12 Feb Disagree With Me? Great! Tell Me Where I’m Wrong!
Disagree with me on anything? Wonderful! Once again I am opening up this site for anyone to debate me publicly, right here at this blog, to make your points and show the world how wrong I am.
I’ve done this many times here before and they were always enjoyable. A list of those debates and links to them are at the bottom of this article.
Here’s how the debate works…
-By Caleb Jones
Put a comment on this blog post or email me directly (theonlyblackdragon @ gmail.com), and tell me on which topic you would like to debate. You can be ANYONE: a hater, a feminist, a fellow manosphere guy who disagrees with me on something, someone who hates me, someone who loves me, ANYONE. Your topic can be ANYTHING; older guys dating younger women, monogamy, marriage, politics, society, online dating, relationships, economics, finance, lifestyle, ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING is up for grabs. Obviously I will favor topics regarding man/woman relations, since that’s the overall point of this blog, but I will take other topics (politics, etc) into consideration as well.
The only topics I will not allow are the topics that we have already addressed in past debates. These are:
Whether or not nonmonogamy is good for society.
Anything regarding complimenting women’s appearance.
OLTR’s. (I addressed most objections to OLTR here.)
The affect having kids has on your happiness.
Other than those, any topic is up for grabs!
Once I get enough responses, I will select someone and we’ll debate back-and-forth over email. You can choose who starts. When we’re done, I will copy and paste our emails here on this blog, completely unedited. The readers and commenters will decide who won.
During the email portion of the debate, we will both abide by the following rules:
1. There will be a limit of 1700 characters (including spaces) per response. That means before email me any responses, you’ll have to check your response with lettercount.com to make sure you’re under the 1700 character limit. I will abide by the same limitation.
2. The first person to make an ad hominem personal attack against the other, even an implied one, instantly loses the debate and the other person wins by default. (I will still publicly post the debate in its entirety.) Clearly sarcastic remarks don’t count towards this and are perfectly fine.
(This is how I view debates in real life anyway. When I’m debating an issue with someone, and I state a fact / position / observation backing up my point, and the person responds with “Fuck you” or “You just think you know everything” or “You have issues,” then I know I’ve won. If I was wrong, the person could quickly and easily prove me wrong with facts. But if all he/she has is anger and personal attacks, it pretty much proves I’ve hit the target.)
3. You must stay on topic. Attempting to change the subject is another technique of a debater who knows he’s losing. I’ll do my best to keep you on topic, but if you keep veering off topic, I’ll have to end the debate and declare myself the winner. (I will still publicly post the debate in its entirety.) Again, I will abide by the same limitation.
4. We can’t debate forever, so if the debate seems to be going on and on with no clear resolution, surrender, or compromise, I will end the debate, and we’ll leave it up to the readers and commenters to decide who the winner is.
That’s it! I hereby state publicly that I will adhere to the rules set forth above, and my opponent or the audience are more than welcome to point out if I violate any of my own rules.
Beyond what’s above, I really have no set rules on how the winner is determined. Maybe one of us will surrender. Maybe it will be a tie. Maybe I’ll leave it up to the audience. Other than the above parameters, we’ll play it by ear.
One last thing about this. Contrary to what you might think, I am actually willing to change my mind on strongly-held issues. However, the only way I do that is with facts and cogent points, not emotions, anger, snark, outrage, slogans, name-calling, or nitpicking. Just recently, a few intelligent guys at my other blog changed my mind about patents, for example. It can be done, folks. You just need to lay out your case, back up your points, and stay calm, rational, and factual.
If you’d like to see our past debates we’ve had at this blog, here they are:
Debate 1: Part 1 (Nonmonogamy is good or bad for society?)
Debate 1: Part 2
Debate 2 (Complimenting women’s appearance?)
Debate 3 (OLTR’s)
Debate 4 (Having kids makes you more or less unhappy?)
Debate 5 (OLTR’s makes it harder to find a quality mate?)
(One side note. I’ve noticed that whenever I ask for guys to debate me, I get a slew of comments from people wanting to debate me on a topic that I don’t actually disagree with. It’s fascinating. I’m curious how many of these comments and emails will appear like that this time around. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about my viewpoints, so this gives me an opportunity to make my views more clear. It’s a little disconcerting that so many people in the audience think I hold views that I don’t actually have. Oh well, such is the internet I guess.)
If you’re a hater, or someone who has always wanted to prove me wrong, or someone who agrees with most of my stuff but has this one issue that you think I’m completely wrong about, now is your moment! Leave a comment below with your topic (or email me) and let’s go!
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Liam
Posted at 07:13 am, 12th February 2018Hey BD,
Let me preface this by saying I’m a big fan of your work, and have used this website to get multiple FBs and MLTRs at the same time with great efficiency.
I am also an avid follower of Girls Chase (thats hows I found this site to begin with!). Chase, the founder, has a piece on the forums about monogamy that seems to go directly against some of the biggest concepts on your site:
http://www.girlschase.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4786
Chase thinks that for the majority of men, long term monogamy is possible without cheating or even unhappiness, provided you pick the right women and do things right. I’d be very curious to get your take on this article, specifically about whether or not learning game and relationships gives you an advantage over most men for making monogamy work long term.
Thanks!
Liam
Oden
Posted at 07:27 am, 12th February 2018I just caught on to your blog a few months ago and your ideas and take on relationships blew me away. I believe OLTRs work because of you and I can’t wait to try this. And live this lifestyle.
One thing I still can’t wrap my head around and I want you to convince me on this so I can be at peace. Call me old fashioned but I think of cuckold if I let someone have sex with whom I care deeply for. Is OLTRs a form of cuckoldry?
Tim
Posted at 09:46 am, 12th February 2018Does this only apply to relationships, or do your views on politics count as well?
I agree with you on practically everything, but your political views are where we differ. I’m a libertarian socialist (maximizing individual personal freedom/choice, not necessarily economic freedom/choice like a right leaning libertarian).
Your views politically, about how socialist tendencies in government are a bad thing is one I disagree with, and would be curious to hear your response to my beliefs.
1337 PUA
Posted at 10:28 am, 12th February 2018Actually Chase and BD don’t disagree about monogamy working. Here is a quote from Chase’s post:
The truth is, it works some of the time, for some people.
BD keeps saying it too – there are exceptions to every rule. In general, monogamy doesn’t work for most people, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for ALL people. So if you and your partner truly want and are fine with monogamy, and it makes you happier than every other relationship arrangement, by all means go for it! After all the main point of Alpha 2.0 is being the happiest you can be I believe during most of the time possible, and if that means monogamous commitment for you, so be it.
You just have to be really honest with yourself and your desires, and not live in denial that you will never end up wanting to bang other girls (90%+of men?), cause that is setting yourself up for cheating and failure and thus monogamy should never be attempted if you are unsure that this is what you want and be able to make a commitment to your partner with every new day (which in our age of temptation is not exactly fun and easy for most people).
CTV
Posted at 10:29 am, 12th February 2018@ Tim I think what you’re referring to is a Left Leaning Libertarian who are bigger on Legalizing Drugs, Abortion Rights, ETC. A Right Leaning Libertarian is bigger on Gun Rights and such.
I believe ALL Libertarians are fundamentally in agreement on less taxes, less spending, and less State Control over peoples individual freedom even if they don’t care for the issue them self.
This in of itself makes the word Socialist fundamentally incompatible with Libertarian beliefs for it is advocating State Control over the individual and almost 100% taxes.
I’m not trying to attack you or anything I’m just trying to clarify what you’re saying.
Anon
Posted at 10:50 am, 12th February 2018Summarized: 50% of traditional monogamous marriages seem to fail, but this figure can be improved by Doing Things Right (without any explanation what exactly that entails).
Thanks, but no thanks.
Also it’s funny how “the ones with high enough partner counts that sex is no big deal to them” are “freaks” and “outliers” to him. The more things that aren’t a big deal, the better! Why should sex be a big deal?
Gil Galad
Posted at 11:10 am, 12th February 2018Disagree. You say socialism advocates almost 100% taxes, but you frequently find some libertarians qualify others (including people who claim to be libertarians) as “socialists” for advocating high but nowhere near 100% or 80% taxes, or a sliding scale tax, tax slices, etc.
This is because a welfare state in an economy that still has a free market is often called socialistic by libertarians. So you get a holier than thou war where if you’re a given type of libertarian, anyone who wants sizeably higher taxes than you do is a “socialist”, even if you’re both waaay under 100%.
For example, if I adocate for a UBI that would replace all or most currently existing safety nets, and financing that UBI (after removing those nets) happens to require, eg, 45% income tax (oversimplification), by your implied definition I am not a socialist but I *will* be called one by *many* libertarians.
European style mixed economy and the reactions to it have really muddied the concept of socialism compared to what it meant 100 years ago.
John
Posted at 11:12 am, 12th February 2018Can’t say I disagree with your ideas. Only issue I have is that the women, who I respect and connect with, do not do open relationships. It’s hard enough to find people who I connect with let alone find ones (unicorns) that are open to open relationships. Also, at 48 I can’t get enough attractive woman under 40 to respond. I can get them all day long over 40 but man, under 40 is a difficult. Too many guys in their early 30’s chasing MILFS now.
Tim
Posted at 11:23 am, 12th February 2018Libertarian refers to a political philosophy that maximizes individual freedom. There are two schools of thought on that: free enterprise or free creativity.
Socialist refers more to the free creativity aspect (poor name, but I’ll explain momentarily).
The idea is that safety nets, and a government monopoly on infrastructure (or industries where natural monopolies will arise such utilities or transit), and heavily regulation of industries where social/public health is a major concern (environment/pharmaceuticals/food/water/etc) are necessary.
