Objectivism: Ayn Rand's Philosophy for Living on Earth

Topic by RoyDal

RoyDal

Home Forums Philosophy Objectivism: Ayn Rand's Philosophy for Living on Earth

This topic contains 19 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by RedHeadedStranger  RedHeadedStranger 2 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23290
    +2
    RoyDal
    RoyDal
    Participant

    I fully believe Objectivism is completely compatible with MGTOW. In fact, it’s hard to tell them apart.

    Here is the link to the Ayn Rand Institute: https://www.aynrand.org/

    Now for some good old ad hominem attacks; no debate would be complete without them:

    Rand was an atheist and so are most Objectivists. That doesn’t matter to me. In my opinion, the devout can incorporate divine worship into their lives and still do the Objectivism thing with no conflicts.

    Rand was married for 50 years. That’s a bit more problematic. In my opinion, staying single doesn’t conflict with Objectivism, and neither does marriage.

    Rand cheated on her husband. She wasn’t NAWALT after all. He went along with it, the simp. Is her philosophy without value because of this? I’m coming down on the side of greatly valuable.

    Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

    #24235
    John Doe
    John Doe
    Participant
    631

    You become what you follow.

    I started a thread on this a week or two ago.  I think objectivism is a philosophical porthole into the mind of the modern woman.  It is less about truth and more about psychology.  Studying objectivism helps one to better understand the dark side of women.

    In regards to compatibility, objectivism is compatible with along of modern movemetns.  To be compatible does not always make it right, it just makes it politically viable.

    Objectivism is a philosophy that elevates the ego rather than seeks to go past it.  It limits us to the human ego, inadvertantly limiting the human ego.

    A lot of its premises also have to be taken on faith or blind trust, which kind of nullifies its “reason only” stance.

    Historically speaking, one of the reasons her philosophy became so popular is that she and her followers literally went from university to university advertising it.  It would be no different than how a televangelist becomes popular: Mass produced dialect laced with sophistry.

    #28385
    +1
    Peterfa
    peterfa
    Participant
    830

    I pondered the ardour people had with Ryndian ethics. To me, it’s a logical fallacy: to be immoral is moral. I just don’t get it.

    I find it disturbing to hear how people embrace it. There are other problems: in a world with children, elderly, and disabled/disenfranchised, it makes no sense. It’s also arrogant to fight thinking everybody else is really just a simp. She doesn’t know why they chose their attitudes. Now I will agree though that there are a lot of sheep who believe lies just to have it easy. Those people have their evil but will also get their rewards.

    Also, to me, acting like that is weakness. You can only have an immoral person if you have an environment of hard working people who don’t act selfishly. Say you have a small band of survivors. They’ll divide labor and get working. The stronger might enjoy helping the weaker in their way, with the belief that they’d do the same, and will enjoy a wonderful life with their family in old age. However, what if one decide to act like Ms. Ryn? All hell breaks loose and the stronger leave to let the weaker fend and die.

    So, Ryndian ethics requires ignorance and arrogance. It’s foolish.

    Also, Ryn was lucky she was a woman, because had she tried that s~~~, she’d been fried at the stake should she have been a man.

    #33981
    +1
    RoyDal
    RoyDal
    Participant

    Here ya go: https://www.aynrand.org/
    I recommend her books on philosophy over her novels. But I’m odd that way.

    Needless to say, there is a Wikipedia page on Objectivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29
    I recommend you go straight to the references and follow the paper trail to her original writings.

    While we’re at it, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism which in my view is a similar philosophy and is uniquely American in its origin. I think of Objectivism as American in origin too, but I’m odd that way.

    In the end, my interest in philosophy is to answer what are for me crucial questions:
    * Who, or what, am I?
    * How can I live a good life?

    (Let us gloss over the definitions of these terms; just go with the common man’s understanding of them. Word games are a crashing bore.)

    Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

    #35865
    +1
    Qbeck01
    Qbeck01
    Participant
    56

    Objectivism comes from a school of thought in philosophy. Empiricism –>Logical Positivism–>Objectivism. Well, perhaps not so linear.

