Chubby Older Dads Are More Attractive To Women, Study Finds

evo21

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
25
I think the fact that men automatically have the "upper hand" when it comes to physical strength puts us at a disadvantage

That's true in a one on one situation, but in social situations it might be the opposite. This video is a good example. They may not have the strength themselves, but they can get it by proxy.



however, most men would not actually take advantage of that.

True. It doesn't make biological sense to want to harm a female unless we perceive her as threat to ourselves or our loved ones. Unfortunately, a lot of things can happen in our childhood that change that perception.

Unfortunately since it's impossible to know for sure sometimes until it's too late, we have to judge men on their personality traits and hope that there is no chance that they're a sociopath or just a total creep. A man who displays too much machismo is more likely to be aggressive in our subconscious minds, so therefore a lot of us shy away from that type of guy.

I can sympathize with that. When we are sexually attracted to someone it's sometimes hard to be aware of such things. Sexual relationships always have some risk, for both genders. Women have more risk but are rewarded with more pleasure (multiple orgasms) and comfort. Men have the upper hand and less risk but are also rewarded less and have to do more work. You get what you pay for. But society skews all of this to some degree and sometimes destroys this balance, and also makes some people evil.

It's a blend of genuine self-confidence and yet humility and kindness that we seek. I agree with you that we want to feel safe, yet excited. It's not an easy balance to achieve.

As for the balance of making a woman feel safe and excited, i think that's the key to maintain a relationship, but all the stress, competition from other men and societal forces make it very difficult to do so in the modern world.
 

alywest

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
1,028
That's true in a one on one situation, but in social situations it might be the opposite. This video is a good example. They may not have the strength themselves, but they can get it by proxy.



I'm not sure I understand the context of this video. Is this some sort of game show in another country? It seems that the woman was deliberately pushing them but yet they were expected to just stand there and take it. I don't understand what was going on. Clearly a lot of the men in the audience had a strong reaction to the man slapping the woman back which seemed a bit extreme. I don't know that culture well enough to comment on that. I think the woman was being pretty vicious and I'm not sure what she was expecting to happen when she hit the guy. She seemed pretty shocked at his reaction. It seemed like she was some sort of dominatrix. I guess the thrill in the dominatrix scenario is that the woman can be completely aggressive and the man is just supposed to take it, but obviously that is usually some sort of agreed-upon scenario. Some men like being pushed around like that and it gets them aroused.

True. It doesn't make biological sense to want to harm a female unless we perceive her as threat to ourselves or our loved ones. Unfortunately, a lot of things can happen in our childhood that change that perception.

When I took a self defense class, the teacher kept repeating over and over that the main goal of a rapist is control, control, control. It's not so much about the sexual act as it is about dominating another person, usually a woman. Although women do it, too (with children) and men do it with other men (ie. prison.) I think there is some sort of repressed sexual aspect to it, but I agree with the teacher that control is actually the underlying driving force. Whenever a woman chooses to be alone with a man she is trusting him to not physically dominate her. I think the more naive a woman is, the more she takes that for granted.

I can sympathize with that. When we are sexually attracted to someone it's sometimes hard to be aware of such things. Sexual relationships always have some risk, for both genders. Women have more risk but are rewarded with more pleasure (multiple orgasms) and comfort. Men have the upper hand and less risk but are also rewarded less and have to do more work. You get what you pay for. But society skews all of this to some degree and sometimes destroys this balance, and also makes some people evil.



As for the balance of making a woman feel safe and excited, i think that's the key to maintain a relationship, but all the stress, competition from other men and societal forces make it very difficult to do so in the modern world.

I appreciate you taking the time to understand what I'm saying. I agree with your analysis of the risks and rewards of both sides. There is a lot of stress with relationships, and I think both men and women could stand to be a little more forgiving of the other side, unless the person is actually doing something unforgivable. I think men and women are equally capable of doing immoral things (women cheat just as frequently as men, for instance), and some women are actually abusive towards men who are nice. I would be just as wary of an overpowering female as with a male. It seems like really dominating people tend to go for more submissive people as their mates. Rarely have I seen two really dominating people in a romantic relationship. One person is usually nicer, and the other person tends to control things, but obviously sometimes that goes to far and one person is actually abusive. I think it's really difficult to have a normal, balanced relationship if you were controlled as a child because you're either going to be too submissive or take after the parent and be abusive yourself.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Surprised you, in good faith, don't see the difference between what they say and the reality of what they're actually doing. If you think "they" are really interested in a matriarchal, equitable society then I'm re-disappointed all over again (again)

Ok, then what is the explanation for the following observations (some researchable, some anecdotal by me)

1) Women as a voting block vote for collectivist parties/candidates (ie modern American Democrats over Republicans, and left wing parties in other countries over right wing or libertarian parties) compared to men It's actually quite striking, without the female voting block no American Democrat would ever get voted in again. Well, until whites become a minority.

