Question PuertoRican Lover's views!

[Happiness Renewed]

I read his sexuality posts about wh@res and homos...very convincing and very well written. But there is no statistics, no evidence to back them up. It sounds ideal, but nature isnt ideal. I am not too sure if what he is saying is right and I dont think he can prove it.

 

[frivolousz21]

accoring to him...a women you live with or are with and ur not married is a HOE.

 

[italostud]

I like his advice. He seems to see the world without the "blinders" that many of us have on. Love IS blind and sometimes you need an objective, experienced voice to lead you the right way.

 

[comote]

You should question everyones' views. At the same time you should read everyones' views with an open mind.

 

[DeathDealer]

happiness renewed = puerto rican lover

 

[MrHarris]

This site is like all the other forums out there, full of opinions. You find someone who speaks what you like hearing and listen and learn.

The gentleman in question is only giving his opinion on those subjects and his view points from his belief system. I don't see where he needs to prove anything when it's all based on his opinion.

 

[MetalFortress]

His advice is good, but I don't like that he has no expeirence to back it up, or that when he's confronted to back it up, he makes excuses.

 

[rgeere]

I really don't mind the guy's advice personally, but his constant refrences to 'homos' and 'wh0res' sort of gives out a negitive impression that could be some sort of red-flag or trap other people shouldn't be falling into.

Other than that, I don't see a problem with his advice or him in general.

 

[Climax]

*G*

It doesnt matter if there is "proof" or not... It makes sence, all u need to tell if its right or not is your common sence. USE IT!


Laterz...

 

[TyTe`EyEs]

PRL is a man among men.

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Originally posted by Happiness Renewed
I read his sexuality posts about wh@res and homos...very convincing and very well written. But there is no statistics, no evidence to back them up. It sounds ideal, but nature isnt ideal. I am not too sure if what he is saying is right and I don’t think he can prove it.

Unlike Pook, I am available to respond to your questions and concerns. Pook’s presence on SoSuave was for his own personal development in his metamorphosis from “I don’t know how to approach/pursue women” to “I know how to approach/pursue women”!! The only reason for which I am here on SosSuave is for your development and not mine!!

DJ Happiness Renewed, on what exactly do you need clarification?? Does that which is natural need proof?? Does a squirrel and his activities need proof from you to make it a squirrel?? Who are you to go against its' nature?? Can you define a squirrel and its' activities better than the squirrel itself?? HUH??? All of our definitions and perceptions of reality are defined by the natural world that we live in. Science only discovers the natural order of things – it (we) does (do) not create the natural order of things!!

Any one person who goes outside of the "natural order of things" has "deviated" from that which is right - since it is the natural order of things that sets our standards as humans because our minds are inextricably tied to that which is in our nature that makes us human. So it is with the squirrel – can a squirrel be outside of it’s nature and remain a squirrel?? The squirrel doesn’t have the option of being any thing other than a squirrel because it’s nature does not give it the mind to be any thing other than what it is!!!

But we, as humans, do have the capacity and powers to go against our nature because we have been given the powers of “free will”. Our minds, hence “will” can be “influenced” by corrupting forces, only if we are not in tune with our true nature and do not adhere to our natural dictates in which we are created!!! You have been corrupted, and because you are not in tune with the natural order of things you need further explanation on what is truly our nature – you have been corrupted by hors and homos through their inundation of false propagation of our natures as men and women.

Do not listen to or do that which goes against the nature of man – you should challenge doctrine that goes against our nature on the foundation of the true nature of a man - you will never lose!!!!

 

[PuertoRican_Lover]

Originally posted by MetalFortress
His advice is good, but I don't like that he has no expeirence to back it up, or that when he's confronted to back it up, he makes excuses.

Truth is what it is regardless of one's experience!! The nature of a squirrel is a squirrel regardless of my personal experiences!!! What "excuses" have I made to go against that which is real??

