MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way

a reply to: undo
Ah your thinking to much on it. He and the ladies in the vid were getting paid to be there. So he may as well strike a pose eh! He probably thought the chicks would dig it. And it also seems he was right. But ya that whole jack sparow lost look is in I suppose.

and yes, it's likely that would've been the response, had i made no effort to look like i was at least trying. low energy levels and chronic illness does not equal vagrancy, but somehow, that's how it appears to be translated in wider society. eh, whatever.

Well technically you would have likely not have been labeled a vagrant, but maybe called or labeled something along the lines of a Home Impaired Person. Or HIP for short...So hey! Look on the bright side, at least you were almost HIP for a moment. Labeling is turning almost into an art now a days, not that it wasn't before, but you know it has its ups and down in any group or society, also it has its many pitfalls.

See here, this fella in this vid may have been on to something.


Oh! And cool song & vid. But ya people get old, it happens you know. But maybe its nice to say that people get older. "Old" implies and has a finality to it. While "older"...Well that implies a bit more or less that one is still on a journey but has not quite reached its end. See told ya that older fella in the vid may have been on to something. Even though! Well you know, that he is now sport of deceased...But anyways.

a reply to: Bluesma
Your whole premise is so full of conjectures and projections really were would one even begin to start sorting through all that mess.

But ya! Cool story. I like the way you tried to do the whole Socratic approach to things, but completely and entirely missed.

For that alone if little more, I gave you a star.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Bluesma
Your whole premise is so full of conjectures and projections really were would one even begin to start sorting through all that mess.

But ya! Cool story. I like the way you tried to do the whole Socratic approach to things, but completely and entirely missed.

I have no idea what you mean by Socratic approach- this is a description of a real life event that happened to me.
I am not sure what my premise is, I am asking questions, not giving answers.

If you have no response of your own to the questions, no one is expecting you to sort out anything.

a reply to: undo

Okay, I see a bit better what you are getting at. Though it seems to me to be describing two extreme ends of the spectrum.

Women who are mothers- but that don't work? That don't work- and have many children by different fathers.
These are the queen bees.

Where do the women who work, who have few children, fit into this?

Where do the men who have children with one woman, and have a lower salary than their mate fit in?

Where does relationship- two people caring for each other, fit in? Why is it all about money anyway?

a reply to: undo
An interesting look at it. However your wrong, first you have to account that by all effects a true patriarchy does not and you can go back to Greece. Well basically to put it blunt the male shape is coveted while the female is merely sustained. We have not lived in a patriarchy for a long long time. What we have for the majority of eras is just subverted matriarchy and wayward incoherent forms of it. The battle of the sexes, has so far permeated the vast majority of, well lets say the last 3 thousand years or so.

So ya the reason why all those kinds and landbarons or great and prestigious city leaders had harems back then was, from Genghis Khan to sheiks to oil barons and all others across all ages. Well many women just wanted to get taken care of, and they also liked the rich and lavish languid lifestyles,it is what they dreamed about from when they were young girls, after all it was better then tilling the fields and most other things. In modern times however with the shifting of creeds, religions and goals the hori eventually became.... Well it does sound erily similar to an english word. But even that to is shifting into something else.

Oh and in I dont know what your mean but mostly in America, a single man who is not married or cant afford to get married is more often called and has been for a very long time refereed to as a bum. Bachelors is but a new context on the younger successful men who is yet to languish his gifts on a supple female, or just a nice way of saying the former, and with the power of TV it can even be believed. Its funny no, how over time mere words and concepts of said words change whole landscapes sometimes, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Why you would be surprised to even see that sometimes different words mean different things to different people. Crazy world no?

a reply to: cavtrooper7
Well there you go. That's the spirit. Or whatever, somebody has got to do it. And by what you describe that does not sound like to much fun...And so if we were nominating. I would nominate you.

You know what... Who cares. This stuff is a headache and there is plenty of that in the real world.

a reply to: Bluesma
I suppose I could. But really it would take way to long, and probably take at least 2 or 3 pages worth of me writing stuff explaining things in a way you may get it.

Really its just to much work. I am sorry but, no offense. Even among females I seriously theories and advice would work. Among men, ya. What world do you live in. Don't take this the wrong way, but you do come across like you have been indulged by men throughout your life. Just saying you know. I could be wrong you know, so dont get all weird and stuff, not attacking womankind or any of that, merely you, and even that only on somethings.

