Also whether something counts as this or that as evidence isn't the real point. The point is that they're not just anecdotes but anecdotes that happen repeatedly and predictably. Just use common sense
Also whether something counts as this or that as evidence isn't the real point. The point is that they're not just anecdotes but anecdotes that happen repeatedly and predictably. Just use common sense
"Repeated anecdotes are never valid as scientific evidence."
Says who?
You ignored most of what i said. Nde experiences are arguably spectral but peer reviewed things healing and peer reviewed obe experiences with witnesses and people claiming to see supernatural things in the real world are not spectral, and are text book definitions of evidence
Well, people at least say taxing people to help the working class encroaches on freedom tho right?
Spectral evidence is mostly philosophical when it comes to ndes the ndes themselves. Obe vertical experiences with witnesses under peer review stidy and inexplicable healing that look supernatural under peet review study... these are not examples of spectral evidence. Credible people repeatedly claim to see supernatural things and this is not spectral and counts as evidence. Even if ndes are spectral they are in the loosest sense evidence in that they make a proposition more likely to be true so id say it should be admitted as part of the overall picture
What do you think of Vance thinking ufo are demonic? I've been noticing a trend that this is argued by notable Christians. You have to admit definitive evidence is lacking that these are aliens yet we have credible evidence theres something going on here. Thats the sort of ingredients that sound demonic.
Dr long a cancer doctor and the founder of nderf said we know more about the afterlife than we do many forms of cancer. You wouldn't reject a conclusion that looks right simply cause we cant prove them empirically would you? Do you accept dark energy and matter? We know more about what looks to be supernatural than we do those subjects and much in the way of commonly accepted science hypothesis
I wouldn't be so quick to say the evidence doesnt count as evidence legally and scientifically. The key point in those domains is that mere philosophy shouldn't count as evidence if theres nothing tying it to the real world. Yes we can point out that its probably not empirical but its still tied to the real world, its even scientific. Repeated anecdotes and observations mean something, they aren't meaningless. They're a trend. I know skeptics like to put their heads in the sand and deny all terms or conditions but that is not a rational approach to repeated observations. I maintain they do count as evidence scientifically and legally, and its fair to question what we should conclude from that evidence but its not fair to question its basis to begin with. Ultimately the totality of science and history and philosophy point common sense wise to what they indicste, point towards. The supernatural. But if course im not about to declare that ive proven the supernatural. Totally lacking common sense to think otherwise tho
These are repeated anecdotes, though, and they're rooted in observation, science even. Repeated anecdotes are a trend and these things can be measured, even if its indirectly. You may have a point that its merely anecdotal evidence, or circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence. Yes there is evidence of the supernatural and it would be irrational to contest that, or playing games with philosophy to get around that. With that said, you may be right and are probably right that it doesn't rise to the level of being called empirical evidence, but its at least noteworthy enough to ask why or why not it shouldn't be called empirical, like theres a philosophical question there about what actually counts as empirical
https://www.rawstory.com/west-virginia-food-stamp-income-limits/
Of course, considering these red state maggots who are losing food stamps also part of the maga cult, they will swiftly put the blame where this belongs... with Biden. Or maybe jimmy carter?? Of course the blame doesnt lie with the man who authorized the cuts.
I agree but Canadian Healthcare isn't feasible here politically. In the usa theres a Lotta conservatives who like the idea of catastrophic care and personal responsibility
I agree but it stilll needs to be done as politically correct as possible. As long as there's a viable system its plausible denibility politically when people fall through the cracks and die
Medicaid and Medicare would remain as they are in this system.
We wouldn't need obamacare. People with below average income would pay 10 percent of their income to opt into tier 1. Those above average income to opt in to tirr 1 would pay market rate and everyone else would pay market rate to opt into tier 3
A key featureof this proposal that we havent discussed is that the private sector msrket which is current half the usa healthcsre could opt in. Thatd create a huge pool and then when indiciduals no longer get their employer csre they can transition to individual public option plan
That is actually one of the most important missing pieces of your proposal. It changes the model from merely a **government catastrophic safety net** into something closer to a **universal healthcare marketplace platform**.
The key insight is that the U.S. already has a massive private insurance infrastructure covering roughly half the population through employer-sponsored insurance. Your proposal could allow that existing market to **plug into the system rather than be displaced**.
A possible structure:
## Universal Catastrophic Coverage Marketplace Model
### 1. Employer insurance remains, but gains a universal backstop
Employers could continue offering private plans.
However, those plans could optionally integrate with the public catastrophic layer:
* Employer/private plan covers routine care and the first layer of expenses.
* Government catastrophic program covers the defined middle catastrophic layer.
* Private supplemental insurers compete above that.
This would immediately create a much larger risk pool.
---
## 2. Workers have automatic portability
One of the biggest weaknesses of employer insurance is "job lock."
Today:
* Lose your job → potentially lose insurance.
* Change careers → insurance disruption.
* Retire early → coverage problem before Medicare.
Under your system:
While employed:
* Employer may subsidize a private plan.
When employment ends:
* Individual seamlessly transitions into the public marketplace.
* No new underwriting.
* No loss of catastrophic protection.
* No coverage gap.
This solves one of the biggest flaws of employer-based healthcare.
---
## 3. The risk pool becomes enormous
This is a major strength.
Instead of:
* Small employer pools,
* Separate individual pools,
* Medicaid pools,
* Uninsured populations,
you get a layered national system where millions of people participate.
A larger pool means:
* More predictable costs.
* Lower administrative overhead.
* Better bargaining power.
* Less adverse selection.
---
## 4. It creates a gradual transition instead of a revolution
This is probably the strongest political feature.
You wouldn't say:
"Your insurance is gone."
You would say:
"Your insurance gets a permanent catastrophic foundation and becomes portable."
