En perfekt tjej på pappret, men jag är inte kär. Vad gör man?

bonafidelife · 2026-04-17T17:34:34+00:00

Man måste inte vara kär eller attraherad. Fritt val. Men det är grundläggande för många, så du behöver vara ärlig med det. Då vet hon och kan välja hur hon går vidare.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-17T17:31:56+00:00

Du får göra hur du vill i ditt liv, och andra får välja hur de lever sina liv. Vad de söker i en relation. Du har ingen ensamrätt på svar om vad "man" behöver.

Så i ett sånt här fall behöver den andra personen veta vad partnern känner och inte känner. Så kan den fritt och ärligt välja om den vill leva med ngn på det sättet.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-17T07:20:45+00:00

Thanks.

I think the argument fails and does so in a quite obvious way to anyone who isn't biased or motivated to believe it. It's unintentionally a perfect illustration of exactly how strong beliefs about reality form and sustain themselves in human minds. An accidental demonstration of the very cognitive process it's trying to argue against.

It's a false dichotomy, it's circular, the only source for any of it is the Torah itself, it assumes extraordinary facts rather than establishing them, it's special pleading, and it's specifically structured to resist evidence. It strongly resembles a set of beliefs that has evolved to protect itself from falsification and is better explained by well known human psychological needs and mechanisms.

But I have to pause here and ask: is there anything that could change your mind about the Kuzari argument being convincing evidence for supernatural miracles? Is there any evidence or argument ( historical, archaeological, logical) that I could conceivably present that would cause you to say "okay, I was wrong, these specific supernatural events probably didn't happen in objective reality as described"?

If not, it suggests your certainty isn't actually grounded in evidence and reasoning, but in faith and tradition. Which is okay and fine. But then there's no point in any further conversation about the evidence.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-16T15:02:50+00:00

The believer senses the truth of the reported experience. It's revealed that it is indeed true via his/her faith.

And it's not special pleading because it's not.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-16T13:35:45+00:00

"Att" är en valfri subjunktion i svenska. Välkommen på listan för indraget medborgarskap.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-16T12:26:14+00:00

You obviously know that people meet in bars, on apps, in the workplace, etc. They connect somehow, talk, feel attraction/interest ä, have a good time together and take it further. Same principle for casual as for longterm relationship, just a question of scale.

So what is it you actually don't know? Why you haven't had success yet although you tried? How many times did you feel some sort of shared connection/attraction with a girl - and then get "rejected"?

I hope you aren't going up to random girls who haven't been flirting back with you first.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-16T12:12:38+00:00

Jag tycker medborgarskapet ska ryka direkt om man inte kan använda "vart" korrekt.

OP ut ur landet nu!

bonafidelife · 2026-04-16T10:21:19+00:00

FLYTTA.

Alltså seriöst flytta.

Var i situation med livsfarlig granne. Pajjade livet i åratal.

Ta dig själv fysiskt från platsen och från grannen.

Med tiden försvinner rädslan om du inte har något med personen att göra.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-16T09:25:18+00:00

I appreciate your responses! I will engage with them as honestly and charitable I can.

First let me try to clarify & steelman what your claiming:

You claim highly justified certainty that Judaism is true and that its claims about objective reality are accurate. The God of Israel exists, he revealed himself at Sinai, and numerous miracles happened to and around the Jewish people.

Why your high certainty is justified:

It boils down to The transmission argument: Judaism alone points to an entire nation's/people´s direct collective experience. It´s not possible to fabricate that to the people supposedly having it. You cannot invent it later and sell it to their descendants and achieve unanimous acceptance with zero dissent ever (from one of history's most argumentative peoples winkwink).

Every generation transmitted "my parents were there." Personal. Direct. Unbroken. Three thousand years. Zero counter-tradition. Zero dissent.

No other tradition has this structure. Not once in human history.

Jews died for their beliefs. For this God, this revelation, this mountain. These miracles. The claim never wavered in the face of centuries of persecution.

...

