aurum

I was talking about you too, Carl. I know you don't agree with his teachings.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is the actual red line of this debate.

To the degree I grant Leo "special privileges", it's because I've spent ten years verifying the accuracy of his work. You, on the other hand, will not be granted any special privileges. I've debated with you in other threads and it's clear that you don't understand these metaphysical topics nearly as well. So you've not earned those privileges. If you want special privileges, go create your own metaphysical body of work on par with Leo's that I can verify. And if I can do that, then I will grant you special privileges. But until then, you get nothing.

This really undermines his whole project. No way you're achieving biological immortality if you can't even beat AIG.

All the critiques being leveled at Leo in this thread rest on top of the assumption that he is wrong. That is the actual red line. You're not mad because he called you close-minded. You're mad because you think you're openminded. You're not mad because he claimed he was the standard for epistemology. You're mad because you think he isn't. You're not mad because he claimed he was more awake than other spiritual teachers. You're mad because you don't believe it. You're not mad because he claimed he understood God better than you. You're mad because you don't think he does. The ultimate red line question is this: what is God???? Everything in this debate hinges on how you answer that question.

Still love living here. No other country I'd rather be. But yeah, we have some serious issues to work on.

I feel ya man. It can be rough out there.

@Zenterus Lol bro. This is why people eventually settle down. Hooking up with girls in perpetuity is a hellish roller coaster.

The men are deliberately withholding something they know their girlfriend probably wants to get a reaction out of her for social media.

That is exactly what some men do. Whether or not it’s “okay” requires looking at how coercive it was and what the consequences were. No one is getting hurt by your girlfriend wanting you to eat a brownie with her. This is a stupid false equivalence with something like sexual assault.

Not at all. Eating together is a way of connecting. Step out of your male mind and see it from her perspective.

If you have a good venue and know what you’re doing, you might be surprised. Yes, it’s a very specific skill to be good at cold approach. You need to be extremely good at initiating and creating positive first impressions. That takes a certain kind of personality and mindset. I’ve met a ton of guys who definitely are attractive and social otherwise, but they completely fold if they have to cold approach. It’s not something a lot of people are used to doing. And most serious cold approach is on a spectrum with what you’re describing. You might work the venue, get to know lots of different people and draw attention + social proof that way. Obviously it’s not one size fits all. But it is something almost every guy can immediately go out and try, regardless of slack-lining skills

No, you don't have to ask me questions. I was mostly just curious. I am working a project right now that is focused on teaching Tier 2 masculinity & relationships. So it's useful for me to see kind of problems guys are struggling with. And I think our perspectives slightly diverge here.

I see. Yes, that's a challenge if you're looking for frame alignment on an overt, intellectual level.

I'm not following how you see frame. Why do you see women being in your frame as not natural?