Mark Minter is getting married?

[Samseau]

It totally depends on the conversion. If it was filled with heartfelt apologies perhaps I would consider by otherwise I'd pay him no respects.

If I were a recently converted manboob, I doubt I'd come crawling to you in apology. I doubt I'd give a fuck what your opinion of my change in strategy was.

Whatever, I wouldn't need weak pathetic little bitches to care in the first place.

 

[LeCorbusier]

I find it funny that you were complaining about your friend screwing you over and expect some sort of moral compass from them but have no problem being flexible when it comes to your own happiness.

You really don't understand how to use analogies. You make associations and think that the associations are logical, but you don't really understand how logic works.

Again, and again, and again, and again. You are trying to apply a meta principle onto specific situations where they do not hold.

People change their minds about things. All things. Even so called "principles". And not all things that people change their mind about are equivalent or related. It's not the SAME thing to change your mind about pedophilia as it is to change your mind about getting married as it is to change your mind about your religious beliefs.

Xsplat maybe you can expand on this instead of just restating it. Why is it not the same to change your mind about marriage (an issue concerning women) and pedophelia (an issue concerning children)?

 

[xsplat]

I find it funny that you were complaining about your friend screwing you over and expect some sort of moral compass from them but have no problem being flexible when it comes to your own happiness.

You really don't understand how to use analogies. You make associations and think that the associations are logical, but you don't really understand how logic works.

Again, and again, and again, and again. You are trying to apply a meta principle onto specific situations where they do not hold.

People change their minds about things. All things. Even so called "principles". And not all things that people change their mind about are equivalent or related. It's not the SAME thing to change your mind about pedophilia as it is to change your mind about getting married as it is to change your mind about your religious beliefs.

Xsplat maybe you can expand on this instead of just restating it. Why is it not the same to change your mind about marriage (an issue concerning women) and pedophelia (an issue concerning children)?

You can answer the question yourself. Come up with 20 random things that a person might change their mind about. Then ask yourself how it being improper to change your mind about one of them affects it being improper to change your mind about another.

It doesn't.

Each thing is weighed on it's own merits.

How you feel about changing your mind about eating sugar is unrelated to how you feel about changing your mind about pedophilia. Changing a principle of being against inter-racial dating is unrelated to changing a principle of being against murder. Changing a principle of being against polygamy is unrelated to changing a principle of being against torture.

There is no overarching principle about never changing your mind about principles.

Each idea is weighed on it's own merits.

We all actually live that way.

It's just a failure of the thinking process that makes people think otherwise. If you notice your own life you'll see for yourself this to be true.

 

[LeCorbusier]

You can answer the question yourself. Come up with 20 random things that a person might change their mind about. Then ask yourself how it being improper to change your mind about one of them affects it being improper to change your mind about another.

It doesn't.

Each thing is weighed on it's own merits.

How you feel about changing your mind about eating sugar is unrelated to how you feel about changing your mind about pedophilia. Changing a principle of being against inter-racial dating is unrelated to changing a principle of being against murder.

There is no overarching principle about never changing your mind about principles.

Each idea is weighed on it's own merits.

We all actually live that way.

It's just a failure of the thinking process that makes people think otherwise. If you notice your own life you'll see for yourself this to be true.

I agree with you on this point except for one small difference. Ideas and convictions publicly declared are separate. When you declare your loyalty to a belief and recommend it to others, then it is hypocrisy if you are caught doing different than what you advocate. It is slightly different than a change of heart, when a man steps out and repudiates his previous beliefs. If a man changes his idea about pedophilia privately, then who cares. But if he spends his life as an anti-pedophilia advocate, only then to be caught nude with a child, this is different than a change of mind. When Worldwide says that he cannot trust a man who abandons his beliefs, he is talking about this hypocrisy, not a change of heart. The man who does this has not grown, he has lied. Do you feel this man can be trusted? Has he not demonstrated that what he says in public may not actually be his true position?

 

[xsplat]

You can answer the question yourself. Come up with 20 random things that a person might change their mind about. Then ask yourself how it being improper to change your mind about one of them affects it being improper to change your mind about another.

It doesn't.

Each thing is weighed on it's own merits.

