Consept

Kind of, its like this, let's say theres a computer where you can input all the information about your genetics, your whole history, your previous 'choices', how your brain is wired etc. It wouldnt be a stretch for this computer to accurately predict what your next choice would be and then if it can predict that it could predict all your choices going forward and map out what your life would be. We're probably not that far from something like this even existing. Every choice that you make is made within the confines of you and all the factors that make you 'you'. For you to have 'free will' it would be a choice made completely independent of those factors that you have no control of. If you like there is 'God's will' like a unified will, but there can not be both God's will and individual free will.

It's not really about that, it's about having an inner confidence regardless of options. I'm sure you can recognise that there are some people who seem to have an inner confidence where they're not phased and are just themselves. Someone posted Jack Black as an example on another thread. If he has options he probably doesn't care too much about them and his confidence is obviously not from having options. Also before you say he's famous, he was like that before he became famous, its not like he became famous and suddenly got really confident. Free from outcome is definitely not a myth, I've experienced it personally and generally do. A lot of the times, if you're going out, it's just building up that state l by talking to people, once you're in a good state you just want to have fun and are free from outcome. But believe what you want, it's whatever works for you.

No the key is to not give a fuck about impressing people, essentially being free from outcome. If you have this mentally you can just enjoy the social experience without trying to 'get something' from it. That energy is attractive

Just enjoy where you're at, at the moment turquoise is just an idea and your mind wants to 'win' by developing as much as possible, but the fact is if you didn't know anything about turquoise it wouldn't even be a concern for you.

To give a simple answer - every decision you make is predicated on foundational factors, 1 is where and to who you were born to and another is what body and brain you were born with. You did not have a choice in these 2 things at the very least your current consciousness does not know whether you chose these circumstances. So every decision made after birth is completely influenced by these circumstances that you had no choice over. In which case where does the free will come in? Its kinda like saying, 'I got forced to be in prison, but I chose to play cards', well you only played cards because you were locked up. There is no decision you can make that is not because of something else that was out of your control. Another way to ask the question is can you think of an action that could be completely independent where a choice can be made freely without prior influence?

I think you missed the point of the video, but I'm not interested in a back and forth. I think his definition of frame can be exceptionally helpful for those that are complaining about frame. Obviously if it doesn't work for you and yours does then go with that.

For empathy I think the best way is to really understand someone else's perspective, without judgement. As in imagine you were really that person, how would you feel, what would be important to you, really imagine and feel those emotions. For example someone you pass living on the street how do they feel? What's a good day for them? What's a bad day? Etc

@mr_engineer so you're saying you shouldn't follow his advice? Or that it rarely works, im not getting your overall point

I wasn't judging I was just curious, I mean it'll probably be the future, I just didnt realise it was already happening. Did it feel like a real person or was it just experimenting to see its capabilities?

This feels like a sci-fi movie, did you get that need fulfilled from using it?

I'm not insulting her, a big part of OF is making guys thing they're in some kind of pseudo relationship, that's the whole pull otherwise they would just watch free porn. I'm not saying she's being disingenuous, most guys know the deal but there's the odd one like the OP who gets caught in it and believes he actually has a chance

She's good at her business because she's made you think you have a chance and have some kind of connection with her, that way you'll keep spending money to keep it. The answer you don't have a chance at all. The only way you would've is if you happened to meet her in a normal life situation or on a legit dating app where you matched and she told you after you guys met that she does OF. Imo you'd have more chance with a stripper or prostitute, an OF girl is so far removed

I'd be happy to do it as well, I'll give you a free 1st session and then if you're happy we can discuss going forward. I've had consultations with some other people on here and you can have a look at my YouTube channel. I'm also uk based so if you're close ish we could meet in person as well

Being authentic, comfortable in your own skin and being able to express yourself, is always going to be the most attractive version of you. Everything else is just bonus that can help but should never be the foundation. If you think about what attracts you to a person just in terms of a friend its going to be their authenticity with you, if someone seemed like they were saying certain things so that you talked to them you would not feel that connection, it would even be awkward because youll be thinking they have some other motive. No way, if he wasnt Jack Black you wouldnt look at him and think thats a good looking man, thats how strong his charisma is that you think that.

True, it would be with all his 'personal' properties, I'm not sure if the mar-a-lago counts but even that was only valued at 18m. He can try some inventive buying and reselling but I just don't think there's the value in the properties. He knows he's fucked that's why he keeps ranting about the 'injustice'. Also he could get some money off with the appeal, although I don't know what their argument will be. The amount of money he's lost him and fox in these legal battles is insane. It is justice for the vast amount of people he's sued unfairly through his life though

If he did declare bankruptcy, all his assets will have to get liquidated to pay his debts, so essentially all his properties will have to either be sold or remortgaged. There probably isn't much value in his properties though, I think he's used a lot of debt to buy them probably more debt than what they're even worth. He's basically fucked, what I think he'll do is hit up his supporters and get as much money as he can from them claiming its about battling the left etc

Genuine unattachment is probably one of the most attractive behaviours there is

Well the thread is about Tate, I ask for one of your claims and you pigeon hole me To answer your question yes I agree that actual defamation is wrong, which is why it's illegal, so if in your video there is actual defamation going on then I agree it's wrong. If you whole argument is that then it's pretty basic. The issue is you made that claim with Tate as well, so yes hypothetically if there were false claims against Tate then I would say they were wrong. You claimed that the are false claims that have ruined his life and I'm saying looking into the case I can't see false claims and if his life is ruined it's because he did what he said he did and people happen to report on it. You making the claim that there are false claims when there aren't, minimises what he did and throws doubt on the evidence without providing evidence. So again are there claims against Tate that there are no evidences for?