Metal. "experience' is tied to "action" and "time" and I have thousands of more "experiences" than you if it is based on action and time, considering my age and past actions!!!

Originally posted by Happiness Renewed
I am not too sure if what he is saying is right and I dont think he can prove it.

We do not need to "prove" reality, we just need to "acknowledge" it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dig it]

Look. Take what he says, and use what he says...

if thats what you want to do.

But dont come on here trying to prove him wrong.

It sounds like you read something of his, and now you are in denial or just can't beleive it.

Thats up to you....dont dump your problems on us, we've got enough of our own.



Personally i read his post on the order of things, and its pretty darn solid.

And there is no reality - only perspective.

The word reality in its truest form by definition is kind of impossible.

In that wat it means one view one actuality.

Sure, there may be one actuality....true....but its how people perceive that actuality that makes all the difference.

For example. September 11, 2 planes crash into the twin towers. One reality.

But if you were a muslim it would be a good thing. And if you were an american citizen or just about anyone else from this side of the world, it would be a bad thing.

See. One event. Two different views.

So perhaps for everyone it would be better instead of degrading it or putting it down....if for only the reason that it was so complete and seemingly acurate....ask questions of it before you try and sack it. Thats more productive...

You saw PRL's view. It may be reality, but if you decide it is, how do you use it
for your benifit?

Thats one question that give you some benifit.

For me....i am now eyes-wide-open to the fact that religeon and feminism has scewered the way the world perception is.

I've asked girls and guys and mates and friends, and its brough about some interesting topics....

but for me i now know that there is sometimes a surface to peel beneath when it comes to women.....putting it into a form that would benifit me, i now know that some resistance is because of all of this, and deangelo says the same (and sells that ****e )...so its good to remember who you are talking to...thats what i take out of it...

and who am i talking to when i am takling to the average (non tested) girl? I am effectively talking to a product of society.

So its in my set/routine things i find out....just how they feel about this stuff, because it helps me deal with them.

Everythig is what yuo make it, and for me, i have found much truth in PRL's advice....but like all advice it has its place....so dont get paranoid or anything.



cheers

 

[NewMan]

Again very well written by PRL - But he is way off

Any one person who goes outside of the "natural order of things" has "deviated" from that which is right

What is "Natural"? Who defined it? and why was it defined so?

What is "right" - who defines what is right?



PRL's vision of natural and right - is what society taught him. Women should not have sex before marrage.

That my friends is religion at work.

It is not the NATURAL order of things.

Marrage is a man made ceremony. It is not natural.

Men were never designed to be with one woman and one woman alone. Men re-produce. that is our natural drive and goal. to fvck and to produce children.

Societies rules have changed that.

 

[Don Juanabbe]

Having personally lost my entire 20s to hors masquerading as women, I can attest to PRLs views. He is pretty much 100% accurate.

You young ones have never known anything different as you have been brought up in an era where the noise being created by a very vocal minority (gays) and a very vocal majority (Feminists) has reached deafening proportions. You don't know of anything else, that is why you find his frank and direct talk so alien and reject it outright.

Not to sound arrogant, because I am not, but I think I offer the complete package to what women say they want. I'm a good looking, tall, smart, decent man. Yet there are no takers. Only hors.

 

[00Kevin]

Originally posted by NewMan
Again very well written by PRL - But he is way off




What is "Natural"? Who defined it? and why was it defined so?

What is "right" - who defines what is right?



PRL's vision of natural and right - is what society taught him. Women should not have sex before marrage.

That my friends is religion at work.

It is not the NATURAL order of things.

Marrage is a man made ceremony. It is not natural.

Men were never designed to be with one woman and one woman alone. Men re-produce. that is our natural drive and goal. to fvck and to produce children.

Societies rules have changed that.

This is all bull-****.

A man is not a man unless he has his human nature under control. A man shapes his inner self and his physical nature by the force of his own will. Only through effort and hard work does mankind evolve. If we simply stay true to human nature then there would be nothing but chaos and no moral fiber to hold things together.


