Dude, you are really presumptuous.

1) I did not imply anything like that.... Note the use of the word COMPATIBLE in my posts. I went so far as to put "(culturally/emotionally/religiously/practically)" in brackets next to the word compatible.

2) there are exceptions of course... but given that you had the choice between A or B, assuming both A and B are equally culturally/religiously compatible, you will go for the more attractive one. I agree that people set standards.... I was just highlighting that sometimes people set their standards higher than what is available to them. What I did say was that given the chance, everyone wants whats best for them....and I have yet to come across a non-desperate guy who would go out of his way to date the most unattractive girl in class... in the same way I have yet to come across a non-desperate girl who would go out of her way to date the most unattractive (short/scrawny/loser/shy/jobless)

3) Precisely. Again., you are saying what i've said in different words. You are effectively saying that he will over time be forced to lower his standards and consider girls that he did not consider before. You see this in people who remain single as they approach their 30s... They are usually not so attractive and are forced to settle for what is available. Thus, you are correct... chances are he will eventually find a partner willing to "fit into his life". The quality (tall/fertile/hot vs short/disproportionate/ugly) of the partner willing to "fit into his life" will depend largely on how attractive he is himself.

I have never said that guys should be rich to attract girls!!!!111 In fact, I've repeatedly stressed out that MONEY DOES NOT ATTRACT GIRLS in all of my threads. That said, money does seem to correlate to a person thriving in life..and girls find this attractive. And you got to face the fact that while MONEY DOES NOT BUY HAPPINESS... money lessens the likelihood that you turn out to become a loser in the game of life - On average, poor people have worse health and higher suicide rates than rich people, in all countries and cultural backgrounds...even in America! Sure there are exceptions... and if harping on a few sad rich blokes who killed themselves makes you feel good about yourself..then fine. But it does not represent the general truth.

Ultimately, everyone has a different path. Guy A's path to social dominance and thriving in the game of life is different from Guy B's path to social dominance and thriving in the game of life.


Awesome For Teh Winrar!

As I said...

Ezra: Glass half empty.

Silver: Glass half full.



Same thing leh..

Dont like thinking that the glass is half empty, then go ahead and think that the glass is half full. It's your right to see things in whatever light you want... but seriously stop putting words in my mouth!!!

For the record: I DONT HAVE AN IDEAL TEMPLATE for either girls OR guys.
Here is my thread on the issue: http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=986099


1) There is nothing wrong being rich.
2) There is nothing wrong being powerful.
3) There is nothing wrong being in control of one's life and succeeding in it.
4) A rich/powerful/successful/thriving guy can be nice/good/humble/polite OR cocky/arrogant/a jerk/unfaithful.

In the same way not all poor/non-powerful are humble.
...not all rich/powerful people are arrogant.


If stereotyping rich/successful/powerful people as being bad/cocky/arrogant/unfaithful makes you feel good about yourself, then please go ahead and do so as much as you want - it's a free country. But to claim that I am trying to imply that is just wrong because I HAVE NEVER SAID SUCH A THING.

i stopped replying to him some time ago...perhaps you should too

Damn it. Do you get off to putting words in my mouth???

1) I mentioned that everyone has a different definition of "beauty" and "social dominance".
2) ...and that the real goal is to THRIVE in life and to be the best you can be, so that the potential partners available to you would be greater - giving you more freedom to choose in the game of love.
3) Written about this in detail before:


This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 3 2009, 11:08 AM

Let me say it from a guy's point of view.

I think everyone wants intimacy. Ya know, cuddling and spooning at 1am kinda intimacy. It feels good to be touched...It feels even better if it's someone you love.

Guys want sex.

There are three types of unmarried guys:
(yes it's a generalization. Up yours silver!!!)

1) Guys who are getting laid in a committed, loving relationship that would likely lead to marraige.
--> these guys are lucky.

2) Guys who are single but are getting laid regularly from casual sex partners --> these guys are likely to be quite attractive and have a certain amount of charm and charisma.

3) Guys who are single but are NOT getting laid regularly...or at all(!). --> These guys tend to either turn to prostitutes as they grow older, or remain virgins.

