Why dont women like nice guys ???

>>36421842
Because they are not attractive...

>>36421842
They do, they just don't like desperate beta males.

Being nice is a sign of either physical or emotional weakness in men. No shit it's not an attractive trait to women.

>>36421842
Because they try and placate the girl 24/7 while matching their interests up with her interests

Girls don't want yes men, they want a man that will challenge them and butt heads with them

>>36421898
guys we need to watch out, we have a highly functioning sociopathic mastermind here

he has reached a level where he abandoned social status and emotions
he is way superior to us mortals who are bound by feelings and he is gonna slay some mad pussy because he is a relentless robot, unlike us weaklings

Because "nice" guys are actually just pretending to be friends with a woman while trying to get them invested enough to have sex.

>>36421947

Take your edginess somewhere else anon.
See >>36421920

>>36421842
Theres being nice and then theres trying to attend to every womans physical needs, beta.

>>36421947
You're a douche anon

hes probably just ugly or small penis or does cringey shit

>>36421842
I like nice guys but it does not matter. I am far too ugly.

>>36421947
lmao i almost want to screenshot this, i love you anon. hahahahaha i laughed mfao

fuck off >>36421994
>>36422122
>>36421898
cunts

>>36421842
Women are afraid of men.
If you don't give them something tangible to be afraid of like a criminal record, threats of violence, or substance abuse, they start to invent reasons to be afraid.
Women's irrational fears have always been of great benefit to their continued survival in a world dominated by stronger more agressive creatures.

>>36421842
Honestly, can you blame women for not liking a pathetic chump like that?

His problem isn't that he's nice, though. It's that he has zero self-respect.

>>36422199
All rich men do that for their wives. So any wealthy or above middle class family has zero self respect?

You're probably fucking uglier than him

>>36422185
>women are afraid of [criminal] men
by that logic, shouldn't the "nice guys" be totally preferred?

>>36421962
I mean if women could accept that i don't want a worthless friendship and if she could grow a pair and shoot me down when she sees what I'm doing then maybe shit would be easier.

>>36422243
I'm glad women don't think that way as I really enjoy genuine friendship with the other sex without expecting sex.

>>36422228
All men. Don't paraphrase me.
A woman who doesn't consider you a threat doesn't consider you male.

>>36422215
The difference is this guy acts like being a walking ATM is a virtue, and then whines on Facebook like a bitch when his gold-digging wife/girlfriend leaves him.

I probably am uglier than him, as I'm pretty fucking ugly. But that doesn't make his behavior less pathetic.

File: 1492092616576.jpg (285KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 2048x1365px

>>36421842
>looking into the mind of an average IQ person

wow this is riveting.

>>36422304
Good for you, that has no value to me soooo...what was your point?

>>36421842
I dated a "nice" guy who never made any kind of decision for himself.. He always let me take the lead and it got frustrating very early on in the "relationship".

When I dumped him he shown his true personality, acting bitter around me and unfriending me on Facebook. Oh no, he sure shown me!...

>>36422340
You speak like a woman and expect the woman to act like a feminist and let you know your place, while decrying the degenerate paradigm that feminism has wrought.
Your dissonance will be solved when you receive your first hard dicking from behind. I'm sorry we live in a world that churns out male jellyfish.

>>36421842
because they're not physically attracted to them

just one more reason to take women's control of their sexuality away from them

>>36422399
It's a strange fault of humanity that the cure for what ails us is never the attractive option.

File: 0712ba3585ce57075c0da2248d45dd2d1490193523_large.jpg (12KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x200px

>>36422438
>It's a strange fault of humanity that the cure for what ails us is never the attractive option.
are you twelve years old

>>36421842
Because "nice guys" are just creepy manipulative shallow betas.

>>36422348
>fuck someone over for no reason
>they stop being nice to you and start treating you badly
>"oh now you show your true colours!"
I know this is bait but the way normies do this really gets me

>>36422307
>A woman who doesn't consider you a threat doesn't consider you male.

That's bullshit. What sense would there be for a species to be like that, where female parts would need to fear males in order to accept them as males and thus, possible breeding partners?

Biology works the other way around. Leaving emotions out of this for now, females of all species ofc seek the assistance of males that will provide potent offspring and protection for the family.
Taking emotion into this equasion, happiness can overweigh material wellbeing.

But you are saying is just some straight-up bullshit.

