“Men are to blame for women’s behavior. The Feminine Imperative only has as much power as men have allowed it to have. Hypergamy (open or otherwise) wouldn’t be the unrestrained social juggernaut it’s become without men’s complicity or accomplice.”
This quote is a go-to rationalization I read a lot from women just coming to terms with their first taste of the Red Pill. Unfortunately it’s also become a common refrain among certain sets in the manosphere; this rationale is usually particular to the moral absolutist strains of the manosphere.
When I read it from women it’s kind of ironic considering it usually comes from women who share in the same moral absolutism, who were “so different when they were in college”, but they’ve had their Epiphany and “got right with God.” They often cling to the Strong Independent® identity for themselves, but turn over a rock and show them the visceral, observable, ugly truth of unfettered Hypergamy and then, then it’s men’s partial or total responsibility for fostering women’s conditions.
It becomes men’s fault for not having the fortitude and presence of mind to correct them when they needed it – never mind the lifetime of Blue Pill conditioning that taught them judging women made them misogynistic assholes. I understand axiom that men and women get the men and women they deserve, but I wanted to explore this blame game dynamic a bit more.
From Validation Hunting & The Jenny Bahn Epiphany:
The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.
When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.
As I was writing the Adaptations series it occurred to me that men on the ends of both the Alpha and Beta spectrum adapt their own sexual strategies in accord with the sexual marketplace and how that environment dictates the approach to what seems the most efficient.
As I stated in the last post, Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic, and efficient. However, men’s adapting to the “market” dictates of Hypergamy has to be equally efficient if that guy is to fulfill his own sexual imperative. Pragmatism doesn’t have time for how things should be. You make the best play with what’s in front of you.
Just to illustrate, for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.
Furthermore, the intrasexual combat amongst men for sexual qualification was (at least ostensibly) focused on out-supporting, out-sympathizing, out-emoting and out-identifying with the feminine more so than other men. To set oneself apart from “other guys” the seemingly most strategic tact was to accept what women said they wanted from men. To pragmatically effect this men gladly joined the chorus of ridiculing conventional masculinity; denouncing and resisting the very element that would in fact have set them apart from the nebulous “other guys“.
So while this is an illustration of men’s deductive pragmatism in their adapting to the SMP, it’s also an illustration of how that adaptation can work against men’s best interests. Between the 80s, 90s and into the early 2000s this adaptation involved men following women’s lead to systematically turn conventional, positive masculinity into ridiculous or gay-associations of “macho-ness”. Later, defining the very idea of masculinity would progress from ambiguousness to women being the sole authority of what masculinity should mean to a man.
Women and Moral Agency
For as long as I’ve read and commented on Christo-Manosphere blogs a common thread has cropped up again and again; the debate as to whether women have the same moral agency or the same accountability for it as men. I’ve always found it fascinating because for all my dealing in cold harsh observable facts I’ve never paused to consider that women might have some excusable reason for their ethically challenged behavior. In my own estimate Hypergamy isn’t inherently bad or good – it just depends on whether you find yourself on the sharp end of it.
My point here isn’t to reheat that debate, but rather to see how it feeds into the rationale that men are in some way responsible for what contemporary women have become, and how they’ll progress if men don’t assume some responsibility for women’s behaviors.
Hypergamy is pragmatic, but it’s also inherently duplicitous. It’s unjust and unforgivable to a guy who doesn’t measure up to his burden of performance. When you consider the War Brides dynamic it’s downright reprehensible, but we have to also consider the pragmatism in that dynamic. From a male perspective we want to apply masculine concepts of honor and justice to women’s action – and in the past there was a high price to pay for infractions of it – but are we presuming our concept of justice is one that’s universally common to that of women?
Much in the same way we were Blue Pill conditioned to presume that our idealistic concept of love was mutually shared by women I would propose that men’s concepts of justice, honor, and (from an intrasexual perspective) respect are dissimilar from those of women.
For women, whatever actions serve Hypergamy are justifiable actions.
All that needs to be sorted out is reconciling those action with the concept of justice held by men. In the intersexual arena, what best serves men’s imperatives is justice. Up until the sexual revolution the balance between the sexes’ concepts of justice was mitigated by mutual compromise – each had something to lose and something to gain by considering the other sex’s imperatives.
For roughly the past 70 years this balance between the two concepts has listed heavily to the feminine. Our age has been defined by women’s unilateral and ubiquitous control of Hypergamy, and as such it is women’s sexual imperatives that is biologically and sociologically setting the course for future generations.
Along with that unprecedented control comes the prioritizing of women’s concept of justice above that of men’s. We can see this evidenced in every law, social convention or social justice movement that entitles women to rights and privileges that free them of any accountability for the negative consequence their Hypergamously based behavior would hold them to in a concept of justice that men would have.
