[worldwidetraveler]

(07-29-2013 05:46 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

From a ReturnOfKings coment by Supramax:

Quote:

Supramax
Roosh, and the rest of ya, c’mon, Really. This is like a friend of yours who got married, got bitterly divorced, had some views and expressed those views to ‘never get married again’ (etc. etc.) and then found happiness witha woman and changed his tune. Love conquers all man. Smile and wish him the best. A man can change his mind and he’s happy. So what if he ‘went against’ his previous writings on the institution of marriage?’ SO WHAT ? Oh, and she’s a single mom ? Well maybe it will not only be good for the kid but for him as well – does that not strike you all as another possibly beautiful new relationship ? What if you were that young boy with a single Mom and she married a good man that you liked and liked you and could bring a lot to your life ? What about that kid ? What if Mark Minter benefits a lot from that boy-stepfather relationship too ? Is that in violation of some other ‘manosphere rules ‘ ? A lot of y’all are becoming Taliban like anti-marriage extremists. No no, you’ll say, “he wrote his views and went against them !!” so fu%&ing what ! He fell in love. Lighten up, really – you’re waaaaaay to invested in this.
“Manosphere Taliban” is what I hereby dub y’all

I agree and just don't understand those who are put off by the guy not sticking to his principles. What the fuck good are principles if they get in the way of improving your happiness and station in life and the happiness of those around you?

And those who feel betrayed, as if he was on your team and now joined the other side. What's up with that? Is it the men versus the women? Is that what's going on?

Seriously, there is some fucked up sense of allegiences and principles gripping the manosphere. It is NOT men versus women. It's each man for himself. And principles be damned.

Just be happy, the best you can.

That's all we are doing here.

He probably made a good move. Good on him. He didn't betray you, and his principles were not worth holding on to.

It seems the guy met this woman on the internet, never met in person and got engage within months of internet chats.

Looking back at his previous writing and you think jumping from one extreme to another is "personal growth"?

Principles isn't something you toss away at any inconvenience. They are what hold you true to yourself. You only know what type of man you are when things get tough but you stick to your principles. When you easily discard them for "happiness", you are not a man in my eyes.

[Dusty]

I heard Kate once posted pics online. Has anyone seen it? Can someone post it here?

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 05:54 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Principles isn't something you toss away at any inconvenience. They are what hold you true to yourself. You only know what type of man you are when things get tough but you stick to your principles. When you easily discard them for "happiness", you are not a man in my eyes.

Didn't Gandhi get away with saying something that could be paraphrased as "principles are for those who can't re-organize their views?"

Principles. What are principles? Unchanging beliefs. What good are unchanging beliefs? Well, they make you feel like you live in a safe, secure world, where you have some bedrock of SOMETHING to hold on to.

That's not a useful feeling.

It's better to be flexible and adaptable.

The main principles, the foundational principles, are extremely broad. Truth and happiness. All else must fall in line and change when they are not in accord with truth and happiness.

If not marrying is a principle that diminishes happiness then it is a principle that is in need of updating for a fresh principle.

Views change, and if not, the man is too stiff and trying to solidify Truth and then rest satisfied with that solidification forever. Even Newton couldn't solidify Truth, and he was a big wig. What makes you think any one else should try to solidify Truth? It's a fools errand. We must adapt and change our views and principles, as new information and even as new opportunities arise.

Wanting to have a bedrock of solid beliefs is for the religiously inclined, not for seekers of truth and happiness.

Quote:

Looking back at his previous writing and you think jumping from one extreme to another is "personal growth"?

I'm not saying if he's taken a step towards personal growth or not, but at least he's owning that part of himself that wants to bond with a woman and have steady female companionship. That, at least, is a step in a good direction. Whether his tactic to achieve that aim is the best strategy or not, I won't comment. At least he now admits to some needs that he previously denied. At least he's accepting his humanity now. He's not the autonomous robot that he wished he were.