Over decades, the system could naturally evolve:
* Some employers keep generous plans.
* Some choose cheaper plans integrated with the public option.
* Individuals use the marketplace when changing jobs.
* The uninsured gain access.
It is a transition rather than a disruption.
---
## 5. It creates a true national insurance marketplace
The current system is fragmented:
* Employer insurance is tied to jobs.
* Medicaid depends on state rules.
* ACA plans vary.
* Medicare starts at 65.
Your model creates a clearer lifecycle:
**Childhood → employer insurance → individual marketplace → Medicare**
with catastrophic protection throughout.
---
The biggest remaining issue would be ensuring the public option does not become overwhelmed by only high-risk individuals. The easiest fix would probably be making the catastrophic layer available broadly to everyone while allowing private insurers to compete around it.
The interesting thing about your proposal is that it does not actually eliminate private healthcare—it potentially **stabilizes it**. It uses government where insurance markets are weakest (rare, enormous risks) and competition where markets work better (routine care and supplemental services).
That is why the idea has a different political character than Medicare-for-All. It is closer to a **universal reinsurance system with a competitive healthcare marketplace built on top of it**.
The United States does not need to choose between two extremes: a healthcare system where people can be financially destroyed by illness, or a government-run system that replaces private insurance and reduces consumer choice. There is a third path—one that combines universal protection with market competition.
America should establish a Universal Catastrophic Coverage Public Option: a system that guarantees every citizen protection from devastating medical costs while preserving private insurance, consumer choice, and healthcare innovation.
The purpose of government should not be to pay for every medical service. The purpose of government should be to ensure that no American is ruined by circumstances beyond their control.
This proposal creates a healthcare safety net built around a simple principle:
Individuals and private markets should handle ordinary healthcare expenses. Society should protect people from catastrophic financial loss.
The first layer of healthcare spending would remain in the private sector.
Individuals and private insurance would cover healthcare costs up to the median individual income in the United States each year.
This threshold would create a meaningful personal responsibility layer while still protecting most Americans from moderate healthcare expenses.
For example:
would generally remain within the private insurance marketplace.
Participation in private insurance would be voluntary. Individuals could choose from:
The goal is to preserve competition and allow Americans to choose the healthcare arrangements that best fit their needs.
Once annual medical expenses exceed the median individual income threshold, the Universal Catastrophic Coverage Public Option would activate.
The government would cover 80% of costs for the next 200% of median income or around $100,000 of medical expenses, while private insurance would cover the remaining 20%.
For example:
This creates a powerful safety net while maintaining market incentives.
Patients, insurers, and providers would still have a reason to control costs because the private sector would retain responsibility for a portion of expenses.
The government portion of catastrophic coverage would not simply pay whatever prices hospitals and pharmaceutical companies charge.
Instead, it would use Medicaid-style negotiated rates and cost controls.
This would create several advantages:
Healthcare providers would still be paid, but the public system would not function as an unlimited blank check.
The United States already has enormous healthcare purchasing power. A national catastrophic program could use that power to negotiate fair prices while maintaining incentives for medical innovation.
For medical expenses beyond 300% median income or around $150,000 annually, the private market would provide catastrophic umbrella insurance.
Insurance companies would compete to offer protection against extremely high-cost medical events.
This maintains an important market principle:
The government provides a universal foundation, but private companies continue to compete above that foundation.
Competition would encourage:
The government would protect citizens from financial disaster without becoming the sole payer of all healthcare expenses.
The greatest failure of the current system is that serious illness can destroy financial security.
A cancer diagnosis, major accident, or prolonged hospitalization should never force a family into poverty.
This proposal guarantees that catastrophic illness becomes a healthcare problem—not a financial death sentence.
America's healthcare system leads the world in many areas because of:
A full government takeover could risk disrupting these strengths.
This model preserves private innovation while ensuring that its benefits are accessible.
The current system suffers from two problems:
This proposal addresses both.
The public sector controls costs in the catastrophic layer through negotiated pricing, while the private sector competes in the routine and supplemental markets.
A successful healthcare reform must recognize the concerns of both sides.
Those who favor stronger government involvement can support:
Those who favor market solutions can support:
This is not government replacing the healthcare system.
It is government ensuring that the healthcare system has a foundation.
America's healthcare challenge is not that it lacks medical talent or resources. It is that the financial risks of illness are distributed unfairly.
A society as wealthy and innovative as the United States should guarantee that no person loses everything because they became sick.
At the same time, Americans should continue to benefit from competition, choice, and private-sector innovation.
A Universal Catastrophic Coverage Public Option provides a realistic compromise:
The goal of healthcare reform should not be to create a system where government controls every medical decision. The goal should be to create a system where every American has security when they need it most.
Healthcare should protect life—not threaten financial survival.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I appreciate that you care deeply about truth and that you are trying to evaluate scientific claims critically. Christians should not fear careful examination. I also agree that science should not be accepted simply because "scientists say so."
However, I don't think your objections actually overturn the evidence for the Big Bang or require belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth.
**1. Redshift is not merely an untested assumption.**
You repeatedly argue that redshift has never been experimentally verified. That simply isn't correct.
The Doppler effect for light has been tested countless times in laboratories. We routinely measure Doppler shifts from moving atoms, lasers, satellites, spacecraft, police radar, binary stars, and galaxies. Modern GPS systems even require relativistic corrections involving frequency shifts.
Furthermore, the cosmological redshift is not simply "the Doppler effect." General Relativity predicts that as space itself expands, the wavelength of light stretches. That prediction matches observations extremely well.
You also mention a quasar apparently embedded in a nearby galaxy. These unusual objects have been discussed for decades. Astronomers have investigated them extensively, and none has overturned the overall redshift-distance relationship that is supported by millions of galaxies rather than one disputed example.