I would also argue that women’s inherent solipsism reinforces this separation of concepts of justice between the sexes.
Rivelino had a good take on this on Twitter:
1 The woman is always the victim
2 Nothing is her fault
3 She is not responsible for her actions
4 A man is to blame
To which I’ll add a 5th: Any fault is always a ‘strength’.
The problem I see in assigning the blame of women’s behavior to men’s lack of control is that, presently, men have no real control nor does men’s concept of justice align with that of women. There’s a manosphere idiom that says women are the gatekeepers of sex while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. I’m not sure I completely agree with that.
That’s not to be defeatist, or an endorsement of a MGTOW course of action, but it is to say that if a man has neither the sex appeal to be a short term sexual prospect nor the provisioning appeal to be a long term investment, women feel entirely justified in acting in the best interests of Hypergamy and controlling his capacity for commitment as well.
And yes, that’s pretty fucked up if you, again, find yourself on the sharp end of it. Men’s adapting to the intersexual conditions set by women isn’t some deterministic prospect, but the idea that the mass majority of men would be responsible for the state women find themselves in is ludicrous. There will always be men willing to accept the sexual dictates of women because it serves their breeding imperatives. It’s good for him personally and it’s good for the species.
There will never be some global Lysistrata where men organize in solidarity, promising not to fuck another woman until they comply with demands that would place the Masculine Imperative above that of the feminine’s. Our own biology guarantees it.
Personal Responsibility
On a final note here, whenever I delve into the ethical implications of Red Pill awareness I invariably run into the personal responsibility equation. I do my best to make as coldly rational an observation of dynamics I see and allow my readers to make their own judgements. However, those observation are never intended to excuse the behaviors men and women find themselves prone to acting out.
There is always a want on the part of either sex to see their concept of justice enacted on those who would act against it. Thus you get honor killing in the Muslim world, and you have men’s access to the DNA testing of children they suspect aren’t their own denied in the “best interest of the child.”
So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in? Are we our sisters’ keepers, hamstrung by our own culpability to actually help them be better women? Or do they bear the responsibility to conform to our perspective of justice and police the worst impulses of a Hypergamy most are only peripherally aware of?
@SJF – Where we differ? Just like racists, I actively loathe and shame men who abandon their children. In fact, there is no lower life form to me. And just like the racists, I could care not a whit whether they are dispensing the secrets of the universe, I just shit down their throats relentlessly. You can choose to try and pick the bits of gold out of his turds, but I’m left wondering what it’s like for this kids to know their Dad bolted on them. It’s funny, in this way I seem to be much more moral than… Read more »
Also I do like when a commentator gives some information about themselves so we have a context and frame of reference for whycome (ref: the movie Idiocracy) they talk what they do.
@scribblerg
July 18th, 2015 at 11:07 am
I’m not sure what you were saying regarding me. I guess you are indicting Minter for something he did to his children (which I am ignorant of).
And don’t think I am advocating for Churchian goodwill. I can’t stomach the way the modern church tries to shove the blue pill down throats.
If I was saying anything in the Doestoyevsky passage I would think it was mocking the current state of affairs in the Church (although the author wrote it over a hundred years ago).
@Mike Obviously, the law of the jungle is not just. The ability to see that is what sets man apart from the beast. And imperfect justice is not justice. If you ask the people whose task is to administer justice in our modern world, judges and lawyers, and you can get them in an honest state, they will tell you that justice is imperfect and there is no solution for those lingering imperfections. So it seems we agree, justice really doesn’t exist because impartiality is impossible, and impartiality is impossible because humans cannot fully empathize with each other (particularly between… Read more »
Eureka! Monogamy is a highly progressive tax on SMV. Monogamy is a socialist redistribution of sexual resources. I am surprised the leftists haven’t come round to embracing it as it meets all the goals of their ideals, when considered from a sexual market viewpoint. And given the material economic benefits it also facilitates some elements of their political/economic program. Monogamy ensures that those not born with great SMV aren’t left with nothing. Monogamy acts as affirmative action for the lower ranks in the SMV, both male and female. Monogamy is better for children in the aggregate than the alternatives. The… Read more »
“Betas could take a hint here and be more selective about the ecology they choose to participate in. I’ve always thought that a bar is the absolute worst place to pick up women for guys of lower SMV. While I have done so, at 5’8″ i’m just ruled out by some women no matter how nice my suit is or how great my face is (and according to many woman it’s pretty great). I’m very exceptional in this regard though, as I also have serious social dominance and am in the top .3% of the population in verbal skills and… Read more »
