The major drawback of a PUA community is that it acts as an isolated system; or in harsh terms, like inbreeding.
What you are obfuscating is the idea of a very complex history that doesn't relate to the argument you are presenting, much like using the two slit experiment to justify existentialism.
One thing I would point out is that the arguments presented here are a considerable effort into the examination of one’s own personal psyche, and that of the common psyche.
While it can be a definite benefit to examine this topic, I advise caution of moderation in the attempt.
I admire the authors own example in doing the equivalent: "I’m not recommending these, just putting them out there for consideration"
My main point of argument is that examination need not be experimentation, we can form hypothesis for consideration and not be burdened with the responsibility of an incorrect interaction.
I find the examples presented in this argument unnecessary (Freedman) if the examiner is capable of limited self examination.
In consideration of the main argument I would say that in my own experience it is possible to advise some of their own awareness without adhering to the presented guideline, that others may be of a nature above the need for any guideline, and, others yet may find completion in never knowing the presented guideline.
The use of this poem contributes quite a bit to the argument as it is a factual event and a future possible event.
It is a positive action to do something that will be beneficial within ones own lifetime, and also to repeat something that has been done in the past that is a current benefit.
Planting trees has the benefit of carbon sequestration and the added benefit of providing growth of known positive environmental factors such as increased biodiversity.
The negative aspect of this post is that the wording is similar to religious propaganda such as used by World Vision.
Is this a local game, or are you going to add a way to let people in other locations contribute?
If your only proponents are local than you are not creating a global idea...
I know this is a silly question, but do you know the figures you are presenting may be equated to the forces produced by the action of wind on a sail?
Your romantic dinner is a distance away, and I hope you are not following Achilles after the Tortoise.
I would take the basic premise to be that we are trying the "guilty party" with the idea of "reasonable doubt".
I'm ok with "Agatha Christy" to the limit of fictional argument, but one would have to give a stronger argument than the "Corax" to find a plausible definition to a physical phenomena. After all, the whole point is to understand.
The more complex a system becomes, the easier it is to destabilize it.
Is this a conditional argument?