Why?

Back to the main topic, I'd argue that holistic depictions of love and sex are superior to reductive or 'atomistic' depictions, which are primarily the result of hideous and inferior marketing fads, devoid of any deeper art or beauty, such as depicted in the Kama Sutra or meaningful erotic art as distinct from 'pornography' (pretentious as this may sound, lol...).

I'm not sure she's a serious or relevant 'activist' to begin with using any more serious or intellectual methodology in relation to the approximations, mathematical or otherwise and logical planning and goal setting as opposed to just a niave young person who managed to appear in the 6th grade reading level media and generate a popular buzz, negative or positive which appeals to the superstitious and media voyeurs of all "political' or "religious" persuasions. (I don't believe anyone is completely "immune from it either" no matter how rational they are or wish to be).

Regardless, these types of reactions are definitely absurd; I don't even blame "Trump" specifically or want a scapegoat, as opposed to the overall "political climate" in general.

(There enough sound scientific evidence that people have a natural tendency to act "tribalistic", irrational or aggressive under the right circumstances, whether political violence, sports violence, etc which goes beyond any simplistic, mass marketed 'left/right' paradigm that I don't care to case blame at a "side" or fan the flames on this one)

As I've alluded to previously I certainly understand the psychological damage people have experienced...not to mention all those who've perished from religious wars throughout history...
[/quote]
This is a common folk or cultural myth, and a rather naïve and superstitious one at that; in reality, however, it's highly debatable that whatever the inherent traits which manifested themselves in "religious" wars are, that they exist solely within a "religious" contest, often simply using a simplistic, superstitious, or nonsense definition of "religion" to begin with and reinforced via circular reasoning.

It's arguable that there was a strong profit motive in every war, whether marketed as "religious" otherwise, much, as how most wars in civilized, 1st world nations are motivated by national pride or ideology (e.x. nationalism, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc), rather than "resources" as ignorant and false childish myths about war tell people or insinuate (it's "resources" for the war, not "war for resources) - there isn't arguably any practical difference between a war in the name of a "religion", and won in the name of any other type of ideology or political stance.

Given that scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology, as well as most of the philosophies of major law and legal systems or institutions (e.x. Common Law theory; Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment) more or less confirm that warfare and violence among men and women is an innate part of who we are (not a good one to devolve into, but a part of one nonetheless), such as having roots in biology, I would like to think that silly and archaic notions such as the above would be extinct rather than continuing to be blindly repeated.

You see, I never say that kind of things, because I am very aware of how dangerous it is to do that. In your case, I am sure that you will discover that too ... one day or the other! ;-) — alcontali

Not unless I move to a Muslim country; now go ask your wife's boyfriend.

I don't care what "politicians" or idiotic rhetoricians say, most of whom don't even know or care what the Constitutional interpretation process actually is, or defer to nonsensical and irrelevant historical romanticism or stupid interpretations in theory or in practice.

Dating has turned out to become a complete nightmare. It wasn't a good idea in the first place, but look at what it has degenerated into: Tinder hookups. In the greater light of things, arranging marriages make so much more sense. Still, people are foolhardy. They will never admit that they are wrong.

Allowing low-status men to marry has become a complete nightmare. It wasn't a good idea in the first place, but look at what it has degenerated into: grown men watching "red pill" YouTube videos and posting fantasies about the "mafia" and virile "antisocial" masculinity which come more from Grand Theft Auto video games than any real life experience.

In the greater light of things, letting the king just castrate low-status males like alcontali and forcing eunuch to serve in the Haram, rather than wasting precious bandwidth posting on "red pill / Incel / Mgtow" forums makes so much more sense. Still, people are foolhardy; they will never admit that they are wrong.

It is not his wealth that did it. It is his position.

Even a simple nightclub bouncer has that power. He can let people in or refuse them entry. You will immediately notice that there are girls who will offer sex in exchange for his favours. That is why even bouncers have an endless stream of trysts with these silly girls.

I don't believe you've done any of this, you're just repeating various 'stories' you've heard or been told (with varying degrees of accuracy or authenticity).

Regardless, your correlation of "alpha" with "having money" seems rather flawed; for example, a pro-athlete like Tom Brady, or a male boy band singer like Justin Bieber would have many women wanting to 'have sex' with him for free.

While someone like... err Bill Gates has more money than the entirety of Hollywood combined, but is not typically regarded as a "sex symbol".

My personal experience is that I've never had "a lot of money", I've had a few gigs which "payed well" in the short term, but that's about it; I've had between 15-20 partners, most of them were fairly 'hot', I did not spend much money on any one of them; some of them were married or dating (but I didn't know about this until after the fact or ever attempt to get with a woman I knew was already with a man). I even had had 1 or 2 women offer me sex for free.