Are you a wannabe-alpha or what?
>Hurr if I ain't dangerous I ain't no man

File: 2CD0B526-BE9A-4D9B-873E-7F5AEC127945-314-0000003F13312A74.jpg (14KB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 288x288px

>>36422162
>lmao i almost want to screenshot this, i love you anon. hahahahaha i laughed mfao

Could you get any cringe-ier? You're a fucking disgrace

>>36422493
you sound totally effeminate

Women don't like nice guys because nice guys are less of a man than women.

File: watchmenpaulryan.jpg (77KB, 1224x680px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1224x680px

>>36422456
>are you twelve years old
>grow up kid
>underage b&
>le edge
>you are like a little babby
>I remember my first whine, long long ago
t. glad I'm grown up now

>>36422541
ok you're mentally 12yo and probably post on reddit

>>36421842
he sounds like a paternalistic hack that wants to keep his wife locked at home, then neglects her emotionally (even though she relies on him) and thinks he can make up for it by buying her material goods and "paying the bills".

How about no? That's not a nice guy. That's a controlling narcissist. A nice guy is a guy that respects your autonomy and with whom you can live a shared life within the bounds of a common agreement.

>>36422493
OK let's test this.
>>36422348
You, would you willingly isolate yourself with a strange man who is bigger, stronger and atleast as smart as you are?
I assure you that he is a nice guy.

>>36421947
>le snarky response invalidates your claim
See you in 3 years when you can legally post on this site

>>36422348
>When I dumped him he shown his true personality, acting bitter around me and unfriending me on Facebook. Oh no, he sure shown me!...

Was he actually bitter or did he just stop giving you attention? You also fail to recognize that maybe he's trying to get over the relationship, hence, unfriending you from Facebook. It's okay, we understand you're a selfish whore.

>>36422493
>What sense would there be for a species to be like that, where female parts would need to fear males in order to accept them as males and thus, possible breeding partners?
Because, dumbass, if you're not afraid of him and you're a 100lb puny little thing, those wolves or rival tribesmen sure as hell don't either. Think of it like your nation's military - you want them to be dangerous because that's how they protect you.

Literally 20 seconds of thinking would have led you to this conclusion. You just refuse to think because that requires allowing for the possibility that your current view could be wrong.

>>36422348
>He tried to treat me like an equal, what a turnoff!

Then you should admit you like dominant men and speak out against feminism.

>>36422541
>>36422456
grow up 12 year olds

>>36422521
>Women don't like nice guys because nice guys are less of a man than women.
>Females don't like providing, caring males
>Females don't want a safe spot for their potential offspring

you are retarded

also, who said that women don't like nice guys?
sluts dont, no disagreements. but thats just a small group

>>36422603
see this here

>>36422597
sure, how?

>>36422670
tell me how "nice guys" do a worse job than others in protecting women in todays civil society

>>36422704
The world says women don't like nice guys. That's why they're a joke.

File: no.png (528KB, 722x708px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 722x708px

>>36422701
Don't be naive, you are the one who must construct additional maturity.

>>36422340
good for you


>>36422389
you are a women

>>36422494
disgrace to what? i doubt you'd measure up to even the shittiest of my acquaintances. wanna look at each other face to face? :)

>>36422704
Beta "nice guys" make terrible providers and parents. This is why women hate them.

Nice guys are just ugly weirdos who try and manipulate women. It's gross.

>>36422787
>wanna look at each other face to face

Sure, post a pic right now and I'll reciprocate.

If you're not 8/10+, your ego is in for a rude awakening

>>36422755
no puppet no puppet
you're a women

Well we don't have free will because our biology controls our decisions for the most part. The other, smaller part is forced by language (culturally controlled behaviors).
If you learn this you will see what certain behaviors lead too, what aspects you can change, and how to be as un-damagable as possible when things happen that you can't change/avoid.

Most people don't know any of these things other than superficially, so they'll just follow their instincts all the time without being aware of it. They will rationalize all these illogical things they do, simple as that.

The nice guy could still be a nice guy but adopt certain behaviors that will fill the hole, so that the woman PERCEIVES him as having the qualities she think a nice guy would lack.
He could also teach her about human behavior so she starts to understand herself (if she's smart).

>>36422819
what wome understandably hate about "beta nice guys" is their lack of decision-making, their naivity and other traits

having a relationship in which you try to accomodate your partner in the best way possible while being nice to them is the perfect environment for a kid to grow up, as it learns how to properly behave in society. it also maintains the relationship very well and assures both partners that they can get along well with each other.

i am very sure that a man who looks down on his wife can neither teach his kid the right values nor make his wifes life happy in the long run.