2) Political activism - I was active in Green Party activism as a youth, and in libertarian activism as an adult. Without fail, females are more present at meetings, active, and open to the message of parties/ideologies like the Greens and other leftists/collectivists than more individual property rights minding parties/ideologies like libertarian. As you point out, most leaders tend to be men, but if you look at the rank-in-file or the average collectivist party vs. the average property rights party, you will see several times the amount of women in one to the other. Libertarians are well over 90% men, Greens and socialists and the new SJW/Antifa social movements are much more balanced.

To my mind, those two observable states are explainable by either:

1) women being inherently more collectivist minded

and/or

2) women currently (and historically) receive more benefits from the state than men, often being net tax recipients rather than net tax payers (even when white)

What alternative explanation is there, or do you dispute the two observations I make above?
 

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
I don't think the attitude you throw around to belly your points comes across that clearly on the net. Maybe it does in real life...? Do people give you attention for saying these kinds of things?
No more attention than you get from pompously using words you don't understand the meaning of, and can't spell. I like most of your posts, Tar, but honestly, you come across as just as much of a douche as I do sometimes. FYI, a little self-awareness goes a long way. I'm doing it deliberately, but when you can't be bothered to check the spelling or meaning of the pretentious words you use, and thus you use them AND spell them wrong, I have to sadly contend your douchebaggery is real and not calculated (as in my case).

And no, I'm not buying it's a typo. Belly isn't the right spelling, and neither is bely. It's BELIE. Nor did you use it properly. Belie does NOT mean to underscore or emphasize. Look it up.

You tried to condescend to me by wrongly spelling and incorrectly using a needlessly pretentious word. If you're going to be pretentious, at least make sure you're doing it right.

Douche points scored by you in your last post: 100

Anyway, to answer your question: most people who are secure with themselves and their views seem to find me amusing. Insecure people who hold self-contradictory/cognitively dissonant views usually find me annoying or sometimes even despicable when I point it out to them. This is regardless of whether I communicate without snark, or with it. I've found that my tone doesn't matter...people still get pissed when I poke holes in their arguments. So since my tone doesn't matter I'm not that careful with it any more, and since I'm secure with myself and my views, and am comfortable with evolving my views as new information presents itself and my worldview expands thereby, I don't care a whit what people think about what I think, or about the amount of attention I get.

I'm mostly posting here because I think Kyle's pretty smart but his needless prejudicial stereotyping is holding him back as a thinker. Sometimes poking holes in stereotypes helps to change the minds of those holding them, although, as noted above, mostly people just get annoyed. But sometimes I enjoy the sparring.

At any rate, and generally speaking, stereotypes are inherently self-limiting on those who intellectually impose them on others. And I see a lot of the troubles the men on this board have with women are due to the negative stereotypes about women that they nurse bitterly to their hearts like a mother with a newborn at the teat.

@Kyle M: I have never had the ****-aching misfortune to attend a Green Party meeting. Or any political meeting, for that matter. So I can't testify to the demographics of them. I think I am truly a libertarian (i.e., classical liberal) at heart, and mostly have always just wanted to be left alone by (redundancy alert!) the social busybodys and by the gubmint. When I was young I intellectually swallowed the cloying Marxist pablum that mainstream media and the educational system pump into us, but my actions and preferences have always pegged me as an individualist not a collectivist. I swallowed but it apparently passed through undigested. The energy of the situations and people I attract into my life have always seemed to be more individualist. As an adult I've always voted for the candidates I think are going to go farthest towards achieving my goal of being let alone, to the extent possible in our world today. I haven't stopped voting yet because I still believe that voting counts, although I consider it a privilege rather than a right, and like you, I think voters should have to meet some minimum criteria before they get the privilege. But I may stop voting one day if things keep going the way they are. We'll have to see.