    If we accept reality and that reason is an absolute then mystical belief is incompatible with Objectivism; If you don’t hold that reason is an absolute then you can’t call yourself an Objectivist.

    Selfishness seems to be the sticking point of this philosophy. Aspiring to your highest potential and following your own goals/dreams cannot be called immoral but if you use the word selfishness then people have a knee jerk reaction. Enlightened self interests would have been more accurate.

    As to Altruism being evil. I would have objected to this in the past but after seeing SJW in action it may be wise to re-evaluate altruism.

    As the saying goes “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    #50889
    RedHeadedStranger
    RedHeadedStranger
    Participant
    202

    The red pill analogy is the most apt, seamless, and empowering analogies in my life.  Years before I heard of MGTOW, while I was living as a MGHOW, I undertook an in-depth study of the virtues of objectivism — rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, & pride.

    Always treat others as an end in themselves, never as a means to an end.  This means don’t use people.  A truly rational man is neither an abuser, nor is he abused.  Objectivism is the 3rd path.  Conventional society has a Machiavellian/Nietzschean view of morality.  Either trample over everyone who stands in your way, climbing a pile of corpses on your way to the top; or be one of those corpses.  Objectivism rejects this, and places emphasis upon developing authentic virtues.  Success is the result of being the living embodiment of the seven virtues listed above.  It is the essence of what it means to be an Alpha MGHOW.  It is the philosophy of thriving — eudemonia.

    Seriously, objectivism is the most empowering philosophy on earth.  It is the original red pill.  It dove-tails seamlessly with the principles/virtues of an Alpha MGTOW.  If you are intellectually predisposed toward reading, thinking, studying, and working hard to integrate mind and body into complete man; you owe it to yourself to do more than just wiki it and watch a few youtube videos.  It is a comprehensive philosophy, with literally thousands of pages of material.  I know it is a mountain; I am glad to be a mountain-climber.

    If all that commitment is not your thing, I understand.  The MGTOW red pill will get you through life.  The objectivist red pill will literally, in every way, transform you from Morpheus into Neo.

    I used the Neo analogy to describe my beliefs with my friends.  I remember their smirks.  So, I assumed the role of Morpheus, offering the objectivist red pill to my best mates.  Two of them took it, one did/will not.  That’s ok.  He is still my bro, and I will be there, MGTOW red pills in hand, when she leaves him.

    PS — I have a bachelors in philosophy.  This does not mean I want you to take my word for it; such a thing is antithetical to my beliefs.  I only point it out to indicate that I have developed a finely tuned bulls~~~ meter.  I spent years constructing and deconstructing arguments, identifying fallacies, studying logic, and reducing abstract rational concepts into their concrete empirical implications.  I believe philosophy is the most powerful force on earth.  Bad philosophy leads to totalitarian hell.  Good philosophy leads to freedom, personal responsibility, and power.  It’s really THAT powerful.

     

    #50911
    +1
    RoyDal
    RoyDal
    Participant

    Objectivism really does cut away all the bulls~~~.

    Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

    #51307
    +2
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    723

    Please delete my last post, I’m trying again pasting into notepad first:

    Roydal: First, as one who has a ‘Who is John Galt?’ bumper sticker on my car, I’m definitely sympathetic to Rand.

    Rand may have been ‘married’ for 50 years, but it was anything BUT a conventional marriage.  Rand had no children.  She had an affair with Nathaniel Branden, who was 25 years younger than her.  Her husband Frank O’ Connor was told of the affair & she arranged her schedule to spend some nights with Frank and the others with Nathaniel Brandon.  Brandon’s wife was also aware of the affair.  Both Brandens were acolytes of Rand & that’s how they met; interestingly, it was only when Branden had an affair with a woman he DIDN’T tell Rand about, that she ended their relationship.  Nathaniel Branden was #2 in the Objectivist movement of the 1960’s.  Ending it also meant complete disassociation from Branden and the end of the Nathanial Branden Institute which promoted objectivism.  All of these individuals are so intertwined; the Brandens met due to their interest in Rand, and much of the early ‘Class of 43’ Fountainhead inner circle of Rand followers were members of a Jewish Canadian family and their relatives.

