what I'm really thinking; women are fucking crap, haha. And now I'm at the age where their diminishing SMV is passing my increasing SMV I wan't to have less and less to do with them.

The free market providing people with what they want, there's obviously some demand for this, that's likely down to the fact that throughout our genetic history only a small number of men went on to reproduce while most women did. There's an imbalance where lower value men find it hard to achieve the kind of sexual relationships they'd like in part due to women being sexually selective and hypergamy pushing them to always trade up for higher status males. It's niche right now which is mostly due to price I'd guess, but it's an immature technology with little in the way of competition, give it 20 years and I bet this will be a lot more common, that and the much cheaper VR which is already starting to explode into the sex industry, there's some...shall we say, compelling...Oculus Rift demos

Oh god avoid sandman at all costs, I'm a MGTOW and to me it's obvious he's cashed in on this just to make a buck from subs and adverts. He pumps out huge amounts of really awful content, if you're interested in MGTOW from a more intellectual point of view then I'd highly recommend TheThinkingApe (AKA Stardusk) here as well as Barbarossa here. I listen to a lot of science and educational stuff on youtube which I think is the best starting point for a world view. Vsauce - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6nSFpj9HTCZ5t-N3Rm3-HA Veritasium - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA Smarter Every Day - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6107grRI4m0o2-emgoDnAA Potholer - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ Numberphile - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoxcjq-8xIDTYp3uz647V5A MinuteEarth - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeiYXex_fwgYDonaTcSIk6w Of course Karen Straughan on mens rights, MGTOW and lots and lots of really great evolutionary biology roots of human behaviour - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg I also like Julie Borowski, she's a libertarian and does short punchy and funny videos - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzIjg5vIfBGcdyLWu6lhXxw I'm going to throw Gavin McInnes in here as well, he does a podcast show called Free Speech which is usually really funny, he's very red pill and somewhat of a libertarian, although certainly not as hard line as many, this is more for the comedy value because he absolutely cracks me up - http://www.dailymotion.com/user/Freespeechpodcast/1

I would step in here and say that I don't think the best way to deal with it is "to deal with it", I think the best and possibly only long term way to deal with it is to educate people to the immorality of the state which we do through discussion of philosophy. However there is somewhat of a false dichotomy occurring here, it's not either one or the other, doing both should be encouraged in my opinion. We suffer day to day with the violence of the state, and if we can lower the amount of violence by voting in certain people or policies which restore some freedoms and lift the violence, even a little, then that is an improvement. Meanwhile you can continue to educate people in philosophy and all that other good stuff. It's a sort of assumption that everyone voting either condones the violence or at least is ignorant to it, which is just false. Taxes are immoral but presumably you pay them? I'm not convinced that you're 100% acting on principle here, and no one can reasonably expected to. I struggle with the idea of contributing towards the violence of the state by voting, but it is a bit of a grey area because (as Stefan has done a video before) there is no morality in violent situations, we're voting under coercion and it's the same reason people pay taxes, under coercion there is no such thing as consent. So a good question would be, what would this look like? A slow ramp down of government over some period of time with the goal of eventually arriving at a voluntary/libertarian/anarchist society, benefits would slowly be reduced, regulation would probably be immediately reduced, taxes would go down, people relying on benefits would have the opportunity to find a suitable replacement. But isn't this basically what it would look like if we simply started voting in these things under the current scheme? I voted UKIP for the UK general election, they're not a completely libertarian party but they're a lot more capitalism/right leaning who are for smaller government, now I don't agree with all their policies but I think that the overall amount of violence with them in control would be down, they're aiming to decrease the interference of government in private lives, lower taxes and greatly strip government jobs, they're basically the only party expressing the willingness to decrease control. They grew from about 3% of the votes in 2010 to ~14% in 2015 which is a huge surge. I think it would be a positive accomplishment to get someone like UKIP in to power, lower government control and use the positive effect we all know that would have as evidence to further lower control and increase freedom. Or I could not vote and a huge number of other people instead and we could end up with more of the same or likely worse. While we're under the coercion of democracy I'll always cast a vote to lower violence, if all the votes are to increase it, that would be the time not to vote.

