how does one respond without sounding mad?Law 1: ValueNature is objective, and everything in nature, including men and women, possesses an objective value. That value is fixed by the economy and the market; it is not granted by self-belief or personal standards.Law 2: AbilityMen surpass women in every decisive domain: physical strength, mental capacity, and emotional fortitude. For this reason they command the military, the police, and every crisis that demands peak performance, for the alternative is extinction.Law 3: ContributionThe sole things a woman can offer a man that he cannot obtain for himself are sex, intimacy, gentleness, femininity, and offspring. Everything else he can secure alone.Law 4: AchievementNature did not fashion men to value a woman’s achievements, status, wealth, career, politics, or education. None of these serve a reproductive function.Law 5: PromiscuityMen instinctively regard a woman of many sexual partners as fouled, violated, broken, soiled, and used. This response is not a social construct; it is written into male biology.Law 6: AccessWomen choose with whom they will sleep. Men choose with whom they will marry.Law 7: AffectionMen and women differ in the proofs of affection their natures demand. Women require emotional security; men require physical touch. These needs are neither interchangeable nor mutually exclusive.Law 8: PowerA financially successful man with abundant sexual options has neither economic nor biological reason to bind himself to one woman, and he never will.Law 9: IndependenceWhat has been built or achieved in solitude requires no companionship to be sustained.Law 10: WarningA civilization built upon feelings rather than reason will not endure the cataclysms of history.
>>540053410Borrrrrrriiinnnnnggg aaanddd stytupppiidd
>>540053410The first point doesn't make sense. Look at how many different prices gold sold for today; if its value were objective and fixed then we should expect to see a horizontal line in this graph.
Men are more emotional.They resort to violence often.
>>540053723Emotional violence between women is more common than physical violence between men
>>540053410It's all a social construct. Zero mad.
>>540053410>Nature is objective, and everything in nature, including men and women, possesses an objective value. That value is fixed by the economy and the market; it is not granted by self-belief or personal standards.That's commie talk. Marxists believe that labour has an objective value. Meanwhile, capitalists believe labour has only the value that someone else is willing to pay for.
>>540053818Economy runs on energy, energy is not magic nor a social construct. Its amount doesn’t change based on feelings
I dont respond because I dont read it, because this is the same type of shit I've heard a million times
>>540053410femboys and artificial wombs make women completely irrelevant.It's not Adam & Eve, it's Adam & Adam's rib if you catch my drift. Modern science is already very close to being able to use the genetic materials between two men to create new life; the only thing holding us back is foid's wombs.
>>540053410I dunno you assume that you are some kind of superman.Women would absolutely own men in terms of emotionally manipulating them in gross means.Not just by their ability but by the way they "place" them.
>>540053881By "placing" i mean a man has to maintain a certain how do i call that "posture" women dont.Lets say all things are equal they would still win like a coin that is rigged.
>>540053881Emotional manipulation is performed by women unconsciously because it is their main survival weapon. An instinct that controls you is an instinct you have no control over.
>>540053873You’re a bot
>>540053864the fuck are you talking about? Of course economy is a social construct. Economy wouldn't exist without society.
>>540053881"You cant hit me because i m a girl!"But certainly they can emotionally abuse you and noone gives a fuck. You cant hit her bro.I can put her into a padded cell.
>>540053955Who is she? Your mother?
>>540053938The economy of many lambs can be caught and killed by how many lions requires no presence of society
>>540053979Brother let me ramble.
>>540054045Last time i went to reddit, there was a question a rather not so nice one and if you would ask someone with a face, then you could only lose answering this question:Why are there so few women grandmasters or why is a bitch rambling about why are women paid less in chess when it is not a physical game (at least for the most part).It is in fact just an incentive that now is treated like the wnba or in plain speak "we want more money and you are a bad person if you dont agree."
