So you've done this online? It worked well for you?
So you know the three sentence opener that is going to compensate for a less than attractive picture?
Let's hear it.
Or is your answer just a stand-in to let you morally condemn these others?
In person, one can project confidence, intelligence, humor etc. Online, being unique is bit harder, not just because someone can copy your words but also because you get to use far fewer of them before a decision is made.
I'm not condemning or condoning the original post. But it's telling that a lot of condemnations for "gaming the dating system" that I hear are prefaced by "it's easy, just become more confident/relax/be yourself". Supply-and-demand says that the common measure of "success" in dating aren't inherently easy. They might not be desirable either but that's a different story.
I think online dating with photo does create a real quandary because it gives one very little time and thus makes the likely winners more based on immediate visual factors.
Perhaps you would like to explain what is wrong with morally condemning others when what they did is in fact morally wrong?
It's very simple and clear cut: he distorted the truth in order for him to get an advantage and put others at a disadvantage. There is no greater good behind the lie, it's just self-interest.
Perhaps you would like to explain what is wrong with morally condemning others when what they did is in fact morally wrong?
If you read my post closely, I hope you'll find that I objected to the "you don't have to do that, there's an easy other way" part. If the poster had just said, "don't cheat, it may be the only way to win this game but you shouldn't do it, it's wrong", well I'd just pass over that comment entirely.
Morally wrong by whose standards? Just because you consider it morally wrong, does not make it morally wrong by all standards, or even necessarily by society's standards.
Morally wrong by general societal standards such as:
* lying is wrong - especially when done with self-serving interests in mind such as in this case. They lied to the other members of the site and he is hiding the truth from the girl. He KNOWS that what he did is wrong and he knows that she would dump him if she found out.
* more lying is worse - he now wants to "automate this"
So this is a typical case of someone breaking the rules, getting away with it (even getting commended!) and then wanting to break the rules on a larger scale.
General societal standards - are you sure? The society I know may tell you that their standard is 'lying is wrong', but societies actions proof the opposite.
The whole society works by lies. Sure, they have different names - omission, bluff, exaggeration and so on - but in the end they are still lies and everyone is using them.
That's really a short-sighted way of seeing things. If you lie to your sister about her not looking fat in that new dress then that's not morally wrong. If a girl goes into a relationship with you after you used this trick then she still did it willingly.
He also said "like two peas in a pod" and "where there's smoke there's fire". He was a poet, not a moral authority.
I think the gist of the quote is, in love and war folks fall from the path more often than in less important things. Don't think even John Lyly thought it was moral.
> So you've done this online? It worked well for you?
So we can't condemn this unless we have an alternate suggestion for those that can't get any? "I'm not getting any, so immoral hacks are OK"? You could use the same argument to justify rape.
> "I'm not getting any, so immoral hacks are OK"? You could use the same argument to justify rape.
You could, most people would reject such reasoning.
The vast majority of people in dating situations are less than 100% honest. The vast majority of people are also not rapists. This suggests to me that most people do in fact see dishonesty as being different from rape.
Perhaps we could condemn the lying without doing any ourselves.
Simple condemnation of their deception would have ended after the first paragraph. Continuing on to say "it's easy, just be yourself" supports the implicit rule that unattractive males of mediocre net worth don't deserve physical affection.
Of course the one hack that will actually improve the success with your desired gender is being downvoted. Because it would mean... going out and meeting people, how gruesome.
Yes, of course, it was downvoted because it means going outside.
Or maybe it's just because "LOLOL ONLINE DATING< WHAT LOSERS!" isn't very constructive. Different people meet people in different ways. I've done it both ways: it's all pretty much the same thing in the end.
Just because you use a website to meet people does not mean that you're some kind of troglodyte whose skin is burned by the sun.
Besides, doing _both_ would increase your chances even more...
So you know the three sentence opener that is going to compensate for a less than attractive picture?
Let's hear it.
Or is your answer just a stand-in to let you morally condemn these others?
In person, one can project confidence, intelligence, humor etc. Online, being unique is bit harder, not just because someone can copy your words but also because you get to use far fewer of them before a decision is made.
I'm not condemning or condoning the original post. But it's telling that a lot of condemnations for "gaming the dating system" that I hear are prefaced by "it's easy, just become more confident/relax/be yourself". Supply-and-demand says that the common measure of "success" in dating aren't inherently easy. They might not be desirable either but that's a different story.
I think online dating with photo does create a real quandary because it gives one very little time and thus makes the likely winners more based on immediate visual factors.