What did Pook mean by this? How can one 'know too much' and what is so bad about it?

[bigneil]

The only men who care when women cheat are men who can't get any other girls that hot.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Some women will just cheat just BECAUSE.

Nobody ever does anything "just because."

No animal has a "random behavior generator" in their brain.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Nobody ever does anything "just because."

No animal has a "random behavior generator" in their brain.

The decisions are not always rational, guy. What if they did it to look "cool" to their peers. That's a reason. It might set you back in life, but that is one reason these things happen.

 

[devilkingx2]

There is nothing 'Black" about a woman's soul. Is a Tiger 'black' because it kills baby animals to survive? Nope, it is their nature. Women are women, it is their nature. It does not serve the tiger to be concerned with the morality of killing: it does not serve women to be concerned about loyalty.

Is the sociopath black because he cares only for himself and cannot care for others?

....yes

 

[RangerMIke]

Is the sociopath black because he cares only for himself and cannot care for others?

....yes

No... the sociopath does not know any better. They might be a pox on humanity, but a sociopath isn't violating their morality by uncaring behavior... uncaring behavior is their morality. If a man that knows better, picks up a gun and murders another, then their soul, if you believe in such things, is 'black'. If a toddler picks of a gun and kills someone, they don't know any better.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

he decisions are not always rational, guy. What if they did it to look "cool" to their peers. That's a reason.

Exactly my point. Not "just because." They ALWAYS have a reason. It's not random. And any reason, regardless of how rational or irrational, is based on "cost benefit" even at the subconscious level.

And generally speaking, people are pretty consistent in their behaviors. If you are willing to look, and not just see what you want to see.

 

[RangerMIke]

Their evolutionary tendencies are first and foremost submission. Before being emotional or observing or anything. They just are mentally sick because no is there to bring out their submission.

Yes and no. Male and female evolutionary tendency is for survival. Men in prehistory only survive when the collective group survives. It is in the best interests of men to fight with your tribe, to the death, because if you lose you are dead anyway. So men have a stake in the maintenance of society as long as society serves their needs. Women can and have survived throughout history by just following behind whomever wins. So you are correct, they survive by passive submission to authority.

Without disciplined authority, women will follow their nature, which is selfish preservation and collection of resources. And if they can't find men that meet their needs, they will vote for government, government is not society, government to women is a means of extracting resources from men that are unwilling to marry them and hand it over willingly. It is not a coincidence that our National Debt rises as women's empowerment increases. Women are left on their own, they will suck up whatever is available, destroy society... and just fall in behind whatever emerges after society collapses.

Women will submit to whomever or whatever can provide them with what they need. However, they will not willingly submit to those they see no value in.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Yes and no. Male and female evolutionary tendency is for survival. Men in prehistory only survive when the collective group survives. It is in the best interests of men to fight with your tribe, to the death, because if you lose you are dead anyway. So men have a stake in the maintenance of society as long as society serves their needs. Women can and have survived throughout history by just following behind whomever wins. So you are correct, they survive by passive submission to authority.

Without disciplined authority, women will follow their nature, which is selfish preservation and collection of resources. And if they can't find men that meet their needs, they will vote for government, government is not society, government to women is a means of extracting resources from men that are unwilling to marry them and hand it over willingly. It is not a coincidence that our National Debt rises as women's empowerment increases. Women are left on their own, they will suck up whatever is available, destroy society... and just fall in behind whatever emerges after society collapses.

Women will submit to whomever or whatever can provide them with what they need. However, they will not willingly submit to those they see no value in.

Man. We have painted women as the "anti Christ".... Thing is, many men even in the bible where taken down by women. The bible warned men against being seduced by the seductress lures and she will take you down into the bowels of hell and steal your life from you... Without a single feeling...

 

[Atom Smasher]

This is why we must collectively reclaim our God-given authority in this world.

The world today is like a chaotic household that is run by unruly, bratty, disrespectful children whose parents are their "friends".

It's amazing how what I call "Assumed Authority" shuts up the modern woman. The problem with men is that they conform to the energy given off by the women around them instead of being the dominating energy.

Be the dominating energy in every interaction. In so doing, you let them know, in THEIR language, that you are in charge and they are to conform to you.

 

[RangerMIke]

Man. We have painted women as the "anti Christ".... Thing is, many men even in the bible where taken down by women. The bible warned men against being seduced by the seductress lures and she will take you down into the bowels of hell and steal your life from you... Without a single feeling...