@Badpainter I’ve actually heard monogamy called a ‘socialist redistribution of sexual resources.’ Some manosphere forum, forget which one. It’s not a bad analogy, I’m glad you reminded me of it. The results of monogamy might track the results of socialist economics in some respects, and where it doesn’t it’s illuminating to question why. For instance, and I just thought of this, the sexual market place (SMP) is different from the financial market place (FMP) in that it’s largely a zero sum game. If an alpha has tons of sex, it doesn’t create surplus sexual resources that can ‘trickle down’ to… Read more »
@ scribblerg The way you’re talking, it sounds like you’re on board with bailing women out of any and all responsibility: whatever gets them wet is justified. If the guy doesn’t get the girl wet, whatever she does is his fault, not hers — even if it’s like the situation with my friend who was married for 18 years, and his wife completely destroyed the family by divorcing him. I can get the Game and PUA thing– adapt to the hypergamous society we live in and get as much of the pie as you can before it’s gone. But it… Read more »
@sjfrellc Very interesting read. Dostoevsky’s criticism of the “universal” church using the Grand Inquisitor’s dialogue with Christ was spot on. Although, based on Revelation 19, I doubt Christ will be in much of a “kissing” mood upon his return. “Problem is Christ tried to give man free will. The Church realizes that parishioners can’t handle free will. So they did a bait and switch.” If they would read their Bibles they would see that the answers are all there. Everyone born of the Spirit has to struggle with free will but fortunately others have already learned from the Holy Spirit… Read more »
@Softek
Read some YaReally about how to leave women better than you found them. You’ll see that he frames this as helping the actual person involved simply by interacting with them in a genuine, no-secrets-held way. And by simply regarding social strictures as being unimportant in the face of that.
@Forge the Sky: “Well, ‘best possible arrangement for everyone’ is a pretty strong claim. I agree that it was probably a pretty good set of balances and compromises.” Then I rest my case. That was actually my point. What is right and just is what is fair and equitable. Equity, balance, etc…these are mathematically based concepts. Math is objective. If 1+1=2 it does not = 1.5 for women just because they happen to want 2.5. If that makes sense… @Jeremy: “So it seems we agree, justice really doesn’t exist because impartiality is impossible, and impartiality is impossible because humans cannot… Read more »
@Mike I get that you’d like to associate monogamy and marriage in a judeo-christian context, but marriage existed long before Christ and in many different cultures.
@Softek It comes down to what you do and don’t have control over. You don’t have control over the actions of anyone other than yourself ultimately. Thus it follows that the best thing you can do with your time is focus on your own actions and how those better your life. I could spend a bunch of time bitching about my sister’s or female cousins’ behavior in the age of Overt Hypergamy, but I don’t. Wasting time worrying about the behavior of others takes time away from focusing on your own life and how to improve it. On that note…… Read more »
@Mike Soooo… you get Socratic ignorance and go Christian to make statements like this: If they would read their Bibles they would see that the answers are all there. That statement is not a reflection of understanding Socratic ignorance. Here, let me clear it up for you: you’re making an argument from a book written by men who knew even less than we do. You don’t get to hold me to that standard but exempt yourself from it because you believe in a book that stands not on solid proof springing from Socratic ignorance and the subsequent search for actual… Read more »
You know why beta blame women?
They believed if they provide it’ll guarantee authentic sex .
I gave you everything and you still don’t fuck me?.
Yeah, Mike. Why does it sound like you are lecturing to us?
“Although, based on Revelation 19, I doubt Christ will be in much of a “kissing” mood upon his return.”
WTF does a statement like that mean? Why don’t you explain it rather than make a vague bible ref.
sjfrellc,
Mike is lecturing us.
Sadly instead of presenting an argument he is presenting the Bible. Now using the Bible to support an argument is one thing but using it in lieu of an argument is something else entirely. I guess we should should determine which edit of the Good Book he is using, since they don’t all say the same thing.
Ps
I gave you everything and you still don’t fuck me?
And on top I’m a God fearing man who loves God, so, fuck me NOW.
I realize we’re gonna have a lot of religious types in this community. I get that. But I’m not going to tolerate the intellectually lazy “My tautological reference manual of choice says X, therefore X is true” if we’re going to claim to have “rational” arguments. That was the entire reason I respected Rollo’s writing to begin with: despite his religious beliefs and upbringing, he’s not intellectually lazy about presenting his position. Having your own religion and all is fine, but do not fool yourself in to thinking arguments from it will fly with a younger generation that expects proof… Read more »
Ps
And I’m better than blacks and jews and Muslims, so, fuck me now.
You betas are varmints.
