|
Buried alive posted:Looked at the title, saw who it was and closed it immediately. Does anyone care to give me the gist of what that's all about? And by "about" I mean what's the argument that's actually being made. While I haven't watched it, I held my monitor up to my forehead and my psychic powers told me the argument consists of the word "whores" repeated several hundred times.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Buried alive posted:Looked at the title, saw who it was and closed it immediately. Does anyone care to give me the gist of what that's all about? And by "about" I mean what's the argument that's actually being made. "It's not fair that women can say no to having sex with me."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Looked at the title, saw who it was and closed it immediately. Does anyone care to give me the gist of what that's all about? And by "about" I mean what's the argument that's actually being made. We've actually had a guy in GBS unironically posting about it a few times, I think. IIRC it boils down to the theory that people have a quantifiable sexual market value and will choose partners based on that value. Most commonly they determine a woman's sexual market value almost exclusively by her looks while men get a whole bunch of additional factors, because of course they do. To the surprise of no one, the conclusions most commonly drawn from that is that women shouldn't be promiscuous because that lowers their So long story short: The Larch posted:While I haven't watched it, I held my monitor up to my forehead and my psychic powers told me the argument consists of the word "whores" repeated several hundred times. VVVV No no, you see, these values are completely objective. It's totally scientific and stuff.  VVVV
Perestroika fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
So, men judge women solely by looks, women use a larger number of factors, and this means women are more superficial. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Looked at the title, saw who it was and closed it immediately. Does anyone care to give me the gist of what that's all about? And by "about" I mean what's the argument that's actually being made. This forums classic should help make the overall point of view clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
It's just an attempt to apply simplified market concepts to sexual relations - a predictable car crash. There are more interesting studies of sexual behaviour in economics in, for example, game theory.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
The "sexual market" stuff was already in the ladder theory bullshit of the 2000s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The "sexual market" stuff was already in the ladder theory bullshit of the 2000s. yeah so i thought that idiots retired the ladder theory in favor of pua nonsense but nope there are still tons of idiots on reddit talking about ladder theory and friend zoning and poo poo like that
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:yeah so i thought that idiots retired the ladder theory in favor of pua nonsense but nope there are still tons of idiots on reddit talking about ladder theory and friend zoning and poo poo like that Ladder theory was invented by PUAs in the first place, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:To the surprise of no one, the conclusions most commonly drawn from that is that women shouldn't be promiscuous because that lowers their If their value is based on their looks, how does this follow? Unless every partner is mutilating them or something. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 23:12
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Some people rightfully saw the inherent unfairness within the sexual market place and demanded regulation in the form of a "government gets girlfriends" program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If their value is based on their looks, how does this follow? Unless every partner is mutilating them or something. Perhaps you aren't looking closely enough or in the correct areas
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If their value is based on their looks, how does this follow? Unless every partner is mutilating them or something. Given the kind of person it appeals to I would imagine they probably think that you get incurable cock breath or something from sleeping around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If their value is based on their looks, how does this follow? Unless every partner is mutilating them or something. The assumption is that a woman's value on the sexual market is highest when she's a virgin but then just goes down from there. It also ties into faithfulness; if a woman has never slept around then she probably won't in a marriage. If she gets pregnant you can be sure of the father. If she sleeps around then she's obviously sneaky and the baby's father might not be certain. I think a lot of it also goes down to historical views on women that did arise sort of out of biology. A woman who has already had children is actually less fertile. The more children a woman has had the fewer she can probably have. That of course mattered a lot when having as many children as possible was the way you kept your society going. These days things are of course quite different. With fancy things like "modern medicine" and "low infant mortality rates" we just don't need to force women to get married young and have poo poo loads of babies. Granted I don't know if that would even be necessary in ancient societies but still. Of course when you got into things like inheritances and hereditary titles you had to worry about parentage quite a bit. Who the father was and legitimacy mattered a hell of a lot so of course you'd want women to be faithful. That way you knew who the father was. Of course that also goes back to the times when a woman was viewed as more property than person. Tools that wear out become crappier tools so of course if you use a woman she'll eventually wear out and become a crappier woman, right? Which, of course, assumes that a woman's only value is reproduction which is...well...a lovely thing to believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Some people rightfully saw the inherent unfairness within the sexual market place and demanded regulation in the form of a "government gets girlfriends" program. Google CoAlphaIncelMaleBlogger for the GGG Guy's latest ramblings. GGG is one of my favorite Internet crazies, and his "my mother should have hosed me so that I wouldn't be a virgin anymore" post is an all time classic
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Google CoAlphaIncelMaleBlogger for the GGG Guy's latest ramblings. GGG is one of my favorite Internet crazies, and his "my mother should have hosed me so that I wouldn't be a virgin anymore" post is an all time classic Haha sweet I was wondering where he went! Two paragraphs in and I'm already hitting gold: quote:...modern Western (women) like abuse and rape (I’ve since realized that they like much worse, like being shot and decapitated – even if the victims themselves will die other women will like it, and so will the shooting victim if she survives). They want to be squashed like bugs. President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Basically the idea of owning land is to blame. The solution? <------------------
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Haha sweet I was wondering where he went! Literally The Worst posted:Google CoAlphaIncelMaleBlogger for the GGG Guy's latest ramblings. I… I do not want to do this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Basically the idea of owning land is to blame. How many attempts did it take you to get the arrow at the right height?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:How many attempts did it take you to get the arrow at the right height? On a phone the solution is grimey drawer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I… I do not want to do this. No you're not doing it right, the magic words are "I do not consent to this joinder" and then just start screaming "I DO NOT CONSENT" over and over until you get your way
