Omar

Ask in a way which diminishes the importance of her presence. I'm going to X, feel free to drop by/let me know if you want to meet, etc. If I understand correctly, the idea is that you won't be too worried if she says no, and it doesn't look like you're pursuing her too hard.

You're not semi-drunk, you're really drunk! But good on you anyway, you did right by yourself. Now I just hope you've deleted her number and removed her from your Facebook friends. :thumbup:

AAAAAArgument Time!

I went out alone tonight. Nothing super-interesting happened, I'm just writing this out. I don't even go out much to begin with (can't drink until September in Ontario, and without someone to trek to the Québec border, where the drinking laws are less strict, I generally don't want to make the effort), but a cool-ass afrobeat band I'd seen in Montréal was playing, and I wanted to go. My usual show buddy was in Montréal (seeing Wavves and Fidlar, lucky ass) and I couldn't get anyone to come out with me. 15 minutes before the show was supposed to begin, I almost gave up and resigned myself to staying home, but I thought "[bleep] it", closed my laptop, put some clothes on, wolfed down some food and drank some coffee to get pumped. I booked it to catch the bus, and I showed up to the bar when they had already started playing; by that time I was starting to get slightly nervous about not having anyone else to hang with and getting over the positive mood I had earlier. I made my way in front of the stage and started shaking it (although I had a hard time dancing long ago, I enjoy it a lot if I like the music now). No one caught my eye, and most people were in the 22-30 years old range anyway. I was mostly there for the music, so it didn't matter too much until it stopped. Unbeknownst to me, this was only the first half of the set. At that point I was thinking I'd paid 12$ for 20 minutes of Souljazz Orchestra, so I wasn't overjoyed. Luckily, I knew they served my favourite beer at this place; I'd brought money for some shots, but I figured since I was probably going to leave on account of not knowing what to do with myself, I could go with that luxury. Not so luckily, I got a half-assed pour and 4 inches of very persistent head. Son of a [bleep], that cost me seven bucks. Still a little mad about that. I parked myself in the corner, near the stage, where I'd been dancing. A more-than-middle-aged man was talking to one of the saxophonists. The saxophonist didn't seem super interested; I'm not sure. I didn't know who to talk to and I didn't feel like I could really butt in, so I started talking to the older dude when the saxophonist left. He talked about irrelevant business like the Canadarm and touch screens; his breath was pretty bad, too. I stopped talking to him and focused my efforts on a guy who also seemed to be alone. The conversation was nothing special. I finished my foam and decided I was done for the night. As I got my stuff back from the coat check thingy, I went outside to the smoker's area to put on my clothes and not be in the way. A woman/girl (she was thirty, it turns out, but I thought she was much younger) started talking to me. Note to self: pretend to go out for air every once in a while, you can actually talk out there and sometimes smokers are the only ones in their group. Would probably be better if I could just talk to groups, but in any case, I found out there was a second half to the show through some genuinely engaging conversation. As she lit up a cigarette, the band started playing my favourite piece of theirs, so I went back in to shake it some more, but I stayed at the back. Eventually I spotted the girl where I'd been dancing earlier; I went back, we danced (more separately than not). I was having a lot of fun. Eventually the show was over; she left just before. I grabbed my stuff, went outside, put on my robe and wizard hat sweater, coat, and scarf. A girl from my Macroeconomics class whom I thought I'd caught a glimpse of came out; she introduced herself and her roommate. Small talk; the thirty year-old woman comes back out. I am 100% sure she smoked a spliff with the band (as she mentioned she would) because she's giggling like a little girl. Light-hearted conversation keeps going for five minutes, we end up talking about how cold it is despite it being April; she starts going on and on about how it's good for the polar bears, no one really cares and the other girl's roommate starts laughing. I'm thinking the interaction has jumped the shark, so I said I was going to dip and we parted ways. I booked it to catch the bus but it was actually just sitting there so I might just as well have walked. As it started leaving, a bunch of girls in club-appropriate attire stopped it and got on. I knew one of them from my frosh week and from repeatedly harassing her to get her to come to events our student association was planning; I didn't really want to talk to her or her friends, so I didn't. Another girl I knew got on the bus later on. I went to sit with her, we talked, and she got off after two stops. I eventually got home. tl;dr I'm glad I went, but thank dog the music was great. I could never do this at a club. I wasted an awful lot of time trying to find people to go though, being alone wasn't a huge deal. I just need to go outside and find people to talk to, make some general comment and get the ball rolling.

