zurew

So if someone agrees with Leo on a specific topic, they are just droning on what he says, right? What a good quality engagment with what was said here. I could literally use the same argument and say, that you are just parroting everything that came from Andrew Tate, but that would be a very weak argument. Essentially what you are saying here is that you would rather have a daughter than a women. You have a very poor engagement with this topic and your characterisation of stage green shows that you have a lot of stage green integration to do. Also, the idea, that age alone could be a good variable to judge people by is a very naive and incredibly reductionistic view. There are like a bunch of potential negative things that could be brought up, if you think that wifing up an incredibly young girl and building a family with her is a good idea. Andrew Tate's framework and toolset is one of the worst if you want to build a healthy family. (All the attention has to go to him, everything has to revolve around him, He doesn't care if the mother of his child is sexually satisfied or not, He has multiple girls and multiple families, so the time that he can spend with hid kids is very limited etc) By following that you are literally setting yourself up to a disaster, because that framework hit all the points that are some of the biggest reasons for a divorce. Who said that you should or that thats your only option? Its interesting though, that in your mind there is only two choice- going with a stage blue girl or a stage green girl. I don't even know why would you bring SD into this in the firstplace. Its a very shallow way to categorize people all the time, it has its own place but there is almost no utility to it in this case, because you lose all the nuance. Notice how insecure you would have to be to bring up spiral dynamics for the purpose of dick measuring and then calling yourself stage yellow. I wasn't talking down on lower stages, I was talking about a very surface level analysis that was came from your buddy, Andrew Tate. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you created this whole thread to get feedback on yours and Tate's opinion on this matter, and now that you got some pushback you seem to be surprised.

Obviously thats what he is implying and pretending to be otherwise is disingenuous. Except this is a made up rule in his mind. He has 1 hypothesis to explain why women are single above the age of 25 and thinks that it is true in the vast majority of the cases, without actually examining the issue from multiple perspectives and explanations. Even his categorization of "quality" women is based on his very childish bias, where he doesn't actually want a partner, but he wants to be a father for his "women". He has his biases and then try to use his biases as if those would be the objective way to judge whether a women is good quality or not, and then when he finds out that only a few women aligned with his biases, he concludes that most women are bad or low quality. - What a dumb and surface level way to analyse anything and what a good way to appeal to his incel audience.

Nowhere near.

They might have sex with that many girls but he won't have actual relationships with those girls. One sided open relationships are incredibly rare, so even if there are guys who can fuck multiple women, those women won't dissapear from the dating market and you can still date them its not like all of them are engaged to one guy.

I found this comment on reddit (came from someone, who already has access to integrated bing)

When it comes to gaslighting often times you get accused of doing stuff, that you have never done(and making you believe that you did those things), but in the case of blaming, people are usually using stuff against you, that you actually did in the past. Other way to think about it, is that when it comes to gaslighting, people are making stuff up (that you actually didn't do) so that they can justify their bad actions, but in the case of blaming its usually not that they want to justify something, but more like they try hard not to take responsibility for anything and to put all the responsibility on you.---> so if we go with framework,then gaslighting is the bigger category, that involves blaming but more than that (because its also often used as justification for bad actions)

The chat and Destiny thought that its just another regular redpill content.

It has multiple definitions, I guess you are in the "or low interest or desire for sexual activity" camp. So you never had any strong desire or urge to have sex?

@aurum dont waste your time with this guy, he is a lost cause.

Because its easy for women to have sex , and its hard for men to acquire sex. But that doesn't indicates that women don't like having sex, its just means they don't want to get slut shamed. Maybe, but there are a lot of reasons for breakups and for divorce. I think most people would be okay with monogamous realtionships if the quality of sex would stay good.

Everyone likes to fuck, women would fuck around a lot more, if they wouldn't be shamed for it. That being said, being in a serious relationship is a different question. There are a very few people who can actually manage a serious poly realtionship (regardless if we are talking about men or women).

This statement suggest to me, that you are not asexual, because you are not saying that you never want to masturbate and you are not saying either, that you never get aroused by anything. Considering all the text from your post I assume you are not asexual, you just have a very low sexdrive. One question: Were you more horny in your teenage years, or not?

Lol this was fast.

This crying about chatgpt not praising right wing people enough has to stop. All of these examples are cherrypicked and all of you who are spreading these pictures about chatgpt being biased, have either never tried to ask chatgpt these questions or have tried it once and then decided to come to the conclusion that it must be biased. All of you claim you want the truth and that you think critically, but in all of these examples you just demonstrate that you take information for granted from sources that are reinforcing your biases.

yep, there is a big misconception about microsoft edge, because it was shit in the beginning and then a lot of people stopped using it, but since then it has improved a lot.

Interesting study, however I don't necessarily agree with their definition of an 'AHA' moment. The whole magic trick domain revolves around being deceptive, manipulative and leading your attention to certain things. I don't think thats a fair way to test AHA moments, or to even put an = between AHA moments and moments like mentioned in the paper. When it comes to AHA moments, I think of moments when your mind finds new, deeper connections between certain concepts and ideas. To frame it a different way - an AHA moment is when you find a different or a new pattern between certain concepts and ideas. It could also be framed like this: an AHA moment is when you look at a problem/task from a different than ususal lense and you immediately see the solution or the synthesis of ideas.

I have high expectations for this - I really hope it will be good.

There is no argument that could be given, because you haven't even made any argument yourself. The only thing you have is a descriptive statement and your conclusion. Your conclusion alone is too vague without a specific example or argument - I don't think anyone would necessarily disagree by principle with asserting your will on the world even if you would need to break some laws or morals - Its always about a value trade and there are justifications for those trades, but to talk about justifications we have to have a specific example at hand, you need to give some context to this, because for the most of us it will depend on the context. Right now there is literally nothing to attack there, only your definition, which is indeed shallow, because its way too broad and according to your definition a rapist, a murderer, a sex trafficker would be all exceptional people. No one uses the word "exceptional" this way.

Obviously if you are willing to break the rules, you will have a massive advantage over people who are emphatetic enough to not break certain rules. But breaking the rules and procaliming yourself as exceptional won't make you exceptional at all, unless your bar is super low, but if your bar is that low, then the word exceptional automatically lose its meaning. You don't get to posture yourself as being braive by having certain morals and at the same time shitting on people who disagree with your morals and labeling them as peasants and sheep and get surprised when your feet is hold to the fire.

"I am so brave, I am willing to break the law and I am willing to proclaim myself as an exceptional man" - said by every lunatic criminal. This is a copout, so you don't need to deal with the negative consequences of you ethical system. Obviously you are arguing in favour of your idea of morals and you would prefer if it would be applied all across the world. If you are just here to virtue signal how brave you are, and you don't want to change the current ethics to your preffered ethics, and you are not willing to actually defend your system, then you are just wasting everyones time here.

Deal with the conclusions that your system would create and bite the bullets that you need to bite and don't dance around.