Changing your mind is not ”going against your principles” + when can principles be changed

Did Mark Minter “go back on his word” or abandon his principles when he decided to get married? Some people on RooshV forum apparently think so:  (I recommend the whole blogpost)

“worldwidetraveler Wrote: Principles isn’t something you toss away at any inconvenience. They are what hold you true to yourself. You only know what type of man you are when things get tough but you stick to your principles. When you easily discard them for “happiness”, you are not a man in my eyes.”

To that xsplat responds, in a way that I really agree with:

“Didn’t Gandhi get away with saying something that could be paraphrased as “principles are for those who can’t re-organize their views?”

Principles. What are principles? Unchanging beliefs. What good are unchanging beliefs? Well, they make you feel like you live in a safe, secure world, where you have some bedrock of SOMETHING to hold on to.

That’s not a useful feeling.

It’s better to be flexible and adaptable.

The main principles, the foundational principles, are extremely broad. Truth and happiness. All else must fall in line and change when they are not in accord with truth and happiness.

If not marrying is a principle that diminishes happiness then it is a principle that is in need of updating for a fresh principle.”


“It’s probably pointless to try to get you visualize this, but what the hell. It’s only an investment in a few typed words.

Why are “principles” so sacrosanct to you? Why can’t they change? What makes a “principle” any different than a viewpoint or strategy?

And why does Marks previous insistence on never marrying count as a “principle”?

If Manboobs suddenly reversed his “principles” you’d be applauding him for seeing the light.

This idea of “principles” is just a red herring. He changed is mind and you disagree with his new viewpoint.

Anybody here arguing in favor of principles is holding a mental map that is logically inconsistent. You applaud when people change their principles to those that you believe in, and vilify them when they change their principles to be against what you believe in.

It has nothing to do with constancy of principle and everything to do with agreeing with you or not.“

I mostly agree, but I still see the point of principles. I think people arguing with xsplat realize principles are important, but they are using that logic to defend false principles, while xsplat makes principles sound useless and overly flexible.

I think the truth is in the middle. First of all, a stance on never marrying is NOT a principle. It’s just a life tactic, something to gain happiness from and avoid pain. If it no longer gives you happiness or helps you avoid pain, it can be changed. Like changing your diet. Or other parts of lifestyle. It has nothing to do with morality. If this counted as a principle, principles would indeed be flimsy and worthless.

Everything to do with morality is what I call principles. Breaking promises is breaking a principle, and xsplat knows that:

The words that are important and the contracts we make with each other.

Break those and you lose trust for further contracts.

Changing your mind about your personal values or personal strategies has nothing to do with going against your so called word.

A good analogy for principles are laws of physics. They work over and over every day, and we have little reason to worry they will change, especially in our lifetime. But they are never 100% proven and yes, there is a possibility they might stop working tomorrow. But it’s just so unlikely we can practically say “this is fact”. Even if someone did a test where the law of gravity didn’t work as predicted, we have way more reason to believe his methodology was wrong, rather than the law.

Everything outside that can change. Weather can change, the appearance of people can change, but things still fall down and not up.

Principles, unless they are false, are indeed important. They are a reference point for us, when everything seems chaotic. They should not be changed unless there is VERY good proof that they are wrong and should be changed. Just like there are sometimes great change in science (for example, the discovery that the earth revolves around the sun), there could be great changes in principles, but it happens only after MAJOR testing, not LIGHTLY.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Changing your mind is not ”going against your principles” + when can principles be changed

  1. Liz says:

    “First of all, a stance on never marrying is NOT a principle. It’s just a life tactic, something to gain happiness from and avoid pain. If it no longer gives you happiness or helps you avoid pain, it can be changed. Like changing your diet. Or other parts of lifestyle. It has nothing to do with morality. If this counted as a principle, principles would indeed be flimsy and worthless.”

    A stance on never marrying can be either a “loose” life tactic, OR a principle. Depends on how that life principle is employed. Person chooses not to commit to marriage to avoid pain, it’s a personal choice. Person engages in proselytism and denigrates others who disagree with his paradigm…that’s a principle. I haven’t read Minter’s handiwork so I’ll leave it to others to decide which of those he lies, but from what I’ve read it sounds like the latter, not the former.