[iknowexactly]

Christ, what do you all care what the guy does? WHy were you listening to him so closely anyway? Can't you think for yourselves? Why should so much weight be placed on his opinion's consistency/validity when it may be right for him, but make no sense to how you want to live your life?

[worldwidetraveler]

Xsplat, would you trust a business partner with flexible principles?

[Roosh]

It's pretty clear to me that many guys are siding not with what Minter did, but who he is. The older guys who are married (or want to get married), want to give him a beta pass, because they see a part of themselves in him. That's too bad, because I think a man's word is the most important thing he has.

[LeCorbusier]

(07-29-2013 07:55 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

That's too bad, because I think a man's word is the most important thing he has.

THIS. The issue here is your word. Imagine a soldier who pledges allegiance to his country, then when he is captured he aides the enemy to avoid execution. Is it understandable? Yes. It's even predictable. But that does not make it right. He gave his word and he has recanted it over a piece of ass. It is predictable given the power of pussy on men, but that does not make it right.

(07-29-2013 06:55 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

The main principles, the foundational principles, are extremely broad. Truth and happiness. All else must fall in line and change when they are not in accord with truth and happiness.

If not marrying is a principle that diminishes happiness then it is a principle that is in need of updating for a fresh principle.

This is faulty. All must not fall in line with happiness and truth. Sometimes your honor demands that you sacrifice temporary pleasure for it. I have commitments that diminish my overall happiness. I would profit if I reneged on them. Yet I will not, because I have given my word. I am not saying this in relation to Minter. I have a fundamental issue with the suggestion that truth and happiness are the end all be all for decision making.

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 07:51 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Xsplat, would you trust a business partner with flexible principles?

Depends what the principle is. If it's not stealing from me, then of course that would not be in my best interest. If he waffles on marriage or not, that would not influence my trust of his dealings with me.

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 07:55 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

That's too bad, because I think a man's word is the most important thing he has.

Umm, did I miss something? Did he make a promise to you that he broke? Did the two of you make some sort of contractual arrangement that would benefit the both of you, that he went back on?

No, no, he didn't.

[Roosh]

A man who places no stock in another man's word has no word himself, which is why he sees no value in it.

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 08:16 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

A man who places no stock in another man's word has no word himself, which is why he sees no value in it.

Oh, come on with your absolutism. You don't even believe it yourself.

WHICH word? Any word? A man is not a man if he changes his opinion?

You don't even believe what you are saying.

The words that are important and the contracts we make with each other.

Break those and you lose trust for further contracts.

Changing your mind about your personal values or personal strategies has nothing to do with going against your so called word.

But you know that.

[worldwidetraveler]

(07-29-2013 08:03 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 07:51 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Xsplat, would you trust a business partner with flexible principles?

Depends what the principle is. If it's not stealing from me, then of course that would not be in my best interest. If he waffles on marriage or not, that would not influence my trust of his dealings with me.

If your partner was anti stealing doesn't mean he would continue to think that way if we keep in mind the flexibility component...

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 08:26 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:03 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 07:51 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Xsplat, would you trust a business partner with flexible principles?

Depends what the principle is. If it's not stealing from me, then of course that would not be in my best interest. If he waffles on marriage or not, that would not influence my trust of his dealings with me.

If your partner was anti stealing doesn't mean he would continue to think that way if we keep in mind the flexibility component...

Your trying to make a meta principle that does not apply. It breaks down when applied in the broad fashion that you are attempting to use it.

People change their minds. I would never hire an employee who was incapable of changing his perspective.

Your meta principle can not be applied so broadly. You have to look at things LESS broadly.

I don't want people stealing from me. That is a less broad statement than saying that I don't want people to ever change their mind about ANYTHING.

[cardguy]

My grandad used to say something.

No matter how dearly you hold on to something. Or enjoy something. Or love somebody.

You won't discard that belief over night.

Or in a week, a month. Or even a year.

But over five years. Everything can change.