I've read UPB and near as I can tell it's a logical extension of the NAP, it's really just saying "this is an objective moral principle from which we can derive a range of non-acceptable behaviour" one of these behaviours is fraud. Women do often wear make-up, push up bra's and high heels etc, but these aren't explicit lies, they're still manipulative because they're done for effect, which in and of itself is probably not virtuous. But it's not a secret that these things are being used, it's generally speaking extremely obvious, there is no reasonable expectation that this is a natural representation of how she looks unless you ask her and her answer is dishonest, then we're in lie territory. There are plenty of PUA tactics that more or less fall under this category and I would call manipulative and hence not very virtuous, but I would not call them immoral, something like renting a nice car to arrive at a club to give the impression you're wealthier than you really are. That's manipulative but it's not an explicit lie, it works on the basis that the average person will assume its your car and that assumption is erroneous. However just like with the female example, if someone asks and you explicitly lie to cover yourself then this is back in to the fraudulent territory and immoral. I also think mentality is very telling, there is a clear difference between someone generally being honest in all their interactions, and someone who is constantly looking to manipulate to gain an edge. If I was on the receiving end of manipulation, whether or not it was considered immoral wouldn't really matter to me, just the mentality of that person to manipulate would be off putting enough.

My position on this continues to be that there is no obvious practical route to a peaceful world through the abstaining from voting, in the UK we get less people voting every year yet we're still cascading left/socialist. Instead I predict that it's more realistic that we'll get closer to what we want by voting for more libertarian leaning parties which aim to make small changes in the right direction, over long enough periods of time we slowly move towards liberty and less violence, but it has to be done in small baby steps. Meanwhile discussion of philosophy should be used to convince people peacefully as the primary tactic to swing votes . I don't think that a collapse of government and millions of dependent people being suddenly made vulnerable is a good thing, it would cause immeasurable harm, I draw analogies between this and my interest in atheism, given the chance would I press a button that got rid of religion? No, despite desperately wanting an atheist/agnostic society which values rationality I also don't want to kick out the crutch that many people lean on. Unfortunately you do have to deal with the issue that you're at least partially complicit in the violence of the state even if its just temporarily, I don't have a good response for that only to say that I think it's better to vote in someone who will use less force by exorcising my vote rather than deal with someone who will use more force by abstaining. There is part of my brain that is like the almost autistic part that wants to immediately stop all the violence of the state and dislikes the idea of being complicit in the force of voting, but then there's the practical side of my brain that gives me that compromise. A quick example, few libertarians like the idea of tax, yet the practical side of our brains tells us that paying the taxes and living with it is better than going to jail and that allows us to hold principles in our mind that are ideals but also allow us to operate in reality, I can't just let the more autistic part of my brain take over and guide my actions when there's every possibility that abstaining from voting may never achieve anything but voting might make a difference in the right direction, if I have to be complicit in the violence of the state for that then I don't like that but that's something I'm prepared to live with if we have a shot at a peaceful society in the long run.