The Democratic conventions I see on TV and in the news seem to be overwhelmingly male. Likewise our two Houses of Congress and our various State Legislatures. Ditto the Progressive protests I see footage and pics of, unless you're talking about something specifically put on by fembot wingwangs like Code Pink. That minorities and women are increasing their numbers in these collectivist bodies of governance in no way diminishes the overwhelming influence that the majority demographic of white males still exert.

Antifa and all that other Progressive/Socialist/Fascist trash are predominantly male. White male, I might add.

So, your limited experiences with Green Party meetings when you were in college notwithstanding, I'm going to stick with what my unbiased eyes tell me. And my eyes tell me that MEN were and still are the primary drivers of the noxious, pernicious collectivism that's been creeping through the world since the end of the 19th century.

The larger point to my posts, that you seem to be missing, is that it's a larger problem than just a sex/gender issue, it's a sweeping issue that strikes at the very heart of how humans can live. You get that it's a big issue, but you're allowing yourself to be distracted by meaningless minutiae that are extremely tangential. By needlessly distracting yourself with minority gender or race demographics that play a small part in the larger issue, you're actually playing into the hands of evil men who would exploit the distraction of decent men like you, and use the opening to tyrannize and subjugate. Hitler did it, Lenin did it, Stalin did it, Castro did it. It'll happen again, if smart people continue to buy into the minute and artificially (and artfully) constructed distractions.
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
No more attention than you get from pompously using words you don't understand the meaning of, and can't spell. I like most of your posts, Tar, but honestly, you come across as just as much of a douche as I do sometimes. FYI, a little self-awareness goes a long way. I'm doing it deliberately, but when you can't be bothered to check the spelling or meaning of the pretentious words you use, and thus you use them AND spell them wrong, I have to sadly contend your douchebaggery is real and not calculated (as in my case).

And no, I'm not buying it's a typo. Belly isn't the right spelling, and neither is bely. It's BELIE. Nor did you use it properly. Belie does NOT mean to underscore or emphasize. Look it up.

You tried to condescend to me by wrongly spelling and incorrectly using a needlessly pretentious word. If you're going to be pretentious, at least make sure you're doing it right.

Douche points scored by you in your last post: 100

Anyway, to answer your question: most people who are secure with themselves and their views seem to find me amusing. Insecure people who hold self-contradictory/cognitively dissonant views usually find me annoying or sometimes even despicable when I point it out to them. This is regardless of whether I communicate without snark, or with it. I've found that my tone doesn't matter...people still get pissed when I poke holes in their arguments. So since my tone doesn't matter I'm not that careful with it any more, and since I'm secure with myself and my views, and am comfortable with evolving my views as new information presents itself and my worldview expands thereby, I don't care a whit what people think about what I think, or about the amount of attention I get.

I'm mostly posting here because I think Kyle's pretty smart but his needless prejudicial stereotyping is holding him back as a thinker. Sometimes poking holes in stereotypes helps to change the minds of those holding them, although, as noted above, mostly people just get annoyed. But sometimes I enjoy the sparring.

At any rate, and generally speaking, stereotypes are inherently self-limiting on those who intellectually impose them on others. And I see a lot of the troubles the men on this board have with women are due to the negative stereotypes about women that they nurse bitterly to their hearts like a mother with a newborn at the teat.

Ahh, I really could not have asked for a better response from you. I will point out your delicious blunder, made plain in sentence upon sentence of spell checking buffoonery. You see, I did not misspell belly, but purposely spelled it that way. I will draw your attention to the name of this thread, and hope you see the intended joke therein.

I have out trolled you, out douche-ed you, and out smarted you, and all in far fewer words. Please send me your golden trophy for "biggest douchey troll on RPP" award that you have on your mantle. I believe I have earned it after so thoroughly trouncing you in our war or words.

P.S. I supposed I have answered my own question, this obviously does get you attention as I keep giving it.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
@whodathunkit stereotypes are limiting the same way any action is limiting, in that you close the infinite possibility to take discreet action. When an elderly woman walking through a dangerous neighborhood crosses the street because a group of 5 loud, specifically dressed black males are approaching from the other direction and are looking at her funny, she is limiting herself to an interpretation of the situation based on her grasp of probability. I don't think she is making the wrong decision, however, and her stereotyping has utility.