    Rand became an atheist at the age of 13 for two reasons, according to Barbara Branden (yes, Nathaniel’s wife and later author of the Passion of Ayn Rand, an un-official biography of Rand): 1.) There can be nothing greater than man and 2.) No proof exists. Reason #1 is an unproveable expression of the philosophy’s central tenet, egoism — and hardly a common reason for disbelief.

    John Doe: Since Rand’s heroines were women of action, and had no interest in men’s wealth or resources, I don’t see objectivism meshing with modern feminism.  Objectivism is so much against self-sacrifice of men or anyone.  Rand’s heroines were also not self-obsessed with their beauty or physical appearance.  Dagny Taggart ran a railroad and was an executive.  Dominique Francon, the heroine of the Fountainhead, ultimately chose Roark over Toohey or Keating and had an independent mind.  And she respected Man’s achievements above all else.  Now, there is overlap in some feminist ideas: For instance, Objectivism rejects traditional restrictions on women and regards productive work as a virtue.  But Rand herself, explicitly rejected feminism and called herself a ‘male chauvinist’ due to her respect for great men of history, and rejected the collectivist feminist narrative against dead white men.  So she didn’t buy into the patriarchy malarkey.

    Promotion doesn’t explain the success of Ayn Rand’s novels — their expression of freedom, self-sufficiency, hard work, and ideals resonated with the public — THAT is what made them popular.  The Nathanial Branden Institute may have promoted her works, but more or less merely provided additional information to those already interested in her novels.  A lot of objectivism is certainly based on premises — more like values — if you believe living for yourself is the highest value, then you can derive a lot of philosophy from that.  In contrast, if you believe you are your brother’s keeper, you can derive a lot of philosophy from that.  I would argue being your brother’s keeper, may not help others — look at the terrible consequences of the welfare state.  Academics and critics panned her books; Objectivism was a popular movement.  The lack of success at colleges and in academia led to Rand’s being depressed after the publication of Atlas Shrugged.

    Pascal: Really?  Why do the weaker have to die?  Can’t they just live on less?  Should we force charity through taxes?  Or should we, as individuals, be able to give to the causes WE want IF we want, to charities that will encourage and INSIST upon responsibility?  Look at what the Great Society has wrought in terms of the destruction of the underclass, along with America’s insane drug laws.  Private charities are not necessarily bad because many of them hold beneficiaries accountable, but government assistance typically comes with no strings or laughable strings attached — very, very, very bad — even corrosive to our values or work ethic, in my humble opinion.  I believe altruism CAN be good — if it doesn’t foster dependency — the difference between giving someone a fish and a fishing pole.  Even so, some people must have fish — they are incapable of caring for themselves due to age or infirmity.  For instance, I don’t believe in unemployment or social security; I should have to save for my own retirement or loss of job.  And if we MUST have unemployment, why not then give those who partake in it, less retirement benefits, and those that don’t, a greater retirement benefit (conceptually; I realize socialist security is a ponzi scheme and my ‘account’ of ‘money invested’ comprises a big IOU – so I’m talking in principle here).  I can cite other compelling examples, such as health care — it was cheaper for individuals when hospitals had to compete with one another and many people paid out-of-pocket.  I’m talking 75+ years ago here.  And low-interest student loans and subsidies, have only made higher education more expensive.

    I would actually argue it is IMMORAL to help people who can help themselves; it fosters a culture of dependency.  How is giving people with more talent who work harder, more reward, unjust?  How is that causing someone to ‘die’?

    Qbeck1: Yes, rational self-interest or enlightened self-interest is a lot less inflammatory to the general public than ‘selfishness’.

    It’s hard to see objectivism as compatible with theism since objectivism is so against altruism and most religions, are pro-altruism.  That, and religions deny reality or are based on faith.  And, they place man subservient to a God or Gods.

    Rand saw her philosophy as ‘perfect’ and her group of acolytes, which included Allen Greenspan in the 1960’s, jokingly called it the ‘collective’.  Group think for individualists?  You betcha.  When people disagreed they were ‘excommunicated’.  And Rand believed you had to accept her philosophy in toto (totalism).  I actually agree with egoism but it’s hard to argue that there was no reason to call the 60’s inner circle ‘The cult of Ayn Rand.”.

