Post: #76

(07-10-2015 02:30 PM)la_mode Wrote:  - Stable 2 parent households being essential

Some of the biggest clowns I've met come from stable, middle-class to upper-middle class households. In terms of social skills, some of the most impressive guys I've met were raised by single mothers or went back & forth between households, i.e. biological mother/stepfather household or biological father/stepmother household. ... What people fail to realize....stable 2 parent households typically have significantly more rules and instill guilt at every possible moment, especially in boys.

(07-10-2015 04:50 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Stability is different than a kid turning out socially outgoing. Stable 2 parent households oftentimes do produce more socially introverted males. There's no data for this, it's just my own observations. You can disagree. The average nerd is probably from a stable household for example.

Hmm... this is interesting and never really thought about that. Of the few 'naturals' I know, their biological dads were playas but didn't live with them. Though I do know one exception to this rule who is both a smart cat (nerd-ish) and extroverted that is from a stable household, but again, the dude is exceptional.

You're also equating introversion as a negative trait, which is a pretty American thing to do. And in my personal opinion, misguided. There are benefits to introversion, and if you peak the Myers-Briggs thread here, there are a lot of us. Hence why many of us still believe in a 2-parent household as the best option for kids, not to mention so many billionaires coming from such households. This applies to girls or boys, but as you imply, especially girls. There is a whole other gender in which introversion is extremely highly valued, at least in my eyes. Get that loud bitch out of my face.

You could have gone about this a little differently, some points are good, but you came in guns blazing and trying to mow down everyone in sight, on topics that have been debated endlessly in other threads. Sure there are crazy mothafuckas here that you'll never see eye-to-eye with, there is a bit of a hive-mind fo sho, but if you've truly read 'everyone' here and don't find yourself agreeing with some of the more levelheaded members, there's something wrong with you.

Post: #77

(07-10-2015 06:40 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  Get that loud bitch out of my face.

Post: #78

Here's a way more bannable offense. I wear shorts and flip-flops all summer and I like when girls do the same.

Post: #79

(07-10-2015 04:23 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  I actually agree with the OP with everything he said (minus Putin who is probably the best politician since Thatcher).

Tattooed women are hot. That's an unforgivable thing to say in these parts.

Goddamn traitor.

Post: #80

(07-10-2015 07:00 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 04:23 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  I actually agree with the OP with everything he said (minus Putin who is probably the best politician since Thatcher).

Tattooed women are hot. That's an unforgivable thing to say in these parts.

Goddamn traitor.

If you're referring to the Putin remark...

"Where freedom is...there is my country." ~Benjamin Franklin

Post: #81

The only reason to like tattooed broads is the fact they are easy.

Post: #82

(07-10-2015 06:35 PM)whoishe Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 04:23 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  I actually agree with the OP with everything he said (minus Putin who is probably the best politician since Thatcher).

Tattooed women are hot. That's an unforgivable thing to say in these parts.

But I see tats as an automatic slut marker. And I like sluts.

What's more, women with tats tend to be a bit more free spirited/interesting...just more fun to be around.

So every year there is more and more free spirited/interesting girls around, we should all be happy then

Tattoos on women are one of the best "herd mentality" examples you can find in 21th century.

And like it was mentioned by a few posters before, there is no girl who got more attractive after getting inked.

Personally for me it's a huge turnoff (much worse than short hair), but I can understand people having more relaxed opinion on it.

Doesn't mean she got less attractive...

Usually, it's neutral. I don't get a boner because a woman's all tatted up.

That said, it's a strong indicator that she might be a slut. And I like easy women. Does that make me strange?

I still maintain...that well done tats...increase sex appeal on both men and women.

Just because most people get shitty ones doesn't in any way reduce the art form. And yes, gents, it's an art form.

Bring on the gifs.

Post: #83

All this guy did was take an AK-47 to a bunch of strawmen. The most ridiculous one being the fact that he knew a couple of good kids from broken homes meant that a two parent household is not ideal. Then there's the false choice point of a fat young girl or 'cougar,' without recognizing that both are suboptimal for longer term relationships, for different reasons.

The only decent point he made was the anti SJW thing, but even that is a strawman given that we don't live in a vacuum and if the cultural mores are heading down an unsavory path, it's better to at least be informed of it than caught off guard.

Post: #84

Is this LM McCoy 2.0?

Post: #85

well at least this didn't turn into a race thread.

Post: #86

Well, I see the OP is banned. But if his plan was to go out shooting from the hip, I think he missed a big one.

Namely, the logical disconnect between guys decrying tatted up chicks who ride the cock carousel...only to jet off to locales like Ukraine...and then complain about the lack of ONS.

That kind of intellectual inconsistency has reached pandemic proportions around here.

Again though, I'm only raising this to show the OP's missed opportunity. It doesn't necessarily reflect my feelings in the slightest.

Post: #87

(07-10-2015 07:32 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  well at least this didn't turn into a race thread.

But it's not too late!

Post: #88

(07-10-2015 08:37 PM)Chick Magnet Wrote:  Well, I see the OP is banned. But if his plan was to go out shooting from the hip, I think he missed a big one.

Namely, the logical disconnect between guys decrying tatted up chicks who ride the cock carousel...only to jet off to locales like Ukraine...and then complain about the lack of ONS.

That kind of intellectual inconsistency has reached pandemic proportions around here.

True.

Same goes for looking for feminine and more traditional women in general and hoping to avoid being a more traditional men, like paying for dates.

Post: #89

(07-10-2015 07:32 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  well at least this didn't turn into a race thread.

Give us some time.

Race or Nazi's. It always happens...

Post: #90

I just got thinking... Which may be dangerous...

