Quote:

Originally Posted by amanda11 The Jews at the Federal Reserve won’t let this happen.

Stop antagonizing the best and brightest or you ended up like German in world war 2. That being said, the German and Napoleon were pretty nice to Jews in previous war before that and lost anyway. So don’t give them too many special privilege either.

I think the Jews are pretty reasonable people. There was once upon a time I was accused of damaging my dorms’ washing machine. Many knows I didn’t do it. No body spoke up. One did. She is a Jew. A professor that went the extra mile so I can keep going to school is a Jew.

There was a class I got an AB in Math because when I asked the professor how to get a good grade the prof simply said to work hard and try to understand. In the next class, I easily got the highest score. I scored perfect. The next best score was like 75 or something. The professor in that next class, is a Jew and I bet the prof in the previous class isn’t.

“But you were taking honor classes. The other students are very smart there,” said a mediating professor. What’s his point anyway? I tearfully explained how my other friends all got A but me. Then I have to further explained that they got A on THE university. That is, the university he’s working for, the university I was taking the class, the relevant one.

At that time I should have known my whole academic career is over. If only I knew how to start a biz.

Latter I took graduate math course straight without prerequisite while I only have 2 days to learn before mid and final. I got A easily and the professor is once again a Jew. Hell I’ll vote for Jews to rule the world . Just kidding.

A psychiatrist that helped me understand life was a Jew. A forum owner where I hang around a lot is a Jew. There are nice reasonable normal people all over the world from many different race that are nice to me. Why is it when someone is “reasonable” there is a high chance he/she is a Jew?

Evolution and prosecution force them to be smart and it’s natural that the smart and diligence earn more money.

Hell, if we keep breeding the smartest chimpanzees and slaughtering those that don’t figure out how to avoid it eventually they’ll be pretty smart too.

However, most cultures like Chinese or Europe have dysgenic laws that prevent the best and brightest from reproducing. Monks don’t get married. There is virtually no way a rich smart male in US can mate with women without risking his WHOLE money.

Pretty women’s choice are either free sex or full blown life long monogamous marriage.

In free sex, the women got roses and chocolate that expire quickly and they have to keep coming back for more. Evolutionary psychologists say that’s what makes chocolate and roses romantic.

In marriage, government is the pimp that enforce some form of price control to protect most voters from adverse effect of free fair competition. In marriage, the bitch got full life long monogamous commitment with exclusive supplier contract, exorbitant severance pay, and a blank check to have all her kids provided irrelevant of who actually knocked her up.

Too many “couples” would consensually choose somewhere between if the choices were legal and that’s why somewhere between choices are usually illegal or legally impossible.

The Arab is actually quite reasonable because they allow polygamy and contract marriage. Like the rest, those are not getting any also use religion or other supernatural out of this world explanation as excuses to limit sexual selection’s choice often far more violently. Well, the lesser cocks are hungrier in Arab I suppose.

It’s simple. If we truly are free to choose, we often choose someone else. We may even prefer to choose something else as in case of most males preferences to watch porn rather than marrying an ugly woman.

Those that won’t get chosen are often capable and jerks enough to make rules limiting our choices. Under NO country in the world men and women have right to choose their mate under ANY REASONABLE CONSENSUAL terms. There are just too many limitation that SERIOUSLY AFFECT SEXUAL SELECTION in favor of those sexually UNCOMPETITIVE.

Guess what? People think I am a delusional idiot. As always. As usual. As if what I am explaining is too outrageous to be true.

If you’re the best and brightest you just have to be complete jerks to win gene pool survival war in most cultures and most best and brightest people choose to be nice because they think they’ll win anyway despite their niceness. Minority groups like Jews in Europe or Chinese in Indonesia don’t have power or the luxury of killing each other and hence pick being competitive path more.

Those norms are created by and for economic losers that know they can’t compete with the best and brightest in the gene pool if they were nice. If not because of globalization, the world would be full with more and more angry socialists and religious bigots that enforce more bigotic norms. No wonder people become Nazis. Exterminating the best and brightest is how those bigot stay in the gene pool in the first place. Like father like son.

And don’t bother trying to understand their prejudice. The limit is imagination and the proof is faith. What is there to understand?

My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.