Your conflation of money with "alpha" also renders all of your "incel/male feminist" rhetoric irrelevant, since who cares if a guy is a "male feminist" or "white knight"; if he just "makes enough money" he can have access to all of the hookers or potential trophy wives he wants.

It is the women themselves who were making the advances. Weinstein didn't have to lift a finger for that to happen.

You have no reason to believe this unilaterally, beyond just blind assumption reinforced by confirmation bias. Anymore than whatever strain of 'radical feminism' or what not believes any and all nonsense accusations simply because he was a "man" (courts and the court processes were designed with the rightful purpose and intent of filtering out irrelevant nobodies, gossip mongers, and otherwise socially irrelevant vermin like the above, in favor of rationality and formal procedure, which is why I am glad for them and their existence).

As far as idiots and silly irrelevant gossipers hocking whatever little opinion they want to for whatever childish reason they want to, or taking bets on court cases like it's a game of Survivor, I tend to ignore them and defer them and their worthless, inane little opining to the 'irrelevant' bucket and read about the details of the actual court cases.

All he did, was sitting in that chair, with his fat belly and ugly grin, selecting female candidates for actressing gigs. He could have been farting the most stinking winds while he was doing that, it would not have made a difference. The woman would have ignored it and still have had sex with him on the spot.

Which ones?

Ha aha ah ;-) That is the "who hurt you?" argument. Youtube is full of funny videos on that subject!

It's full of videos on Minecraft and My Little Pony as well. As an "alpha" man, it's... interesting to see that you consider random YouTube videos to be your primary source of information on things.

I will ask my wife. Maybe she agrees! ;-)

Why not just ask your wife's boyfriend instead?

But in serious, you now seem a bit contradictory; as far as evolutionary psychology goes which seems to be what you're deferring things to, almost any man or woman can meet the bare minimum qualifications to "get married", albeit with many possible varying degrees of dysfunctionality and pragmatics at stake.

So, no, if you're holding up "being married" to "some random woman" as an "ideal", that says very little of your supposed 'alpha' credentials, since an "alpha" would be focusing on higher quality marriage or relationships, not holding up "being married" at all as major accomplishment, if "trash TV" such as Jerry Springer and Maury is any indicator. It wouldn't shock me if your wife wears the pants in that relationship, not to mention how contradictory this is to much of the so-called "red pill" advice that advises against getting married at all, at least legally or formally.

I've had about 15-20 partners off and on, and where I'm at in life right now, I'm much happier to not be married, and not because of any "marriage nihilism" specifically. (If anything my nihilism is directed at the immaturity and idiocy of others and how little they value their marriages or achieving anything akin to a healthy marital foundation to begin with, no matter what century's laws or definitions of marriage one wishes to invoke).

The qualification "narrowly" is a bit of a stretch, given the fact that it takes less than $100 to fly out of the West to places where there is no "incel culture".

What I heard is that there is an "incel subculture" in East Asia or Japan, which is where all of the childish stereotypes and jokes about single men masturbating to "waifu pillows" come from. In fact, I almost thought the whole thing originated in "Japan" and made it way to the west like a badly translated anime cartoon series.

First of all, they may be a bit too feminized by their single-mother family background and the public-school indoctrination camps to do well, even in other areas of the world.

You've failed to substantiate what you mean by "public" school indoctrination camps, or why the same phenomina wouldn't exist in "private" school, "home" school, or any other K-12 oriented scholastic setting.

If by that, you mean co-ed education, then yes, coed education exists in private and "religious" schools as well, so this just sounds like empty, histrionic rhetoric, predicated on sensationalism and disproportionate reporting of unlikely events, usually if not always predicated on pandering to the stupidest phobias, insecurities, and infantile dinosaur sentiments and stereotypes imaginable, to the point that it's almost laughable that anyone outside of a Cartoon Network show or "Idiocracy" character could ever, or even have ever believed this nonsense to begin with.

As far as "doing well in other areas of the world", you used an Einstein quote several times; I find that ironic, since apparently you think that Einstein wasted his time on his intellectual endeavors, and ignored more productive life pursuits, such as dropping out of college, and fathering 10 babies with 10 different baby momma's by age 18.

According to the red-pill philosophy, "woke" men, i.e. "white knights" are thoroughly and universally disliked by women.

I'm glad that you defer yourself to what random Youtubers, many of them likely virgins, invoking a philosophy which is just a poor mans pop version of Frederick Nietzschean existentialism.

In that view, if a man buys into the feminist ideology, he will probably have to forsake sexual relationships.

You're going to need to define what you mean by "feminist ideology".

If you're mean some kind of radical feminism, a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas (e.x. all sex is rape or "exploitation"), then that's basically what the "incels" or "MGTOW" or whatever they're called is, just radical anti-sexual feminism for men, so I suppose that's a given.

But sans that, either give specifics in regards to what you call "feminist ideology" or please stop wasting valuable time saying the same histrionic things over and over.