I even read you other post some pages back, even that part about how your husband wrote you a letter explaining how he is going to make the relationship work. The only thing I can say on that...Oh great so now were supposed to write up a thesis on how were going to deal with the stranger in front of us...I mean jeezz there, arent dates and first few encounters a headache enough, but now were supposed to write out notes and jargon explaining things and how and what were going to do and achieve it?

I mean, what I am saying is. Do you want that in longhand or italic, and how many sentences long is it supposed to be?

What is the matter with the good old fashion guy meets girl, guy shows girl porshe and fat bank account, isn't it all saying the same thing? And it just may be easier some days then writing it all out in a letter, or at least much more realistic and effective. But ya! Assurances, I noticed females like there assurances.

I could go on. But really there is no point to it. Stupid ATS whats wrong with them, they need that dam ignore button. Or else I would be here on the internet explaining to people all day long just how wrong they are.

But ya! No doubt. Whatever you point is, and dont mind my badgering. But cool stuff yo.

I dunno. Some of these kinds of threads against marriage and against women I suspect are started or supported by homosexuals. It's kind of a hidden agenda.

I could be wrong. It would be nice if the person who starts marriage angst or women loathing threads would be upfront and tell everyone if they are homosexual or not. It would stop or verify a lot of suspicions.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Bluesma
I suppose I could. But really it would take way to long, and probably take at least 2 or 3 pages worth of me writing stuff explaining things in a way you may get it.

Really its just to much work. I am sorry but, no offense. Even among females I seriously theories and advice would work. Among men, ya. What world do you live in. Don't take this the wrong way, but you do come across like you have been indulged by men throughout your life. Just saying you know. I could be wrong you know, so dont get all weird and stuff, not attacking womankind or any of that, merely you, and even that only on somethings.

If you are unable to discuss a topic without falling back on personal slurs, why bother? The questions posed were not posed to you in particular.

I even read you other post some pages back, even that part about how your husband wrote you a letter explaining how he is going to make the relationship work. The only thing I can say on that...Oh great so now were supposed to write up a thesis on how were going to deal with the stranger in front of us...I mean jeezz there, arent dates and first few encounters a headache enough, but now were supposed to write out notes and jargon explaining things and how and what were going to do and achieve it?

What is the matter with the good old fashion guy meets girl, guy shows girl porshe and fat bank account, isn't it all saying the same thing? And it just may be easier some days then writing it all out in a letter, or at least much more realistic and effective. But ya! Assurances, I noticed females like there assurances.

For one, when going out with someone for more than a year, they are hardly "a stranger".

Two- you can do whatever you wish and whatever works for you. If a big wallet and a Porsche is easier for you and you prefer it, then go ahead! It will attract and get a certain type of woman though, who is primarily materialistic.
There are women who are not primarily materialistic, and they will not show up to your wallet and Porsche- which could give you the false impression that "all women are materialistic".

For some men, expressing that they are aware of the challenges involved in engaging in a committed life and building a family, and that they feel confident in facing them is easier than filling their wallet and buying a Porsche.

Yes, I guess I like assurances in forming partnerships. I like to know they are entering the partnership willingly, with realistic expectations, and confidence. I don't expect any guarantees, but I like to know the other is choosing willingly to give it a try.
I don't think I am alone in this.

I could go on. But really there is no point to it. Stupid ATS whats wrong with them, they need that dam ignore button. Or else I would be here on the internet explaining to people all day long just how wrong they are.

You can choose to ignore anytime you want. No one put you in charge of telling everyone how wrong you think they are.
Though I wonder how you can feel you can tell people who have been successful in relationship and marriage, that they are wrong, when you have not done it yourself?

a reply to: MarkJS
Oh wow. Seems first we had feminazis, now we got maninists, so what now, gayninists. When will it stop.

OK! Probably gay people got there thing, but no more then any other group out there, like all of them and all groups and types in all of history there likely to look out for there interests. Though you may be on to something, it seems that a lot of times I ever argued with hardcore feminists who really were up and anti, well they generally turned out to be some dude. Though I think they were more the white knight type.