    #53200
    John Doe
    John Doe
    Participant
    631

    In regards to MGTOW and objectivism it breaks down to this simple observation/question:

    Rand was a woman.  Rand “created”/promoted objectivism.  Objectivism claims to “help” men.   1-Either Rand was a NAWALT, which conflicts with MGTOW ideology in regards to how women are or 2- She was a awalt and can only give a woman’s point of view in relations to men’s issues.

    Regardless of either these are important questions, because as MGTOW a common observation being made is:

    -Women deceive men.

    -Women only care about themselves.

    It confuses me because MGTOW claim that women should not be in charge (man in charge of his own life) yet a lot seem to “follow” Rand.

    A good metaphor for this would be the wife who lets her man think he is free but is really directing his actions (in the household.)

    I also held a similar opinion with Esthar villar which is on another thread.

     

    #53210
    +1
    RedHeadedStranger
    RedHeadedStranger
    Participant
    202

    In regards to MGTOW and objectivism it breaks down to this simple observation/question: Rand was a woman. Rand “created”/promoted objectivism. Objectivism claims to “help” men. 1-Either Rand was a NAWALT, which conflicts with MGTOW ideology in regards to how women are or 2- She was a awalt and can only give a woman’s point of view in relations to men’s issues. Regardless of either these are important questions, because as MGTOW a common observation being made is: -Women deceive men. -Women only care about themselves. It confuses me because MGTOW claim that women should not be in charge (man in charge of his own life) yet a lot seem to “follow” Rand. A good metaphor for this would be the wife who lets her man think he is free but is really directing his actions (in the household.) I also held a similar opinion with Esthar villar which is on another thread.

    Rand was an AWALT.  She famously cuckoled her husband.  Her walk did not backup her talk.  So what?  If a blind man tells me the sky is blue, does that mean the sky is not blue?  It is possible to identify, espouse, and practice rationality without achieving moral perfection.  However, that does not mean that one’s goal should not be such.  Sure she deceived men, sure she only cared about herself and the people from whom she gained value.  Can you say that you do not deceive men, or that you care about all others – even those who would destroy you?  I don’t think you can.  I can’t.  It is easy to fall prey to the ad hominem fallacy: ‘she was a woman, therefore her philosophy is moot.’

    Listen, I get it.  She was a whore.  She ran a cult.  She was a meth-head.  But that does not mean that what she said is bulls~~~.  If she had been born a man, would you still disagree with her words?  If so, then let’s talk about that.  If not, then realize that sometimes, and rarely, a woman can say something that is absolutely correct.  Call your mom and ask her if 2+2=4.  See.

    Before you ban me from the forum for white-knighting for Rand, let me say that I don’t give a s~~~.  The woman is MY personal hero, and I have yet to meet her intellectual equal, male or female.

    If this is my final post, I shall say farewell with a quote from Captain America:

    “Doesn’t matter what the press says.  Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say.  Doesn’t matter if the whole country says that something wrong is something right.  This nation was founded upon one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences.  When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world….  No. You move.”

     

     

    #53247
    +2
    John Doe
    John Doe
    Participant
    631

    Before you ban me from the forum for white-knighting for Rand, let me say that I don’t give a s~~~. The woman is MY personal hero, and I have yet to meet her intellectual equal, male or female. If this is my final post, I shall say farewell with a quote from Captain America:

     

    Uhh…I am not a mod.  And saying something like that does not get you banned.  It is pretty opened minded in regards to free speech around here.

     

    I am just curious about the circular thinking.

     

    We reject the bulls~~~ of women, yet claim several female authors are what led us to confirm MGTOW.  However we claim that women just utter

    constant B.S all the time because they are selfish.  Yet we state that the female authors are not completely selfish, meaning that not all women are completely selfish.  However we claim that all females are selfish, meaning the authors are selfish.  So you have a two fold problem:

    First is that if all females are selfish than they are interpreting the truth in a selfish manner.

    Second we say these females are correct so in many respects we are emulating them (in regards to being honest) and placing women on a pedestal.

    Then they try to justify their selfishness, as Rand and Villar have done.

