Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Stop trying to be one of the Sheeple and do your own thing!

Page 5 of 6 [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

19 May 2013, 2:31 pm

nessa238 wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Popsicle wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


I disagree.

People at the top levels of power are often NPD, or sociopathic. To me that is being weak. Struggles are simply human, and success is scaled as to individual goals, and values; not to one standard of "(political) power and money."


I agree with this

You ae confusing actual weakness as in weakness of character with perceived social status

It all depends on whether a person buys in to societal norms of 'success'

I don't so a man with no money is not weak to me; he is only weak if his character is weak

There are plenty of rich people with weak characters; money creates weakness of character in my opinion as it means
a person doesn't have to struggle or use their wits to survive

In a post-apocalypse type situation I'd want the poor person who knew how to survive with no money, not the rich idiot who was used to flashing his cash everywhere to get what he wanted

If money lost it's value rich people would be very weak indeed - probably most would be killed for what they had very quickly. Different value systems would come into play very quickly and it would be all about being able to live on your strength and wits, not money


Yeah, which will be totally awesome when the world turns into Fallout 3. LIFE WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER THEN.


Lol

I was talking hypothetically

Me and my partner live on benefits so our money is always very tight

We hardly ever go out and spend most time online, watching TV/films or reading and we manage to survive ok

If a millionaire came along and said he'd take me away to a better life no way would I accept his offer


So living off government benefits=good survivalist?



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

19 May 2013, 2:38 pm

1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Popsicle wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


I disagree.

People at the top levels of power are often NPD, or sociopathic. To me that is being weak. Struggles are simply human, and success is scaled as to individual goals, and values; not to one standard of "(political) power and money."


I agree with this

You ae confusing actual weakness as in weakness of character with perceived social status

It all depends on whether a person buys in to societal norms of 'success'

I don't so a man with no money is not weak to me; he is only weak if his character is weak

There are plenty of rich people with weak characters; money creates weakness of character in my opinion as it means
a person doesn't have to struggle or use their wits to survive

In a post-apocalypse type situation I'd want the poor person who knew how to survive with no money, not the rich idiot who was used to flashing his cash everywhere to get what he wanted

If money lost it's value rich people would be very weak indeed - probably most would be killed for what they had very quickly. Different value systems would come into play very quickly and it would be all about being able to live on your strength and wits, not money


Yeah, which will be totally awesome when the world turns into Fallout 3. LIFE WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER THEN.


Lol

I was talking hypothetically

Me and my partner live on benefits so our money is always very tight

We hardly ever go out and spend most time online, watching TV/films or reading and we manage to survive ok

If a millionaire came along and said he'd take me away to a better life no way would I accept his offer


So living off government benefits=good survivalist?



No, it means I'm not impressed by money (it was implied earlier that most women are)


_________________
'Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality' C.G Jung


1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

19 May 2013, 2:46 pm

I'm just saying, someone who makes money well in this current amusement park of a world will likely do better than someone on government benefits. They can use their same skills of social manipulation/etc in the theoretical post apocalyptic world. People who are able to manipulate people to do their bidding will always have it best. The only thing you can really hope for in such a world without social skills (being able to manipulate people to do what you want) is being able to have enough power, not via manipulation, but either through goods or services you can provide, or deterrence (ie, weaponry, strength) to get what you want. I'm not saying "get what you want" as in robbing people, I mean, getting what you want can be as simple as not getting subjugated/killed.

Our neighbors to the South in Mexico pretty much have a Fallout New Vegas situation going on right now. If you wanted to play Fallout in real life, you could go to Mexico. Anyway, the drug traffickers, they oddly enough, kidnap engineers and make them work for them. Just having "skills" alone doesn't help you much without power.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

19 May 2013, 3:10 pm

1000Knives wrote:
I'm just saying, someone who makes money well in this current amusement park of a world will likely do better than someone on government benefits. They can use their same skills of social manipulation/etc in the theoretical post apocalyptic world. People who are able to manipulate people to do their bidding will always have it best. The only thing you can really hope for in such a world without social skills (being able to manipulate people to do what you want) is being able to have enough power, not via manipulation, but either through goods or services you can provide, or deterrence (ie, weaponry, strength) to get what you want. I'm not saying "get what you want" as in robbing people, I mean, getting what you want can be as simple as not getting subjugated/killed.