There'e a long thread on transgenderism on the feminism/gender forum that you'd benefit from reading if you havn't already. There's good evidence by the way of brain scans that show there is clear and important differences between the male and female brain and that the brains of transgendered individuals more closely match that of the opposite sex than of their real sex, which goes some way to indicating that there is a biological component to this. The social construct of gender isn't arbitrary, men and womens brains behave in different ways and appreciate different things and so you'd expect aggregate social behaviours to differ between men and women in things like what they like to wear, how they behave, what they appreciate, how they like to decorate themselves etc. That is not to say that some transgendered people couldn't do with therapy, some absolutely could do. It's often accompanied by a wide array of mental problems like depression, body identity disorder, suicidal tendancies, etc, but I'd hazard a guess that being in that situation where your body is in some level of biological conflict should probably be considered some level of trauma to begin with. Some people deal with it better than others, there are transgender people who repsent as the opposite sex and then go on their lives pretty much without incident, there's a great interview between Gavin Mcinnes and Justine Tunney here http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ke4nq_free-speech-justine-tunney_fun The fact that many people express different levels of cross gender behaviour, everything from cross-dressing, from tomboy women and women with obviously very "male like" brains even down to self expressed transgendered people, who deal with things in a healthy and productive way and are happy. It leads me to suspect that there could be a certain level of trauma associated with the people who go under the knife and try and transition and only end up committing suicide anyway, that trauma may simply stem from the inherent bioloigical conflict or it may be external because of the treatment of others. I do liken the pressing/constant desire to transition physically such as having sexual reassignment surgery to be something very much like Xenomelia or phantom limb syndrome and I think those people probably do need therapy or some kind of mental help but that is not synonymous with transgenderism it seems and so I went into a lot of detail in that thread trying to divorce these ideas. We now know from long term studies that altering the body doesn't fix the underlying bioloigical issues in the brain and the psychological issues. But I also think that therapy alone for something that is potentially caused by a biological issue is at best treating symptoms and not the cause. I also can't discount the possibility that some of these cases may be brought about through childhood trauma, a brain scan of Bruce would go a long way to indicate if the condition is rooted in biology or not.

I think I made a good case in another thread that subset of PUA tactics are clearly fraudulent, such as outright lying, lying by omission and implicit lying/manipulation. For example the line "hey I'm just on the way back to my friends and I want to settle a bet..." which is an example of a line taken from PUA sources is used with the specific intent to settle the mind of the person you're approaching that you're not alone at the bar/club which comes across as creepy, even when you don't have friends with you, you're just out alone trying out PUA tactics. So this is unambiguously fraud, it's explicitly lying with the intent of personal gain which meets all common definitions of fraud, and of course fraud is commonly defined to be a violation of the NAP and hence immoral by that objective standard. We had a good discussion about that and no one in my view had posted a good rebuttal to it. Obviously there's many other PUA tactics which do not fit this category, but there is definitely some that do.

Effort has something to do with it I'm sure, but I find it completely implausible that it's more effort to read your posts and repeatedly down vote them than to simply put people on ignore which is a one time thing, it seems like the effort to downvote is there specifically to diminish opinions of that user to everyone else. The problem is some users don't want other people making that choice for them, the reason I made reference to democracy is that most of us probably understand the immorality of democracy, basically justifying the control of some people at the will of the majority, if the downvotes had no other effect than simply scoring people I probably wouldn't care, but the auto hiding of posts is a step too far in my opinion. It also doesn't really achieve the intended effect because in this case it's just making MMX double down on his position and the controversy has pronbably made it a bigger deal than it might have been otherwise (Streisand effect), which is the age old thing discussed on the show...if you use aggression to get what you want, you achieve the opposite.

Kevin contacted me via PM and we had several back and forth messages on this topic, but some time tonight all my PM/responses to him have disappeared from my account, this seems highly irregular, can anyone shed light on what is going on?

I would like to stress also that my reply above was not directed at Kevin, although it was in direct response to him. It's more of a broad dissatisfaction at the rating system in general and the kind of abuse it's prone to, given human nature. I don't have anything against Kevin specifically, I don't even know who is doing the majority of the up/down voting, all I know is that I don't find it helpful and I find it kind of intrusive when my experience on the forum is guided by the common vote, I don't need other people to tell me who should have their posts hidden, I'd like to make that decision myself. If the forum has to have this system it would be nice if it was opt in so I could opt out and view it through a less bias lens.