The lessons of history have defined what is right and wrong. When man learns from his errors he becomes stronger and then elevates himself to a new level. It is through these lessons that our social constructs take shape.

PL is simply staying true to the rules and concepts that have taken us to the level we are at today. I'm glad there are people like PL to make things clear. We have come so far it would be a shame to fall down and have to learn what is right and wrong all over again.

Unfortunately there are many people in the world who think that modern ideas and concepts are ALWAYS right. The arrogance of such people is enormous. PL views might be labeled as old fashioned but it doesn't mean that he is wrong.

The other important thing to remember is that Modern social ideas are actually only supported by a small minority of the worlds population. With the exception of the feminized girly men, most men around the world are in full agreement with PL.

 

[CraigMack]

Originally posted by NewMan
Again very well written by PRL - But he is way off




What is "Natural"? Who defined it? and why was it defined so?

What is "right" - who defines what is right?



PRL's vision of natural and right - is what society taught him. Women should not have sex before marrage.

That my friends is religion at work.

It is not the NATURAL order of things.

Marrage is a man made ceremony. It is not natural.

Men were never designed to be with one woman and one woman alone. Men re-produce. that is our natural drive and goal. to fvck and to produce children.

Societies rules have changed that.

Well said. Religion is part of the matrix. Give in to the matrix and you will live a peasants life but find eternal happiness. That is after your dead.

Unfortunately PRL has been programmed by his religious upbringing. There is nothing wrong with the dogma of religion because it gives a society a direction to a better world. Follow the rules and society will be a better place.

It helps keep all of us sheep in order.

"Sheep thought I?"

 

[00Kevin]

Originally posted by CraigMack
Well said. Religion is part of the matrix. Give in to the matrix and you will live a peasants life but find eternal happiness. That is after your dead.

Unfortunately PRL has been programmed by his religious upbringing. There is nothing wrong with the dogma of religion because it gives a society a direction to a better world. Follow the rules and society will be a better place.

It helps keep all of us sheep in order.

"Sheep thought I?"

you guys can knock his religious upbringing,but the fact is most religious teachings are the result of 1000's of years of wisdom.

I'd put such wisdom up against your modern secular humanist views or raher 50 years of foolishness any day.

Most people in todays world that complain about guys like PL are older ugly people from the 60's. They are Liberal (with a small 'l') and are only thinking about what they want. They are the lemmings that run and run only to jump off the clif and die.

 

[California Love]

Originally posted by 00Kevin
you guys can knock his religious upbringing,but the fact is most religious teachings are the result of 1000's of years of wisdom.

I don't recall having ever disagreed with you kevin, but that is just pure horsesh1t. Sex after marriage was used to control the population, especially those of the lower classes to prevent a rise in street urchins + abandoned kids, whom would simply be an unnecessary toll on the economy. Religious doctrine was used to control the masses in medieval Europe; whether you wanna abide by them now in the 21th century is totally your choice, but teachings such as this are definitely not conventional wisdom.

 

[00Kevin]

Originally posted by California Love
I don't recall having ever disagreed with you kevin, but that is just pure horsesh1t. Sex after marriage was used to control the population, especially those of the lower classes to prevent a rise in street urchins + abandoned kids, whom would simply be an unnecessary toll on the economy. Religious doctrine was used to control the masses in medieval Europe; whether you wanna abide by them now in the 21th century is totally your choice, but teachings such as this are definitely not conventional wisdom.

this couldn't be further from the truth. There are many reasons why religious people suport the view of no sex before marriage and NONE of them are related to population control.

Your reference to the church alone is quite usless since there are many other religions that support the concept.

Most of the reasons for the suport of it are spirtual and not humanistic.


I would also like to say that I don't recal ever talking about sex before marriage. So I don''t know what you are trying to start here.