Friends With Benefits?

[MMX2010]

I guess this is where we differ. You don't think you can win the handful of women who live up to standards of virtue; I think I can, and will. Yes it will be a challenge because of the corrupt world we've inherited and because women largely hold power in sexual relationship. But I like challenges.

 

Matt, you're doing "that thing" that I call Avoiding The Most Important Thing That I Said, And Yet Continuing To Disagree With Me. 

 

I pointed out that birth control, labor-saving technology, and easy female-access to jobs has separated sex from reproduction, therefore necessitating a discussion of r/K Sexual Strategies as distinct from r/K Reproductive Strategies. 

 

In response you stated, "Firstly, if it weren't for contraception you wouldn't be able to make this divide between sex for pleasure and sex for babies. No this doesn't prove anything, but I think it's important to point out that our modern society has taken away most of the consequences that would normally come from the inherently risky 'adult' business of sexual intercourse."

 

Please indulge my annoying requests to the letter.  Step One:  Blink ten times.  (I'll wait.  Go ahead.)  Step Two:  Look out the window.  Does contraception still exist?  Does labor-saving technology, i.e. - microwave ovens, washing machines, vacuums, wonderful food-growing and food-transporting device - still exist? 

 

Since the answers to those questions are YES, this means that all of the old conclusions (from earlier eras) about What Virtuous Women Are Really Like are at minimum debatable given the massive social change we've undergone in fifty years.  At maximum, they're best presumed to be wrong because of this massive social change.  (Rollo, of the Rational Male, repeatedly uses the metaphors "The Old Set of Books" and "The New Set of Books".)  

 

Sometimes I wish this weren't true.  But then I imagine the war-torn environments that preceded this one, and thank my lucky stars that I don't have to engage in years of brutal combat just to secure any woman. 

 

Ordinarily, I would honor Kathryn's request to NOT proclaim that my experiences are objectively correct for everyone.  But I can't do that, Matt, because the truth is objectively correct for everyone.

 

So I reject your testimonial entirely.  When you say, "I like challenges.", I hear, "I avoid challenges, because I'm scared of accepting that some of the most important conclusions I've made about Virtuous Women are wrong."  And I empathize with you, because I used to be like that.  But I am not like that anymore.  The most encouraging thing I can say is that the government says I'm 39, but I say I'm only seven months old.  (My commitment to accepting these new truths began seven months ago, so I can sincerely, (but, perhaps not truthfully), state that sudden change is possible.)

 

Lastly, you asked, "When the beauty of your woman fades, what will you be left with?" 

 

First of all, someone (not me) is going to have an uproarious belly-laugh at your question, so thanks very much for asking it.   

 

Secondly, my answer is: I will be left with the results of my continued efforts to mold her into a Virtuous Woman.  MGTOWs assume that women, when left to their own devices, will spontaneously develop Virtue.  But I assure you that it is the opposite. 

 

You mentioned challenges?   There is no challenge more important and more difficult than crafting a Non-Virtuous Woman into a Virtuous One.  That is my challenge, and every MGTOW I've met had refused to accept that challenge. 

[MysterionMuffles]

Because it's so much easier to put words in your opponent's mouth than put a coherent argument together

[MMX2010]

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.

 

A lot of things to point out here.  PUA taps into a woman's natural, instinctive biological drives. 

 

So: (1) "women who will be fooled by PUA" means pretty much every woman. (2) "women who have a good filter for PUA" means practically no women.  (3) "women who know what to look for and will ruin a PUA's chances of succeeding" means practically no women.  (Personally speaking, the women who loves me was aware of PUA when I met her and appreciated my PUA tactics.)  And (4) "the long term effects of PUA is to create an opposite womens' interest to spot and weed out players, which will only amplify this effect" is completely wrong; the major factor which determines PUA-prevalence is women's sexual freedom. 

 

 

 

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 misunderstand.  The correct version is "PUA tactics result in personal gain by creating a situation where I acquire a woman's interest with the intention of leading to sex with it otherwise would not have with me.  However, women have both freedom and relative lack-of-condemnation when having sex with anyone.  So it is safe to assume that, most of the time, a woman who sexually rejects a specific PUA will relatively quickly accept someone else - especially if she's looking for no strings attached sex." 

 

Thus, if you complain that PUA is fraud because it produces no strings attached sex, then you're saying that I only defrauded myself.  (You cannot say that I defrauded her, when she rejects me for not being a PUA, then finds a PUA.) 

 

 

 

 

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?)

 

Sadly, I predict very few people will weigh in on this. 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Not to be rude, but the problem is that you cannot see inside her mind, so you've no idea whether she's being defrauded.  However, that doesn't stop you from "playing offense" by making assertions based on your "gut", which invites me to play "defense" against your assertions. 

 

But at what point will you accept that you need a much stronger argument than "my gut says so" in order to change my behavior?  At what point will the plausibility that you're wrong PLUS the inability to detect whether you're right or wrong EQUAL "I shouldn't condemn PUAs because I don't have any direct evidence of harm, and it's wrong to expect people to change their behaviors based on my gut?" 

[Frosty]

So: (1) "women who will be fooled by PUA" means pretty much every woman. (2) "women who have a good filter for PUA" means practically no women.  (3) "women who know what to look for and will ruin a PUA's chances of succeeding" means practically no women.

 

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.

 

 

(4) "the long term effects of PUA is to create an opposite womens' interest to spot and weed out players, which will only amplify this effect" is completely wrong; the major factor which determines PUA-prevalence is women's sexual freedom

 

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

 

 

You misunderstand.  The correct version is "PUA tactics result in personal gain by creating a situation where I acquire a woman's interest with the intention of leading to sex with it otherwise would not have with me.  However, women have both freedom and relative lack-of-condemnation when having sex with anyone.  So it is safe to assume that, most of the time, a woman who sexually rejects a specific PUA will relatively quickly accept someone else - especially if she's looking for no strings attached sex." 

 

Thus, if you complain that PUA is fraud because it produces no strings attached sex, then you're saying that I only defrauded myself.  (You cannot say that I defrauded her, when she rejects me for not being a PUA, then finds a PUA.)