But...Ya! When will it stop, it just gets more and more redonkulous by the second. I think people are going to do what they do and want, and if they dont. Well that generally means they dont. That may be all there is to it, various people and groups looking out for there various interests.

a reply to: Bluesma
Sorry but i dont know what you are talking about.

But to answer whatever you said in this post.

If you are unable to discuss a topic without falling back on personal slurs, why bother? The questions posed were not posed to you in particular.

Well OK! Whatever.

For one, when going out with someone for more than a year, they are hardly "a stranger".

OK.

Two- you can do whatever you wish and whatever works for you. If a big wallet and a Porsche is easier for you and you prefer it, then go ahead! It will attract and get a certain type of woman though, who is primarily materialistic. There are women who are not primarily materialistic, and they will not show up to your wallet and Porsche- which could give you the false impression that "all women are materialistic".

Interesting thing to say. But you know I can still go back to some threads and link them to were you said the exact oposite, in fact you were going on about how men with money and power were a big turn on for you.

So...YA. Whatever your trying to get at, you may want to just quit, or stop and think about what your saying, because it just seems to me that you keep trying to change things around, and then after a while you flip that around again. And really none of it matters. I mean listen, your some stranger on the net. And I am some stranger on the net. There is no way no how that any of this will have any effect in anything for both of us.

So, its all just a mute point and meaningless. Its getting old you know.

For some men, expressing that they are aware of the challenges involved in engaging in a committed life and building a family, and that they feel confident in facing them is easier than filling their wallet and buying a Porsche.

OK.

Yes, I guess I like assurances in forming partnerships. I like to know they are entering the partnership willingly, with realistic expectations, and confidence. I don't expect any guarantees, but I like to know the other is choosing willingly to give it a try. I don't think I am alone in this.

Well ya! That's what I said women like assurances, the ways men go about that just vary. But its all part of the overall thing. In fact it is the same thing.

You can choose to ignore anytime you want. No one put you in charge of telling everyone how wrong you think they are. Though I wonder how you can feel you can tell people who have been successful in relationship and marriage, that they are wrong, when you have not done it yourself?

OK! But what does anything you say about you...Have to do with me or any other guy really? I mean I get with other females. But ya OK. Assurances women like that...You dont say. Got it, it totally makes sense to me now. Like totally it was like something I would have never thought off.

OK! So that all settled. Lets all just go back to what we were doing.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Aazadan

Women were (and still are) social creatures, while men were (and still are) solitary creatures

As someone who considers themselves a 'solitary creature', this is very hard to believe. From my 23 years of experience and study I found human beings of both sexes to be highly social creatures.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird

Interesting thing to say. But you know I can still go back to some threads and link them to were you said the exact oposite, in fact you were going on about how men with money and power were a big turn on for you.

Here we go again.... you bring this up in threads everywhere, and you have been corrected at least a thousand times. This is not a a case of you simply being unable to understand, it is you trying to paint me in a certain light for other readers.

I pointed out that often, men with a strong will happen to often end up being financially successful.
I pointed out a correlation. (because filling that wallet and buying that Porsche is not as "easy" as that).
Correlation is not cause.

If a person tends to be superficial, they confuse the two.

Like a woman that thinks having a Chanel purse will make her classy- because she observed classy women often have Chanel purses.
A woman can also assume that a man who has a Porsche is strong willed, because she observed that many strong willed men have Porsches.
But those people are superficial, materialistic- they focus on the most visible appearences and do not go deeper.
People without class or will often find a way to buy expensive objects. They could be born into rich families, they could be crooks, they could sacrifice their basic necessities for that object.

I had said that women are attracted to men with a strong will. I said I am attracted to men of strong will, but perceive that it is not necessarily the source of financial success.

But what does anything you say about you...Have to do with me or any other guy really? I mean I get with other females. But ya OK. Assurances women like that...You dont say. Got it, it totally makes sense to me now. Like totally it was like something I would have never thought off.

YOU brought that letter up, and it was from a post in another thread.

a reply to: Bluesma
Listen...OK!

I dont even know what to say, you got some major cognitive dissonance, even as far as females go.

But ya. And again.

I pointed out that often, men with a strong will happen to often end up being financially successful. I pointed out a correlation. (because filling that wallet and buying that Porsche is not as "easy" as that). Correlation is not cause.