Quite frankly, if a large percentage of the populace was NOT seriously upset about the direction the country is taking, Trump would be laughed out of the building.

He's not being laughed at by anyone other than the media.

While getting big and growing crowds.

I've said here and in person, the "silent majority" does not the like the direction of this country. Trump is tapping into that.

The other republicans can ignore this at their peril.

Post: #91

(07-11-2015 04:48 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I've said here and in person, the "silent majority" does not the like the direction of this country. Trump is tapping into that.

The other republicans can ignore this at their peril.

He's tapping into the silent majority who were going to vote republican regardless of the candidate. I thought the republicans needed a good portion of the latino vote to win a general election? Trump is the perfect candidate to allow any democrat to walk into office.

Post: #92

^^^yeah, this is why the Democrats love it when he's in the news.

Post: #93

(07-11-2015 04:48 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I just got thinking... Which may be dangerous...

Quite frankly, if a large percentage of the populace was NOT seriously upset about the direction the country is taking, Trump would be laughed out of the building.

He's not being laughed at by anyone other than the media.

While getting big and growing crowds.

I've said here and in person, the "silent majority" does not the like the direction of this country. Trump is tapping into that.

The other republicans can ignore this at their peril.

Agreed, I remember in...2008 I think? all of the home made "ron paul" signs that were put up in farm fields etc in Wisconsin at least that you could see from the interstate. Yet those people weren't on the news or occupying wall street

Post: #94

(07-11-2015 04:48 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I just got thinking... Which may be dangerous...

Quite frankly, if a large percentage of the populace was NOT seriously upset about the direction the country is taking, Trump would be laughed out of the building.

He's not being laughed at by anyone other than the media.

While getting big and growing crowds.

I've said here and in person, the "silent majority" does not the like the direction of this country. Trump is tapping into that.

The other republicans can ignore this at their peril.

I think that's probably right. The trouble is, we had a similar thing here with UKIP, where it got masses of support in the run-up to the election, and looked on course to do really well, only for people to go back to their standard voting habits when the time came.

Perhaps the most telling example here in the UK was that the Labour seat of Rotheram (MP and council), on whose watch 1400 children were sexually abused by Muslim gangs, was returned with an increased majority. I don't know of any starker illustration that most people are partisan to a fault, moronic, and will jump lemming-like with the rest of the heard, rather than try to strike out and do something bold. I would not be surprised if despite all the support, when the time came, Trump did not get the votes you'd think he should based on current popular support.

Post: #95

I agree with a number of the OPs points.

The way he delivers them however is just plain bad argumentation however. I can't learn anything from someone who can't make a case for a point of opinion without it sounding like whining.

Post: #96

(07-10-2015 07:32 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  well at least this didn't turn into a race thread.

Post: #97

Well - he was banned justly, but more on the basis of those things:

- he used the term "binary" to explain healthy heterosexual father-mother bonds - only feminists, SJWs and some new MRAs are doing that - it is a sign that he is deeply steeped in anti-Game dogma or is a woman
- he exalts the virtues of 30+ women and claims that some look hotter while being 12 years older. They don't. This is not even for debate. Women simply cannot look better at 30 unless they have lost weight or had a severe case of acne at 18. But those factors have nothing to do with their age. A woman ages and so disappears her magic - even more so, when you fuck them up close. They smell differently, they feel differently, they are more cynical, more bitter and most experiences have not made them hotter.
- he starts calling us gay or right-wing SJWs

Listen - you can disagree and I personally for example have no illusions about Putin. I prefer his outward machismo and open declaration of family values, but that's about it.

You can disagree here all you want, but have to remain respectful when doing it. Of course defending some opinions will be difficult, because you have to back it up somehow. I have defended some unpopular opinions here myself, but had plenty of data, studies, links, hard facts and experiences to back it all up. And I have no problem with guys disagreeing with me.

In fact we should disagree on some points, because we are not clones - we are all different and we should question things. I disagree with Roosh or Rollo Tomassi on minor points, but I value their input nonetheless. I know that they have their own faults and that we all should differ in some areas. But we should also recognize those things that join us as an ideological rebel army while we are surrounded by the sea of social justice crazies out there.

Post: #98

Prefers for there to be broken homes, prefers for a head of state to support LGBTs, prefers older women which he would not if he could get younger women, sides with fatties/ He's talking about the Boy Scouts and frat parties too for some reason?

Why do feminist liberal SJWs do this? It's their right until they get banned, but why? We don't set up deep cover troll accounts on Jezebel or Huffington Post.

Post: #99

(07-11-2015 05:13 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  Prefers for there to be broken homes, prefers for a head of state to support LGBTs, prefers older women which he would not if he could get younger women, sides with fatties/ He's talking about the Boy Scouts and frat parties too for some reason?

Why do feminist liberal SJWs do this? It's their right until they get banned, but why? We don't set up deep cover troll accounts on Jezebel or Huffington Post.

they have vapid boring lives and thus live their life out on the internet. It's the main reason I don't take them seriously, that and their blatant disregard for logic and biological truths.

Post: #100

I think the Bin Laden saying, "people will follow the strong horse" is either trotted out too often or misused.

Taking ISIS for example. Every so often we hear stories of European girls going to fight. Well they are often European by nationality and not ethnically or culturally. And tend to have been radicalized by their family.
But I have seen comments chalking this behavior up to the Strong Horse notion. When it's really just "my tribe uber alles."

In fact, I actually think most people in the West don't actually see ISIS as scary. It is too far away and not a credible threat to Western military might as their miserable confrontation with Delta Force demonstrated.
So in a way, the West's impotence in combating this threat (a self inflicted wound to be sure) does not translate to weakness for most people.