@Sun Wukong: “Soooo… you get Socratic ignorance and go Christian to make statements like this: If they would read their Bibles they would see that the answers are all there.” I do not deny that my beliefs are based entirely on faith. This does not conflict with Socratic ignorance. In fact, admitting that is the essence of Socratic ignorance. What Socrates did was try to show the ancient Athenians (probably the most knowledgeable society in the ancient Western world) that all of their so-called knowledge was also based on faith and nothing more. Of course, his methods were impossible to… Read more »
So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in? Are we our sisters’ keepers, hamstrung by our own culpability to actually help them be better women? Or do they bear the responsibility to conform to our perspective of justice and police the worst impulses of a Hypergamy most are only peripherally aware of?
@Mike
Bullshit. Faith is taking anywhere you SHOULD maintain Socratic Ignorance about and plugging God in. That’s the absolute opposite of Socratic Ignorance.
Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s rain.
@Badpainter: “Sadly instead of presenting an argument he is presenting the Bible. Now using the Bible to support an argument is one thing but using it in lieu of an argument is something else entirely. I guess we should should determine which edit of the Good Book he is using, since they don’t all say the same thing.” Please provide an example in which I have used the Bible to support an argument resulting in a single circular reference or other logical error. Merely quoting scripture when one is attempting to explain or clarify Christian doctrine does not result in… Read more »
Pointing out scriptures showing how Christ warned that the Church would become a large, corrupt, political institution…simply to confirm that the observations of a secular author were correct and in agreement with what Christ himself said would happen…is not using the Bible “in lieu of an argument”.
Seriously guys, lighten up. You don’t have to get so defensive every time someone quotes the Bible.
@Rollo:
Yes, I realize the Old Testament, which I was referring to with regards to the ancient Israelites and monogamy/marriage, existed prior to Christ’s life on this earth as did the very first husband and wife created and married by God.
Mike, Yesterdays discussion of justice turned out to be little more than you arguing the Bible. The Bible was your argument, which is different from bringing an argument that is referenced and supported by the Bible. I am not saying you errored in using the Bible to support your point of view. I am saying the Bible is your point of view. In which case there’s no discussion to be had because the Bible isn’t falsifiable in that context. You’re trying the convert the heathen, and the wayward flock in some small way. I am not accusing you of “logical… Read more »
@Sun Wukong: “Bullshit. Faith is taking anywhere you SHOULD maintain Socratic Ignorance about and plugging God in. That’s the absolute opposite of Socratic Ignorance.” I think if you actually understood the Socratic method you would realize that you SHOULD maintain Socratic Ignorance about everything. The sun may have risen this morning but all you can do is have faith/hope that it will rise again tomorrow. Believing that you “know” how the sun works does not change that. The purpose of the scientific method is to create a FICTIONAL story to explain an observation then modify that story until it fits… Read more »
“If they would read their Bibles . . .”
Q.E.D.
@Rollo: “Conversation I over heard from two of my pour girls:
“Would you sleep with a guy on the first date or the same night you met?”
“Not if I thought he was relationship material.”
Whoa! Mind-Fucking-Blown!
That statement is so heavy…..
“Yes, I realize the Old Testament, which I was referring to with regards to the ancient Israelites and monogamy/marriage, existed prior to Christ’s life on this earth as did the very first husband and wife created and married by God.”
Sorry the original story of the old testament, bible,quran, is a story was stolen by a nomadic barbaric /alpha who’s name was Ibraham who visited Sumar and stole the epic poem of gilgamish.
Sorry folks.
Mike – “Anyone who tries to substitute science for religion (atheists) is a fool.”
And the reverse is true as well, especially in things like physics, meteorology, auto repair, agriculture, politics, and geology.
kfg – “Q.E.D.”
For the win.
@Badpainter: “The Bible was your argument, which is different from bringing an argument that is referenced and supported by the Bible.” No, my argument was not the Bible. I summarized my argument from yesterday already in a comment earlier today: Mike July 18th, 2015 at 12:22 pm @Forge the Sky: “Well, ‘best possible arrangement for everyone’ is a pretty strong claim. I agree that it was probably a pretty good set of balances and compromises.” Then I rest my case. That was actually my point. What is right and just is what is fair and equitable. Equity, balance, etc…these are… Read more »
@Badpainter:
“And the reverse is true as well, especially in things like physics, meteorology, auto repair, agriculture, politics, and geology.”
Of course. The Bible doesn’t tell us how to split the atom, predict the weather, work on cars, etc. And knowing how to replace a head gasket doesn’t qualify you to pontificate on the origins of man and the meaning (or lack thereof) of life while hypocritically ridiculing the logically sound arguments of someone who actually admits that their beliefs regarding such matters are based on faith either.
Fantastic article and series of comments. I was going to select quote a few of my favourites but there’s far too many now.