Our neighbors to the South in Mexico pretty much have a Fallout New Vegas situation going on right now. If you wanted to play Fallout in real life, you could go to Mexico. Anyway, the drug traffickers, they oddly enough, kidnap engineers and make them work for them. Just having "skills" alone doesn't help you much without power.


I am pointing out that you don't need power or a lot of money to be able to live an ok life or get a partner


_________________
'Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality' C.G Jung


Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

19 May 2013, 3:21 pm

Popsicle wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


I disagree.

People at the top levels of power are often NPD, or sociopathic. To me that is being weak. Struggles are simply human, and success is scaled as to individual goals, and values; not to one standard of "(political) power and money."


Well, if so, they are NPD's or sociopaths who can function in society and achieve things. That means they are not weak. You and I may not like them, but they have something we don't. So maybe they are messed up and empty inside. But I am messed up and empty inside without being a billionaire or a politicians (look at my sig); in fact, most people on this board likely are. So, it's like what do we have that they don't? They have power + mental disorders. Most of us have mental disorders without power.

In the context of the thread, my definition of power is correct. According to your definition of power, it is simply individual and, therefore, meaningless as a topic of discussion and, therefore, off-topic as a topic for this thread, which is about sexual attraction.



Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

19 May 2013, 3:29 pm

nessa238 wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Popsicle wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


I disagree.

People at the top levels of power are often NPD, or sociopathic. To me that is being weak. Struggles are simply human, and success is scaled as to individual goals, and values; not to one standard of "(political) power and money."


I agree with this

You ae confusing actual weakness as in weakness of character with perceived social status

It all depends on whether a person buys in to societal norms of 'success'

I don't so a man with no money is not weak to me; he is only weak if his character is weak

There are plenty of rich people with weak characters; money creates weakness of character in my opinion as it means
a person doesn't have to struggle or use their wits to survive

In a post-apocalypse type situation I'd want the poor person who knew how to survive with no money, not the rich idiot who was used to flashing his cash everywhere to get what he wanted

If money lost it's value rich people would be very weak indeed - probably most would be killed for what they had very quickly. Different value systems would come into play very quickly and it would be all about being able to live on your strength and wits, not money


Yeah, which will be totally awesome when the world turns into Fallout 3. LIFE WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER THEN.


Lol

I was talking hypothetically

Me and my partner live on benefits so our money is always very tight

We hardly ever go out and spend most time online, watching TV/films or reading and we manage to survive ok

If a millionaire came along and said he'd take me away to a better life no way would I accept his offer


So living off government benefits=good survivalist?



No, it means I'm not impressed by money (it was implied earlier that most women are)


Quote:
Overall, 75 percent of women said they would be unlikely to date an unemployed man, with 33 percent saying no outright. Another 42 percent of women answered maybe when asked about the possibility of dating an unemployed man. That answer, however, came with the stipulation that those women would not want to spend a lot of time in the relationship if the man did not have a plan in place. Just 21 percent of women said they would date an unemployed man.


http://www.livescience.com/21194-dating ... women.html

I wonder what % of the "yes" probably would not do so in real life even if they try to sound open-minded on the survey?



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

19 May 2013, 3:39 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Popsicle wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


I disagree.

People at the top levels of power are often NPD, or sociopathic. To me that is being weak. Struggles are simply human, and success is scaled as to individual goals, and values; not to one standard of "(political) power and money."


I agree with this

You ae confusing actual weakness as in weakness of character with perceived social status

It all depends on whether a person buys in to societal norms of 'success'

I don't so a man with no money is not weak to me; he is only weak if his character is weak

There are plenty of rich people with weak characters; money creates weakness of character in my opinion as it means
a person doesn't have to struggle or use their wits to survive

In a post-apocalypse type situation I'd want the poor person who knew how to survive with no money, not the rich idiot who was used to flashing his cash everywhere to get what he wanted

If money lost it's value rich people would be very weak indeed - probably most would be killed for what they had very quickly. Different value systems would come into play very quickly and it would be all about being able to live on your strength and wits, not money


Yeah, which will be totally awesome when the world turns into Fallout 3. LIFE WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER THEN.