You are correct when you say basic things like most people at political conventions are men. I repeated over and over that politics, like any outward-facing action, is dominated by men who are inherently more outward-facing in their life orientation than women. But within and between political parties, if you don't realize the basic facts that the leftist/collectivist parties are more proportionately female than the market/individual-oriented ones, than you are very ignorant. You wrote you don't know the demographics, well I'm telling you, and if your'e too lazy to just Google search it or go on some websites real quick, that's your problem.

Again, it comes down to draws:

political party A: mostly men, hardly any women

political party B: mostly men, nearly half women

You can't say because both are "mostly men" that they are the same. Well you can, and do, but you are wrong.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Imagine a man delivering this monologue on nationalism. This thinking is inherently female, as it was never the job of females to defend the tribe against invaders, so they have a more open attitude. In lions this results in the famous effect of lionesses going into heat to breed with invading males if those males win and kill the pride leader and the lioness's own cubs.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Lionesses, like female humans, always prefer and choose winners. That's called hypergamy. Sarah would too if invading 3rd world primitive hard-**** men killed off the effeminate feminist-approved men she affects to hold up as the ideal:
Hypergamy - Wikipedia

Imagine a man delivering this monologue on nationalism. This thinking is inherently female, as it was never the job of females to defend the tribe against invaders, so they have a more open attitude. In lions this results in the famous effect of lionesses going into heat to breed with invading males if those males win and kill the pride leader and the lioness's own cubs.
 

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
Ahh, I really could not have asked for a better response from you. I will point out your delicious blunder, made plain in sentence upon sentence of spell checking buffoonery. You see, I did not misspell belly, but purposely spelled it that way. I will draw your attention to the name of this thread, and hope you see the intended joke therein.
I have out trolled you, out douche-ed you, and out smarted you, and all in far fewer words. Please send me your golden trophy for "biggest douchey troll on RPP" award that you have on your mantle. I believe I have earned it after so thoroughly trouncing you in our war or words.
Ahhhh, Tar, I DO see what you did, there with the spelling. :D Touche, douche! :p

But seriously, no, you did NOT out-troll or out-douche me. Not really. You're still the bigger Douche. Your own major douche blunder was you used the word wrong, not the misspelling.

You cannot commit a malapropism AND a spelling error AT THE SAME TIME in a troll attempt, and still claim Douche Victory.

This is because:

--Using a word wrong in a troll attempt can be clever.
--Spelling a word wrong in a troll attempt can be clever.
--But doing both at the same time AT THE SAME TIME indicates you don't really understand the word you're attempting to troll with, thereby marking YOU as The Big Douche.

Even if your misuse of meaning was deliberate (and I don't think it was), your readers can't understand that because of the exponential quality of simultaneous spelling/usage errors. They will take your two mistakes together at face value and assume you think you're smarter than you really are. Which is what I did.

tl;dr: In a troll attempt you can pun or do wordplay with spelling OR word meaning. NOT both, or you're Il Douche after all. (See what I did there? :D )

But I will take your douche point total down from 100 to 65 because the troll execution was pretty good even if not completely successful.

P.S. FWIW, I type so quickly and make so many typos myself that spelling is usually not a big deal for me on forums unless the word is also used wrong. I honestly wouldn't have called you out on that (or perhaps only mildly, as a drive-by, not a full-on douche rant) if it had just been the spelling thing.

P.P.S. Also working against you is the fact that the title of the thread / OP is too far removed from the point of your troll attempt. Belly/chubby would have been far more relevant in the first five pages, for example. I suspect that if anyone is still reading this besides me, you, and Kyle, many of them missed it, too, even if they all hate me by now and therefore would never admit it. This part of the discussion isn't really about the older dad bod type any more, it's about political leanings and stereotypes of women. Which is what @Kyle M seems to bring every thread back around to. Either that or the Joooooz.