>>36422887
>Well we don't have free will because our biology controls our decisions for the most part.

hold it right there
this theory, which was mostly popularized through freud is abundant as humans are very capable of overcoming their drives and acting on their own, even if it is for your own bad.

>>36421842
I'd say this particular women didn't like this nice guy because he happened to be a nice guy who bitches and cries to everyone on Facebook. Imagine what the guy is like off of Facebook.

Nightmare

>>36422199
She liked him enough to fuck him and have a child with him.

So yeah I blame her.

>>36422574

>A nice guy is a guy that respects your autonomy and with whom you can live a shared life within the bounds of a common agreement.

That sounds really boring.

>>36421842
Because women are biologically programmed to be attracted to alpha males. In the wild a characteristic of alpha males is fucking every attractive female they find and then leaving. When a man spends an abnormal amount of time trying to please woman it shows he is a beta. Women aren't attracted to that. I'm not saying you should beat women or be am asshole for the sake of being an asshole but if you stop putting their feelings/comfort over your own they'd probably be more attracted to you.

It's not grils don't liking nice guys but sluts, these are infact not worth the effort of a "nice boy", so they are doomed to always have assholes as bf. "Nice boys" should always search for "the one, the nice girl" and not some random hoe.

>>36423105
you're right. a relationship without individual freedom and respect in which members continue to get on each others nerves is definetely what we should go for.
not this beta "get along and have a good life together" shit, right?
where's the fun, where's the crisis?

>>36423162
this

but no, all women are the same, how could half of humanity be any different from each other?

>>36422921
Freud did not actually believe that. Freud's model doesn't reduce the Ego to the Id. In fact, Freud even considers the case of a society that persuades the Ego to side with the Superego to the full exclusion of the Id, i.e. an uber-puritan society that manages to completely kill the Id, and that's one of his end-of-the-world scenarios.

>>36423105
The common agreement can be pretty kinky, so I'll have to disagree.

>>36422921
No, we're not. That is obviously an illusion. All your so called "free choices" are based on something that has previously happened. You're controlled by the randomness of the universe. Cause and effect. You might feel like you're taking your own decisions, but how do you know?

Your brain tend to take decisions for you, based on biological knowledge and culture, and it picks the decision that it based on this knowledge believes is the best for survival (leads to a lot of irrational behavior, especially in the modern world). Your reason for "why" you decided something is just your brain making up a story afterwards, to give you the illusion of free will and consciousness.
The infamous 7-second experiment confirms this as well, as test subjects are told to chose a left or right button.
The scientists could through brain scans see what decision the test subjects would decide for, 7 seconds before they thought they had decided.

Saying "she doesn't like nice guys but assholes" is just finding excuses for oneself somehow not proving you to be a "loser".

>>36421842
Everyone that doesnt use 4chan has autism, like this guy in pic related, and women with less autism leave them for us channers.

The diffrence between saying no to nice or bad boys is that nice boys will start crying whilst bad boys might go for a round or two of the rape game or else. So woman fear bad boys more than nice and don't have the courage to tell them to fuck off.

>>36423329
To expand on this. Let's look at atoms. We're made out of atoms. So if you consider us to have free will, we can say some atoms in the universe (combination of atoms) has free will.

In the 14 billion year history of the universe, universe did not have free will after 1 billion years, I assume you agree with. Not either after some billions of years (let's focus solely on our solar system to make it more simple).

As life emerged on earth, the biological beings were formed by the events in the universe and the laws of physics.
A small organism would react a certain way and some survived by random events, they simply were better at surviving the events taking place.

Biological beings would react to events due to their instincts, certain chemicals in their being would activate certain areas in them that made that act certain ways. Similar to how it is in us.
Now I assume you don't think bacteria for instance or an insect has free will either.

So, the question is, when in the history in the universe, did the universe get free will? When did any atoms get to be part of a "free will" environment?

I'd say it's more likely that never happened.

>>36423329
Your view is derridean and it is basically indefensible unless you accept the idea of the unique self-experience as an alternative perspective to Reason.

