Consept

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,068

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Consept

  1. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Pav said:

    It doesn't just come from Christian ideas, there's an abundance of non-christian cultures which shun promiscuity and value purity significantly more than the West.

    I was more talking about why its so prominent in the west, but yes other cultures have the same ideas, specifically the muslim world. 

    16 minutes ago, Pav said:

    Monogamy is important for societal stability and is more optimal for the raising of children. The vast majority of people naturally desire monogamous relationships and most people would be happiest in one compared to the alternatives. Thus, it's easy to see why the majority of post-agricultural societies have upheld these values.

    There are many cultures that are not monogamous and have never been but have had to adapt because of religious influence, for example many countries and tribes in Africa werent really monogamous but adapted when they were colonised by the west. You could make the argument that these societies were more successful previous to the colonisation, but obviously there are a lot more factors in play than just monogamy. To argue that monogamy is optimal is hard to say as well, in African tribes they took the view that it takes a village to raise a child which in which case its not that important to have just one stable, monogamous relationship as everyone is involved in child rearing. In our society the child is completely dependent on the strength of the relationship between 2 people, which is actually quite shaky, when you consider that 57% of marriages end in divorce because of infidelity. 

    Also the marriages that dont end can sometimes be incredibly toxic environments for children, a lot if not most people i know, didnt have the best situation growing up with 2 parents. This isnt to say that it cant work, but i think the idea of shaming people that dont fall into it, is probably not healthy. This is not a new phenomenon as well, sometimes we like to paint the picture of past generations being idyllic, but prostituion services are not a new thing. 

    I dont actually believe more people naturally skew toward monogamous relationships, at the very least it would be hard to ascertain whether thats true because of how much its baked into society. As I said in tribes in Africa today the idea of monogamy barely makes sense 

     

  2. Posted

    First of all I dont think your intentions were bad or that you planned on grooming her to have sex. What seems to have happened is that you were working in a job where you had responsibility for young people and (this happens a lot), a young girl developed a crush on you. 

    Now the issue is because you seem to have confidence, self esteem issues or were just going through a bad time, you entertained this crush, as in you enjoyed the attention and encouraged it to go on. The reality is you shouldve stopped it from the start, because you wouldve realised that this is something that can happen and you have to have that barrier. Because you didnt youve let it get to the stage where shes now heavily invested and likes you even more and youre considering taking it further with her.

    Whether its your confidence or whatever, there is no way to look at this other than you are taking advantage of her, you may not be consciously but you definitely are as you are the adult. She has no experience with the emotions that shes feeling, she has never had a relationship before, so you are in the position of power fully. If you were to do something with her, people would recognise that when you are in a position of power over minors, you will take advantage of it by having sex with them. This will decimate your reputation, you will not be allowed to work with young kids again, period. 

    You are doing this to sort out your confidence issues but it will actually make things so much worse when you are ostracised because of this. I agree with your brothers gf in that it is 100% your responsibility to cut this off for the sake of both of you. Dont listen to people in this thread saying its legal, that is not the issue here. 

    Personally ive actually dealt with this situation myself where young girls have come on to me whilst I was working in youth services, it is flattering but its something I had to cut off straight away, I had in my head the boundaries. One girl did add me on facebook, which I even felt uncomfortable about accepting and in retrospect Im not sure if id do now. But we didnt message or anything like that. 

  3. Posted

    I think the judgement of women that sleep around comes from the christian, moral idea that we've had through history about protecting a women's 'purity'. Main reason for this is we wanted society to be 'better' and that meant one man for one woman raising kids together. This is an outside way of organising society for the potential collective good. 

    However, it can be in direct conflict with our own human nature that might tell us to sleep with more than one person. Even in sexually restrictive societies, people still cheat, have crazy sex etc, they just do it in the shadows. The sexual force is very hard to suppress.

    So in modern day, there is more sexual freedom  however the judgement can still remain. But I don't think it makes sense to judge someone for something that is natural to them. Either someone genuinely wants to be sexually free or they have some kind of trauma that's pushing them to do it, either way judgement doesn't make sense. The person either needs help or understanding. 

