Okay, fellas, I concede my points. It
is redundant to create arguments for strategies which this website already goes out of its way to disprove. In the future, I'll try to bring up arguments that this website hasn't already addressed. That seems better.
On another point, telling people to prove it is, of course, excellent but it is still flawed for two reasons that come to mind right now: 1: What if you're talking to a woman? A
straight woman?
Rebuttal: What do straight women need to learn how to pick up girls for?
Me: It wouldn't be for picking up girls but in understanding relationships better for themselves. Just because they're women doesn't mean that they're great with men or that they know what they're doing. And for perhaps, developing a bit more understanding of the different people in the world.
Rebuttal: Why would you need her understanding? Needing others' validation is a sign of insecurity.
Me: Nobody is perfectly secure but you're right, I shouldn't be seeking her sympathy. But understanding people would help her to live a better life.
Rebuttal: So then it's altruistic?
Me: It should be.
Rebuttal: You could save more effort by not bringing it up at all and just continuing the interaction.
Me: Yes, but as long as two people respect each other, there's nothing wrong with opposing views.
Rebuttal: All right, save it for people whom you know well.
2: This stuff can take a long time! One of the reasons that I've kept going at it with the strategies presented here is because of the logical arguments put forth. That and I don't want to give up on the life that I want. But if I still had the same drive but had discovered half-assed "methods" of getting girls: telling stories that never happened to you, negging, jockeying to be "alpha", I wouldn't be in a good position. So there does need to be a foundation in reason.
Rebuttal: Quite right, but like these guys have been trying to tell you, if you tell this to other people, it's up to them what they do with the information. You can't change the world with debate, you know.
Me: You're right, RebuttalTom, it's a real case of "I can only show you the door, Neo" and all that.
ProblemSolving: I've actually never made an audio recording :/ But thank you for your support!
Would you care to share what exactly did they tell you?. Why do you think you need to reevaluate it?.
I'm thinking that I might make another post on that. Need to work through some things still.
Richard:
For the sake of debate - you can refute those fundamental truths about squares and circles because they're mere representatives and symbols that figuratively represent something else. Does a square have 4 sides? Only if you aspire to the general idea that the square represents an object with 4 sides, but in reality what if a skyscraper was a "square?" You couldn't really refute that because it's a simple representation that we all hold to be generally true. Just as numbers are used to represent figures that don't actually exist - we simply give numbers "weight" because it makes life convenient.
A circle being round can be refuted with the same argument; it's a symbol that's never been proven to be anything except a representative of a concept. That doesn't mean these are fundamental truths, it means that they are accepted as accurate symbols. I could take a Native tribe from Africa and teach them that a square (4 sided object) is actually known as a triangle and there acceptance of that truth then couldn't be refuted.
Numbers don't represent figures that don't actually exist- numbers
are figures that don't actually exist. What they represent is quantity of real-world objects. In terms of geometry, a circle is indeed a symbol for the immaterial concept of "circle" which exists only in our heads, however, it is also an immutable axiom for this reason. If you did teach a Native tribe in Africa that we called "squares", "triangles", all you have done is engage in semantics, that is, changing the name and not the definition. Whether you call it "square", "triangle", or "hooblihoo", the concept of square, i.e. "that which has four perfect sides" has not changed. A skyscraper is not "square",it participates IN "squareness". It is not an essential component of the skyscraper, the skyscraper could be any shape. However, a "square" MUST participate in "squareness" otherwise it is not a square. A square defines itself. If you gave a square another side, and called that shape "square plus one side", it is still not a "square" because a square is that which has four perfect sides. If it were the same thing, you would not need to modify the name to "square plus one side". An axiom is that which needs itself to be defined and nothing else.
Another way of thinking about it is this way: Can you make a squared circle? I don't mean a circle WITHIN a square, I mean that which is both a square and a circle at the same time. You can't; no one could do it, not even a divine being could do it, it's logically impossible. It's a fundamental truth that the concept of square has four perfect sides and the concept of circle is perfectly round.
Anyway, thanks for all the feedback, guys. I came into this wanting to debate and learn something and I did. Not what I was expecting to learn but that's even better
Cheers, mates.