You're married guy who spends all your time watching YouTube videos and posting on philosophy forums, and bragging about being married to some plain Jane as though it's an actual accomplishment, sounds like the spitting definition of "white knight" to me.

Incels are deemed to be men who believe the falsehoods that (western) women say about themselves,

1. What falsehoods, and what makes them falsehoods without circular reasoning?

2. Why do you keep repeating the myth that only "Western" women do this and say that? Everything you've been shown, so far, as far as history is concerned when your romanticism for "non-Western" countries has been removed doesn't stand up to snuff or sound historical interpretation.

Much as much of what you're calling "feminism" has more to do with stereotypical, ubiquitous aspects of human nature which have always been around in some form or variety or another, whether or not there is or was anything specifically called "feminism", which marital or relational dysfunctions being documented in many ancient texts, whether the Bible, ancient Roman theater, or anything else.

and who therefore fail at achieving anything.

I don't believe that is the problem with "incels" no.

I've met guys who were into things as stereotypically dorky as "Brony" fandom, and managed to "get laid" with someone who had a similar interest, much as how many of the fellows to which your 'male feminist' stereotype applies are "married", albeit in many cases dysfunctional, and they or their wife sadly not taking rightful advantage of no-fault divorce laws; misery loves company, so I suppose some people would rather be miserably married than "alone", something again having no inherent relation to "feminism".

The primary problem with "incels" that I've heard or seen is that they are disturbed and primarily obsessed with "celebrity women", or stereotypically "hot chicks", sometimes in an almost John Hinkley Jr. like fashion.

Much as there is nothing remotely original or insightful about your "white knight" stereotypes, or the documented notion or phenomena of being "nice" in an unhealthy OCD or "legalistic" way either, it's been documented by many authors on psychology (e.x. No More Mr. Nice Guy).

Even then, if you were using this to advocate some type of moral nihilism, well according to you - you're a married guy who posts on a philosophy forum and watches YouTube videos, you are not a gangster, a rapist, or any of the "feral" masculinity you fantasize about (which, even more ironically, runs completely contradictory to your statements about "traditionalism", as you could easily argue that "religion", rather than or in addition to "feminism" makes men "effeminate" by encouraging "Western" notions such as chastity, marriage, committed relationships, instead of that 'feral', antisocial masculinity that you romanticize from the mobster movies or GTA video games that you play.

(Similar to how you complain about "divorce" rape, when most of the current, un-updated laws in relation to marriage or "divorce" are legal holdovers from the 19th century, predicated on stereotypes or assumptions about men being the sole or main income provider, and women working full-time jobs or careers being less common, so in many ways, that is more of a case of "traditionalism" or archaic "legalism" at work, rather than feminism).

So no, so far you've only demonstrated a long, incoherent rant predicated on irrationality and inconsistencies, which doesn't hold up to snuff.

I'm not aware of any literal Biblical text about "going to heaven", much as how most simplistic, popular depictions of a heaven or a hell seem to have little bearing not only on the text of the Bible, but on theology as well.

For that matter, the notion of a "paradise" for good people or 'heroes' upon death, and an underworld or place of torment for the wicked (as well as an "intermediate" place for people who were neither particularly good or particularly evil) seems fairly ubiquitous to many historical religions, including pagan or polytheistic ones, such as Greek or Roman folk religion.

That sums it up in a nutshell, yes.

This definitely seems to be the case with "internet atheists" by a vast majority.

If by "atheist" you mean someone historical like... er… Bertram Russell or David Hume, I have no comment.

In the past, my speculation is that it isn't solely the case with "athiests", but people or groups which created or are participated in for the sole purpose of being "against something/everything" but for nothing.

Most of the cesspools that comprise the so-called internet atheist "community" (which are only usually distinguishable from 4chan or 8chan by most of the members' lack of a sex life) seem like they're nothing but whiny "gripe" sites for people who claim to be against religion, Christianity, but are generally for little or "nothing"

Usually using nonsense definitions of "religion" to begin with, either out of stupidity or malice, or often falsely conflating "religion" with mythology or "mythic imagery" or symbolism akin to that or those of Carl Jung's archetypes, while at the same time showing no intelligence or education on what mythology actually is or means within the contexts of cultures, history, anthropology, and so forth, whether of a religious or secular variety (much as they falsely conflate "atheism" with Secular Humanism, pop "scientism", and so forth).

Said things, of course having nothing to do with "atheism", as atheists have existed since Epicurus and before any modern scientific thought, or the emergence of any secular Humanist thought, as per Auguste Comte's school of "positivism" during the French Revolution, which is said to be the forerunner to Secular Humanism (Secular Humanism, as per their statement of principles is not "atheism", nor solely a "lack" of belief in God, but is a dogma, or set of "religious" or philosophical principles and beliefs held to by "faith" or axiom, recognized as a "nontheistic" religion by the US Supreme Court, along with others of said variety, such as Daoism).