>>540054159IF you cant make out a common sense reason just say "all men are sexual abusers."Problem solved.Men are the perpetrators and women are always the vicitims just like rape.
>>540054203You know you can make posts with multiple paragraphs? Then you dont need to respond to yourself
>>540054203Even if the game is equal in terms of material you always have the worse position.I think i just suck at openings or sometimes i dont see things. I also try to preserve material when in an endgame this doesnt matter when you just can promote a queen.
>>540053410I’ve read the list. I’ll engage with the ideas directly, not attack you.These “laws” sound definitive but collapse under basic scrutiny. They mistake assertion for evidence, and they blur description with moral prescription.Value and “the market” – Markets price labour, not human worth. If value were purely economic, a newborn, a retiree, or a stay-at-home father would be worthless. We both know they aren’t. The word value is being used in two different ways, and the switch goes unnoticed.Biology as destiny – Many claims appeal to “nature” or “biology” as though they were instructions rather than observed tendencies. Even if a statistical average exists, it doesn’t dictate what any individual must do, nor what is good. Men’s aversion to a partner’s sexual history, for instance, varies enormously across cultures and eras—if it were purely “written into male biology,” that variation wouldn’t exist.Counter-examples matter – Universal statements like “he never will” bind himself to one woman are disproved by a single real-world exception. Wealthy, high-status men who choose monogamy are not rare. Sweeping absolutes usually signal ideology, not observation.Feelings vs. reason – Opposing “feelings” to “reason” is a false choice. Empathy, fairness, and moral intuition aren’t weakness; they’re the basis of laws, diplomacy, and social trust. Civilisations don’t fall because they care about human wellbeing; they fall when they become rigid and detached from reality.In short, the list of "laws" borrows the language of science but doesn’t follow its methods. I respect your right to hold a different view, but these statements don’t withstand honest testing. Happy to talk further if you’d like.
>>540054294Not that i follow laws to the dot. However if you know that in "game theory" you are fucked, you try to do what is best for you.Laws only work if almost everyone is "on board" and there is a sense of fairness.
>>540053818Percieved value is the basis for supply demand dynamics. It's still based in objective value, but it has the human filter applied. Regardless, Marx didn't live in a time of rampant speculation like the modern day. Also, in Marxist theory, the use value is the objective quality of the product, it's uses, but this has little bearing on the price. Think about it, dirt is the cheapest thing in the world, yet it is also one of the most useful, because you can grow food with it, or make pottery, or extract minerals, etc, simply because it is so easy to harvest. Whereas something like a pearl has only aesthetic usage, yet it is very expensive simply because of it's rarity. Remember, money is the great mediator that acts as the standardization of value across society. That is the only true purpose of money. To represent value. And what is value? It is relative opportunity balanced by the labor it takes to capitalize it. If one person values a product in the possession of another, then he exchanges his own reserve of socially recognized value, money, to purchase it. It is a roundabout way of trading with labor power(which is itself the capabilities balanced by working time, with a lot of leeway for exploitation by employers and bankers, the providers of money, because humans aren't simple mathematical models). Of course, someone has to want something to purchase it. But perception is often flawed and misaligned with true value, both to the self(use value) and to the production cost(market value). Hence funko pops. The belief that a product is necessary to purchase is also a value judgement, just not a market one, but rather a question of personal value in one's own life.
>>540054294I think value in OP text is strictly material and not moral.Counter examples don’t matter when statistics exist.Monogamy of rich men incudes man side bitches and secret lovers
>>540054294>>540055026Oh and I’m not aware of a single civilisation that values female promiscuity
>>540053818There's also a contradiction coming from the fact that the market is not objective; demand is based on subjective preferences. Giving moral authority to the market is a democratic theory of truth: Things are true based on the consent of the masses, whose beliefs are manufactured by the powerful.