If one bridge has a crack, that doesn't prove every bridge in the world is unsafe.
**2. The Cosmic Microwave Background was predicted before it was discovered.**
You accuse me of lying by saying it was accidentally discovered.
But these are two different statements.
George Gamow and others predicted that leftover radiation should exist.
Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered that the radiation actually existed while investigating unwanted microwave noise.
Those statements are both historically true.
A prediction being made before an observation is exactly what scientists hope for.
**3. The McKellar measurements were not measurements of the CMB.**
Much of your argument compares McKellar's 1941 measurements with the later measurements by Penzias and Wilson.
This comparison is mistaken.
McKellar was measuring excitation states of molecules in interstellar gas—not directly measuring an isotropic microwave background filling the universe.
The later measurements used completely different methods to observe an entirely different phenomenon.
Comparing those numbers as though they were repeated measurements of the same thing is not valid.
Likewise, your use of set theory doesn't change the physics. Set theory is a branch of mathematics, but simply placing overlapping confidence intervals into sets doesn't tell us whether two experiments measured the same physical quantity.
**4. "Prediction" is not limited to future events.**
You argue that scientists cannot "predict" the Big Bang because it occurred in the past.
Science uses the word differently.
If I discover dinosaur footprints, I can predict that I will find dinosaur bones nearby.
The bones existed before I made the prediction.
Likewise, cosmologists predicted that if the universe began in a hot dense state, then today we should observe a microwave background with specific properties.
That prediction was later confirmed.
**5. The Scientific Method is broader than your description.**
You repeatedly state that because nobody can recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory, it isn't science.
That standard would eliminate much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, plate tectonics, and forensic science.
We cannot recreate the formation of the Grand Canyon.
We cannot recreate a supernova.
We cannot recreate the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Yet we can test hypotheses by seeing whether they correctly predict observations.
Historical sciences work by testing competing explanations against evidence.
The Big Bang has survived many such tests.
**6. The amount of data matters more than the amount of time.**
You argue that humans have only observed the universe for a tiny fraction of its history.
That is true.
But that doesn't prevent scientific conclusions.
A detective may investigate a murder that happened twenty years ago.
The detective wasn't there.
Yet fingerprints, DNA, shell casings, surveillance footage, and witness testimony allow reliable conclusions.
Astronomy works similarly.
Every distant galaxy is effectively another data point.
Modern astronomy isn't based on a few observations but on billions.
**7. The cosmic distance ladder isn't one measurement.**
You describe the distance ladder as though astronomers simply point telescopes and guess.
That's not how it works.
Distances are measured using multiple independent methods:
* Radar inside the Solar System
* Stellar parallax
* Cepheid variable stars
* RR Lyrae stars
* Type Ia supernovae
* Surface brightness fluctuations
* Gravitational lensing
* Redshift relationships
Each method overlaps with the previous one and independently checks the others.
If one rung failed, the ladder could collapse.
Instead, they consistently agree.
**8. Science is not a religion.**
You repeatedly refer to cosmology as a "faith."
There is an important distinction.
Religious faith ultimately trusts divine revelation.
Scientific confidence depends on evidence and remains open to revision.
If tomorrow someone discovered strong evidence against the Big Bang, scientists would eventually abandon it.
That has happened repeatedly in science.
Scientists once believed in a steady-state universe.
When the evidence favored the Big Bang instead, they changed their minds.
That is the opposite of dogmatism.
**9. None of this disproves God.**
Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is assuming that accepting the Big Bang somehow denies God.
It does not.
Many of the scientists who developed modern cosmology believed in God.
The Big Bang was first proposed by the Belgian Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître.
In fact, many atheists initially rejected the Big Bang because it sounded too much like creation.
Whether God created through six literal days, long ages, or some other process is a theological question.
The scientific evidence simply indicates that the universe has expanded from a hot dense early state and is approximately 13.8 billion years old.
That conclusion rests not on one observation but on many independent lines of evidence:
* The expansion of the universe.
* The cosmic microwave background.
* The abundance of hydrogen and helium.
* The evolution of galaxies.
* Independent measurements of cosmic age that agree remarkably well.
No single piece of evidence proves the Big Bang by itself.
Together they form a remarkably coherent picture.
As Christians, we should not fear evidence wherever it leads. Psalm 19 tells us that "the heavens declare the glory of God." If God's creation truly points to Him, then careful scientific investigation cannot ultimately threaten the Author of creation. Rather than treating science and Scripture as enemies, I believe they are two ways of studying God's truth—one through His Word and one through His works.
Its been many years since I got into reading this stuff but thought id see yalls thoughts on this stuff?
Below is a modernized master guide combining the major ideas from David DeAngelo (Cocky & Funny), Marni Kinrys (Wing Girl Method), Neil Strauss/The Game, and Mystery Method. I’ll separate the useful social skills from the outdated or manipulative parts. Much of The Game was about reverse-engineering attraction through routines, social dynamics, and confidence-building; Strauss himself later emphasized that the deeper lesson was inner confidence rather than memorizing tricks. (shortform.com)
All four systems ultimately point to the same foundation:
Attraction starts before the conversation.
Develop:
The mistake many beginners make:
"How do I convince her I'm valuable?"
The better mindset:
"How do I become someone whose life is already valuable?"
Mystery emphasized that your emotional state matters more than perfect words. (shortform.com)
Practice:
Not:
"I hope she likes me."
Instead:
"I'm going to enjoy myself and see who I connect with."
Your goal is not approval.
Your goal is discovery.
The central idea:
Confidence without humor becomes arrogance.
Humor without confidence becomes insecurity.
The formula:
Examples:
She:
"You're pretty confident."
Bad:
"Sorry, I don't mean to be."
Better:
"I know. It's one of my more annoying qualities."
She:
"You're weird."
Better:
"Thank you. I worked hard on that."
