Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Iron Sharpens Iron
This topic contains 63 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by 
Ever5 2 years, 3 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
I’m serious about this iron sharpens iron thing. If you can’t argue your point, convince me how being apathetic, being a pussy, is going to benefit my life. You bring absolutely no benefit. You’re just being a leach, getting attention but not bringing anything to the table.
There is No Reciprocity.
And that’s what my original thread was all about. The weak bring nothing to the table, they only make people weaker, sicker and ultimately they are going to kill us all.
The whole problem we’re in now is because of this nonsense. And it’s only going to get worse.
And for people out there that think a collapse is going to change things. You’ll be too weak to have a say. You’ll either die or become a new slave. And this all starts with ideas. If you can’t stand on your ideas, you can’t fight for them.
The masses will always be the weaker class, and ultimately they what will be the ones that destroy us.
You going to disagree with me, that’s great! But argue your damn point instead of wasting my time.
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
I’m serious, this apathetic bulls~~~ is going to kill us all. Wake the f~~~ up!
I agree with your core premise, that conflict is the breeding ground for growth, but you seem hell-bent on creating conflict solely for the sake of conflict, which is not only a waste of time, but also a waste of energy. In the wild, a predator does not chase after every single prey they can find. They stop and wait, and look for a target that’s an easy catch. If there are no easy catches, they at least pick out a target that is going to be worth their expenditure of energy. The energy that is created within their system must be more than the energy that they will expend in the process.
With that in mind, there is definitely a time and place for choosing your battles. Do not be afraid of the conflict that is necessary for growth and change. That’s good. But chasing every fight you see will only make people ignore you, and will damage your chances of creating a net positive benefit over the course of your life.
I would like to postulate a new mindset that you may consider at your leisure: Acceptance of weakness breeds more weakness. A seed can’t grow if you pluck it before it’s even been watered.
I’m serious, this apathetic bulls~~~ is going to kill us all. Wake the f~~~ up!
I agree with your core premise, that conflict is the breeding ground for growth, but you seem hell-bent on creating conflict solely for the sake of conflict, which is not only a waste of time, but also a waste of energy. In the wild, a predator does not chase after every single prey they can find. They stop and wait, and look for a target that’s an easy catch. If there are no easy catches, they at least pick out a target that is going to be worth their expenditure of energy. The energy that is created within their system must be more than the energy that they will expend in the process.
With that in mind, there is definitely a time and place for choosing your battles. Do not be afraid of the conflict that is necessary for growth and change. That’s good. But chasing every fight you see will only make people ignore you, and will damage your chances of creating a net positive benefit over the course of your life.
I would like to postulate a new mindset that you may consider at your leisure: Acceptance of weakness breeds more weakness. A seed can’t grow if you pluck it before it’s even been watered.
In the wild, do animals not practice on each other? I see dogs, what do they do for fun? They practice fighting.
This is not a real environment, there is no real threat of danger here. So how is that different from two puppies fighting?
I don’t know about you, but I’m used to getting run over because I don’t have the skills/strength to defend my ideas. Or a cave in sympathy to the weak that shed tears in knowing their idea is wrong.
I’m trying to bring something to the table. But first I guess I need to convince you that this is a worthy ideal. That fighting with each other in this “safe” environment is worthy of the energy, that we can all benefit from it.
Maybe I’m coming on too strong, but we need to practice, if anything, for our own benefit.
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
@grump – If we don’t develop the mental aptitude now, it’ll be too late when it actually matters. Whether that’s in a collapse, or just simply life, negotiating, business, or in relationships, holding ground and keeping people from crossing personal boundaries.
So how is that a waste of time and a waste of energy?
And if people don’t want to participate, they don’t have to tell me about their NFG nonsense and then jet out without bringing anything to the table. They can simply just keep quiet. That’s on them, not on me.
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
And silence is acquiescence. If you can’t speak, then I can only assume that I am in fact right in what I say and believe, and that you are wrong in what you say and believe. Therefore, I should hold fast to my idea and reject your idea.