I don't think women are the anti-Christ, they are what they are.... basically grown up children. Just look at what happened on that show "Survivor" when they tried to create gender based teams... the women's team when to complete 'sh!t', look what happened to Black Inner city American when Black women replace men with Government...... it is that we men have failed to protect society. You can no more expect women to be in charge of something and have it work, then you can expect turning things over to a bunch of children. Just like the "Lord of the Flies", society would devolve into stupidity. Jesus... women deep down KNOW this is true... that is why many women voted for Trump and not Hillary... sure they loved the idea that a women could be President but when push came to shove, they would rather have a reality TV star running the country than another chick.

Women can not get anything done without men.

 

[MrAddiction]

There is nothing 'Black" about a woman's soul. Is a Tiger 'black' because it kills baby animals to survive? Nope, it is their nature. Women are women, it is their nature. It does not serve the tiger to be concerned with the morality of killing: it does not serve women to be concerned about loyalty

Hey
I totally get your Point. But no prey of the tiger would ever consider to get in to a relationship with a tiger or spining plates with a tiger. Prey runs like hell if it sees a tiger and therefore does not have to bother about the tigers morality. All the prey needs to know - as it does instinctly - is that the tiger is after it.
But that can bot be the wanted effect: run like hell if you see a woman. At least that would be MGTOW.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Women will submit to whomever or whatever can provide them with what they need. However, they will not willingly submit to those they see no value in.

Go to Soflobro's thread. He is living proff of THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Read some of Tenacity's statements as well. Some women just ARE psychologically fvcked. It's not women being women, a lot of them have become degenerates when they show their true colors.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

Yes and no. Male and female evolutionary tendency is for survival. Men in prehistory only survive when the collective group survives. It is in the best interests of men to fight with your tribe, to the death, because if you lose you are dead anyway. So men have a stake in the maintenance of society as long as society serves their needs. Women can and have survived throughout history by just following behind whomever wins. So you are correct, they survive by passive submission to authority.

Without disciplined authority, women will follow their nature, which is selfish preservation and collection of resources. And if they can't find men that meet their needs, they will vote for government, government is not society, government to women is a means of extracting resources from men that are unwilling to marry them and hand it over willingly. It is not a coincidence that our National Debt rises as women's empowerment increases. Women are left on their own, they will suck up whatever is available, destroy society... and just fall in behind whatever emerges after society collapses.

Women will submit to whomever or whatever can provide them with what they need. However, they will not willingly submit to those they see no value in.

Lost in all the speculation is the idea of becoming... the idea that over and above the base of our material cause is another 'cause' by which we develop [think push and pull]. The base is always violent but not normative; the Romans conquered the barbarians in order to institute a rational law. You could read reason as the development of our rational/ moral instincts in contrast to our natural instincts.

As for all the speculation, the Greeks invented that. Best to start reading some Aristotle and Plato to put [post] modern thought in some context. You might then gain an appreciation of aesthetics, moral philosophy, art and human history... as opposed to just natural history.

And as for the black and white dichotomy painted between men and woman, where men are us and women are the 'other', this is pure ideology. The fact is that all humanity, whether man or woman, lies on a spectrum where at one end our moral/ rational potential is fully developed and at the other it is not. According to a thinker such as Aristotle, not even the mass of men achieve this potential. And it is not necessarily ruled out that women couldn't.

 

[devilkingx2]

No... the sociopath does not know any better. They might be a pox on humanity, but a sociopath isn't violating their morality by uncaring behavior... uncaring behavior is their morality. If a man that knows better, picks up a gun and murders another, then their soul, if you believe in such things, is 'black'. If a toddler picks of a gun and kills someone, they don't know any better.

the difference between human beings and everything else is that we are not slaves to our nature, anyone who does anything bad should be judged accordingly, if you can control your masculine aggression and don't get into fist fights every week, there's no reason a woman can't control her emotions/nature and no reason a sociopath couldn't choose not to cause trouble

man is not a slave to his nature, beasts are.

 

[RangerMIke]

Lost in all the speculation is the idea of becoming... the idea that over and above the base of our material cause is another 'cause' by which we develop [think push and pull]. The base is always violent but not normative; the Romans conquered the barbarians in order to institute a rational law. You could read reason as the development of our rational/ moral instincts in contrast to our natural instincts.

As for all the speculation, the Greeks invented that. Best to start reading some Aristotle and Plato to put [post] modern thought in some context. You might then gain an appreciation of aesthetics, moral philosophy, art and human history... as opposed to just natural history.

And as for the black and white dichotomy painted between men and woman, where men are us and women are the 'other', this is pure ideology. The fact is that all humanity, whether man or woman, lies on a spectrum where at one end our moral/ rational potential is fully developed and at the other it is not. According to a thinker such as Aristotle, not even the mass of men achieve this potential. And it is not necessarily ruled out that women couldn't.