    If anything these books seem to be clever ways of manipulating men.  As you are stuck with a AWALT or a NAWALT.

    If AWALT then we can assume that the authors are twisting the truth for personal benefit, which by default could be harmful for us.

    If NAWALT then authors such as Villar are wrong, eliminating the premise of the book.  Authors like Rand, only prove that men are not completely oppressed as some women will support them.

    In regards to the women being right about 2+2=4 as meaning women can sometimes be right is fair enough.  But Villar and Rand are not arguing mathematics but rather perspective of reality.  Although a perspective cannot uproot the truth of 2+2=4 it can uproot the need to learn it altogether.

    Even if you read male authors of similar subjects the perspectives they give are written way differently than that of females.  Women cannot help but defuse their view of the world (emotionally speaking) into the text.

     

    All I am saying is I don’t get the women worship.

     

    #53284
    RedHeadedStranger
    RedHeadedStranger
    Participant
    202

    All I am saying is I don’t get the women worship.

    Fair enough man, and I couldn’t agree with that more.

    PS  I shouldn’t have said you’d ban me, I meant if a mod read it.  My bad.

    #53330
    +2
    FrankOne
    FrankOne
    Participant
    723

    To a smart girl men are no problem – they’re the answer.
    Zsa Zsa Gabor

    Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/z/zsa_zsa_gabor.html#t8lJ8IZ1giXjGPxv.99

    First off, Rand didn’t write a lot about ‘women’s issues’.  I was really into Rand as a teenager 20 years ago so I can relate some of her views on sexuality and gender and relationships:

    Red-Headed Stranger: I love your avatar.  I agree, gender doesn’t negate someone’s contributions!  And there are a handful of women innovators throughout history; Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, Marie Curie, etc — though I would argue, far fewer than men.  I agree with a lot of MGTOW philosophy, but dismissing every woman as brainless or unmotivated… is untrue… For instance, there are women that DON’T want marriage and DON’T want children.  There are also men and women who are asexual and basically have zero sex drive.  Statistically, these women are less common; but that does not mean they do not exist.

    That said, there are lots of aspects of many adult women that I find despicable, such as crying to get their way, emotional manipulation, etc.

    Several comments about Rand:

    1.) She was against homosexuality

    2.) She basically felt women should find a hero to worship and man, find a strong-willed ‘heroine’:

    A man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions.  Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive, and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with, and I will tell you his valuation of himself. … He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience – or to fake – a sense of self-esteem.  The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer – because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut. (Rand 1957, 489-490)

    3.) Rand wrote fiction to communicate her philosophical ideas, but she also wrote non-fiction such as ‘Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal’ and ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’.  The latter, is lesser-known.  Why is Rand popular?  Well, Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ is highly recommended, but a lot dryer read than ‘Atlas Shrugged’ or ‘The Fountainhead’.

    Lest I post yet another ‘too long don’t read’ message, see http://folk.uio.no/thomas/po/female-hero.html for details.

    Esther Vilar certainly wrote some truths about the nature of a typical women in ‘The Manipulated Man’.  I had never heard of it before I came upon this forum.

    As far as the ‘woman worship’, I don’t favor IT or ‘man worship’.  Better to assess the ideas on their merits rather than based upon who they came from.  I also disagree with the ‘totalism’ of ‘Randroids’.  For instance, I disagree with Rand on objective morality.  Unfortunately, Rand wasn’t a coalition builder; requiring everyone to think the same in the ‘collective’ and excommunicating those that did not, did not serve to advance the movement.  This sort of intellectual purity may sound good in principle, but I’d rather have a political party, that, say, wants to shrink government 50% in power, rather than calling them unprincipled because they don’t want to shrink it 90% like I do… Disassociating with the Nathaniel Branden Institute also damaged the propagation of the philosophy.  The personal grudge with Nathaniel caused her to have Alan Greenspan sign the excommunication decree

    ‘Because Nathanial Branden and Barbara Branden, in a series of actions, have betrayed fundamental principles of Objectivism, we condemn and repudiate these two persons irrevocably’.

    This is a good discussion of the cult of Ayn Rand from Skeptic magazine: http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml that will give more insight into what I am trying to communicate here.  This doesn’t invalidate her ideas but it is useful to be familiar with some of these issues.

