It's completely selfish and egotistical to demand or expect that someone else make you happy.
Now see, if Holden was half as smart as he thinks he is, he would have played his "everybody has to be exact, except for me" card here and struck upon the seeming misstep in this sentence. It would still prove he's outlandishly obtuse and has no concept of context - things that would communicate your intention overtly while making the quoted statement completely accurate, thus nullifying his counter - but it would prove he's actually thinking about what his opponents are saying and attempting to outwit us, which would be a huge step forward for him. Instead, we got more of his dismissive replies.
Because this poster is a moron, which is why he's blocked. He's telling young intelligent boys dangerous lies on rape that might cost them their freedom of life.
I cannot stop laughing. Thanks to his poor sentence structure and dismissive nature, he just called himself a moron who is contradicting himself and self-blocking. I really wish I could vote that winner, but I need to save up my votes for once he gets near 100,000 negative ratings. So instead this one is going in the highlight reel, Fuckbot.
And on that note, here's another reason you're called Fuckbot: You continually fuck yourself metaphorically to the point it's a wonder you don't fuck yourself literally.
You know what, I think I'm going to block you now. I've had it with you. Anybody who'd think you make good points I'd ignore is an irredeemable idiot anyway.
Just remember, folks, even somebody like Macie wasn't blocked.
Which proves you're not blocking people just because they're "irredeemable idiots" who would think they "make good points [you]'d just ignore."
I am calling him stupid because he is stupid, not because he criticizes me. There are people here who criticized me I didn't call stupid.
He's right
Nara. He didn't start calling me stupid until I left him a bunch of negative ratings, the first time I ever actually called him stupid as opposed to talk over him or pick at the flaws in what he says and does. Apparently only the people who give him negative ratings or otherwise call him stupid are called stupid. It's a juvenile game of turnabout with him. And I'm loving every minute of it.
He knew he was cornered and his only option was to block me. I doubt you'll get anywhere with him, but I applaud the effort.
It's like hustling. Play to the mark's level to keep the game as close as possible so that it keeps walking down this path without hesitation. Eventually a trap snaps around its neck, allowing the skill level to be dictated at the hustler's discretion as it begs for mercy.
The way to not get blocked by Holden is to play his game and let him think he just stumbled or got unlucky. You overplayed yourself, and now you're out of play. Even as I say stuff like this, Holden perceives me as some kid on a lucky streak, mostly because he chooses not to read posts.
Huh? Water-polo as a sport. No spreads or anything. Games. Dunno about the terminology.
I see you're not much of a gambler.
That's correct. It doesn't. And neither do I think women destroy societies. Men do. Women just act the way men tell them to. Women didn't give themselves the right to vote. Men in early stages of degeneration did.
Which means men allowed women to destroy society, and thus by men destroyed it by association. Such a severe distinction.
Do you have any evidence for this? From what I heard he was a Freudian liberal.
You need more than the fact that all of the few positive reviews of it were done by people with old fashioned values, that it's used primarily by Christian apologists, and has virtually no mainstream use unless Christian apologists get on mainstream news? In the case, there's one source for it anybody should be able to access.
READ HIS BOOK!
The old fashioned values are dripping off the pages.
If any scientific study that came after 1960 is hogwash, as you claimed it was, then the r/K theory is hogwash since it came about in 1967. Seriously, think about what you're reading.
A good example of what I'm telling you is the book by thornhill and palmer, Natural History of Rape, which was attacked by liberals for establishing that rape is often guided by the desire for sex, not domination, and that it can be a viable reproductive strategy for men with low reproductive chances (which non-seductive men like incels are).
Yeah, it's a liberal criticism to mention how roughly 1/3 of rape victims are not of reproductive age and many of those who can reproduce are at an age where they're highly likely to produce children with mental and physical disabilities that increase the probability of the victim getting an abortion, but no explanation is given to how this theory and these facts can realistically point to the same conclusion.
Unfortunately, you have the mistaken belief that the rest of the world is as autistic as you, so you believe that no one else is capable of making inferences and must take everything you say literally.
You got that backwards. Holden is incapable of making inferences and everything we say must be taken literally. He acknowledges we have this ability by leaving loads of ambiguities in his posts, but insists we use it poorly since we fail to comprehend anything he says.
