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?

The story of Pandora is very similar with the story of Adam. Both want to know something and somehow their acts of inquiry leads to the source of “all evil”. Is it truly evil or perhaps, illusion of evil, or perhaps awareness of evil, to be more exact?

Many have suggested that the forbidden fruit is really “sex”. Why?

Sex is always a sacred topic. Why sacred? Well, that’s because we call it that way. Why do we call it that way? Because we don’t want others to question our stories.

But why sex? We don’t call stock market sacred. Well, we sometimes call power as sacred too actually claiming that God or something beyond our power, control and comprehension, decide things to be the way they are, if we like those things.

Sex is indeed special. All of us are essentially selling the same product. Those who fail to sell themselves as sex objects will go extinct while those who succeed will inherit the earth. There is no alternative. There is no substitute product. We can’t just back of from that market and sell something else.

We can fail to sell everything else but if we manage to breed like rabbits, our bloodlines will still be the one surviving in the gene pool and will inherit the world and all the contents.

The way we evolve, when we’re not at war we’re in a race. To avoid quick death we either agree to be partially enslaved. Once we got our chance, it’s our turn to impose our terms on others.

Humans are quite likely not created and definitely not equal. A few generations from now, all that we achieve, all that we have gained, all wealth we have accrued, will go to the descendants of whoever makes the most kids. Call it tax, socialist revolution, genocide, lawsuits, redistribution of wealth, public school or whatever, all the wealth of the rich will slowly or quickly dribble down to those who manage to make kids. Yes, most will go to our kids. However, what proportion of future kids’ genes will be our genes?

In survival for whoever can find something that works, a few will be winner and get a few most beautiful girls. Fewer still will be big winners and mate with thousands begetting thousands of kids. Some will never mate. The rest settle for a stalemate called monogamy.

All of us will then want to win as big as possible. Whoever win, especially win big, will then do it at the expense of others. Most of us will try to win as much as possible and that means screwing everyone else.

Humans then do many things to prevent others from winning. Most societies have various ways to prohibit various consensual sex acts. Hence whichever humans have power over others can increase their reproductive success by separating their target market from tougher competitors. Poor countries have laws against inter religious marriages. Democracies have laws against polygamy and prostitution.

Those who are in power decided morality. The powerful are also the one that can utilize force more. It’s not a coincidence that the more countries are harsh on consensual acts, the more that countries are lenient toward non consensual acts. Those are just samples of societies where forces prevail over competition.

But still the biggest weapon humans have against another is the belief that all these doesn’t matter. Who do not want to get all the chicks while the rest of the world work slavishly and earn money for them? As much as possible humans want to trick all other humans to get the shorter end of the stick.

Those who question can understand. Those who understand can change the world toward his interest, which often means our expense. We don’t want change. So we don’t like questions. Hence, we call sex sacred. We said God created marriage and define that marriage according to our interests.

That is why any knowledge that might enlighten us to what’s really going on will always be a forbidden fruit. Norms and laws tend to look down upon porn and commercialized sex. The former allow us to dream a better winning life’s purpose. The second establish market price clearly pointing the objective truth of what humans truly want in sex, what they’re willing to offer or accept in exchange of it, and how much.

On the other hand, fairy tales that help keep most humans in the dark will be treated as holies. Those stories that can convince as many as possible to be nice hard working celibate monks, will be exalted to the highest degree.

Now, why sex is sacred again? Well, if life is a running race, we want to trick others to walk or crawl slowly. That trick is called morality. We do not want those we trick to know too much or question the social structure we create for them. Lest their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing what’s truly behind all this morality and hence, pecking order and power structure that govern their lives.

Those who are enlightened will not be so docile in the future. Why should the king get all the babes? If God don’t make him a king, does that mean I can be a king too if I successfully rebel? They then become dangerous. That’s, in a sense, source of all evil isn’t it? We call it evil because those we tricked no longer do what we wish.

[quote author=CB750 link=topic=6050.msg30328#msg30328 date=1255532407]
[quote]My point is opposition to consensual acts often have hidden motives. That hidden motives are usually to protect uncompetitive people from competition.[/quote]

Ok so then why would people oppose homosexuality? What does a heterosexual lose if a tiny portion of people are gay? I doubt its the loss of potential mating partners. What would be the competition here? I might also oppose bestiality even though I’m not worried about the love of my dog being lost to another. BTW I’m not comparing homosexuality and bestiality.
[/quote]

What I mean by the reason, is the real reason. Deep inside, hardcoded by genes. Not rational reason the actors are aware and definitely not discussed reason. People want to prohibit porn because they feel they need to do so. They feel that way because their genes hard wire them to feel that way. That’s an essence of selfish gene theory by the way. The genes, rather than individuals, are selfish.