The purpose of the government is to enable freedom of an individual to pursue whatever they choose to, without fear of having to survive. Universal basic income being the epitome of libertarian socialist ideals. Tax funded or highly regulated healthcare, defense, infrastructure (telecom/roads/utilities) and safety nets for the disabled/unsuccessful so they are free to make choices (and take risks).
An example benefits:
1. Without fear of worrying about where their next meal comes from, someone would be free to enroll in higher education to become a more highly skilled member of society.
2. Without fear of ending up homeless/unable to survive, someone would be free to start their own business in any endeavor they have a passion for. Whether or not they become wealthy, the market will decide. But they will have basic subsistence whether or not they are successful.
—
Who pays? The successful obviously. Those who benefit most from a healthy society, are those who profit from it. Henry Ford understood this.
It’s an example of tragedy of the commons (commons being people as a resource), if the successful continue to employ wage slavery for short term benefit until there are none left to afford their goods/services (long term result).
I see western civilization collapsing as BD does, I just think the solution is the opposite of his.
JudoJohn
Posted at 11:40 am, 12th February 2018BD, I think you confuse the “rise of the rest” with societal collapse of the USA. You are really hard on the tradcons, yet this is very much a tradcon type of position.
@John
Do you even lift, bro? 😀
Anon
Posted at 11:47 am, 12th February 2018Well, this one is pretty clear-cut. If, like me, you understand socialism as a tendency for the government to play a great role in the society, then the question is, where are you going to find a large yet efficient and non-corrupt government?
CrabRangoon
Posted at 11:53 am, 12th February 2018@John,
I’m a bit younger at 40 but I have 3 women currently in the mix, 31, 38 and 40 all of whom are fine with the open relationships. They have their occasional moments of jealously but overall they are all very accepting of me and we have a great time. I can’t help but think you’re doing something off that’s spooking them? It’s more work and a little trickier up front to establish these types of relationships and you have to be very careful on how you come across. However once you get them going, they are really nice and and easy with very little drama.
Are you doing online dating? Night game? Day game? Are you in good shape? Are you announcing the non-monogamy thing too soon?
Tim
Posted at 12:02 pm, 12th February 2018Doesn’t have to be large. I’m minarchist. Minimum government required to fulfill those needs.
It won’t be small by any right libertarian’s definition, but it shouldn’t get into legislation of morality, or anything removing informed choice. No legislation of beliefs. Non-interventionist (defense only) military. Etc.
As for non-corrupt… that’s a problem wherever you go, and wherever you go the government has the ability to control your life if it wants.
Frankly, western world has less low level and more high level corruption (can’t bribe local cop, but can bribe a congressman). Other places suffer from low level corruption… though I’m ignorant on the amount of high level corruption.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 12:27 pm, 12th February 2018Liam – The purpose of this thread is for you to debate me, not point at some article and have them try to debate me, particularly when it’s Chase, a friend of mine who I was just emailing with over this weekend, who doesn’t disagree with me the way you say he does.
My position on monogamy:
– It’s “okay” for higher-drama or more controlling men who like temporary, serial monogamy (what few of those men there are, since most men hate serial monogamy).
– Long-term (much longer than three years) it absolutely does not work in the Western world (you will either get divorced, cheat or get cheated on, or end up in a shitty marriage) outside of a very small percentage of the exceptions to the rule made up of largely boring, low sex drive people, which unlikely includes you or any woman you’d be attracted to enough to marry.
It’s not my job to convince you of anything. It’s my job to show you the facts, even if they’re emotionally uncomfortable for your false Societal Programming. Then it’s your job to make up your own mind and live your life.
I have an OLTR, and I’m out regularly having sex with super hot younger women, and sometimes my OLTR is in the same room actually watching me do it. Does that sound like cuckoldry?
I clearly said in the article that I would consider political topics, but that dating/relationship topics would get priority. Please remember Rule Number 3 here.
I realize there’s a political category in Wikipedia call “libertarian socialist” but the term is an oxymoron. If I have 50% (or whatever) of my income forcibly taken from me by gunpoint to pay for some lazy shithead in some other city who doesn’t want to work, I don’t have individual freedom. I have the opposite. A social safety net and individual freedom are two different things, not the same thing.
Most women I’ve had in long-term relationships said the same thing at the outset, yet they did it with me anyway, for years and years. Read this:
https://alphamale20.com/2015/05/04/ignore-what-women-say-only-watch-what-they-do/
Read item #5 here.
I don’t understand. What is the rise of the rest?
Oden
Posted at 12:39 pm, 12th February 2018That is great from a male’s point of view. Having sex in front of your girlfriend with another girl. Btw that’s exactly the definition of cuckold. (Your cucking her) but I feel like you could be bringing in a faster ending to the OLTR. I feel like a girl could catch feelings for a FB. Then that’s feelings and time waisted
Caleb Jones
Posted at 01:13 pm, 12th February 2018Exactly. We’re males.
Incorrect. Women can’t be cuckolds. The female version is cuckquean. If you want to argue that OLTR’s could be cuckqueanary, then I don’t disagree, but I’m not a woman, so I don’t care.
https://alphamale20.com/2017/11/09/open-relationships-wont-fall-love-someone-else/
JudoJohn
Posted at 01:37 pm, 12th February 2018Slightly dated term, admittedly……Basically stated, it was the “BRIC’s” (Brazil, Russia, India, China if I recall correctly) pulling themselves out of grinding poverty. The world is becoming more competitive, which is eroding our relative ranking…..however, it’s not a zero sum game. Americans can profit from having richer trading partners. And…..we still have massive markets and a first rate military. Not being a hegemon is different from societal collapse.
In short, I don’t think the West is collapsing, I think the West is progressing, just not as fast as the rest of the world….mostly because gains get harder and harder to come by, kind of like lifting. Gains from year 0 to year 1 are vastly greater than gains from year 4 to year 5.
To me, the Alpha 2.0 life is inherently optimistic. Take control of your life, make the moves that make you happy, here are some rules to help you do it, and if you fuck it up, it’s your fault……this is really, really excellent stuff which is why I love this blog. Societal collapse has always felt out of place to me, sort of like a Red Piller’s “Enjoy the decline” or the battle cry MAGA! when the reality is that people who are willing to work both smart and hard can live as well as most human have ever been able to.
Gang
Posted at 02:33 pm, 12th February 2018I agree with you that technology can solve some problems (while creating other problems) but I disagree with your seemingly blind trust on technology to solve certain of our impoetsnt problems. Some problems I believe can be solved only by a change in indicidual lifestyle habits of the population. My point concerns mostly 2 area:
– environmental issues : you seem to think they are non issues because someone will pull out a solution of his ass sooner or later and meanwhile we can continue driving arround in indvidual cars, eating a western diet based on annimal products, flying more than once every couple of years, etc… I disagree.
– individual health, I disagree with you on your strategy to achieve optimal health until older age to remain physically active as long as possible. I think the things you do are good but mostly cosmetic or have only a tiny effect long term (such as eating organic, it’s good but the positive impact is tiny in proportion of the cost or time if you grow in your garden, but keep doing it through f you can afford it), but at the core you are making choices that have a much greater effect on degrading your health long term such as eating animal products (meat, fish, dairy, cheese, eggs, etc… cause cholesterol problems, plaques, Alzeimer – a plaques related problem, arthritis, ostheoporosis, diabetis type 2 – root cause is actually cholesterol impeding sugar regulation, cancer, acidic forming, etc…). You seem to think that you are avoiding these issues by exercising or that you are eating healthy enough, or that you will be able to solve these issues by poping some pharmaceutical pills. I think this strategy will only extend your old age as a very less active, crippled or senile man. It will not extend your active clearminded years. I also believe that TRT treatment is cancerogenous, therefore a possibly a good mid term strategy but a terrible strategy for your fantasies concerning your 80s.
I have plenty of sources with hard science facts to argument my point.
Oden
Posted at 02:44 pm, 12th February 2018Ok you win. I guess I have some SP still to undue. Like I said im new to your concepts and im just getting my feet wet coming out of a broken marriage of 15 years. So I have my feelers out.
I watched a movie yesterday on Netflix called “Newness” its a light version of OLTR in today’s age with tinder. I thought it was interesting and I think you might like it. I know its fiction but it shows both sides and I can see how your lifestyle can be tricky sometimes
JudoJohn
Posted at 03:12 pm, 12th February 2018I’m sure BD will chime in….for me, getting started is the tricky part.
I have been seeing one woman on and off for a while….I started seeing another, and the first found evidence of the second at my place….at first she was pissed, but I made no promises ever…..I just smiled and shrugged, and she eventually calmed down, and actually put the evidence (a bracelet) around her own wrist and admired it (I’m thinking a lost and found is a good idea). She’s been far more compliant ever since.
Edit: Yes, I lift like my life depends on it. Compeat game changer.
Oden
Posted at 03:41 pm, 12th February 2018Thanks for commenting judojohn! I’m a kid in kindergarten when it comes to this concept. The Rational Male first then BD’s blog really opened my eyes when I read these blogs. Both sites were game the bigest changers so far for me.
Funny you mentioned a bracelet because in the movie I mentioned above.. a bracelet was one of the turning points in that story
JudoJohn
Posted at 04:00 pm, 12th February 2018That is really amusing….paging Dr. Jung.
Unsolicited advice: Take your time with this stuff. I was in Disney Monogamy for 21 of my 25 adult years in one of 3 LTR’s. The last left summer ’16. It took a while to get going, hell I’m hardly out of grammar school…..the idea of loving women while staying free was so liberating I knew I had to give it a try. Being non-needy is surprisingly attractive to women, at first anyway, and if they’re busy, sometimes long term.