    To take this to the diet analogy, same principle applies. Person can change a diet, or go on a diet for health reasons, or whatever. A person can even advise others on healthy eating habits. But the minute the person wears a meat is murder teeshirt and goes on a rampage criticizing those who eat meat for years and then turns around and starts eating meat, that person has abandoned a principle. Abandoning a principle might even be the RIGHT thing, but that doesn’t mean the change isn’t hypocritical. There should be some spainin’ (“I was wrong, yadda yadda”) not simply “yeah, this is an outlier situation, right for me but…wrong for everyone else”. The last would be the equivalent of “I’m a special little snowflake”…Again, I don’t know what Minter claims.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      I haven’t read his rants in detail myself (this post isn’t about Minter himself anyway), but in general, I don’t view it as an abandonment of principle if someone goes around telling married men “haha, you’re stupid”, and then does it themselves (and publicly). Hurting oneself through stupidity is not a moral issue, like “meat is murder” is (“don’t walk in the middle of the road” is not a principle either). It is ok to realize that
      1)Marriage in general is a bad deal for men in general.
      2)But wait… You have nothing to lose, everything to gain, and this girl has a good track record with not divorce-raping her exes.
      In that case, I think you can say “it’s ok to marry… under certain circumstances”, it’s not snowflaking at all.
      It’s not really a contradiction of principle. You can even go on saying “most men who marry nowadays are stupid” and mean it, but still know that your choice to marry was better than choice not to marry.

      Now, if he believes it’s MORALLY WRONG to marry (cuz it’s helping those gold-digging whores or something), and then says “it’s ok to do only for me”, THEN I think he’s snowflaking. If he no longer thinks it’s morally wrong, then he abandoned a principle.

  2. Liz says:

    “A good analogy for principles are laws of physics.”
    I disagree. Social sciences differ from hard science. Human principles are much different from physics. Values (aka principles) are contextually dependent, otherwise they would not be called values but truths.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Well, yes, but you’re missing the point of the analogy. I meant that principles are supposed to be relatively hard and unchangeable, and be a reference point for everything else, not that they are facts.

  3. Liz says:

    Just looked up some of Minter’s handiwork, and here is a portion of the first thing that came up:
    “I don’t even have to read the comments. All of you have it wrong.
    Abso-f*cking-lutely wrong.

    You are all crying and bitching and wanting to set back the clock and you need to get the fuck over it. Better that government is married to bitches than you. Let me go through this logic for you real f*cking slow so that you all can start to get it.

    Being married is a stupid life for a man. Actually being a father is a also stupid life for a man the way it is done in America today. You do the most stupid and mind numbing sh*t in both of those roles. There are better ways to spend your life than as a husband and a father in 2012 America. Being a married father is an insipid, mind numbing, idiotic existence. You are a slave.

    You live in a rigid schedule with a bitch that is never happy, that never has enough, is never satisfied, that is a cunt and a fucking idiot. She gets fat. She dresses like a man. Sex with her is a drag monotonous drag boring drag stupid drag.

    You have never ending stress and financial pressure and you must compromise your very soul in order to bring home the money that parasitic bitch and children demand from you. And they could not give a fuck about you. Everything is oriented towards her and them. Nothing is oriented towards you. Women have acres and acres of products for them and their children. Men have a aisle of shit over in the corner of stores.

    Given the way women are, and the way most of you are, your odds of being in a marriage forever and not getting a divorce is about zilch.point.shit. 0.0000%. Enough zeros? Any of you that are married are probably on the way to divorce if you are not divorced already. Any of you that do get married surely will be divorced.

    A man must avoid marriage, whether you are alpha as f*ck or beta as a hell.

    If you are an alpha then marriage is perfect waste of what you are. All alphas, real alphas, chafe under the yoke of marriage. They cannot be monogamous and why should they be? And, once you say “I do”, then you begin a slow march towards to loss of alpha qualities. If you think you can read Athol Kay and avoid this, you are kidding yourself.”

    That settles it. This man is a complete hypocrit in my estimation. He has discredited himself. If he had been talking about premarital sex instead of marriage, or the Democratic party, or welfare and then started having premarital sex/started voting Democrat/ started getting welfare checks wouldn’t you think that was hypocritical?