Yes absolutely, I've disagreed with MMX on a huge number of things and I understand that he's frustrating to debate with, but he makes me question my own position, consider new ideas, strengthen my own arguments and find nuance where previously I saw none, these are all productive things to me, whether we settle the debate at the end or not. I think the huge number of down votes are unwarranted, as an observer of what is going on it's extremely unhelpful because I now have pressure of social bias towards his ideas, I also have to keep un-hiding his posts which is annoying. I'd pefer that people dispassionately deal with each others arguments, if nothing else just for practicality, I don't see any value in the voting system quite honestly, it's not even clear what it's supposed to represent, nothing helpful quite frankly. It's strange to see that a board of people that presumably mostly support the NAP and libertarian ideals are using tools like this to diminish other peoples opinions, I'd much rather selectively hide his posts myself if I deem them unproductive in some way rather than there being some kind of pseudo-democracy on the forums, maybe the free market applies and I should just choose to post elsewhere?

I can't vouch for the others and may disagree with them on some points, no one else has really addressed my points directly, I think me and you at least share in common more nuanced understanding that potentially some actions are deceitful and others aren't, and I've conceded several times already that some PUA tactics aren't (by my understanding) violations of the NAP. So again representing this as "implying that PUA violates the NAP" is an over simplification of my point, it's becoming harder to believe with every response that this is a continued mistake on your part but rather a deliberate mis-characterization of my position for the sake of argument. In any case, the point we fundamentally seem to disagree on is that you're starting from a position that all actions are permissible unless they we can demonstrate that they're going to do harm. By demanding objective evidence in oreder prevent you from taking some action, you're flipping the burden of proof. Rather I would ask what reason do you believe the deceitfulness is welcomed in any given specific circumstance that verifies your actions are moral? If you could provide such evidence I would take no issue with this kind of PUA used in the context of the evidence. The actions of some women did. This doesn't really address my point that all its doing is creating a demand for women to create a counter PUA movement, maybe those women are older on average, anyway this is too sidetrakced from the main point and I'm shortening this reply down so won't comment futher. The whole point of the NAP and UPB is that it's universally true, these are objective views of morality where we're able to decide outside of interpretation whether something is moral or not. Now part of that decision relies on if the aggression is welcomed or not which brings us back to a moral ambiguity, does the person who you're being deceitful against consent to that deceit? Again your analysis that she's happy to see you etc, it's not based on the truth of the situation, it's predicated on a lie between you and her that you knowingly manipulated her in order to gain her interest, attention, trust, love, etc. Yeah, see this is what I expected given your behaviour, this kind of "I win the argument" because I remain unconvinced, predicated on the idea that you're infallible. This choice you're offering is a false dichotomy, it's not either come up with better argument or admit we have none, I think my current arguments stand unchallenged given your responses. You have not demonstrated that your actions are moral, at the moment it's an ambiguous situation where we don't have enough information because we can't see inside someone's head. Let's get something straight, your actions are fraudulent if you've lied or been deceitful using PUA, that much is certain, it's just a case of whether or not that fraud is welcomed or not as to whether it constitutes violation of the NAP. None of this is dependent on us being able to convince you of such, maybe a change in behaviour is dependent on convincing you, but the actual objective reality, the facts, are that it's fraudulent. Again this is why you're getting down voted. Try and extend an olive branch and admit that its an ambiguous situation given the lack of evidence either way and that you're knowingly risking violating the NAP by using these tactics when you don't know if they're welcomed or not. And no, it's not evidence they're welcomed when the truth is hidden from her.