All true answers are simple. If explanations get too complicated you are on the wrong track. Don't make things too complex... There are always exceptions... but that which is typical is what you SHOULD expect. Over thinking sh!t is much worst than just acting on the typical.

Why waste time tying to decide if a women is a certain way because she ... might.... just might be a special snowflake. In the time you take trying to figure that sh!t out with one woman... I wil habe already moved on to three others.

 

[RangerMIke]

the difference between human beings and everything else is that we are not slaves to our nature, anyone who does anything bad should be judged accordingly, if you can control your masculine aggression and don't get into fist fights every week, there's no reason a woman can't control her emotions/nature and no reason a sociopath couldn't choose not to cause trouble

man is not a slave to his nature, beasts are.

You miss the point... society punishes men for following our nature (we get tossed in jail if we behave aggressively) in today's society women ARE NOT punished for following her nature (hyper-gamy and disloyalty). Sure human beings can rise above their nature, but why would they if there are no consequences to just doing what comes naturally?

 

[RangerMIke]

Go to Soflobro's thread. He is living proff of THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Read some of Tenacity's statements as well. Some women just ARE psychologically fvcked. It's not women being women, a lot of them have become degenerates when they show their true colors.

Hey
I totally get your Point. But no prey of the tiger would ever consider to get in to a relationship with a tiger or spining plates with a tiger. Prey runs like hell if it sees a tiger and therefore does not have to bother about the tigers morality. All the prey needs to know - as it does instinctly - is that the tiger is after it.
But that can bot be the wanted effect: run like hell if you see a woman. At least that would be MGTOW.

I am not really trying to describe the relationship between tigers and what they eat, just trying to illustrate that nature is what it is... no reason to hate tigers from following their nature, just like there is no reason to hate women for following theirs. Read what I just said, don't hate women for being women, BUT PRAISE women who can somehow manage to rise above theirs. But the fvcking problem with that is the chances are that if you find a chick that is cool and will not screw you over... she's likely NOT what most men would consider HOT. The really hot chicks typically (I did not say all of them) have been totally screwed up by dudes... we line up to kiss the @sses because they are hot.

I don't have a problem with MGTOW philosophy. I understand that much better than male stooges that go around kissing women's @sses... trying to figure out how to get into relationships with them... that behavior makes no sense to me. 100 years ago it made sense for men to get into relationships with women, but why in the fvck would a man do this today, it is much better to just have fun and move onto the next before things get serious.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

There's a paradox that lies at the heart of red pill ideology. Men come here to get better with women, which is most often interpreted in terms of quantity. They learn that to get better with women they need to first get better themselves. In this process, in so far as men are concerned with getting better, the goal moves from quantity to quality, and quality in terms of both themselves and the women they pursue. From the quantity angle, it looks like we may need to practice some form of self-renunciation, and hence the paradox- to get better with women, we need to stop chasing them. But then I think you see this paradox resolved in a thinker such as Plato. Eros is understood as something much larger than a mere fleeting connection between men and women, but is rather the very path by which one comes to understand both the cosmic forces under-girding this world and the meaning of one's own life.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I am not really trying to describe the relationship between tigers and what they eat, just trying to illustrate that nature is what it is... no reason to hate tigers from following their nature, just like there is no reason to hate women for following theirs. Read what I just said, don't hate women for being women, BUT PRAISE women who can somehow manage to rise above theirs. But the fvcking problem with that is the chances are that if you find a chick that is cool and will not screw you over... she's likely NOT what most men would consider HOT. The really hot chicks typically (I did not say all of them) have been totally screwed up by dudes... we line up to kiss the @sses because they are hot.

I don't have a problem with MGTOW philosophy. I understand that much better than male stooges that go around kissing women's @sses... trying to figure out how to get into relationships with them... that behavior makes no sense to me. 100 years ago it made sense for men to get into relationships with women, but why in the fvck would a man do this today, it is much better to just have fun and move onto the next before things get serious.

But the problem is, that ISN'T female nature to be disloyal. 'Emotional' may be one, but doshonesty and disloyalty is not. It is not inherent to any creatures nature because it woupd be detrimental to their species survival. The closest thing to disloyalty in nature is antisocial animals. And many antisocial animals are in jeapordy of going extinct.

 

[Atom Smasher]

It's not that they are actively, willfully disloyal per se. It's that they have almost no concept of loyalty. They do not comprehend the concept because they are wired to think that their feelings are correct and reliable.

I've observed that the concept of "loyalty" is a word only to most women (not all, but most by far) and not a reality. They only understand male loyalty. THe concept of loyalty just doesn't "feel" that it applies to them from their perspective.