I can't "prove" this assertion, but from what I've observed, humor usually relates to subjects which we consider "beneath" us (e.x. people making mistakes, or acting in a foolish way), while "art" relates to things we consider beautiful, inspiring or "above" us.

Fair enough.

A lot of the statements here seem to be strawmen (e.x. equating "religious" morality with the text of the Bible;, equating "science" as a method or institution with "secular" or secularism") or false dicthomies.

In practice, there is no hard or necessary delineation between "secular" or "religious" morality, as far as history, law, and legal systems are concerned.

For example, the modern Common Law systems which most would consider "secular" developed or evolved out of older legal or moral systems, such as Rome and Exodus.

Likewise, there may crimes or moral wrongs which both "religious" and "secular" systems deem to be morally reprehensive (e.x. murder is a sin and crime in the Old Testament, as is also pushed as a crime in "secular" systems of law and government).

Likewise, in practice, other notions or concepts (e.x. religious freedom) may have varied in their existence and/or implementation through history, regardless of anything specifically "religious" or "secular".

For example, in some older "religious" forms of government, other religions were tolerated in regards to mutual coexistence (e.x. coexistence of different Abrahamic faiths), while likewise, in some "secular" or "atheistic" governments (e.x. Stalinist Russia, Maoist China), religious freedom was denied.

You see, Weinstein is undoubtedly an arsehole, just like pretty much anybody who has the power to recruit or reject aspiring actresses. Power corrupts. It is so obvious that he could extract sex out of these girls, in exchange for some vague promises. Still, it takes two to tango. These candidates could also have picked something else to do, instead of pursuing a career in which they would incessantly have to trade sex for opportunities. You can see the same phenomenon at the office. Sex is a powerful tool to convince the boss to promote you or just not to fire you.

Sorry, I'll never be sympathetic with this; a "rich" fellow like Weinstein or others caught in sex scandals obviously had enough money that even if they were too ugly and repellant to attract female attention spontaneously, could, at very least have spent all of the money they wanted to on prostitutes.

So, to lower themselves to such an inferior level as to make inappropriate advances at women, is really quite sad and pathetic, even more so in the case of ones who are so evolutionarily and otherwise worthless that they stooped to molesting little girls or boys.

That wasn't my assertion, no; that was me replying to Alcontali's post.

I don't totally disagree with what you said. I find that the entire thing is just manufacturing of pure sensationalist clickbait nonsense based on the absolute dumbest gender clichés and stereotypes known to man and woman kind.

I'd argue that nothing tangible can be known with the same certainty as something in pure mathematics.

However, every view is predicated or based on some knowable axiom or another.

(e.x. Even epistemological nihilism asserts that the only thing that can be "known" is that nothing can be known, so this is oxymoronic if you ask me).

I'd argue it's a phenomenon, not an "ideology", but more or less the many different individuals and groups (e.x. whether individual families, businesses, churches, legal institutions, private social groups, or others within some given area or approximation).

Given that even a fairly small "town" can potentially have hundreds of different people, groups, and so forth, most of not all mathematical approximations of "society" or any given society are lacking in that regard, and will only end up being a very small part of a much bigger whole,

Media Bias Fact Check is a decent website; it's upfront about what its methodologies and axioms are in regards to how it labels sites, and has a decent list of major news or information websites, (such as identifying factuality, or whether or not the source is partisan "left" or partisan "right" bias).

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

I'm not an expert on it or Calvin; the basic notion is that it was something akin to determinism.

I think that, in the West, men increasingly distrust women and do not believe a word they say. Men have learned to safely assume that everything she says, is a manipulative lie. Even if it is occasionally not a lie, it is better to convince yourself that it is one. Better safe than sorry. In the physical space, for reasons of security, interact only with other men. Furthermore, whatever romantic ideas you thought you would act upon, go and do that in another jurisdiction. It costs usually less than $100 to fly out of the sexual danger zone of the West to the nearest-by free country.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm not sure you know what makes a lie a lie to begin with, if anything it just sounds like you suffer from a severe communications deficit, and chalk your own linguistic ineptitude up to 'lies' on the part of others.

I think such a problem is almost beyond human comprehension, hence why it's been a problem of debate for centuries or millennia, and still is.

I believe I've solved it, at least for myself, but I prefer not to get cocky in that assertion.

I fail to understand your point, or why you're posting here but now wanting to "end" the discussion.

As far as "radical, man-hating feminists" like Valerie Solanas or Andrea Dworkin, they're a fringe and irrelevant minority, not to mention misanthropy or "sexual resentment" is as old as human nature, long before there was anything called "feminism", I've heard that even Plato wrote about it, as have many ancient texts.

Regardless, I do believe that plenty of people do not take a "nihilistic" extreme, either complete loathing of the other sex as a whole, or a belief that no one should marry, reproduce, and so on and so on.

