User Controls
The Retarded Thread: Get Rekt, Faggot!
-
2017-10-24 at 4:11 PM UTCSo let's review. You said you couldn't find a relationship through online dating sites. I showed you a study proving you wrong.
You said online relationships weren't good. I showed you a study proving you wrong.
Now your argument is that they are losers. Don't know what you use to measure this, but according to that Standford study, online daters are more likely to have a college education/have higher income. -
2017-10-24 at 4:23 PM UTCyour study doesn't look at tinder or similar hook-up sites at all
of course online-initiated relationships will appear more stable if you only (or at least, mostly - it does touch on messageboards and chatrooms and similar) count sites that do compatibility-matching algorithms, especially when you include relationships that started in nightclubs and bars in the opposite groupThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-10-24 at 4:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra your study doesn't look at tinder or similar hook-up sites at all
of course online-initiated relationships will appear more stable if you only (or at least, mostly - it does touch on messageboards and chatrooms and similar) count sites that do compatibility-matching algorithms, especially when you include relationships that started in nightclubs and bars in the opposite group
These are all good points.
When me and CF were discussing this yesterday, I told him that I didn't think picking up random bitches in public was a good method because there was little/no mutual interest. That's what the key is, I think. I've had good times with girls from dating sites, but I never used look-based shit like tinder. I think it is only marginally better than picking up random bitches, because you at least get to talk to them for a few days or so.
From what I gather, he thinks that online dating is just not good at all. He said it was a numbers game. I think algorithms are valuable though. Offline v.s. Online is a very polarized way to look at it. -
2017-10-24 at 5:47 PM UTC§m£ÂgØL shouldn't be allowed to cite studies
-
2017-10-24 at 5:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 So let's review. You said you couldn't find a relationship through online dating sites. I showed you a study proving you wrong.
I never said you couldn't find a relationship through online dating sites. I said you shouldn't.You said online relationships weren't good. I showed you a study proving you wrong.
Your study showed relationships started online were slightly better on average than the average nonline relationship. I would agree; divorce rates are gigantic. My only point was that if you want a good relationship, you should try to meet someone offline.
Let me state my hypothesis clearly for your fuckbrain: meeting people in real life is a much more effective method for finding a meaningful relationship.
In no way am I asserting that all nonline relationships are GOOD.Now your argument is that they are losers. Don't know what you use to measure this, but according to that Standford study, online daters are more likely to have a college education/have higher income.
No, that's part of my argument. And exactly, people on dating sites, looking for serious relationships are nerds with no game who can't meet girls/men IRL, that's why they're there. -
2017-10-24 at 5:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra your study doesn't look at tinder or similar hook-up sites at all
of course online-initiated relationships will appear more stable if you only (or at least, mostly - it does touch on messageboards and chatrooms and similar) count sites that do compatibility-matching algorithms, especially when you include relationships that started in nightclubs and bars in the opposite group
Methodological OBLITERATION -
2017-10-24 at 6 PM UTC
Originally posted by 霍比特人说中文不好 These are all good points.
When me and CF were discussing this yesterday, I told him that I didn't think picking up random bitches in public was a good method because there was little/no mutual interest. That's what the key is, I think. I've had good times with girls from dating sites, but I never used look-based shit like tinder. I think it is only marginally better than picking up random bitches, because you at least get to talk to them for a few days or so.
From what I gather, he thinks that online dating is just not good at all. He said it was a numbers game. I think algorithms are valuable though. Offline v.s. Online is a very polarized way to look at it.
Listen, my only point was that online dating is great for fucking (I've been using it to fuck too) but not as good for starting a relationship as just chatting up a girl.
I don't know what your point about mutual interest is, she's not going to give you her number if she's not interested is she? Of course not. Plus if you're ugly (you specifically aren't) or just not super hot, you can actually use your personality to get her. Like the EN FUEGO Latina I was talking about, it was like 4-5 sentences before I got her number, clearly there was some interest. -
2017-10-24 at 6:20 PM UTCSo, you accept that the results of the study that states the satisfaction from online relationships is higher than those offline, but still you retain your opinion that it 'isn't as good'? How is it ANY different from meeting people naturally? This isn't the 90's anymore. Everybody uses the internet and everybody has it in their pocket. Dating apps are some of the highest downloaded in the app stores. It isn't some nerd shit to use a dating app.
Alsoshe's not going to give you her number if she's not interested is she?
lol. You act like social pressure isn't a thing. The only mutual interest here is maybe that she is single. But maybe she fucking hates muslims. Maybe she's addicted to meth. Maybe she voted for Trump. There's all sorts of shit that might not vibe with you, whereas when you get to know somebody first, you can weed out those things. People tend to put their best foot forward at the beginning of relationships (any type of relationship.) Even more so in those first few minutes of conversation. 4-5 sentences is not a good indicator of what a person is like. I know you're going to say online isn't a good indicator either, but that's what dates are for.
If it doesn't work, you can drop it, just like your quick pickups. But instead of wasting time with bitches you have no idea about, you can waste your time with bitches you DO have an idea about. Personally every quick public date/thing I've had with girls ended up with them being pretty shit. And even still, those happened more naturally than what you described. I neerr went into a conversation with the intent to pick up women. That shit is kinda creepy. I wouldn't really want to date someone who goes into that so easily either, cause you know dey a slut.
Am I a loser, daddy falcon?
Post last edited by 霍比特人说中文不好 at 2017-10-24T18:22:51.952181+00:00 -
2017-10-24 at 6:22 PM UTC
-
2017-10-24 at 6:23 PM UTCi have an A avg
-
2017-10-24 at 6:25 PM UTCHe cheats from Charlie who he looks up to because Charlie takes lsd on the weekends and sometimes takes mdma with it. He really looks up to charlie, we all do
-
2017-10-24 at 6:30 PM UTCI look down on Charlie. I spit on Charlie. I fuck Charlie's sister.
-
2017-10-24 at 6:31 PM UTCCharlies sister has stds
-
2017-10-24 at 6:31 PM UTCI gave them to her.
-
2017-10-24 at 6:33 PM UTCI've heard stories about you. You're not allowed at my house
-
2017-10-24 at 6:34 PM UTC
-
2017-10-24 at 6:35 PM UTC
-
2017-10-24 at 6:37 PM UTCYou're both eggs.
-
2017-10-24 at 6:38 PM UTC
-
2017-10-24 at 6:38 PM UTC
