LordFall

Of course, you've just started to dip your toes into the basically infinite pool of status based game. I'm excited for you. Do you think Hugh Hefner built his empire in 3 days? Yet it fuelled his dating life until his 80s. Cold approach as the basis of a dating strategy is like walking across your city approaching random people for jobs instead of attending networking events, or posting on job hunts sites(online dating) or building your own business over time(building an intentional social circle with a media component so it scales endlessly.) If you attend one open mic monthly and after like 3-4 months host your own and then reach out to videographers in your area to shoot music videos AND still cold approach in the meanwhile, I guarantee that in September 2027 your dating life will be solved. I'll bet you $100. The power of combining cold approach and social circle is you've become a whole community now. Don't get me wrong I still got laid when I wasn't hosting events and just invited bored chicks to drink by the lake but now I invite them to photoshoots or music events or food events and even if they don't want to date/sleep with me we can still become friends and add value to each others lives. Plenty of chicks with fiances and husbands came on my podcast and still increased my status and I gave them a platform to express themselves and share what they were working on. That's the power of the win-win and building power and impact as a man so that you can help others achieve their goals while still building the dating and sex life of your dreams.

Yes utilizing an unoptimized dating strategy is exhausting, I'll give you that. Especially as you don't get results for your efforts and you start to doubt both yourself and the method. I called it a limiting belief because you formed a conclusion without asking questions. A social circle is not merely a friend group, it's a group of acquaintances and collaborators who you mutually help reach goals. I ran a music event across the country on Thursday evening and it took me about 1 hour to organize from my laptop and 4 phone calls. Where is the exhaustion? Girls that I haven't seen in months that are still in Calgary attended under my brand. Girls that I'm courting here in Montreal saw the footage and now my status is increased. Of course trying to cut down a tree with a butter knife is exhausting, that's why I've been warning people here against a cold approach based dating strategy for months now lol

This is simply a scarcity mindset and a limiting belief my friend. What else can be more valuable in life than spending your time and energy building a power social circle of aligned individuals that can support you in reaching your goals? I've already suggested to you that you should build a music community where you are and that will support both your rap career and also eventually give you massive amounts of dating opportunities. Social circle game is very powerful because it fulfills both the male and female dating agendas at once.

I couldn't agree more.

@yetineti It started when I told another user to ignore you because you argued in bad faith and didn't seem serious. You took offense, demanded my attention, and pushed for this debate. I gave you the chance—you picked the topic of your own personal worth, celebrated that you "trapped" me, and now you're building exit ramps before Sunday even arrives. If you withdraw after asking for the mic, that’s your right, but backing out now just confirms everything I said about your avoidance patterns. The stream goes live Sunday at 8 PM EST. Show up and stand on your words, or don't. @Valach Testing ideas through genuine, open debate is one of the highest pursuits we have—it only becomes an ego trap when anonymous posters hide behind text screens to posture rather than standing on their convictions in real life.

@Breakingthewall That mutual dependence is real, but history shows economic entanglement doesn't make major conflict impossible, it just raises the stakes. Europe in 1914 was more financially integrated than ever before, and everyone thought the cost was too high right up until the spark caught. Globalized supply chains create fragility just as easily as they create deterrence. When domestic pressure, demographic decline, or resource bottlenecks squeeze powers too hard, rational cost-benefit calculations tend to break down fast. Let's hope the system holds, but betting everything on perpetual rational stability has historically been a risky gamble.

@Joshe I honestly thought it would've been rude to make the entire thread an audit of his personal worth, but he explicitly insisted on it. What can I say? The customer is always right 😂

@yetineti I framed the title as an inquiry into male value in good faith, specifically to avoid putting you through a personal cross-examination on a public broadcast. Since you explicitly insist on making the topic about your personal worth and what you contribute to the world, I'm happy to honor your terms. We will examine the exact mechanics, standards, and real-world evidence of that value. That conversation happens on the stream, not through a written pre-debate on a message board. You asked for the mic, don’t backtrack into forum essays.