The person you are today could be totally different to the person you are five years from now.

And when you look back on the big changes in your own life - it tends to only be noticable on a timescale of every five years or so...

[worldwidetraveler]

(07-29-2013 08:01 PM)LeCorbusier Wrote:  

This is faulty. All must not fall in line with happiness and truth. Sometimes your honor demands that you sacrifice temporary pleasure for it. I have commitments that diminish my overall happiness. I would profit if I reneged on them. Yet I will not, because I have given my word. I am not saying this in relation to Minter. I have a fundamental issue with the suggestion that truth and happiness are the end all be all for decision making.

Not only that, but it is a black and white view of happiness. There are ways to be happy without having to toss out your principles.

Sometimes living true to your principles is a lot tougher but it doesn't mean you can't achieve happiness while being true to yourself.

A lot of info came out about Mark. He was broke, living with his sister. Instead of doing whatever it takes to be financially self sufficient, he latched onto a internet groupie who will end up paying his way through life or as long as the marriage works.

I don't know of any man who would consider living under the thumb of a woman, "Happy".

We talk about being the best men we can be. That, in itself, opens up more and more options for us on an international stage.

Mark didn't change his views. He didn't come up with some epiphany. He was lying the whole time. He got caught when a solution to his problems presented himself.

That isn't what we talk about here. Most men here would rather take the hard road to happiness. It is more fulfilling and something that will last a lifetime.

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 08:01 PM)LeCorbusier Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 06:55 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

The main principles, the foundational principles, are extremely broad. Truth and happiness. All else must fall in line and change when they are not in accord with truth and happiness.

If not marrying is a principle that diminishes happiness then it is a principle that is in need of updating for a fresh principle.

This is faulty. All must not fall in line with happiness and truth. Sometimes your honor demands that you sacrifice temporary pleasure for it. I have commitments that diminish my overall happiness. I would profit if I reneged on them. Yet I will not, because I have given my word. I am not saying this in relation to Minter. I have a fundamental issue with the suggestion that truth and happiness are the end all be all for decision making.

Take into account the happiness of others as well, and reconsider and get back to me if you still think honor trumps happiness and truth.

[worldwidetraveler]

(07-29-2013 08:30 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

Your trying to make a meta principle that does not apply. It breaks down when applied in the broad fashion that you are attempting to use it.

People change their minds. I would never hire an employee who was incapable of changing his perspective.

Your meta principle can not be applied so broadly. You have to look at things LESS broadly.

I don't want people stealing from me. That is a less broad statement than saying that I don't want people to ever change their mind about ANYTHING.

Just like happiness. There are many ways to being happy without having to change your principles in the process.

It tells a lot of people who think Mark is simply changing his view of life.

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 08:34 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:01 PM)LeCorbusier Wrote:  

This is faulty. All must not fall in line with happiness and truth. Sometimes your honor demands that you sacrifice temporary pleasure for it. I have commitments that diminish my overall happiness. I would profit if I reneged on them. Yet I will not, because I have given my word. I am not saying this in relation to Minter. I have a fundamental issue with the suggestion that truth and happiness are the end all be all for decision making.

Not only that, but it is a black and white view of happiness. There are ways to be happy without having to toss out your principles.

Sometimes living true to your principles is a lot tougher but it doesn't mean you can't achieve happiness while being true to yourself.

A lot of info came out about Mark. He was broke, living with his sister. Instead of doing whatever it takes to be financially self sufficient, he latched onto a internet groupie who will end up paying his way through life or as long as the marriage works.

I don't know of any man who would consider living under the thumb of a woman, "Happy".

We talk about being the best men we can be. That, in itself, opens up more and more options for us on an international stage.

Mark didn't change his views. He didn't come up with some epiphany. He was lying the whole time. He got caught when a solution to his problems presented himself.

That isn't what we talk about here. Most men here would rather take the hard road to happiness. It is more fulfilling and something that will last life long.

