Jump to content
Forum Look Announcement

Featured Replies

I finished listening to this audiobook over the weekend:

 

 

Everything she says is correct to me, and also (mostly) politically incorrect.   I find it interesting as a public intellectual, she must claim to have a "gender neutral" stance when the contents of her talks and 2 books are anything but.  She knows evolutionary psychology but will not admit this in her writings, which are completely inline with the sharp differences between male and female psychology.  Like the rest of popular media on relationships, the subtext is very biased towards the primal needs of women and makes little inclination to encourage them into taking responsibility for the quality of their thinking and desires .  She does not criticize the female emotional spectrum (*which evolved tens of thousands of years ago and lacks relevance in modern life, and imposes enormous costs to men and society). The man is still, as always, a draft horse that has to continuously expend resources/seduce the woman in a long term relationship.  He has to "man up" while the woman gets a free ride and is responsible for most breakups and 82% of divorce filings.  The women has comparably little to contribute to the man's happiness and the prosperity of herself and her children is primary.

 

 She has some parts where she gives women some responsibility for being attractive (such as keeping down their weight) to disinterested/cheating men but she conveniently doesn't mention that these are higher value, attractive men.  Average and below average men will not often not find themselves in this situation.  She has decades of experience counseling in NYC and it's largely with upper class and upper-middle class couples and not the uneducated, middle class, and poor.

This book is funny and interesting.

5afb65a8ad315_Artbeingright.thumb.jpg.24b58ef1b6c746bad952a43187965eda.jpg

 

Here are his 38 stratagems:

Spoiler
  1. The Extension (Dana's Law)

  2. The Homonymy

  3. Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements

  4. Conceal Your Game

  5. False Propositions

  6. Postulate What Has to Be Proved

  7. Yield Admissions Through Questions

  8. Make Your Opponent Angry

  9. Questions in Detouring Order

  10. Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer

  11. Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases

  12. Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition

  13. Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition

  14. Claim Victory Despite Defeat

  15. Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions

  16. Arguments Ad Hominem

  17. Defense Through Subtle Distinction

  18. Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute

  19. Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it

  20. Draw Conclusions Yourself

  21. Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His

  22. Petitio principii

  23. Make Him Exaggerate His Statement

  24. State a False Syllogism

  25. Find One Instance to the Contrary

  26. Turn the Tables

  27. Anger Indicates a Weak Point

  28. Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent

  29. Diversion

  30. Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason

  31. This Is Beyond Me

  32. Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category

  33. It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice

  34. Don't Let Him Off the Hook

  35. Will Is More Effective Than Insight

  36. Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast

  37. A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position

  38. Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

 

But sometimes, I feel like stratagem #38 is by far the most used in our media...

Spoiler

Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

 

 

You don't like the ideas of someone?  Just call him the right hand of the devil or the grandson of Hitler, and victory is assured... :huh:

 

Wonderful suicide.gif

 

Spoiler

 

 

This emoticon annoys me:

 

:chicken:

 

Makes no sense at all/ nonsense

 

:chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken:

What is this supposed to mean? Extra super duper excited?  Never matches what was written.

 

:ninja:

 

This one is bad too- I call it the "coward" emoticon.  Generally used to soften the impact of a statement.

 

:banghead:

 

Beating a 'dead horse' is much better than this one.  Another "coward" emoticon that's always misused

 

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

One is enough, why use 3-4 of them?  Rarely matches the impact of what was written.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Stormbringer said:

:chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken:

:chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken: 

 

 

and the machinegun one- does nothing but slow down access if you're using a mobile phone!

Also, the use of :rofl: at the end of a witticism- it seems almost like an insecurity.  It's saying:  " I don't know if what I'm writing is funny, but if I use :rofl:, in the manner of laugh track for an unfunny TV show, I can now hedge my bets...you'll have to laugh due to peer pressure now"

 

I have a bad habit of doing this from time to time.

  • Author

 

2 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

This emoticon annoys me:

 

:chicken:

 

Makes no sense at all/ nonsense

 

Being that awesome .....it doesn't have to make sense :chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken: 

  • Author

guys who use makeup are sissies? :idk: ............ plus deep down they wish they were girls? :idk:

 

:rofl: is simply used to show ridicule and contempt for the other poster and belittle their opinions around here. Multiple :rofl::rofl::rofl: to really emphasize the point.

I don't like processed meat and salads with a mayo base

 

Egg-Salad-close.jpgdelisandwich.jpg

 

Is LAIS RIBERIO A DIVA???????????????????

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.