Looks or Game? - Page 4

you haven't understood a word i've said

hey, did you read that new study on nomological possibility?
oh, you mean the one about life in ancient egypt?
nah, the one about alternative energy sources.
that one was good! but i was listening to news and they had some commentary on nomological possibility, apparently nelly furtado is going to do well at the mtv music awards

there's a reason why science isn't this way.

On February 14 2008 04:16 KeanuReaver wrote: you haven't understood a word i've said hey, did you read that new study on nomological possibility? oh, you mean the one about life in ancient egypt? nah, the one about alternative energy sources. that one was good! but i was listening to news and they had some commentary on nomological possibility, apparently nelly furtado is going to do well at the mtv music awards there's a reason why science isn't this way.

you haven't actually SAID anything! loooooooolz

you've just made posts like this to save face and distract from your lack of argument

40% looks 60% game, can't get by without atleast some of either but game plays a slightly bigger role

oh and if you have a lot of money you need neither and/or what looks/game you do have will be insanely enhanced and percieved more positively by girls

synopsis

Steal City posts.... here's this theory check it out
KeanuReves posts.... you're stupid and this has no bases
Steal City posts.... it's actually a well established theory, check it out (provides wiki link)
KeanuReves posts... mmm, well the scientific community is too quick to jump at logical answers
Steal City posts.... don't argue with me man, if you don't like what the scientific community believes stop flaming me and write an article for Popular Science Maganize
KeanuReves posts.... you don't understand what i'm saying, you're wrong and science is wrong but i'm gonna keep it a secret why
Steal City posts.... plz provide argument
KeanuReves posts... ur a baby!!! lay off me

you're in your house with a girl you haven't fucked yet

she says

"hey can you go get me some orangejuice from the fridge"

if you respond

"get your own fucking orange juice"

..and you're broke...you're probably not getting laid that night cause of that

..and you're rich...she'll be on her knees within the hour

running in circles

my argument(s, plus cas's)

argument: explanation isn't sufficient, anecdotal evidence is required
your rebuttal: but some scientists agree with the theory!
me: this isn't anecdotal evidence, this isn't sufficient
you: but these guys agree with it too!
me: this isn't anecdotal evidence, this isn't sufficient
you: how about these guys! lol it's basically a fact
me: this isn't anecdotal evidence, this isn't sufficient.

argument: you are discussing different fields of study, this isn't evolution.
your rebuttal: but these things came about because of evolution
me: this is a terrible view point for two reasons, #1 these things remain seperate for a reason and #2 you aren't even extrapolating far enough, if you're going to blame evolution then go all the way and blame math for everything ever
you: loool you haven't said anything! you're just saving face!

do you even understand what anecdotal evidence is? it's already apparent you've got the mathematical understanding of a high schooler since when i said we could break sexual attraction down to math by nomological possibility you said we could if we knew the code and variables (what the fuck does that have to do with nomological possibility).

whats really cute is we both straw man at the same time

On February 14 2008 02:14 Steal City wrote: it's only natural for guys to value looks from an evolutionary standpoint. What we see at attractive are the exact same qualities that make a girl ripe for breeding children... age - wrinkles hip to waist ratio (it makes sense that in some very northern cultures they find fatter women more attractive, that fat helps conceive healthy children under the conditions) symmetry of face/body height (obv a midget is less attractive) breast size ability to grow long healthy hair (symptom of healthy body/diet) For a girl however a man's providership potential is far more important -- in the caveman days this meant body strength primarily, but even then it meant ability to maintaingain status in tribe today's western man is attractive to women through much more elaborate and only perceived factors... confidence is obviously one of them / looks are too to a degree but only as an initial factor to gain attraction, attraction however can be developed through many different venues, looks are only one of the venues but it is also the least sustainable IE without game she will not remain interested for an attractive man to get a high value woman he must still have game or tons of social proof IE rockstars without game still get tons of girls

this is 100% true
explanation .. man value look b/c they want best chicks to mix their gens , and they also want chick that can get pregnant and that can deliver healthy child...
but woman is always looking for someone who can make her feel something specificaly (feel of love , security , protection etc.. ) / and that's where Game comes
as donald sayed , all this things are thousands years old and they are still here thx to do evolution/genetics

but this argument is pointless
you can't even understand the difference between people agreeing with something and a sufficient amount of actual tangible and unbiased evidence.

rofl dude , you trying to argue against well established theories
i gues you should read some books about this before you start flaming

btw.. my post is based on books and some theories i have readed , and your posts are based on what ?!? ,,,flame maybe

i suppose i could go on aim and grab a couple friends to agree with me as well
but then i guess that would be a little ironic considering my argument
you two wouldn't notice though since you're too damned dense to figure out what im saying

dude i dont agree with steal city b/c he is my friend or something like that
i agree with him b/c he is giving good arguments and also b/c i read few books
i have nothing against you but i feel it's so stupid b/c you are saying some things and you don't have any theory to be on your side (or maybe you have but you didnt writed it)
and you are fighting with some established theories.. i dont see point here

anyway chill dude gl and hf :D

alright just for shits and giggles

if this theory is so well established and accepted that it's basically considered fact, im sure bunches of sociologists and non-freudian psychologists agree with it.

so...show me.

What is love Baby don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more What is love Baby don't hurt me Don't hurt me no more. uoh ohhhhhh

On February 14 2008 04:34 KeanuReaver wrote: argument: you are discussing different fields of study, this isn't evolution. your rebuttal: but these things came about because of evolution me: this is a terrible view point for two reasons, #1 these things remain seperate for a reason and #2 you aren't even extrapolating far enough, if you're going to blame evolution then go all the way and blame math for everything ever

Sociobiology, and just becouse genes have effect it does not mean that environment/experience has none.

Floofy you need more game son.

Floofy certainly has a wide range to improve on, in clothing, working out, more confident, alpha body language. That, combined with a good knowledge of game, will lead to + success

100% game 100% looks

On February 14 2008 04:29 Rekrul wrote: you're in your house with a girl you haven't fucked yet she says "hey can you go get me some orangejuice from the fridge" if you respond "get your own fucking orange juice" ..and you're broke...you're probably not getting laid that night cause of that ..and you're rich...she'll be on her knees within the hour

This is true :D

I was just waiting for someone posting something about their E-crush on Antonius or Ivey