Anyway, the point is that it's hard to catch the reference to the OP when we've gone this far down a tangent. The best troll attempts are tightly relevant to the current discussion, but subtle enough to provoke an inappropriate rant from your target. Since my rant wasn't inappropriate because you still used the word wrong, you don't win. ;p

Imagine a man delivering this monologue on nationalism. This thinking is inherently female, as it was never the job of females to defend the tribe against invaders, so they have a more open attitude. In lions this results in the famous effect of lionesses going into heat to breed with invading males if those males win and kill the pride leader and the lioness's own cubs.
Kyle, jeez. I didn't watch the video, because I'm deaf (literally) and don't have my hearing aids in. Anyway, if you've seen one Sarah Silverman rant you've seen them all. She's so drearily predictable. Those are minutes of my life I would never get back.

But...really...? You trot out *Sarah Silverman* as your universal stereotype of women...?

If you imagine in your wildest dreams that the hateful, divisive, blindly stupid partisan hag Sarah Silverman or her ilk speaks for the majority of women, you are WRONG. I strongly suspect there are a lot of young women who act like they agree with her but really don't, and won't speak up publicly, just because of the potential viciousness of the retaliation of people like Sarah. They're like hyenas on a baby elephant when another woman disagrees with them.

You need to go read Sarah Hoyt or Baldilocks or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin or Ann Althouse or some other, smarter libertarian-leaning women to give you some perspective. Or at least, these women are libertarian enough to respect the Constitution as it exists, which is good enough.

At any rate, you keep switching up the game here. You started out stereotyping all women. Now that I've pointed out that error in your philosophy, you're back to using small segments of the population (e.g., our political parties) to underscore your points. Which tells me your points aren't on firm ground at all, and you see that, even if you don't acknowledge it publicly.

I never have denied that the majority of Democrat women are Marxist "macro" collectivists. You are either challenged when it comes to reading comprehension or are simply not reading my posts if you think I deny that.

What I DO deny and always will are the larger points of your philosophy: That women are the primary culprits in the pernicious creep of Marxist collectivism in our world today, and that it all started with them.

Women are NOT the primary culprits in the creep of Marxism, now or ever. Our political parties in the West have always been and still are DOMINATED BY MEN. They were dominated by men when Marxism began creeping in, and they still are.

THERE ARE NO PROMINENT FEMALE LEADERS IN ANY MARXIST COMMUNIST REGIME ON THE PLANET. EVERY SINGLE MARXIST COUP AND SUBSEQUENT COLLECTIVIST GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN LED BY MEN.

The goal of the early 20th century male Marxists in the West was to infiltrate our more libertarian, individualistic culture and destabilize it by fomenting unrest in the less privileged segments of society like women and minorities. These men would would then gain and keep control of the situation by keeping the segments like women and minorities distracted by infighting or hating another demographic (such as the ruling men), and they would keep undiscerning men like you distracted by promoting the idea that women and minorities unfairly hated you and were the the primary problem. Then, while everyone is distracted, they take over the effing world.

Looks like their plan is working just fine.

My point is, Kyle, that Marxism/collectivism is a HUMAN problem. It transcends the male or female. Marxism is a will to power that is attractive to every smug, blue-nosed busy body on the planet, regardless of genitalia.

But Marxism and collectivist societies (think Socialist Nazi Germany) in general are DOMINATED AND GOVERNED by the very worst self-righteous, superior-minded psychopaths and sociopaths the human race has to offer. And if we're going to continue stereotyping, the majority of psychopaths and sociopaths sport male genitalia, dontcha know.

Until every person like you who wants to think and do the right thing but keeps getting distracted by the tangential issues understands that the problem transcends race or sex, we'll continue to get screwed by the Marxists.
 
Last edited:

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
But...really...? You trot out *Sarah Silverman* as your universal stereotype of women...?

Did I write universal stereotype? I wrote that it's hard to imagine a man doing this monologue, even a stand up comedian who is a leftist.

My point is, Kyle, that Marxism/collectivism is a HUMAN problem. It transcends the male or female. Marxism is a will to power that is attractive to every smug, blue-nosed busy body on the planet, regardless of genitalia.

Marxism and other anti-human ideologies, like environmentalism, are a human problem. But their adherents, compared to other ideologies, skew female, and I believe this is because females are evolved to expect things brought to them and to avoid/dislike competition, unlike males who are evolved to bring things to women and to compete for them.