    #55605
    +1
    John Doe
    John Doe
    Participant
    631

    Fair enough man, and I couldn’t agree with that more. PS I shouldn’t have said you’d ban me, I meant if a mod read it. My bad.

    It is pretty laid back and open minded around here.  Just don’t threaten to blow up the world and you are good.  With that being said, you will find this section of the forums a place where everyone almost “agrees to disagree” but still accept eachother as brothers.

     

    #55772
    IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)
    IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)
    Participant
    2172

    I do see a connection between the two, and it can be hard to tell apart.  But, my hope is MGTOW isn’t able to get ripped down by same arguments that can rip down Objectivism.  I find Rand and Objectivism to be the ethical system of a diva, but that may just be me.  Anyhow, I am still sorting, so take it for what that is.  I do believe what is needed to figure out is what one does with one’s own freedom, and not just say “enlightened self-interest”.  People seem to not handle that, all that well.

    #55821
    RedHeadedStranger
    RedHeadedStranger
    Participant
    202

    I do see a connection between the two, and it can be hard to tell apart. But, my hope is MGTOW isn’t able to get ripped down by same arguments that can rip down Objectivism. I find Rand and Objectivism to be the ethical system of a diva, but that may just be me. Anyhow, I am still sorting, so take it for what that is. I do believe what is needed to figure out is what one does with one’s own freedom, and not just say “enlightened self-interest”. People seem to not handle that, all that well.

    Since this is the Objectivism thread, I’ll press the issue.  You needn’t respond to this post: I understand the effort which would be required to engage my query.

    I am curious of what arguments you are referring that can rip down Objectivism.  I’ve been seeking such an argument for some time, but haven’t encountered one yet.  If you could help me on this, I’d appreciate it.  But again, don’t waste your time responding to my request if you have better things to do (and don’t we all?).  I won’t hold it against you.

     

    #55834
    IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)
    IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)
    Participant
    2172

    No problem with the reply.  While I do see the appeal of going alone, and needing to do so, what I see too much of of Rand is the hatred of the poor and so on.  The concept of love is from a very selfish manner.  Mind you, I have had these views before exploring MGTOW concepts, and seek a common ground.  What I will say is that the ideology is typical adopted by upper class and rich individuals who have had things break the right way, hate taxes, and think they are some sort of special snowflake who needs to be adored, thus a diva.  It should be objectively proven that these special people deserve to be loved and adored.

    Ayn Rand had this diva complex herself.  When the National Review ripped Atlas Shrugged to shreds in a review, she then blacklisted William F Buckley Jr. who she said should be “too smart to believe in God”.

     

    #55837
    +1
    IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)
    IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)
    Participant
    2172

    As far as problems with Objectivism, there are a number of critiques of it that get into its shortcomings:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/770238/posts

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism

     

    Those are two.  More can be googled.

    #56040
    John Doe
    John Doe
    Participant
    631

    I think Ayn Rand’s political philosophy can be summed up by the fact it can only be applied as fiction.

    Ironically she claims the importance of real experience in determining truths but the only way she could convey them was through a fiction book.

    If that does not more accurately describe the rational mind of a woman, I do not know what does.

    Why do I bring this up?  Because many people will spend hours upon hours reading an argument and falsely believe it is true because it is complex.  I would rather save myself the time and look at the premise(s) of the argument itself and from that I can avoid having to go through all the trouble.

    The form of the written word rather than the written word itself is what deceives most people.

    #56101
    RedHeadedStranger
    RedHeadedStranger
    Participant
    202

    I just spent 45 mins writing a response, clicked submit, and nada.  I’m not going through it again.  F~~~ it.

    Thanks for responding though dude.

    +1 for replying, not because I agree.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

The MGTOW Forums are for registered red-pill Men only. There are no exceptions. All females may exit immediately. Have you read The MGTOW Forums Guidelines (Last Updated 2015.01.02)? Please check it occasionally. Before you submit a post, kindly remember you are an important representative of
MGTOW | Men Going Their Own Way.

Trigger Warning EMERGENCY EXIT