@ softek
“You can be the top guy, but if you don’t understand WHY you’re the top guy, you can get knocked off of your hill very easily…
Would you trade your RP knowledge for being a natural, and getting tons of pussy now, if it meant going through ONE-itis and marriage/divorce hell later? Would that be worth it to you? Not for me. Absolutely not. ”
Great point
Being able to rub two sticks together and cause a fire does not make you a God. Nor does being able to explaining that the heat was generated by friction between the two sticks give you insight into the mind of God. Stephen Hawking is no more qualified to be a high priest than Methuselah was based on “knowledge” alone. All the accumulated knowledge of mankind is good for is making iPhones and BigMacs.
Mike – “Being able to rub two sticks together and cause a fire does not make you a God. Nor does being able to explaining that the heat was generated by friction between the two sticks give you insight into the mind of God.”
Which is why I don’t presume to know the mind of God, and instead concern myself with the practical implications/limitations of fire.
” All the accumulated knowledge of mankind is good for is making iPhones and BigMacs.”
And penicillin.
@Mr T: “Sorry the original story of the old testament, bible,quran, is a story was stolen by a nomadic barbaric /alpha who’s name was Ibraham who visited Sumar and stole the epic poem of gilgamish. Sorry folks.” What makes you believe the Genesis account was stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh instead of considering the possibility that both stories actually originated from the same events? Do you simply assume that one was plagiarized from the other because they weren’t written at the same time? You see, that is the Socratic method. There is always an alternative explanation for everything we… Read more »
“We believe the things we do primarily because we choose to.”
If you have trouble finding your absolute standard of justice, you will find it under the bus where you just threw it.
@ kfg
Ouch, that’s gotta hurt.
@Badpainter:
“Which is why I don’t presume to know the mind of God, and instead concern myself with the practical implications/limitations of fire.”
We all presume to know something about God. Either that he exists and punishes evil or that he does not. Even agnostics are essentially presuming the latter or they would be a lot more concerned about finding out the answer before it’s too late.
@kfg:
“And penicillin.”
Right, you’re very smart. Penicillin is good. I didn’t say iPhones and BigMacs weren’t either. Penicillin saves lives…doesn’t mean you should worship your doctor.
@Softie – The old rule book has already been discarded and Betas are already under the bus. I don’t care, I just want to get laid while I lead a productive powerful life. You want to live with your parents at 26, quit jobs over hurt feelings and wail endlessly while you vomit obtuse analyses online to justify not adapting. I have zero sympathy for you. I bet if we took apart your life we’d find you have squandered many opportunities in favor of your fetshizing your victimization. Your entire generation has embraced a passive victim hood and self-righteous rage… Read more »
“We all presume to know something about God.”
Having faith in the existence of God is substantially different from presuming to know the mind of God.
“Penicillin is good. I didn’t say iPhones and BigMacs weren’t either.”
Which is why you chose them as your examples, rather than penicillin, control of fire, the wheel and flush toilets.
Nice try, but it lacks the required subtlety.
Were there any known Gods in dinosaur time?
Anyone who tries to substitute science for religion (atheists) is a fool.
Step 1: Claim Socratic Ignorance.
Step 2: Insert a unfalsifiable value in to every unknown value.
Step 3: Claim those who leave unknown values unknown until falsifiable evidence makes it known are not engaged in Socratic Ignorance.
Gentlemen, this is how you play tennis without the net. I rest my case.
@kfg: “If you have trouble finding your absolute standard of justice, you will find it under the bus where you just threw it.” One may choose what to believe based on the information available to him and his interpretation of it. Nevertheless, it is still a choice. I choose to believe in a God with an absolute standard of justice whereas you do not. However, the information available to us and our ability to interpret it correctly so as to assist in making this particular decision is absolutely insufficient. It must be made on faith. This fact does not conflict… Read more »
Men’s Hypergamy :
Believe in God till Sofia Vergara knock at your door.
@Mr T
Believe in God till Sofia Vergara knock at your door.
Man it’s gonna happen any day now. Stop tearing down my rainbow, you cold bastard!
@kfg: “Which is why you chose them as your examples, rather than penicillin, control of fire, the wheel and flush toilets.” Any you’re deliberately missing the point. @Sun Wukong: “Step 1: Claim Socratic Ignorance. Step 2: Insert a unfalsifiable value in to every unknown value. Step 3: Claim those who leave unknown values unknown until falsifiable evidence makes it known are not engaged in Socratic Ignorance. Gentlemen, this is how you play tennis without the net. I rest my case.” According to Socrates, all values are unknown to us. Everything is assumed. Nothing is falsifiable. It takes a certain degree… Read more »
The problem with injecting God into the mix here is that Mike defers to an absolute idea of justice where men and women are the ones who still interpret it and apply it according to their own concepts and purposes.