You're a different case. You know how to pull, you just end up becoming a mess once you're in.

That wasn't my point. When you go in with a "do or die" mentality, you've already set yourself up for failure. FWIW ever since muggi's been here I think things have changed more from "get into a couple" to "get into many couples", not towards singledom.

We're sadists because we think if you're asking about one particular person, you're already doing it wrong. “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”

Nope, it was in here. http://forum.tip.it/topic/192134-i-want-a-girlfriendboyfriend-and-other-such-relationship-advice/page__st__14460#entry5385123

Oh, yeah--high-five, Tim!

Unless you're going to stop pretending things are outside of your control, please stop posting about yourself ITT. Also watch what I posted in the self-development thread.

Full of swearwords and wisdom. Probably in equal parts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcrhwatDkUM

Out of all the things I've learned ITT (and I've learned a fair amount, you'd hope after about 680 pages) none of it came from the advice I got (and in fact I haven't asked many questions), and all of it came from people like muggi, obfuscator, etc. weighing in. I don't think this thread is very useful for solving immediate problems, especially because people don't tend to take the advice, but it helps in the long run; it definitely changed my perspective on relationships, and probably for the better. Not nearly as much as forums dedicated to the topic might have, maybe, but would I even have looked at those hadn't this thread existed? In any case, I owe a big thank you to all the regulars--the crazy ones, the radicals and the more conservative alike--for the time they've put into it.

Nevermind, I'm out of here.

Really? They're really doing that? I thought we outgrew backwards compatibility issues when consoles graduated from cartridges to discs. What possible bs reason can there possibly be for this? Why do we put up with this from console gaming anyway? We wouldn't have put up with it movie players, so why do game systems get away with it? Gah! I need to have a smoke and calm down... Because Sony aren't out to make your life better (nor should they have to). Also, intellectual property rights are complicated business.

I think you're still just bitter cuz everyone thought you were annoying as hell. I could care less, this site is some liberal shithole these days that filters a users opinion when it doesn't agree with the general consensus. It was entertaining to me when I was 13 and have no concept of mature discussion. It seems like this site has devolved into a place with a bunch of children who can't spell (read: you), and a facist board of staff who try to censor and ban everything they don't like. (I wouldn't be surprised if one of them deleted this post and "warned" me because it hurt their feelings). Don't worry, some day you'll get older and outgrow this website just like I did. The LE EPIC MEMES FACEBOOK HUMOR will soon get old and tiresome. See you on the other side, brother. Why are you here?

Not directly related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZg_ALxEz0 [hide=tldr]Bring something to the table or no one will give a shit about you. No one cares how virtuous you are; the implicit calculus going on in anyone's mind when they're judging you relates to what they can get from knowing you.[/hide]

Get them hemmed. If they're fraying at the heel that means they're too long.

[hide=constrictor]Assuming that premises A and B are incontrovertibly correct, then the conclusion C must also be correct. A: Lucy is a female. B: All females are mortal. C: Therefore Lucy is mortal. But how do we know that the system of logic itself (A and B will lead to C), or more specifically deductive argument is correct? I mean we all accept the system of logic itself to be true, how do we know it's correct? Hm, that's a thinker. ------------------------- This is actually a pretty nasty problem (contrary to the quick "well duh!" responses you are bound to get). There seem to be two distinct problems, too. The first is an "internal" problem: how do we know that any "logically valid" (calling it that is somewhat question begging) sentence is true? E.g., "((A->B)&A)->B)", -- how do we know that this sentence is true? It might be said that it "corresponds" with a valid deductive proof, but the order of justification is unclear; why isn't the deductive proof justified because it "corresponds" with the logically true sentence. The second problem is "external", and can be seen in Lewis Carroll's Tortoise/Achilles paradox. Given that one accepts "(A->B)&A", why should one accept "B"? It isn't sufficient to point out that one also believes "((A->B)&A)->B)" -- You can grant that this, but still wonder "Why think B?" (It might be pointed out, next, that one believes "((A->B)&A)->B)->B)" but even here you can still wonder "B?") Unless you "plug" the gap between the growing hierarchy of deductive proofs and "B", you lose the epistemic force of deduction. This is where many appeal to the distinction between beliefs and rules (Quine doesn't; everything is a belief to Quine; and that's why Quine has such a hard time with this problem), and deductive inference gets justified by the underlying rules; but it's unclear how a rule can justify an inference if there's no justification for the rule.[/hide] Bleeding from the ears yet?