Type (1) guys are likely to marry. Type (2) guys will eventually marry and settle down as casual sex does not give that same intimacy and connectedness that most people crave as they grow older - it's like switching from craft brews to beer on tap... Familiar, enjoyed, plentiful. As they are quite attractive themselves, they would likely settle for a reasonably attractive woman. Type (3) guys have a very very strong incentive to get married - sex. Problem is that these guys tend to be less attractive and hence will face rejection over and over. They will try to be "nice" but still be brushed off as "nice guys"/"just friends"/etc as girls dont see them as potential partners (in bed).

there are grey areas in between of course...

---

Added on May 3, 2009, 12:05 pm...and to tick silver off.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 3 2009, 12:05 PM

Do you understand the meanings of the ad hominems that you use?


There's no point arguing with you because:

1) You put words in my mouth.
2) You use ad hominems and consistenly insist that "i miss the point" etc..
3) You have some kind of superiority complex.

I leave it to the readers of this forum to decide for yourself.

My views on relationships and the game of love can be found here: http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=986099

^I have attempted to make it as gender neutral (non-sexist) as possible, and any suggestions to improve it is welcome. Also, do bump it if you find it helpful

I touch type much faster than i write.

You two have already asked me this in another thread so im copy pasting the reply:

Again, I quote myself.

1) Raw attractiveness determines the pool of people willing to empathize with you.
2) The larger the pool, the more likely you will have lots of candidates who are COMPATIBLE with you...ie. people who you click with and have no problem bonding emotionally with.
3) Almost everyone will eventually settle for the most attractive person from that group of COMPATIBLE people.


Compatibility and the ability to bond emotionally is the key to any relationship as they are the precursor to empathy.
...being attractive just means that the number of compatible people available (ie. willing to go out and reciprocate your interest and empathize with you) would be higher - and hence you could be picky. Not everyone can be picky. Those that can tend to get choice selections..and call it love after awhile. Those that wait till their late 20's often have to settle for what is available at the end of the day..and call it love after awhile.


This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 3 2009, 10:08 PM

Raw physical attractiveness: An hourglass figure for women. Reasonable build (size/height) for men plus a deep voice and manly features.

Answer me this: If you had taller guys going after you, would you consider going out with a guy who is 10 inches shorter than you? Assuming that culture/values/religion/income/etc are the same...Ok, the shorter guy is a very nice guy, but since you didnt go out with him and spend time to empathize with him, the chances of a relationship blossoming with him will be less.

Now you can argue till the cows come home that looks dont matter, but the fact is that it DOES. Love is derived from empathy. Humans are picky with whom they empathize with... and people are more inclined to want to empathize those who posess high levels of raw attractiveness. The pretty girls in class got all the attention for a reason.


Tolerance, compromise and sacrifice comes AFTER emotional bonding (from deep empathy and time spent together). Nature has a way of discouraging people from falling in love (ie. bonding emotionally) with people who are (subconsciously) considered not good enough.There is a reason why there are so many "nice guys" out there who find it so difficult making girls see them as a lover - lack of raw attractiveness.... They will always be the "friend"... not the lover... no matter how hard they try to empathize and connect with the girl.


NONONONONONO.
Love will blossom if you spend enough time/experiences with someone who is reasonably compatible and shares the same values...REGARDLESS OF RAW PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS. It's just that nature programs us such that everyone wants to spend time/experiences and empathize with people whom we consider attractive. Pretty girls get alot of attention for this reason -everybody wants to empathize with them.

Most people will eventually start feeling lonely and if they arent attached... will start to spend time with those not previously considered - ie. they will bond emotionally and love will blossom

Different people have different standards and expectations, but generally:

Attractive guy: tall(er)_than_girl/masculine/handsome/reasonably buff/charming/polite/socially active/good income

Attractive girl: curvy/feminine.

---

Added on May 4, 2009, 12:12 amVisit any old highschool reunion of your aunties/parents (in their 50's and 60s).


I know beauty and attractiveness is subjective, but even using YOUR standards...

1) Look at the women who never married - What could you tell me about their physical appearance?
2) Look at the men who never married - What could you tell me about their ability to thrive in life?

Next:

1) Look at all the couples who married in their early 20s.
2) Look at all the couples who got together in their 30s and only married when they were in their mid 30s.