I'd like you to simple address this evolutionary question, if men and women have had such different selective pressures on their cognition, wouldn't it make sense that different ideologies would appeal to them differently? And that Marxism is closer to, say, what early tribal women may experience, than it is to what early tribal men likely did? Or simply, since women are basically helpless during pregnancy, that they need security to provided to them to survive and reproduce, whereas once men reach adulthood they can fend for themselves until old age, doesn't it follow that women would have inculcated in their psyche a greater need/desire for security from others while men would have less? The political implications of these selective pressures seem obvious to me.
 

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
Did I write universal stereotype? I wrote that it's hard to imagine a man doing this monologue, even a stand up comedian who is a leftist.
If you're not trying to point out a stereotype by that video, I'm unsure of your aim in posting it. I told you I didn't watch it, primarily because Sarah Silverman is a stereotypical female liberal big mouth, and pretty much anything that she spews is stuff I couldn't imagine a man saying. Boooooorrrrrriiiinnnnnnggggg. I couldn't be bothered to put my hearing aids in for that. And since I havne't left the house yet today I still don't have them in. It's unlikely I'll ever watch it, since I'm signing off soon.

But their adherents, compared to other ideologies, skew female, and I believe this is because females are evolved to expect things brought to them and to avoid/dislike competition, unlike males who are evolved to bring things to women and to compete for them.
You keep shifting the goalposts here, I suspect in order to give you some sort of advantage cuz you feel you're losing ground in this argument. Or you may be trying to be Socratic, "guiding" me into your point of view. But since your POV is wrong and is fundamentally flawed, there's nothing to guide me into so it's coming across a little like you're flailing around.

Speculating on the thought processes of primitive tribal people is exactly like speculating on primitive paleo diets: an exercise in intellectual self-masturbation. In futility. We can't know. Some of them probably ate low carb. Some of them ate high carb. Most of the time they all probably ate whatever they could get their lips on that was digestible, and that includes other people. And they probably all ate whatever FOR THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE COLLECTIVE. Because even the most ruggedly individualistic men know that if the tribe dies we all lose. The Founders knew that, or the majority of them wouldn't have voted for a central Constitution declaring the incontrovertible, Universal rights, along with the classically liberal, self-governing, discretionary state's rights.

With regards to the actual point of our discussion: all I know is what history records. And history records that the past and current proponents and leaders of the most harmful collectivist ideologies known to humankind have ALL BEEN MEN. STILL ARE MEN. Unless you're trolling NOW or Code Pink, rosters and pictures of collectivist meetings show a preponderance of men.

If it comes down to it, women do not share primary or even equal responsibility for the spread of pernicious, collectivist, fascist ideologies in the modern world. History shows that primary responsibility for the spread lies with MEN.

I am willing to acknowledge that women are a powerful force and are contributing a great deal to the spread. They may even take it over one day. But that day isn't here yet except in the fever swamp of your mind and those who think like you. To say women bear primary responsibility is fatuous and tone-deaf at best, or deliberately misleading to score points at worst.

It seems to me that you are willfully refusing to acknowledge the evidence before your eyes, and are deliberately doing what medical researchers do the world over: cherry pick data points and then massage them so that they "prove" your skewed biases and prejudices.

I'm so very sorry I wasted so much time in this discussion, or in ever believing you were an open and interesting thinker. It''s refreshing to see young people rejecting the Marxist pablum but if they're just trading one stupid set of prejudices for another, it doesn't really do any of us any good. That's apparently what you've done, Kyle. And ultimatley, that's as boring as ol' big mouth Sarah.

I'm out. Peace to all.

Although if @Tarmander tries to prove he douched me again when he really didn't, I may come back for that. Or maybe not. LOL We'll see what happens, if any one replies.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
If you don't have a billion dollar+ net worth you have no say in politics whether collective or as an individual as has been shown in the groundbreaking oligarchy study which I'm sure you've all heard of.

Neither genders control anything. They're the controlee not the controller as can be seen in the silly discussion being had in this thread.
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
Although if @Tarmander tries to prove he douched me again when he really didn't, I may come back for that. Or maybe not. LOL We'll see what happens, if any one replies.

I think the couple essays you wrote on grammar and spelling was enough for me. I’ll pass on continuing this banter, I gave you an opening to make it more fun and lighthearted with the whole douche trophy on your mantle...but somehow that went over your head and you proceeded to explain how my jokes/trollery didn’t make exact sense.