You did. Because by arguing with me, you're saying you decide what you do with your body. By saying you're allowed to initiate force against me, you say I don't decide what I do with my body. Those two normative statements are incompatible because normative statements are universal. I guess this isn't so much about finding what is right and what is wrong. It's about finding the only internally consistent normative position. Any other position, if the argument is correct, is just nonsense, literally the same as gibberish. Don't credit me for this, I'm just mindlessly repeating what Hoppe wrote.

Not really. You don't need consent from your computer to use it because it has no property rights over itself. You can do anything to your property. I doubt the owners of the Eiffel towers gave their consent though. All it means is that by arguing, you've agreed that you have a right to make use of your body as a means. You can't disagree with this, because in order to disagree you have to use your body as a means. In addition, the only correct normative statements are universal. Now you've implicitly said both of us are self-owners. Therefore you can't jail/kill me because you'd be going against the statement you based yourself on. You can extend this to property other than your body using the homestead principle.

Their lifestyle isn't being forced upon you. That's like saying I'm forcing my taste in clothing upon you by wearing an ugly Christmas sweater. Believe it or not, this doesn't force you to wear one as well! Wrong or just not worth the consequences? Just because you don't make an action (ie me not punching you in order to solve the conflict) does not mean that I made a necessarily good or bad decision. I'd say if anything, it's just choosing to end conflict by means of ease. Read the second link. By arguing, you presuppose self-ownership (that you have the right to use your body as a means), which is pretty much sufficient for the NAP.

Obfuscator, truth be told, I started reading up on the matter yesterday and I'm not quite done; I've just been arguing for the non-aggression principle because I like it (and so has anyone who did so before Hoppe came up with the idea, really). I would be very surprised if Hoppe or Kinsella had not yet taken this into account. Their replies probably have a lot to do with universalizability. constrictor, aggression is wrong because you said so when you started arguing. But obfuscator makes a good point, maybe coming all the way over here and punching me in the face wasn't a possibility. [Edit] Skimming this, I think Kinsella at least implicitly replies: http://www.anti-stat...?article_id=312 [Edit] At the very least, you're agreeing to self-ownership.

Aggression is a concept. You don't argue about that. You define it, and then you go from there. Suppose they were right, and that aggression is not breaching property rights. Then all I would say is: "Alright, fine. Let's call the breach of property rights 'bleep-bloop'." And then I would restate the argument by replacing "aggression" with "bleep-bloop" everywhere. It wouldn't make sense for anyone to deny argumentation ethics by saying "no, that's not what bleep-bloop is". Better yet, I could simply replace "aggression" with "breach of property rights". There's no natural link between the words (both as sounds and as doodles) we use and the messages we communicate through them, so anyone who uses that kind of argument to debunk an idea is just spouting nonsense.

Basically, if you're arguing, for example, that gay marriage should be illegal, you've implicitly agreed that punching me and anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex is not a solution, and we need to come to a reasoned solution. But by arguing that gay marriage should be illegal, you're saying that we shouldn't come to a reasoned solution and that instead those who commit what you're saying is a crime should be put in a cage, which is aggression (as defined as breach of property rights, considering your body is part of your property). Therefore you've said aggression is and isn't the solution. Those two things can't be true at the same time, so whenever you argue that aggression is okay, you contradict yourself. The takeaway from argumentation ethics (if you agree with it) is that the state--which is the group of people which has a monopoly on the initiation of force, and which generally uses it to tax, jail, and kill--is immoral and that anarcho-capitalism is the only moral order. False convictions are subordinate to that issue.

The positive answer is that that's how many people you need to procreate. The prescriptive one is that it doesn't matter, but for simplicity's sake we should probably call those less common cases something else. They should sign some sort of contract, just like marriage is essentially a contract with a lot of fluff. Again, marriage is just a contract; all it really defines is property rights. What you're asking is whether incest is okay. I would say yes, for consensual cases. And what about when they become common? Also what makes something wrong or right then? I don't care who you want to marry. I'm not a big fan of traditional marriage either, but you don't see me getting all huffy. I would argue something is wrong (moral issue vs. legal issue is a false dichotomy) if it involves aggression. The reason why, in short, is that if you're arguing with me, you've implicitly said that violence won't solve this issue. Therefore you can't use it (by putting people in jail or otherwise taking their property) to stop people from doing X peaceful activity. AFAIK this is the only way to go beyond the is/ought problem. More: http://en.wikipedia....entation_ethics