“I choose to believe in a God with an absolute standard of justice whereas you do not.”
The only thing you know about my beliefs is that I have challenged some of your arguments. Everything else is projection.
” It must be made on faith. This fact does not conflict with the assertion that there is an absolute standard of justice.”
Nor does it conflict with the assertion that shoes are made by brownies in the night.
@Mike
You should work on that.
Right after you.
Scribblerg: I am not a fundie. I don’t care about the historical accuracy of the old Bible stories. More interested in the meaning of what the stories are trying to tell. Why they bothered to tell those particular stories. Reason will save us from nothing. Reason led us to World War One. It’s as flawed as everything else. I do try to look at ideas, at people, try to see why they go down a particular road. Now on Softek’s banging the married chick. I was out last night. Went to a known pickup place. Always hated that place, but… Read more »
Rollo:
Descarte and Kepler at least had the decency to try to discover the nature of God and his laws, rather than telling Him.
@Mike
If you claim that we can know absolutely nothing for certain, then by all means exit the next tall building you’re in from a window instead of by the stairs or elevator. After all, you can’t know gravity will kill you this time.
@SJF – Minter is ignominious in the manosphere. He’s a fraud who for years posed himself as some amazing alpha and sage arm-chair philosopher. But in reality he was a pothead ne’er do well who for real lived in his sisters basement after abandoning his children for years, in terms of seeing them and providing zero financial support. His online persona was the polar opposite of who he is in real life. His ex-wife, after discovering his online persona, outed him and put the truth out about him. He’s banned from most manosphere sites and has zero credibility. There is… Read more »
Although the Scientific Method was derived from the Socratic Method, they are not exactly the same. The Socratic Method reveals the layers of assumption supporting the presumption of knowledge while the Scientific Method uses the same system but for the purpose of improving those assumptions with regard to their conformance with observations. However, the Scientific Method does not conflict with the Socratic Method because it does not purport to change those assumptions into objective facts no matter how accurately they seem to predict future observations.
@Softie – May owe you an apology. I TLDRed some of your commentary cuz after a year of reading it, I rarely get a payoff. If you are getting some pussy now I’m doing backflips for you yay. The more pussy you get, the less frustrated you will be. As for married women, I’ve actually mostly sworn them off but if the opportunity presented itself I would make a game time decision. Remember, if they are cheating with you, they are cheating with other guys too. Also, there is a difference between just fucking a married women and doing an… Read more »
“This thread is for shit. I’m out.”
Right behind you.
@Rollo: “The problem with injecting God into the mix here is that Mike defers to an absolute idea of justice where men and women are the ones who still interpret it and apply it according to their own concepts and purposes.” Everyone defers to an absolute standard of justice when it suits them. Ever signed a contract? Ever tried to convince a judge to enforce the contract when it is breached by the other party? Someone agreed to something and did not follow through. You were harmed as a result. Therefore, you should be compensated. Why? Because it would not… Read more »
@Sun Wukong:
“If you claim that we can know absolutely nothing for certain, then by all means exit the next tall building you’re in from a window instead of by the stairs or elevator. After all, you can’t know gravity will kill you this time.”
It certainly would be a reasonable assumption to make though. So, no.
@kfg:
“Descarte and Kepler at least had the decency to try to discover the nature of God and his laws, rather than telling Him.”
We don’t tell him. He tells us.
ScribblerG. “I don’t take him on directly anymore cuz it’s futile, but I judge men on who they are rather than what they say.” Then you’d like me better in real life than as a keyboard jockey. Historically I don’t express myself, speak or write as well as I should (due to genetic misfortune). I try. Heh, make sure you tell me how you really feel about me tomorrow. And 90% of how someone judges a man is by what they say. And 90% of how I’m judged as a physician is how I say things. BTW, have you seen… Read more »
@Mike And that’s where your bullshit falls apart. It’s a reasonable assumption to make that God does not exist, but you insist on absolutes for him to not exist. You won’t step out a window despite a miniscule chance you could be right, but you’ll trust in God’s incredibly doubtful existence to make equally weighty (excuse the pun) decisions about your life despite the extremely likely chance that you’re wrong. Tennis without a fucking net. Socratic Ignorance is not a way to live your whole life claiming you know nothing to excuse dumb decisions and continued willful ignorance about the… Read more »
There is no justice but absolute justice. How could it possibly be otherwise? If everyone determines their own idea of justice then here is what it all boils down to: DOG EAT DOG. Is that what you all want? To live like animals. That is not what civilization is built upon. Human beings must at least be able to attempt to justify their actions and you can’t justify actions without appealing to a shared sense of justice. Civilized people must be convinced that a thing is right and fair or they will take action against it. If everyone were truly… Read more »
Did the prodigal son reap what he’d sown? Was the man who buried his talents treated ‘justly’?