Lol

I was talking hypothetically

Me and my partner live on benefits so our money is always very tight

We hardly ever go out and spend most time online, watching TV/films or reading and we manage to survive ok

If a millionaire came along and said he'd take me away to a better life no way would I accept his offer


So living off government benefits=good survivalist?



No, it means I'm not impressed by money (it was implied earlier that most women are)


Quote:
Overall, 75 percent of women said they would be unlikely to date an unemployed man, with 33 percent saying no outright. Another 42 percent of women answered maybe when asked about the possibility of dating an unemployed man. That answer, however, came with the stipulation that those women would not want to spend a lot of time in the relationship if the man did not have a plan in place. Just 21 percent of women said they would date an unemployed man.


http://www.livescience.com/21194-dating ... women.html

I wonder what % of the "yes" probably would not do so in real life even if they try to sound open-minded on the survey?


It doesn't matter what minor percentage I'm in, I exist, so this 'All women are like this....' doesn't hold true


_________________
'Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality' C.G Jung


Venger
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,519

19 May 2013, 4:01 pm

Popsicle wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


I disagree.

People at the top levels of power are often NPD, or sociopathic. To me that is being weak. Struggles are simply human, and success is scaled as to individual goals, and values; not to one standard of "(political) power and money."


Former president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are perfect examples of that in my opinion. Bush had around 150 death row inmates executed in Texas. He's also admitted that he used to abuse drugs like cocaine and alcohol, and that was just before he was president.



Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

19 May 2013, 4:06 pm

nessa238 wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Popsicle wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
If you struggle in life, it means not that you're eccentric, but that you're weak.


I disagree.

People at the top levels of power are often NPD, or sociopathic. To me that is being weak. Struggles are simply human, and success is scaled as to individual goals, and values; not to one standard of "(political) power and money."


I agree with this

You ae confusing actual weakness as in weakness of character with perceived social status

It all depends on whether a person buys in to societal norms of 'success'

I don't so a man with no money is not weak to me; he is only weak if his character is weak

There are plenty of rich people with weak characters; money creates weakness of character in my opinion as it means
a person doesn't have to struggle or use their wits to survive

In a post-apocalypse type situation I'd want the poor person who knew how to survive with no money, not the rich idiot who was used to flashing his cash everywhere to get what he wanted

If money lost it's value rich people would be very weak indeed - probably most would be killed for what they had very quickly. Different value systems would come into play very quickly and it would be all about being able to live on your strength and wits, not money


Yeah, which will be totally awesome when the world turns into Fallout 3. LIFE WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER THEN.


Lol

I was talking hypothetically

Me and my partner live on benefits so our money is always very tight

We hardly ever go out and spend most time online, watching TV/films or reading and we manage to survive ok

If a millionaire came along and said he'd take me away to a better life no way would I accept his offer


So living off government benefits=good survivalist?



No, it means I'm not impressed by money (it was implied earlier that most women are)


Quote:
Overall, 75 percent of women said they would be unlikely to date an unemployed man, with 33 percent saying no outright. Another 42 percent of women answered maybe when asked about the possibility of dating an unemployed man. That answer, however, came with the stipulation that those women would not want to spend a lot of time in the relationship if the man did not have a plan in place. Just 21 percent of women said they would date an unemployed man.


http://www.livescience.com/21194-dating ... women.html

I wonder what % of the "yes" probably would not do so in real life even if they try to sound open-minded on the survey?


It doesn't matter what minor percentage I'm in, I exist, so this 'All women are like this....' doesn't hold true


Nobody says "all women" but most women is correct. In addition, the few like you who would theoretically be open to it might end up finding one of the employed gents more attractive (highly likely) even if you aren't categorically against the unemployed ones.

I am not sure I would want to date an unemployed woman long-term. So, I'm prejudiced, but not sexist.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,098
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

19 May 2013, 4:11 pm

What about the other way around? How many men are likely to date unemployed women?