    Also it is their choice, there maybe consequences to the choice, for example of you are used to be sexually promiscuis, it could be hard to all of sudden change to monogamous. I also think a lot of guys judge because they want the girl, they see a girl who sleeps around but they are not able to sleep with them and so they hate them for it. They also hate the fact that they do t have the option to sleep around. 

    A man who sleeps around is similar, but probably doesn't receive the same judgement a woman would. 

  4. Posted

    5 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

    So you're saying the choices we make has to be dependent on a prior choice that was dependent on a prior influence? So we are making choices but the choice is already predetermined? 

    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. 

  5. Posted

    29 minutes ago, k-ahmadzadeh said:

    The guys who 'seem like not giving a fuck' are the ones who somehow are in abundance and have many options. If you have too many options, then there is no need to be concerned about what the specific individuals' or groups' think about you. 

    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. 

  6. Posted

    9 minutes ago, k-ahmadzadeh said:

    But if you can't feel a deep value in impressing other people like me, you'll struggle to find a motivation to continue socialising in the face of many rejections. :) 

    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 

  8. Posted

    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? 

  9. Posted

    24 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

    I'm saying that there can be better definitions for 'frame' than what he's describing and that if we hold onto this definition of 'frame', we can only get a 'good girl', who is essentially a 'yes-man'. Feminists will say that you're 'toxically masculine' and 'good girls' will think that you have 'strong frame', until the day you make a mistake. Then the RAS-flip will happen and all bets are off when it comes to the future of the relationship. 

    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. 

  14. Posted

    1 hour ago, Yimpa said:

    Try Replika if real girls are difficult to talk. But also work on weaning yourself off of Replika and not getting overly attached to it. The good news is you can dump her at any point without any real repercussions. 

    I used to only have AI girlfriends and would introduce them to my dad. When I finally got a real partner, I introduced them over the phone and my dad immediately (and seriously) asked, “Is this AI?”

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

  15. Posted

    35 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    Could you not do this please. Nothing in the OP says she made him think he had a chance at anything other that what he signed up for. No one has to be good or bad at what they do if a client came on board and willingly paid for a service that they desired. Every business is in the business to keep their customers spending money, so don't expect hers to be any different. 

    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 

  16. Posted

    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 

  18. Posted · Edited by Consept

    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. 

    1 hour ago, OBEler said:

    Sorry but Jack Black looks good. He doesn't look average at all. He has a symmetrical face, good teeth, almost full hair, Good voice, good clothes styles. Just overweight and short but that doesn't make everything ugly about him. You can still see he has the genetics.

    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. 

  19. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    But aren't they held by the Trump corp, not personally Trump? Then he could declare personal bankruptcy and skate by.

    Also, what prevents him from selling the properties to his own shell corp before his personal bankruptcy?

    He can probably sell them to the Saudis, and then they will sell it back to him.

    He's gonna do some shit like this.

    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 

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

    I'm unsure whether he can declare bankruptcy and keep holding his properties. I'm sure he'll find some loopholes like giving the properties to his sons. It's questionable whether he personally holds any property at all. It might all be shell companies.

    His wealth is all a house of cards anyway.

    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 

  22. Posted · Edited by Consept

    1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

    @Consept

       Forget about Andrew Tate, clearly you're like Leo when it comes to Donald Trump and other lefties, mostly hate and too triggered. Just focus on the other example of Maximilian. Have you watched the video? Do you see why it's concerning how normalized drama and telling false stories are nowadays that could ruin lives? Focus on my main issue with slanderous and defamatory stories that circulate.

    Well the thread is about Tate, I ask for one of your claims and you pigeon hole me xD

    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?

  23. Posted

    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. 

     

  25. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

    but my argument is the witch hunt afterwards, the slander and defamation stories of Andrew Tate doing WAY WORSE than what's so far reported.

    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. 

    15 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

     Another 3rd new context is with some people who were criminals but redeemed themselves and do some podcasts, tell their stories, do some coaching, or fitness channels or something. So because of their checkered past they cannot ever interact or be public figures themselves? What if a few of them redeemed themselves? How many apology videos or apologies do they make that would make them redeemed to the eyes of the mob? We can choose to argue this and transition away from the Tate case.

    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?