>>5400534101 - nothing is fixed, this couldn't be further from the truth. Valuations fluctuate every day2 - "they command the military, etc" outdated and obsolete already3 - nope, look at female HR people. They can grant a man employment. That is not part of the list4 - this has some merit but again examples can disprove. A self made fit millionaire woman vs some drug ridden obese race mixer woman, there is no comparison. Women's decisions do matter for them5 - Agreed6 - This is a stupid way of thinking of it. Both parties are cooperating in both fields, it is not 100% either one doing everything7 - sure why not8 - "and he never will" again limits the capacity of an individual choice in the matter. What if that is his goal? 9 - I don't see any correlation between the two, why are they beign compared10 - ok sureThere were some reasonable things mentioned, but author often makes too broad swipes, casting individuals to be in the exact same fate as a group they are a part of. Also it is outdated as women DO occupy major positions of power and jobs, etc.
>>540055539>nothing is fixed, this couldn't be further from the truth. Valuations fluctuate every dayDebt and casino economy are not real value. It’s a promise of value that maybe will be obtained in the future >"they command the military, etc" outdated and obsolete alreadyStill fully relevant. 5 women in a unit of 5000 men is not proof to the contrary. The reality on the ground is that chains of command that include men and women result in a lot of problems, sexual misconduct, favoritism, and violation of orders>nope, look at female HR people. They can grant a man employment. That is not part of the listHR serves the interests of the company, not the interests of the candidates>A self made fit millionaire woman vs some drug ridden obese race mixer woman, there is no comparison. Women's decisions do matter for themThis is not an example of decisions, it’s an example of health. Health is important for reproduction>This is a stupid way of thinking of it. Both parties are cooperating in both fields, it is not 100% either one doing everythingThe truth is in numbers, not in anecdotes>and he never will" again limits the capacity of an individual choiceIndividuals do not represent patterns or statistics>I don't see any correlation between the two, why are they beign comparedThere’s no comparison in law 9>casting individuals to be in the exact same fate as a group they are a part of.Laws are generalisations based on how the world works. Not personal anecdotes>Also it is outdated as women DO occupy major positions of power and jobs, etc.In organisations created and maintained by men
>>540053798Women also hit more. Women are overall just more emotional and spazoid. Men actually accumulate and withhold a lot of trauma before exploding into a rage. Maybe men would be better inclined to bully and nag more to limit the build up which typically spills out with more extreme violence as a consequence.
>>540056361With this logic in mind it means that If we allow men to slap women, it will lower the already rare, more extreme beatings and murder.
>>540053818>Marxists believe that labour has an objective valueno, marx talked about socially necessary labor time. this is a cheap straw man. so that would be labour which objectively has value already. not some pointless exercise like digging holes and filling them in, which would still be labour but not socially necessary labour.
>>540053924it's not unconscious at all. it's premeditiated. it has to be. if you are tricking someone, by definition you have to know the truth, and the false representation of the truth being presented to another simultaneously. this itself displays premeditation, and awareness of this premeditation. i think people tell themselves this because they can't ever bring themselves to believe that women can outsmart them. they practice in the mirror and take selfies for hours on how to have the perfect facial expression for the occasion. they see another woman manipulate their man, and three seconds later use the exact same tactic on theirs with a smirk.this is just throwing tantrums until they get what they want.even dogs are manipulative, ask any husky owner.
>>540057919>it's not unconscious at all. it's premeditiated. it has to beDo you know why lost women don’t trust each other and don’t even trust themselves?While this isn’t a problem between men
>>540057746Civilization only really works if it is warring and expanding. Peace is a joke and ultimately death from idleness and complacency. Humans should be taught not to fear death. Get it out of your system. Fear is worse than any vice in terms of enslaving man. I’d say government doesn’t matter because it is slavery and weakness (people get soft, decadent, degenerate), but it is an unavoidable consequence of superior specimens consolidating strength and it staves off its own form of species degradation i.e. information, intellectual wise. This government is good, in so far as it allows humans to potentially evolve to smarter and greater animals. But war is still needed and all great nations were nations of war as it keeps men masculine, keeps nation productive, culls the weak and stupid, demands logic, and pushes innovation.