Correlation is cause, and sometimes cause is correlations. The two if not directly intertwined are tied or lead one into the other. In the case you describe the two are one and the same thing merely called by different names.

If a person tends to be superficial, they confuse the two.

Ya such as you seem to do.

Like a woman that thinks having a Chanel purse will make her classy- because she observed classy women often have Chanel purses.

Thats a woman thing. Chanel purses mean nothing to me or likely any other guy. The rest is probably more of the chicken peck mentality...Its the defining pace of society.

A woman can also assume that a man who has a Porsche is strong willed, because she observed that many strong willed men have Porsches. But those people are superficial, materialistic- they focus on the most visible appearences and do not go deeper.

NO thats merely your opinion of them. To them there is no difference or do they distinguish between the two, in fact the thought has not likely entered in the majority of there head. That is all there is to it. Appearances are everything especially to them, there are just merely levels of appearances.

But those people are superficial, materialistic- they focus on the most visible appearences and do not go deeper. People without class or will often find a way to buy expensive objects. They could be born into rich families, they could be crooks, they could sacrifice their basic necessities for that object.

Class and superficial appearances are one and the same thing in pretty much all cases out there. After all how can you impress somebody with your class, if they are not able to see it? There is nothing deeper to it. Those born in rich families if they can afford the fancy stuff I am sure they can also afford the basic necessities. So that, I dont even know what your trying to say.

I had said that women are attracted to men with a strong will. I said I am attracted to men of strong will, but perceive that it is not necessarily the source of financial success.

Nope there the same thing. Most especially in the mind of women, all to varying degree and extent offcourse. But its all basically just depended on there circumstance.

The rest makes no sense. Its mombo jombo. For instance how many strong willed men have you known who life in a cardboard box and do not have any monies or anything. None right? Because it does not exist, and in a females mind the two are not only tied together they are the same thing. But like I said it just depends on there options and circumstances and person in question. For you it may have worked but for other not, and even for you with a few changes here or there, you best believe the whole thing would change. That is all there is to it.

I think what we have here is just more cognitive dissonance. I ask yourself why are you arguing these things with me? Then you will have your answer. I mean no for real? Why are you arguing with a strange dude online about this? You have to realize that none of it matters even if we all reach some sort of conclusion. You keep trying to convince yourself of something...Well OK! How about this, just tell me what it is...Then I will agree, OK.

YOU brought that letter up, and it was from a post in another thread.

Yes I did. And yes it was. What of it? Assurances come in many forms are you surprised at this? Not all of them are porshes or fat wallets you know, though they are more common then what you describe. But hey its all love, I suppose. And I have seen stranger fetishes. Though the majority of women I do believe would prefer the fat wallets or bank accounts or porshes any day of the week. It could in all seriousness by some weird bizarre fetish you have and nothing else you know. Its illogical nonsense.

I mean what if your husband did not do all that, so by what you say, then he would not be your husband now. Right? You can go round and round all day at it. But in the end none of it applies to anybody else but you, and most certainly not me, in fact its like were all living in different dimensions as far as this is concerned, and like I said before even you compared to other women it would not apply to them, and you all are practically like bots or mental clones or something.

Its all Apples and Oranges, Birds and Fish. How many crows do you see learning to fly from eagles or vice versa? Humans you see are not much different, just things are infinitely more subtle concerning them and that. Societies and its social hierarchies and binds or groups itself is nothing if not that.

Ah you see there I to can turn things around...Round and round we go. Now who is right and who is wrong? I off course chose myself as being right. And you off course chose you as being in the right. But off course that is silly, and its obvious I am right.

Right? Round about and Round about it goes.

originally posted by: Bluesma
a reply to: undo


Where do the women who work, who have few children, fit into this?

Where do the men who have children with one woman, and have a lower salary than their mate fit in?