 

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.

 

 

Not to be rude, but the problem is that you cannot see inside her mind, so you've no idea whether she's being defrauded.  However, that doesn't stop you from "playing offense" by making assertions based on your "gut", which invites me to play "defense" against your assertions. 

 

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.

 

 

But at what point will you accept that you need a much stronger argument than "my gut says so" in order to change my behavior?  

 

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.

 

 

At what point will the plausibility that you're wrong PLUS the inability to detect whether you're right or wrong EQUAL "I shouldn't condemn PUAs because I don't have any direct evidence of harm, and it's wrong to expect people to change their behaviors based on my gut?" 

 

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.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

It is an argument for something!  Specifically, restraint and respect for both my freedom and women's freedom. 

 

Off the top of my head, there are five people who're implying that PUA violates the NAP.  You, AncapFTW, Kevin Beal, Matt D., and Rainbow Jamz.  This doesn't include either Stefan himself (who may very well agree with you) and the downvoters (who probably agree with you). 

 

But other than, "We just feel that way, but there's no good sources of data for this....", what objective evidence do you have?

 

You were very philosophically rigorous to admit that my playful banter involving pretending that the woman was being defiant probably didn't violate the NAP.  But no one else addressed that example, and I don't think they will because they're "frustrated". 

 

And people are very quick to say, "Well, PUA does contain elements that can be seen as violating the NAP." - (as if I'm too stupid to know that) - but my major argument is that no one has pointed out to what I'm doing and definitively said, "That....THAT violates the NAP!" 

 

Can you empathetically consider, "Wow.  That's really crappy behavior on our parts, MMX2010.  I don't understand how you continue to debate this topic without lashing out at anyone, complaining to the mods, nor using faux psychological analysis to attack the mindsets of those who disagree with you."?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

PUA actually grew through women's demand for entertaining, no strings attached sex during their fertile youths.  When a woman is between 18 and 26, she wants entertaining sex with the most physically attractive man possible.  But it is only at age 27 when she suddenly realizes that her fading looks and her horrible choices in men threaten her long-term security.  Here, she begins to blame men for her poor choices - as you see in the Jezebel articles.  (Protip: No hot 22 year old girl complains about PUA; she enjoys their company instead.) 

 

 

 

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[/b])

 

 

Right.  "By common interpretation of the NAP and fraud" - but by whom?

 

By the woman who loves me whom I routinely use PUA tactics on?  (No, she's smiles at me like she smiles at no one else, as if begging for me to continue.) 

 

By my best male friend who constantly uses PUA?  (No, he's had a better sex life and become a much happier person in the five months we've practiced using PUA together.)

 

Just last night, my best male friend and I discussed two interactions I had, (including the example where I pretended the woman was being defiant), and he told his best male friend.  "After watching him use PUA, and after using PUA myself, I realize just how joyous it is.  MMX2010 turned what would've been a boring, honest conversation about that chick's musical tastes into an emotionally-charged roller coaster ride that she so deeply appreciated.  And I only now understand why they call it "Game" - it's because it's so fun!"

 

And I continued, "Many PUAs misrepresent my intentions as 'wanting to bring joy to her so that she will sleep with me' - but my intentions are always to bring joy because I am joy.  Whether she sleeps with me or not, based on my presentation of joy, is irrelevant to me."  I could've said, "Somewhere two members of the FDR message board are taping this conversation looking for evidence that we violated the NAP, and they're sorely disappointed." - but we were drinking and my mind wasn't that sharp.

 

By you, Rainbow Jamz, Kevin Beal, Matt D., and AncapFTW?  (Well okay, but what have you guys done for me?  Magically expected me to get it, and downvoted me for not getting it?  Accused me of being a fraud without strong objective evidence?  Seriously, guys, which of these am I going to appreciate more: (1) the bright smiles and passionate sexual responses of beautiful (and not beautiful!) women OR (2) the dour glares, poor arguments, and repeated downvotes of men I don't even know in real life?

 

That I even need to ask this question should be sobering! 

 

The question isn't a permanent dismissal of yourselves and your arguments!  Rather, it's an honest assertion that your current arguments are so unconvincing that every downvote I receive is a parody of your expectations that I change my behavior. 

 

So either come up with better arguments, or admit that you have none and walk away from this conversation without downvoting me.  Though I'm in a position to demand apologies and upvotes to counteract downvotes, I won't demand either of those.  I'll just leave you to conduct yourselves in whatever manner you see fit. 

[PreDeadMan]

I have to say in my experience I've had a few "fwb". Now I'm 30 years old and the current girl i'm seeing now I met on a dating website and I feel at this point in my life it's time to settle down and take things much more serious. I've developed an emotional connection with her she is 7 years older than me (but I don't mind) we have very similar interests and we text almost every day. We've hung out a bunch of times I've taken her on a few dates and such. I want to propose to her to be my girlfriend soon (funny enough I've never actually had a girlfriend just friends with benefits) It seems after my weight loss 1 year I went from 329 to low to mid 170's more women have been interested in me. That really boosted my confidence. I feel very envious of my friends on facebook who have girlfriends and are getting married, their girlfriend pregnant etc..... Yeah so that's my situation.  

[Frosty]

It is an argument for something!  Specifically, restraint and respect for both my freedom and women's freedom. 

 

Off the top of my head, there are five people who're implying that PUA violates the NAP.  You, AncapFTW, Kevin Beal, Matt D., and Rainbow Jamz.  This doesn't include either Stefan himself (who may very well agree with you) and the downvoters (who probably agree with you). 

 

But other than, "We just feel that way, but there's no good sources of data for this....", what objective evidence do you have?

 

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.

 

 

PUA actually grew through women's demand for entertaining, no strings attached sex during their fertile youths.

 

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.

 

 

Right.  "By common interpretation of the NAP and fraud" - but by whom?

 

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. 

 

 

So either come up with better arguments, or admit that you have none and walk away from this conversation without downvoting me. 