Well there's no good sources of data for this I'm aware of but yes it's generally considered that not a lot of people have good self knowledge and knowledge of philosophy, and of those who do a small percentage of them are women. But this isn't an argument for anything, it's certainly not a good excuse for violating the NAP. I don't think you understood what I said, your reply doesn't make sense. I'm saying that as PUA continues to grow and more women are just used for sex then you can logically expect women who are fed up with bad relationships catching on to the tactics and learning to counter them. PUA grew through demand for sex and women have a demand for relationships and good potential providers if they're interested in LTR and children, the only logical conclusion in the long run is that as PUA grows there will be growing knowledge among women about PUAs, you only need to search the web and you'll find articles like this - http://jezebel.com/an-easy-guide-to-fending-off-pick-up-artists-521688391 No I'm not saying that PUA is fraud becuase it produces no strings attached sex, please do not put words in my mouth. I'm being very specific with my claim, I'm saying it's fraud because the tactics are deceitful and it leads to personal gain which is a good casual definition of fraud. No I cannot say (nor did I say) that you defrauded her when she rejects you for being a PUA, because for something to be fraud you have to have personal gain, you're merely being deceitful. You're trying to put a spin on what I'm saying and I don't really appreciate that, this is probably why you're getting downvoted so much, you've not addressed the core points of my discussion here and instead are clinging on to your prior beliefs and using ever more twisted logic to maintain the belief that it's somehow OK. No and neither can you, and that's the point. Some PUA tactics are dishonest and you have not acquired consent, thus you're engaging in risk taking behaviour where you risk aggressing against someone (by common interpretation of the NAP and fraud), the whole point is that your attitude is that because we can't know for sure then it's perfectly OK to try. This at the very least shows a lack of empathy for the people you're engaging with because you're willing to behave immorally in order for personal gain. If you had the best interests of the other person in mind then you wouldn't risk aggressing on them simply because you want to sleep with them, if you can reliable determine before hand that it's not aggression or you use PUA techniques that aren't fraudulent (as we've discussed) then that's fine. This is simply not true and now I'm beginning to see why people are downvoting you so much because this is not my argument and you know full well it's not because we've been over this. My argument is very simple and isn't based on gut feeling like you're trying to dismiss it on. It's conditional argument that says if you use dishonest PUA tactics and that leads to fraud where you get some personal gain then that is in breach of the NAP and isn't UPB. I've already discussed the potential avenues for me being wrong, or rather should I say that I've outlined the conditional parts of my argument quite clearly. I'm not universally condemning PUAs because I've already clearly stated the ways in which PUA could be done in a way which aligns with UPB. Not having direct evidence of harm is NOT the same as there being no harm, in a circumstance where your actions could plausibly (and I'd argue highly likely) lead to a violation of the NAP the path that shows empathy for the other people would be to take the cautious route and not engage in that behaviour. You apply this line of thinking to any other moral rules or situations and you end up with absurd results. I could shoot you in the head and then using this line of reasoning I could argue that "you might have wanted to die and might have consented to me killing you, we'll never know for sure because now you're dead and can't confirm one way or the other". We know that the action of me shooting you is plausibly (and very likely) violation of the NAP but there are circumstances that it may not be, such as you consenting to me killing you. This is directly analogous to the violation of the NAP that is occurring here. It should be obvious that if you have empathy for someone else that the line of action to take when you're not sure if they consent to something is to either abstain from the action which might plausibly be aggressive, or acquire consent in the first place. Your entire line of arguments and dismissal shows a predisposition that you lack empathy for the people you're picking up, which is worrying and probably in large part why people are down voting you on this issue. Ideally it would be nice if you changed your behaviour because we should all try and strive to avoid violating the NAP as much as possible, but that's not why I'm debating you, you seem unlikely to change your view. On a personal note it's obvious from observing the way in which you debate that you're not going to concede any of these points, the only reason I've debated with you is to allow you to play devils advocate against my own stance so I can be more sure of my position, and to hopefully either convince others you're wrong who are on the fence or strengthen beliefs of those who already agree with me, I believe I've done that. I'll reply to you one more time but only on the condition that you do not mis-represent my argument again, I'm not going to entertain a prolonged debate where you engage in sophistry to the point where no one wants to debate you any more.