The reason this is so, is that your argument, which is an instance of what we call biological naturalism or reductive materialism, reduces cognitive content (concepts and reasoning) to biological or other material processes which are contingent and non-cognitive (desire-like mental states, tendencies and reflexes). The problem with this is that if reasoning reduces to reflex, the reasoning that reasoning reduces to instinct is also reduced to instinct, and is therefore scrubbed of its cognitive content. There is no longer any *reason* to believe that it reduces to instinct. We just happen to think that. So now, you must hold that the idea that ideas are illusions is itself an illusion, and the idea that it is an illusion is the illusion of an illusion.

In very short: Reductive materialism in any of its forms (neo-darwinism, behaviourism, biological naturalism, radical empiricism, quine-putnam thesis on empirical logic) is an attempt to turn Reason against itself, which is by definition impossible. You're trying to argue for the unthinkable.

>>36423537
>maybe if I use the biggest vocab words I know I can defeat this anon in debate

>>36421842
Because "nice guys" tend to gravitate towards girls who wants a bad boy.

>>36421842
If you want to be nice while still maintaining success with women, you have to have a certain blend of traits. You can be kind, but not a doormat. Effectively, you just have to crack the whip sometimes. Remind her that, although you are capable of great kindness, you are also not her servant. You are not her slave.

It's like with ice cream; it's good and sweet, but too much of the stuff gives you a stomachache.

>>36423722
As much as I appreciate you standing up for the middle-schoolers, that anon is trying to argue for a very strong version of a very unpopular epistemological position which has been discussed extensively by philosophers.

If he can't participate in this discussion, this may be indicative that he's rushing to conclusions without having seriously considered the issue.

>>36423111
so now settling down with a woman and staying to help raise your own children is beta?

>>36421920
>>36422162
>>36422787
stop samefagging, underage tard

>>36421947
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201105/study-finds-smiling-men-are-less-attractive-women

Women do not like men who are happy or content.

File: Say that again.jpg (19KB, 416x343px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 416x343px

>>36422348
bait or idiot roastie?

File: USC_Job_Flyer.jpg (54KB, 532x299px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 532x299px

>>36422185
Same goes for employers as well as women. (just don't have a fraud charge, can't have you stealing money from the company, lol!)

Criminals, violent assholes with temper issues, and addicts are proactive and not afraid to take risks.

Women are afraid of complacency and routine. They crave excitement and drama in their lives so they can have something to talk/blog about to their friends/family for attention.

>>36423537
>You're trying to argue for the unthinkable.
And you're trying to argue with someone who refuses to think, so what exactly did you think would happen?

>>36421842
Because there is a difference between someone who is nice and someone who is only nice to try and get into your pants and then becomes a cunt when they fail at it because they don't make a move.

The latter is generally the problem, especially because they naturally agree with women and follow them around like puppy dogs instead of having their own opinions which makes them seem like men. Having disagreements and arguments every once and awhile shows you're willing to be different than her at times and still stand up for your beliefs and self.

>>36422704
>in todays civil society
Your brain did not evolve in "today's civil society". Hell, men were expected to do violence on behalf of their families fairly regularly just a few generations ago. Quit acting like a retard.

>>36424155
One eye on the poster you're responding to, one eye on the lurkers you're trying to save from the STEM version of postmodernism.

File: whatwomenwant.png (72KB, 825x551px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 825x551px

>>36424114
superficial roasties like this exist irl

Same reason men don't like sluts.
I mean, we do. Sort of.

You want women to give you sex, but you don't want women to give it to everyone. If they do, you will still take, but not care about her.

Women want men that give them resources/protection/caring, but don't want men that give it to everyone. If those men do, the women will still take, but not care about the men.

Being a nice guy is the equivalent of being a slut. They will take what you offer but never respect you for it.

>>36424279
>You want women to give you sex, but you don't want women to give it to everyone. If they do, you will still take, but not care about her.

I care for my fuckbuddy at a personal level and she's just thoroughly a whore

>>36424332
You're not really exemplary of common decency pal.

>>36424107
Well, if you are content, they you wouldn't be complaining about not having a girl anyway.

>>36424356
What do you mean by that?

The oppression of the robot overlord will not be allowed to continue

>>36423537
Jesus I might have witnessed the most ridiculous post trying to sound like an intellectual ever.
No, it is not "basically indefensible unless you do this and that", that is how it appears according to your model of reality and the narrow set of knowledge you have learned. Apart from that what you wrote is just a word sallad.
"So now, you must hold that the idea that ideas are illusions is itself an illusion, and the idea that it is an illusion is the illusion of an illusion."
That literally means nothing. Those words just symbolize what you think they do in your head to match your model, or your subjective opinion.
Also, you projected me into certain categories to be able to "pinpoint" me better for your argument, instead of responding to what was actually said.