Perhaps in the case of someone, for example who was severely sexually absued as a child, I'd be much more sympathetic, but in the case of a Minecraft addict going "incel" because Taylor Swift won't respond to his PM messages on Facebook, I'm not quite as sympathetic, no.

For that matter, there "are" people, men and women, unusual or not, who have never married pr possibly been celebrate their whole life, and didn't not manifest such a thing in the psychosis and depravity that we see associated with the John Hinkley Jr. wannabes known as "Incels", or whatnot.

Realistically, I do not even believe that the "sex", really is the primary thing to begin with (given that an incel's dick doesn't even know the difference between his 'right hand' and an actual vagina, the body is apparently thing of fairly simple pleasures).

In comparison, I believe it's much of a pride, ego, or vanity thing, which goes beyond "sex" and manfests itself in mental or psychological disturbances, this is why I haven't seen many "incels" spending their time looking for a chubby, Minecraft addicted girlfriend who might actually have sex with them, but rather seem obsessed with hitting on the top 10% of the world's hottest chicks.

Testosterone made me a mathematical prodigy, I'd venture.

I tend to think that the propaganda is, but beyond that I'm not interested enough In commenting on it any further.

Just how, for example, the whole dichotomic notion of creating subcultures out of "red pill / blue pill" BS, is rather absurd to begin with, given that "marital problems" have been documented phenomena, no matter the time period or source since men and women have been getting married, to blindly assume that a marriage would work out by itself with "no problems", or that there isn't and has always been a pragmatic aspect to the marriage and or longevity thereof, or that there is anything necessarily automatically desirable about "getting married" as opposed to not, let alone as soon as possible without any personal investment in maturity in a contemporary 1st world country in which men and women's life goals and plans extend above and beyond overly "childish" or "hillbillyish" notions of the thing (such as the fact that in a civilized, 1st world country, no man or woman can be "forced" to get married nor have children, if they otherwise decide not to, the notion of not marrying or having children not solely being a contemporary thing, but rather an ubiquitious, commonsensical thing, whether one references people like Adam Smith, Newton, or the apostle Paul, who didn't marry and/or even recommended that, at least some people, should possibly not get married, and not only solely out of a nihilistic or cynical worldview, based on fatuity or animosity toward sex, or the opposite sex, childish and nonsensical financial or time planning and accounting notions, or other similarly childish and apathetic notions.

As far as a legal institution, "sacredness" being something in the context of couples, churches or other things entirely - is incredibly naïve, pop Rousseauian determinism. so if anything I would lay blame to that on persona apathy, denialism, a lack of self investment in the relationship or marriage and making it better instead of worse - likely just another notch on the 50% divorce rate statistics when all is said and done, without laying sole blame to one or the other partner - to begin with rather than anything unoriginal enough to merit these ridiculous cultural fads and identities.

Again, who are these "people", in most cases what you're referring to has nothing to do with anything specifically called "feminism", but rather just lowest common denominator human behaviors and nature, have existed and been documented in some form or another, long before there was anything specifically called "feminism".

Much as a lot of the gripes about the court system, such as "divorce rape" or whatever they call it, Ironically has more to do with "traditional" ism or legal holdovers from archaic 19th century systems, and so on and so forth, such as presuming by default that the man "makes more money" or isn't as fit to nurture the child, hence the alleged alimony biases which people are discussing.

Reading comprehension problems_? Your claim that education favours boys if it stresses math IMPLIES that you think girls are inferior in math. That is all I referred to,
In the event when I said education is increasingly changed to favour girls, I was not referring to math.

No, I don't believe that, in practice, girls are all necessarily "inferior" in math, regardless of the positive correlations between testosterone and mathematical ability.

Nor did I claim the "education system" favors boys, just that I've heard people make assertions in both eras, such as It treating boys like 'defective girls', or girls like 'defective' boys, or whatnot, which is why I no longer buy into any to these blanket claims or assertions with anything more than a grain of salt.

Unles someone can provide something akin to the usage or meaning of these 'averages' and the archaic methods and approximations upon or by which said averages are actually used to begin with, in anything akin to a practical contest, I'm not too concerned about having childish "debates" about them, if the primary aim is simply to sell some intellectually vapid propaganda or win an argument which has no practical relevance or application in "real life" beyond solely the "winning" of the silly argument and all of the nonsensical implications of the argument to begin with.

An example might be "Cathy Whatshername" making a silly argument rife with logical fallacies, by and for those of a 100 IQ at most, or 6th grade reading level, based on some silly little archaic 19th century reductionist methodology used in similar ways in favor of archaisms such as "scientific racism", and other silliness, such as likely not even knowing the bare basics of how a knife or weapon would ever be used in actual violent conflict, as opposed to cheesy action movies which are more theatrics or performance than anything else.