Where does relationship- two people caring for each other, fit in? Why is it all about money anyway?

in matriarchy socialism, those people are the workers. they work and their energy expended in the form of labor=money, is doled out to the queen bees in the matriarchal harem system. the system has to have supporters, and they are gleaned from the disenfranchised (deliberately so) portion of the populace. this works for awhile until the worker populace is so put upon by queen bee dominance, that the patriarchal system steam rolls right over the matriarchy and takes it back.

the matriarchal harem system is really hard on the populace because they are taught that they deserve to have people working to support them and their offspring, for no other reason than they are from the disenfranchised portion of the society. this drum is beat and beat until people grow weary of it, having spent the greater part of their life's energy supporting what is essentially a brainwashed "victim", who's real problem is that she is an unwitting participant in what amounts to abuse of huge swaths of the populace.

then it's back to empire building and a more liberally distributed monetary system that is still inherently socialistic, which guarantees the queen bees and their offspring, don't revolt right away. it appears they have less power, but because the money flow is wider and greater in size, financially, it ends up being the same thing (just for more people of different social strata). however, the queen bees lose a step in social status as male dominance takes certain stage. then when the populace grows too large and people tire of empire building (and it's abusive nature), it's back to matriarchy. rinse, wash, repeat.

socialism sucks.

a reply to: undo
I am not sure that's inherently socialism. But hey things on paper always look better then the actual reality. Its like jamming clothes in the washer and you have a really heavy towel, once it gets wet the whole washer rocks back and forth while its spinning.

If things were that easy. But the truth is that one persons socialism is another communism which is another's capitalism even in that they speak a different language and see things differently in there minds eye. In all reality though I think the whole of history and government is something I like to call Sustained Crazily Appropriate Bat#unsanity, or SCAB for short. It takes a whole lot of work to keep it all up and running most especially when were all basically speaking different languages even while were using the same language.

I think faking it just may be the answer to our issues. Its works so far, or kind of worked, OK not really, but with some duck tape and a lot of bull# it is passable. Besides give it a few thousand years or so and given social conditioning's and nobody would know the difference between one or the other, achieving some sort of acceptable grasp on normality for both or all parties involved.

Or not...Its all just a big headache either way.

Wow, this topic is as popular as ever.

Can anyone really blame others for dropping out of the game when they encounter wonderful cultural movements (or subsets of said) which demonize entire groups of people.

Modern feminist theory is all the rage in the various media outlets from TV to internet websites. Take this excerpt for example:
www.newyorker.com...

It wasn’t the first time that such an event had lost a scheduled venue. The Radfem 2012 conference was to be held in London, at Conway Hall, which bills itself as “a hub for free speech and independent thought.” But trans activists objected both to Radfem’s women-only policy—which was widely understood to exclude trans women—and to the participation of Sheila Jeffreys, a professor of political science at the University of Melbourne. Jeffreys was scheduled to speak on prostitution, but she is a longtime critic of the transgender movement, and Conway Hall officials decided that they could not allow speakers who “conflict with our ethos, principles, and culture.” Ultimately, the event was held at a still secret location; organizers escorted delegates to it from a nearby meeting place. Radfem 2013 also had to switch locations, as did a gathering in Toronto last year, called Radfems Rise Up.

. . .

Abusive posts proliferated on Twitter and, especially, Tumblr. One read, “/kill/terfs 2K14.” Another suggested, “how about ‘slowly and horrendously murder terfs in saw-like torture machines and contraptions’ 2K14.” A young blogger holding a knife posted a selfie with the caption “Fetch me a terf.” Such threats have become so common that radical-feminist Web sites have taken to cataloguing them. “It’s aggrieved entitlement,” Lierre Keith told me. “They are so angry that we will not see them as women.”

Anyone looking to get involved or just trying to find a place while this storm blows over is S.O.L. Every group is fighting for "moral superiority" through victimhood and perceived lack of privilege in comparison to a mythical idea of "straight white male."

Furthermore every criticism of feminist thought is attacked in mainstream publications as MRA hate speech. Pick up artists have been thrown in with college fraternities along with basement dwelling fadora wearing neckbeards who live with their mothers.

Gawker media linked Jezebel loves to equate angry male only groups to gays;
Men's Rights Activist Threatens to Murder Women Who Visit His Site
jezebel.com...

OK, Ladies? If you want to stay alive, you'd better respect these dudes because not following the orders of men's rights activists will result in your possible (but not probable) death. I don't know what this guy and his friends have got going on over on Manbook, but it's so secret that just trying to sign up might cost you your life. It's probably pictures of baby animals and gay porn, though. I mean that's why I'd go to a site called Manbook.

How easy these groups forget cheering on their own domestic abuse as long as the victims are men.
Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have
jezebel.com...