Human beings can’t know what absolute justice really is. Justice is whatever balances a perceived injustice and that injustice is perceived according to our interests.
This thread is getting sidetracked with absolutes. It’s easy to consider justice when we think of things as tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye, but that’s not God’s justice (from a judeo-christian perspective) now is it?
You will all reap what you sow.
Look at this self-righteous bullshit right here. You should be embarrassed.
Mike
July 18th, 2015 at 4:51 pm
Darwin just stamped that with a “Non-Adaptable” stamp.
Insanity called up one of her churchian guys called Mike and said “you need to go plague Tomassi”.
How bout we not talk about race or religion and just talk about getting laid?
@sjfrellc
How bout we not talk about race or religion and just talk about getting laid?
I’d do exactly that if people would stop putting their religious dicks in the rational mashed potatoes.
I meant for Mike to STFU because he is going on and on and on.
Sun Wukong– you are doing an admirable job of refuting. Definitely not faulting you. I did the same when insanewoman was going on and on because it was amusing how stupid the remarks were and you gotta practice for when some real intelligent douchebag comes along.
I’m not advocating for shutting down discussion. Just when it becomes a stuck record which is where I see this discussion has devolved.
@Sun Wukong: “It’s a reasonable assumption to make that God does not exist, but you insist on absolutes for him to not exist. You won’t step out a window despite a miniscule chance you could be right, but you’ll trust in God’s incredibly doubtful existence to make equally weighty (excuse the pun) decisions about your life despite the extremely likely chance that you’re wrong.” Our experience with gravity really helps to support the assumption that jumping out a high window will result in a fall. And as Jesus said to Satan in the wilderness, “It is written, thou shalt not… Read more »
@SJF
I’m admittedly agnostic, but I find the debate here to be a constructive demonstration of textbook rationalism vs. superstitious absolutism. Conversations like this teach us all to think more critically (like men), rather than to construct arguments based on feelings as facts (like women).
And, yes, my first thought when Mike appeared was that he might well be an associate of IB. Good call.
Well, Mike…are you?
@Rollo: “Did the prodigal son reap what he’d sown?” No, because he repented. Pharaoh, for example, did not, and he did. Same with the man who buried his talents. “Human beings can’t know what absolute justice really is. Justice is whatever balances a perceived injustice and that injustice is perceived according to our interests.” Acknowledging the interests of others is only possible via appeal to absolute justice. “This thread is getting sidetracked with absolutes. It’s easy to consider justice when we think of things as tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye, but that’s not God’s justice… Read more »
So, by that definition it appears then that human beings cannot know absolute justice, because what you describe as God’s justice is mostly counterintuitive to what humans would think is just. Ergo, we have differing concepts of what justice is – Men, women, gods and kings.
No, absolute justice is objective. It is the same for everyone. The fact that we can’t always see things from each other’s perspectives does not change that.
“You will all reap what you sow.”
If I sow Sofia Vergara , I don’t care about the reap.
Obviously, a person’s opinion regarding what is just in a certain situation may be distorted by their own interests and not actually fair and equitable. That’s why we often need third-parties to arbitrate disputes. The third-party is given the task of finding a solution that is closer to the most perfect, objective, absolute justice than those involved in the dispute.
@Mike
You keep using that word “objective.” I do not think it means what you think it means.
And God is the ultimate arbitrator. Nevertheless, his justice is no different from ours. The only difference is that he has all of the facts and is always able to hit the target we are aiming at. We may be way off but the target is still the same one.
@The Diplomat:
Inconceivable!
@Mike
Arbiter. You meant ‘arbiter.’
Slightly different thing than an arbitrator.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/ot_list.html
Read about the holly books.
Enjoy.
No, I meant arbitrator as I was referring to the previous comment about a third-party given the task of finding a solution to a specific dispute. My point was that God, being morally perfect and having absolute knowledge of the matter, knows absolute justice while we have to estimate. Although, he is the final arbiter as well.
By the way, I know what “objective” means too there buddy. Thanks for the help but try focusing on the actual message please.