As why people hate gay, I do not quite understand too my self. To me for every gay people there is one less competitor. Rather than opposing homosexuality, we should encourage it the way we should encourage abortion.

But there is a pattern. If one men get many the rest don’t get any. If it were like that (it’s not, but say it were), then it’s zero sum game. It’s like penalty kick. There will be no peace or honesty. The more we kick to the right the more we pretend that we kick to the left.

Turns out it’s not zero sum game. Women, or at least the joy of their beauty, can be “mass produced” via porn or more efficiently used via “prostitution”. Some males are homosexual so they don’t mind some males get plenty. Poorer males, would rather have more money rather than making more kids. And many people don’t put high dollar value in their gene pool survival that they want to abort their babies. All those are peaceful solution we should encourage. Guess what, why is it all those “peaceful” solution is politically incorrect?

Why every social norms against consensual sex tend to promote gene pool survival of the weakest, ugliest, and least competitive? Because norms are made by those with power, guts, and insanity to screw others and that kind of people are usually those who have little productivity to offer.

You know, at first I didn’t understand too why any women would oppose consensual sex. I mean I thought if monogamy are meant to ration females in equal share for everyone, then I can understand why males oppose sex outside life long monogamous relationship. But why would any women do? I discussed this in a british forum and most opposition comes from women, not males.

Then I figured that out. Western men are rich. Women prefer the rich. Hence western men are competitive. Men, I hang around okay. I asked a native javanese girl to meet and she said that she only want to mate with white men. I did try to convince her that white men don’t necessarily have bigger cock, typically have lower IQ (I think I am wrong here), I were rich too, and Asian countries are getting prosper. Let’s just say it didn’t work ;D. Well, she’s not as pretty as my girl friend and I didn’t think it’s worth to pursue. But I do learn something.

Needless to say, in poor countries like mine, it’s the male that opposes free sex. Religious bigots that go from places to places wanting to guard morality are usually males, poor males. In poorer countries like Afghanistan, women can’t even work. The richer the country, the more liberal the men are. This you can verify.

Of course, being weaker, women don’t usually speak clearly on what they want. If women do speak, they usually just confirm whatever prevailing norm in that society so she can fit in. So everyone pretty much undermine women’s consent under the pretext of protecting women because ALL women want it anyway.

It seems to me what matter is not whether something benefits males or females but where you are in the gene pool relative to others. Those relatively competitive sexually will be liberal. Those who are competitive financially will be conservative. And those who are competitive at both will be libertarian. Those who are not competitive will be want bigger government. Like this: http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com/RealityofHumanNature.gif

I mean it’s like arguments about socialized health care or income tax. People argue whether it’s good or bad, efficient, or not. That’s because they want as many votes as possible to their side. But let’s just face it. It’s not a cooperative game. If you’re healthy and rich you want privatization. If you’re poor and sick, you want socialization. The zero sum aspect is more influential than the cooperative one and understanding that will more accurately predict what people will vote.

Here is another way to see this.

The essence of libertarianism is self ownership, or so according to a libertarian website. Is it good? Well, how good your self is? If you’re pretty, rich, or smart, or capable, or whatever, then yea, self ownership is pretty cool. If you’re not, then no.

Another easier way to see this:

Rape is like income tax. They’re both a form of slavery, which is a form of robbery. Damage done is then proportional to how valuable things that are being robbed. Which one fear income tax more? The high income or the low income? Which one fear jail more? Programmers, brick layers, doctors, ceos, billionaires, or some starving hoodlum that’ll do anything for free food? I think this will correctly predict people’s voting behavior.

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

Just like a person will lay his life for 2 siblings, 4 cousins, or 8 nephews, the same way people would lie his life to exterminate those too antagonistic for their gene pool survival. Suicide bombers typically oppose free sex. At least, they’ll vote against it.

An ugly women are more likely to marry a poor male. So to her, rampant rape is probably a good thing at least for males that carry her genes. It’s the same reason why most liberals want more gun control. Their friends and families are burglars and will die if you own gun.

Imagine a world without capitalism, which is what the most of the world is before Adam Smith. Those are millions of years are when our genes are fine tuned through evolution. Those whose preference do not lead to gene pool survival, like celibacy, has been wiped out by mother nature through evolution. In those world, we live in a zero sum game.

What would you do in zero sum game? You gang with evil you know against evil you don’t. Our world is NOT zero sum game. But may not be as different as you may think.

Here is another way to think about.

1 out of 4 Asian males carry the same Y chromosome mutation with Gengish Khan. So what kind of humans are around nowadays? Just look at the kind of humans successfully reproduce in the past. Cruel, cunning, insane, greedy, promiscuous, vengeful, and mean. Now, another good question. What kind of human you want to be? The one that stays in the gene pool or the kind that will get driven out?

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.