aurum

If you are getting security called on you, either you are doing something very wrong or you just had crazy bad luck. That is not normal.

It does not. 1) Filtering and testing does not guarantee your relationship will not have problems 2) Women complain because men fail tests, not because they are necessarily testing poorly 3) Things would be way worse if they didn't test and filter Those examples were poor and not serious. I do not accept those as scalable problems, they are closer to cherry-picked incel ragebait. So I suppose we are just in disagreement here. Modern dating has its unique challenges. But on the whole, I'd say it's easier than ever. You could go out to a bar or nightclub if you live in a major city and get five different girls phone numbers tonight. And the challenges that do exist are not because women are trying to make it as hard as possible for men. It's more social media addiction, technology isolation, ideological brain rot, financial struggles, etc.

That's not a serious problem at scale. Women's filtering is effective and works well the vast majority of time for her agenda. Guys just want to assume they are not the problem. Like what other areas? How else are they making it impossible for men? I acknowledge women can behave in toxic ways. You don't have to assume everything is a collaboration. I'm trying to balance the perspective here. Yes, women test men naturally. It's your job as a man to understand and accept this. This will actually make you less bitter towards women and likely improve your dating success as a byproduct.

No, because filtering men is in her interest. If she's interested in a guy, but then she tests him and he drops the ball, that's a win for her. It's still exaggerated. Filtering and testing, yes. Making things as hard as possible for you, no. But is it more of a wider, objective analysis? It comes off to me as pretty narrow and biased.

Is it irrational or do you just not understand it? None of that means women are making things as difficult as possible for you. You'd have to cherry-pick the most toxic behavior to believe that. This kind of combative attitude is extremely toxic and partly why guys struggle to meet quality women. Assume more of a collaborative frame.

The biggest gap I see with young guys is with dating. I'm not saying this is all your fault. Many of these things are extremely difficult to change. I myself struggle with some of them. But if you're serious about improving your situation, this is what I would focus on taking responsibility for. This is some "tough love": You're bitter from your past or current failures with women You're hyper-fixated on your looks or you ignore improving them You're scared to approach or your approach is way too aggressive. Your head is filled with manosphere, redpill trash or progressive, egalitarian fantasies. You're emotionally needy or emotionally stunted You don't socialize enough You don't have enough friends or social circle You're trying to influence her with logic You don't have a purpose or a world to draw her into You want women to make things easier for you You think she's being irrational or you don't hold her accountable at all You're not proactive enough about leading and logistics You don't know how to have good sex You want to fight with women rather than do the relational dance with them You don't make enough money to seriously raise a family You're conflicted about what kind of future you want with her You want to fix her rather than be with her

It's possible that by the time you are old enough to where it may catch up with you, medical science will have vastly advanced. Trying to predict medicine in 50 years is almost impossible at this point.

That's total cholesterol, not LDL-C. Different biomarker.

This totally confuses the situation. Both things are true: 1) Women are interested in attracting men 2) Women will filter and test men in that process So there's no contradiction. It's part of the same strategy for women. And it's pointless to berate them about this, even if you don't like it. They are not going to stop filtering or testing men, nor should they. Stop wanting women to make things easy for you. The idea that women are making it "as hard for men as possible" is also absurd. If this was the case, no guy would ever be getting laid. In reality, women give you indicators of interest. Smiling, laughing, attention, agreeing with your frame, physical touch, playing with their hair, turning their body towards you, and even just talking with you at all. If she's willing to just talk and be in your presence, that can be enough of a green light. Sometimes interest can be subtle. It's your job to recognize it. If she's feeling really bold, she may even initiate or lead things herself. Or she might just tell you point-blank what she wants. Although I would not rely on that.

Here's another scary thought: if AI eliminates all standard meritocratic justifications for power, then what decides who holds power? Who and how is it decided that you're in the top 5% versus 95%? Worst-case scenario, things devolve into a SD Red-esque might-makes-right situation. Power is given to those who can hold it, period.

Dude, no. Women are not trying to make things as hard as possible for men. If that was the case, things would be way worse.

Strictly speaking, you are infinity.

Yeah I remember that. I have personally stopped with ghee. I do my cooking with EVOO. It's probably genetics. 90% of this stuff is just what the good lord gave you. We're just tinkering around at the edges. 150 mg/dL is kind of high my dude, are you not concerned? That all makes sense to me. But it also shows that you can't rely on "I will never oxidize so I will be safe!!". No, you're going to oxidize. So pragmatically, an increase in ApoB is definitely a risk, even if you're doing all the right lifestyle things. It's just a question of how much.

I asked GPT a few more questions if you want to read through to get a more nuanced picture: https://chatgpt.com/share/683c8192-5910-800c-a591-22a2e75e2433 The punchline seems to be that there's a tradeoff between ApoB and oxidation levels. Saturated fat is going to drive up ApoB and LDL-C, but potentially reduce oxidization. Whereas seed oils are going to lower ApoB but drive up oxidization. So really it's a nuanced choice you've got to work out with your medical provider, depending on your unique situation. And you need to be testing. What's your lipid panel levels? ApoB was 58 mg/dL and LDL-C was 76 mg/dL for my last test. And I'm eating meat everyday.

Here's my results: https://chatgpt.com/share/683c8192-5910-800c-a591-22a2e75e2433 I don't see anything particularly new here. Of course native LDL-C itself has to become oxidized, we have known this for a long time: Also, the idea that you need to keep a balance of Omega-6 to Omega-3 is also not new. You could probably over consume seed oils, but this is hardly an indictment of the evilness of seed oils themselves. Open to pushback.

@RendHeaven fair enough. Ed is making some good points, but ultimately I suspect he is also still just rationalizing his vegan ethics.

I agree that taking a philosophical position of solipsism is not the same as awakening, yes. You could consider yourself a solipsist but still not understand the consequences of it.

Yes, that's the mindfuckery of God. You thought you were a finite human. You were so, so sure you were a finite human. You were so, so sure that it never even occurred to question it. That's how convincing the human experience is. But you are not ultimately a finite human, despite the fact that you can have a human experience. Both things are true: you are not ultimately a human, and yet pragmatically you can still pick up the phone and call your mom. That's how powerful a God-dream is. It's indistinguishable from reality. That's also imagination. Pragmatically speaking, the dream-character is not aware of all things. That is nessesarily true to create realness within the dream. But it's only true within the context of the dream itself. You just have to stop thinking you're a human and it makes sense. No finite-thing has awareness. God just exists.

That was me reflecting back to Carl-Richard’s his argument to make sure I understood him. Yes, you could fall into a trap of equating solipsism with the finite self. But that’s not what I am doing.

It does. You're just not yet understanding how radical the ramifications of Oneness are. Not only does perspective have existence, it's the only thing with existence. Anything you want to claim outside of perspective to exist requires perspective. You have never had an experience outside of perspective.

The One is infinity. So that's not a problem. Yes, you could say reality is limited to being One / infinity. I apologize on behalf of the universe.

I deny that I am a finite human self. An Absolute cannot be true only in certain cases, by defintion.

Solipsism is not a limit, it's the removal of all limits.

What happened that it almost killed you?

Solipsists: only one thread!