Anecdotally I find this to be true. I'm Head of UK ICT for a medium sized business with offices in various different places including some in the US where we have a guy in a similar position as me but he's responsible for his office, he's constantly messing up and providing to be unreliable and his works spills over to me because I'm know as someone who can just get it done. Not only does he not suffer the consequences of needing to have some of his work handed to me, but I can also suffer consequences if I don't do his work to a higher degree of expectation. It seems like a fact of life, as you continue to produce good work, peoples expectations go up for you, you're judged relative to your prior successes and not by any kind of absolute scale.

It's worth being very careful and very precise about what we're saying here, because we're talking in generalities. Women don't make the rules by having sex with certain types of men, anyone can withhold sex and that's something as a MGTOW I do, now I have way less sex than most men I bet, but I still have sex and it's based on my rules. There is of course an asymmetry to how much and how frequent sex can occur when a women withholds, men have a higher sex drive on average and so there's a high demand from males and lower supply from females giving women higher value in the sexual market place, I don't think anyone would deny that, and you're right when you say you'll be out competed, that might just mean shooting for lower value women. But I'd argue that PUA is only good for picking up women who will be fooled by PUA, I'd also argue that women looking for virtuous men who don't lie and manipulate will probably have a good filter for PUA, some women are aware of PUA and know what to look for and it will just destroy your chances with them, ultimately the long term affects of PUA is to create an opposite womens interest to spot and weed out players which will only amplify this effect. I reject that in order to be fraud is has to have the same consequences, I don't know how you reasoned that. Fraud loosely defined, taken from google "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." You are being deceitful with many of the PUA tactics and it does result in personal gain by creating a situation where you acquire a womans interest with the intention of it leading to sex when it otherwise would not have. You seem to be locked into this way of thinking that as long as the outcome is perceived as good and the lie is never uncovered then it's OK, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I have already conceded that if you reveal the lie and the woman shows a positive response in being lied to and welcomes that lie because the consquences were positive for her, then that's possibly no fraud and not a violation of the NAP (I'd like to see others weigh in on this idea, is post-hoc consent OK?) It seems you did by any common definition of fraud, were you deceitful? Yes I think that's reasonable. Was it to personal gain? Again yes, I think that's reasonable. Yes it's entirely possible it was a game, that you both knew the score and she was testing you in some way to see if you had the guile and balls to follow through, that's entirely plausible and completely valid with regards to the NAP because any violations have to be unwelcomed. But the problem again is that you don't know that ahead of time, you cannot know that unless you actually get consent, and when you don't get consent you're taking a risk. I don't know what the percentage of women would respond positively to the admission of being manipulated but my gut says that it's not very high and that this is more of an excuse to use PUA by throwing up doubts that it's always in violation of the NAP. It's absolutely not 100% always in violation of the NAP for the 2 reasons we've discussed, but you have to differentiate these circumstances and make that effort in order to ensure you're behaving in a universally preferable way, there doesn't seem to be any effort by PUAs in this regards.

I only know a small subset of the PUA tactics but it seems to me that some of them are perfectly reasonable, a lot of these things just fall under good dating advice about working out, engaging in activities that raise confidence, dressing well and having some fashion sense. None of these could reasonably be considered in breach of the NAP. However there are some which obviously are, explicit lies and implicit lies come in many different forms and I maintain that these fall under fraud, you're right in taking a more nuanced look at the situation, it's not black and white and depends on a case by case basis and specific actions taken. I'd disagree with any kind of statistical analysis of whether people think certain actions are fraud or not, I think you can objectively determine that. One good rule of thumb that I'd probably go by is try to imagine what the reaction would be like if you disclosed your actual intent, so if you're negging a woman or feigning disinterest, how might she react if you were to just own up what you're consciously doing in hope for an expected positive response, that feeling of being manipulated I'd bet in many cases would be pretty unwelcome.