You are getting into more of a linguistic discussion without realizing language is just symbols and the way you use it is just dumb.
When you later go on to call me a middle schooler in another post you show your ignorance further.

Your reaction is actually exactly what's to be expected from an ape trying to protect it's ego. Just because your brain can't conceive a world without free will doesn't mean it's not real.
Answer the question if you can:
"In what time in the history of the universe did our solar system get free will (we're part of the solar system)?"

You're the typical moron that reads philosophy and thinks he's a philosopher but never actually thinks philosophy. Nothing worse than a philosophy major.

There's plenty of science supporting that we don't have free will. (If we have ANY it's extremely limited).

File: 782492343.png (126KB, 1085x645px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1085x645px

>>36424439
That's where the whole "creep-shaming" culture comes from. A guy who's having a good time by himself must obviously be there to creep on children or stare at women because he's so insecure.

>>36424454
Not the anon, but

>"In what time in the history of the universe did our solar system get free will (we're part of the solar system)?"

We're not part of the solar system. We inhabit the solar system. This is a pretty shitty question, honestly, since you can interpret what you're asking in different ways.

>>36424454
>That literally means nothing.

I think you mean you're not following. That's ok.

I didn't say anything about language. My argument is about concepts and reasoning. You can not reduce these to natural processes, simply because that would also reduce the reasoning by which you reduced them to these processes to those same processes which are random and contingent.

The argument I'm making is not strictly about free will. What I'm saying is this: You can't make the argument that we were merely adapted to believe that 2+2=4 but that this doesn't hold necessarilly and might be different for other creatures, simply because your model of explanation would also entail that you were simply adapted to believe that we are adapted to believe that 2+2=4. Biological naturalism is self-defeating.

>There's plenty of science supporting that we don't have free will.

Whether we have a free will is not a scientific question.

>>36424634
So, to break this down:

First guy is saying that biological impulses fool us into thinking we are making decisions.

Second guy is saying that is recursive.

>>36424705
Yeah, basically. I'm genuinely not good at summarizing things.

The belief that "we are tricked into holding our beliefs because of our biology, but they have no independent validity" is self-destabilizing.

>>36424076
You idiot I'm >>36421920

>>36422787
>>36422162
Is a different poster.

You're almost as disgraceful as him, kys

>>36424586
THIS is the exact psychosis most humans have that make them unable to think.
To think you just "inhabit" the solar system and that you're not an actual part of it, is sheer stupidity. We are the universe.
If we're not part of it, we just "inhabit it". Then my question can look different:
"At what point in the history of the universe did atoms appear in the solar system that was not it, but just "inhabitated it".
You're saying words, making noises, that tell you stories. They are illusions. You're fools. You are the solar system. The most complex mechanism in the solar system.

>>36424634

No, I meant that it literally means nothing. You just think it does because it is part of the story you tell yourself about the world. Kind of like how religious people will quote the bible.

"You can not reduce these to natural processes, simply because that would also reduce the reasoning by which you reduced them to these processes to those same processes which are random and contingent."

NO, it wouldn't have to mean that at all. You're just making things up. Reducing reason to natural processes doesn't actually "reduce" a function in practical reality. You're once again being fooled by language. You're just "reasoning" in circles without really saying anything. "Reason" is a combination of instincts and predicting events (expected future), nothing else.

I am not making the argument that we have evolved to believe 2+2=4. Never ever did I say that, and the fact you believe that I did tells quite a lot about your cognitive dissonance.
You're the person that claim I think certain things from your understanding I am here to defend "biological naturalism" which you invented that I did, to make it easier for yourself.
2+2=4 due to the structure of the universe, but that has 0 to do with free will.

If you're making an argument that's not about free will, when that's not when I'm talking about, it's quite clear why you have to put me in a category (biological naturalism) to even have anything to say.

Yes, if we have free will or not can obviously be studied by science. It's the only thing you can repeat and make sure it is not affected by human ego and instincts.

So if experiments confirm the idea that free will doesn't exist (or is extremely limited), that science doesn't count because free will is not a "scientific question"? Ain't that convenient.

Most Chad's are super nice guys though?

>>36421842
I hate nice guys more than women do.

>>36425026
The atoms make up me, but they are not me. The sum is greater than the parts.

Furthermore, the universe itself is not a living organism. It is a term we use to describe the vast amount of celestial bodies that inhabit what we call "space."

