Well, I went out to go see a band I liked from back in the day. It was at a divey, artsy bar. Sat through an unimpressive opener. Was sitting on a barstool in a corner.
A lady walks up and asks if she can take the one next to me. I say “Sure.” Between songs we introduce names. She bumps into me a few times. Then she is touching my arm. I look over and we’re flirting. She takes off her glasses, then takes off mine. We start making out.
She then pull up her top and bra. I gently caress her nipples. She leans in and says “They’re real, give ’em a squeeze.” I oblige.
She then opens her purse and says nonchalantly, “Oh, shoot, I lost my money.” At this point, something seemed a little odd to me. If I lost my money, I’d either be upset that someone stole it or I’d be looking around to see if I dropped it.
She grabs my hand and we walk towards the bar. She says, “Baby, are you having anything to drink?”
I say “I’m driving, I ain’t having a drop.”
She says. “I’m thinking of getting out of here.”
I know in a movie, this is when the protagonist leaves with the lady but my life isn’t a movie. I grab her hand and walk towards the stage. “I really want to see this band. I’ve liked ’em since I was a kid.”
We wind up sitting on some barstools across from where we were. She is between another guy and I. She again says that she wants to get out of here. She then starts flirting with the other guy and asks if he’ll buy her a drink. He replies with the greatest answer ever–“The economy killed chivalry.” We both laugh. She then asks if she can have a sip of his beer. He obliges. She talks about being an entrepreneur. She then talks about being in Playboy when I would’ve been in 6th grade. I can’t verify that as I didn’t have my subscription until 7th grade (joke 😉 .)
She proclaims that she’s going home. I wish her a good evening and she gives me a hug. I then tell the guy whose beer she drank and another guy the previous events. I ask, “D’ya think I woulda had a one night stand if I left with her?”
He says, “Man, I think you dodged a bullet. Something isn’t right with her. You coulda woke up without a kidney.”
The band I was waiting for hits the stage. It was great. I’m not a PUA but if I was I’d be an epic fail, hehe…
well, I don’t know, I disagree vehemently with Mr. Elam’s-If at a rape trial acquit policy…
However, he sometimes writes funny things…
“These are two individuals whose specialty, other than apparently downing copious amounts of Ben and Jerry’s Patriarchy Chunk ice cream on a daily basis, is mining for minority voices on the fringe of the MRM, and conflating them with out of context quotes from actual MRA’s, twisted into the desired form. But they don’t even do that with enough gusto to burn a few calories.”
Yuppers, one of the individuals he was referring too was a male feminist who misquoted me by taking part of something I said then putting his own words after, then putting a flashing sarcasm button for plausible deniability. hahaha, to quote Ms. Rebecca Watson “Guys, don’t do that.” Also, lets make it egalitarian. Girls don’t do that. It isn’t nice (TM), nor is it nice. I just don’t think it is something an honest person who cares about justice should do.
Anyways, I’m glad most of the peeps I interact with online I will never meet in real life because there sure are some hateful bigots out there. But if I did, it would be funny to have a contest between the Feminist Critics guys, the manosphere guys and some male feminists….
Lets see who could chug the most dark beer, eat the most ice cream then do the most pull-ups. I bet it would look like some kind of scene out of Jackass. I bet there would be puke everywhere….
Well, I don’t particularly know why but I was reading about the housing market and this jumped out at me:
“…There are a lot of figures out there that suggest owning a home is a no brain decision. And, it leads to shame for those who have not bought a home. One of the statistics that I cringe at every time that I hear it is the average net worth of a non-home owner is $4,000 and $184,000 for home owners according to the Federal Reserve. So, this statistic implies that if you own your home, you will be rich. However, before you buy this completely, let’s consider a few things:
Recent college graduates tend to rent and have sizable student loans (so negative net worth)
Low income workers can only afford a minimal apartment and have low net worth
Older workers tend to be homeowners and have retirement savings that count towards net worth
So, what came first the chicken or the egg? Do you need a higher net worth to afford to own a home or did the home make you have a high net worth? Yes, homes are a good investment (as are stocks, bonds, etc.). Yet, does home ownership make you rich or does saving over a long period of time make you rich? If you factor in age, income, and % of income saved (either in home or in stock & bonds), the statistics in net worth of home owners and renters would be drastically different. For me, I saved money before I bought my house. Thus, my net worth lead me to be able to be a home owner. And, owning a home has not significantly increased my net worth (due to living in Mid-West where home prices have not increased significantly).”