>>540058049>Do you know why lost women don’t trust each other and don’t even trust themselves?>While this isn’t a problem between menidk what you mean by lost women, and i don't think women trust each other very much at all, since they are always plotting against their friends and jockeying for positionand men are super untrustworthy, especially in the presence of a female. men will do anything for even the slightest bump in social status. and every person from lithuania has been a dyed in the wool, full bore, turbocharged, cocksucker. even ones of lithuanian descent have been super machiavellian. i'm really trying right now to think of a time another man hasn't violated my trust, nothing is coming to mind.
>>540058458I meant most women not lost women And no, trust is one of the main reasons why military consists of men and not women
>>540053410What's there to respond to? It's all true.
nothing you stated has anything to do with natural law.
>>540058345the chinese mentality is different. read your sun tzu, a fast and easy read. the prefaces in these books are usually longer than the original text. he said that a country never benefits from a protracted war. going to war is the worst thing for civilization in most cases, as it diverts resources and top talent to unproductive tasks. wars are great for money lenders, arms dealers, and speculators, though. basically the worst part of society is benefitting there. actual currency was invented to pay standing armies. everyone has to give the government a set amount of these tokens each year in the form of tax. you can read about this in david graeber's debt, the first 5000 years.https://archive.org/details/DebtTheFirst5000Yearsso more war, more standing armies, equals more tax.china right now is leading the world in just about every technological sector. it seems that a long period of peace has spurred innovation, not stifled it. just measure your ideas against reality, and see how they hold up. things that might sound logical at first blush turn out to be nonsense. logic never tells you if something is true, simply that it has internal consistency.>culls the weak and stupidnot really. usually the most athletic and intelligent people are selected for infantry roles. you lose a lot of good genetics in wars. the ones who stay at home unfit for service are the ones reproducing. war is very dysgenic. you can have the best genes in the world and still get hit with an artillery shell, or nowadays, drone. how is ukraine doing? they should be fully ubermesnchen by now, but no, they are vanning old men while the country spirals into decadence. this has substantially and permanently weakened the country of ukraine. it's not going so good for russia either.
>>540058625>And no, trust is one of the main reasons why military consists of men and not womenthis doesn't mean that men all trust each other, or that militaries are only men because of trust. none of that follows.i do think that introducing women into an all male environment like an army is disruptive and counterproductive, as per the pic i posted in my last post. men become concerned with sexual gaming, and constantly trip each other up, destroying any trust which might already exist. idk where you get the idea that men all trust each other, or why you're ignoring the rest of my argument.whether or not someone is trustworthy depends on their individual character.
>>540059040>this doesn't mean that men all trust each other, or that militaries are only men because of trust. none of that follows.It’s about military honor and suspending your self-preservation instincts in favour of comrades.It is a scientific fact that women have stronger self-preservation instincts than men do. Women even complain about this constantly.But that’s what is necessary for effectiveness in crisis situations
>>540059247military honour isn't trust.the first is something held by an individualthe second is something held between individuals. no even sure how we ended up here, the original point was whether or not women are conscious of their manifold manipulations, and they most certainly are.
>>540059247and here's some male trusti was just walking my dog and some prick in a diesel pickup just rolled coal on me and my dog. there were also 2 homicides in the last couple of days, and there's nothing but broken glass pipes and litter everywhere. all kinds of junkies on bikes with crowbars looking for shit to steal. how much should i trust these people?
>>540060436Conscious manipulation requires strategy Strategy requires high enough IQ Most women don’t even know the difference between strategy and tactics They operate on autopilot. Their instincts and emotions control them. And when you bring up their mistakes they break down crying. They’re just walking chaos incarnate
>>540060624Organise them into a gang under your leadership and then come back to this discussion
