How To Date a Japanese Girl

Maybe if you made your points more concise, people would actually bother reading it.

i would actually want to do all those things on the list. i would love to be a gentleman to the girl, right up to opening the door for her and seating her in a chair. if i like her that much where i would be dating her, why would i not want to do these things?

if you are unwilling to spend money on a woman or to do things like what is listed in order to make her feel happy and loved, you better get used to dying alone

I may be verbose, but that's not my intention. I take the Treebeard approach. I never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say. Whether people find it worthy to read is another matter.

I just consider the internet full of trite enough statements that it's worth spending some time to attempt to rebirth intelligent discourse here and there.

"...my 'macho bullshit' term still stands..."

Well, I wasn't trying to make you take it back or anything. I just wasn't clear on your perception of the concept, but since you elaborated I understand now, and it's what I tried to express by 'pretentious masculinity'.

I would just like to reiterate my agreement with your ideas, good sir.

how to date any girl.
#1. Have A LOT OF MONEY.

Confidence overrides money. Simple reason: You can have all the money in the world, but nothing will ever happen if you never ask.

or, you can have all the money in the world, and everyone will come to you so you don't have to ask.

Having all the money in the world would suck - you think people would still think it has value? Of course not.

I agree with 18:25's main point though - if you have a significant amount of money/power, you'll get lots of girls asking you out. Zero confidence or not, doesn't matter. Sure, having confidence would be a turn-on for the women (eww) but if you don't have the money, some won't want to date you.

On another note, while I respect you (HL) for the various good posts you've made, what the heck were you smoking when you wrote the last paragraph? @07:22, "sacred", "spirit", "soul"? You can't be serious. I thought this discussion was at least quasi-scientific, so what's with the pseudo-science?

Depends how far into science you get, since science is now being forced to admit and seek out the more metaphysical aspects of reality. The Aura is now proven, the chakra can be seen by many people now and have been known about for thousands of years and hasn't changed in its purpose or description, the fact that humans now control their own reality through their perceptions is now accepted by science.

Metaphysics has been at least 20 years ahead of science constantly, and anyone familiar with metaphysics looks at the new scientific discoveries and are left going 'it's about time... we've known that for generations... not to mention certain cultures have lived by that knowledge for centuries..." My father is also an AP Chem and Physics teacher and is also very understanding of the metaphysical presence in reality, so don't think they're all 'hippies' or whatever you might perceive.

If you're one of those who don't make a distinction between religion and spirituality, then that requires further explanation, since there is next to no similarity between the two. One's political, one is much more.

You needn't make assumptions about my views. We can't really determine another's personality across the internet, since they could be typing the opposite of their thoughts for all we knew. I'm not closed to new ideas, nor do I assume metaphysicists are hippies.

We construct reality within our brains; that's no news. But I've never heard of any proof of the 'Aura', and all supernatural experiences could be just brushed off as symptoms of 'incomplete sanity', as in hallucinations and the like. Any elaboration on this?

On another note, metaphysics being ahead of science sounds peculiar. I haven't studied its development so I wouldn't know, but as it's a branch of philosophy it can hardly make progress without fundamental changes in human brains/thinking.

"Forced to admit" sounds off, too - it's not like science has a personality, nor are all or most proponents/believers of scientific realism the same. I'm also not sure about calling anything under science 'spiritual' or metaphysical - if something has been confirmed empirically, it ceases to fall under those two by definition.

Arguing against spirituality in general wasn't my point, though. The point's that for "worldly" topics such as this, using scientific language is the best. Isn't that right?

I wasn't determining personality, just preempting a common assumption for clarification. And it's not necessarily 'right,' but potentially more 'practical.' The trouble is practical language in this regard turns it into a study on animals, when humans have higher consciousness that we're discovering is governed by many things which aren't attributed to other animals.

'Forced to admit' is not quite INcorrect, because science does have a personality, since it's done by humans who have personalities. There are hold-outs who are shown evidence over time where they may reluctantly agree. It's wonderful to believe in the true scientists who relish the evidence, but sadly most are not. Much like any other human, constantly changing beliefs takes a massive amount of mental endurance, not just intellect. They are literally analyzing things that defy our current understanding of physics, and there are many who simply use that as an excuse to ignore new ideas, because it hasn't entered their perception yet that perhaps we've been incorrect about aspects of physics all along.

