numbersinarow

Hmm... so you're in a situation where you're dealing with 2 "abstractions." One is what you call feminine energy and it is mediated through your male body, the other is the experience of female energy in women expressing itself but not not avoiding an a priori idea of casual sex. I would say it's a completely different energy if society allegedly moulds it into it's opposite. Because, and I've actually already implied this, you have an experience of 2 completely different things, not the core which you imagined is behind them. And I can't accept that societal influence as we see it could defeat mass scale sexual nature and free will.

Agreed, women hate selfish delusional narcissists, not a single one has ever been successful with women...

There you go. "YOU need to risk jail by cold approaching instead of women asking to be your gf" or "You need go to to uni to get a gf" are completely bad faith statements, since anyone with common sense knows the first is not logically sustainable and the second is telling you to submit to someone else's monopolization of... well, apparently, any kind of an opportunity to talk to girls.

Assuming that she was in fact both scared and attracted to him [Don't assume this willy-nilly.] then it's difficult to see how it's more reasonable to say that his natural game/body language in the brief time he interacted with her was what had her decide to talk to him, as opposed to looks. What's the threshold where you just have to admit that she's not "testing you" or "being cautious" but genuinely is not attracted to you? If she is never scared of another guy but shows some fear around you, is that a point where she just is not attracted, or not?

You're from a different planet, since looks of religious disdain for walking down the street (from women) and a look of absolute terror from a girl who flirted with you, are a normal occurance. The predominant emotion is projected on the man, then they feel their own original emotion coming from him... which, of course, is hate.

The Jihadists are exclusively superior to people who take drugs partying on the edge of a concentration camp. They're not superior to anyone else. Yes it's their "fault" for wanting to kill non-muslims since they chose to subscribe to a religion that recommends that.

If you have an objective metric to decide that one party here is more moral, I'd love to hear it. Partying on the edge of a concentration camp and getting this outcome is not unpredictable.

You can have a self-consistent worldview where it's just a coincidence that they have an advantage, but at the same time not wanting to admit that they in fact do, shows that the person believes that giving credence to biology would refute the idea that trans women = women AKA it creates a powerful counter-argument out of something which can't even be reasonably denied.

I wouldn't say that much but what is clear is that your statement applies to the people feigning outrage over israel's pursuit. None of their criticisms would ever be applied to the actions of the United States. it is true, they aren't doing it out of hatred for jews at all it's simply because they want to perpetuate a pre-rational double standard that paints america as infallible. There is a sort of no-win game for you to play. If you defend israel bombing children then you are aligning with the manufactured consent, and the obviousness of this is extreme in the case of people who jumped on the first immoral invasion theory bandwagon when putin invaded ukraine. If you condemn israel for killing children then you are right however make sure you're highlighting the fact that 1. they are doing this with the help of the west and 2. the US military themselves is helping them in ethnic cleansing. Otherwise you're helping propagandists.