>>36421947
>only sociopaths can answer questions plainly and honestly

wtf I love sociopaths now

>>36425047
>I meant that it literally means nothing.
That's your assertion. But you're not demonstrating that.

>"Reason" is a combination of instincts and predicting events (expected future), nothing else.

Is that how you feel? Is it your instinct to say this?

>if we have free will or not can obviously be studied by science.

Obviously not, since the will is not a natural object and can not be studied by means of the natural sciences.

>if experiments confirm the idea that free will doesn't exist

Experiments can not confirm this idea because experiments can never have the will as their object. Neural activity is not the will, it's what you want to reduce the will to. But you can't assume your conclusion as a premise to your argument.

>>36425129
The universe is a living organism. We are proof of that. "Inhabiting" or separation is another human illusion.


And another thing about free will as I'm typing anyway. I'm not saying free will doesn't exist at all. It COULD be so that it doesn't exist at all. But we also could have some amount of free will (very small, since it would be a very new function in life, and reprogramming our biology could in theory allow us to control more impulses = more free will).
So yeah, our so called free will is very small.
We could try to choose to expose ourselves to certain information more so that we will be more programme din a way we think will be benefitial.
But even this might not be possible, that is hard to say.

>>36424114
That is what 97% of women think like

>>36425026
"You don't share the same space as women, you ARE the space that women live in. So if you aren't actively in their lives and letting them leech off of you emotionally and financially, then you're a stupid weirdo creep."

>>36425097
Weaklings ruin the dating pool for the rest of us, it only makes sense.

>>36425186
>Is that how you feel? Is it your instinct to say this?

Instinct was an example of things that limit free will. The reason I said it is a combination of life experiences where certain information has accumulated, subconscious instanicts and random events that has takes place in my day so I'm here typing now in the first place, for instance.

>Obviously not, since the will is not a natural object and can not be studied by means of the natural sciences.

So are you arguing that the will somehow would be separate from our biological being? I am not quite clear on what you mean here. Is the will not part of the brain? Is it outside of the body?
If it is part of the brain, it should be possibly to study it. Like the 7-second experiment, where they successfully predicted peoples decisions before they thought they used their free will to decide, by using brain scans.

>Neural activity is not the will, it's what you want to reduce the will to.

Then define the will. If you can't point to what it is or where it is located, chances are that it (like "the soul") is an illusion.

>>36422348
>treat someone negatively
>surprised they reply negatively
Wow.

>>36425429
>Instinct was an example of things that limit free will. The reason I said it is a combination of life experiences where certain information has accumulated, subconscious instanicts and random events that has takes place in my day so I'm here typing now in the first place, for instance.

I see. So this is the reason you happened to believe this and post it, it's not that you know it to be true or something like that.

>Is the will not part of the brain?

Obviously not. Are concepts part of your brain? If I open up your brain, will concepts and reasonings fall out? No. Of course these supervene on the elements of your brain, but they are not these elements and they can't even be thought to be them.

It is not inside or outside the body. Concepts are abstract. They don't exist within space and time because they are not objects of our experience.

>Then define the will.

The will is the rational determination to utilize the necessary means to accomplish an end, so the determination of practical reason that takes this association of material means and ideal ends as its object.

> where it is located

Space and time are pure forms of our sensibility. We must necessarilly experience objects of experience within space and time, but concepts are products of the understanding, not given by experience.

>>36425755

>I see. So this is the reason you happened to believe this and post it, it's not that you know it to be true or something like that.

"Knowing it to be true" is a result of accumulated information (knowledge) from the first day of my life and all the random events along the way.

>Obviously not. Are concepts part of your brain? If I open up your brain, will concepts and reasonings fall out? No. Of course these supervene on the elements of your brain, but they are not these elements and they can't even be thought to be them. It is not inside or outside the body. Concepts are abstract. They don't exist within space and time because they are not objects of our experience.


Yes, concepts are in the brain. We work on them collectively, but of course you need to process them with the brain, and they came from brains to begin with.
Or rather, concepts are the result of the human brain (a sort of computer) interpreting random events in the universe and adding words to it. Symbols. Symbols for essences.

To say that they won't fall out if you open my brain is just... no comment needed. Of course not. The world operates on more than one variable. They don't have to exist as actual objects to be there. Once again you are word-thinking.

So you are saying "free will" does not exist "within space and time"?
Seems so.