    • Liz says:

      He’s also a soul-crushingly stupid ass clown.

      • Eric says:

        For Heaven’s sake, Liz. Just admit that you’re jealous and have done with it…

      • Liz says:

        It IS hard not to envy a guy like that.
        The searing wit, gift for succinct points and liquid prose. I picture him in his free moments providing medical care to orphans, when he isn’t translating sanskrit.

      • Eric says:

        I mean envying his 23 y/o girlfriend for landing a decent husband…

      • Liz says:

        Oh, silly me. Well, I’m married.
        To a guy with an IQ 70 points higher than this one, who isn’t pushing 60 and living in a relative’s basement.

      • Liz says:

        Of course, I might be lying. It’s the internet and I could be a basement dwelling cat rancher single lady/tranny/ sensitive pony-tail weenie pushing sixty myself.

        We have only the content of what people say. That’s what I’m judging Minter by. And any father that says the above regarding having children is lower than cat chow in my estimation. But I’m assuming he’s simply stupid. I was truly being kind above.

    • Eric says:

      If you’re happily married to the perfect man, why the hell should you care what these people do?

      You women really ought to worry less about one couple going into a (potentially) bad marriage; and start worrying more about things like the modern female’s completely inability to form meaningful relationships with men at all. That’s a lot bigger problem than a Manosphere soap-opera.

      • Liz says:

        @Eric: “If you’re happily married to the perfect man, why the hell should you care what these people do?”

        Probably the same reason you care that I care? Entertainment value, primarily. Influence, highly unlikely (people always think the one they agree with is “brilliant” and discard the points of the person with whom they disagree anyway)…but it’s fun to kid oneself for a short time.
        This is the first I’ve heard of this guy. Emma asked a question, I looked him up and his tripe generated an emotional response for me, and I answered (succinctly too and only regarding the topic point I might add, I could have gone on for a while….for instance if he’s so het up about the vast assortment of female and children products on the shelves by comparison to men, why doesn’t he try to produce a male product with such a vast untapped market? Answer: Because there is no demand. Unlike diapers, toys, rash creams, ointments, special soft foods, et al for babies and yeast infection creams, douches, lubricants, menstrual products for women male equipment is relatively low maintenance. But if he feels that jock itch creams and gold bond powder should fill those shelves he should do something about it rather than complaining about diapers and tampons like a whiny bitch).
        You responded and I answered that too.

        @ Eric: “You women really ought to worry less about one couple going into a (potentially) bad marriage; and start worrying more about things like the modern female’s completely inability to form meaningful relationships with men at all.”

        I’m not the least bit worried about his marriage. If I wasn’t worried about the latter bit I wouldn’t be here. I think a person like Minter is poisoning the well and his type does far more damage than any feminist could by coming across as a lunatic, which discredits the insights of thinking individuals who understand that about fifty percent of what he says it true, and about eighty percent roughly true.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Sorry for the late reply, I have been awfully busy.

      I’m not sure whether he was hypocritical or not, I think it’s a discussion for another blogpost. Here I’m only looking at what should count as a principle, and when a principle should be abandoned. Reading his angry rant, I can see he was saying marriage is stupid idea for a man. Can’t say I disagree. However, he’s overly pessimistic about prospects of those who are already married (half the marriages still last, don’t they?), and the happiness of married fathers. Perhaps his own experience with it colors his fact-perception.

      None of this is a real principle, though, is it? At least, I can’t see how it is. It’s just his partially faulty perception of how things are, and the level of actual danger, and lots of feelings mixed in. None of it seems to be about morals.

  4. Eric says:

    The problem with a lot of people who argue from principles, is that they don’t understand that paradigms change. Physics is slightly different here than sociology. Many men refuse to get married because women don’t present themselves as worthy of marriage: the converse of that would be, if they did—it would principled to marry instead of choosing celibacy. So if Minter’s girlfriend goes against the current paradigm is genuinely NAWALT? Then Minter would have been unprincipled not marry her; since his principle of celibacy was based on the unsuitability of women as partner. He would have been a hypocrite, IOW, if he had turned down a suitable one.

  5. CaptainFogy says:

    He is marrying a 23 year old? Why not marry a perfect 17 year old instead? (Think about the reproductive potential) Tsk tsk, Mr. Minter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s