There is no revision. When a product offers no value to a consumer, nobody is claiming the object ceases to exist at an atomic level—it means it fails to produce a functional benefit, and maintaining it costs more than it delivers. That is what a net drain is. You’re taking this far more personally than it was ever meant, but it worked as intended: you are supposed to want to produce value, and you are supposed to fiercely defend your ability to do so. When I challenge people like this, I don’t want them to collapse into victimhood—I want them to push back, build competence, and fight. I’m not here to be your caring mother. I’m here to share what I’ve learned about how the world actually operates and challenge men to step up in ways that genuinely matter to society. I think it's good for them, good for the women in their lives and good for our species as a whole. You conceded that "low value" isn't a mathematical zero. Good. That leaves only the real question: does what you produce actually create abundance and solve problems for anyone, or does your existence simply consume bandwidth while breaking even? Bring your case to the stream on Sunday at 8 PM EST. Let’s see what that value looks like off the forum.

There is something terribly pathological about Reddit mods. It's like its the only power in life they've had and they love to ban people for any slight deviance from the subreddit hive mind. It used to be better years ago but as I think these people have grown into their position the standards for conversations have dropped more and more. I can't think of a worse place on the Internet to have a serious conversation. When people complain about AI slop it's one of the examples that comes to my mind in terms of much more useless human slop.

I don't think you understand how arguments work so I'll give you a hint. Low value does not mean absolute zero; it means failing to meet the baseline standards of competence, agency, and leadership that define a high-impact man. A penny has value, but you can't buy dinner with it. If your strategy is gonna be to prove to us that you're worth at least a penny then I think indeed you will manage to do that. If that satisfies you in terms of your own existence then I will say you've already lost long before we ever exchanged a single word.

You literally talked about 'saving the world' and playing power games—semantics aside, the implication was obvious. Save the rest of your psychoanalysis for Sunday. Let’s see how your standalone points hold up live on air.

Let's be intellectually honest here. My main point was being in a position to offer value to others. You tried to bait me into sounding delusional and admitting I have a messiah complex. Which I don't particularly but I still played into your point because I do believe that being competent at solving your own and others problem is key to life especially as a man. If my impact scales to a worldwide level and even beyond to the point that I can help mankind as a whole then once again, it would be my pleasure to try my best help us get to our next stage of evolution.

@yetineti Even better.

A lot of guys have egos and think that game is beneath them. So you're sort of proving my point. You know people only so much until you get intimate with them. People that have low confidence and self-concept tend to be bitter and resentful and it comes up in all kinds of unpredictable ways. That's why the adage is be careful of people that can't attract women. There is basically always something nasty beyond the surface otherwise it would be a self-correction problem. Women are not that complicated.

You're delusional and love to evade points. When pushed you use AI to make the points for you and when I still sit down to counter them, your ego can't take it and you have a meltdown. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You do not bring much value to conversation and highly intellectual topics seem to be above your grasp and lead to you getting overly emotional.

I think we could be getting there fast. The epstein files blew a lid on it and it's hard to burrow the fact that elites are above the law and commit unspeakable crimes now. Massive amounts of people are investigating it further as we speak and AI will only help their investigative possibilities. Exciting time to be alive. I think realistically we will enter a massive golden age of humanity if not in the 2030s in the 2040s and beyond. Which is hilarious because the global sentiment is quite pessimistic at the moment. There is a WW3 possibility looming but I believe we can either avoid it or get through it and come out better, stronger and more united as a species.

We can go point by point, that's fine. My thesis assumes an omnipotent God. If you want to put limits on God in your argument then fine but that goes against most definitions of God. Doesn't mean it's not valid but that's not really what you've claimed so far. I wouldn't call it a motive, it's a description of a phenomenon. If God sees people being people suffering and its not that relevant to him that's by definition boredom. Enjoyment from an omnipotent being would lead to increasing the frequency of something since you find it valuable and I guess enjoyable. I didn't only present those possibilities in the thread, I said perhaps God finds it valuable to reality. Nobody made a credible defence of that point and I don't think it makes much sense so I didn't focus on it. That's absolutely possible. We cannot use that to make base our live out of though. At least not without evidence pointing towards it. That's like saying why don't we encourage murder because perhaps there is a good reason for it since it's allowed in reality. It's a demonstrably false point though. Not every human that has lived has been literally tortured. There could've been a single instance of torture in all of history and it never happen again and that would fit the standard that every possible experience can occur. I'm asking why suffering happens at such high frequency ubiquitously throughout mankind Just because I don't fold to propositions that go against mine doesn't mean I haven't entertained them. I have gone through every single one. I could still be biased and ultimately wrong but I haven't seen evidence to support that fact. No.