>The will is the rational determination to utilize the necessary means to accomplish an end, so the determination of practical reason that takes this association of material means and ideal ends as its object.

And you have no idea what processes in yourself and the universe as a whole that affected that rational determination to begin with. (there are many, very many that affect it more than you think).

>Space and time are pure forms of our sensibility. We must necessarilly experience objects of experience within space and time, but concepts are products of the understanding, not given by experience.

You're literally just rambling, Mr."Reason".

Now I need to go to bed. It's late where I'm at. Nice chatting with you even though we disagree quite enormously! Anyway, if someone is interested in (lack off) free will and how we are slaves to random events I strongly recommend the book Influence to see how easy we are to program. The book free will to see how neuroscience can tell us how it's very limited. And the black swan to see how random events carry large implications.
When you add all these things together you realize not much in life is controlled by free will, if anything.
In a way the world becomes clearar and more easily understood when you realize these mechanisms (and you can learn to shield yourself from some, in the book Influence).

Anyway, we can agree on that we are limited by the laws of physics, and I'm sure you agree some of our biology affects our actions. So we disagree on the extent.

Good night, anon.

>>36426067
>"Knowing it to be true" is a result of accumulated information (knowledge) from the first day of my life and all the random events along the way.

You should decide whether you have a contingent tendency to hold something or knowledge that it holds necessarilly. Because the former isn't knowledge at all, and that's why your argument can't work

>They don't have to exist as actual objects

Right, so they are objects of our thought, but they are not objects of our experience. They are not actual objects as you put it.

>Seems so.

No kind of will exists within time. Wills are ideal. Material actions, movements etc exist within time.

>And you have no idea what processes in yourself and the universe as a whole that affected that rational determination to begin with.

We can explain why we came to will something through psychology, sure. I don't doubt that after the fact we can look back and explain the will that was formed. And this gives us the illusion that it was predetermined simply because the concrete will, after it is formed, is in fact determined, and because theoretical reason, the explanatory use of reason, views everything as causally determined by prior causes.

But this isn't the whole story. When we're deliberating in order to choose one option amongst many, we can not expain ourselves to action, and we can not act under the idea that what we will do is predetermined. It's a practical, not theoretical necessity, that we choose according to justifications that we can represent to ourselves. That's what is meant by a free will, nothing more.

>You're literally just rambling

This is the least rambling part of my argument.

>>36426177
Sure, good night.

"Nice guys" are betas. "Assholes" are alphas. In the eyes of women, anyhow. I don't know how they do it. Settle, that is to mean. Whether for the asshole or the nice guy. I guess one is worse than the other, but who can tell? Not me, at any rate... Just saying. Women will tell you I am not confident or something. I am, I just don't project it well enough for them to say so. I have a litany of other problems that one would think is the source of my woes, but in reality I think, this is the major one. Apart from the fact that I don't approach often enough (once in a while I have, but barely ever really), but yeah. Fuck 'em anyway. They don't want what they say they want. They want barebones chatter and stupid drunk antics. Not for me. I want a hoe, because at least their standards are heightened. To them, "lowered". But they get better men! Despite their repulsive attitude! lols all around, I guess.

because you idiots always go for extroverts

>>36421842
Women do like nice guys.

They just don't like guys who are nice to them purely motivated by sex.

>>36421842
Im a nice guy, women like me. Every woman i came to contact with seems to enjoy my company.
As far as getting laid goes, i had no problems doing that. Relationships were fine too, for the most part, until a certain point. But thats purely because of my personality, and not because im being nice. But thats just personal experience.
As far as some sort of scientific research goes, i watched a show where they did abit of this "chad" looking dude against some, still attractive i must say, but less "manly" looking dude. Basically when women just wanted to fuck theyd pick the manly one purely based on looks, but when they were ovulating theyd pick the less manly looking one purely based on looks. How effective that study was i dont remember, saw it long time ago.
>>36426656
What if i am purely motivated to talk to them because of sex, but am just nice to everyone in general?

>>36426874
>What if i am purely motivated to talk to them because of sex, but am just nice to everyone in general?
I suppose if you don't treat them obviously different to anyone else it wouldn't be obvious so it wouldn't matter.

>>36426905
I suppose thats what differentiates a "nice guy" from a nice guy.

>>36424823
It kind of seems like you're driving this argument towards a hard stop where you need to decide if there was an original intention behind creation.
Turtles on turtles.