That reminded me of a phrase I sometimes heard in online arguments–Correlation does not imply causation…
A quick trip over to the Great Wiki and I found this:
“As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply.
Therefore, ice cream consumption causes drowning.
The aforementioned example fails to recognize the importance of time and temperature in relationship to ice cream sales. Ice cream is sold during the hot summer months at a much greater rate than during colder times, and it is during these hot summer months that people are more likely to engage in activities involving water, such as swimming. The increased drowning deaths are simply caused by more exposure to water-based activities, not ice cream. The stated conclusion is false.”
Well, I remember from one of Edgar Allan Poe’s detective stories hearing the term “a priori, a posteriori.”
1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
2.
a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
1. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning from facts or particulars to general principles or from effects to causes; inductive; empirical.
2.
a. Justified by appeal to experience.
b. Knowable from experience.
“The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used in philosophy to distinguish two different types of knowledge, justification, or argument: ‘a priori knowledge’ is known independently of experience (conceptual knowledge), and “a posteriori knowledge” is proven through experience.”
and an example my manosphere “buddies” might like:
“a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example “Some bachelors are very happy”). A posteriori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one’s belief in it.”
“…It is claimed that mathematics is a higher form of knowledge. That even if the world around us doesn’t exist, mathematics is still true. That it is a form of knowledge that we can be certain of, even if we deny reality.
How do they make such a statement? First, they see that mathematics is the science of units, and any units are acceptable. I could have said trucks instead of apples above. The validity would be the same. It is true without reference to any unit.
This sounds okay at first. The problem stems from the method of deriving the mathematical abstractions. Teach a child to do simple arithmetic, and you’ll recognize that to gain the knowledge of math, one must use some units. Maybe apples. Maybe oranges. It doesn’t matter which units. It does matter, though, that some unit is picked. To grasp math, one needs a foundation. Particulars from which an abstraction can be made.
Calling mathematics a priori, or knowledge independent of reality, is to undercut its base. This is the essence of the second meaning of a priori. The meaning that is actually used. An abstraction is made from particulars. Once the abstraction is made, the process from which it was derived is then ignored. The base on which it was built is denied. The abstract knowledge is then said to exist without reference to reality, since the reference is ignored.”
at this point, my deranged brain recalled a lyric from a Living Colour song:
So a student says he is being bullied by his teacher. No one believes him. One day he captures it on his phone. Glad he was finally vindicated. It fucking sucks when you tell your family something and they treat you like you are the one who is wrong….
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The answer is helplessness and lack of control. Sarcasm is the weapon of disempowered people, who use information to regain some of their missing feeling of control.”
Well, I’ve gotta thank everyone whose been commenting here….
Sometimes they’ve pointed out things that I haven’t articulated clearly enough.
Sometimes they’ve agreed and sometimes they’ve disagreed….
Overall, they have been a great resource to me….
One outstanding comment was posted in an old thread about that bigot Fatrelle and it just seemed to explain soooo much. It was written by an insightful writer who goes by “Adi.”
“Futrelles logic is very clear to me. The reason most MRAs and some feminists don’t understand him is because, unlike them, he does not actually have a political agenda. He’s not trying to improve the world or empower women in the least; otherwise his behavior would be radically different from what it is.
No, Futrelles purpose is to profile himself as a leading writer in….well…anything. He simply writes what gets him the most attention and that means jumping on the bandwagon of misandry. He’s absolutely not the first to do that. Almost every politician, journalist and marketer who touched upon gender has done this. The great “advantage” of resorting to misandry is that you don’t actually have to know anything, you don’t have to research, study or learn about people. You can just waffle your way to success because there are always enough people who love hearing it. Really, it’s like porn to these people. That’s why no amount of reasoning or logic or truth will get Futrelle to change – at best it might make him a little more cautious to avoid libel.
The sad truth is, misandry sells and Futrelle is a misandry salesman. No more and no less.”
——-
Well, the guy really just struck me as an attention seeking bully all along.
Sometimes other people are better at articulating things I observe.
stonerwithaboner 