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
I don’t know about you, but I’m used to getting run over because I don’t have the skills/strength to defend my ideas. Or a cave in sympathy to the weak that shed tears in knowing their idea is wrong.
You do have the strength, you just choose not to use it. Everybody has the ability to stand up and defend their ideas; it just comes down to who’s willing to be uncomfortable enough to put their ideas up for challenge. Sometimes, refusing to argue a point is an indicator of how not-so-well thought-out it is, and by correlation how potentially useful it is. Smartly arguing a stupid idea is still stupid. I agree though that this site is a great way to spar.
I’m trying to bring something to the table. But first I guess I need to convince you that this is a worthy ideal. That fighting with each other in this “safe” environment is worthy of the energy, that we can all benefit from it.
Maybe I’m coming on too strong, but we need to practice, if anything, for our own benefit.
You are coming on pretty strong, but that’s not the problem. You’re coming across as somebody who’s looking for a fight, not looking for growth. But this is the problem with internet communication — I may just be misreading your tone.
I’m not saying that practicing is a waste of energy, I’m simply positing that being constantly on the offensive is an unnecessary burden on yourself. I think we have our wires crossed though: In a couple sentences, can you sum what you are trying to say? I’m getting mixed vibes and can’t tell if you’re advocating for arguing on here (in which case you’re spewing hot-air, because the audience on this site is fine with arguing) or saying we should all adopt a stance of intellectual aggression in all areas of life.
And silence is acquiescence. If you can’t speak, then I can only assume that I am in fact right in what I say and believe, and that you are wrong in what you say and believe. Therefore, I should hold fast to my idea and reject your idea.
That’s you imposing your own standards onto the world at large, and doing so is intellectually dishonest.
Just to clarify, the title of your thread comes from Proverbs in the Old Testament which was written about 3000 years ago and spoken by St. Paul about 2000 years.
Some basic philosophy is in order. The appeal to tolerance, love and acceptance are terms that are meaningless without a philosophical/religious foundation. These terms could be applied to the USSR under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, Italy in the seventeenth century and various African tribes in Botswana. What philosophy/religion is foundational for a culture or country will determine what is tolerated and not tolerated i.e intolerant: What is acceptable and unacceptable and what is love and what is not love etc. etc.
Your justifiable appeal to “iron sharpens iron” IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES TAKING PLACE ON THIS SITE ON A DAILY BASIS!!!
The metaphor of “iron sharpens iron” implies that this procedure takes a long time. There is sharpening, then curing in the fire, then sharpening then curing in the fire and whatever a blacksmith needed to do at that time. The process of blacksmithing took much longer 2000 years ago than 100 years ago.
Again, your appeal is commendable. But you must realize that contributing to this site via commenting, respectful criticism, encouragement and other means of promoting MGTOW over an extended period of time is the answer to your plea.
God bless, Michael
Anonymous14And silence is acquiescence. If you can’t speak, then I can only assume that I am in fact right in what I say and believe, and that you are wrong in what you say and believe. Therefore, I should hold fast to my idea and reject your idea.
That’s you imposing your own standards onto the world at large, and doing so is intellectually dishonest.
Nein
OK, well you are right in that. If I’m arguing with someone, I probably do need to tune it down. Otherwise they might quit and not argue at all, and then we do not find the truth.
However, in this particular situation. Someone really wasn’t interested in bringing anything to the table. In real life, is it not appropriate to shun them off when they are literally just wasting my time, being a leach, with no intention of bringing anything to the table?
And if someone quits the battle. Silence is Acquiescence, how is that being intellectually dishonest? If they quit, then obviously they have nothing to stand on. Now in this case, you did come back and made some points. when I wrote that, I presumed that you simply left the battlefield. Were being similar to the individual before who said NFG and just jetted out without telling me why that’s the way to be or asking me questions to get me to rethink my original stance.
and I gotta hit the gym, so I’ll be back later on
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
The overwhelming success of this site proves that silence is the opposite of what is actually occurring. No one is responding to your particular thread because you have covered so much that it might be better to break down each claim or assertion to separate threads. I consider myself educated and your opening thread covers many important topics. But it is difficult to respond to all. Too many good thoughts.