But the only way to be non-needy is to have options, full stop.
Anon
Posted at 04:07 pm, 12th February 2018“I also *purposely* leave evidence in plain sight for her to see. Examples:
“1. I have a drawer next to my bed where I keep all of the knicknacks that women leave over at my house. It’s full of rings, bracelets, headbands, bobby pins, even wrapped panty liners, all from past and current women. It is the same drawer where I keep my condoms and my lube, so women always see what’s in there, as well as noticing when new items appear. I am 100% sure more than one woman has rummaged through there, which is even better.
“(Side Note: You know what’s really fascinating? Once a woman leaves something over at my house, and I then put it in the “chick drawer”, and later she sees that it’s in there…SHE ALWAYS LEAVES IT IN THERE. Like she’s adding herself to the roster, or marking her territory. Very interesting!)
“2. Last year HBPunkRocker actually had the balls to grab another woman’s necklace from the drawer and wear it around!”
— BD, 15 May 2009
Johnny Ringo
Posted at 04:35 pm, 12th February 2018BD is one of the first people in my 38 year life that I just about agree with every word he writes on just about every subject.
A very rare thing for this one.
Even when I try to nitpick, I will generally write it out, or say it in my head, and then will answer my own question with something he has already written on the topic.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 04:38 pm, 12th February 2018Correct. I have never made the argument that the West is collapsing because other countries are rising. I’ve made the argument, and I’m right, that the West is collapsing for strictly internal economic, monetary, demographic, political, and cultural reasons, all of which would still be destroying the West even if the BRICS nations did not exist.
Then read all the stats and facts I present about the collapse of the West in these articles, and if you still actually think the West is rising, let me know and I’ll put that down as one of the possible debate topics (and get ready to be slaughtered if I choose to debate you).
http://calebjonesblog.com/cultural-collapse/
http://calebjonesblog.com/heres-how-poor-americans-really-are/
http://calebjonesblog.com/germanys-biggest-bank-owns-derivatives-20x-size-germany/
http://calebjonesblog.com/the-war-on-cash/
http://calebjonesblog.com/millionaires-fleeing-sign-times/
http://calebjonesblog.com/12765-2/
http://calebjonesblog.com/europeans-are-suicidal/
http://calebjonesblog.com/americans-pay-among-highest-taxes-world/
http://calebjonesblog.com/more-us-dollars-flow-back-to-the-us/
Actually you’re all over the place; your comment listed about seven or eight different arguments. Focus. Pick one or two, state them in a single sentence each, and then I can let you know if I can debate you on them (or even if I disagree).
I usually do on these particular issues, because my opinions are based on facts rather than on feelings or SP.
Using fiction to back up your points or validate your fears is never a good idea.
JudoJohn
Posted at 05:13 pm, 12th February 2018Let’s take your very first link, which referenced the mass shooting in Vegas. Almost by definition, each mass shooting will be worse than the next. Otherwise, why do it? Who cares about 35 people gunned down these days? Got to be the best! These are waaaay under 2% events. Underlying murder rates are the bigger deal, as is context.
There was a young man shot to death in my apartment complex. I heard the shots. I was no more worried the next day than the previous. Why? It was either drugs or over a woman, 9/10.
That said, the reactions of the people you mentioned, filming and the like rather than going to pure survival mode, sickens me.
I’ve been where you are now on movies for a very long time. I can no longer stand them, I haven’t been able to for a few years. I want to see 12 Strong, but that’s about it right now.
By no means do I think any increases will be uniform, and in fact, this is why I think Trump was elected: He was throwing red meat to hungry dogs, and the D’s are in denial that the dogs are even hungry. It’s a shitshow and uneven as hell.
Anyway…..you’re deeper into this stuff, have the bully pulpit, superior rhetoric skills, and are firmer on your convictions, so it wouldn’t be a totally fair fight. Still, I’m down for it, if only because I’m 45 and have roughly 40 years to live, and if you’re right I’ll need to make some adjustments.
Edit: I know some stuff on finance and data analysis, and I’ve been looking for an excuse to delve deeper.
Gang
Posted at 08:28 pm, 12th February 2018In one sentence:
The lifestyle that you showcase in your blogs with your personal example is long term unsustainable both environmentally and in term of personal health. Debate me if you disagree.
The rest are some of the arguments that I will use to prove my point.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 08:42 pm, 12th February 2018Understood, but that’s not the attitude of someone I want to debate. I want to debate someone who thinks they can kick my ass in a debate because I’m soooooo wrong.
I don’t give a fuck about the environment on a worldwide scale (since there is no political solution to it), so I’ve modified your statement to be:
The lifestyle that you showcase in your blogs with your personal example is long term unsustainable in term of personal health.
Got it. Added to the debate topics list.
Leon
Posted at 09:38 pm, 12th February 2018I second Gang’s topic and I believe he’s a worthy opponent to debate with BD. Can’t wait.
Gil Galad
Posted at 11:20 pm, 12th February 2018I’d rather another topic be chosen. This one would just be another nerd war about vegan diet vs animal protein, meat/cancer, & related. Short answer maaaybe you’re sacrificing 1-2 years life expectancy on a healthy non-vegan diet compared to a healthy vegan diet, completely outweighed by the muscle, T-levels and other advantages of animal protein. And future technology could soon make it moot (longevity-wise). Also, the way vegans try to create fears about the consumption of every imaginable animal source when their real reasons are ethical is just sneaky, even if I respect said reasons.
I’m sure a more interesting subject can be found.
Gang
Posted at 03:51 am, 13th February 2018@Gil Galad
First, I am certainly nerdy but I am not vegan, I still eat all kind of animal products myself even if I aim ad eating a plant based diet as close as possible to veganism.
Then, you’re completely missing my point: I don’t discuss total life expectancy but life expectancy while active and clear minded. In other words life expectancy minus lifetime spent being severely less active or senile.
My point is that sure Blackdrangon’s strategy can achieve in average as long life expectancy as the same strategy without TRT and without animal products. However the lifespan in good physical shape is in average significantly greater with a plant based diet. I aslo think that TRT long term impedes physical shape in average by increasing cancer occurences. However if one just want to enhance his life at the cost of good physical condition life expectancy, meaning they don’t mind euthanasia for themselves passed a certain age or spending many years more or less crippled, sick and/or senile, then TRT seems like a great option. Myself I am considering using TRT, but I don’t entertain fantasies of kicking asses passed 75, I actually plan on refusing any resucitation or curative treatment passed that age and perhaps even much earlier than that for chemio. See detailed reasons in this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
For muscle building, studies and countless living examples prove that gains are better on a balanced vegan diet (I am not talking about eating only lettuce and oreos here…) than on a balanced omnivore diet. Same for available blood protein and testosterone. One of the reason is faster recovery. However TRT undeniably increase muscle building, it’s basically a sreroid. But you can combine plant basedand diet and TRT and thus enjoy optimal muscle gains.
Long story short Blackdragon’s strategy relies heavily on his faith in medical technological advances. I believe these will only allow him to extend his sick, crippled or senile years. In order to extend active and physically healthy life years, core lifestyle change is required in addition, that is: adopting a balanced plant based diet (ideally vegan) and avoiding puting anything processed in the body, including of course chemical drugs or hormones such as TRT.
joelsuf
Posted at 04:07 am, 13th February 2018I’ve dabbled in LibSoc philosophies in my early 20s and was even a full blown Marxist (aka Anarcho-Communist) at one point. Neither philosophy guarantees long term freedom. If you don’t have economic freedom how are you going to have individual personal freedom. If you are being told where your money is going to go, how does that make you free at all?
Tim
Posted at 06:29 am, 13th February 2018Tim
Posted at 07:16 am, 13th February 2018Have to break up this response due to what I assume are post length restrictions.
A lot of my friends growing up were anarcho-communist. Totally disagree with their ideas. Works in small scale maybe (less than 150 people, scientific limit of our ability to manage personal relationships with everyone in the ‘tribe’); but in a large scale society, it would never work.
Ease of shedding negative reputation and practical anonymity whenever you choose by moving to a different area prevent this sort of system from working. Trust, or at least knowledge of what you can trust someone with, is essential for such a society. Bruce Schneier (crypto/security expert) has some good books on security/trust in a sociological sense. Good reading I’d highly suggest if you’re interested in that sort of thing.
Anon
Posted at 07:18 am, 13th February 2018Well, for some part of your money this is going to happen no matter what, so why not direct it at something where centralized spending actually makes sense?
Tim
Posted at 07:29 am, 13th February 2018Economic freedom does not equate to individual personal freedom. It is an enabler for personal freedom for those who are above a certain level of income, but not enjoyed by those below that.
Freedom comes from having the ability to make choices and change your life without fear of ending up in the poverty trap or drowning in debt. Wealthy people, those fortunate enough to get high skilled careers and young people without responsibilities and parents capable of supporting them have this.
Socialist philosophies are about “everyone else”. Those who do not have freedom due to circumstances outside their control. I know BD is fond of saying “everything is your fault”, but I see that as more motivational (fix your fuck ups/take care of your personal shit) sort of thing. Most people live one bad break away from losing whatever economic freedom they had in their life ( http://www.thecut.com/2016/12/america-is-failing-the-bad-break-test-and-people-are-dying.html ).