Hey you know what’s really cool, when you are watching a rap battle and one side stops the music and explains how the other guy’s joke didn’t actually follow the international iambic pentameter rules and if he really wanted to make a joke alluding to Shakespeare he should have gone up when he went down...super riveting when that happens.
 

AretnaP

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
180
You are correct when you say basic things like most people at political conventions are men. I repeated over and over that politics, like any outward-facing action, is dominated by men who are inherently more outward-facing in their life orientation than women. But within and between political parties, if you don't realize the basic facts that the leftist/collectivist parties are more proportionately female than the market/individual-oriented ones, than you are very ignorant. You wrote you don't know the demographics, well I'm telling you, and if your'e too lazy to just Google search it or go on some websites real quick, that's your problem.
It's crazy when you start to realize that people almost universally vote for what they feel will benefit them personally.

Young, intelligent males have very strong libertarian leanings. The reason why is very clear, they don't need help. They don't have quotas for them or jobs that exist to give them work, they're perfectly capable of fending for themselves.

Now groups that are, let's just say "less competitive", tend to support quotas, welfare, whatever, etc.

Pay close attention to what kinds of people hold what kinds of views and you'll find some links.

The less competitive human believes that the government should help them out, even if it means that it will be less money in somebody else's bank account. They simply do not think about or care about this.

The more competitive (intelligent/competent) human believes that nobody should get their money, often times even if they know a little extra tax from themselves and others like them could help.

humans = greedy, no matter what
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
humans = greedy, no matter what

I think humans are pretty charitable if compared to a purely greedy model. I have given money to charity, and I don't believe in taxes or state welfare of any kind. I have no problem drawing down part of my bank account to help others, so long as it's voluntary and I can choose to do it or not.
 

AretnaP

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
180
I think humans are pretty charitable if compared to a purely greedy model. I have given money to charity, and I don't believe in taxes or state welfare of any kind. I have no problem drawing down part of my bank account to help others, so long as it's voluntary and I can choose to do it or not.
Bold part made me laugh srs. I don't think a purely greedy model is the best thing to be measuring humans against. I think our definition of "charitable" needs to be held to a higher standard than what most people are like.

The second part of your post is good, I'm glad that you feel willing to give money away to people that need it, I suppose the problem is that charity isn't a stable way to provide money to things that need it.

Do you watch stardusk? A lot of what you're saying sounds like things said by him.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
Bold part made me laugh srs. I don't think a purely greedy model is the best thing to be measuring humans against. I think our definition of "charitable" needs to be held to a higher standard than what most people are like.

The second part of your post is good, I'm glad that you feel willing to give money away to people that need it, I suppose the problem is that charity isn't a stable way to provide money to things that need it.

Do you watch stardusk? A lot of what you're saying sounds like things said by him.

What would you compare humans then to determine their relative greediness? A selfless organism?

Before modern democratic states began monopolizing welfare, voluntary charitable organizations were indeed stable and effective means of welfare. You're taking something from today's situation, where people apathetic because they are told their taxes are going towards this stuff, and applying to a contra-factual world. Even when Reagan was president, and spending didn't even go down, the perception that it went down caused a boost in charitable giving. Look at Haiti and other recent natural disasters, voluntary charity is robust and more effective. In fact the government often gets in the way, like in Houston, of people bringing in products and helpful services.

I don't watch Stardusk, never heard of it actually.

There was a story of the Taft presidency, I can't find the speech and history right now, but a natural disaster occurred of the like seen today when a "state of emergency/disaster" or whatever they call it is declared. When pressured to use federal funds to help the location, he said that he didn't see any authorization for that in the Constitution, and instead donated some of his own money to that area for charity. Individuals in the country ended up donating 10 times the amount proposed to be sent from government funds for disaster relief. If people don't know about that kind of history, which they don't because government schools teach pro-government action history, they have inborn biases and unconscious attitudes about what things would be like without leviathan.
 

schultz

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
2,653
Guru, you sound like a cool and youthful dad. I was going to post it as a reply to that bakery photoshoot, but you would think it was because of that post when in fact it's because of your tone in general. Also you seem as good in baking as burtlan in logic, not bad for an ex-goat.

Thank you for your kind words!

I try to be a good Dad, though there is always the feeling I could be doing more.

Baking can be a humbling experience :lol:
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom