Vantagepoint34
Master Don Juan
Why is this flawed?
You replay the conversation at 2 a.m. She texted back fast yesterday. Today, nothing. Was that smile friendly or flirty? What did the shoulder touch mean?
Every hour you spend decoding her signals drains your confidence and hands her the controls. Women can sense that insecurity from across the room — and it repels them.
One of the "22 Rules" kills the obsession on the spot: assume she likes you, and act accordingly. Sounds too simple. Works anyway.
Her interest tends to rise to meet your expectations. Psychologists call it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
She asks it casually, mid-sip. And you feel the floor open up, because the honest answer is work, gym, and a couple shows you're half-watching.
Women rarely say this out loud, but a man with a life is attractive before he says a word. The guy who spent Saturday deep-sea fishing and came back with photos and a story — he walks in already interesting.
The "22 Rules" pushed me to build a life worth talking about. Turns out the fastest way to be interesting to women is to be interested in your own life first.
When a woman says it, guys hear a confession. A heads-up. A scheduling conflict.
Here's the translation: I don't feel anything. Right now. With you.
Watch what happens when a man triggers actual attraction. The busy career, the recent breakup, the "not in a place to date" — all of it evaporates instantly. The same woman who was guarding her freedom is suddenly free every night.
The "22 Rules" explain why. When the right switches flip, her timeline rearranges itself around you.
The reason it was banned. Wasn't it during the Civil War when they had the likes of Sherman running around. I'm sure there would be defense of Frankenstein should he have been alive today.taiyuu_otoko said:The term "Draconian" is extremely subjective. I'm sure that Vlad the Impaler didn't think he was being "Draconian" when he was implanting people's heads on spikes outside, his house, he was just being "proactive."
Generally speaking, throughout history laws have become "draconian" (at least in the sense that most non-lawmakers would agree they were such) when the law makers had power that couldn't easy be overthrown by the citizens.
Many would argue that any laws outside of "natural law," meaning a protection of life and private property, are too much and therefore "draconian."
e.g. bans on drugs, prostitution, gambling, any kind of price fixing (minimum wage, subsidies etc.).
Should I defy a court what would happen. Going against this Amendment to bring forth conspirators?dasein said:Without googling, my understanding is that "draconian" means "punishment significantly in excess of the wrong committed."
In the U.S., we have an 8th Amendment that expressly bans "draconian" law or punishments, so that's one reason why it's wrong. It's expressly outlawed in our highest law.