Which even during the outdated day any age in which such silly little methodologies and the various non-sequiturs, inconsistencies, and logical fallacies they are or were predicated on to begin with, was more or less known to be outdated as far as any serious legal or moral philosophical discussion is or was concerned, such as in the Common Law system, and the legal and moral philosophy which it is founded on or predicated on to begin with, rendering her nonsense obsolete and more or less irrelevant to anyone above a 6th grade reading level or 100 IQ, much as most if not all of the sensationalist, voyeuristic nonsense is based on similar fallacies and appealing to outdated, fears, sentiments, superstitious, immaturities, arrested development, and other maladies, my honest belief is that simply reading higher-level books based on some merit or cultural validity which has stood something akin to the test of time would render the majority of this ADHD, lost intellectual, moral, and economic common denominator stuff irrelevant and obsolete.

LOL, now you are claiming that girls are innately inferior in match.
[/quote]
It's spelled "math".

And no, a female chessmaster would be superior at it to an "average" man who is not a chessmaster, regardless of whether there tend to be "innate" differences, such as the positive correlation in medical studies between testosterone and higher-level mathematical and spatial reasoning abilities.



So again, in practice, at least as far as "arbitrary" claims against women or others on the bases of averages or approximations alone, which don't actually apply on an individual or meritious bases is rather fallacious, and ultimately, more often then not seems to boil down to attempting to win a silly "argument", rather than use such information, averaging's, or data in anything akin to a meaningful way.

Why?

Who cares what some dime a dozen freak or fringe figure like Valerie Solanas thinks? I don't believe that the majority of women are that misanthropic or otherwise maladjusted, so please tell me why "they" are relevant enough to even acknowledge to begin with?

I have the same opinion about those idiotic and irrelevant "MGTOW" and"SJWS" manbabies, and other assorted social media oddities.

Was education a government task back then? Healthcare? Dealing with marriage and divorce? I don't think so.

Yes, it most certainly was, have you read the Old Testament, for example? Such the government regulating marriage and punishments for adultery, and whatnot?

You are again trying to use some liberal-arts lying and manipulating. If I have said something, you should be able to quote it literally.

What you're calling "liberal arts" is nonsense, I'm not quoting you literally, I'm merely paraphrasing.

According to you, the Peruvian Mafia is going to "lead the one man wolfpack" or whatever; and you use their antisocial behaviors such as raping women as evidence of their "machismo".

In what sense does that even matter? His writings seem to be influential in the "manosphere". He has a good pen. I am not going to criticize him for no reason at all. You are also a born black-mouther and bad-mouther.

Who cares, anyone who can write can potentially gain a following, he admitted himself he was married.

All you have demonstrated up till now are truths about yourself: The fact that you routinely lie, manipulate, black-mouth, and that you are fundamentally dishonest, confrontational, and insincere.

Nonsense, you're defensive simply because your inconsistences and absurdities have been called out.

I don't think you know what "liberal arts" is, for one. I'm merely summarizing them.

Such as you talking about "statism", but being unable to define it; as far as I'm aware of, even in ancient times, whether you want to reference "Rome" or a "religious' system of government such Israel, the notion of extending the "nation, kingdom, and so on and so forth" beyond the individual, atomized "families" or "tribes" was not a recent invention at all, nor something exclusive to "secularism".

(For that matter, there is no inherent difference between "religious" or contemporary "secular" law in the sense of it being a system or institution, with "secular" systems like Common Law having evolved out of and incorporated concepts from "religious" law - in the sense that modern law imposes at least a bare minimum of morality on people by force, such as prohibiting evils such as rape, and murder it isn't any different in that way than "religious" law is; sure, ideally a person of genuine morality would be above and beyond simply "not raping or murdering" solely out of fear of the law, but regardless, that's what the institution is and does.

You also use Mafiosi who rape and "dominate" women by force and aggression as some kind of role model to champion for their supposed virility, but then talk about strict, Islamic schooling in which boys are sexually repressed and encouraged not even to look at the opposite sex, seems the polar opposite of that antisocial from of virility which you previously champion.

Oh, and I've heard of Rollo Tomoassi (which is actual the name of some obscure film character) and he's just a salesmen who isn't even doing any of the stuff he writes about, he admits himself he's "married". I no longer trust people hocking things which are to some extent just "common sense" under overly fancy or trendy names and false dichotomies (like "red pill" blue pill")- no matter what "time period" is selected or overly romanticized (such as the nonsense of "every man" having been some "warrior archetype" no matter the time period, ancient, medieval, or modern, when they are and have always been a small, and very elite section of the population, which most men having comparably more "ordinary" jobs or careers; in the worst cases, painting such a flawed and romanticized picture is almost a bit delusional and dangerous, a product of mindless media voyeurism and dumb people, such as idiots who think sports is solely about the fighting, or purely visual, sensory aspects of it, when in reality it's akin to a performance "art", with most of it being the 'internal' factors, the strategies or states' of the athletes' minds and so on and so forth.