God bless, Michael.
OK, well you are right in that. If I’m arguing with someone, I probably do need to tune it down. Otherwise they might quit and not argue at all, and then we do not find the truth.
That is primarily what I was getting at with the “net positive benefit” phrase earlier.
However, in this particular situation. Someone really wasn’t interested in bringing anything to the table. In real life, is it not appropriate to shun them off when they are literally just wasting my time, being a leach, with no intention of bringing anything to the table?
I would say it’s acceptable, but then it comes down to preference. I’m a believer that you can’t lose if you don’t play, but you also can’t win (though with those sorts, there’s no winning anyway). Hence why I just ignore said people.
And if someone quits the battle. Silence is Acquiescence, how is that being intellectually dishonest? If they quit, then obviously they have nothing to stand on.
Earlier in the discourse you mentioned not having the strength to stand on your ideas. Were any of those specific ideas actually right, even though they weren’t defended? The correct-ness of a fact or idea has nothing at all to do with how well it is defended, but simply if the idea is truthful and accurate under repetition. The reason I claim that approach is intellectually dishonest is because there exists many ideas that may be correct but are not adequately defended, and so they are dismissed without further thought. By imposing your own thought construct “Silence is Acquiescence” onto somebody else, you are potentially silencing a very accurate and factual idea.
I’m serious, this apathetic bulls~~~ is going to kill us all. Wake the f~~~ up!
Russky2 has a similar thread to this a while back, and got banned for it, because he said, “Go F~~~ Yourselves” to everyone.
I did state that I agreed with him on the thread, but I think he was gone by then. He’s back though!
Earlier in the discourse you mentioned not having the strength to stand on your ideas. Were any of those specific ideas actually right, even though they weren’t defended?
OK, learned something today. Don’t do this stuff in public, at least not until you get your skills set. And here’s an example. I brought up affirmative action and how the world isn’t fair and trying to make it so is always going to injure people. That someone is going to be left out no matter what.
I got called anti-woman and a racist. no s~~~. And I couldn’t stand on my argument that affirmative action isn’t fair. I simply do not have the skills/strength. Also, I kind of made myself look like an idiot, and now people might think I’m anti-woman and a racist.
I know I’m right, that manipulating the environment is not fair, trying to make the world fair when the world isn’t fair, is wrong. However, I can’t say I lost, and I did learn a lot about myself and other people’s perspectives. But I can’t say I won. And in the end, it may have done more damage than good.
I guess this goes back to what I said in the beginning. The Weak will demonize the intellectually strong.
And I also noticed how I got really triggered if that’s the word, like concerned when someone called me anti-woman. Like, ‘o no, they are think I’m bad’. Which I know that I’ve got to get over that. But just bringing this up. Maybe someone else can learn from it.
At the same time, going through that, I almost feel it isn’t worth the effort, but that may be simply because I lack the skills/strength to be able to do it in an effective manner or in a way that gets the idea across without being personally attacked. No idea. Learning as I go.
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
I think it all comes down to master morality and slave morality. That there is a distinction. TFM talked about this. However, master morality, trying to promote it or even being on the side of it is demonized, considered wrong/evil.
It’s quite frustrating, and I can totally see how apathy seems to be the solution. To not even try. However, if you live with a master morality, not defending it, it wears down on your self-confidence, creating apathy, which then effects every area of your life. You can’t live your life constantly losing and rolling over on your back, and keep your own self-respect.
I think jordan peterson, which I know a lot of people don’t like, is considered a trad con, and I don’t disagree with that. But he does have some useful things to say.