Yeah it's brutal, the attendance of women in these kinds of things is never good. I have lots of intellectual interests as well as hobbies, all of which are sausage fests, trying to find like minded women is really a case of chasing unicorns, some of us will get lucky but the majority of men will be left wanting, it's just a statistical reality. That isn't going to change either and certainly not through philosophy, it turns out the more free a country is in terms of options for education for both men adn women, the more divided the job roles and interests, so liberty, freedom and the NAP really just help boost the gender separation of work, interests and hobbies.

Do you have any examples of diligent workers who work hard but remain poor? Do you have any examples of those people in a capitalistic state?

Most of what he posts in the gender section has been interesting and helpful, it's sparked a good debate between just about everyone who contributes. Here and here for example. For the record I disagree with a lot of things he's said, but I find his opinion helpful and it makes me think harder about my own position and the reasons for it. People are being skeptical about why down voting is occurring and if it's occurring for reasonable reasons, I have looked through a lot of his posts and threads even where I've disagreed and found him under attack, I've seen multiple occurrences of his being accused of something, him asking for evidence to back the assertion and then people flat out deny to continue the discussion. It would be nice instead of asserting that down votes were done for things in a larger context that you actually describe what that is and give an example rather than merely suggesting we're unable to see such context. I think a lot of people are taking what he says too personally, I read things he writes dispassionately and it's never been a problem for me, i get an awful hugbox/safespace feeling about some people like I do with SJWs who want to use PC language and mob rule to keep objectionable opinions or arguments at bay. What ever happened to just addressing the arguments logically, I do this with MMX all the time, so I don't get what the problem is.

I agree with neeeel here, in a lot of cases with MMX I find it hard to spot why people down voted some of his posts, I'm not convinced people are dolling out up/down votes with enough care and attention, we've got a mechanism here where now his posts are being hidden and I don't think that's a good thing because I see value in some of the things he says and how he makes me question my own positions on things. The feeling of irritation at some of his posts, the length of them and the style they're written in shouldn't be used as an excuse to ostracise and derail otherwise perfectly good debate. I don't think the vote system is good at all, if people are perpetually trolling or troublemaking then that's something mods can and should deal with on an individual basis, the hiding of other peoples posts ought to be a personal thing we do as users and not have authoritatively done for us, certainly it doesn't support the idea of liberty, even if this is a privately owned space.

Well I'm a realist and very pragmatic, I don't think there's anything we're going to do in the short term that will heavily over ride biology and create more philosophically minded women who are looking for deeper meaning in relationships. I understand the kind of woman that I'd consider having a relationship with (someone interested in STEM/philosophy/Atheism/Gaming) is generally speaking only something you find as quite literally an abnormality, women interested in these fields and subjects are those who tend to have had an over exposure of testosterone during foetal development, the kind of tom boys. My advice is try and form a strategy to meet the kind of women you're interested in, FDR meetups might be good, I've never been to one, maybe take a philosophy night class or something like that, but I wouldn't expect any problems driven by biology to really ever be fixed and certainly not in the short term.