For example I have bi-polar disorder. Fortunately, I have a skill set that makes my income in the 6 figure range (software development), so I do not suffer from the same fate I’ve seen others with my handicaps face. However I have plenty of friends and acquaintances with either mental illnesses, or stuck in the poverty trap with no way to get out. It’s damn near impossible without a benefactor to get out of poverty when you have to work 60 to 80 hours a week just to pay rent/utilities/food. I’ve financially supported several people to help them get into a position they can support themselves better. That’s the whole “wage slavery” argument.
BD also is more concerned about “you”, not “everyone else” as he’s stated plenty of times. Which I have nothing against. I just care about “everyone else”.
A second gain in a socialist styled government is government ran infrastructure prevents waste and inefficiencies. For instance, the last mile problem in utilities/telecom; unless you want a cable/phone line/electric line from every single phone company going to your house. Roads that are freely traveled on for both personal and commercial use everyone benefits from. And an example of something that should be eliminated, pharmaceutical companies consistently spend more on marketing/advertising than research and development ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research ), including TV advertisements to non-doctors.
Medical insurance companies likewise profit both from the insured when they pay their premium and the doctors who pay to be an in-network provider; all of which increases cost of healthcare which should be a basic right (and required for personal freedom). And they reserve the right to deny coverage. One of the medications that works really well for me is $1000 a month and not covered. So I had to go to something that didn’t work as well.
Being in software development, I’m also well aware of the amount of jobs that are easily replaceable by software/AI. Eventually we’re going to get to the point that population greatly exceeds the number of jobs.
I could go on and on, and probably cite more than the 2 sources I did. But this is a subject I’ve read plenty about. Please let me know if you’d like me to elaborate on something.
If you are being told where your money is going to go, how does that make you free at all?
Not all of your money, just an amount based on how much you benefit from society. I’m in favor of a scaled tax for lower incomes that caps out at a flat tax. No loop holes, no exceptions, and maybe no deductions.
I have to constantly be prepared to not have an income and have no safety net. Once I lose a job, I also lose my health insurance and can’t afford to see my doctor or pay for my medicine, making my condition worse, making it harder to recover.
But… ya know… that economic freedom sure makes me feel free to live my life how I want…
Gil Galad
Posted at 09:10 am, 13th February 2018@Gang: 1° dude, do some binge reading on T-Nation. They regularly refute the stuff you’re saying. And your claim about how meat eating “wrecks your healthspan even if it doesn’t decrease your lifespan much” lacks backing. Meat eating lifters and athletes who do it right can still be fit enough to lift into their eighties.
2° I wasn’t calling you a nerd, I said I didn’t wanna see a nerd war about the science of vegan vs non-vegan here on Blackdragon Blog (really? we’re gonna do a BD debate about THIS?)
3°
Oh dear. Seriously dude, go read T-Nation, specifically their nutrition-tagged articles. And those aren’t meatheads, they have actual PhDs there.
joelsuf
Posted at 09:10 am, 13th February 2018I agree. When I began studying history, I realized that as well. I think Marx himself was also aware of that too, there is a reason he called AnCom “Primitive Communalism” or something like that. I do not dislike socialism or AnCom, I just know it would not work long term in big populations. And to be fair, not even AnCap would be alright in large populations either.
That kind of stuff works alright in small populations, but in large populations you can’t have something like that without some sort of force, which goes against the Non Aggression Principle. Marx did not overlook this when he wrote the Manifesto, or at least I do not think. Even Walter Benjamin, another massive proponent of AnCom, knew it was going to be a problem, when he addressed what he called the “Petty” Bourgeoisie (people who receive what is shared but give nothing back).
This is a utopian observation. It’s also moral subjugation. How do you know that others know what “makes sense?” Of course I’d rather have the money I pay taxes on go to public goods instead of blowing up innocent people overseas. That is not the point. It is a matter of principle. I’d rather not pay ANY taxes than be like “well, its unfortunate that 25% of my income is getting seized from me by people who know what is best for anyone besides themselves, but at least its going to public goods instead of blowing up innocents.”
Duke
Posted at 11:35 am, 13th February 2018Of course they don’t do them; they tolerate them, and thus accept them. They will never enthusiastically agree with them. Some women will say “I don’t like, agree with or feel comfortable with non-monogamy.” But if they keep seeing you, what’s the problem? They never technically agreed to it, but if you already told them you were going to have sex with other women, they have indirectly agreed to it, so it is no longer your problem. Men agree to stuff women want and they don’t all the time, like marriage and kids for example, so why should it be different with you needs?
I don’t know you or the way you think, but based on the word respect that you used, it seems that like a lot of men, you assume women have low character if they accept casual/open relationships. I’ve heard some men say that “why would they want a woman that didn’t expect full commitment from her man?,” when presented the idea of not getting married but cohabitating. I think most men think that women that agree to open relationships must be desperate, have low self-esteem, had a slutty past, or have some sort of mental defect which caused her to settle for this “unfavorable” arrangement.
Anon
Posted at 01:28 pm, 13th February 2018joelsuf, aren’t you contradicting yourself? You say (and I agree) that some sort of social contract, enforced by taxpayer-funded government that has a monopoly on violence, is necessary. How can you not pay any taxes then? And if you’re already paying taxes, how is it a matter of principle how much exactly you pay and what exactly the list of expenses is?
CrabRangoon
Posted at 01:48 pm, 13th February 2018@Duke,
“Men agree to stuff women want and they don’t all the time, like marriage and kids for example, so why should it be different with you needs?”
This is great stuff and very true. It’s really no different and I know plenty of men, myself included in the past, that agree to crap they don’t like but just roll with it. All of the women in my life accept the situation but they don’t necessarily LOVE it. They have their moments when they get but upset but quickly get over it. I don’t reply to their drama and don’t change my behavior.
Gang
Posted at 02:43 pm, 13th February 2018So you agree that the lifestyle you showcase is ecologically unsustainable:
Since when do you care for a solution to be political? I quote your own words “You are the problem for everything bad in your life”. There isn’t any (non dictatorship-ish) political solution, my point is indeed that the solution is individual: either you, at your individual level, don’t grow a consciousness and choose to care only about yourself at the depends of the environment and thus future generations, or you make conscious decisions to refrain from consuming too many resources and polluting too much. Some of the choices that have the largest environmental impact are slowing down as much as possible the frequency at which one take a flight to travel, eating as few animal products as possible (ideally none at all), slowing down the frequency at which one travels in an individual car (especially if it’s not electric, and even that is not a solution in itself since you have to look at how the electricity is produced), etc…By adopting a sustainable lifestyle, you not only carry your own personal weight in helping make the world more sustainable, but you would also automatically showcase it in your blogs when you talk about yourself and thus help other men to grow a consciousness and make individual choices that reduce negative impact on the environment :)Note that your lifestyle points in the right direction in some aspects such as the advise to not have kids unless you have a desire fo magnitude 8/10 or over (but you did bring one of your 2 children in this world, so you’re not saving on this) taking some moderate steps: not living in a huge house, location independent work meaning less commuting for work… It’s just still way off to be yet sustainable environmentally, and 3 actions that you can decide right now that will have the greatest effect are organizing your life differently so you can slow down on flying, and giving up eating animal products, take public transports (this excludes taxi/uber) or carpooling.And I disagree with you that there is a technological solution coming up in our lifetime. I agree that the solution is not political: it’s individual, simple everyday life choices that one either conveniently refuse to take or faces and make the sustainable decision.It isn’t clear to me if you are aware of the depth of the environmental problem we face or if you are in denial of its severity.Have you ever taken one of these quizz that try to give you an estimate of your global footprint? What’s the result?https://www.footprintcalculator.org
I flew 35hours 20minutes or 20432km (about 16700miles) per year in average these 3 past years. The rest of the time I use only public transportation, virtually never car or taxi/uber. I am childfree and I live in tiny 20-30sqm studio apartments. All I have fits in less than 2 cabin luggage bags and I only replace stuffs if they are broken or stolen. This year I ate animal products only occasionaly. Still my footprint would require 1.7 planets. If I stoped flying entirely (I would need to stop having a nomadic lifestyle), I would require 0.9 planets, that would be sustainable. But you see how far from your lifestyle I am, and I am still far from being sustainable…
I still challenge you that not caring for the ecological impact of your lifestyle will come back bite your ass later, it’s an inoptimal strategy for your overall hapiness. It’s the same kind of reasoning as someone who doesn’t save money or worse spends more than he earns and thus is more and more in debt: it’s more fun now, don’t care about the future. You’re living on ecological debt. You live in the west coast of the USA, one of the most unsustainable region of the world per capita, you may suffer from intellectual myopia on this issue.
Gang
Posted at 04:23 pm, 13th February 2018@Gil Galad
I read a couple of T-nation articles on veganism. They miss the big picture, cherrypicked a few details and back up their argument with some biaised or ill designed studies mostly funded by the meat and dairy industry. It’s a comon anti plant based diet trope. You can lookup micthevegan videos in youtube, and if you look in each video description he lists all his sources. Here are a few of them. Also look up Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Michael Greger, etc…
Genetic vs. lifestyle:
https://youtu.be/5XvzRkpfn3k
Cholesterol and cardiovascular deseases:
https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo
https://youtu.be/ykFNZhKvfPA
https://youtu.be/vBtfzd43t8o
Alzheimer:
https://youtu.be/390qtST0SIA
Diabetis:
https://youtu.be/gIcSPwsNUyE
Cancer:
https://youtu.be/7fSabEgAAJo
Multiple sclerosis:
https://youtu.be/kZ5NGLM1k90
Lower back pain:
https://youtu.be/JepHGvL00LI
Acne:
https://youtu.be/jd4BQu0-5FE
Sex & hormones:
https://youtu.be/ZmW6bZxuSTE
https://youtu.be/OVXzT_RBxFk
https://youtu.be/sv9U2ZBQYI0
Protein:
https://youtu.be/bc4t6BUHZH8
https://youtu.be/xGd8Mw9NaI4
https://youtu.be/xIn6NyNN4As
I don’t follow sports closely and have limited knowledge about athletes. But look at the Venus sisters playing tennis: do they look like women who are protein deficient?