 

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.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

I appreciate your ability to share a more nuanced understanding of PUA.  I've said so multiple times, and don't mind saying it again.  What do you think would happen if you were to chase down Matt D, Kevin Beal, and/or Rainbow Jamz and ask.....no demand!....that they definitely comment that my specific usages of PUA either do or do not violate the NAP?  Do you think they'd comment, or would they downvote you for being demanding?

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Yes, that is my exact starting point.  And I'm posting my starting point on the Freedomain Message Board, a community founded upon, (among other beliefs), LIBERTARIANISM.  Libertarianism is the starting point that, with regard to political systems, all behaviors are permissible unless objectors can demonstrate that the NAP is violated. 

 

Meanwhile, in this very thread, my application of Libertarianism to MALE/FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS is downvoted, distrusted, and ostracized. 

 

Do you finally get how amusing this discussion is from my perspective? 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Exactly!  The whole point of the NAP and UPB is that it's universally true, meaning that if someone doesn't agree with the NAP and UPB, you can correctly assume that there's something wrong with them, and subsequently ostracize them. 

 

However, my point has been.....this entire arduous thread....that: (1) There are mountains of evidence that women's reactions to PUA-deceit is largely positive.  (1a) Because of Number One, it's extremely difficult to assert that the NAP and UPB are violated.  (2) It is quite possible to create a version of PUA THAT DOES NOT rely upon heinous usages of deceit.  (2a) That Roosh has already done this, and that I'm already doing this.  (3) Because we're Libertarians, the burden of proof is always on the people who are objecting to someone's behavior AND NOT ON the person who wants to behave a certain way.  (4) Because you're anonymous strangers on the internet, and the women I love and flirt with are from Real Life, I don't understand the cock-surety with which you demand that I change my behavior to please you.  Notice, NOT to please the women I'm loving, flirting with, and sleeping with - but YOU. 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

No.  No way.  Once you admit it's ambiguous, then you can't claim it's universal - (unless you're going to assert that There's Something Wrong With Everyone Who Disagrees With You, which is, in fact, what Kevin Beal, Matt D., and Rainbow Jamz have done in this thread). 

 

While I admire your restraint, I'd advise you to be careful whom you share company with.  For neither Kevin Beal, Matt D., nor Rainbow Jamz consider that Assuming Something Is Wrong With The Majority of Males and Females isn't easy to hide.  Thus, they hit on women - (or worse, they expect women to hit on them) - while possessing the default assumption that Something Is Seriously Wrong With This Woman while they are engaging in flirtatious behavior with her. 

 

Given that PUA works by tapping into a woman's ability to read subtext and subconscious communications, their Default Assumption of Female Defectiveness comes through in their flirting.  And women hate that.  (Ironically, I exploit women's loathing by pretending to be like that.  But my pretenses are so over-exaggerated that of course they see through them, and of course they admire my ability to playfully poke fun at the loathsome men who've hit on them in the past.)

 

-------------------

 

Here's an example that I pulled just last week. 

 

I'm pulling up to the McDonald's take-out window and the unattractive woman involuntarily smiled the moment she saw me.  This is hyper-strong indication of sexual arousal, and I never turn down the opportunity to joyfully flirt with interested women - no matter how unattractive they are, (unless they're unattractive in a way that suggests mental illness). 

 

About a minute before driving up, I was listening to Demi Lovato's song "Neon Lights" - (Yes, I listen to Demi Lovato.) - but I turned it off because it's rude to have blaring music when talking to cashiers. 

 

When I saw her smile, I scrunched my face into exaggerated anger, and asked, "Are you laughing at my music?" 

 

She, (legitimately confused because I wasn't listening to any music), replied in slow, confused cadence, "Am I laughing at your music?" 

 

I lightened my exaggerated anger face by adding a half smirk, and said, "I dunno.  When I pulled up you were laughing at something." 

 

Her face lit up in instant recognition, and she placed her body such that she was giving me 100% attention.  And she smirkingly said, "I dunno.  I guess I'm just a happy person." 

 

If I wanted to ask her out, I would've replied, "*stronger angry face*  I don't think so.  I think you need someone to teach you not to laugh at someone's music.  *quick smile*  I'll pick you up tonight at 7, so you can learn *exaggerated wounded face* that you shouldn't laugh at people's music: it wounds them in a very deep place from which they don't recover." 

 

But since I didn't want to ask her out, I replied, "*genuine face*  Hmm, I think you're right about that.  You stay happy now." 

 

Frosty, (as well as everyone else who ought to comment, but chooses not to), does flirting with a woman whom you do not want to ask out violate the NAP, even though she loved every minute of the interaction? 

[MysterionMuffles]

Just for the record, I never said anything about PUA techniques violating the NAP. I dunno where MMX2010 gets off accusing me of doing that and even mentioning morality at all. But again, I'm not surprised. He's a master strawmanner.

[MMX2010]

Just for the record, I never said anything about PUA techniques violating the NAP. I dunno where MMX2010 gets off accusing me of doing that and even mentioning morality at all. But again, I'm not surprised. He's a master strawmanner.

 

Just for the record, when you don't use the quote-feature, no one knows what part of my post you're responding to.

 

Is it this, "What do you think would happen if you were to chase down Matt D, Kevin Beal, and/or Rainbow Jamz and ask.....no demand!....that they definitely comment that my specific usages of PUA either do or do not violate the NAP?  Do you think they'd comment, or would they downvote you for being demanding?"  (I hope not, because I didn't accuse you of believing that PUA violates the NAP.") 

 

Is it this, "No.  No way.  Once you admit it's ambiguous, then you can't claim it's universal - (unless you're going to assert that There's Something Wrong With Everyone Who Disagrees With You, which is, in fact, what Kevin Beal, Matt D., and Rainbow Jamz have done in this thread)."  (I hope not, because it doesn't accuse you of believing that PUA violates the NAP.) 

 

So, unless you cut-and-paste a direct quote of mine that I can respond to, you're the one presenting the strawman. 