That’s two posts of deflection , but not a single counter-argument. What I’m using is basic abductive reasoning, inferring the most plausible explanation from observable facts, paired with a simple deductive dilemma. You claim there are "other possibilities," yet you haven't named one. You claim suffering "fundamentally does not exist," which isn't metaphysics—it's an unfalsifiable evasion that deletes the data point to protect the premise. If you have an actual ontological model that accounts for biological agony without retreating into solipsism, sadism, or pretending pain is imaginary, articulate the premises. Otherwise, the condescension just reads as an admission that you don't have an answer but are too arrogant to simply admit it.

Great insight. I think psychosomatic symptoms are very real and we're in a dark period of knowledge in terms of understanding it. Also society is very in favour of suppressing your emotions for the sake of social cohesion and harmony. That has a lot of benefits but we need to be honest about the drawbacks. I'm suffering from back pain as well and I do tend to suppress my anger a lot so I will give that book a go, thanks for sharing. I have massive amounts of rage that I struggle to transmute into useful energy so I feel like I lose 40% of my energy daily by just suppressing it so it doesn't go out of control.

I did not create reality. Did you? The 3rd option is that reality created itself through the big bang or another far fetched idea if you wanna go down the atheistic route. Therefore suffering is not personal and doesn't fit the criteria for sadism. If that's your claim then fine but I would argue against that line of reasoning in many ways that I think invalidate it. The 4th option is that God created reality. Now we're discussing why he put so much suffering in it. Is it for a fundamental good reason of progress? Maybe but I haven't seen a convincing argument for it yet. An unsettling but very plausible reality is that God is similar to how he was described in the old testament and has a very cruel streak and likes to test mortals and is therefore by definition sadistic. I have not seen a rebuttal to that claim that holds up to scrutiny in this thread. Leo had a good video on the dark side of love that points towards reality behind partly ruthless by design. I think that makes sense but there are plot holes to that theory which is what I'm inquiring about.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. If that's the case feel free to explain how. Have you simply considered that you're wrong and close minded to my point? I've considered that I'm wrong and close minded to your point. After thinking about it, I don't see any evidence pointing towards that fact. You can see how what you're saying is foolish and doesn't make sense right? It's not only a bad faith argument but delusional. If you want to argue that reality doesn't exist then I don't know you're lost and on your own by your own definition. Good luck. How so? @Xonas Pitfall I don't mean to be rude, I don't think it makes logical sense to entertain a bad argument if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I wouldn't use this level of rhetoric in a "How was your day?" thread. I don't your last counters make much sense. Do you really honestly or are you honestly parroting a Leo video without having thought much about it? I've thought a lot on these concepts, I don't take them at face value. Clearly God can maintain compartments that are extremely stable since he has put very specific conditions for us to be experience wobbly reality like intentionally consuming psychedelics. Otherwise all humanity would be schizophrenic and there wouldn't really be a human race. The point is that there is a large amount of suffering and that if we understand how to counter it and evolve past it perhaps it will cease to exist for good. I agree with Joseph I enjoy most of my life. There are bitter and resentful parts to my psyche and a lot of that is aimed towards God and that's why I'm asking if he is weak or if he sadistic or if he thinks he has a greater plan that warrants all this suffering. I'm not fully sure of the answer yet, that's what this inquiry is about.

I'll point out that there are very few people on this forum that have the humility to admit they're wrong. I've had discussions on topics I'm an expert on with people with no clue and they flail out. Very few users have the lack of ego to just say ''Huh that's an interesting point, I'll think on it." I will then point you back to your own signature and let you honestly introspect on your own bias and stubbornness as I believe that's what's happening here as when I deconstructed your point you defaulted to an ego response of why didn't you ask me to clarity instead of countering the point. Asking for a coherent model to explain extreme biological suffering isn't claiming expertise. It’s holding an inquiry to basic standards of logic. I’ve laid out the arguments from first principles across 4 pages. Those who want to engage with the actual mechanics of suffering can read the thread. I'm off, good night everyone.

Why would I assume that everyone has credible points? By default humans don't know much. If you start to claim that you're an expert in astrophysics I will not believe you until you prove it.

Of course it does. That's like if someone set someone on fire and their criminal defence was 'you wouldn't understand, I'm a 5D being it's beyond you.' Great, be beyond it in jail. I cannot put God in jail so all I can do is deconstruct it down to first principles.