According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren't fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who's gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let's just say that it'd be wise to never ever [redacted] with us.

One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck... "partially open handed." Another editor slapped a guy when "he told me he thought he had breast cancer." (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that's when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it.

A Better Feminism for 2015
time.com...

Take a gander at this article and notice the issues that are being prioritized. Gamergate (gawker media's salon, slate, gawker affiliated NPR launching what is clearly a PR campaign against mysoginistic neckbeards nerd loosers), the word bossy, etc . . . .


I personally know several college educated men who are considered eligible but chosen to remain single to avoid all the drama that is raging through society these days.

LOL and all it took was a few years out of college supporting themselves in the real world where a certain demographic has clung to ideology they learned in their humanities classes despite the clear and ever present evidence against the so called privilege.

Wow this ran on long . . . ciao

-FBB

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
To them there is no difference or do they distinguish between the two, in fact the thought has not likely entered in the majority of there head. That is all there is to it. Appearances are everything especially to them, there are just merely levels of appearances.

How can you make such claims about women, what they feel and think inside, when you are not a woman?
When a woman honestly describes to you what she feels and thinks, an it is not what you are claiming?

Class and superficial appearances are one and the same thing in pretty much all cases out there. After all how can you impress somebody with your class, if they are not able to see it? There is nothing deeper to it.

Class is a description of a personality characteristic, or behaviorism. It is a sensitivity to others around that allows them to be respectful of others in widely varied contexts. A friend once said, "She is someone who can be gracious and kind and considerate when in the midst of the poor or rural people, as much as when she is in the midst of the rich or urban people. That is class."

It is a sensitivity to deeper and unverbalized movements going on in those around- their values, morals, ethics, and particular sensitivities. This is often what allows for someone to interact with different sorts of people, from different cultures, and be able to act in a diplomatic function. Once considered essential for those in positions of leadership or higher social status, in order to have effective relations with other countries or groups, it became associated with high social status and financial abundance.
Though someone of lower social status and financial means can have class, just as someone with a higher status and financial status can be lacking in it.

But most often, being classy is knowing how to be careful not to intimidate others with your financial status- not being too flashy.
(thus, women who have class are less likely to assume the man with the Porsche has it, they will be more likely to take a closer look at the man driving a less visible expensive car.


I had said that women are attracted to men with a strong will. I said I am attracted to men of strong will, but perceive that it is not necessarily the source of financial success.

Nope there the same thing. Most especially in the mind of women

We obviously disagree there then. Some women may share that view with you, and others won't.

For instance how many strong willed men have you known who life in a cardboard box and do not have any monies or anything. None right? Because it does not exist, and in a females mind the two are not only tied together they are the same thing.

There are strong willed men who have no money- it all depends upon what their will is focused on. If they are focused on not conforming to societies expectations, for example, they can go very far to resist it.
There are young men who are strong willed, but do not yet have a "goal" or desire which they have chosen to focus on.

I ask yourself why are you arguing these things with me? Then you will have your answer. I mean no for real? Why are you arguing with a strange dude online about this? You have to realize that none of it matters even if we all reach some sort of conclusion. You keep trying to convince yourself of something...Well OK! How about this, just tell me what it is...Then I will agree, OK.

I don't need or want you to agree.
Your arguments lead me to make effort to formulate my thoughts in the simplest fashion possible, that is an interesting and useful exercise. You may never understand what I say because you simply do not want to- but in the future I could run into someone who would like to comprehend what I am saying, but needs it whittled down to statements easier to digest. This exercise with you will have helped me to be able to do that for them.

YOU brought that letter up, and it was from a post in another thread.

Yes I did. And yes it was. What of it?

You asked me why bring that up in this conversation, what does it have to do with you or anyone else here?
I answered, I didn't bring it here, you did, so only you know why you did that and why you felt it was relevant.

Ah you see there I to can turn things around...Round and round we go. Now who is right and who is wrong? I off course chose myself as being right. And you off course chose you as being in the right. But off course that is silly, and its obvious I am right.

Right?

Round about and Round about it goes.

Yes, you do that. But I am already familiar with that habit of yours, it doesn't surprise or irritate me at this point.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: undo

But the truth is that one persons socialism is another communism which is another's capitalism even in that they speak a different language and see things differently in there minds eye.

communism IS socialism. there's literally no difference between communism and fascism and they are both socialistic.

a reply to: Bluesma

How can you make such claims about women, what they feel and think inside, when you are not a woman? When a woman honestly describes to you what she feels and thinks, an it is not what you are claiming?

OK you got a point. But I was going on an observational both on mass and individual level, that and you know, some things women do happen so often that they go beyond instinctive behavior into unconscious instinctive habit and after the first few thousand times you see it in things, well you can only blame evolution.

But ya! your right. I should have explained that. My bad, it was new years, I drank a whole bottle of wine and was half asleep.

Class is a description of a personality characteristic, or behaviorism. It is a sensitivity to others around that allows them to be respectful of others in widely varied contexts. A friend once said, "She is someone who can be gracious and kind and considerate when in the midst of the poor or rural people, as much as when she is in the midst of the rich or urban people. That is class."

That's not class. That just weird # you made up. Whoever you friend was that said that, shes full of it, herself likely. Are you under some sort of impression that I would care what your high-horse friend thinks? Because I am not, I have met plenty of educated idiots before.

Anyways what you describe is just common decency, though that to is not all good. What if you want somebody to go away? Right so then you tell them to go away. And if they dont. Well acting crazy usually makes them go away. And if there still there. Then talking # will make them go away. And if there still there. Well generally by then there not.

And if you dont want them to go away then you will have to be nice to them. See how it works. And if they its just random life things. Well those pass by without the need of any of that, being courteous and polite then would apply.

It is a sensitivity to deeper and unverbalized movements going on in those around- their values, morals, ethics, and particular sensitivities. This is often what allows for someone to interact with different sorts of people, from different cultures, and be able to act in a diplomatic function. Once considered essential for those in positions of leadership or higher social status, in order to have effective relations with other countries or groups, it became associated with high social status and financial abundance. Though someone of lower social status and financial means can have class, just as someone with a higher status and financial status can be lacking in it.

OK highhorse indeed.

But most often, being classy is knowing how to be careful not to intimidate others with your financial status- not being too flashy. (thus, women who have class are less likely to assume the man with the Porsche has it, they will be more likely to take a closer look at the man driving a less visible expensive car.

Such a thing does not exist. Quit making # up. Women who can reprogram there basic code and behavior...YA right. That's like a squirrel who can do calculus. ie it does not exist, probably another thing that they think they do but dont actually do. Quit making # up, and I just may start to take you seriously. Or actually keep making # up. That way I can do that as well.

We obviously disagree there then. Some women may share that view with you, and others won't.

You may believe yourself or others of that. But actually your not.

There are strong willed men who have no money- it all depends upon what their will is focused on. If they are focused on not conforming to societies expectations, for example, they can go very far to resist it. There are young men who are strong willed, but do not yet have a "goal" or desire which they have chosen to focus on.

Quit trying to change the goalpost. The original thing was that strong will equals money, not other stuff. You said so yourself. I shall take the first things you said about it as more real then this constant changing of the subject you try to do.

I don't need or want you to agree. Your arguments lead me to make effort to formulate my thoughts in the simplest fashion possible, that is an interesting and useful exercise. You may never understand what I say because you simply do not want to- but in the future I could run into someone who would like to comprehend what I am saying, but needs it whittled down to statements easier to digest. This exercise with you will have helped me to be able to do that for them.

Oh I understand what your saying. I also understand what your not saying. In fact I also understand what your trying to say. And all I am saying is. Well you suck at it.

You asked me why bring that up in this conversation, what does it have to do with you or anyone else here? I answered, I didn't bring it here, you did, so only you know why you did that and why you felt it was relevant.

I did not. I merely mentioned it as a way to explain something. Your the one who makes a big deal out of it. In fact I am not sure what your talking about, and I really dont what to dig through my other posts to find out what exactly your talking about.

Yes, you do that. But I am already familiar with that habit of yours, it doesn't surprise or irritate me at this point.

Oh! Once again your are under false impressions. The impression that I was trying to be irritating. Believe you me, if I wanted to be irritating, we would not be having this textual conversation right now. I was merely digging to see certain things and explain them in such a manner that even someone like you could grasp them, oh and also not to spend to much time in doing that. Now that I have seen them. I see no more point to this.

But anyways. Carry on there Bluesma.