How about Carl Lewis when he won his medals?
Or natural bodybuilders Torre Washington and Jon Venus?
And how about Patrik Baboumian who increased his performances in the “strongman” competitions after going vegetarian and then vegan. All these atheltes are vegans, do they look like they are protein or hormones deficient?
Caleb Jones
Posted at 04:42 pm, 13th February 2018Incorrect. I never said that.
I, as an individual can do nothing to stop Russia, China, and India from polluting the planet and exacerbating climate change. And neither can you. Read about what I said about external solutions here.
If you want to devote your time and energy to unfixable (barring technology) international, worldwide climate problems that you literally can’t fix, then feel free to do so. I choose to spend my time more productively.
If that happens, it will be because of the actions of largely foreign governments whom I have zero control over, not because I had two kids.
That’s temporary. I’m moving to (likely) New Zealand in 2025 or sooner, and the fact that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere, which is both cleaner and somewhat more independent of the fucked-up climate change weather patterns in the northern hemisphere is was one of the key factors in that decision. So I don’t disagree with what you’re saying about the environment being a problem; one should take some common sense precautions. But running around like a crazy left-winger screaming about your personal carbon footprint when Russia/China/India is dumping thousands of metric tons of crap into the atmosphere on a constant basis is a waste of your time, and serves only to satisfy your left-wing emotions, not fix the world.
(Not that I’m going to change your mind on this; I write this for the benefits of those reading.)
Gang
Posted at 04:52 pm, 13th February 2018I tend to be pro UBI. But not a 2000$ UBI. In France for instance, the complex tax and redistribution system is equivalent (except in a few rare cases) to an affine redistribution with a UBI of about 450€. I am totally in favour of removing all that paperwork, all these multiple taxes and benefits and just have the UBI of 450€ and the affine taxation+redistribution. A lot of useless tax money lost in these meaningless paperwork and useless tax administration jobs would be spared.
I don’t see the point in technological progress, especially automation, if it doesn’t free us up more and more time from work.
450€/560$ is enough to eat and share a bedroom in a house with other people in a cheap neighbourhood or town, a very basic existance with only the first necessicites. If you want more you can get a job or create a business.
Gang
Posted at 05:30 pm, 13th February 2018Per capita, the USA is far much worse than India, China and the like. And a lot of the crap these coutries ate dumping are byproducts of stuff that you and I buy from their exports, because we demand it. You’re not seeing the big picture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint
USA ranks 5th worse environmental footprint per capita 8.2Gha/person: you Blackdragon (cnsume most probably much more than the average 8.2Gha/person of the USA) and North Americans, and westerners in general (myself included), are litterally the problem! Don’t you see the obvious? Not only because you are living this unsustainable lifestyle, but also because you Blackdragon and North America as a whole has showcased the western lifestyle all over the globe, brainwashed everybody into wanting the same for themselves.
Australia 4th, Canada 6th… France 40th 5.14Gha/person still very bad in europe.
My personal footprint as a extreme minimalist but nomad: 3Gha/person
Mexico 2.89Gha/capita
1.73Gha per capita is considered currently sustainable. Countries arround this value are 129 Moldova, 130 Hoduras, 131 Morocco, 132 Lesotho, 133 Vietnam,… below that: Philippines. These are the countries we need to learn from.
Also you don’t seem to realise that all about “the collapse of the western civilisation” is mostly because it peaked back in the 50s-60s when sustainability wasn’t yet an issue. At that time the west was in control of most of the countries in the world and consuming most of its resources up to absurd levels now. And other people in the world watch the same advertisement, the same holywood movies everywhere showcasing the american way of life. A house, a car, meat, they all see this lifestyle as success. They all want it, but it’s impossible: there isn’t enough resources for everybody to get those stuffs. We need to resinvent success. You Blackdragon, are doing one step in this direction thankfully, but there is so many more steps.
Gil Galad
Posted at 05:49 pm, 13th February 2018@Gang: I’m not talking about their bashing of veganism. I’m talking about what they say about meat/dairy and cancer, and the long term health of meat/fish-eating athletes. Yes, they’re biased when they specifically target vegetarians because they clearly hate-hate-hate their moral arguments. Those aren’t the articles I’m talking about, but the overall (and very solid) defense of a lifestyle based on resistance training, abundant animal protein, and other healthy foods and supplements.
Gang
Posted at 05:50 pm, 13th February 2018Helpful things for the environment that you write about are:
-fuck social programming and obsolete biology, including only have kids if your internal desire for them reaches at least 8/10 magnitude.
-have 2 location independent business
-be frugal
Where you’re showcasing lifestyle that is harmful for the environment:
-frequent flights, including long haul (most harmful) and encouraging your readership to travel more out of their country which is already the size of a fucking continent!
-use of personal car or taxi/uber
-seldom use of public transportation (taxi/uber is considered individual transportstion in term of resource intensiveness)
-eating animal products
Gang
Posted at 06:02 pm, 13th February 2018@Gil Galad
Abundant animal protein is less efficient than the same amount of equivalent aminoacids (sourced from a variety of whole plant based foods). This is adressed in details, with studies linked in the description, in the videos about Protein that I linked.
I have nothing terrible against healthy vegan supplements, it’s just better to source from whole foods when possible (sometimes it’s not possible).
I dislike when vegans try to brainwash me about animal cruelty. For me personally I don’t really care much if animals are killed. It’s just a little bonus if my food choices generates less suffering for the animals, it’s just the cherry on the cake. The cake is for me, first the reduced environmental impact, then my personal health.
Gang
Posted at 06:10 pm, 13th February 2018Eating animal products is moslty social programming and also a bit of chemical addiction that we should naturally get over after we drinking milk from our mom’s tits. Milk contain opiate like chemical compounds that are about 1/10 as potent and addictive as heroin.
You can watch Dr. Neal Barnard:
https://youtu.be/5VWi6dXCT7I
Gang
Posted at 06:17 pm, 13th February 2018Eating animal product is social programming:
https://youtu.be/ao2GL3NAWQU
It’s just like monogamy… Don’t do it if you want to optimise your health and happiness.
If social programming is more important to you than your health and happiness (and the environment), then follow the herd, by all means go enjoy your meat.
Such as if you’re an extreme beta or Alpha 1.0, then go ahead bs monogamous, but it’s not the best choice for your personal happyness (and maybe health).
doclove
Posted at 03:12 am, 14th February 2018@ Blackdragon
I have an idea for a debate which is more appropriate for this blog than Communism, Veganism, Environmentalism other Leftism etc. You can do whatever you want as this is your blog, and this is only a suggestion. If someone wants to debate these topics, would they not be more appropriate to do so at your other blog called Caleb Jones? Since this is a site about having better Romantic and Sexual prospects for Heterosexual men, should we not try to stick to that here? If so then here is my idea for a debate? I may win or I may lose this and I may be right or wrong. All too often people lose even though they are right. It would be something more appropriate unless someone has better ideas for this site. I would love to see the commentary. I will try to make time to debate you on this and will feel like a piece of manure if I don’t. Here is the debate topic. Prostitution can improve men’s frame when trying to seduce(GAME) women.
Gang
Posted at 06:35 am, 14th February 2018@doclove
I agree myself that my topic is more in line with the other blog and yours fits better here.
Gang
Posted at 07:17 am, 14th February 2018Even accounting for regional disparities in term of population density and territorial resources, people in the USA are fare more in debt with a regional ecological balance of -4.46Gha/person than China -2.45Gha/person (a huge lot of which is because this is where we westerners habe decided to outsource virtually all our industries so we don’t have to deal with the associated slavery Luke working conditions and craps dumped into the athmosphere, India -0.71 (even though they are globally sustainable per capita at a global scale, it’s a typical case of demographic catastrophy, and muslims over there are the greatest worries compared to hindus and buddhists who don’t breed nearly as much), Russia is not even in debt but still regionally sustainable with an eccedent of +1.1Gha/person
France is regionally in debt with -2.04Gha/person. Generally Europe is also a big part of the problem.
In comparison, Canada with a very close enviornmental footprint per capita as USA, is regionally not in debt but a big creditor at +7.83Gha/Capita, because virrually nobody lives there. Still the canadian lifestyle is very unsustainable. A big reason is the ways cities and towns in north america are built with individual cars as the main transportation mean. But also the house ideal, obsession with animal sourced proteins and frentic consumerism. These all contribute to the regional pandemic of obesity, cardiovascular deseases, diabetes type 2, alzheimer, cancer, etc..
This is why I group both environmental and health sustainability as 2 sides of the same coin. The core problem is personal lifestyle design. And so is the only solution.
JudoJohn
Posted at 09:16 am, 14th February 2018’tis fair.
It’s also Go Time. I get to program for the next few months, before we get busy with billable work again….Q1 and some of Q2 is slow, so I can get the stuff I like doing, done. Plus, I’m hitting Tinder hard (after tomorrow I’ll get some boosts) as I need some young girlfriends…..and I’ve installed a full weight rack in my apartment, along with an Olympic bar. I’m already well built but will go into summer close to ripped.
Not much time to debate what’s happening to society! I know I’m on the up and up, and that’s all that fucking matters to me.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:28 am, 14th February 2018Got it. Added to the possible topics list.