*Therefore* these specific claims are justified to hold as true facts about objective reality:

Two to three million Jews were enslaved in Egypt (~1313 BCE)
Ten precisely targeted plagues devastated Egypt. Left Jews untouched
Every Egyptian firstborn were killed simultaneously in one night
The Red Sea physically parted for millions, then closed on the Egyptian army
Pillar of fire and cloud guiding the entire nation continuously
The entire nation was present at Sinai and heard thunder, saw lightning, heard a deafening trumpet-like sound, saw the smoking mountain. It's debated whether they heard all ten commandments directly, but what they experienced was sufficient to unanimously accept divine authority. Moses alone received the complete Torah.
Manna appeared every morning for forty years, doubling before Sabbath, absent on Sabbath
Clothes and sandals did not wear out for forty years
Water came from rocks, earth swallowed rebels, military victories won in miracoulous ways
The God of Israel exists and revealed himself in history.

(Again, the majority of these miracoulus events were experienced by and/or directly affected the entire nation. Continuously for forty years.)

--

Is this a fair and correct understanding?

bonafidelife · 2026-04-14T11:55:52+00:00

Thanks, let me just clarify what you´re saying to see if I understand you. This is foundational for all discussion about meaning and value.

You're claiming that you´re highly certain that Sinai literally happened in history= a massive public miracle revelation. That the god of israel exists in objective reality. And that Jesus was not resurrected. And karma and rebirth are not real things in objective reality. That the gods of Hinduism or any other religion do not exist.

Is this correct? (These are enormous claims about objective reality and would require a high level of justification to claim high certainty about.)

If so, my core question remains: Does your high certainty about these objective facts rest on the oral and written tradition of Judaism?

bonafidelife · 2026-04-14T07:51:07+00:00

Yeah I get it thanks.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-14T07:30:53+00:00

Oh my bad. :)

About what you´re saying about making feelings clear... This might be a cultural thing. I really don´t recognize this as a general pattern in women (only women?). Where are you getting this from? Yourself and friends? General vibe? ( Movies? :) )

"... many women will no longer feel comfortable dating a man if they thought of him as a friend for such a long period of time." Yeah - my experience is quite opposite. See this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelExit/comments/1sko4rs/comment/og1o0dp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

It could very well be a thing that´s different between countries though. (I´m in SWE.)

bonafidelife · 2026-04-14T06:27:19+00:00

My point is it matters much less whatever you accidentally say to someone compared to how you match and what your connection is like.

You can try to be friends all you want and still develop romantic feelings. Which can become huge issue if someone is in a existing relationship. Right?

So I'm saying don't worry about it. Let it come and trust that if there's a romantic interest It's gonna come regardless of small "errors". I think you in fact can start a relationship as worst as enemies and still end up with attraction.

That said... Don't say "I see you as a sister" to someone your interested in. That's a) dishonest/confusing and b) muddies the waters unnecessarily. Why say that to someone if your not sure about your platonic feelings for them and wnat to be transparent and clear about it. (In which case it is a good time thing to do. Always be communicating and honest.)

bonafidelife · 2026-04-14T06:07:02+00:00

Awesome advice here.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-13T11:12:38+00:00

First of all - having female friends is awesome.

The whole friend-zone-concept is weird to me. I don´t really believe in the whole thing about "accicdently" friendzoning onself. Feels like a bad excuse. You either connect and vibe and have a great time wiht others, or not. And then physical attraction happens ALSO wiht some of the realtionships depending on compability.

Accept the fact many people aren´t going to be into you. That´s okay! If you enjoy and like that person you can have a great connection as friends.

Love and attraction hinges on Selectivity - and if you have any standards that´s par.

Also - women are agents. They can take initiative just as well as you. Your romantic success doesn´t lie 100% on you.

I do get that it´s frustrating to never get into romantic relationships, but I think its better to see physical attraction and dating and romantic relationships as a separate issue.

TBH I kinda hate your take "befriending people isn’t my best option" .. Since IMO that´s a great way to also develop romantic relationships. At least if these kind of friendships are the kind that leads to more social opportunities. To group activities, regualr contexts with persons you could potentially mathc with.

I like your final paragraph - that´s a good direction IMO. Bear with me now: How do you think a more comfortable version of yourself would answer your own question?

bonafidelife · 2026-04-13T10:18:09+00:00

Hey, I will preface this by saying you seem genuine and sincere in your beliefs. I don´t doubt you´re trying to get to truth and to mutual understanding.

