|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 29 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:12 sevencck wrote:On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least. If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women? What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
The guy who are doing it right aren't using what can be fairly called "pick-up tricks." There's more to it than that. The whole point anyway is to appeal to the more subconscious and emotional elements of the female psyche as opposed to her intellect because appealing to the intellect generally doesn't work anyway (which is the source of male frustration to begin with).
|
On May 29 2014 08:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? I think there is nothing specifically wrong with the idea in concept, but there appear to be some flaws with the culture and attitudes of a group of men who's sole purpose find easy ways to get laid. Its not that the group or the basic idea behind the group are inherently bad, but you have to ask yourself what sort of person that set if ideas is going to attract. If you go to their site, it gets into the non-sense pretty quickly. And its sleezy as fuck, but thats just my personal opinion. Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:12 sevencck wrote:On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least. If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women? They don't degrade the women while they are trying to pick them up, thats not the plan. I would recommend going to the site and just browsing for a few minutes and seeing the non-sense in first person. They have lingo, like the same way people talk about SC2, with a "mid game" and weird phrases like "anchoring". Its super trashy and not really a healthy way to view relationships or sexual interaction as a game.
I have read the manosphere extensively. Synthesizing viewpoints is what I like to do. I have a couple problems with it, but not many. Much of what's unfolding in the manosphere is the future blossoming before you. It will be criticized and trimmed somewhat before it's done maturing, but stopping it will simply not be possible. And thank God for that.
On May 29 2014 08:21 Wombat_NI wrote:
For I think the third time, regardless of your opinions on it either way, why is PUA being brought in?
Because virtually the entire mainstream media apparatus has turned the shooting into a discussion of MRAs and PUAs etc.
|
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 08:12 sevencck wrote:On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least. If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women? What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous. Define "normal person". How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
|
Northern Ireland25558 Posts
On May 29 2014 08:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 08:12 sevencck wrote:On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least. If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women? What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous. The guy who are doing it right aren't using what can be fairly called "pick-up tricks." There's more to it than that. The whole point anyway is to appeal to the more subconscious and emotional elements of the female psyche as opposed to her intellect because appealing to the intellect generally doesn't work anyway (which is the source of male frustration to begin with).
Outside of that, it reframes the 'I deserve a woman' into 'what do I have to offer to a woman?'. At least that's what I took from my brief dipping in in my youth.
I don't see anything wrong with it if you cherry pick what parts help you pursue a mutually beneficial romantic life. Yeah you might perceive some of it as manipulative or gimmicky, but all human interaction is manipulative to some degree.
|
On May 29 2014 08:21 Wombat_NI wrote:
For I think the third time, regardless of your opinions on it either way, why is PUA being brought in?
The guy sat in public areas for hours waiting for women to magically approach him, please find me literature from that community that advocates that kind of lazy entitlement. Coincidentally weren't some of his posts located on a website called 'PUAhate' or something?
People are projecting. Also, there are some people with really weird views and this incident has become their soap box. I think a page ago someone said that if only women were nicer to him, this guy who has never felt affection from a woman (a view based on "evidence" in the form of that rambling manifesto), none of this would happen.
Sometimes all the PUA/pseudo-psychological analysis/natural male aggression theories just seem to be intellectualised camouflage for sympathy for Eliot.
|
On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
|
Northern Ireland25558 Posts
Societally people should be nicer, especially during the emotionally difficult teenage years. The amount of bullying that is allowed to go on is sad sometimes, be it by the lack of censure from peers or from people in positions of authority.
That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights.
|
I'm taking all of his writing with a huge grain of salt. He clearly didn't have a solid grasp on human interaction and the "slights" that he received from women may have just been reactions to his ham fisted attempts to interact with them.
|
On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:On May 29 2014 08:19 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 08:12 sevencck wrote:On May 29 2014 08:05 Nyxisto wrote:On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal? It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^ Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least. If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women? What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous. Define "normal person". How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
She thinks that its all "jokes" because of social medias, popular article website, and blogs tends to shame on men trying to improve themselves. So she doesn't want to fail their standards. This means she doesn't know much about how the concepts works so her opinion on it can only be discredited.
|
Canada11363 Posts
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. .
Dunno. Depends what you are breaking down into a science. I would submit that PUA does not break down long term relationship into a science. That doesn't seem to be the end goal as far as I can tell. The repeated and highlighted end-goal seems to be a string of one-night stands. I think "socializing with women" is too generous for what PUA intends to do. The focus is much more narrow, unless temporary seduction is the only form of socialization that has existed since ancient times.
|
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
PUA is as much a science as astrology...
|
On May 29 2014 08:49 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. PUA is as much a science as astrology...
This post gives as much evidence as astrology.
On May 29 2014 08:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. . Dunno. Depends what you are breaking down into a science. I would submit that PUA does not break down long term relationship into a science. That doesn't seem to be the end goal as far as I can tell. The repeated and highlighted end-goal seems to be a string of one-night stands. I think "socializing with women" is too generous for what PUA intends to do. The focus is much more narrow, unless temporary seduction is the only form of socialization that has existed since ancient times.
Au contraire sir, it helps for long term relationship as well.
The techniques is all about being interesting to her. Some people can do this for short burst of duration but if you manage to keep it for a long term, then you will certainly be an excellent boyfriend, a riveting husbands, and a fun parent (to the future kids).
|
On May 29 2014 08:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. . Dunno. Depends what you are breaking down into a science. I would submit that PUA does not break down long term relationship into a science. That doesn't seem to be the end goal as far as I can tell. The repeated and highlighted end-goal seems to be a string of one-night stands. I think "socializing with women" is too generous for what PUA intends to do. The focus is much more narrow, unless temporary seduction is the only form of socialization that has existed since ancient times.
Well that's the rub. The general objective of the PUA is to get laid as quickly as possible with as many women as possible. That objective generally is inconsistent with a long-term relationship, because relationships that are built upon sex typically aren't built to last. Still, it doesn't change the fact that PUA techniques are useful for engaging women (again, because there's some truth to their underpinnings) and putting yourself in a situation to have a long term relationship so long as you foster that relationship properly (ie avoid the one-night stands and quick sex).
|
On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote:
That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights.
Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it.
He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too.
|
On May 29 2014 08:49 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. PUA is as much a science as astrology...
I really didn't want to get into the whole science argument, but PUA does seem to be based on some pretty bunk pseudoscience. It sounds really good and even looks good on paper. But when tested, it seems to fall apart(from the articles I could find on Neuro-linguistic programming) The fact that the idea of Neuro-linguistic programming was created by a guy who wrote self help books and a college professor, who later then sold on the open market as another form of self help program, tells me a lot about the science behind the PUA.
On May 29 2014 08:59 [X]Ken_D wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote:
That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights. Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too.
Similar stuff happened to me in school and I came out fine. It's mean and sad that it happened to him, but not extra-ordinary or anything that thousands of others go through and manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
|
On May 29 2014 09:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:49 levelping wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. PUA is as much a science as astrology... I really didn't want to get into the whole science argument, but PUA does seem to be based on some pretty bunk pseudoscience. It sounds really good and even looks good on paper. But when tested, it seems to fall apart(from the articles I could find on Neuro-linguistic programming) The fact that the idea of Neuro-linguistic programming was created by a guy who wrote self help books and a college professor, who later then sold on the open market as another form of self help program, tells me a lot about the science behind the PUA. Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 08:59 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote:
That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights. Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too. Similar stuff happened to me in school and I came out fine. It's mean and sad that it happened to him, but not extra-ordinary or anything that thousands of others go through and manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
That comes off terribly conceited and self-centered. You were not diagnosed with Asperger either, I'm assuming. But yeah, let's keep acting like he's the only intrinsic cause of all this suffering. Maybe you had the fortune of that one friend who was with you through it all. Or a family member that you were close to. This guy was all alone, all this time, that much is clear.
|
On May 29 2014 09:14 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2014 09:03 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:49 levelping wrote:On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote:On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote:
How attractive are those "smart women"? My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way. I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort. PUA is as much a science as astrology... I really didn't want to get into the whole science argument, but PUA does seem to be based on some pretty bunk pseudoscience. It sounds really good and even looks good on paper. But when tested, it seems to fall apart(from the articles I could find on Neuro-linguistic programming) The fact that the idea of Neuro-linguistic programming was created by a guy who wrote self help books and a college professor, who later then sold on the open market as another form of self help program, tells me a lot about the science behind the PUA. On May 29 2014 08:59 [X]Ken_D wrote:On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote:
That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights. Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too. Similar stuff happened to me in school and I came out fine. It's mean and sad that it happened to him, but not extra-ordinary or anything that thousands of others go through and manage to avoid going on killing sprees. That comes off terribly conceited and self-centered. You were not diagnosed with Asperger either, I'm assuming. But yeah, let's keep acting like he's the only intrinsic cause of all this suffering. Maybe you had the fortune of that one friend who was with you through it all. Or a family member that you were close to. This guy was all alone, all this time, that much is clear.
There are people who live with less supportive families in gut-wrenching poverty who manage to become good people. His life was hard and its sad it was that way. However, there are people with far greater challenges in life who manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
I am as sympathetic to him and his family for their suffering, but he did killed people who did nothing to him and were only going about their day. He took his suffering out on others, which is not acceptable.
|
The bigger issue that people are dancing around is how woefully inadequate our society has become at dealing with and treating the mentally ill. We don't have the institutions to handle these issues that we used to.
|
Gun laws meet inadequate provision and maladministration of commitment. ABC has the full text of his manifesto and it shows a clear but warped mind.
+ Show Spoiler [manifesto] +Humanity...All of my suffering on this world has been at the hands of humanity, particularly women. It has made me realize just how brutal and twisted humanity is as a species. All I ever wanted was to fit in and live a happy life amongst humanity, but I was cast out and rejected, forced to endure an existence of loneliness and insignificance, all because the females of the human species were incapable of seeing the value in me.[...] and on for 141 pages. I won't be reading or even skimming the whole thing, but in the glut of bad reporting on this man's motivations and life, even the first few pages will give you a better understanding. http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf
And for all of you throwing "PUA" out there, this man's affected by quite a different culture.
|
On May 29 2014 09:38 xDaunt wrote:
The bigger issue that people are dancing around is how woefully inadequate our society has become at dealing with and treating the mentally ill. We don't have the institutions to handle these issues that we used to.
what do you mean 'that we used to'. such treatment has never existed. Even our woefully inadequate treatment of mental illness is light-years ahead of what it was even a decade ago. Don't get me wrong, I think our treatment of mental illness is godawful, but to say that it was any better at ANY point in time is very wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