The key:
You are not defending yourself.
You are comfortable.
Mystery's system was built around creating attraction first, then emotional connection. (shortform.com)
Modern version:
Do not wait for a magical moment.
Simple works.
Examples:
"Hey, quick question..."
"I noticed you have a really interesting style."
"You seem like someone who has a good story."
Avoid:
Marni's approach emphasizes making interactions easier by being socially warm, approachable, and understanding how women experience conversations.
Key principles:
People like people who make them feel:
Ask:
"What got you into that?"
"How did you end up doing that?"
"What is something people wouldn't guess about you?"
Bad:
"What do you do?"
"Where are you from?"
"How old are you?"
Question after question feels like an interrogation.
Better:
Share + ask.
Example:
"I've always thought people who travel alone are interesting. I did a road trip once that changed my perspective. Have you ever traveled somewhere that surprised you?"
Show:
You are liked by others.
Examples:
A good story beats facts.
Bad:
"I like hiking."
Better:
"I once got lost hiking and realized halfway through that my phone had no signal. It was terrifying but also strangely peaceful."
A major PUA idea was balancing interest and independence. (shortform.com)
Healthy version:
Give interest:
"I like talking with you."
Maintain independence:
"Anyway, I'm going to grab another drink. I'll talk to you later."
The message:
"I like you, but my happiness does not depend on you."
The useful part of "negging" was never insulting women.
The useful part was:
Don't put someone on a pedestal.
Good teasing:
Her:
"I'm very competitive."
You:
"That sounds exhausting. I feel sorry for your friends."
Her:
"I'm a coffee snob."
You:
"So you're saying you're difficult before I've even met you?"
Bad:
Look for:
The skill is not "convincing."
The skill is recognizing mutual interest.
Not:
"Make her fall in love."
Instead:
"Create a fun experience and see if we fit."
Use:
Old-school PUA texting often overcomplicated things.
Modern rules:
Example:
"Talking with you has been fun. Let's grab coffee this week."
From The Game:
A good wingman helps you:
But the modern version:
Don't need a "pickup partner."
Build a social circle.
High-value life
+
Calm confidence
+
Playful humor
+
Genuine curiosity
+
Clear romantic intent
+
Respect for her autonomy
=
Attractive dating behavior.
The biggest lesson from the entire PUA movement is that the "secret technique" was never the real advantage. The advantage was that men who felt powerless forced themselves to practice social skills, improve themselves, and stop waiting passively for romance. (shortform.com)
The modern upgrade is: become attractive, be socially skilled, be direct, and don't treat dating as a game where someone has to lose.
Below is a **modernized master guide** combining the major ideas from **David DeAngelo (Cocky & Funny), Marni Kinrys (Wing Girl Method), Neil Strauss/The Game, and Mystery Method**. I’ll separate the useful social skills from the outdated or manipulative parts. Much of *The Game* was about reverse-engineering attraction through routines, social dynamics, and confidence-building; Strauss himself later emphasized that the deeper lesson was inner confidence rather than memorizing tricks. ([shortform.com][1])
# The Master Guide: Attraction, Confidence, and Dating Skills
## PART 1 — The Foundation: Become the Type of Man People Want
All four systems ultimately point to the same foundation:
### 1. Build a compelling life
Attraction starts before the conversation.
Develop:
* Fitness and health
* Style and grooming
* Hobbies and passions
* Friends and community
* Purpose and goals
* Emotional stability
The mistake many beginners make:
> "How do I convince her I'm valuable?"
The better mindset:
> "How do I become someone whose life is already valuable?"
---
# PART 2 — Confidence: The Core Skill
## Mystery / The Game: State Control
Mystery emphasized that your emotional state matters more than perfect words. ([shortform.com][2])
Practice:
### Enter social situations expecting success
Not:
> "I hope she likes me."
Instead:
> "I'm going to enjoy myself and see who I connect with."
Your goal is not approval.
Your goal is discovery.
---
## David DeAngelo: Cocky + Funny
The central idea:
**Confidence without humor becomes arrogance.
Humor without confidence becomes insecurity.**
The formula:
### Playful confidence
Examples:
She:
> "You're pretty confident."
Bad:
> "Sorry, I don't mean to be."
Better:
> "I know. It's one of my more annoying qualities."
---
She:
> "You're weird."
Better:
> "Thank you. I worked hard on that."
The key:
You are not defending yourself.
You are comfortable.
([shortform.com][3])
---
# PART 3 — Approaching Women
## Mystery Method: Attraction → Comfort → Seduction
Mystery's system was built around creating attraction first, then emotional connection. ([shortform.com][2])
Modern version:
## Step 1: Open
Do not wait for a magical moment.
Simple works.
Examples:
"Hey, quick question..."
"I noticed you have a really interesting style."
"You seem like someone who has a good story."
Avoid:
* Overly rehearsed pickup lines
* Trying to impress immediately
* Acting like she is a celebrity
---
# PART 4 — Conversation Mastery
## Marni Kinrys / Wing Girl Principles
Marni's approach emphasizes making interactions easier by being socially warm, approachable, and understanding how women experience conversations.
Key principles:
## 1. Make her feel comfortable
People like people who make them feel:
* Seen
* Interesting
* Accepted
Ask:
"What got you into that?"
"How did you end up doing that?"
"What is something people wouldn't guess about you?"
---
## 2. Avoid interview mode
Bad:
"What do you do?"
"Where are you from?"
"How old are you?"
Question after question feels like an interrogation.
Better:
Share + ask.
Example:
"I've always thought people who travel alone are interesting. I did a road trip once that changed my perspective. Have you ever traveled somewhere that surprised you?"
---
# PART 5 — Attraction Skills
## Mystery: Social Value
Show:
### Social proof
You are liked by others.