You are irrationally obsessed with your topic. It won’t make you happy.
adroitgentleman
Posted at 02:03 pm, 14th February 2018Your reasoning that we can protect ourselves from the onset of oneitis, based on the abundance and ease with which women can be replaced, FB’s, etc. is flawed. It is useful only when one is dating lots of low-quality women, or if one has unusually low, mainstream standards.
Truly high quality women are rare and take a significant amount of time and effort to replace, enough so that the fear of losing them cannot be solved by your supposed metrics of abundance or the maintenance of FB’s etc.
I believe I can demonstrate that you are wrong about this even if, like yourself, your tastes in women are mainstream, and your sexuality is only a few shades away from vanilla. But primarily (and more to my own concern) I am certain that you can easily be proven wrong for those of us with more alternative taste in women, or extreme sexual fetishes. (you have personally claimed to me in our private correspondence that I am wrong on even this claim).
Upon winning this debate, I would like a reply to the question I sent you which you refused to answer, because you said that my claim that some women are truly rare and difficult to replace was “hypothetical” and you don’t answer hypothetical questions. If the community agrees that I have demonstrated that such women do exist, then you owe us all some additional advice on such cases.
The question was, (paraphrasing) “How can I avoid oneitis for a woman who I know would statistically, barring extreme luck, require X # of dates to replace?”
If you accept this challenge, we need to first agree on a # for X. I would say 100 dates would be plenty to represent such a significant investment of time that it should be adequate incentive for anyone that values their time, to begin to slide over into betaization or onitis, out of fear of losing the current relationship and the resulting huge time loss it would take to re-up. But you’re Blackdragon, so I don’t know, maybe you can bang out 100 dates in a month. I don’t know that it’s fair to hold the rest of us to your standard though. Personally I imagine even relatively advanced daters might spend a year to land that many dates. I know I claimed 200 dates in my email to you, and I am still confident I can easily support that claim so if you are concerned you’ll lose to a claim of 100 we can raise it to 200 or more if you feel that is inadequate.
But in all fairness, X should be whatever the minimum threshold # is which we can agree represents such a significant investment of time and energy, that knowing how difficult she is to replace would reasonably begin to interfere with the A2.0 frame of Outcome Independence and not giving a damn if this relationship doesn’t continue.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 03:30 pm, 14th February 2018Even if I accepted 100 dates as the figure, which I don’t, you’re forgetting that while looking for your Unicorn Woman, you’re going to be having sex with, and FB / MLTR relationships with, lots of very good-looking, fun women.
You’re pretending that going out on 100 first dates is a horrible slog, with 99 out of those 100 dates resulting in pure failure with nothing to show for it. That is not the case. Most of those women are going to be attractive to you, and even if you only have sex 20% of them (and you’ll have sex with more because of how your dating skills will improve), that’s sex with 20 hot girls… not a bad way to spend your time while waiting around for your next oneitis.
Anyway, if you want to debate me, state/summarize your debate topic in one or two sentences, and I’ll add you to the list.
Duke
Posted at 08:12 pm, 14th February 2018Don’t know if you read the rest of his comment, but according to him these are “low quality” women. It is seemingly impossible for him to enjoy these women. In his eyes only high quality are worth his time, hence his dilemma of getting onetitis when he finally comes across this type of woman.
Also, the recurring issue some guys have with implementing your systems is that in order for these to work they have to be alpha. To my knowledge, there is no way to teach this; men have to either learn to do it (probably 5-10 %) on their own or settle for being beta (90-95%) and complaining/debating that this shit doesn’t work.
jackbenimble
Posted at 08:30 pm, 14th February 2018So you would say it would take you less than 100 dates to find a replacement for Pink Firefly then, she’s just that common is she?
Caleb Jones
Posted at 08:59 pm, 14th February 2018Guys, I just suffered through an entire thread of men defending friend zone. Are you now seriously going to start defending oneitis?
Am I crazy? Has something changed with my audience that I wasn’t aware of?
Man. Not good guys. Not good at all.
If he seriously thinks that 99 out of 100 women on first dates are “low quality,” then the problem is him, not the women. However, I don’t think that’s his argument (at least I hope not).
Correct. You need to be Alpha. Betas are doomed to unhappiness no matter what they do, unless they choose to become Alpha.
I was a beta once, and I became Alpha, so it’s perfectly doable if you want it bad enough.
Uh, what? Incorrect. I have an entire blog about it (this one) and I wrote a 440+ page book on exactly how to do it right here.
Whether or not it’s easy is a different story, but it’s a fully teachable and doable skill. That’s the entire reason I’m here.
Correct, I’ve said the same thing many times. And I’m here to help that 5-10% learn how to do it, if they want.
YES. AND THE SAME IS TRUE IF SHE HAD TO REPLACE ME. I DID AN ENTIRE PODCAST ABOUT THAT, ENTITLED “SHE’S REPLACEABLE.”
Just because you love a woman or she’s far beyond the average doesn’t mean she’s irreplaceable. There is no such thing.
Pathetic. You really need to work on your attitude, abundance mentality, and outcome independence. Or, like Duke said, just resign and be a beta.
If she was common then it would take just two or three dates to replace her, so no.
If you live in a bizarro black-and-white world where there’s only two kinds of women: “common and low-quality” and “one out of a hundred,” then you live in a very shitty mental world, you’ll never be happy, and I’m glad I’m not you.
doclove
Posted at 09:37 pm, 14th February 2018@ adroitgentleman
Although there is no 100% cure for curing oneitis, there is something called learning what the truth is and mentally conditioning oneself to first reduce one’s chances of getting oneitis and second to mitigating the impact of getting oneitis and finally of curing oneself faster of oneitis. I realize that one can not 100% control how he feels, but he can 100% control his actions which will have an affect on how one feels. A man must always remember that his romantic love for a woman is worth more than a woman’s romantic love for him and that if she can not appreciate that then it is her loss and not his. Actually, I know for sure that at least 75% and probably more like 98% of men’s romantic love is worth more than 98% percent of woman’s romantic love for men. How do I know this? There is no greater love than for one to lay down one’s life for another. Since at least 75% and probably more like 98% of men would lay down their lives for women they are romantically in love with and only 2% of women would romantically do the same for men, then it must be true that men’s romantic love is worth more than woman’s romantic love. Yes, there is a 2% exception. One can know that men have obsolete biological wiring, OBW, giving them the delusion that a woman’s romantic love is worth more, but one can override his biological wiring for the most part especially if he knows it is obsolete. It is even easier to override the social programming, SP, that a woman’s romantic love is worth more than a man’s romantic love. Both the OBW and SP are designed for one thing and that is to provision and protect women when they are vulnerable to predators in order to sustain the only sex which can give birth. Woman are biologically designed to manipulate men’s minds in order to be provisioned and protected. However just like soldiers can be trained to overcome their fear of mortal combat and do their duty despite their fears, then men can train themselves to override their OBW and SP in order to not be manipulated by women. Remember that the brotherly love of your male relatives and friends is worth more than the romantic love of any woman because they are more willing to lay down their lives for you than a woman romantically in love with you. Always remember that a woman’s romantic love is parasitic. I do not care how difficult it is to replace her because she so high value in your mind because it is only your delusion which makes you believe she is higher value than she really is. You as a man are worth more to her life than she is to yours. For that matter most men’s lives are worth more to her life than she is to theirs. It is irrelevant as to how foolish it would be for most men to be romantically in love with her and believe that she would be difficult to replace even if is true because men have a better and higher capacity to love especially romantically love than women do. Remember always that romantic love from an adult woman given to an adult man is the lowest form adult love in the world. Sure you may crave it like sugar and butter and love the taste of sweet delicious things(including romantic love), but they only enrich life’s pleasures while meat, starches and vegetables sustain you. That is to say that you give her meat, starches and vegetables in a figurative sense when you as a man offer her your romantic love, but she only offers you sugar and butter when she offers you her romantic love. Objective Reality shows that men’s romantic love is more valuable than women’s romantic love, but it is only your subjective delusions which have convinced you otherwise due to OBW and SP. I do not care how you feel or I feel. I only care about reality, facts and rationality, and one should conform to this over his feelings as over time it will lead to greater happiness now and even more happiness later. A woman’s love may come close to being just as good or as much with other forms of love on average, but it never does concerning romantic love on average and I do not want to hear about the 2% of cases where her romantic love is close, equal or more than a man’s. It is irrelevant.
doclove
Posted at 10:05 pm, 14th February 2018@ Blackdragon
You defended yourself well concerning oneitis. I think that I did at least as good of a job too. I wrote my post while you were writing yours, but yours came up first. I do think that for most men your system would work best if a man has at least 2 MLTRs to avoid oneitis and between Zero and whatever the highest number one can count to for FBs rather than try to have an OLTR and at least one FB, but I believe it can work for some men like you. I am like most men where having at least 2 MLTRs and between Zero and a high number of FBs would work better emotionally and physically for me. You are right that everyone is eventually replaceable. However, I think Pink Firefly would have a harder time replacing you than you replacing her. I believe this is true of most men if only they would realize and work on it or do as Duke says and be resigned to be Beta. Hell, even a Beta who does not wish to improve himself or can not improve himself would do himself a service to himself to consider himself as a better deal for most women than most women are for him because it is true. The reason for it is because women are at best unable or at least unwilling to lay down their lives for men they are romantically in love with( don’t want to hear about the 2% who are different) while men are the opposite. That my blog host is objective reality. These guys need to shed their delusions about women.
