hot guys with ugg women - how does this happen?

[God_of_getting_layed]

<tipping his hat>

thank you.

delta

yeah, I have to admit. Delta does bring up very good points. one of the few smart people on this forum. People like him are rare gems on this forum.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

repost

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

repost

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

repost

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

repost

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

re-post, mods delete

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

What these looks-matter guys don't want you to know, is that it's the confidence attracting these women, not the looks.

in one of your earlier posts, you made a reference to Occams razor. Yet this theory you present here contridicts following such a principle. Instead of just accepting the simpler one that "its the looks that got her", you now want to go on and say "yes, theyre good looking, which made them confident, and then the confidence got them the woman". Yeah, not following occam's razor this time are you?

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

as much as i hate Deus's little views on looks, i gotta say that i think this Rico guy is the same guy as "El Febreezy da Beez" who hates Deus for who knows what reasons, on a personal level?

(refer to the looks thread in the Archives)

if so, then Rico needs to be banned FAST!!. Becuase El Febreezy Da Beez was actually that c0ck sucker martinshernwood; the biggest piece of sh1t to ever post in this forum!!

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

dont you guys lose a massive amount of respect to this guy. he must be a troll

well, that post you provided has really destroyed his credibility. It now looks like he doesnt even understand his own argument.

 

[Delta]

hey deus,

specious arguments. while your looks, shirt and pants (clothing) and chest hair (grooming) do indeed matter, you are MIXING and EQUATING them with the trivial matters of "blue pants" and "born in canada" whose affects on success or failure with women are trivial.

and there are indeed plenty of posts asking for fashion advice and grooming advice and we do indeed accept them as important considerations that CAN disqualify you from prospective chicks if you screw up badly enough.

ALSO

please note that the "looks matter" threads are REACTIONARY posts. the CORE OF DJ PHILOSOPHY is NOT based in part on the principle that HYGIENE, GROOMING AND CLOTHING DO NOT MATTER!

but many of the earliest posts and the majority of dj literature touts that NO MATTER HOW MISHAPEN AND SHORT YOU ARE you can score the hottest chicks in the world!

i don't disagree with that! ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE as long as you don't give up.

but some take this to mean that such legitimate hardships MAKE NO EFFECT ON THE RATE OR QUANTITY OF SUCCESS.

THIS is not true.

and sure, you can constantly compare a good looking wuss with a hideous pua but that's comparing apples and oranges. be fair-

what would happen if you pit a good looking pua with a hideous pua, their pua skills being the same. i would submit that the good looking pua would do MUCH BETTER.

inversely, if you have a good looking wbafc vs. a hideous wbafc, guess who would be the more miserable?

looks matter threads exist because there are many ugly folks and the salesmen who would prey on their false hope that spread the lie "looks don't matter" in the first place.

delta

Well, apparently I need to clarify. Looks matter in that, like everything else, it factors into a woman's decision whether or not she will date you. Same thing with whether or not you're wearing a button-up shirt. Same thing if you have excessive chest hair. Same thing if you were born in Canada, but grew up in Florida. But to go so far as to create entire threads devoting to wondering what guys that were born in Canada but grew up in Florida are doing with girls that were born and raised in Ohio? I mean...this is all arbitrary. Why does "looks" get continually singled out? Where are all my "Chest hair matters!" threads? Where are my "What are guys who wear button-up shirts on a regular basis doing with UGGs?" threads?

Keep saying looks matter. That's fine. But to be fair, we also need to devote equal time to everything else that factors into the dating scene. We need threads devoted to wondering about the degree to which "blue pants" matter. I mean, there's gotta be some of you out there that have very strong feelings about whether or not wearing blue pants matters when you're sarging. This looks-matter crap is done. Start anew.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

um part of the looks matter theory says that it really only applies to attractive women.