I rest my case.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 4 2009, 12:12 AM

(1) An ad hominem is when you attack the credibility of the author rather than the points presented by the author.

(2) An example of an ad hominem. To other readers, the pinning of threads are at the discretion of the moderator (im guessing Baronic). As far as I know, Baronic does not agree with my views on this topic. That said, I have received alot of positive feedback for my thread. Below are just some examples from a poll where 29 people voted for one of my earlier threads to be pinned. Look at the responses to Silverhawk's thread (How To Get The Girl You Want)and My (original, outdated) thread (Real Game of Love). I leave it to the reader to judge for himself/herself.



(3) Again, I quote myself:



Silverhawk, i was not expecting you to go this low in attacking my credibility.

To Silver and Happy, the other points you raised will be replied to shortly. An update to Face The Truth™: L O V E is pending and should be ready soon. It will address the key issue that that you raised (yeah, i do actually agree that raw attractiveness is not a pre-requisite for love). I know that it may sound contradictory, but it's not. Stay tuned

1) True. As hard as it is to believe, I actually do appreciate your comments. It is critique that I really seek in CC. I am about to update my "Face The Truth: L O V E" thread that will address many of the points you (and happy) brought up recently.

2) That is an Ad Hominem on the background of slander.

An ad hominem is when you attempt to discredit the author rather than oppose the author's points constructively. The argument you gave is non-sequitur due to the non-democratic way in which threads are pinned, but the fact remains that you were blatantly implying that my threads were inferior to yours - thus discrediting myself as an author rather than attacking my points. True, what Dickson Poon used was a more direct ad hominem...but it does not make your ad hominem any less of one.



Words can be misinterpreted. So many people thought that i was implying that money and looks were all that mattered when in reality I had said nothing like that. In fact, I had said the complete opposite.

Anyway, I am not "conforming" anything to my views. If you want to insist on accusing me of something then yes, I have been assimilating ideas from constructive feedback into my paradigm on the matter.

You have brought up very valid points and I will see to it that they are integrated in my thread. An update is pending to help clear some common misunderstandings and misinterpretations of my article. Stay tuned - your feedback there is welcome.

---

Added on May 4, 2009, 3:40 pm We now know what Silverhawk thinks of others. Dude.. To use ad hominems on an individual is one thing. To use it on an entire cohort of people is another...

Anyway, from one of the "quality" supporters of your thread:

I am a big fan of street fighter, but even then I dont think it's appropriate to join the discussion

---

Added on May 4, 2009, 3:53 pmMost of these points have been replied to in detail before. The rest will be addressed in the upcoming update to my thread: "Face The Truth: LOVE"


1) Stereotypes and generalizations exist because they are true for most people.
eg. Couples that hook up in their early 20s (not out of desperation like those in their 30s) almost always involve a guy that is taller than the girl. Sure they are exceptions, but they are far and few between. The generalization that girls are attracted to taller guys is true.

2) Have you actually been to a gathering of classmates in their 50s and 60s? Until you have, I'd request that you do not simply say otherwise.



I know it is very comforting and politically correct to say what you say.

In the same way a poor person feels good saying that money cant buy happiness, and it is really TRUE that rich people also do suffer from depression... The reality is that the rates for (clinical) depression and suicide among poor people is much higher in all countries compared to rich people. So yeah, MONEY CANT BUY HAPPINESS, but is sure as hell decreases the likelihood of a person becoming depressed.

Similarly, RAW ATTRACTION CANT GUARANTEE YOULL GET THE PARTNER OF YOUR CHOICE, but it sure as hell decreases the likelihood of remaining single and lonely.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 4 2009, 03:55 PM

Ad hominems are often offensive and derogatory. That said, I personally do not take offense to them. There is nothing really that wrong with ad hominems and it's actually human nature. People tend to use them as they run out of ideas or to make their arguments look superior to their opponent. I dont think we should get upset unless they are really derogatory (eg. very racist). However, the readers of this thread do deserve to be alerted for content that does not contribute any real value to a discussion.

I am not preaching any theory as such, but rather presenting my views on a topic I find interesting based on experience. Please see the "author's background" section of the thread.