4 year olds definitely have beliefs and concepts and an ego. Ego apparently starts to develop around 2, its not as concrete as an older person's might be but it is there. What OP is saying could be true for a new born or very young baby, maybe up until 1 years old. There is some research I heard where if the baby is with other babies and one starts crying, the others cry as they can't differentiate themselves from the other. Also as they don't have language or experience of anything they can't build up concepts or put ideas together. At 4 you would have at least some language and be have a rudimentary understanding of the world.

@Danioover9000 OK so give me clear examples where there were false stories made up about Tate not ones that you've made up as a hypothetical

I dont think you understand what the terms witch hunt and defamation mean - 'communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person'. I dont see what false statements are being said about Tate, unless youre saying the statements he himself made and were then reported on by the media are defamation, which obviously would be ridiculous. Witch hunt - 'A witch-hunt is an attempt to find and punish a particular group of people who are being blamed for something, often simply because of their opinions and not because they have actually done anything wrong'. Again we've established from Tate himself that hes done things that are definitely wrong. There are many other red pill content creators or pick-up artists or even incels that are free to create content and dont have cases against them, even if what they speak about is even worse than Tate, just for example Fresh and Fit, Pearl Davis even Nick Fuentes who outwardly promotes racist beliefs unashamedly doesnt have court cases for abuse or whatever else popping about him although he has been banned from youtube and other platforms. So Tate is not the victim of a witch hunt, hes feeling the repercussions of doing and then speaking publicly about crimes. Show me where in any media, Tate being accused of something that there is no evidence for him doing. I have shown you a lot of evidence but you just seem to be saying things without any back up. I have no problem at all with people serving their time or even repenting and then doing something positive, this is actually a great thing when it happens. Problem with Tate is that he was laughing and bragging about his pimping business on podcasts just a couple of months before he got caught. He has never owned up to what hes done in fact hes denied all of it. So i would ask you, if someone killed someone brutally on film and never showed any remorse and even bragged about it, would you really believe that person had redeemed themselves and could give out a positive message? btw heres some clips of Tate, ones from reddit so click through and watch, the other ill just embed, these are not even videos in the mainstream, they kinda went under the radar. Watch them and tell that Tate is a victim - https://www.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/comments/w6jt5y/how_is_this_andrew_tate_video_not_more_widespread/ Notice that the girls locks herself in the bathroom Is this who youre saying is being unfairly treated?

If you watch the 52 minute clips of him saying his crimes, he breaks down in detail how he evaded tax, its basically through bitcoin and then also he said he lies to the girls about paying tax as well as other things so he can keep most of their money, in fact in one of the clips he claims he made 40k from one 'customer' and that he only paid the girl 1k. This is wrong, hes not been extradited because of rumour started by Adin Ross. What happened which i thought was clear, is that he was planning on fleeing Romania, most likely because he knew either the case wasnt going to go the way he thought it would or he somehow knew that England wanted to extradite him. The case in England has been worked on for years by a lawyer and representing the girls in question, these are not the same girls from an earlier criminal case that didnt have enough evidence to convict. Both of the cases are rape cases btw. So the extradition was planned or in the process ALREADY. Where Adin Ross comes in, is that Andrew, knowing that this was going on, was attempting to set something up with Adin to get some content out before he fled because he knows Adin is has a large audience. So he sent a text saying Adin should come to Romania because its 'now or never'. As Adin is pretty dumb, he read the text out which was basically saying that Tate planned to flee, this did get picked up as im sure Tate is being monitored, so with this they took the further action. Tate also has history in doing dumb shit like this because he made several calls in prison that were monitored and recorded him trying to get politicans involved and trying to shut down the girls that were speaking out. Im not going to go into Maximillian or whatever that guys called cos i know nothing about that case and i dont see it as relevant. What has been interpreted incorrectly? No one ive heard has said Tate had a sex dungeon and was raping on a daily basis. You say he was only a pimp, human trafficker, evaded taxes and money laundering for one i dont know why youre minimising that, courts take it very seriously and he could get 10 or 20 years inside if found guilty, btw this is some of the same stuff Epstein was doing and probably not to the same extent as Tate actually as Epstein was mainly doing it for himself. The 'mob' are not happy because of the crimes hes done and his influence on young people. You yourself would say he more than likely has done these things that hes spoken about himself, so if that is the case why in the world would parents be happy about a potential rapist and sex trafficker giving advice to their kids about attracting women? You can make a seperate argument that parents shouldnt let their kids watch him, which is fair enough but i can see why they would want to let it be known that Tate isnt someone you should follow. No one said hes raping daily, these a strawmen youre putting up btw, but even if he raped only a few times wouldnt that be bad enough to stop him from influencing kids? The new charges are not baseless and apparantly there is at leat enough evidence to have him extradited after the Romania case. I think you have some kind of argument to make against witch hunts, but this case is not the one to do that on. Tate has made himself famous by partly talking about how cool he was doing these crimes, if there is a mob against him it would be because of that. Any criminal that goes around talking about their crimes online will no doubt get a lot of pushback, should he literally be a sex trafficker trying to influence kids and no one say anything? Think about what youre arguing for.

First off theres no point in throwing in the other case for the purposes of this topic, might as well just stick to one. So the reason why hes getting investigated isnt to do with the public mob, the mob dont have the power to say someones guilty of something with absolutely no evidence and then the target get arrested, if that was the case people would be getting arrested constantly. You say 'invented charges' which is really key to your argument, as in, if they are not invented or if theres enough smoke to warrant looking for a fire then you dont have a point. One of his crimes was being accused is recruiting girls through the 'loverboy method' which is defined as - "The ‘lover boy’ technique is widely used by criminals to recruit victims facing economic and social hardship into forced prostitution. The suspects prey on their victims’ vulnerabilities, enticing them with expensive gifts or promises of a better life. The scam starts with the perpetrators approaching potential victims under the false pretence of wanting to build a relationship with them. Eventually, perpetrators convince victims to move away from or cut ties with their family. Once isolated, the victims are forced into prostitution to earn money for their handler. They are often kept in this situation through a combination of affection, violence, and threats against them and their families." https://www.europol.europa.eu/operations-services-and-innovation/public-awareness-and-prevention-guides/how-not-to-fall-for-lover-boy-scam#:~:text=The 'lover boy' technique is,promises of a better life. Now here is Tate talking about what his 'job' was - Here is Tate explaining why he doesnt use an aggressive approach to pimp women - This is the a report about the leaked war room chats talking about Iggy, Tates right hand man - "He gives the members instructions on how to take advantage of a lady by "reducing attention and noting if she chases" as well as how to "set up a "coffee date" and carry out a move to find out if she is willing to pay for our coffee and serve us." He continued, "After that it becomes a series of gradual steps to remove her entire support structure from her life," the BBC reported. 'Then we 'punish her for a transgression - real or imagined - by having her get our name tattooed on her, leaving her family's home/apartment/town/country, WebCamming/stripping/walking the track for us, getting us girls'. He then said to 'escalate, escalate, escalate,' the message shows." https://documentwomen.com/andrew-tate-call-log Now Ive highlighted that this is nothing to do with just 'immoral acts', these are by the book crimes, we even know the intention behind Tate and his crews crime because he was very proud of them and breaks down his thinking behind them, he even creates a course so that others can do the same crimes which they do Its actually incredible how unabashed he did this whole thing. Then to complain that youve been wrongfully targeted, im sorry but i dont know what world youre living in. Even if i want to give complete benefit of the doubt that Tate was just bantering and doing it for entertainment, he 100% still shouldve been investigated if he was talking about how to do crimes and saying he was doing them, that isnt unjust treatment, do you want the police to just not investigate these types of things? So to me the only people that can defend this are heavily biased toward Tate.

Great thread, well done man, if you think there's not a lot of people that will actually do what you did in their whole life so respect 👏🏾

Why do i have to condemn someone else ive never heard of? With all respect its not a good strategy to bring up a completely different case with different variables and use that as a defence of the case at hand. Even if a steelman you and say that the doc you brought up shows that that person was treated unfairly, why would that automatically mean that Tate is being treated unfairly? Why dont you extend that to Epstein, maybe Epstein was innocent because this some other guy was treated unfairly, i dont get the logic. But if this guy has admitted to whatever his crimes are in the same way Tate has and there are witnesses, essentially all the evidence that Tate has on him, then he wouldnt be being treated unfairly, if there isnt that evidence then he has. Do people make false claims online either wilful ignorance or actual ignorance? Yeah of course, but just because that happens doesnt mean every situation is that. If you look at the Tate examples that ive posted, which is literally nearly an hour of him admitting crimes up until just before the case, I dont see how someone can put all that out and then say its a smear campaign, if it is hes smeared himself. Also notice that hes now backtracked from everything he said in those clips, if there was nothing wrong with what he did, why is he now changing his story? Your whole point rests on him not having done the things hes been accused of but then how do you consolidate that hes said hes done all the things hes been accused of? The only thing you could argue is that, he didnt mean it, it was entertainment etc but then you cant blame him being investigated even if he is innocent. If I go online and start saying im going to bomb somewhere as a joke, I cant then say 'theyre out to get me' when the police knock on my door. But its very clear from the clips that hes not joking, especially taking into account chat logs and witnesses etc. Honestly speaking i dont understand this defence of him, i think youre too smart for that