Jot

I understand your concern. The example that used to bother me was along the lines...if one sees another man drowning and it is in his power to save that man by throwing him a lifeline and he doesn't do it, under UPB his choice not to save that man is just as valid as him saving that guy...

To answer your question another way...from the UPB's standpoint there are no positive moral obligations, UPB tells you what is immoral, it doesn't tell you what is moral...we figure out what is not immoral by substracting the immoral actions from the category of all actions and we are left with actions that are universalizable. The question "Why should we be moral" implies that there are positive moral obligations.

You made no claim about that but morality and logic are interchangeable in that context since UPB is an extension of logic. There is no "ought" for which one should be moral as there is no 'ought" for which one should be logical.

Does the fact that some people enjoy being logical and others don't mean that logic is invalid?

How does Stefan look to you? Happy/Unhappy?

This is how I began my post to which you replied to. 1. Where do I "seem" to put their characters on some sort virtuosity spectrum? 2. When did my personal values even came into this discussion? (When I used "I' in my second post I was impersonating the OP. Why do you use the word seem? It is philosophically meaningless, the moment you start a phrase with "You seem..." you are already not making an argument, you are just telling me about your projections. "Discouraging" is another projection of yours, I put forward an argument which can only be valid or invalid. Straw-man. Quote me where I made that argument. Where do I make this point. Where did I do that? Again, give me the quotes where I say any of these things.

I personally would definitely give this a shot if I were him...especially in the case there are no obvious red flags from the very beginning... However, I don't understand why would it be hard for you to imagine what would be the downside of such a relationship...every second spent with a person is a second not spent with the billions of others, so you invest time...now if you claim to be in the search for a person with the values OP has listed then statistically a stripper is quite low on that list so if my purpose was solely to be friends with such a person I would need to be aware that statistically she is much more unlikely to provide me the values I wanted from a friend than a person whom I tried to befriend on this forum for example.

If what you are looking for in a friend is "objectivity, sincerity, self-knowledge, etc", and the stripper meets these values...why couldn't you? My problem, however, is that I have a hard time believing that any stripper possess these values... If she were physically unattractive would you still be interested in being friends with her? Do you plan on having sex with her?

Microaggression: one's lack of ability to differentiate one's psychological problem from an actual form of aggression.

It doesn't matter what you are, it matters the reason for which you ascribe to that position. All philosophical convictions should be reducible to reason or be synonymous with reason. Ex. Anarchism = reason Atheism = reason Communism = not reason Religion = not reason Spirituality = not reason. Now, if you have truth as a personal value then you MUST choose only those which abide by reason. Otherwise drop the truth as a value.

Not only what the guys above have said but you are in fact making illogical statements. You don't get to decide what is a waste of time and what is not... "It is a waste of time" this is an illogical proposition. "waste of time" is not an objective standard. It differs form person to person because value is subjective. What you perceive to be a waste of time might be a gold mine for someone else. Maybe it is not a waste of time for him because thinking about this gives him the opportunity to exercise his reasoning abilities or improve his knowledge of the world or who knows...there might be an infinity of possibilities.

I know this guy from the first days he started...he has a very similar style of arguing points to yours.

Ha...back when I used to be into YouTube atheism...good times.

Yes, happens to me too...here I seem to be more empathetic, rational and polite but I have a history of getting banned on public forums because of trolling.

Dude, I was talking about these 50(n+5), GALNUC and other shit like these when I said that I find Roosh's approach to day game rigid. Roosh justifies the need of such techniques because he says that day game is not natural, but I will go insane and it will be a complete exhausting experience for me to go out while having any kind of routines in my head. I would feel like a sociopath that needs to rely on theoretical understanding of communication and empathy in order to communicate with people.

I did not intend making any argument.

JD remembers me of MMX.

It was a decent read for me but I don't enjoy Roosh's day game that much...it is way too structured and rigid for my taste...and that GALNUC shit doesn't work in eastern Europe...neither picking up in coffee shops because over here there are not that many for one and second girls always go there with their group of friends.

Where is MMX when you need him lol.

In fact there are a couple of such places.

A lot of them are fake too, I wouldn't put my money on which ones or how many but I was a big follower of this "prank" trend that kinda escalated in 2014 and it is pretty much dead at the moment. Most of these prank YT channels started out with lots of videos posted in short periods of time but after they built a decent following they started faking them and posting as rare as possible.

It indirectly addresses the issue. [flash=]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkEZ5oLy0RM

How the fuck is this even possible?

Send this link to GuzzyBone, he has commited more logical fallacies on this forum than all the other members combined.