I really do hope you pick my topic over theirs as I am eager for a good fight on this one, I know that my thesis has flaws but I know I can defend them well. Everyone’s thesis or ideas have flaws and nothing is perfect. However there is the matter of what is the best option or the least bad. My idea about prostitution can be a great way to support men’s frame in dealing with women as romantic and sexual prospects will be a tough fight for you if you choose to fight it, and I am sure that I can win and if not then it will certainly be your toughest debate yet.
doclove
Posted at 10:43 pm, 14th February 2018@ Gang
Thanks for being gracious enough to admit that your debate topic would be more appropriate at the other blog. I hope he debates you there instead of here. Either blog he chooses to debate you on this if he chooses to debate you on this, I can see you put up a good fight even if I agree more with Blackdragon( Caleb Jones). I will try to keep an open mind, even though it is difficult for me to change my mind.
POB
Posted at 04:29 am, 15th February 2018Do you have a timetable for this debate?
Gang
Posted at 04:53 am, 15th February 2018I like this debate very much, I would like to see it happening. I was trying to formulate it myself, but my thoughts on the topic aren’t as articulate yet, and I am not really sure myself. My feeling though tends to go in your direction: my physical tastes are not mainstream, I like extremely petite women. Also sexually, I have one kink that is very important to me: anal sex, Blackdragon doesn’t have any specific kink as you say. Finding a woman who is both very hot, possibly a personal or perfect 10 and who is also 100% sexually in synch is super rare when one has specific tastes in women and important kink… Add to that personality, and it’s really super rare.
Gang
Posted at 05:00 am, 15th February 2018It’s not an horrible slog, but it does feels kinda bland even if it is fun, in comparison to a woman who is subjectively perceived as much better than the others (in my current personal case HB10 and 100% sexually attractive, personality thankfully is just ok, with some very good and lots of typical HB10 bad).
Gang
Posted at 05:28 am, 15th February 2018I doesn’t seem like he meant such a black and white stance on the way he perceives women he is dating. I won’t talk for him, but in my case it’s clearly gradual and there is a geometric gradation in rarity the more of my favorite things she does or is.
There are women perceive as hot but very common: they have close to average local height or taller (here it’s 5 feet), they refuse to do anal, sex is good with them, their personality is average. It takes 3-4 dates in average for me to fuck such a woman.
Then there are cute or hot women who are my favorite height and weight that’s somewhere between 4’8″ 142cm to 4’10” 148cm 77lbs 35kg to 100lbs 46kg. Sex is good. Does anal but isn’t super good at it or get sore quickly for some reason beyond the use of more lubricant. Personality is average. It takes me about 15 dates.
Then there are cute women who are my favorite height that’s between 4’8″ to 4’10”. Sex is 100% in synch. And she loves anal and doesn’t get sore quickly. Personality is average. It takes me about 40 dates in average.
Then there is a HB10, 4’8″ (I haven’t even just seen anywhere yet another woman who is both this height and as physically hot). Sex is 100% in synch. And she loves anal and doesn’t get sore quickly. Personality is average. I evaluate easily an average of 150-200 dates before I fuck another woman like that.
And I haven’t even started with personality which I just set at average the entire time in this example.
Sure meanwhile I fuck other women. I also don’t think I should act on this oneitis-ish feeling and submit to the betaization of such woman. So I don’t really defend the oneitis. But the feeling is here and undeniable. Sure she is replaceable but I wonder if there would be another strategy when dealing with someone identified as somehow much more rare.
Gang
Posted at 05:45 am, 15th February 2018Perhaps there is a 3rd way that we aren’t thinking of, which isn’t exactly what BD propose, and which isn’t either betaisation and oneitis in action. Something that isn’t just a middle ground between both ways, but truly a 3rd way with its own different direction. Thinking not in a flat binary way, but in colors and 3D.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 10:09 am, 15th February 2018So far I have not received any topics here or in my email that I strongly consider worth a public debate; if I don’t get any then I may have to choose the least bad one, which is a suboptimal situation but I’ll do it. Regarding your topic, I don’t believe in my side very strongly, and I’d prefer a topic I’m 100% committed to.
I always find it interesting that I get often mass disagreement in my comments, yet when I ask for someone to debate me, I only get a tiny handful of guys willing, and even then it’s often on esoteric issues where I don’t disagree very much.
Not specifically. I have to pick the guy to debate (which I haven’t yet for the reason above) then he and I have to go back and forth over email for a while, so I’d say about 3 weeks from now (or so).
Why don’t you guys tell me what YOU believe instead of trying to guess at what you think other commenters believe? This indirect communication serves no one.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 10:22 am, 15th February 2018I’m going to respond to myself because I know what some people will say…
I am hereby declaring that I will debate you on YOUR website or a NEUTRAL website provided it’s a site that’s been alive and active for at least 12 months and you can I can have a one-on-one conversation (i.e. not a forum where there are tons of other guys posting in our thread).
jackbenimble
Posted at 01:29 pm, 15th February 2018Wow, BD, you’re incredibly emotional about this subject. No wonder you don’t consider it a valid topic for debate- you’re so emotionally charged about it, you can’t even manage to read what is actually being said and understand it without leaping to huge irrational conclusions and explode angrily all over the place about it. You’d never be capable of debating that guy.
I, nor that guy, are defending oneitis. Not even close. Not a single bit of your response was relevant at all nor was there any justifications for the wild conclusions you leapt to.
I can only suppose that you are so accustomed to hearing particular arguments being made over and over, that it’s difficult for you not to make unwarranted snap judgements and your low opinion of the majority of your readership means you don’t read most of what anyone says very carefully, I’ve noticed that for a long time.
It’s incredibly easy to “defeat” someone’s points when you literally take what they say, conclude that it means something totally different (and absurd) then refute those absurd, nonexistent points that nobody was making.
Gil Galad
Posted at 02:12 pm, 15th February 2018Since part of the problem here is finding a topic where BD believes in his side strongly: what about a debate about a UBI replacing currently existing social safety nets? Or even a more fundamental ethical debate about whether the Won’t Poor (non-disabled) truly shouldn’t get a cent (whether through UBI or other). Want an even more extreme topic? “If/when artificial intelligence becomes better than humans across the board, then anyone who doesn’t own a robot will be useless and defenseless, unable to do any job as well as robots would – by definition – and thus capitalism won’t be able to function anymore. We’ll need a form of public ownership of the robots.”
That or the prostitution topic. I haven’t read the entire thread but from memory I’d rather see one of these topics debated than the other ones mentioned.
I will not do it because I lack both the knowledge of economics and the time, but I’d bet that some readers would be interested. I’m merely trying to nuke the lifestyle/veganism debate by pushing alternative suggestions for the other commenters.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 02:24 pm, 15th February 2018During a debate, when you attempt to shift the topic to me personally and away from your argument, what do you think that says about your argument?
I discussed that here:
http://calebjonesblog.com/universal-basic-income-ubi/
and a possible solution here:
http://calebjonesblog.com/universal-basic-income-the-free-market-version/
If after reading those articles you’d like to debate me on that, state your argument in 1-2 sentences and I’ll add it to the list.
Please don’t suggest topics that you’re not willing to debate yourself. Thanks.
jackbenimble
Posted at 03:56 pm, 16th February 2018During a debate, when you attempt to shift the topic to me personally and away from your argument, what do you think that says about your argument?
When one of the parties in the debate literally starts creating nonsense out of thin air and attributing it to their opponent, then refuting the nonsense they made up, then yeah, a personal comment along the lines of “get your shit together dude” is pretty much all there is left to say. _Especially_ when the person is taking a borderline hysterical tone in “replying” to their own made up arguments. Who gets worked up about their own strawman? lol.
Resorting to strawman arguments is at least equally deserving of automatic loss as anything else if you ask me.
Even so, a simple “wow, you’re emotional” and you’re pouncing in claiming victory by ad hominem, and going full Trump on us, seriously?
For all your boasting about rationality and facts, and we can’t even exclaim in surprise when you demonstrate a complete lack of both and start responding emotionally instead without you getting sensitive and claiming you’ve been personally attacked? Wow. Just wow.
hardcore sax
Posted at 07:03 pm, 16th February 2018“Eating animal product is social programming”
Is Gang a known troll? Jesus Christ.
Gang
Posted at 07:45 pm, 16th February 2018I am telling you that I believe he has a good point: for someone with mainstream physical taste and relativelly vanilla sexuality, abundance mentality pretty much always works and you can always replace women, it may take 50 dates, maybe up to a year of dating. But when someone has some more particular physical taste/fetish and some kinks, then the complexity to happen to have all these things in one woman is non linear but geometric. Sure, ultimately she is replaceable, but one may not find the replacement matching her level before 300 or more dates, 5 or 10 years. Meanwhile, sure one maintains a roster, it’s fun but feels somehow bland. There is a point where abundance mentality isn’t really sensible : truth is the person is somewhat rare and very difficult to replace (I didn’t say impossible).
Gang
Posted at 07:58 pm, 16th February 2018Using your numbers argument from the book UROM, and various statistics applied to the girl I like the most (1% in term of my purely aestetic preferences face+body, 3% in term of my height and weight preference, 1/3 in term of age less than 30+no postpartum marks, 4/70 in term of sexual synch based on my experience with more than 70 women, in count 1/3 in term of musk but actually her musk is much more unusually attractive to me than this ratio), my computations places her as a top 1 in a 1 million total population, or a top 1 in 500000 women of all ages => that means about 2 or 3 women of her level in my current extended metropolitan area of more than 2.5 million people (in a country where women are already more of my liking than most other countries) and I am not even discarting those who aren’t currently sexually available, so this argument doesn’t really help with the oneitis feeling.
Now remove the fetish on height and weight (or make it half as extreme) remove the anal kink, there would be about 150 more women, meaning about 400 women in this city : clearly she would be replaced much faster.