Well, now you are making a different argument. You are saying that his strategy for happiness now is not as good as his previous strategy. That might be true. Might not.

But notice that is an argument about strategy to happiness, not about the importance of never changing your tactics, or as you seem think of, "going back on your principles".

Quote:

Just like happiness. There are many ways to being happy without having to change your principles in the process.

It tells a lot of people who think Mark is simply changing his view of life.

Principles shminciples. A principle is nothing but a world view and strategy and a tactic. It is not some corenerstone of your very being. All world views and strategies and tactics are and SHOULD be subject to change, as circumstances and opportunities and information changes.

Oh, wait a minute. Do you believe in the Bible or something?

[kbell]

I think his ex wife is a nutcase, but may be partially telling some of the truth as well. She is training the kids to hate him. Not sure why she cares about him getting married, but I hope she has a full on melt down in the comments.

[worldwidetraveler]

(07-29-2013 08:38 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

Well, now you are making a different argument. You are saying that his strategy for happiness now is not as good as his previous strategy. That might be true. Might not.

But notice that is an argument about strategy to happiness, not about the importance of never changing your tactics, or as you seem think of, "going back on your principles".

No, I am not making a different argument.

You were saying it is alright to change your principles to be happy. Happiness isn't a black and white thing but you seem to be trying to make it one.

I am saying and have been saying that you don't need to lose your principles to be happy. Only weak men do.

[cardguy]

The hard road to happiness is the best road? I don't think so. And neither do the millions of people who buy lottery tickets each week.

[worldwidetraveler]

(07-29-2013 08:38 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

Principles shminciples. A principle is nothing but a world view and strategy and a tactic. It is not some corenerstone of your very being. All world views and strategies and tactics are and SHOULD be subject to change, as circumstances and opportunities and information changes.

Oh, wait a minute. Do you believe in the Bible or something?

Quote:

prin·ci·ple
ˈprinsəpəlSubmit
noun
plural noun: principles
1.
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

Next you will say families don't play an important role in our society.

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 08:44 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Next you will say families don't play an important role in our society.

You make no distinction between Mark breaking a contract with you personally, and him changing his mind about his own fucking business. Not your business, his own fucking business.

He didn't break any contract with YOU.

He didn't break his word to YOU.

He didn't break a contract with ANYONE.

He took a different tactic.

Your business how?

You dissaprove, and therefore in your mind he is WRONG, and not just wrong, but morally wrong.

Uh huh.

Who voted you as worldwide-moral-arbiter?

[worldwidetraveler]

(07-29-2013 08:51 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

(07-29-2013 08:44 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Next you will say families don't play an important role in our society.

You make no distinction between Mark breaking a contract with you personally, and him changing his mind about his own fucking business. Not your business, his own fucking business.

He didn't break any contract with YOU.

He didn't break his word to YOU.

He didn't break a contract with ANYONE.

He took a different tactic.

Your business how?

You disaprove, and therefore in your mind he is WRONG, and not just wrong, but morally wrong.

Uh huh.

Who voted you as worldwide-moral-arbiter?

I am attacking your premise that principles should be disregarded for happiness.

Mark was lying. He didn't change his principles because he never truly believed what he was saying. He showed that when he jumped at the first pussy that presented itself.

I would rather be a moral aribiter than a man with no honor and one that cannot be trusted. It looks like we know were you stand on that.

[xsplat]

(07-29-2013 08:54 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

I am attacking your premise that principles should be disregarded for happiness.

Mark was lying. He didn't change his principles because he never truly believed what he was saying. He showed that when he jumped at the first pussy that presented itself.

I would rather be a moral aribiter than a man with no honor and one that cannot be trusted. It looks like we know were you stand on that.

It's probably pointless to try to get you visualize this, but what the hell. It's only an investment in a few typed words.

Why are "principles" so sacrosanct to you? Why can't they change? What makes a "principle" any different than a viewpoint or strategy?

And why does Marks previous insistence on never marrying count as a "principle"?