Metaphysics isn't philosophy, so much as an analytically assertive form of science. Philosophy denotes it has no practical use, when in reality "metaphysics" is simply a new name for things that have existed for thousands of years. Religions just did a wonderful job of calling it magic and making it synonymous with frivolity and/or evil. Renaming it for modern times is simply a conduit to reinsert it into society again.

And you talk of 'constructing' reality with our brains as if you think I'm talking about something mental. Not in the slightest. I am literally saying that the human perception and intention literally shapes multidimensional reality around us based solely on our presence, and this has started to be proven through smaller experiments now, but yet again has been known for several millenia that that's how the world works. It's perceived through different filters and fears, but it's always been known in some form or another to the initiated minds of the past. The term Alchemy refers generally to that concept. Even prayer does this. In science, you can find it in the Placebo effect for a simple example. It's simultaneously incredibly simple and incredibly complex how directly humans shape the proverbial world around them.

Science can be applied to humans, too. After all, according to scientific realism we're but complex machines.

While scientists certainly have personalities, science itself is just a concept. Every new person that picks it up will make a new form of 'science' based on their own experience and beliefs - it doesn't mean it has a personality.

Now here's something I don't understand. Science, and especially physics, is always conducted with the mindset that "tomorrow we may find that today's science has been completely wrong". Paradigm shifts happen. Scientists should accept that - normal and 'average' people might not.

As for your definition of metaphysics, I'm not sure I follow. The 'philosophy' part doesn't mean it has no practical value, nor would it being a part of science change that. It's philosophical for many reasons, one being that it isn't empirical in the sense science is - metaphysics are explored by thought alone, like philosophy in general.

Just to confirm:

"Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined.[2] Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:
"What is there?" and
"What is it like?"[3]"

-> That's from Wikipedia, and pretty much in line with the other stuff on Google. Is this how you use the term? Many of the terms don't seem to fall under metaphysics (well, in a sense "everything" does) so I want to confirm that.

Lastly, we can't know whether 'reality' exists outside our mind, so whether we literally affect it is a matter of belief. After clearing the jungle of concepts that's all that seems to remain. On the other hand, the rest of the last paragraph is more or less what I meant with "constructing" reality.

I figured you as a someone who claimed the brain is the reason we perceive reality would have understood what I meant by science having personality due to humans being the ones who practice it. Whether you call it a concept or not, no matter what the circumstances, it is humans that perform it, and will never escape personality in our race. Therefore, science has personality due to the very nature of humanity. Whether the definition does or not is irrelevant in its practice.

As I said before, I do hope that the right scientists are in control who can constantly say "I'm wrong? COOL!" But the reality is, they are still human, and that will come up innumerable amounts of times.

As for metaphysics' definition, honestly if the word philosophy fits, then by definition it could work, but let's face it these days philosophers aren't respected (outside of history books) and metaphysicians have been ridiculed because we can't point to obvious things that the layman can perceive as to why we know what we know. We, like scientists, always strive to perceive and know more, and use science for it most of the time as well, but there are also other explorations that science admittedly cannot follow yet and won't for quite a while. So in that regard, calling it 'philosophy' in modern times comes with connotative baggage I must admit.

As for reality existing outside our mind, that's easily proven. We are in fact doing something right now. Whether it's an illusion or not, it still exists, therefore we exist, therefore this world is A reality whether it's called an illusion or not. Regardless of if the entire planet and us and our typing here is an illusion, it's still happening in one form or another, and nothing can happen if something does not exist. "The world is an illusion" is basically metaphysics 101, but it gets nobody anything except the possibility of going further. Unfortunately most don't go beyond that and then pretend they know something ^^

I did this, and she turned out to be a prostitute. True story.

most of the girls around me are destined for the same thing, 08:35.. Don't take me wrong, it's just that I can name at least 10 of them without hesitating.

On the other hand, @08:17,
You remind me of myself! :P Except, of course, that means you were around 18/19 (human years..) when that happened~~

Actually 9:12, I was a Junior in high school, at seventeen. =P She was a fifteen year old freshman.

The main reason I hadn't had a girlfriend before that was due to being an overbearing creepy guy. Once I figured out that half-stalking someone saying how much I loved them wasn't the way to make it work (though it took eight turn-downs between 7th and 9th grade), I got it right on lucky number nine.