How you feel about changing your mind about eating sugar is unrelated to how you feel about changing your mind about pedophilia. Changing a principle of being against inter-racial dating is unrelated to changing a principle of being against murder.

There is no overarching principle about never changing your mind about principles.

Each idea is weighed on it's own merits.

We all actually live that way.

It's just a failure of the thinking process that makes people think otherwise. If you notice your own life you'll see for yourself this to be true.

I agree with you on this point except for one small difference. Ideas and convictions publicly declared are separate. When you declare your loyalty to a belief and recommend it to others, then it is hypocrisy if you are caught doing different than what you advocate. It is slightly different than a change of heart, when a man steps out and repudiates his previous beliefs. If a man changes his idea about pedophilia privately, then who cares. But if he spends his life as an anti-pedophilia advocate, only then to be caught nude with a child, this is different than a change of mind. When Worldwide says that he cannot trust a man who abandons his beliefs, he is talking about this hypocrisy, not a change of heart. The man who does this has not grown, he has lied. Do you feel this man can be trusted? Has he not demonstrated that what he says in public may not actually be his true position?

No, I disagree with you here. If you change your mind about something, it doesn't matter if you are public about it or not, and has nothing to do with trust.

And your analogy of pedophilia is not at all apt.

I would not trust a guy who was into pedophilia, full stop. Regardless of whether he was against it previously or not.

If some guy made a big deal about being anti-sugar, but later decided some sugar was actually fine, I would not therefore not trust him. He was public with his opinion, and publicly changed his mind. So what?

Thinking by analogy does not always work.

Remember, whoever brings Hitler into the argument loses.

From now on the same goes for pedophilia.

 

[LeCorbusier]

From Wikipedia:
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy as long as the alcoholic made no pretense of sobriety.

I want to better understand your thinking, that is the win for me. The issue as I see it is that Minter made a pretense of not wanting intimacy, yet he secretly wanted intimacy. If he came out and said, "guys I changed my mind, I now believe in intimacy" then he wouldn't be a hypocrite. It is because he pretended to have the principle and yet actually did not that people are upset. The pedophilia analogy holds here my friend, for that too is an example of pretending to have a moral belief that one does not have. Once again, I am not saying Minter is like a pedophile.

 

[xsplat]

From Wikipedia:
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy as long as the alcoholic made no pretense of sobriety.

I want to better understand your thinking, that is the win for me. The issue as I see it is that Minter made a pretense of not wanting intimacy, yet he secretly wanted intimacy. If he came out and said, "guys I changed my mind, I now believe in intimacy" then he wouldn't be a hypocrite. It is because he pretended to have the principle and yet actually did not that people are upset. The pedophilia analogy holds here my friend, for that too is an example of pretending to have a moral belief that one does not have. Once again, I am not saying Minter is like a pedophile.

Are you suggesting that Mark secretly knew that he wanted intimacy? Could be, I don't know.

I've already agreed with you that his actions were hypocritical.

Where we disagree seems to be whether knowledge that future actions would be out of line with ones previously stated views should alter a mans future actions. I see that all beliefs are subject to change, even publicly stated beliefs and even so called "principles", whatever those are.

I personally don't care if he was hypocritical. He lacked self knowledge, is my guess. I doubt he deliberately misled anyone.

I agree that his lack of self knowledge says something about the man. I disagree that this should be any impediment to him changing his mind.

Edit: I'd wager he still lacks self knowledge, and doesn't even realize that his previous stance was anti-intimacy, and that his new action is based on wanting intimacy. He probably frames it to himself as some sort of mating strategy. Such out of focus views on his own inner workings suggests he'll have a tough time with LTR game. He doesn't even know how HE works, let alone how women work.

I may as well take the opportunity for a mild dig at some fellow forum members. Some guys truly believe that there is no possibility of engendering meaningful love and devotion out of a woman. The same guys seem unaware of any need inside of themselves for any real intimacy with women. Coincidence?

 

[eradicator]

"I’ll admit I suffer from the Dark Triad of personality attributes, narcissism, psychopathic tendencies, Machiavellian attitudes and am prone to selfishness. "

he was projecting what he wished he was here

A lot of guys say that bullshit.

If you have the "dark triad," you don't need to tell people. It's obvious in the ethos of your writing.

