The Loveshack/SoSuave Discussion [Merged Threads]

[Señor Fingers]

You can argue about the merits of both places, but at least here you have to say something pretty darned offensive to get your posts deleted. I mean look at this delete-worthy post I made on Loveshack.

Im glad to hear that (and a belated congrats on your wedding)

What part of the world do you live in?

Ooooooh, the SCANDAL!

What is even more interesting is that they totally left in a post where I pasted a link to a foul-mouthed Bill Maher blasting feminism.

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1589967&postcount=34

What are those mods smoking?

 

[Kamille]

Imagine this:

There's a forum where all citizens of the Nation of Djamboui are invited to discuss ideas on how to best get along as a nation.

Djambouis, like, say Belgians, are divided by linguistic and religious lines, the Djam and the Bouis.

On the forum, both groups share ideas, have confrontations, fight over definitions, but generally hold the belief that they can get along and are working on improving their interactions and understanding the other group. Then, a bunch of people from a Boui Sovereingty forum orchestrates an "attack", show up on the federalist forum, and tell the Bouis on the federalist board that they are delusional, that all Djams are irrational, that you should never listen to them because they have a secret agenda.

Who's right, who's wrong? Who holds the truth?

Most importantly : Who decides what truth is? How do we decide what truth is? Does the answer need to be the same for everyone?

 

[Nighthawk]

And to answer your question in your other thread scratch

Based on this exchange, I am curious to know if there is a belief here that, while men may engage in whatever lie-free machinations and strategies as long as the end goal is mutual romantic enjoyment, any strategy or forethought employed by women regarding how much and how fast to give of themselves is evil and unethical.

Nothing evil or unethical about women playing games or 'holding out' as far as I'm concerned. Annoying maybe, but understandable when so many women and men consider putting out early 'slutty'. I don't.

 

[Nighthawk]

Kamille, what if the Djams say they want peace and mutual respect, but actually gets turned on when one of the Bouis cheekily cuts in front of her in the canteen line?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Selection Position Insurance
Examples:
Women are ‘allowed’ to understand men, but women must necessarily ALWAYS be a mystery to men.

Getting “lucky” with a woman when referring to sex.

Selection position insuring methodologies revolve around fomenting the Scarcity Mentality in men. If a commodity can be inflated, the value can be increased, thus ensuring a controlling frame. This convention holds fast to the Feminine Mystique or Female Intuition mythology. So long as women remain 'uknowable' there becomes less motivation to try to understand them. In fact this convention actively discourages any attempt to understand the feminine to the point that men have adopted it and parot it back without being cognizant of it. This is exactly the reason why guys will ridicule men seeking understanding of women when they search it out in "how to get girls" books or DVDs, or on the internet. It's also why men who profess to 'know' how women operate are ridiculed; it's a perfect paradox - to attempt to understand the feminine OR to profess to know the feminine is not only ridiculed, but it marginalizes and ostracizes in either case.

KAMILE, if you want real "discovery", the first step is to put off the conditionings places like LS only reinforce.

 

[scratch]

If I accept that, can we move on to who is 'more correct' based on the arguments and evidence, on the paradigms that both sites purport? Again, I don't want this thread to be sidetracked into a post-modern exercise on the nature of truth.

Very redeeming points. I agree the prevailing philosophy here (if I may presume one such) is generally more effective for men to follow whether their goal is sex or love, or both. However, I have my own confirmation bias, too.

I know it does seem like an aside, but is the fundamental philosophical difference of the two forums something other than the nature of truth? Well, that and the moderation, but surely that can't be what makes this cross-forum sharing valuable.

To be clearer on Hombre, I think she's an intelligent person who didn't best use her intelligence when posting casual sarcasm and avoiding real debate.

You give her far more credit that I. But, with the exception of topics concerning women deceiving men, you're probably far more forgiving than I am.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I know it does seem like an aside, but is the fundamental philosophical difference of the two forums something other than the nature of truth? Well, that and the moderation, but surely that can't be what makes this cross-forum sharing valuable.

Do you find it at all ironic that the only "cross-forum sharing" going on is HERE where all the "misogynists" congregate?

 

[scratch]

KAMILE, if you want real "discovery", the first step is to put off the conditionings places like LS only reinforce.

Everything you wrote above the quoted part of this post was fascinating, thought-provoking and worthy of consideration.

This sentence exposes your agenda as the naked desire for an army of mindless zealots. I take it you fancy yourself something of a writer - need I break down your use of incendiary language?

 

[Phyzzle]

Imagine this:

There's a forum where all citizens of the Nation of Djamboui are invited to discuss ideas on how to best get along as a nation.

Djambouis, like, say Belgians, are divided by linguistic and religious lines, the Djam and the Bouis.

... Who decides what truth is? How do we decide what truth is? Does the answer need to be the same for everyone?

African politics? "Is the truth the same for everyone?" Are you some sort of sociology major?

 

[scratch]

Do you find it at all ironic that the only "cross-forum sharing" going on is HERE where all the "misogynists" congregate?

Do you not understand that such "irony" is a product of moderation rather than position, and that I included it my post as an unimportant throwaway?

Are you simple? Or, are you trying to bring this AFC into the light, and open my eyes to cast off the shackles of postmodern feminist culture?

I am thoroughly willing to listen to your views, but have zero patience for your rhetoric.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Everything you wrote above the quoted part of this post was fascinating, thought-provoking and worthy of consideration.

This sentence exposes your agenda as the naked desire for an army of mindless zealots. I take it you fancy yourself something of a writer - need I break down your use of incendiary language?

Here we go... :nervous:

 

[Phyzzle]

I take it you fancy yourself something of a writer - need I break down your use of incendiary language?