Examples:
* Talk comfortably with strangers
* Have friends
* Be involved in activities
### Storytelling
A good story beats facts.
Bad:
> "I like hiking."
Better:
> "I once got lost hiking and realized halfway through that my phone had no signal. It was terrifying but also strangely peaceful."
---
# PART 6 — The Push-Pull Principle
A major PUA idea was balancing interest and independence. ([shortform.com][2])
Healthy version:
Give interest:
> "I like talking with you."
Maintain independence:
> "Anyway, I'm going to grab another drink. I'll talk to you later."
The message:
"I like you, but my happiness does not depend on you."
---
# PART 7 — Teasing and Playfulness
The useful part of "negging" was never insulting women.
The useful part was:
**Don't put someone on a pedestal.**
Good teasing:
Her:
> "I'm very competitive."
You:
> "That sounds exhausting. I feel sorry for your friends."
Her:
> "I'm a coffee snob."
You:
> "So you're saying you're difficult before I've even met you?"
Bad:
* Insults about appearance
* Attacking insecurities
* Trying to lower someone's confidence
---
# PART 8 — Reading Interest
Look for:
## Positive signals:
* She asks questions back
* She stays near you
* She laughs easily
* She touches you
* She extends conversation
* She initiates contact
## Low interest:
* One-word answers
* Looking away repeatedly
* No curiosity about you
* Avoiding engagement
The skill is not "convincing."
The skill is recognizing mutual interest.
---
# PART 9 — The Date
## First date goal:
Not:
> "Make her fall in love."
Instead:
> "Create a fun experience and see if we fit."
Use:
### 40% talking about yourself
### 40% learning about her
### 20% playful chemistry
---
# PART 10 — Texting
Old-school PUA texting often overcomplicated things.
Modern rules:
## Do:
* Be direct
* Be playful
* Move toward meeting
Example:
"Talking with you has been fun. Let's grab coffee this week."
## Don't:
* Constantly seek reassurance
* Send paragraphs early
* Play artificial waiting games
---
# PART 11 — The Wingman Concept
From *The Game*:
A good wingman helps you:
* Be social
* Meet people
* Avoid nervousness
* Stay confident
But the modern version:
Don't need a "pickup partner."
Build a social circle.
---
# PART 12 — The Ultimate Combined Philosophy
## Mystery gives:
* Structure
* Social dynamics
* Courage to approach
## DeAngelo gives:
* Humor
* Confidence
* Playful masculinity
## Marni gives:
* Emotional intelligence
* Female perspective
* Comfort-building
## Neil Strauss gives:
* The journey of transformation
* Practice
* Self-development
---
# The Final Formula
**High-value life**
+
**Calm confidence**
+
**Playful humor**
+
**Genuine curiosity**
+
**Clear romantic intent**
+
**Respect for her autonomy**
=
Attractive dating behavior.
The biggest lesson from the entire PUA movement is that the "secret technique" was never the real advantage. The advantage was that men who felt powerless forced themselves to practice social skills, improve themselves, and stop waiting passively for romance. ([shortform.com][1])
The modern upgrade is: **become attractive, be socially skilled, be direct, and don't treat dating as a game where someone has to lose.**
[1]: https://www.shortform.com/summary/the-game-summary-neil-strauss?utm_source=chatgpt.com "The Game Book Summary by Neil Strauss"
[2]: https://www.shortform.com/blog/pickup-artist-techniques-the-game/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "3 Pickup Artist Techniques in The Game - Shortform Books"
[3]: https://www.shortform.com/blog/david-deangelo-pua-the-game/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "David DeAngelo and the \"Cocky Funny\" PUA Technique - Shortform Books"
Two other pick up artists i used to follow
Marni Kinrys (often called “Marni the Wing Girl”) teaches a style of dating advice aimed mostly at men who feel they are too passive, too nervous, or stuck as “just friends.” Her approach combines confidence-building, flirting, communication, and understanding women’s perspectives. ([Fox Business][1])
Her main tactics can be summarized like this:
### 1. Stop acting like a “friend” when you want romance
* Don’t become the emotional support guy who listens endlessly to her relationship problems while hiding your attraction.
* Show romantic intent early through flirting, playful teasing, and creating chemistry.
* Her idea is that women categorize men partly based on behavior: if you act purely platonic, you reinforce a platonic role. ([Summarize.ing][2])
### 2. Confidence over approval-seeking
A major theme:
* Don’t try to “win” a woman’s approval.
* Express yourself instead of performing for her.
* Be comfortable with rejection.
She often contrasts a “nice guy” (passive, afraid of conflict, seeking validation) with a genuinely good man (confident, respectful, assertive). ([listennotes.com][3])
### 3. Flirt instead of interviewing
She argues many men make dates feel like job interviews:
* “What do you do?”
* “Where are you from?”
* “What are your hobbies?”
Instead:
* Use humor.
* Playfully challenge.
* Share stories.
* Create emotional experiences.
Example:
Instead of:
> “Do you like traveling?”
More like:
> “You seem like someone who would either love an adventure or secretly prefer a luxury hotel. Which one?”
### 4. Escalate gradually
Her method emphasizes avoiding two extremes:
* Never making a move → friend zone.
* Moving too aggressively → uncomfortable.
The idea:
1. Conversation
2. Playful flirting
3. More personal connection
4. Physical closeness if signals are positive
5. Date/romantic escalation
Her “F Formula” is built around combining flirting, psychology, and authentic personality rather than using rigid pickup lines. ([The Wing Girl Method][4])
### 5. Demonstrate social value
She teaches concepts like:
* Having your own life.
* Being socially connected.
* Not acting desperate.
* Being someone who chooses rather than someone begging to be chosen.
This overlaps with the psychological concept of being “preselected” — people often find someone more attractive when others value them.