I have to say in my experience I've had a few "fwb". Now I'm 30 years old and the current girl i'm seeing now I met on a dating website and I feel at this point in my life it's time to settle down and take things much more serious. I've developed an emotional connection with her she is 7 years older than me (but I don't mind) we have very similar interests and we text almost every day. We've hung out a bunch of times I've taken her on a few dates and such. I want to propose to her to be my girlfriend soon (funny enough I've never actually had a girlfriend just friends with benefits) It seems after my weight loss 1 year I went from 329 to low to mid 170's more women have been interested in me. That really boosted my confidence. I feel very envious of my friends on facebook who have girlfriends and are getting married, their girlfriend pregnant etc..... Yeah so that's my situation.  

 

Is she the only girl you've dated since losing all the weight? 

[AncapFTW]

This argument is reminding me way too much of any argument with a fanatic.

 

Person 1: "Your political/religious/social group is bad because you do Z."

Person 2: "We also did Y.  Are you saying we are evil because we did that?"

Person 1: "No, but you do Z, of which X is an evil subset, and suggest that others do Z."

Person 2: "Then Y is evil?"

Person 1: "No, Y is neutral, but it's close to X, which is evil."

Person 2: "Well, then (insert logical fallacies), so obviously I'm not evil."

 

Person 2 will never admit to doing X, as they know that admitting it will lose them the argument, and person 1 doesn't know if they are doing X or just its cousin, Y.  I'm not sure this can be resolved

[MMX2010]

This argument is reminding me way too much of any argument with a fanatic.

 

Person 1: "Your political/religious/social group is bad because you do Z."

Person 2: "We also did Y.  Are you saying we are evil because we did that?"

Person 1: "No, but you do Z, of which X is an evil subset, and suggest that others do Z."

Person 2: "Then Y is evil?"

Person 1: "No, Y is neutral, but it's close to X, which is evil."

Person 2: "Well, then (insert logical fallacies), so obviously I'm not evil."

 

Person 2 will never admit to doing X, as they know that admitting it will lose them the argument, and person 1 doesn't know if they are doing X or just its cousin, Y.  I'm not sure this can be resolved

 

 

It can be resolved when certain parties admit that they are quite libertarian with regard to economics and government, but outright socialistic and anti-libertarian when it comes to women and sex. 

 

I, personally, discovered that the moment I stopped replying to their objections and accusations, (preferring instead to flirt with beautiful and not-so-beautiful women), my detractors had nothing left to say. 

[AncapFTW]

It can be resolved when certain parties admit that they are quite libertarian with regard to economics and government, but outright socialistic and anti-libertarian when it comes to women and sex. 

 

I, personally, discovered that the moment I stopped replying to their objections and accusations, (preferring instead to flirt with beautiful and not-so-beautiful women), my detractors had nothing left to say. 

So, it's anti-Libertarian to think that you shouldn't use risky practices which may or may not violate NAP?

[MMX2010]

So, it's anti-Libertarian to think that you shouldn't use risky practices which may or may not violate NAP?

 

Absolutely.  It's goal-post moving from, "Don't violate the NAP." to "Don't risk violating the NAP."  (And if you can't tell the difference between "Don't do something." and "Don't risk doing something.", your mind is fogged.) 

 

Also, you know how socialists automatically assume that every business deserves to succeed, so that the really successful businesses are only succeeding based on cut-throat business practices that need to be regulated by a large-scale social body?  (Because successful businesses couldn't possibly have gotten that way by better understanding how to provide services to their customers at cheaper prices?) 

 

Well, anti-PUAs all assume that every man deserves a loving wife who bangs him with constant enthusiasm, assume that sexuality ought to be regulated by a large-scale governing body (if not the state, then Stefan's podcasts), and assume that every man who bangs the largest number of women has something wrong with him - rather than assuming that these men just understand women's needs far better than they do. 

 

I wasn't speaking lightly when I called anti-PUAs socialist Anti-Libertarians.  And now that I've made my argument, I expect cogent and sincere counter-arguments.  But I'll await your silent downvotes instead. 

[AncapFTW]

Absolutely.  It's goal-post moving from, "Don't violate the NAP." to "Don't risk violating the NAP."  (And if you can't tell the difference between "Don't do something." and "Don't risk doing something.", your mind is fogged.) 

 

Also, you know how socialists automatically assume that every business deserves to succeed, so that the really successful businesses are only succeeding based on cut-throat business practices that need to be regulated by a large-scale social body?  (Because successful businesses couldn't possibly have gotten that way by better understanding how to provide services to their customers at cheaper prices?) 

 

Well, anti-PUAs all assume that every man deserves a loving wife who bangs him with constant enthusiasm, assume that sexuality ought to be regulated by a large-scale governing body (if not the state, then Stefan's podcasts), and assume that every man who bangs the largest number of women has something wrong with him - rather than assuming that these men just understand women's needs far better than they do. 

 

I wasn't speaking lightly when I called anti-PUAs socialist Anti-Libertarians.  And now that I've made my argument, I expect cogent and sincere counter-arguments.  But I'll await your silent downvotes instead. 

Wow.  Persecution complex?

 

And you haven't made an argument, you made ad-hom attacks against people who disagree with you.

 

No one is "moving the goalposts."  I just don't think it's wise to do things which could very easily result in problems.  Do I think it's evil to drive over the speed limit?  No, but I'm not going to go 100+MPH because it's difficult to control the car at those speeds.  Is it wrong to hire a hooker?  No, but in today's society, they are likely in it against their will, so it's risky.

 

And as for "these men just understand women's needs far better than they do", you are making an assumption too.  Couldn't it be that they just understand how to simply manipulate women better?  Some people play video games for enjoyment, some manipulate the rules of the game to beat it (look up speed runs).  In this case it doesn't matter, but when you are dealing with people, manipulating thing to get the reward with a minimum of effort isn't necessarily the best thing to do.

 

In fact, I would argue that your inability to have a serious, long-term relationship means that you understand women far less.  It's the difference between knowing a backdoor into a computer system and being a computer expert.

[MMX2010]

Wow.  Persecution complex?

 

And you haven't made an argument, you made ad-hom attacks against people who disagree with you.

 

No one is "moving the goalposts."  I just don't think it's wise to do things which could very easily result in problems. 

 

 

Right, so it's NOT that anything I've done has actually violated the NAP.  It's that you feel uncomfortable by what I'm doing. 

 

It's NOT that I'm actually guilty; it's that you've heard that some people who share the label "PUA" have done some horrible things. 

 

 

 

 

And as for "these men just understand women's needs far better than they do", you are making an assumption too.  Couldn't it be that they just understand how to simply manipulate women better?

 

You're not making an argument here, dude.  You're just asking me whether it's possible for something to be true.  (Logical fallacy known as "Begging the Question".) 

 

And once you use the word "manipulate women better", you're poisoning the well by asking us to assume that PUA is corrupt.  This is exactly like how anti-capitalists ask us to assume that all Rich Businessmen are corrupt, and all Al Sharpton followers ask us to assume that all White people are corrupt. 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, I would argue that your inability to have a serious, long-term relationship means that you understand women far less.  It's the difference between knowing a backdoor into a computer system and being a computer expert.

 

Now you're asking me to assume that I have "an inability to have a serious, long-term relationship", rather than assuming that I have an "unwillingness to enter into a serious, long-term relationship unless certain needs are met".   

[GuzzyBone]

Can you get pregnant with this "friend" who you clearly have not decided is worthy of raising your children? Yes.
Does any amount of "protection" change this basic fundamental truth? Nope. Aside from mutilating your organs in the pursuit of hedonist pleasures... Nope!

Is this kind of irresponsible sex unhealthy? This goes without saying. I don't think this question really required such elaborate examination.

Sex is not an itch that needs to be scratched. It is a decision that should be made with consideration and regard to the very powerful and extremely real life-changing potential consequences.

The Statist propaganda machine has done a wonderful job at promoting Free Love and irresponsible impulse-sex, which creates dysfunctional state-dependant families (lucky for them, who would have thunk!?).

At what point do we stop and think... Maybe this "no sex before marriage" is part of WHY we are still alive as a species today. It's a pretty old and long-lasting concept that helped humanity survive through the years. It's as relevant today as it ever was. No benefit has ever been proven or demonstrated of Free Love or Promiscuity, and these ideas have been mostly universally historically shamed until recently.

Regardless, sex amplifies intimacy by it's very nature. Whether it's the man or the woman, eventually it will become an issue. Good luck having a long lasting casual sexual relationship without one party getting ideas. I would argue this doesn't exist, unless you are both sociopaths.

[Carl Green]

Can you get pregnant with this "friend" who you clearly have not decided is worthy of raising your children? Yes.

Does any amount of "protection" change this basic fundamental truth? Nope. Aside from mutilating your organs in the pursuit of hedonist pleasures... Nope!

 

Is this kind of irresponsible sex unhealthy? This goes without saying. I don't think this question really required such elaborate examination.

 

Sex is not an itch that needs to be scratched. It is a decision that should be made with consideration and regard to the very powerful and extremely real life-changing potential consequences.

 

The Statist propaganda machine has done a wonderful job at promoting Free Love and irresponsible impulse-sex, which creates dysfunctional state-dependant families (lucky for them, who would have thunk!?).

 

At what point do we stop and think... Maybe this "no sex before marriage" is part of WHY we are still alive as a species today. It's a pretty old and long-lasting concept that helped humanity survive through the years. It's as relevant today as it ever was. No benefit has ever been proven or demonstrated of Free Love or Promiscuity, and these ideas have been mostly universally historically shamed until recently.

 

Regardless, sex amplifies intimacy by it's very nature. Whether it's the man or the woman, eventually it will become an issue. Good luck having a long lasting casual sexual relationship without one party getting ideas. I would argue this doesn't exist, unless you are both sociopaths.

 

I would like to inquire as to the length and breadth of studying you've done based on the opinions you've listed above?

 

How much time/energy have you spent researching sex, marriage and relationships throughout human history?

 

How knowledgeable are you about infertility? (your first statement implies no knowledge of it)

 

How many "open relationship" type of people have you encountered and engaged them to try and understand their motivations and what they're thinking? Or their past experiences with relationships of the sort you're speaking of.

[GuzzyBone]

I would like to inquire as to the length and breadth of studying you've done based on the opinions you've listed above?

30 years of life, and a basic universal understanding that Sex is in large part, the biological act of Reproduction.

 

I'm sorry, did you think that pointing at your metaphorical "certificate of experience" was actually a counterpoint, contradicting evidence, or some form of debate?

It's not. It's just a sad attempt at belittling your perceived "opposition".

 

Aside from the mutilation of your organs, or issues with infertility, you are always running the risk of producing offspring. Shocking as this may be to some, actions have consequence.

 

Shocking as it may be (and oh how people love to deny basic biology and deny observable phenomenon)... producing unwanted children can be potentially destructive for all parties involved when compared to a thriving family structure, and often creates less successful and less healthy people.

 

The creation and raising of new life is not only the most important and world-shaking decision you can ever make, but it is our sole biological purpose for existing (passing genes = survival after death).

 

I must be right, because my experience is bigger than yours. I win! *facepalm*

 

----

 

I don't assume to know the motivations of people who make irresponsible decisions. If they believe they are infertile, it is still nothing more than a belief. People seem to think that scientists/doctors aren't defied and contradicted all the time, and that science is an omni-potent diety with all-knowledge. Sex is the act of reproduction and you engage in this act with at least a breif understanding of the weight of the consequences. It took vasts amounts of reprogramming against biology and promotion of "new age" pagan hedonism to get people to become so dangerously sex entitled (especially in regards to the women). Mainstream music culture particularly began it's decent into pornography culture around the time of Elvis, and really exploded into all out blatant depravity around the 90s. Music has always had a profoundly deep impact on children, especially starstruck little girls who used to faint at Beatles concerts. Mainstream American music has been a oligarchical institution since it's decent into regulation... Great for social engineering and rewiring biology! (of course, this is all changing with the advent of the internet)

[Carl Green]

30 years of life, and a basic universal understanding that Sex is in large part, the biological act of Reproduction.

 

I'm sorry, did you think that pointing at your metaphorical "certificate of experience" was actually a counterpoint, contradicting evidence, or some form of debate?

 

Nope, just asking a question. So based on your answer, you get all the studying you need out of just living and what you determine are universal understandings. That's all I needed to know as far as how much I'm willing to give weight to your opinions. Thanks for the response.

[MMX2010]

30 years of life, and a basic universal understanding that Sex is in large part, the biological act of Reproduction.

 

 

This used to be true.  It is no longer true.  Adapt or die. 

 

I argued this point quite eloquently to Matt D in this post, but he didn't Adapt, so he is currently Dying.  (He doesn't have a girlfriend, so he's not currently in a position to reproduce.)

 

You, too, are currently Dying, because you think sex is still largely tied to reproduction.  Adapt. 

 

--------------------

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/page-4#entry403716

[AncapFTW]

 

"You're not making an argument here, dude.  You're just asking me whether it's possible for something to be true.  (Logical fallacy known as "Begging the Question".) 

 

And once you use the word "manipulate women better", you're poisoning the well by asking us to assume that PUA is corrupt.  This is exactly like how anti-capitalists ask us to assume that all Rich Businessmen are corrupt, and all Al Sharpton followers ask us to assume that all White people are corrupt."

 

 

You made an assumption, I offered an alternative to show that your assumption was fallacious.  What's the problem with that?

 

And I'm also not "assuming it's corrupt."  If you'd actually bothered reading my comment, you'd see that I had a problem with it because it was essentially walking the line between hurting people and not hurting them.  I would advise you to not fire a gun off in a crowd and not put nuts in everything at your restaurant too, because both could very easily hurt people.

 

Or, to put it more accurately, you are selling alcohol for pawn-shop goods.  Could they just want to not go to the bar or liquor store, or have extra junk laying around? Sure.  The more likely case, though, is that they have a drinking problem and are getting rid of their stuff, or stealing stuff, to get it.

 

How do you tell the difference between the two?  Do you even try to tell the difference, or just sell to everyone?  Do you go looking for more customers?

 

This conversation is a bit futile, though, because we are looking at this from two different angles.  I'm saying "it's risky, and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it."  You are saying "you can't prove I'm hurting anyone, therefore stop saying I am."  We both know, however, that if you did do something that supported my view you wouldn't tell me about it, and there is no way, with such vague details, I can say for certain that you are hurting someone.

 

And, though I'm sure you'll feel the need to shout "begging the question" about this too, ask yourself why you are willing to do such risky behavior, and are willing to use it so much, without even thinking about it.  Why do you feel the need to have so many one night stands?  It seems to me that a bit of introspection is needed on your part.

[MMX2010]

 

This conversation is a bit futile, though, because we are looking at this from two different angles.  I'm saying "it's risky, and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it."  You are saying "you can't prove I'm hurting anyone, therefore stop saying I am."  We both know, however, that if you did do something that supported my view you wouldn't tell me about it, and there is no way, with such vague details, I can say for certain that you are hurting someone.

 

 

Do you feel the heavy weight of your assumption that, "The best way to love someone is not to cause them pain!"?  Do you even realize that this is your core belief? 

 

Did you get that core belief from banging a whole bunch of girls, all of whom became extremely self-destructive after you broke up with them? 

 

(If so, I empathize, but Not All Girls Are Like That.  And No Healthy Girl Is Like That.  You should schedule a call-in show with Stefan to talk about this; he's a master at untying moral responsibility surrounding these issues.)  (But if not, I don't empathize with you at all.  I just correctly deem you as stuck in chains of your own creation, trying unsuccessfully to get me to wear them.) 

[Kevin Beal]

Begging the question is when you make a circular argument where the premises rely on the conclusion already being true. Offering up a possibility is not begging the question. It's not even an argument. There is no logical content, it's just a possibility.

 

It's really funny though, because from the name alone "begging the question", if you hadn't ever learned what the fallacy actually was, it would appear that offering an alternate explanation was an example of it. It's like thinking that a circular argument is literally about circles. Lol.

[MMX2010]

Begging the question is when you make a circular argument where the premises rely on the conclusion already being true. Offering up a possibility is not begging the question. It's not even an argument. There is no logical content, it's just a possibility.

 

It's really funny though, because from the name alone "begging the question", if you hadn't ever learned what the fallacy actually was, it would appear that offering an alternate explanation was an example of it. It's like thinking that a circular argument is literally about circles. Lol.

 

Thanks for the correction, Kevin. 

 

However, you could've also commented on AncapFTW's self-created chains, Frosty's self-created chains, and your own self-created chains. 

 

While AncapFTW is chaining himself with worries that certain types of flirting may hurt women, or Frosty is chaining himself with concerns that some forms of PUA may risk violating the NAP, and you're chaining yourself with concerns that acquiring certain flirting behaviors is a betrayal of Who You Really Are, I am free to successfully ask out a much younger woman on the very night the best woman I've ever loved told me she has fallen in love with another, better man. 

 

-------------------

 

I had a conversation with a man who's much younger than you, and Pick-Up Artistry came up.

 

Him: So you've basically just got to be yourself, and confidently broadcast it.

 

Me:  No!  First, you've got to become what she wants, and then you've got to be yourself! 

 

Think of what it's like to write with your opposite hand; it's really uncomfortable until it isn't.  And the moment it's no longer uncomfortable, it's Who You Really Are.  Now, you can mind-fuck yourself by asking which of these versions is really you: the old version who couldn't write with his opposite hand, or the new version that comfortably can.  And you can mind-fuck yourself by asking how can Fakeness become Real.  Or you can just shut up, become what she wants, and learn to enjoy the transformation. 

 

Because if you don't become what she wants, you're telling her that What She Wants is wrong.  And are you really so smart that you know What She Wants is wrong?  Who are you to judge what she wants? 

 

-----------------

 

That kid, who's younger than you, not-at-all trained in philosophy, and therefore not-nearly-as-smart-as-you beamed in self-knowledge, and said, "I've never had it explained to me like that.  You're right." 

 

Why can't you?  Why do you follow my posts, looking for the smallest corrections you can make, rather than comment on larger, more transformative issues? 

 

 

--------------------

 

By the way, Kevin, if I were to ask, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills?", my question is of course a possibility.  But referencing possibilities like this masks the other possibility, "But of course, I could totally be wrong here." 

 

So the honest version is, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills?  Of course, it's possible.  But it's also possible that you're not infected with such a virus and are, in fact, thinking quite well." 

 

And the dishonest version is, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills?" 

 

AncapFTW resorted to the dishonest version.  And you had a chance to point out that he was being dishonest.  Which you missed. 

[AncapFTW]

Do you feel the heavy weight of your assumption that, "The best way to love someone is not to cause them pain!"?  Do you even realize that this is your core belief? 

 

Did you get that core belief from banging a whole bunch of girls, all of whom became extremely self-destructive after you broke up with them? 

 

(If so, I empathize, but Not All Girls Are Like That.  And No Healthy Girl Is Like That.  You should schedule a call-in show with Stefan to talk about this; he's a master at untying moral responsibility surrounding these issues.)  (But if not, I don't empathize with you at all.  I just correctly deem you as stuck in chains of your own creation, trying unsuccessfully to get me to wear them.) 

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense out of this comment.  You are assuming that I think something, telling me that that's what I think, then asking me if I experienced something that has no bearing on the topic.

 

If you can't use logic, then there isn't really a reason to discuss things with you.

 

p.s.  You claim to support NAP, then attack me over the assumption that I think something that is similar to it.  Show that that statement is wrong, then maybe you can argue against following it.  It still won't prove that that's what I think, but at least it will be a proper strawman then, and not just random comments.

[AncapFTW]

 

Thanks for the correction, Kevin. 

 

However, you could've also commented on AncapFTW's self-created chains, Frosty's self-created chains, and your own self-created chains. 

 

While AncapFTW is chaining himself with worries that certain types of flirting may hurt women, or Frosty is chaining himself with concerns that some forms of PUA may risk violating the NAP, and you're chaining yourself with concerns that acquiring certain flirting behaviors is a betrayal of Who You Really Are, I am free to successfully ask out a much younger woman on the very night the best woman I've ever loved told me she has fallen in love with another, better man. 

 

-------------------

 

I had a conversation with a man who's much younger than you, and Pick-Up Artistry came up.

 

Him: So you've basically just got to be yourself, and confidently broadcast it.

 

Me:  No!  First, you've got to become what she wants, and then you've got to be yourself! 

 

Think of what it's like to write with your opposite hand; it's really uncomfortable until it isn't.  And the moment it's no longer uncomfortable, it's Who You Really Are.  Now, you can mind-fuck yourself by asking which of these versions is really you: the old version who couldn't write with his opposite hand, or the new version that comfortably can.  And you can mind-fuck yourself by asking how can Fakeness become Real.  Or you can just shut up, become what she wants, and learn to enjoy the transformation. 

 

Because if you don't become what she wants, you're telling her that What She Wants is wrong.  And are you really so smart that you know What She Wants is wrong?  Who are you to judge what she wants? 

 

-----------------

 

That kid, who's younger than you, not-at-all trained in philosophy, and therefore not-nearly-as-smart-as-you beamed in self-knowledge, and said, "I've never had it explained to me like that.  You're right." 

 

Why can't you?  Why do you follow my posts, looking for the smallest corrections you can make, rather than comment on larger, more transformative issues? 

 

 

--------------------

 

By the way, Kevin, if I were to ask, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills?", my question is of course a possibility.  But referencing possibilities like this masks the other possibility, "But of course, I could totally be wrong here." 

 

So the honest version is, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills?  Of course, it's possible.  But it's also possible that you're not infected with such a virus and are, in fact, thinking quite well." 

 

And the dishonest version is, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills?" 

 

AncapFTW resorted to the dishonest version.  And you had a chance to point out that he was being dishonest.  Which you missed. 

[shirgall]

The "strawman" logo will get used less and less if everyone says what they mean in more clear and concise terms, sticks to quotes and behaviors, and avoids statements on surmised intent.

[MysterionMuffles]

The "strawman" logo will get used less and less if everyone says what they mean in more clear and concise terms, sticks to quotes and behaviors, and avoids statements on surmised intent.

 

I don't think it's possible at this point. The main topic has been far too derailed to get back on point.

[MMX2010]

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense out of this comment.  You are assuming that I think something, telling me that that's what I think, then asking me if I experienced something that has no bearing on the topic.

 

It's impossible for you to simultaneously say, "I'm saying "it's risky, and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it." AND TO DENY experiencing the heavy weight of your assumption that "the best way to love someone is to not cause them pain!" 

 

The assumption that you shouldn't cause pain on the people you claim to love CAUSES you to constantly state, "PUA is risky and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it."  The assumption that you shouldn't cause pain on the people you love CAUSES you to assume that I don't support the NAP, even though YOU don't support the NAP - (because you want to advise "caution" and "not using" of actions that MAY cause harm, instead of advising "caution" and "not using" of actions that HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED to cause harm. 

 

Surely you know the difference between murder / rape (actions that logically have been demonstrated to cause harm every single time they're conducted) and "not putting nuts in everything at your restaurant too, because both could very easily hurt people." (actions which are NOT-AT-ALL harmful to most people, are in fact ENJOYED by many people, and easily worked-around)!  ( Welcome to MMX2010's restaurant of nutty goodness; please be advised that we love nuts so much that we incorporate them into everything we make.  Those with nut allergies are peacefully encouraged to eat elsewhere.)

 

Unless, maybe, you really don't.  In which case, call in Stefan.  He'll help you with that. 

[AncapFTW]

 

It's impossible for you to simultaneously say, "I'm saying "it's risky, and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it." AND TO DENY experiencing the heavy weight of your assumption that "the best way to love someone is to not cause them pain!" 