Who said they weren't attractive? I sure as hell didn't. That was YOUR assumption, because you're so far deep into the path you've chosen you will do anything to protect your viewpoint in order to prevent your world from crashing down upon you. This includes extrapolating something from nothing, in the hopes that nobody will notice.

um, no extrapolation here. (do you even know what extrapolation means?) I have statistics on my side in this assumption. In your post, you say women have told you that they slept with ugly guys. Well, statistically, most women arent hot, so Im more likely to be right if I assume them to NOT be hot, than the other way around. Plus, if we go along with my theory, which says good looking women wont sleep with ugly men, the fact that the woman admited such a thing to you is basically providing me with all the information I need to know that she aint good looking. I mean, youll rarely hear such a thing from a hottie, but almost always hear it from an average jane or a fugg.

So the evidence I have available here is strongly supporting my assumption that she wasnt attractive. :yes:

Dont make claims of such evidence existing if you cant prove that such evidence exists.

I'm not going to start videotaping ugly girl/good-looking guy couples walking down the street for you so you can watch them on youtube. Get real.

so you cant prove it, thank you.

Yeah, not following occam's razor this time are you?

Quite the opposite. You're simply too far gone to see this, however, and accept much more absurd explanations as truth.

Really? so how is your theory simpler than the one that says "her got her becuase she liked his looks". Your is that plus the confidence thing added. definitely the more complex theory, definitely not following occam's razor.:rock:

well, that post you provided has really destroyed his credibility. It now looks like he doesnt even understand his own argument.

Are you really stooping to supporting trolls that dig up my posts from a year and a half ago? Really? Besides. You missed the key word. Attract. He wouldn't be good-looking enough to ATTRACT the women. Attraction and closing are two very different things. And closing is, after all, what we are talking about.

dude, your credibility is smashed, you cant undo it any better than someone can undo a soiled piece of toilet paper from someone's @ss wipe.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

hey deus,

specious arguments. while your looks, shirt and pants (clothing) and chest hair (grooming) do indeed matter, you are MIXING and EQUATING them with the trivial matters of "blue pants" and "born in canada" whose affects on success or failure with women are trivial.

and there are indeed plenty of posts asking for fashion advice and grooming advice and we do indeed accept them as important considerations that CAN disqualify you from prospective chicks if you screw up badly enough.

ALSO

please note that the "looks matter" threads are REACTIONARY posts. the CORE OF DJ PHILOSOPHY is NOT based in part on the principle that HYGIENE, GROOMING AND CLOTHING DO NOT MATTER!

but many of the earliest posts and the majority of dj literature touts that NO MATTER HOW MISHAPEN AND SHORT YOU ARE you can score the hottest chicks in the world!

i don't disagree with that! ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE as long as you don't give up.

but some take this to mean that such legitimate hardships MAKE NO EFFECT ON THE RATE OR QUANTITY OF SUCCESS.

THIS is not true.

and sure, you can constantly compare a good looking wuss with a hideous pua but that's comparing apples and oranges. be fair-

what would happen if you pit a good looking pua with a hideous pua, their pua skills being the same. i would submit that the good looking pua would do MUCH BETTER.

inversely, if you have a good looking wbafc vs. a hideous wbafc, guess who would be the more miserable?

looks matter threads exist because there are many ugly folks and the salesmen who would prey on their false hope that spread the lie "looks don't matter" in the first place.

delta

Very well put,

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Yeah. There is extrapolation here. You tried to define an unknown variable from existing facts, which means you attempted to extrapolate that the women that have confessed such instances to me were unattractive. Oh, and if you're going to question somebody's vocabulary, you had damn well spell the word in question properly.

Thats not extrapolation man.
And defining an unknown variable from existing facts is called inference. You know, the thing that many scientists do. THe thing that many homocide detectives do to figure out what happened etc.

And extrapolation is when you try to take a theory and apply it beyond the scope in which it applies. ie taking a theory that is known to apply in one situation, and then bringing it over to another situation and applying it when applying it in such a situation would actually be unjustified. Weither or not the girl was attractive isnt an extrapolation issue, but just simple infering what an unknown variable is, given the existing facts. Im not brining in any theory from some other situation to justify my conclusion. So it really cant be extrapolation. :nono:

I have statistics on my side in this assumption. In your post, you say women have told you that they slept with ugly guys. Well, statistically, most women arent hot, so Im more likely to be right if I assume them to NOT be hot, than the other way around.