I mean I’ve got to make a decision in life. I can either respect myself, or I can be perceived as the bad guy by a bunch of weak and pathetic human beings, which happens to be the majority. And I feel, for my own self-respect, my own personal wellbeing, I’ve got to just accept being the bad guy. Other wise, life sucks and is pointless, apathy, zero f~~~s given, being the outcome.
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
Anonymous0At the same time, going through that, I almost feel it isn’t worth the effort, but that may be simply because I lack the skills/strength to be able to do it in an effective manner or in a way that gets the idea across without being personally attacked. No idea. Learning as I go.
A few favorite quotes on the subject of arguing.
Law 9: Win Through Your Actions, Never Through Argument
“Never argue. Any momentary triumph you think you have gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory. The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.”
–“The 48 Laws of Power” by Robert Greene (1998)
* * *
The Art of Seduction
“Seduction is a form of persuasion that seeks to bypass consciousness, stirring the unconscious mind instead. The reason for this is simple: We are so surrounded by stimuli that compete for our attention, bombarding us with obvious messages, and by people who are overtly political and manipulative, that we are rarely charmed or deceived by them. We have grown increasingly cynical. Try to persuade a person by appealing to their consciousness, by saying outright what you want, by showing all your cards, and what hope do you have? You are just one more irritation to be tuned out. To avoid this fate you must learn the art of insinuation, of reaching the unconscious.” (p. 126)
–“The Art of Seduction” by Robert Greene (2001)
* * *
Law 38: Think As You Like But Behave Like Others
“We all tell lies and hide our true feelings, for complete free expression is a social impossibility. From an early age we learn to conceal our thoughts, telling the prickly and insecure what we know they want to hear, watching carefully lest we offend them. For most of us this is natural–there are ideas and values that most people accept, and it is pointless to argue. We believe what we want to, then, but on the outside we wear a mask.There are people, however, who see such restraints as an intolerable infringement on their freedom, and who have a need to prove the superiority of their values and beliefs. In the end, though, their arguments convince only a few and offend a great deal more. The reason arguments do not work is that most people hold their ideas and values without thinking about them. There is a strong emotional content in their beliefs: They really do not want to have to rework their habits of thinking, and when you challenge them, either directly through your arguments or indirectly through your behavior, they are hostile.
Wise and clever people learn early on that they can display conventional behavior and mouth conventional ideas without having to believe in them. The power these people gain from blending in is that of being left alone to have the thoughts they want to have, and to express them to the people they want to express them to, without suffering isolation or ostracism. Once they have established themselves in a position of power, they can try to convince a wider circle of the correctness of their ideas […]”
–“The 48 Laws of Power” by Robert Greene (1998)
* * *
To sum up: Formal debate can be both fun and productive when everyone agrees on the rules and the format of the debate. But simple arguing is rarely fruitful.Never argue
I’ll say this, this exercise today has helped me to learn about myself. What it is that I want to be, what it is that I want to believe. And with that, also who I should dismiss from my life.
Without arguing, I can’t determine who someone is. Whether they hold the same values as me.
This whole thing stems from the idea that all this tolerance mess has led to my own confusion. What is right and what is wrong, from my individual perspective. What ideas hold value, and what ideas do not hold value. Where should I invest my emotional energy, which is then going to be carried into physical action.
Never argue sounds cute, but the result of that, is the vast majority of us, in this society, including myself, are a bunch of pushovers.
Look at any real leader, they aren’t push overs. Look at any successful business man, they aren’t push overs.
So how do you develop the mental fortitude, the ability to stand on your own two feet, without arguing at least at some point in your life?
The never argue scenario sounds good, but I believe it would only work for someone who is actually strong enough to argue. From that strength, he has the ability to choose not to.
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
Anonymous0Children argue. They bicker and fight and scream and punch and kick. They’re very good at arguing, in fact. But that just shows you that there isn’t any special virtue in arguing. Any f~~~ing 6-year-old can argue.
I’ll say this, this exercise today has helped me to learn about myself. What it is that I want to be, what it is that I want to believe. And with that, also who I should dismiss from my life.