Maybe it’s true that ugly women also fear rape. Fine. That still doesn’t justify opposition to porn and other consensual sex. If someone rape, punish the rapist. Simple. Why they hell they have to oppose consensual acts like porn and prostitution that actually reduce rape rather than increasing it.

The fact is most women that oppose porn are ugly. It’s as if they are soooooooooo afraid of rape that they want to prohibit porn because it may cause rape. This while the pretty often become porn star. Something is missing. I am saying that’s not true. The real issue is not because the ugly are more afraid of rape. The issue is because they got hidden motives.

The same goes for anti polygamy laws. It’s there to protect poor males. Of course there are males that have so many wives he cannot afford kids. Solution: Punish males that don’t support kids and set child support payment to be constant irrelevant of daddy’s wealth. But nooo… Can’t feed them, don’t breed them. That’s not the solution people pick don’t they?

EASY. This is the essence of evolutionary biology. In free market, what a person want is simple. What he chooses.

It’s not simple in non consensual act like rape. It’s also not simple when there are too many rules against consensual acts. So we need a third leg in the equation best interest=what he wants. The third equation is that both, in general, are most likely equal with gene pool survival.

According to evolution theory, people fear something if it reduces their gene pool survival. How do rape reduces women’s gene pool survival? It undermines women’s “choice” to mate with higher quality genes and her bargaining position to get resources in exchange of her sexual favor.

Say 2 women are equally pretty. One of them choose a mate and got a millionaire. The other get raped and mate with a hoodlum. That decrease her market value. So she ended up marrying someone poorer. See how rape sucks?

So the true cost is the lost of opportunity for the woman to mate with higher quality males or getting paid for the sexual service. It’s like software pirating. If people can pirate software why should they pay for it? So women also lost potential earning she could have gotten through the sexual service.

Let alone disease, etc.

Dignity is also an issue. If people hurt you and get away with it, it tells others that it’s okay to hit you. This is how the Jews got exterminated. They didn’t hit back hard enough that people start thinking that it’s okay to screw Jews. Eventually it leads to genocide. The same way unpunished rape means males can “use” the women without begging, buying chocolate, paying, caresing, bla bla bla, so why the hell should any male do all those to get her?

The prettier the woman the higher the cost, quite obviously. Pretty woman then lose more to rape than an ugly one. So I conclude that relative to prettier women, uglier women fear rape less.

Keep in mind that’s not really the point. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t punish rape against ugly women. I am arguing that all consensual sex, like porn, prostitution, and consensual women trafficking should all be legal.

Can we quantify damage? Well, to quantify damage we need market price. To know the market price, we need the market. Prostitution is illegal, so no market. But once it’s legal, you’ll see I am right.

Here is a simpler way to see it. Pretty women’s choice matter more. Males are willing to pay more to have prettier women choose him. In general. Rape take away women’s choice. So rape hurt the pretty more than the ugly.

Let’s ignore morality for a while.

Imagine a world where morality is just bullshit we use to persuade others to be on our side, usually enforceable by might. A world, not much different than the real one, but lets’ presume it’s true for a while.

Because there is no morality, there is no right. There is only interests. People want to maximize their interest.

Imagine if a woman is ugly.

Everyone wants to maximize their interest, and evolution theory tell us that it means reproducing.

Now here is an ugly woman.

What is the greatest danger this woman will face in successfully reproducing? Rape? Think again…

Rape is probably not on top of the “fear list” for ugly women.

Her main concern is competition.

Now if that women can choose, which one she will want to criminalize? Will she want to criminalize rape or porn?

Think about it, superior women. Ups. I got to pick my words correctly. Prettier women. Oh no… Beauty is in the eye of beholder. More attractive women. Hmm… that’s subjective. Let’s just say better “target market magnets” display all her assets in front of everyone. What will happen? It’ll create a new “industry standard” of beauty the rest must follow. It’ll drive the ugly extinct.

Now, put your self in the shoes of the ugly women. Wouldn’t she want to prohibit that?

Porn and prostitution is probably the only 2 jobs that most women can do better than males naturally. What I mean by naturally is women actually earn more money there than males even though they are not helped by affirmative action, etc. Isn’t it strange that the jobs that women do better are the very thing often prohibited? Also women want to prohibit that. However, if we understand reality, seeing through all the confusing words and look straight at photographs of those non libertarian feminists, everything should be pretty obvious.