Statistically, a woman is just as likely to be hot as she is to be ugly.

Thats a big lie right there. probably only 10% of women are good looking. But even if I be generous and say 25% are good looking, thats still significantly different than 50%, which you are rediculously claiming.

Really? so how is your theory simpler than the one that says "her got her becuase she liked his looks".

An easy question. Confidence is the number one quality women look for in a man, which makes this the simplest reason that a man could acquire a woman in almost every male-female situation. C'mon, give me some challenging ones!

That theory could hold, but once we bring in the boat load of example where a woman clearly fvcked a guy becuase she thought he was hot, this thoery falls. The correlation is strong with his looks, not with his confidence. many hot guys boning hot chicks where the girl is saying "your hot, I want to fvck you!" have average confidence. same degree of confidence with the ugly guys who are not boning these same chicks.

dude, your credibility is smashed, you cant undo it any better than someone can undo a soiled piece of toilet paper from someone's @ss wipe.

Are you so flustered at not being able to address the facts that you're making analogies that don't even make sense? I mean, how many people do you know have an "@ss wipe"? You can say the word "ass", by the way. Do what most people do when they can't fight back with a shattering of a personal attack. Call me a fag and get banned.

How about you see if you can cook up some convincing lie to explain away that post that one guy exposed you with.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

ex·trap·o·late Pronunciation[ik-strap-uh-leyt]
1. to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture.


Whoops. To infer an unknown ("to define an unknown variable") from something that is known ("from existing facts"). My words are in parantheses, which means that my definition was textbook. Textbook, God_of_getting_layed.

Thats great. Thats not the definition we are talking about here. We are talking about the scientific version. You know the one about applying theories where thery shouldnt. Here is an example: Extrapolation would be trying to apply Newtonian Mechanics to objects of very large masses traveling at near light speed. You cant do that, Newtonian mechanics only applies to slow moving objects with relatively small masses.

Thats is the version of extrapolation we are talking about here. Infering the attractiveness of a woman given some facts really isnt that version, becuase the assumption isnt based on some application of some theory applying to a similar situation. Its just simple inference. So I am correct when I say you really cant apply extrapolation here (you know what extrapolation Im talking about). So that posting of definition 1 is pointless.

And extrapolation is when you try to take a theory and apply it beyond the scope in which it applies.

That's the second definition, yeah. But my definition extends both ways, conveniently enough.

Well, the one you gave isnt the one we are talking about here. We are discussing the justification of my inference right? THe scientific one should be used, which cant.

Thats a big lie right there. probably only 10% of women are good looking.

Where do you get your stats? I get mine from mathematical statistics. My birthday is just as likely to be Christmas as it is to be March 15th. Just because someone is more pleasing to the eyes doesn't make it "rare". Gorgeous women are a dime a dozen.

Okay, that statstical fact about birthday's is nice. But you see, March 15th appears just as frequently as Dec 25th, thats why its equally likely. However, a hot chick does not appear as frequently as an ugly one. Bad reasoning using your birthday example to justify your argument. Not everything "random" out there in the world is equally probable, some things are unequal probable. ie, the probability of an american citizen being black versus white is not equal. Same thing with women's attractiveness.

But of course, your bad with probability and statistics anyways, remember our little PM's

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

This is what I'm hearing from you now, dude: "Blah blah blah looks matter. Blah blah looks matter blah blah blah." I'm sure it's similar for you, so there's no point in continuing this lameass back and forth arguing other than to further my case why "looks-matter" threads should be banned.

You have lost the will to debate......ladies and gentleman, I have no further questions.

 

[Delta]

My contention is that looks are just as trivial as wearing blue pants.

you can't honestly believe that. this is why i am saying your argument is specious.

break it down into hypothetical PERCENTAGES if you must. what percentage a factor represents in successfully working a chick.

looks = X%
confidence = Y%
personality = Z%
clothing = A%
grooming = B%
hygiene = C%
the fact that one's pants are the color blue = D%

you are saying that X <= to D ?!

no. i doubt even you believe that.

and in as much as the only a single value up there is INSIGNIFICANT, you are not being truthful either to yourself or in your arguments.

do you seriously have a doubt that a good looking (ah heck, you're saying looks don't matter so let's say STUNNINGLY HOT) PUA will do far better than a hideous PUA with the same level of skill?

if the good looking PUA does better, all other factors being the same, then you cannot argue for what you argue for.

i've been arguing here because i didn't think the axe you had to grind would overpower reason. but if you are hellbent on sticking to your position regardless of validity (and hey, lots of religious people are like this too so at least the fellowship is large), then i give up.

delta

 

[DJF or John]

Damn, I logged in here and seen that Delta's thread has grown to 8 pages.

I look in here expecting some great new wisdom to learn, and it's another fvcking Looks Matter shyt.

And who else? The Dobe Of Getting Rejected.

Listen guys, IGNORE this guy.

He has nothing better to do, then log in here every month and get into a pointless debate with another guy on this forum about why Looks Matter so much.

He adds nothing to this forum at all, but extra thread pages.

You guys need to ignore this guy, PERIOD.

If you ignore a jackazz, pretty soon he just gets tired of being a jackazz and goes away.

You want a discussion, come into the Tips Section. Read my thread I got going on Here's the Magic Pill, and also da dynically's "The Secret" thread.

Invest your time in this forum WISELY, do not invest your time talking to this Dobe.

- John

 

[dynamicallyidle]

howdy fellows,

so i've noticed something on more than one occasion and it seemed like it is maybe a pattern of behavior and i was wondering if anyone had any insight into it.

have you ever seen a tall, good looking guy who is not wuss-like and has no discernible social issues and yet is with a really unattractive and overweight girl?

WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN?

what is going on? and seriously, is it just me or do you see this often enough in your world to make you wonder....

it makes me definitely feel better about being alone but what is going on here?

delta

uhh, because not every guy wants a girl who is hot at the expense of all else. more often than not, hotness comes at the cost of a lack of intelligence or personality or soul.

 

[All The Answers]

Deus - you are a geek who is just asking for a beatdown with the way u talk

feelin safe behind your computer?

loser


you can't argue with a loser like this, he will have a ****ed up smart-ass nerdy loser statement in response to every single sentence he sees

 

[Delta]

But without the meat and potatoes, you are left with an empty shell which equates to a night home alone.

this is the heart of your argument and it is specious.

you say the above in service to your argument - that looks don't matter. but it does not properly argue that.

sure, absolutely, if you are not gutsy enough to approach and open your mouth, then you get nowhere. fine. NO ONE CONTESTS THIS.

but that is a far way from saying that looks don't matter. it's kinda like arguing that SMARTS don't matter when you take a test. all you need to do is have the guts to show up.

sure, if you don't show up, you WILL FAIL. but there are other things being evaluated than mere attendance.

according to what you wrote above, CONFIDENCE. PERSONALITY. that's it.

so at that point, you discount clothing, hygiene, grooming as well as looks.

and you keep contradicting yourself. you keep allowing (quite reasonably) that yes, to an extent, looks matter (and you allow for INDIRECT effects too).... and then you completely nullify the meaning of the acquiescence by equating the effect to be no more than blue pants.... argh.

if you break down your arguments into single, assertive sentences, one after another, they do not add up. at many points, you will find that one conclusion does NOT necessarily follow from previous points.

so basically, you have an indefensible argument that is not based on logic... merely personal animosity. so i'll let you have that and leave you be.

argh. you have an axe to grind. fine. go grind it. i won't chime in to counter you again unless the moderators actually do ban looks threads. which they won't do because the majority of people in most internet forums are not afraid of different view points being expressed.

so i'm completely done. have fun and be well.

delta