Incidentally, being a sociopath isn't really that cool. It deprives you of the ability to develop deep relationships and ever feel love.

My brother is a legitimate psychopath - been diagnosed and like a true sociopath he's done considerable time.

He's basically miserable, he can't be happy because a lack of empathy seems to be bundled with poor impulse control.

For a true example of socipathy, see something like "in the company of men" and see if treating another human being like that hah-hah funny rather than sad and pathetic.

I thought that film was funny, but even I would never do that in real life. The premise of the film: 2 guys would date the same ugly girl and give her attention that she never got, and then both dump her and tell her they never liked her and were just fucking with her, and really hurt her.

Except they didn't date an ugly girl, they picked a girl that was deaf but physically attractive. It didn't strike me as sociopathic behavior, more like 'I will do this because I can get away with it and it would be funny and I will get off on it."

Also, the guys doing this prank were both in film production. Hollywood is full of guys that are 2 faced and totally phony and will bullshit people and lie and backstab for a living. it is the nature of hollywood.

 

[Nemencine]

HAPPINESS vs PRINCIPLES.

#1. Authenticity is pain. There is a reason most people are conformists. Inertia is always the easiest route.

#2. The female hamster. A woman can rationalize almost anything and be happy with herself afterwards. (for those who thinks a person without principles cannot be happy. yes, they can be. Exhibit A: women.)

#3. Some prefer a sure nothing to a cartload of possibilities. (i think that is from Beyond good and evil, by friedrich nietzsche.) Dogmatics, Saints, Monks, Fanatics, etc likes the calm emotional linearity of unchanging guiding star of their principles to the messy cornucopia of reality.

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Microsoft SkyDrive has a hilarious picture commercial today:

I don't know if it's some sort of black comedy made for men or an appeal to subconscious perception of marriage for women. Either way, I :lol:'d.

 

[bachelor tax]

I trust a man when his self-interest aligns with my self-interest.

 

[xsplat]

It's interesting how instead of just arguing about if Marks actions are in his best interest or not, people want to talk about if him changing his tactic is itself somehow wrong.

I've mentioned that this trying to find fault in the meta-picture using analogies is an error in thinking, but I also think that it's a form of dissimulation.

The issue is nothing other than if Mark is acting in his best interest or not. It's a diversionary tactic to try to say that changing his mind is in itself somehow wrong, or a betrayal.

I think that some people "think" using emotions and associations and analogies, and they really don't much care for how logically consistent their views are. They don't care if changing your mind about one type of principle is a good thing, and changing your mind about another type of principle is a bad thing. If it's a bad thing, then all of a sudden its about steadfastness of holding to the PRINCIPLE that is important. Not whether or not the original principle was stupid.

Marks original principles were stupid.

THAT is the issue.

No more dissimulation.

His ideas were FUCKED UP. Because they did not take into account his very real desire for intimacy.

And here is a little free armchair psychological counseling. I think there are people who get really antsy about Mark wanting intimacy, and feel betrayed because they want another True Believer in the Cause of Denying Intimacy as a Human Need.

True believers are angry at him for denouncing God.

He must be excommunicated! He blasphemed.

There is no God.

His ideas of avoiding intimacy were FUCKED UP.

He changed his principles because his principles were wrong.

Focus. Focus people. It's not the issue that he changed his attitude.

The issue is that his stance was not giving him what he needed in his life. It was not giving him intimacy. Or even enough regular sex. Not to mention getting him out of his sisters house and into the house of a woman with a job.

His best interest is what matters. Not whether or not his viewpoint satisfies your personal desire to pretend that it's noble and wise to avoid intimacy along with the other guys in your he-man-woman-haters-club-of-relationship-fail.

Now I'm not saying that getting married is the best option to get intimacy. But I consider reality to be the best option, and let's be realistic. He's a 58 year old broke ass dude living in his sisters house. Commitment is about the best thing he has to trade for sex right now.

Me, I'm going for huge wealth in my old age. I won't have to get married - I'll have better options.

But for him? Do you honestly begrudge the man for not living up to YOUR ideals, and taking an option that he considers in HIS best interest?

Principles my dissimulating ass.