Without arguing, I can’t determine who someone is. Whether they hold the same values as me.If you want to discuss values, that’s fine. But that can be done in a discussion format. To put it in pop psychology-speak, It can be done in a win/win format where you exchange information rather than a zero-sum format where one person loses and one person wins. Arguing isn’t a particularly good way to learn about each other’s values. If you want to hear someone’s values (or clarify your own), that’s best done in a situation where people aren’t bickering or being put on the defensive or being ridiculed for their values.
So how do you develop the mental fortitude, the ability to stand on your own two feet, without arguing at least at some point in your life?
Six-year-olds bicker and argue. And their mom tells them to cut it out or she’s going to come over there and give them a spanking.
Meantime, adults don’t argue. Adults assert themselves. Adults practice assertiveness.
Adults have the b~~~~ to speak up, declare who they are and what they stand for, and let others choose whether they wish to associate or negotiate with them based on those statements. Adults compare values and decide if they want to associate with each other based on the similarities and differences between them. But there’s no need for adults to start bickering like a couple six-year-olds as part of that process.
yeah I think we got a difference in definition of argument. Perhaps it’s debate, perhaps it’s seeking agreement.
My form of argument is a mix between stating facts or claims, and then asking questions, until we get to the root of what it is that someone believes. Whether it is accurate or false.
The same that took place here. Besides the incident of the NFG statement and then leaving the scene. That’s what I call arguing. I’m not bitching back and forth, this is right and this is wrong. I’m stating something, seeing what it is people say, then questioning it.
Doing this today live, getting to the root, I saw that people didn’t even believe what it was that they were claiming. I was still demonized to some extent, but holding on, basically I just kept seeing holes in what it is that people were saying they believed, vs what it is that they actually believed.
I walked away with the conclusion that people believe what is in their best interest. People believe what benefits them, at least claim to.
Perhaps that is the same here. Perhaps people would rather dismiss these ideas than look in the mirror and discover their own weakness?
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
For example on the affirmative action deal, which came up because I was stating that the world isn’t fair so is it right to try and force it to be fair.
Someone brought up affirmative action, which I didn’t really know what it was, then they explained.
So I asked, ok so are you suggesting that this gender, race etc is incompetent and therefore needs assistance?
Which they said no, it’s to make things fair.
So I said, so how is that making things fair. Then I made statements in regards to women getting grants or whatever, taking up spots in med school, becoming doctors and then quitting in 3-5 years. How affirmative action was not benefiting society even. Which yeah, completely went off topic, showing outcomes instead of sticking to the real question, is forcing the world to be fair, fair or good.
That’s when I got called anti-woman. Again, I can see my mistake, because it would be easy to state a positive outcome for making the world fair. Which goes full circle, just a waste of time.
So there, making a claim is what creates that response. Got me called anti woman when I should have just stuck to questions.
Then back onto the race issue. So I asked how is that fair. And the whole deal about being disadvantaged.
So I asked how has someone who is 20 years old now be disadvantaged by something that happened 50-60 years ago?
Then it was this discussion about debt of the past, that their grandfathers and fathers were harmed and this was to make up for it.
So then I asked, ok, so if I and someone of a different race are competing for a job, me being white, if I don’t get the job because of affirmative action, does that make affirmative action right?
Their response, yes, because your white and whites are responsible for slavery, and they were harmed and blah blah blah.
So then I asked, ok so being that I’m white and I and my family had nothing to do with slavery, but I should still not get the job simply because I am white, and merit should have nothing to do with it?
And they said yes.
In which I responded, well it sounds to me like you are the racist.
So that’s the basic outline of my “argument”.
And yeah, I felt kind of s~~~ty, because this was with people I talk to on a regular basis, friends or whatever. In the end, I ended up basically calling my friend a racist. Which doesn’t feel good, but the more I reflect, it sounds that that could potentially be the case.
Hence my conclusion that people claim to believe what benefits them, not what it is they actually believe.
If you got feedback on that, love to hear it.
Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