Steven
Posted at 02:59 pm, 17th February 2018Do you mean like how you kept calling me “angry” just a few days ago on your other blog?
http://calebjonesblog.com/its-the-illuminati/
Caleb Jones
Posted at 05:48 pm, 17th February 2018Nope, because I continued discussing the topic we were originally discussing rather than making your anger or your emotional state the the new topic, which is what jackbenimble is trying to do above.
jackbenimble
Posted at 06:00 pm, 17th February 2018LOL seriously? Again, a single sentence expressing surprise that you can’t respond calmly OR rationally, followed by several paragraphs detailing exactly why your response was nonsensical, CLEARLY designed for no purpose at all other than to bring _you_ back on topic.
Oh wait, but you’re just intentionally misrepresenting the views of your opponent, _again_ here, by this further nonsense claim that I am focused on your emotional outburst, again presumably because you realize you have no legs to stand on were you to attempt to actually respond to what is actually being said.
No wonder no one wants to “debate” you. You refuse (or are incapable of) a rational two sided actual conversation where you listen to and respond to another person’s points, and when you have nothing to say you simply make up bullshit accusations and use them as an excuse to exit.
doclove
Posted at 03:53 am, 20th February 2018@ Blackdragon
My debate topic might be sub optimal to you, yet I think it is the best one right now. I realize the dangers of prostitution and can even make arguments against supporting it. However, overall, I regard it as a good thing because having it around increases men’s frames in dealing with women. on one of your debate offers a long time ago you told me to either be prepared to debate this or not and to not act like a pussy. Well, I am not a pussy. I did not pursue it mostly because I was busy. To be honest, you and some other commenters here are difficult to debate. Two commenters Jack Outside the Box and Wolf of George Street are good at debating as examples. Like I said, if I lose then I lose, but I just want to give the proper time and effort to this. I think I can for the next month or so.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 08:40 am, 20th February 2018The problem is that I don’t disagree with your point very strongly, which is the problem with most of the few topics presented in this thread; either I don’t disagree with them or I disagree only mildly. Not a good recipe for a debate.
I may just have to keep my eyes open in future comment threads for someone who disagrees with me, and who I disagree with strongly, and challenge them to a debate at that time.
doclove
Posted at 04:05 am, 21st February 2018@ Blackdragon
Fair enough. I agree that this may turn into the Great Agreement more than the Great Debate you want. The reason for this looks like what I am about to say in the next sentence. It looks like you have shifted your opinion on this at least a small but noticeable amount. Then you implicitly admit that my position is difficult to defeat and maybe is impossible to defeat. I will take partial victories even if I prefer full victories. Thank you.
Adam
Posted at 09:12 pm, 22nd February 2018Hi Caleb,
I may be too late. But I’d like to suggest a debate over your principle of waiting and delaying as long as possible your discussion with a girl about non-monogamy.
Of course, my main arguments would be (over-simplifying for now of course)
1) that it is possible to cheat without breaking an explicit rule, due to implicit expectations, despite an early “frame” etc.
2) lying by omission is almost as bad (though probably not quite as and) as explicit lies, and
3) more generally, delaying such chats because “women usually can’t handle it too early” or “well, it seems to work out well for me when I do it after 6 months” is based upon false assumptions about women, and combined with 1) or 2) there are better, more honest and ultimately healthier ways to approach non-monogamy with potential MLTRs.
Of course, none of the above quotes are yours, but I’m trying to be brief 🙂
Either way, much respect for all you do. You’ve been a great help to me.
Thanks,
Adam
Caleb Jones
Posted at 09:39 pm, 22nd February 2018It’s not. Respond to my email and lets see if we can agree we actually disagree.
Jocko
Posted at 02:47 am, 26th February 2018I had a topic I was prepared to debate you on: Long-term consistent happiness is not the optimal way to live, you should have occasional short-term suffering (self-inflicted or otherwise) to stay driven, produce positive change and develop new habits.
But I’ve been re-reading your book and found we basically have the same view and you agree with most of my arguments. You even addressed my main argument with a visual aid (Happiness-Change Curve). Bummer, I was ready to go. I misconstrued your view to suggest that consistent happiness meant never putting yourself though hardship and temporary unhappiness. My bad.
Awesome book by the way, one of the most important books I’ve ever read.
Gang
Posted at 10:23 pm, 6th March 2018@BD
Let’s assume we have a technological breakthrough and we have huge electric airplanes, cars and all industrial and agricultural machines. Where do you get the materials to produce the goods and the energy to produce the electricity? What is your miracle solution exactly?
Your view is the view of the economist who still uses 2 centuries old physical approximations of negligible impact on natural resources because mechanical work was mostly using humans and annimals, and the use of machines was neglible at that time, and the world population was about 14 times less, at 0.5billions, not 7billions. And the energy use was 100 or more times less per capita.
Why do you think slavery was abolished in the US? Do you really believe the main reason was political?
Would you be ok with needing to exploit, directly or indirecly, 100 or 1000 of human slaves to maintain your lifestyle Blackdragon? I maintain that you, and other people witch smilare lifestyle, are much nore the problem than for instance chines people.
This video explains in detail the physical limits on economy:
https://youtu.be/wGt4XwBbCvA
At least, are you ok with using mostly nuclear energy, in all countries of the world, to power your way of life?
Gang
Posted at 10:41 pm, 6th March 2018@BD Still continuing the same argument:
I believe your way of life is highly unsustainable, and by the time we will face the coming energy crisis, you’ll have to brace for the impact hitting the wall very hard. You’re gonna have to downsize tremendously your lifestyle habits, and you are so delusional about it today, that it’s gonna cause massive unhappiness when it hits you. Even more so when it hits your children.
And on top of this, your lifestyle is the cause of ever increasing armed conflicts over resources. You are delusional and hypocritical when you say things like “I don’t want to finance the US army with those taxes” and at the same time you live anda showcase a lifestyle where the bombing of resources rich countries is required to maintain a strong control over the resources that fuel your lifestyle.
Gang
Posted at 11:08 pm, 6th March 2018What you call the collapse of the wester world isn’t primarily caused by politics or culture and whatnot. Its primal cause is that it showcases and promotes a lifestyle at the level of the individual, that is completely unsustainable in the physical world. In term of resources, a very important one being energy. The most convenient energy being oil, which production has picked worldwide in 2006. You thought the subprimes was the root cause of the 2008 financial crisis. You’re wrong, the subprimes crisis is only the first symptom that appeared in the financial sphere. The root cause is that oil production picked in 2006, price of energy therefore raised in 2007-8, and only later in the chain of events did the weakest financial construct collapsed: the subprimes crisis is just the first visible symptom.
We have less and less (cheap) energy available each year, therefore we are forced to downsize our way of life. Who are the people whose individual lifestyle is the most unsustainable: western (and japanese) people (and Arab Emirates or other oil rich tiny populations, but they are negligeable protion of the world population). That is why western people’s lifestyle is collapsing. This is the root reason of the collapse of the western world: it collapses roughly at the rate at which the world oil production slows down.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:18 pm, 6th March 2018Gang, you might want to read these articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 11:53 pm, 6th March 2018Gang – Everything you stand for makes me sick to my stomach.
Understand that what I say to you now, I say to all the tyrants of this world who wish to return us to the stone age, who spew the anti-human filth that you’re spewing, and who promote white guilt on a daily basis, shaming our children:
You will be fought! And you will be stopped!
Here’s your fucking fascistic sustainable environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK3c0gYERug
And a personal message to you and your kind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWe7ryJFLgc
Have a nice day!
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 01:52 am, 7th March 2018Fantastic! I leave it to you to give the red pill to the lion eating the zebra.
Just try not to get…you know….eaten yourself when deprogramming the lion of the conditioning he received from evil white males!
God’s speed, Gang! God’s speed, my brother! And remember, “growl” means no!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Gang
Posted at 06:57 am, 7th March 2018Hehe, BD after dismissing the topic and still maintaining that your lifestyle is sustainable, you are now making personal attacks: you lost.
JOTB: I include all the western world here, including north america and Australia with its numerous hispanics, negros, asians and whatever ethnicities, and also europe with its numerous Arabo-muslims, since you are so self centered on your country this includes the USA, and also japan… How is that white guilt? Last time I checked japanese are considered asians…
I am talking about the laws of physics. News flash: the laws of physics are not democratic, nor are they decided by any people, nor are they bendable by economic or financial means: they exist with or without humans. You probably did not take time to watch anything of the video, since it’s too scientific and long for you. And then you talk about white guilting and other unrelated subject. Dude, whoever found the technology first, blacks, arabs, asians if it wasn’t white people, would most probably have done the same and guzzle all resources. You’re stuck into a binary thinking and race or natinalism doesn’t have anything to do with resource utilisation and the environment.
No valid argument to prove that my point doesn’t hold, besides BD’s “blind trust that technology will provide a miracle solution”. In term of energy this could only work if the world relies massively on nuclear power as primary energy source, and heavily invest to move from fission to fusion. I am ok with that, but that also means consaguineous islamist people having access to nuclear energy and weapons and having to handle radioactive wastes, which I am not a super fan of. I am asking again: Are you guys ok with that? The general population is, like you, in complete denial of the laws of physics when it comes to economic freedom, and moreover overwhelmingly against anything nuclear power related, and in a democracy, so are most of the politicians (also completely clueless about what’s going on since most have no scientific background whatsoever) who are supposed to represent them. Should it be a democratic decision?.. etc…
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:14 am, 7th March 2018We’re not debating and this isn’t a debate. This is just me watching an obsessed person talk to himself.