The Diplomat July 18th, 2015 at 6:12 pm Well said. Good distinction. Mike, I’ve never had a day in my life where I couldn’t hold both scientific and religious/spiritual beliefs and be completely comfortable with textbook rationalism vs. faith/mother nature/God/religious tenets. That being said. Your friend Insanitybitch2 showed up here like a wine swilling guest at a dinner party and repeated insults over and over, talked over the host of this blog and generally acted like an ass. Don’t be the dinner party guest that can’t go with a flowing, changing discussion and keep harping on the same thing like… Read more »
@The Diplomat
… wow. After those two I’ve come to the conclusion that watching Mike argue is like watching Corky get laid: fucking retarded.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/230/505/023.jpg
“My point was that God, being morally perfect and having absolute knowledge of the matter, knows absolute justice while we have to estimate. Although, he is the final arbiter as well.” You agree that God have a past and future archives of what is going to happen to me, Mr T. So bullshits me with the free will to fuck Sofia! What free will I had when he already had me fucking her in his future archives about me fucking her and then punishing me? I know, you’d say it’s the devil, but didn’t the devil’s name was next to… Read more »
@sjfrellc:
There is noting more important than the issues I have been discussing with you all here, which I believe are also extremely relevant to the changes in social and intersexual dynamics to which we are all trying to adapt. I am not really interested in discussing anything else. It is all utterly irrelevant without God anyway. I truly hope that some of you come to see that. However, I do not want to be rude either so will go ahead and leave now.
http://s1083.photobucket.com/user/redmeat1/media/Rational_zpseweooyg0.jpg.html
now that this comment thread has turned everyone into a lot of pillars of salt, except for Mike, I found it interesting to change up the Salon/Alternet quote (see a few hundred comments back) to this: “We have a romantic ideal in which we turn to one person to fulfill an endless list of needs,” the therapist says. “To be my greatest lover, my best friend, the best parent, my trusted confidant, my emotional companion, my intellectual equal. And I am it: I’m chosen, I’m unique, I’m indispensable, I’m irreplaceable, I’m the one. And overt hypergamy tells me I’m not.… Read more »
“…….which I believe are also extremely relevant to the changes in social and intersexual dynamics to which we are all trying to adapt.”
Nothing personal, but there is a big difference in a bottoms up (micro) approach to men’s issues vs. a top down approach (macro).
Some of us are out to save our asses rather than our souls. Not that there is anything wrong with our souls (in an amoral discussion).
Thank you for trying.
The sad thing religious betas think Hypergamy care about God.
Hypergamy doesn’t care how much you love God.
Remember that women love men and God in opportunistic kind of love.
I doubt women are able to love God or men. I think deep inside, women hate God and I wonder whether they view him as an alpha or beta or who the fuck know how they truly view him.
Ah, so now we know that you are a racist cunt too. And you’re a commie fag. P I just shit down their throats relentlessly. Where does 5h1t come from? @$$holes. You’re a commie fag @$$hole. Just using the words out of your cum-laden Progressive piehole. Go suck someone else’s c0ck. For the childrennnn. Fakk, you are so idiotic demanding that men pay to support women’s childrennnn. Women own the children under our current matriarchal system, dumb@$$. The truth is simple; the difference in social outcomes between the black and white working class in our society is marginal. Uh, no.… Read more »
Women are masters at going full blown solipistic with the all mighty when it comes to Hypergamy.
@ Mr T July 18th, 2015 at 8:30 pm How a woman perceives her man or her God is the key. Religiosity is based on faith and respect. I am neutral on what others think about Religiosity. I have a God, but my god transcends any organized religion by far. I really have god that is rationality and Mother Nature. Mother Nature is a perfectly antifragile non-caring perfect construct. She doesn’t operate like human mothers who care for her children (if they are not screwed up in the mind) with unconditional love. Mother Nature is out to preserve her god… Read more »
It is all utterly irrelevant without God anyway. I truly hope that some of you come to see that. However, I do not want to be rude either so will go ahead and leave now. There are readers who agree that it is irrelevant without God, including me. However, this venue is not the place to discuss that. It’s a neutral place, by design of the host. He allows all kinds of conversation here, but it isn’t a place that bends towards our 30k foot perspective. There are Christians here, but it isn’t fundamentally a Christian place, but one where… Read more »
Well said, Novaseeker. If anyone here still doesn’t get that hypergamy doesn’t give a damn about the existence/non-existence of a deity, then that individual would be well advised to stop commenting and start reading.
Hells bells. I’ll try HTML this time.
The thing most religious beta don’t understand is ; the way beta love God(whether sincere or to wait for Sofia Vergara ) is different than the way women love him.
Loving whatever God you chose doesn’t make you arousing , it is the same if you have a million dollars and no tingles.
My comment goes to Theaassgamer (whatever the fuck your name is)
Bravo, ,BOY.
How old are you?
18 ? 22?
You go BOY.
Stick to playing video games.
Sometimes I hate democracy and Internet that allows kids like you express their nuisance varmint opinion .
Ps
Where is your dad BOY.