UpperMaster

Yes I am familiar with his ploy. Although Affiliate marketing is an old way to make money, he skillfully implemented it. Usually percentage commission is quiet low, affiliate marketing can also be very time consuming. In Andrew's case, affiliate marketers had a pretty easy job to do, as they just needed to promote Andrew Tate using already made content. Not only that, the percentage return was very good, people that were successful actually made a very good sum of money from this. Affiliate marketing at this scale has not been done before. Experience is king, is something I've only come to terms with quiet recently. I disagree with "experience is king" being a universally excepted way of understand reality. In truth, most people comply with what people around them say. Most people (including myself even), believe in whatever they believe in not because it is something they've experienced, but rather because someone drilled it into them. Leo is great in this regard, and yea he really did encourage me to take this outlook. Many people can benefit from a model to tell them the most simplest things. Leo is somewhat of a model too so I don't understand how you use that to devalue Tate.

His values of woman are most controversial. For example, he says that a woman cheating in a relationship is far worse than when a man cheats in a relationship. He justifies this view by saying that woman always need an emotional connection when having sex, whereas when men don't need to be emotionally attached to a girl to fuck her. Men can fuck other woman, and still be a true lover to one girl. I personally don't think this argument is good as I believe a relationship is a mutual contract, saying your not going to cheat then cheating is bad regardless of if your male or female. He also believes in old fashioned gender roles, he believes men are providers and protectors whereas woman are caretakers. He admits being sexist here, he says woman are worse drivers then men. He claims that personal experience is the basis for all his arguments. I don't agree with his view here either, my experience says the contrary. I do however think that Andrew is straw manned by social media, in the sense that people take his clips out of context and then present him as a problem. His main tactic for increasing influence is by being charismatic and funny. He says some pretty outlandish shit sometimes like " I wont give CPR to anyone that isn't a hot woman because I'm not gay", but this is very obviously exaggerated. Although I disagree with many of his viewpoints on woman, I think his treatment of woman is totally fair. A relationship is a mutual contract, as long as both parties agree to each others terms and conditions, its totally fine. He supposedly has many girlfriends, and quiet openly has sex with other woman, but this is completely fine as the girls he is with know the man he is. I'm busy now, I'll reply to the rest later. Thanks for the reply!

pretty cool insight, through psychedelics?

@Loba , thanks for the response. I will probably understand much more after having some awakenings. What is weird is that, people claim to have had awakenings of complete free will and complete determinism..its crazy the experiences people describe having. Thank you again

After thorough contemplation and research, it is clear to me that free will doesn’t exist at an individual dualistic level. @Leo Gura's opinions on free will in a dualistic sense seem to be in line with mine. In many of Leo’s videos, he discusses the importance of not taking your life for granted and taking complete responsibility for your life. He also refers to life as this “ultimate sandbox game”. Sandbox games give the player a lot of freedom to explore without being tied to completing any particular objectives. This advice seems to be completely contradictory to the absence of free will. As no free will implies that there is no freedom to explore anything, and that your life already has predetermined “objectives”. Additionally, the idea of no free will implies that it is not up to you whether you accomplish these "objectives" or not. This stream of logic effectively makes life being an "ultimate sandbox game" incoherent. I suspect that I might be misunderstanding something, therefore I'm looking for alternative viewpoints and objections in this forum. I'd appreciate if you reply to this post. Cheers.

Can you describe your awakening? Like how did you awaken (psychedelics, self inquiry), what did you see?. I'm very curious to how its is similar/different to others. I would appreciate it man!

@Loba This is both fascinating and motivating. I personally haven't had a spiritual experience, therefore I have no idea how it must have been for you. I appreciate you sharing. I recently decided to be agnostic on the idea on free will, as I don't have spiritual experiences saying otherwise. I do have some additional questions though, if you are willing to answer that would be great: 1. What are the implications of "no free will" in you daily life? 2. How much priority do you put on trying to improve your life? If everything in life is predetermined, what is the sense of doing anything? Why not do nothing?

Nice. I am very curious to how you've experienced this? Through psychedelics? Questioning?

Holy shit bruv, didn't know this forum had backstories like that damn

Don't who this nahm guy is. Is he some spiritual teacher or smth?

lmao

@Someone here . Very interesting theory..How did you come to this conclusion? Is it something you experienced through phsycadelics/spiritual experience?

@undeather alright! Thank you for taking time again.

@undeather and @Inliytened1 . First, I'd want to start by thanking you for this list because I'm really interested. Not intended as a criticism or anything else, simply an observation. I've looked over the list you've provided and briefly researched each spiritual master. I couldn't help but realize that most masters don't disagree with each-other like you say, but actually say something very similar. The only masters that vote for free will are Jesus, Meister Eckhart and Rumi. All other spiritual masters not only deny free will, but have almost the exact same implications: You cannot escape destiny, the only real choice you have is to transcend determinism by searching for god. Have I missed something?

@undeather Out of curiosity, can you point me to these enlightened masters that disagree with each-other when it comes to free will. Just curious to see how much they conflict with one another. I would really appreciate it.

Were you human?

So the player in this case is "god"... and we are supposedly "god". This puzzle gets infinitely more interesting..

@Nilsi ahahaha yeaa thats true bruv. However, my question wasn't denying the experience of free will.

Yea, I understand your point here..damn that's nuanced! I was contemplating the difference between illusion and reality. Free will might be an illusion in the same way your perceived reality is supposedly also an illusion (although I'm not yet aware of this, so I have to be careful here). Just because the world around you is merely an illusion for most people including me it is nothing but THE REALITY. Please let me know if it appears that I didn't grasp what you said. Thank you for your time man, I appreciate it

Yes, I do recognize your point here. In particular, the idea that there is no yes/no answer to the question given its nature. I'll still look at other perspectives on this but your argument here makes a lot of sense. Thank you for taking the time man. Really appreciate it.

that's a way of looking at it ig.

I won't pretend that I comprehended everything you said, but based on what I can make out, it appears to me that you are highlighting the duality between being free and being bound.

How so? As per my understanding, it makes no difference what you are "capable of" doing because what you will do has already been predetermined. I'm sorry but I don't see freedom of will in merely judging your capacity to do things.

Yea alright, I think I see where your getting at. My ideas seem correct, but they don't make sense because I don't have a nuanced understanding yet. I've thought about this for a few hours, and what you said does make sense. It is impractical to combine spiritual and practical guidance because my understanding of the spiritual guidance is incomplete. I assume that I can get a better understanding through awakening or whatnot (haven't had any mystical experiences whatsoever lol) thanks for the reply!

I understand where your coming from, however..(correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't seem appropriate to me to divide spiritual and practical guidance to the point that they are incompatible with one another because, in principle, reality doesn't follow these distinctions.