Ah crap I had a large response written out to this and lost it all by accidentally tapping the back button on my mouse, so this might not be as well composed as I'd hoped. The 2 main points I wanted to make to you were: 1) Fraud is part of the NAP, you seem to be under the impression that if someone's response to fraud is positive then it's not a violation of the NAP and this is simply not correct. The only way you can excuse violations of the NAP is when consent to the actions is given. PUAs generally don't act to seek consent and a more general problem with fraud is that it doesn't work when consent is given because in order to be fooled by fraudulent activity you cannot be aware that it's fraudulent. I wouldn't go as far to say that fraud can never be consensual, but the circumstances where it is would be very esoteric and outside of realm of PUA for sure. 2) My post was not taking sides, I've not read the whole thread nor do I intend to, it was simply my interpretation of PUA with respect to the NAP, I don't know your circumstance and whether you violated the NAP or not, maybe you only used PUA tactics which aren't fraudulent, but if you did lie either explicitly, implicitly or by omission, in order to manipulate the other person then that's a violation of the NAP regardless of her response during the manipulation. If she is revealed the truth of the lie and then says that the lie was welcomed then that could be considered non aggression. It doesn't always lead to a violation of the NAP, it depends on the disposition of the woman to it and whether she consents to the manipulation or not, acting on the assumption you have consent when you've not confirmed it is always a risky business, and people by and large understand that which is why they have an aversion to PUA, it's certainly not done with good faith, it's done to manipulate a specific outcome and the reason you've got such a disconnect between your position that it's OK as long as they're happy during the manipulation and everyone down voting you is down to this fundamental issue. Well all fruad you'd reasonably expect to be despised, where we're getting confused is in saying that all PUA is fraud, I've outlined where it might not necessarily be, however it still remains that the purpose of many PUAs is to manipulate and so my subjective judgement of that is that it's fair to judge PUA as not particularly moral. Not so much what they promote but what they're capable of providing, Stef has previously pointed out that a lot of good women with self knowledge and an interest in philosophy aren't going to fall for cheap PUA tactics, they're going to look for virtuous behaviour and certainly would not endorse fraud on the part of any potential partner. But then the goal of PUAs I don't think is really relationships, for a lot of them it's just getting laid, although I don't want to speak for all PUAs so I'm sure there's exceptions. True but I'm not a fan of the voting system, I don't see his downvotes as good arguments against his case, I'm not convinced they're a benefit to the forum and getting to the truth of things, seems like there's some mob rule going on. I think I've worked out where at least me and him differ in our opinions (see above) so we'll see how that plays out. He is a little bit irritating sometimes but I value his input and I don't think it's a good thing I now have to expand his posts to read what he has to say, a lot of the ideas and things I think about are born from the conflict and difference of opinion, he often forces me to confront the principles for which I believe things. I'd never considered PUA in terms of the NAP and he forced me to look for the principle that I base lack of morality in PUA, rather than just having it as a gut feeling. We'd all benefit taking it less personally and worry less about anecdotes but rather try and work out the principles of more general cases.

My understanding of inflation (which might be completely wrong) is simply that it's the increase in the amount of currency in circulation, caused by the printing of more money with fiat currencies, or in the case of gold backed currency the increase in gold supply. This has the knock on effect that each unit of currency devalues slightly which hurts the value of all savings and assets held in those currencies and drives down the value of wages. It also causes the inflation of the price of goods, while the value remains the same the number of units of currency required to buy the same product/service goes up.

Gynocentrism manifests through statism for sure, I do often say to other MGTOWs that being a MGTOW is great for preservation of your personal life but ultimately if you want to protect yourself against impending bachelor taxes and societies response to MGTOW then you need to take a political stance and that should be as libertarians, the original MGTOW meaning did have a libertarian leaning which was sadly lost. Gynocentrism is deeper than that though, it's just a lot more powerful when you give it the gun of the state. This reminds me of the short harry enfield comedy sketch, "Women know your limits" which was a sort of parody of this old school way of dealing with politics. It makes me laugh, there's a small part of me that can't help think we'd be in a better place right now (no welfare state, more freedoms, no rampant SJWs) if this trend had been allowed to continue. We see absolutely insane SJWs these days who are just reinventing the entire language to cram it full of ideological nonsense and we try and make calm and reasoned points but we get nothing but hate and bile back, white men are labelled oppressors and we're all rapists, now we're seeing gender bias laws, predominant aggressor policies and the president is on the TV talking about the 77 cents wage gap. And I shake my head and wonder how on earth did we let this crazy run so rampant, at some point men stopped putting their foot down, and there's always a small part of me that thinks our forefathers had it right in how they dealt with this. Watch that clip again and then imagine the discussion not being about the gold standard but about something like women wanting to reclassify rape so they it can only be men who assault women, or some other such SJW nonsense. I'm a little bit of male chauvinist and stuff like this always appeals to that side of me