 

The assumption that you shouldn't cause pain on the people you claim to love CAUSES you to constantly state, "PUA is risky and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it."  The assumption that you shouldn't cause pain on the people you love CAUSES you to assume that I don't support the NAP, even though YOU don't support the NAP - (because you want to advise "caution" and "not using" of actions that MAY cause harm, instead of advising "caution" and "not using" of actions that HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED to cause harm. 

 

Surely you know the difference between murder / rape (actions that logically have been demonstrated to cause harm every single time they're conducted) and "not putting nuts in everything at your restaurant too, because both could very easily hurt people." (actions which are NOT-AT-ALL harmful to most people, are in fact ENJOYED by many people, and easily worked-around)!  ( Welcome to MMX2010's restaurant of nutty goodness; please be advised that we love nuts so much that we incorporate them into everything we make.  Those with nut allergies are peacefully encouraged to eat elsewhere.)

 

Unless, maybe, you really don't.  In which case, call in Stefan.  He'll help you with that. 

This is the second time you've said that I specifically said something I didn't.  Please stop doing this.

 

Once again, I don't know which actions you are using, but some of the actions that fall under the category you are saying is a great idea to use have, in fact, been shown to cause harm.  Advising that someone not risk doing something that has a very good chance of hurting someone else isn't "against NAP", it's just using your brain.  If I advised you to not fire a gun off in the air in public, would that be anti-NAP?  After all, you aren't necessarily hurting anyone, just risking it.

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you're going to keep insisting that I'm anti-NAP because I want you to use a little wisdom in your actions and to use a tiny bit of self control to guarantee that you don't violate NAP, then there's really no point in talking to you.  You obviously don't care if you hurt others, since you are willing to risk causing people harm simply so that you can fulfill your desires, and attack anyone that suggests that you be careful to not hurt anyone.

[MMX2010]

This is the second time you've said that I specifically said something I didn't.  Please stop doing this.

 

No, AncapFTW.  I implied that you must be feeling something, because it's logical that you must be feeling it.  Do you realize that implications, by their definition, are unsaid? 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you're going to keep insisting that I'm anti-NAP because I want you to use a little wisdom in your actions and to use a tiny bit of self control to guarantee that you don't violate NAP, then there's really no point in talking to you.  You obviously don't care if you hurt others, since you are willing to risk causing people harm simply so that you can fulfill your desires, and attack anyone that suggests that you be careful to not hurt anyone.

 

You are anti-NAP because you're telling someone who has never violated the NAP that he has no self-control. 

 

What has happened in every single example wherein I posted my flirting skills and banging skills?  (1) A host of individuals has proven that I've violated the NAP.  OR (2) No one has commented on whether I've violated the NAP, because it's rather damn obvious that my examples don't violate the NAP. 

 

Right!  The second one! 

 

Now, the simplest explanation is that I have sufficient self-control and wisdom, because every time I flirt and every time I bang, I don't violate the NAP.  But the explanation that AncapFTW prefers is that I've no self-control and no wisdom, despite having never broken the NAP because I take risks. 

 

Your preferences for certain explanations are both revealing and amusing, and I thank you for allowing me to remain in my amused masterful Frame. 

 

Kevin Beal's decision to take your side, rather than pointing out the obvious flaws in your position, has also been revealing.  And I thank him for allowing me to remain in my amused masterful Frame.  (As one FDR member pointed out to me in PM, in reference to him, "THE SALT IS REAL!") 

 

-------------------

 

By the way, when you said, "There's no point in talking to you.", that's actually wrong.

 

The point of talking to me is to explore the degree to which you're anti-NAP.  You know, "Self-knowledge" and all that.   

 

So, is it TRUE that telling people who have never violated the NAP that they shouldn't risk violating the NAP makes you anti-NAP?  In my mind, it does.  And I've argued my point. 

 

Will you avoid the discussion or open-mindedly participate in it? 

[AncapFTW]

I'm sorry, but this is like talking with a fanatic.

 

Multiple people have pointed out multiple times how you're wrong, and, instead of actually looking at what they say, you choose to attack them, put words in their mouth, accuse them of being things they aren't, and then act like your point is self evident, even though it isn't.

 

You've suggested that I call into the show, and I would recommend the same for you, but you would likely just end up calling Stefan anti-NAP and/or accusing him of doing or thinking things he didn't do or think, like you've done with everyone else who has disagreed with you.  You suggest that I've got a lack of "self-knowledge." immediately after I suggest the same thing about you.

 

I suggest you look up "Logical falacies" on wikipedia and read the page.  Maybe, after you've done that, it will acually be worth talking to you.  Until then, though, I'll just have to assume you have no interest in a real discussion because it might limit your ability to think with your "lower brains" instead of the one in your head.

 

I certainly hope that you are right that you haven't violated NAP in any of your many, many, cases of acting as someone you aren't to get laid, but I seriously doubt it.

[Marlowe]

I'm sorry, but this is like talking with a fanatic.

 

Multiple people have pointed out multiple times how you're wrong, and, instead of actually looking at what they say, you choose to attack them, put words in their mouth, accuse them of being things they aren't, and then act like your point is self evident, even though it isn't.

 

 

Yeah, this has been my experience of MMX as well... I am looking forward to his call on the 17th, in which he will conclusively prove he is right about everything

[Kevin Beal]

I seem to be the main target, for some reason. Every post of yours I read (directed to other people) seems to make some kind of reference to me. I guess that means I got under your skin. But at least you didn't let it ruin your frame. That's kinda impressive, in a strange way.

 

I don't know what you are going for. Whatever it is,... I think it's kinda sad. I can just imagine you rationalizing this all as self sacrifice, for something more important than yourself. Maybe to maintain "frame" or whatever. It seems really important to you for some reason; to spend so many hours to maintaining it. That's got to take a whole lot of mental energy. It's got to be exhausting. I don't envy that.

 

I'm grateful though, that you've made the effort, insofar as it's got me to think about a lot of things, like the saltiness the fella mentioned. I guess that means you got under my skin.

 

You sure are persistent. That's not a bad quality. I have no doubt you'll continue to,... frame, I guess.

 

I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

Take care David.