Or as authors such as Rory Miller have written in books like "Meditations on Violence", most of the nonsense which equally dumb people and empty headed-voyeurs fantasize about, such as "combat" or use of weapons is fantasy which comes more from Michael Bay movies than "real life" combat, which he claims is ugly, quick, and brutal, with stylized combat in the mass media being more akin to a sport or theatre performance than an actual "fight", "war" or anything of that sort in theory, or in practice.

Everything you say is contradictory:

East Asia is a better culture; oh but Asian men are not known for their 'virile masculinity"., as just one example.

Case 1. A keeper. You will end up giving her money for household expenses. In the local culture here, you even start by paying for a substantial bride gift.

And? So yes, in reality that's closer to a "traditional" thing, and less of anything remotely relevant to your allegations of "schools feminizing people" or whatever.

Case 2. A seemingly "free" tension-relief service provider. Watch out for Weinstein-style cases. You could end up at the receiving end of a "regret" rape accusation or other back stabbing. That could go badly wrong. There really seems to be a trend to put more and more alpha players in jail. (#metoo).

What's your fucking point? Anytime you engage in some kind of relationship or interaction with another person, especially some potentially maladjusted person who you barely no, there is always a "risk" in ivolved, I suppose.

And no, an ugly old man who has to show his penis to younger women isn't an "alpha", he's lonely, desperate SOB, I'ver been desperate enough to have to do that, same with a "millionaire" or supposedly "powerful" individual who is worthless, defective, and degenerate enough to waste their time molesting underage children.

You're assuming that all "rape" allegations are false simply because a woman made them (which is stupid nonsense, akin to Valerie Solanas assuming that any rape allegation is true simply because a woman made it), as far as that goes, I'll let the thinking men and women in courts of law and the procedures decide, not anti-intellectual worthless, mentally, socially and otherwise inept idiots or archaic dionsaurs on social media, who probably couldn't name a single letter of their own state or feral law to begin with speculate on that till their anime-masturbating heart is content.

You're so self-contradictory it's difficult to reply to,

You talk about "uncivilized" men taking whatever woman they want, then no you're saying a man seeking "trysts" is stupid, and that he would be better off going "blue pill" or whatever it's called, and being an effiminate, married, beta male, or whatnot?

Which is it?

Well, according to the red-pill philosophy only 20% of the men are alphas
[/quote]
Glad to be in that 20% then as far as that philosophy goes, wish I could say the same for you, brah, lol

Still, that does not matter, because a beta can trivially achieve the same results as an alpha by paying out relatively small nominal fees. Just make sure to really "exchange". Never give something for nothing. "So, ok, I will fix your car or your computer, or whatever, but what am I getting in exchange?" If she is giving it away for free to alphas, why even give her a slice of your pizza for free? "So, you urgently need $20? Then work for it. You can duly sweat on my next tension-relief gig!" "Beta orbiters" are guys who simply don't get that.
[/quote]
Hardy har har…

Cool, I'm glad it worked out for you, even then a lot of what you're saying isn't consistent, or even necessarily true. I've had somewhat different or variable experiences.

You talk about "Asian cultures" as some ideal, despite the fact that they "family/education oriented, workaholic" cultural stereotypes of East Asian countries like Japan are quite bent on that "repressive, feminiized" male stereotype you seem to love; supposedly the "sexual repression" in cultures like that is one of the reasons why all of that weird, gross anime porn is such a "thing".

"Free" is never really "free" when it is about sex. The other side usually has possibly hidden expectations. When these expectations are not fulfilled, the other side may very well try to get back at you. Just look at the Weinstein case. All these women slept with him hoping that he would land them an acting gig as an actress. I am sure some of them did get what they wanted, but the ones who didn't now scream "rape!". This problem rarely occurs if you finish such "casual sex" episode by paying a nominal fee. — alcontali

Get a life...

I never payed for it, and if any of the women I was with didn't fully enjoy my company, that's on them.

I've had some maladjusted freaks post defamatory nonsense about me and others before, I'm not bored enough to care, given that they're generally low IQ, 6th grade reading level idiots, who even know the basic laws of their on state, federal, or othersi, the bare basics of any legal court proceedings in theory and practice, and the sheer amount of time and energy spent and wasted on malicious effort to successfully "convict" something of a completely fraudulent and fabricated crime would be.