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
What is "I do not consent to this joinder" even supposed to MEAN?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:What is "I do not consent to this joinder" even supposed to MEAN? gently caress you, you can't make me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
No I get that's what it ACTUALLY means, but what do they THINK they're saying?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:No I get that's what it ACTUALLY means, but what do they THINK they're saying? ""I do not consent to this joinder" is a sovereign citizen saying that they aren't allowing the government to link their legal personage to their physical body.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Sovcits believe that your physical person is separate from your "legal person", and the linking of an actual person to their legal person is what they call "joinder". They believe that laws only apply to your legal person, not your physical person So if the judge asks "are you John Smith" and you answer in the affirmative then the judge has established joinder between the actual John Smith and the legal entity John Smith, and now he can start accusing you of breaking the law. But if you never admit to being associated with the legal entity "John Smith" then you can just say that you're not the legal entity but are merely representing the legal entity John Smith in court today and therefore never create joinder. Now the judge can list off whatever laws he wants and they can send the legal entity John Smith to prison for killing and eating all of those people but the physical John Smith gets to moonwalk out of the court room without any problems because joinder was never established  This is also why you see these doofuses writing out their names in goofy ways like "JOHN: of the family SMITH", because they think that it helps to separate their physical person from the legal entity "John Smith". In the real world of law, joinder means linking two cases together; sovereign citizens love misusing terms And for extra idiocy some sovcits believe that the government opens a bank account for each "legal entity" with millions of dollars in it, and if you say the right magic words then you can access those funds somehow. I don't know the specific line of bullshit reasoning behind this one but it's pretty funny nonetheless QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:And for extra idiocy some sovcits believe that the government opens a bank account for each "legal entity" with millions of dollars in it, and if you say the right magic words then you can access those funds somehow. I don't know the specific line of bullshit reasoning behind this one but it's pretty funny nonetheless I don't think anyone actually believes that except the rubes who pay a guy money for the DVD that shows you how to access this bank account.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Sovcits believe that your physical person is separate from your "legal person", and the linking of an actual person to their legal person is what they call "joinder". They believe that laws only apply to your legal person, not your physical person So if the judge asks "are you John Smith" and you answer in the affirmative then the judge has established joinder between the actual John Smith and the legal entity John Smith, and now he can start accusing you of breaking the law. But if you never admit to being associated with the legal entity "John Smith" then you can just say that you're not the legal entity but are merely representing the legal entity John Smith in court today and therefore never create joinder. Now the judge can list off whatever laws he wants and they can send the legal entity John Smith to prison for killing and eating all of those people but the physical John Smith gets to moonwalk out of the court room without any problems because joinder was never established The reasoning is that expecting me to pay my debts is a violation of my rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:On a phone the solution is grimey drawer. Still correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't think anyone actually believes that except the rubes who pay a guy money for the DVD that shows you how to access this bank account. yes, exactly, sovicits
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The assumption is that a woman's value on the sexual market is highest when she's a virgin but then just goes down from there. It also ties into faithfulness; if a woman has never slept around then she probably won't in a marriage. If she gets pregnant you can be sure of the father. If she sleeps around then she's obviously sneaky and the baby's father might not be certain. I think a lot of it also goes down to historical views on women that did arise sort of out of biology. A woman who has already had children is actually less fertile. The more children a woman has had the fewer she can probably have. That of course mattered a lot when having as many children as possible was the way you kept your society going. tbh most of this is post-hoc justification for why we kept the Roman obsession with virginity and faithfulness intact, tons of cultures gave way less of a poo poo about it, even Jewish culture, which had a ton of loving strictures on how to behave and kids and poo poo didn't have nearly the kind of stigma on it as would occur later. This poo poo was top priority for Roman nobles though, and like most of Western society we are still trying to ape them as a way of proving we are just as cool (we aren't but they also weren't as cool as we think so it's a wash)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
President Kucinich posted:Haha sweet I was wondering where he went! i spent like an hour once tracking him across five different blog names to find CAMIB. totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:No you're not doing it right, the magic words are "I do not consent to this joinder" and then just start screaming "I DO NOT CONSENT" over and over until you get Fixed to reflect actual reality of being a sovcit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Fixed to reflect actual reality of being a sovcit. nah if someone tries to taser me while i exercise my rights then Dr Ron Paul shows up and kicks the tasers out of their hands while bathing the area in the Light of Liberty And then everybody applauds as we make out
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Also something about capital letters. Ever notice your name is in ALL CAPS on your ID? That's because it's not you, it's your government name. Humans don't spell their names in all caps so that must mean something. JOHN SMITH is a separate legal entity from the free human who calls him self John Smith. So you can safely ignore anything that spells you name that way because it's not you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:nah if someone tries to taser me while i exercise my rights then Dr Ron Paul shows up and kicks the tasers out of their hands while bathing the area in the Light of Liberty This post violated several of my natural rights
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also something about capital letters. Ever notice your name is in ALL CAPS on your ID? That's because it's not you, it's your government name. Humans don't spell their names in all caps so that must mean something. JOHN SMITH is a separate legal entity from the free human who calls him self John Smith. So you can safely ignore anything that spells you name that way because it's not you. And there's the whole naval law thing too, which stems from the term birth/berth certificate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
All legal arguments should be homonym based
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Trent posted:All legal arguments should be homonym based I don't think we should resort to name calling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Caros posted:How many attempts did it take you to get the arrow at the right height? 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2015 00:15
|
|