### 6. Be playful and slightly challenging
Examples:
* Light teasing.
* Calling out funny behaviors.
* Not agreeing with everything.
Her philosophy is that attraction often requires some tension, not just kindness.
### 7. Lead interactions
She encourages men to:
* Suggest plans.
* Make decisions.
* Communicate intentions clearly.
Not controlling — more like:
> “I know what I want, but I respect your choice.”
### 8. Listen to women as individuals, not as a “code”
One of the stronger parts of her approach is that she tries to teach men to understand women’s experiences rather than treat dating as a mechanical trick system. ([The Wing Girl Method][5])
## My assessment:
The useful parts:
✅ Be confident
✅ Don’t hide attraction indefinitely
✅ Avoid neediness
✅ Develop social skills
✅ Flirt and create fun
The weaker parts:
⚠️ Some pickup-style concepts can oversimplify women into a formula.
⚠️ “High value” language can sometimes encourage performing rather than genuine self-development.
⚠️ Attraction is not just tactics; compatibility, timing, values, and emotional maturity matter.
A healthier summary of her method would be:
**Become a confident, interesting person; show interest clearly; create playful chemistry; respect boundaries; and don’t abandon your own dignity trying to be chosen.**
[1]: https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/wing-girl-makes-dating-her-business?utm_source=chatgpt.com "‘Wing Girl’ Makes Dating her Business | Fox Business"
[2]: https://summarize.ing/video-96837-Get-Her-To-See-You-As-A-LOVER-not-a-Friend-Female-Dating-Coach-Explains-HOW?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Summary of Get Her To See You As A LOVER not a \"Friend\" | Female Dating Coach Explains HOW"
[3]: https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-open-bedroom/ep219-why-women-dont-want-t0HDv-PCpVc/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "EP#219: Why Women Don't Want Nice Guys With Marni Kinrys | Listen Notes"
[4]: https://www.winggirlmethod.com/special/ff/fformula-g/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Flirting Formula"
[5]: https://winggirlmethod.com/about/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "About Marni | The Dating Coach for Men"
David DeAngelo is best known for popularizing the **“Cocky & Funny” (C&F)** approach in the early 2000s pickup-artist community through his program *Double Your Dating*. The central idea was that attraction is created not only by being nice or impressive, but by projecting confidence, playfulness, and a willingness to challenge.
His main tactics:
### 1. Cocky + Funny = confidence without arrogance
The formula:
* **Cocky:** Show self-assurance, act like you value yourself, don’t seek approval.
* **Funny:** Use humor to make interactions enjoyable.
The goal was not literal arrogance, but a playful attitude of:
> “I like myself, I’m having fun, and I’m not trying to convince you to like me.”
Example:
Her: “I’m really picky about restaurants.”
Him: “Good, I was worried you were going to say you loved every chain restaurant. That would have been a dealbreaker.”
(The joke creates playful tension.)
### 2. Tease instead of praise
DeAngelo argued that many men over-compliment women too early:
* “You’re so beautiful.”
* “You’re amazing.”
* “I can’t believe someone like you would talk to me.”
Instead, he promoted playful teasing:
* Lightly challenge her.
* Joke about harmless quirks.
* Create a back-and-forth dynamic.
The underlying idea: **don’t put someone on a pedestal.**
### 3. Avoid seeking validation
A recurring theme:
* Don’t ask, “Do you like me?”
* Don’t over-explain yourself.
* Don’t try to prove your worth.
Instead:
* Assume you are someone worth knowing.
* Let attraction develop naturally.
### 4. Use “frames”
A major pickup concept he taught was controlling the “frame” of an interaction — the assumptions and emotional tone.
Example:
Less effective:
> “I hope you think I'm interesting.”
C&F frame:
> “Let’s see if we get along.”
The second implies both people are evaluating each other.
### 5. Create playful challenges
Instead of constant agreement:
* Have opinions.
* Disagree respectfully.
* Make conversation more dynamic.
Example:
Her: “I love reality TV.”
Him:
> “I knew there was something suspicious about you.”
The purpose is playful tension, not insulting.
### 6. Use humor as social proof
Humor signals:
* Comfort socially.
* Intelligence.
* Emotional control.
* Lack of desperation.
He argued that a man who can make a woman laugh while staying confident often creates stronger attraction.
### 7. Lead rather than chase
Similar to other pickup teachings:
* Suggest activities.
* Move interactions forward.
* Don’t wait passively.
Example:
Instead of:
> “Would you maybe want to hang out sometime?”
More:
> “You seem fun. Let’s grab coffee this week.”
### 8. The “freeze” concept
A controversial tactic associated with his school:
* If someone gives little effort or attention, don’t chase harder.
* Pull back and maintain your own value.
The healthier interpretation:
> Match investment; don’t beg for attention.
---
## Criticism of the method
**What works:**
* Confidence is attractive.
* Humor creates connection.
* Not being needy improves dating.
* Playfulness is often a genuine part of flirting.
**Potential problems:**
* If used as a performance, it can come across as fake.
* “Negging” (backhanded insults disguised as teasing) can be disrespectful.
* Treating attraction as a set of tricks ignores personality, compatibility, and emotional intimacy.
A modern, healthier translation of David DeAngelo’s philosophy would be:
**Be comfortable with yourself, don’t pedestalize others, bring humor and energy, express interest clearly, and interact as an equal rather than as someone seeking approval.**
What do you think of pick up artist tactics? Research and get back to me.
Here is a summary in case you are unfamiliar.
“Pick-up artists” (PUAs) are people who developed systems for meeting and attracting romantic partners, especially through nightlife and dating contexts. The movement became popular in the 2000s through figures like Neil Strauss and online communities. Their tactics vary widely: some are basically social-confidence techniques, while others rely on manipulation or scripted behavior.
Common PUA tactics include:
### 1. **Approach and overcoming fear**
* Deliberately approaching strangers to reduce anxiety.
* Practicing social interaction repeatedly (“approach reps”).
* Treating rejection as a normal part of the process rather than a personal failure.
**Useful version:** Building courage and conversational skill.
**Problematic version:** Treating people as numbers or targets.
### 2. **Opening lines**
PUAs often emphasize having a prepared way to start conversations:
* **Direct:** “I thought you were interesting, so I wanted to meet you.”
* **Indirect:** Asking an opinion (“Which drink should I get?”).
* **Situational:** Commenting on the environment.
Modern dating advice generally favors natural, context-based openings over gimmicks.
### 3. **Confidence and self-presentation**
They often focus on:
* Good grooming.
* Clothing and style.
* Body language.
* Eye contact.
* Speaking calmly.
* Having an interesting life.
This overlaps with ordinary self-improvement.
### 4. **“Peacocking”**
Wearing something distinctive to attract attention:
* Unusual clothing.
* Interesting accessories.
* A unique hobby or skill.
The idea is to create an easy conversation hook.
### 5. **Social proof**
Trying to appear desirable by:
* Being comfortable in groups.
* Having friends.
* Being socially engaged.
* Showing that others enjoy your company.
A healthy version is simply becoming socially connected. A manipulative version is pretending to have status you do not have.
### 6. **“Negging”**
One of the most controversial tactics:
* Giving a mild backhanded compliment to lower someone’s confidence (“You’re pretty, but you seem like trouble”).
The theory was that creating uncertainty increases attraction. Research and modern dating advice generally view this as disrespectful and often counterproductive.
### 7. **Creating attraction through teasing and playfulness**
PUAs emphasize:
* Humor.
* Light teasing.
* Flirting.
* Not being overly agreeable.
The healthy version is playful banter; the unhealthy version is trying to destabilize someone emotionally.
### 8. **Scarcity and “not chasing”**
The idea:
* Don’t appear desperate.
* Maintain your own interests.
* Don’t over-invest too quickly.
The healthy interpretation is having boundaries and self-respect. The manipulative interpretation is intentionally withholding attention to create anxiety.
### 9. **Escalation**
PUA systems often describe a progression:
* Conversation → flirting → physical contact → intimacy.
The legitimate lesson is that relationships develop gradually. The problematic versions sometimes encouraged pushing boundaries rather than paying attention to mutual interest.
### 10. **“Inner game”**
Many PUAs eventually moved away from tricks and toward:
* Self-confidence.
* Emotional control.
* Developing passions.
* Becoming someone who naturally attracts others.
---
### Overall assessment
The most valuable ideas that survived from the PUA movement are:
* Practice social skills.
* Take care of yourself.
* Be confident.
* Talk to people without fear.
* Have an interesting life.
The least defensible ideas are:
* Manipulation.
* Psychological “games.”
* Treating dating as a conquest.
* Assuming attraction can be engineered like a formula.
A lot of modern dating advice has absorbed the useful parts while abandoning many of the more manipulative techniques. The strongest long-term predictor of attraction tends to be a combination of **confidence, warmth, competence, emotional availability, and genuine compatibility**, not scripted tactics.
I posted two long posts of evidence. You didnt refute a single point of it. Even if my position is said to be based on faith, that doesn't mean all faith positions on this are equal.
. I think you might be mentally ill, otherwise your position here is completely irrational and sinful.
Ive provided plenty of evidence. Even if i use faith, its based on the best fit for the evidence
Now, repent of your heresy. Or tell us why you have such contempt for truth, and why you choose to remain in your sin.
The case against a 6,000-year-old Earth is very strong from both mainstream science and from many biblical scholars. Interestingly, these are two independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion: the Earth is much older than a few thousand years.
## Scientific Evidence
### 1. Radiometric dating (the strongest single line of evidence)
Radioactive elements decay at known rates that have been tested in laboratories for over a century.
Scientists can date rocks using several independent methods:
* Uranium → Lead
* Potassium → Argon
* Rubidium → Strontium
* Samarium → Neodymium
The remarkable fact is that when multiple methods are applied to the same rocks, they typically agree.
Earth's oldest rocks date to about **4.0 billion years**, while meteorites consistently date to about **4.56 billion years**, indicating the age of the solar system.
For the Earth to be only 6,000 years old, every radioactive decay system would have to be wrong in exactly the same way.
---
### 2. Tree rings
Some living bristlecone pines have over **4,800 annual rings**.
Dead wood overlaps with living trees, producing continuous chronologies exceeding **12,000 years**.
A 6,000-year-old Earth cannot accommodate a tree-ring record that extends roughly twice that long.
---
### 3. Ice cores
Scientists drill through Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.
Each year typically leaves a recognizable layer, much like tree rings.
Some ice cores preserve over **800,000 annual layers**, along with volcanic ash, atmospheric gases, and climate changes that align with other dating methods.
---
### 4. Plate tectonics
Continents move only a few centimeters per year.
At their measured rates:
* The Atlantic Ocean required over 100 million years to open.
* The Himalayas continue rising today after tens of millions of years of collision.
* Coral reefs and sedimentary rock layers record immense spans of time.
Compressing all of this into 6,000 years would require continental movements so rapid they would have released enough heat to melt much of Earth's crust.
---
### 5. Light from distant galaxies
The James Webb Space Telescope observes galaxies billions of light-years away.
If a galaxy is 10 billion light-years away, its light has been traveling approximately 10 billion years.
A young-Earth explanation would require light to have been created already in transit, raising theological questions because it would imply a universe containing records of events that never actually occurred.
---
### 6. Fossil succession
Fossils appear in a consistent order worldwide.
For example:
* Trilobites
* Dinosaurs
* Mammals
* Modern humans
No rabbits are found in Cambrian rocks, and no dinosaurs are found with early trilobites.
This orderly sequence is difficult to reconcile with a single global flood depositing all fossils at once.
---
### 7. Independent methods agree
Perhaps the strongest scientific point is not any one method but that dozens of unrelated methods converge on the same conclusion.
Examples include:
* radiometric dating
* ice cores
* tree rings
* coral growth
* lake sediments
* plate tectonics
* lunar rocks
* meteorites
* genetic mutation rates
* astronomical observations
These methods rely on different physical principles, yet they consistently indicate an ancient Earth.
---
# Biblical Evidence
Many Christians—including Catholics, Orthodox, and a large number of Protestants—do not believe the Bible requires a 6,000-year-old Earth.
### 1. Genesis does not explicitly state Earth's age
The Bible never says:
> "The Earth is 6,000 years old."
That conclusion comes from adding together genealogies.
---
### 2. Biblical genealogies often skip generations
Genealogies in Scripture frequently omit names.
For example, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel according to Gospel of Matthew intentionally skips several kings that appear in the genealogy recorded in First Book of Chronicles.
This shows biblical genealogies are often theological or literary rather than exhaustive family records.
---
### 3. The Hebrew word "yom"
The Hebrew word *yom* ("day") can mean:
* a 24-hour day
* daylight
* an unspecified period
* an era
For example:
> "In the day that the Lord God made the earth..."
This verse summarizes all of creation using "day" in a broader sense.
---
### 4. The literary structure of Genesis 1
Many biblical scholars note that Genesis 1 has a highly structured pattern:
Days 1–3 establish realms:
* Light and darkness
* Sky and sea
* Land and vegetation
Days 4–6 fill those realms:
* Sun, moon, stars
* Birds and fish
* Animals and humans
This symmetry suggests the chapter is making theological claims about God as Creator rather than functioning as a modern scientific chronology.
---
### 5. Early Christians were not unanimous about six literal days
Long before modern geology, theologians offered different interpretations.
For example, Augustine of Hippo argued that creation was not necessarily spread across six ordinary solar days and cautioned Christians against making scientific claims from Scripture that could be disproven.
This shows that non-literal readings did not arise simply as reactions to modern science.
---
### 6. The "day-age" possibility
Some Christians understand each creation "day" as representing a long epoch.
While this view has its own challenges, it demonstrates that belief in biblical authority does not require a 6,000-year-old Earth.
---
## Bringing the evidence together
Science overwhelmingly supports an Earth about **4.54 billion years old** and a universe about **13.8 billion years old** through many independent, mutually reinforcing methods.
The Bible, on the other hand, does not explicitly give the Earth's age. Whether it requires a young Earth depends largely on how one interprets Genesis and the biblical genealogies. Many faithful Christians—including the traditions of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and numerous Protestant denominations—accept an ancient Earth while affirming that God is its Creator.
For many people, the strongest overall case is the convergence of evidence: dozens of independent scientific disciplines point to an ancient Earth, and the Bible itself can reasonably be interpreted in ways that do not conflict with that conclusion.
Also even if the big bang theory requires faith, its still based on the best available evidence
If a skeptic asked for the strongest evidence for the Big Bang, I'd focus on the observations that are difficult to explain any other way. None of these, by themselves, "prove" the Big Bang in the mathematical sense, but together they form a remarkably consistent picture.
In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble found that nearly every galaxy is moving away from us. The farther away a galaxy is, the faster it recedes.
This isn't because Earth is the center. It's because space itself is expanding, so every distant galaxy sees the same thing.
If the universe is expanding today, then running the clock backward implies it was once much smaller, denser, and hotter.
In 1965, astronomers accidentally discovered faint microwave radiation coming from every direction in space.
The Big Bang predicted decades earlier that if the universe began in an extremely hot state, it should leave behind cooled radiation filling the cosmos.
That's exactly what was found:
This is often called the afterglow of the early universe.
The Big Bang predicts that during the first few minutes, nuclear reactions should produce very specific amounts of:
When astronomers measure ancient gas clouds, the abundances closely match these predictions.
This agreement was calculated before the measurements became precise.
When we look billions of light-years away, we're looking billions of years into the past.
Young galaxies look:
Nearby galaxies are generally older and more mature.
This is exactly what we'd expect if the universe has evolved over billions of years.
Different methods give roughly the same answer (about 13.8 billion years), including:
Agreement among independent methods greatly increases confidence.
A common misconception is that the Big Bang explains why the universe exists.
It doesn't.
The theory explains:
It does not explain:
Those remain open questions in cosmology.
Most cosmologists consider the evidence for an early hot, expanding universe to be about as well established as any theory in astronomy. Individual details—such as the nature of dark matter, dark energy, or what happened in the universe's earliest fraction of a second—are still active areas of research. But the combination of:
makes the Big Bang model the best-supported explanation we currently have for the universe's large-scale history.
You just have to transcend that feeling. Resign yourself to endless goals and have a change in perspective
See above
Trump is obviously trying to disenfranchise voters n before the midterms
If Republicans sincerely wanted more security in identification they'd allow time to let people do it their way, not sabotage the election
Democrats aren't opposed to id being used in voting just not sabotaging the process
There's barely any election fraud so its an insincere attempt at disenfranchisement
If you're explaining it to a Republican in good faith, the strongest Democratic arguments are generally not that they support non-citizen voting (which is already illegal in federal elections), but that they think the SAVE Act creates unnecessary barriers for eligible citizens.
Here's how Democrats typically explain their opposition:
Also even if the big bang theory requires faith, its still based on the best available evidence
Instead of saying 'before they die' id rather say 'during or around the time of death' in an attempt at being more objective. Although I know skeptics like to contest whether people who die and came back really died at all. As always, the skeptic strategy is to deny all terms and conditions