Most of these brainless idiots are too stupid or lazy to even so much as visit their local library, their local law library, or make use of their Kindles or E-readers and learn even the most basic laws of their own state, or how the legal system works and is designed to detect and prevent idiots or malicious individuals from using it in a "vexatious" way while technically trying to not actually run afoul of it, such idiots who think that if they change so much as one word in a statement which is otherwise potentially felonious extortion, that a savvy lawyer or judge wouldn't be able to spot that, or have designed and evolved the legal system to begin with to detect exactly that. Most of their "legal" advice coming from YouTube videos by randos, or inaccurate court or crime shows like CSI or Judge Judy, low level 'employees' a legal or law enforcement profession, who are too stupid, low-IQ, and otherwise socially and morally inept or maladjusted to ever have real job in the legal profession to begin with, such as an actual male or female Judge, Lawyer, or Attonery, as opposed to a dime-dozen 6th grade literate correctional officer who doesn't even know the most basic premises or legal and moral philosophy, let alone have the IQ or literacy level to even read it even if they wanted to, or low level law enforcement employee..

If you want to live in paranoia of absurdist scenarios like that, when the real life likelihood of dying in your own bathtub is more likely, be may guest, and stay addicted to whatever sensationalist, anti-intellectual, 6th grade reading level media nonsense of choice floats your hillbilly boat, I'm not losing sleep over it.

airing up early in one's life, not having the experience of sharing in a variety of sexual styles, preferences, wishes, wants, etc., seems like an impoverished life. — Bitter Crank
Seen in a more financial context, it may actually be the other way around.

Men may easily hand over 70% of their income for dependents. So, if he makes $100,000 per year, for example, then (without interest), that could represents $70,000 x 40 = $2.8 million of household funding at stake. — alcontali

People who buy a Lamboghini easily hand over $500,000 for a 200 MPH car which they can only legally drive up to 65 MPH, what's your point?

The money's either going somewhere or it isn't, and if it isn't, it's just paper and metal, so whether it's going to marriage, a family, a car, a house, a drug dealer is ultimately up to the person and their own delegation as to what, why and where.

Sex is heavily intertwined with raw money.

Sure, for uglier people it is, if you're a rock star or a pro-athlete (or at least look kind of like one), some women probably give it up for free. (I'm sure it also helps if they have a husband or a boyfriend).

Per evolutionary biology or psychology, only men or members of the species at the lowest common denominator of the evolutionary hierarchy ever have to act "desperate" in regards to sex, or anything else, or possibly even resorting to rape, the "higher" members of the species have no natural want of male or female attention.

If the counterparty in the deal has routinely been giving away sexual favours for free to other men, then why would this man agree to erode away $2.8 million on that person?

Why not? Some people spend $2.8 million on a rare baseball card, how one uses their money or what they ultimately deem it "worth" is up to them.

Why shouldn't he be getting the sex for free too? If the other guys were more deserving of freebies for reasons of preference, then this counterparty in the deal should probably just go back to these other guys.

Maybe then he should start hitting the gym and become a male gigolo or escort, assuming he doesn't mind dating "MILFs" or "GILFs":

When money is at stake, the negotiations tend to become ruthless and merciless, while "feelings" do not matter in the least, because that is what capitalism is all about.

Money and "feelings" don't mix particularly well.

Blah blah blah, The majority of what you call "capitalism" is all about "feelings" and anti-thetical to anything rational, whether bare basic financial planning, accounting, time management and self-scheduling, or things even a better and more welly-adapted child could be expected to on their own.

It's primarily simply about satiating mindless, addictive short-term wants or 'needs', to the polar opposite of rationality, if the rampant obesity crisis and terrible eating habits of the slave class, which no reasonable doctor would consider "healthy" to begin with, let alone a good influence on the eating habits of children victimized by having parents prone to such an hideious illness, addiction, or quite visibly disgusting lifestyle choice is any indicator.

Very, little, if any of it deserves to be called "capitalism" in any more philosophical sense of the term, whether one is referencing Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or anyone else, it's really just the one of the ugliness and lowest common denominators of bestial human behavior, which has existed for most if not all of human history, even prior to "capitalism" being word, akin to a starving, rabid or feral dog licking up scraps of Filet Minion out of the dumpster of a fancy French Restraunt of well-fed and satiated patrons, knowing all to well that "more" is not necessarily more, expect in the inferior and childishly addicted minds of the weak and defective, much as how a few more drinks and a bar, or a few more bites of food, can turn another wise lovely and enjoyable drink or meal into a a pile of vomit, balance and moderation being superior, of course..

In other words, if someone has been giving sex away for free, this person may very well have to keep giving it away for free for the rest of their life. They can no longer become dependent on externally provided household funds, not even if they may at some point in their lives really need it.

How's that for an "impoverished" life?

I fail to see your point, as usual.

If a person is so socially inept or weak in bare basic personal boundaries, two-way communications and so on and so on and blames everything short of themselves for somehow being "unable" to do something even a more mature child or adolescent could and does, then I suppose whatever unbalanced living or marital relationship they acquire or accrue is their own fault, and elective choice so long as they choose to stay in it or perpetuate it. To some extent, people get what they deserve.