Oh you're gonna LOVE Rollo. Let me find that one quote . . .

the weight gain from pregnancy line is one of the biggest social contrivances ever to benefit women.
...
The "I got fat after the first kid" excuse is yet one more contrivance that let's women who get comfortable in their lives off the hook.

Muhuhuhahaha. How does that one make you feel?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I am thoroughly willing to listen to your views, but have zero patience for your rhetoric.

Then let me do the work here for you:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1377115&postcount=462

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1377824&postcount=514

You see, when a debater lacks a valid counterpoint they often resort to 'poisoning the well' rather than attacking the argument.

 

[Phyzzle]

OK, I'm really not helping. That quote isn't nearly as incendiary in context. It does make more sense as part of a larger, practical, realistic point of view.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=107015&page=3

 

[Kamille]

African politics? "Is the truth the same for everyone?" Are you some sort of sociology major?

PhD

Nighthawk, I think that the answer to your question is that we shouldn't generalize and assume that :
1) All women-djam actually want peace and mutual respect or
2) that peace and mutual respect means the same thing for all Djam-Bouis
3) that all women-djams get turned on when Bouis cut in line
4) that all Bouis need to use cutting in line as their technique to get a Djamboui's attention.

My other point is: if it works for you, then do it. We can all offer advice to others, but we shouldn't assume that they don't know what they're doing just because they don't share our beliefs.

Also, if a 'truth' needs to be forced onto people, history has shown over and over again that it most likely means that it was only the "truth" for a portion of the population but didn't work for all. (Communism springs to mind, but also the French Revolution).

the world is a big wide place, and there's room for diversity and disagreement. What I like about SS is your focus on self-improvement. I think this is key in that it offers a transformational basis: always make sure that what you do is working to help you acheive your goals. That doesn't mean, however, that you have to dismiss other people's persectives or strategies as delusional. We all make mistakes, and we all learn different things from them.

 

[scratch]

Muhuhuhahaha. How does that one make you feel?

Swing and a miss. I presume that quote was inserted here to show me that he often uses cult language. However, it speaks to an entirely different point. My problem with the sentence I quoted is that it arrogantly presumed that the SS way is the "one true way."

This quote, while also somewhat provocative, doesn't beg to be followed. It's simply an opinion, and one with which I don't wholly disagree. I know how I handle the issue of weight gain in a relationship, and it's based on tough love. I just don't place the blame on social convention.

 

[Lishy]

Many people are here because they've found out the hard way that (most) women's dating advice is not very useful and often counter-productive. They've already shed their preconceptions. In short, because women say (and think) they want one thing (a nice guy/doormat) and in reality go for the mysterious, challenging or often unobtainable guy that doesn't treat them like a princess and knows how to push her buttons.

A case in point was Lishy's advice thread. Her laundry list wasn't totally inaccurate, and she did mention 'don't be a puppy-dog, women hate that.' But a look at her posts at LS shows that what really drove her bananas was a man she couldn't have. Most women will leave out these factors and men are better off receiving advice from those who are willing to tell them. If women were more honest with themselves, we'd listen.
I don't think people with different viewpoints to me are stupid. I don't think Hombre posted intelligently though.

You have failed to mention that when I was asked about that LS post I said that yes I did go nuts over a man I couldnt have BUT it doesnt last long! He came running back at me like a puppy when I lost interest and he lost out!

SO it may work for the short term but long term its a no no!

Sorry to go so off topic but I hate being half quoted! (plus that post I made was 3 years ago and i would NEVER get involved with a pathetic playa again!)

 

[scratch]

Then let me do the work here for you:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1377115&postcount=462

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1377824&postcount=514

You see, when a debater lacks a valid counterpoint they often resort to 'poisoning the well' rather than attacking the argument.

I read those posts. I've said in no less than two other posts that this forum is better moderated than loveshack. I've gone on to elaborate that the area where this forum is no better, and perhaps even worse, is the extent to which there isn't an opposing viewpoint regarding gender superiority.

Edit: Let me elaborate. The men there can be braying asses, but on occasion they can also introduce an opposing viewpoint. Read my posts, if you wish. Here, however, there just isn't an opposing viewpoint. When I questioned you, didn't someone post "uh-oh, now he's gonna get it?"

You don't really feel that my posts here are primarily designed as ad homenim attacks or deflections, do you? In fact, by accusing me of poisoning the well instead of providing counterarguments addressing my points, are you not engaging in the very tactic of which you accuse me?

 

[Phyzzle]

You don't really feel that my posts here are primarily designed as ad homenim attacks or deflections, do you?

Maybe this one:

This sentence exposes your agenda as the naked desire for an army of mindless zealots.

It is an attack that makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, "Your moderators delete dissenting viewpoints" =" Join my army of zombies." Those two things obviously mean the same thing. Bravo. Of course, it's not so much ad hominen as non-sequitor, I guess.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

My problem with the sentence I quoted is that it arrogantly presumed that the SS way is the "one true way."

Common, simple, binary response. Nowhere did I state SS was the "one true way." My argument up to this point is illustrating the differences between the forums and what I (and others) can easily observe as the mechanics used on LS to keep their members inured and comfortable.

Don't like the word 'Conventions"? How about we say "Social Contrivances" or "Psycho-Social Mechanics"? Semantics aside, no member of LS has yet to offer a real counter-point to what's been observed on that forum, nor has there been offered any rebuttal to my reasonings for it. What has been offered is simplistic binary responses, and attempts to discredit by association or straw men. Attack the argument dear, your avoiding to do so only proves my own.

Or we could always continue this cross-forum sharing over on LS if you prefer? How long would that thread last there do you suppose?