>>36426959
Not that anon but if you're nice to everyone it's not really special when it happens to you now is it? If you go the extra mile, and even then not purely for sex, that's when you elicit emotions from females, pretty sure. Speaking from experience kind of.

>>36425164
>my worldview is the only honest one
>given identical experiences, all people would reach the same conclusions (specifically, the ones that I've reached or would reach)
>anyone who would argue otherwise is being disingenuous
t. you and every other ideologue

>>36427087
Hm, i find that method to be a really bad way to get someone to be in a relationship with you. Being a little bit nicer to someone whose youre in a relationship with does make sense though

>>36426566
>introverts don't get the opportunity to interact with other introverts because neither party will reach out to the other
>introverts should feel bad about interacting with the only people who ever acknowledge them, because long-term it's unlikely to be in their best interests. they should all become monks innawoods instead
>dumb frogposting sheeple
What did you mean by this?

>>36421842
Because females are subhuman and their lizard brains only gets turned on by caveman chads

you cant just substitute self-worth, success, attractiveness, and personality with being nice

>>36427206
Yeah, maybe. I guess I mean "extra mile" as in pay more attention to someone, tell them secrets or whatever, give gifts but don't go for the kill exactly. They'll get the message, that you care about them. Maybe over the top but it seems to work.

>>36421898

careful with that edge, my dear friend

File: 1437695288200.jpg (6KB, 250x244px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x244px

>>36422348
>unfriending me on Facebook
Why should he keep in contact with you if you're no longer in a relationship?
>literally mad that he's not orbiting you

>>36421842
nice guys don't know what they want. they are just happy with whatever you give them. women see that as boring.

who would want to be in a relationship with you if its going to be one sided?

>>36427242
meet introverts through extroverts

File: 1402969873237.jpg (71KB, 476x544px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 476x544px

>>36427110
Thank you enlightened moderate, at last I truly see.
Believing anything that hasn't been mandated by polite society is fucking retarded.

>>36427722
>>36427722
American women live in such a world where one of the biggest injustices imposed upon them is having non-relative men eventually lower their levels of assistance and support after receiving no reciprocal gestures from the woman for a noted period of time.
>>36427763
>JUST NETWORK BRAH
No.
I never once asked a teacher for help outside of class in 19 years of schooling, I'd rather take a taxi than have someone pick me up at the airport even if they offer and I get uncomfortable receiving gifts because I don't know how to appropriately react.
The idea of someone trying to jumpstart a relationship between me and someone else is abhorrent to me.

>>36422348

You and women like you end up bitter on /r9k/ for a reason. Not to say you weren't justified in dumping him, but "nice guys" often end up with the slut feminist types like you for a reason.

>>36426177
I enjoyed reading your posts, very down to earth and straight to the point. Guys like the one you were talking to are so full of shit they can't even see it. It's easy to sound smart using big words and throwing obscure concepts out but when you take a look at what he's saying you'll see that it's nothing.

I'll check out the book hope you a had a good night of rest.

File: autumnends.png (158KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 500x500px

>>36421898
Yep I've read articles about this too

Kindness is viewed as weakness, and not just by women. We live in a backwards world where apathy and psychopathic traits are not only accepted but encouraged. Can't wait till the next mass extinction

File: dardo.png (567KB, 549x635px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 549x635px

>>36421842

>but I guess ill start just doing me..

Is he ... talking about wanking?

Stop confusing men who are genuinely good people with this type

>Whining to facebook (family, mutual friends, etc)
>Doing everything for the woman instead of mutual give and take
>Assuming all women want to chill at home and take care of baby right away
>"I dont deserve this I dont deserve any of it"
We dont live in a world where we get what we deserve

File: 130901.jpg (23KB, 225x350px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 225x350px

so what is it that girls really want in terms of personality? i want to stay a nice guy, i dont want to be a jerk, an alpha, or the manly stererotype, or the one that asserts dominance.

>>36429581

It's confusing at first. But most young males are effeminate these days, and I see plenty of non-assertive effeminate queer type guys with gfs. You just have to go outside and not be ugly. It's not fair since a lot of guys have things handed to them on a golden platter, then other types of guys suffer so much.

Of course, women still want Chad more than anything, but when they can't get Chad, they settle for whatever else they can. It's like taking a step down a big ladder, one step at a time.

They like nice guys

They just don't like pathetic weak creepy men. You robots always seem to confuse a lack of confidence with being nice

>>36429581
Depends on the girl

Onigiri