Also for women, I think it depends on age, the older she is the less likely would go for a unemployed man, no? and the more likely of a man to be expected working.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

19 May 2013, 4:12 pm

Tyri0n wrote:

Nobody says "all women" but most women is correct. In addition, the few like you who would theoretically be open to it might end up finding one of the employed gents more attractive (highly likely) even if you aren't categorically against the unemployed ones.


It's not theoretical at all

My partner is on benefits like me and the person I see is self employed and always short of money

If I don't live a lfestyle whereby I want to go out a lot and buy loads of stuff, a person with loads of money is irrelevant to me

I had a chance of a date off POF with a person who owned their own business and sounded well off but I chickened out of it because I didn't think we'd have anything in common. I couldn't be less interested in money or status.


_________________
'Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality' C.G Jung


Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

19 May 2013, 4:15 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
What about the other way around? How many men are likely to date unemployed women?

Also for women, I think it depends on age, the older she is the less likely would go for a unemployed man, no? and the more likely of a man to be expected working.


I bet the percentage of men turned off by unemployed women is much smaller due to society's sexism.

I think a man in school, including my age, can get dates up until their late 20's. But straight unemployed and mooching off Uncle Sam/foreign equivalents or Mom and Dad? It's going to be rough regardless of age...



Tyri0n
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,879
Location: Douchebag Capital of the World (aka Washington D.C.)

19 May 2013, 4:17 pm

nessa238 wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:

Nobody says "all women" but most women is correct. In addition, the few like you who would theoretically be open to it might end up finding one of the employed gents more attractive (highly likely) even if you aren't categorically against the unemployed ones.


It's not theoretical at all

My partner is on benefits like me and the person I see is self employed and always short of money

If I don't live a lfestyle whereby I want to go out a lot and buy loads of stuff, a person with loads of money is irrelevant to me

I had a chance of a date off POF with a person who owned their own business and sounded well off but I chickened out of it because I didn't think we'd have anything in common. I couldn't be less interested in money or status.


So that's how it happened to work out. Too often, though, employment is a proxy for other things, like education, intelligence, personality, and looks. So unemployed men, in reality, have a taller hill to climb than even the statistics would suggest.

I'm glad you're happy, though. But you can hardly use yourself as a generalizable example to reassure gents with false hope. You are the exception.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,098
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

19 May 2013, 4:19 pm

nessa238 wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:

Nobody says "all women" but most women is correct. In addition, the few like you who would theoretically be open to it might end up finding one of the employed gents more attractive (highly likely) even if you aren't categorically against the unemployed ones.


It's not theoretical at all

My partner is on benefits like me and the person I see is self employed and always short of money

If I don't live a lfestyle whereby I want to go out a lot and buy loads of stuff, a person with loads of money is irrelevant to me

I had a chance of a date off POF with a person who owned their own business and sounded well off but I chickened out of it because I didn't think we'd have anything in common. I couldn't be less interested in money or status.



That's because you are not a marriage oriented woman, most women are I guess, even in your country.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,098
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

19 May 2013, 4:22 pm

One thing is certain:

Humans are apes.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

19 May 2013, 4:22 pm

Tyri0n wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:

Nobody says "all women" but most women is correct. In addition, the few like you who would theoretically be open to it might end up finding one of the employed gents more attractive (highly likely) even if you aren't categorically against the unemployed ones.


It's not theoretical at all

My partner is on benefits like me and the person I see is self employed and always short of money

If I don't live a lfestyle whereby I want to go out a lot and buy loads of stuff, a person with loads of money is irrelevant to me

I had a chance of a date off POF with a person who owned their own business and sounded well off but I chickened out of it because I didn't think we'd have anything in common. I couldn't be less interested in money or status.


So that's how it happened to work out. Too often, though, employment is a proxy for other things, like education, intelligence, personality, and looks. So unemployed men, in reality, have a taller hill to climb than even the statistics would suggest.

I'm glad you're happy, though. But you can hardly use yourself as a generalizable example to reassure gents with false hope. You are the exception.


I'm not particularly happy though (and not due to lack of money)

It seems to me that no matter how many people you have in your life there's never enough attention available off people

Everyone's getting what they want out of the situation except me


_________________
'Sentimentality is a superstructure covering brutality' C.G Jung