"You Can't Argue a Woman Into Liking You"

You made your case like a lawyer. Stable job. Good guy. Ready for something real. All true. All irrelevant.

She weighed your points, nodded along, felt nothing — then fell hard for some tattooed bartender with a motorcycle and a gambling problem.

Logic is where attraction goes to die. The "22 Rules" work a level deeper, on the subconscious switches that decide within minutes whether you register as a MAN or as part of the furniture.

Stop presenting evidence. Start flipping switches.

Read more...

Awesome personal ad written by a Craigslist poster

iqqi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
5,135
Reaction score
82
Location
Beyond your peripheral vision
Francisco d'Anconia said:
Unfortunately, they veer off into this depressive, dark, brooding, victimized place where all of this bitterness festers. Instead of just proclaiming that they're taking a new perspective they seem to wage a war against an entire gender. They call the very people who so engrossed their very existence every dirty, disgusting name in the book. It just nullifies any progress that they could have made to become better instead of bitter.

Rep points.

-Nevermind, it won't let me give you anymore right now.
 

"She Liked You in March. It's October Now."

Attraction runs on a clock.

She flirted for weeks. Touched your arm. Found reasons to be alone with you. And you were careful. Respectful. Waiting for the right moment.

The moment had a shelf life. It expired around month two, and by the time you asked her out, she'd quietly filed you under "little brother."

One of the hardest lessons inside the 22 Rules: women rarely wait. Interest either grows or it decays, and nothing decays it faster than a man who never moves.

Make the move while she's still inventing reasons to be near you.

Read more...

Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
37
Bonhomme said:
No.

Relativism, properly understood, entails absolute responsibility for one's actions and judgment. Much more than following some blind code that cannot possibly take into account all the factors in play when making an ethical decision.
If there is no absolute standard, then by what standard would one judge that person's irresponsible judgment and actions?? :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as absolute responsibility - nice try though! :rolleyes:
 

Bonhomme

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
16
Location
Land of the Ruins
I've been pretty busy having a life outside of here, hence the delay getting back...

Last Man Standing said:
If there is no absolute standard, then by what standard would one judge that person's irresponsible judgment and actions?? :rolleyes:
There's the rub -- one must exercise judgment in order to best do that. The only "absolute standard" I can think of is to act in the most optimal way for the universe... which itself is so dependent upon one's judgment it would be absurd to call it "absolute."

Are you saying the judge in the parable about the two women who were claiming a baby was theirs should have cut the baby in half, instead of giving it to the woman who would rather the other woman get the baby than the baby be cut in half? That parable is a prime example of the superiority of good judgment over codified rules.

Rules are best seen as guidelines.

Just what is your absolute standard, LMS?

Last Man Standing said:
There is no such thing as absolute responsibility - nice try though! :rolleyes:
You've just contradicted yourself, but I actually agree with this point, after giving it a bit more thought. As much as people hate to admit it, there are limitations as to how responsible a person truly is for their actions and tendencies. Everyone's at the mercy of their brain biochemistry, which drives their behavior to an extent few people are willing to acknowledge.

Better stated, relativism implies maximum responsibility for one's actions.
 
Top