People just don't want to face their own fears of being a lonely old man, and so wish that he'd keep vociferously pretending that loneliness wasn't a real problem, so that they don't have to face their own night-mares. He shouldn't have compromised his PRINCIPLES! He should have just sucked it up and been lonely and not gotten any pussy, save for the occasional 50 year old fat bitty! He should have stuck it out and day gamed!

He should have he should have he should have.

He should have acted in his best interest, that's what he should have. And it looks very much like that's exactly what he did.

Principles.

The principle is his best interest. The principle is his happiness, and a mental map that holds as many facts as possible into a coherent world view. Happiness and truth. Those are the principles.

Not adhering to some facade of a persona you'd wish he'd keep up, to sustain YOUR best interest of living in delusion that intimacy doesn't really matter.

Let's see what happens to those guys here who eventually turn 58 and wind up in debt with no place of their own to stay, and how dear they then hold onto their principles of never offering commitment in return for sex and companionship. We'll see how dear those principles are to you then. If your principles don't serve you, or the ones you love, or anyone that matters to you at all, you'll simply stop having them, that's what.

Mark didn't owe anyone here anything. I'd like to think he was honestly trying to help others, and thought that he was for the most part honestly self reporting his experience. His fault was not one of intention, it was one of introspection. He underestimated how much he valued and craved intimacy.

That's a big error. And that's his big fault. Leading other men on in the same delusion.

Now that his delusion has crashed, people who want to remain in their own delusions are angry at him.

Where is my false idol of self-sufficiency! You smashed my false idol!

 

[pitt]

Happiness over everything. What good is a principle if it does not make you happy? If your principles need to be flexible in order to suit your happiness so be it.

Dont listen to the messenger, listen to the message. His writings wouldn't suit him so well at his age but it probably would work fine for a young guy.

I don't know how a man can be happy if he doesn't stick to his principles.

A principle is simply a belief. Who is to tell you that your principle is right or wrong? You?

A thief decides to live a morally correct life in order to organise his life because he is tired of going to jail and accumulating criminal records. Do you think he won't be happier because he is changing his principles?

A very honest man who happens to be a lawyer decides to start lying to courts in order to defend the suspects (his clients). Previously he couldn't lie and this was making hard for him to resolve the suspects criminal issues. The suspects started seeking other lawyers. This very honest lawyer decided to come up with a new approach because his previous approach was not generating him many clients or money. Now that he is lying he is making a lot of money and getting a bunch of new clients. Dont you think that he may be happier now?

I could go on.

If your principles is not making you a better man then fuck your principles.

Great lesson xsplat.

 

[Acute Angle]

The issue is nothing other than if Mark is acting in his best interest or not.

I agree with much of your analysis, but I differ on the question of whether his current strategy is best. If he has huge unmet needs for intimacy, and is still hurt from the failure of his previous marriage, I would say that he should resolve those issues before jumping into a new union.

It would be in his best interest to learn to love himself, to be able to meet women in a position to give from strength rather than try to take out of neediness. If you have a glaring weakness (and we all have weaknesses) then women (and other men) will exploit it in their own interest.

I can't see this ending well for him. She may admire and accept him now, but a man can't be all underbelly. It seems he covered up his pain with bluster in assorted manosphere forums, but she will soon see through that, and lose respect because he isn't his own man.

 

[bacan]

Xsplat is slaying weak thinking left and right in this thread. One of my new most highly regarded posters now on the board and I have to go through and like all his posts when I'm on my laptop.

The argument here was made simple by xsplat many pages ago.

Mark didn't know himself or his need for intimacy when he was writing.
He chose to be a hypocrite and lose respect in the manosphere in exchange for a shot at love sex and companionship instead of being an old broke loser.
He never promised anything to anyone. He was not some elected leader of the manosphere movement. He didn't even have a blog!
Mark doesn't have to give up a shot at happiness for the sake of his internet fans.

The anger against him stems from two sources..
People like Roosh who feel like they have been betrayed but also are embarrassed with themselves for giving such a voice and platform to a man who turned out to be a weak willed lonely old hypocrite..
And honestly people like samseau that constantly talk about how all women are identical and are maybe coming to grips with the fact that pairing up with a special girl in a loving intimate way may be a core element to being happy in life and that we all might have to face tough choices about making ourselves vulnerable to the whims of women or perhaps lonely or unsatisfied without them.