It's good that you are bringing up the topic of experience. This has been done by silver and happy before. Unfortunately, as I am using my real name (ezra limm):



To be honest I'd like to hear about their experiences too - and how they could interpret the same sentences so differently. For experiences shape the lens through which we see the world.

---

Added on May 4, 2009, 4:24 pmThe last two posts by silver and happy are full of rants and ad hominem rhetoric. There are a few points scattered about, but what can be said has already been said, and rebutted in detail in previous posts in this thread.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 4 2009, 04:27 PM

Again. Lost In England liaoz.... is that what you have been thinking all along???

Dont tell me you're like the girl who thought sexist meant dirty minded. (sexist really means gender biased)

A generalization is not a fallacy. It does not ignore the fact that EXCEPTIONS exist.

If I said something like "black people like grape soda" - that is a generalization that is also a fallacy - as only some black people like grape soda - most are impartial to it.
--> generalization AND fallacy.

But if I said something like women like men who are taller than them - that is a generalization that is NOT a fallacy. Women really do like men taller than them, and there are statistics to back it up (just look at couples around you). Just because a small proportion of women do end up with guys shorter than them, it does not negate the generalization - and does not make it a fallacy.


I leave it to the readers to judge for themselves. My threads can be found by clicking
http://forum.lowyat.net/user/ezralimm ...Then click on "show member's topics".

Face The Truth™: M O N E Y 319 replies, 6828 views
Face The Truth™: What Girls Really Want In A Man 470 replies, 25105 views
Face The Truth™: The Real Game of Love 161 replies, 6801 views
Face The Truth™: The Real Reasons Why There Are So Many Singles 89 replies, 3876 views

Note: All Cupid's Corner FTT articles have been merged into one thread - Face The Truth™: L O V E <-- most recent article... it's attached to my sig


I am doing this as a hobby, as I miss the good ol days of highschool debates. The next Face The Truth article would likely be in Real World Issues...when I can find the time to pen it.

This post has been edited by ezralimm: May 4 2009, 04:55 PM

FOR THE LAST TIME:

The existance of exceptions does not make a make a generalization false.

A generalization INCLUDES exceptions but is applicable to the norm. So what if there is one who is not. A generalization, by definition, has to include exceptions to the rule.

A hasty generalization is a fallacy of reasoning, yes... IF THE GENERALIZATION ITSELF IS FALSE... NOT if it has exceptions.... ALL generalizations will have exceptions.

Btw.

I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PEOPLE 30yo+ BEING DESPERATE.

I did say however that if you have never been in a relationship and are approaching 30yo, you likely be desperate.

(1) Hahahaha, Yeah, that's really pathethic.

(2) Of course Lol, you could make all the assumptions about me that you want. I dont give a shit because its not true. Those who know me in real life know that is not true either. Say, add me on facebook ("ezra limm")... I'd like to see who this dickson poon is.

I did not say that most people past 30 must be desperate..




I said that most people approaching 30, who have never been in a relationship, are likely to be desperate.

By "never been in a relationship" I mean:

1) A girl who has never had a guy ask her out and has thus never had a boyfriend....likely because she isnt very attractive herself.
2) A guy who has never had a girlfriend...and is not getting laid from ONS either as he is too unattractive (ie. girls ignore him at clubs and such).

I digress.

1) Most guys cant even reliably attract a girl to go out with them on a date at social meeting places (bars, clubs, and popular hangouts)

2) Human nature is such that guys of reproductive age have a pretty constant sex drive and will seek out women who are reasonably attractive to fvck. Any reasonably attractive (or even average jane's) woman could prostitute herself and there will always be customers - The same cannot be said for guys unless you are talking about the gay community.

3) Straight men find gay sex reprehensible. Most men are straight.

Money is indespensible in real life and seriously, without a stable source of money, there is no way a guy can be a good provider. It is difficult (note: not impossible) to thrive in life without money...and girls are attracted to guys who are thriving. That said, money will not guarantee you will thrive. You can use the money for cigs/alcohol/drugs and screw yourself up. Money does not buy happiness...But the lack of money is real cause for depression and the inability to thrive and be awesome - ie. being poor increases the chances you will end up a lonely loser in life


Girls are not attracted to money....but everything else that comes with it