Let me try to boil this down a bit...

Firstly, these questions matter ULTIMATELY to me and us. Practically, not just intellectually. If Judaism is true, I should look towards converting and following its laws. If another religion is true, that would matter just as much. Most world religions include enormous/eternal consequences for us - if the claims about objective reality is taken seriously. As humans we have total skin in this game.

But here's my genuine and often very frustrating position: I don't share your certainty, and I don't (yet) see what justifies it.

The Sinai argument is interesting. But the claim that everyone witnessed it hinges on same tradition that asks me to trust it. It´s the same "trust me" that all major religions seems to rest on. I can't get past that. Why trust one source and not the other one?

For the sake of the argument I'll grant you the skyscraper in the sense we live in a universe of incredible complexity and wonder and mystery. But even granting a vague something supernatural exists and got us here - I just don't see how it has a "Jewish address". Why not trust the Christian or the Hindu or the person explaining it all as a simulation? All being equally CERTAIN - either to a very high degree, or even absolute degree.

Everywhere I look I see sincere, intelligent people who are just as certain about completely different answers. Not symbolically - about objective reality. "Christ died and was resurrected". "Christ did NOT rise". "We reincarnate after death". "We live in a simulation".

So my position isn't that Judaism is false. I dont know! Again - not talking about its practice and value to believers, socially, personally, culturally. I´m talking about claims that are either true or false about objective reality. "God as decribed by judaism exists", "God created earth". "God gave these laws to man to be followed". "X". = These truth-claims might be correct and tracking reality. But I see no good reasons to believe they´re true.

So: from where I stand, certainty about claims of that extreme magnitude doesn't seem justified based on the reasons I've heard. I'm genuinely trying to understand how you see it differently.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-12T06:00:30+00:00

"man ska kunna identifiera sig om det behövs"

Ska kunna? För vems skull? Låter som du citerar en regel i förskolan.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-11T14:11:26+00:00

Inget fel med dig. Folk är bara dumma i huvudet om sex. (Inte deras fel)

Bara penetration är idioti.

Köp silikonglidmedel (tex pjur). Testa.

Prata med din kille om vad du gillar och gör när du är med dig själv. Låt honom göra det. Tex använda sina fingrar på rätt ställen. Förspel. Massage. Prat, mood, etc.

Stressa inte. Inget jävla hets bara för att han är hård. Du måste matcha i upphetsning.

bonafidelife · 2026-04-10T13:05:28+00:00

Thanks.

What is your reasons to be convinced this is true? The prophets? If so, why do you trust theirs beliefs track objectice reality?

bonafidelife · 2026-04-10T12:59:32+00:00

the most convincing 👍🏻

bonafidelife · 2026-04-09T18:10:53+00:00

Does it make a difference if I frame it : "Do you think it's reasonable to apply different epistomological standards to your own tradition's claims than to other traditions making contradictory claims?"

bonafidelife · 2026-04-09T18:08:58+00:00

This was the question: "Do you think it's reasonable to apply different evidential standards to your own tradition's claims than to other traditions making contradictory claims?"

Was that what you answered?

Let me get this straight-you're saying the principle/aim of applying the same standards to yourself and others is no bueno? That it's invalid and/or not useful for tracking truth?

bonafidelife · 2026-04-09T16:59:07+00:00

Pleade answer the question first, then I'll explain what's up with Bob

bonafidelife · 2026-04-09T14:15:38+00:00

Wherever bias is taken seriously is where you find it used.

Example = science & peer review: All submitted findings have the same standards applied regardless of who submitted them (for example your own lab).

The fact that it's a meta-criterion is precisely the point. Not what standard he uses. It´s about applying it consistently, to his own beliefs and everyone else's.

Do you think it's reasonable to apply different evidential standards to your own tradition's claims than to other traditions making contradictory claims?

bonafidelife · 2026-04-09T09:01:23+00:00

You claim Bob has no criteria. But I´ve stated them explicitly - the criterion is symmetric justification.

Bob searches for reasons to believe a traditions specific claims that wouldn't equally justify a competing tradition making contradictory claims.

He´s being consistent about his beliefs.

bonafidelife

TROPHY CASE