Insane Levels of Denial

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

www.city-data.com/forum/relationships/2170721-why-do-older-guys-hit-younger-31.html

The level of denial here is sickening, but should be expected with such a simple issue.

[JACK-2]

Nobodies going to gun for 30+ women as a norm. Why is the internet filled with crazy people?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 8:17:03 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Nobodies going to gun for 30+ women as a norm. Why is the internet filled with crazy people?

The guys that do are men that aren't that desirable and can't do any better. Or they're just looking for easy access. Women saying they "still got it" at that age just shows the sense of denial and entitlement of the majority of westernized women.

This is why I say go after the 9's and 10's. The 4's, 5's, and 6's are usually women who are unattractive, average at best, or chunky, and think they're all that because of the beta manginas who suck up to them.

It's old.

[JACK-2]

Pretty much, in Japan and South Korea if you aren't married by 30. Your chances of getting married are much lower because your market value drops significantly. This is called Christmas cake syndrome. I say 30, but it's closer to 25. The analogy is like Christmas cakes after the 25th of December. Nobody wants them anymore.

Female sexual market value peaks at their 20's while males peak much later. That's why most female sex symbols become irrelevant in their 30's while alot of male sex symbols are well in their 40's.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 8:43:03 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Pretty much, in Japan and South Korea if you aren't married by 30. Your chances of getting married are much lower because your market value drops significantly. This is called Christmas cake syndrome. I say 30, but it's closer to 25. The analogy is like Christmas cakes after the 25th of December. Nobody wants them anymore.

Female sexual market value peaks at their 20's while males peak much later. That's why most female sex symbols become irrelevant in their 30's while alot of male sex symbols are well in their 40's.

Yes, because even actresses have their peak years. I mean a white woman looks her best from like 16-23 or somewhere in that range. I see girls I went to school with and they already have crows feet. Many are fatter, have kids, etc. These women are for less desirable men who can't do any better.

The average man is beating off women with a stick, but they can at least increase their value through other means like money and status even if they're ugly. They can also stay viable until they're dead. Women can't. Some men get women their entire lives because they have everything.


Women have to be realistic about this like their grandmothers were or women in other countries were and drop this "I can do it all" attitude.

[JACK-2]

How can they?

Most of them won't even accept that feminism was a scam in order to tax the other half of the population. We live in a society that cares more about people's feelings than facts that can sustain our society.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 9:43:22 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

How can they?

Most of them won't even accept that feminism was a scam in order to tax the other half of the population. We live in a society that cares more about people's feelings than facts that can sustain our society.

It was basically using women as a stepping stone to allow more government in our lives.

Just like this pro gay, minority, transgender, etc stuff.


"Feelings" don't make the world go around. Shit needs to be done.

[JACK-2]

Feb 21, 2015 9:56:25 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

It was basically using women as a stepping stone to allow more government in our lives.

Just like this pro gay, minority, transgender, etc stuff.


"Feelings" don't make the world go around. Shit needs to be done.

This is why Democracy sucks. Crap like this allows for Government to grow bigger and bigger like a parasite all while representing the peoples will via voting. Government should have limitations that never change.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 10:03:00 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Feb 21, 2015 9:56:25 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

It was basically using women as a stepping stone to allow more government in our lives.

Just like this pro gay, minority, transgender, etc stuff.


"Feelings" don't make the world go around. Shit needs to be done.

This is why Democracy sucks. Crap like this allows for Government to grow bigger and bigger like a parasite all while representing the peoples will via voting. Government should have limitations that never change.

This is why most people should not be voting. Try taking that from them now though. You would be demagogued.

[JACK-2]

Feb 21, 2015 10:44:08 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

This is why most people should not be voting. Try taking that from them now though. You would be demagogued.

Women shouldn't vote period and young people because they're so impressionable.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 10:46:40 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Feb 21, 2015 10:44:08 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

This is why most people should not be voting. Try taking that from them now though. You would be demagogued.

Women shouldn't vote period and young people because they're so impressionable.

I'd rather have it so that productive intelligent people can vote, regardless of other outliers. I mean black people vote overwhelmingly socialist too.

People who are well informed, well read, and knowledgeable about freedom would be better, even if I have to give up my vote. What's the point of everyone voting when they just vote to steal and yours is canceled out.

That said the most productive and informed of society tend to be productive men. There should be tests and we should have a more republican form of government.

[JACK-2]

So, vote based on IQ? But, even smart people vote socialist. Voting in general is just an invitation for disaster. I rather have no voting power if it means we won't have large voting blocks that feed big government. Democracy is the worst idea in the history of mankind.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 11:10:08 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

So, vote based on IQ? But, even smart people vote socialist. Voting in general is just an invitation for disaster. I rather have no voting power if it means we won't have large voting blocks that feed big government. Democracy is the worst idea in the history of mankind.

I said well informaed as in they understand economics and how money and productivity works. People who sat in a classroom and were just brainwashed and have no real world experience might think they're "smart" but they're more brainwashed and naive.


I don't want everyone voting, but the founding fathers had an overall good idea. People had to have literacy tests, actually be contributing to society (no government workers or moochers), and understand what was going on. Many people are ignorant and vote.

[JACK-2]

A prerequisite is fine as long as smart people are voting and laws are hard to change.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 11:42:11 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

A prerequisite is fine as long as smart people are voting and laws are hard to change.

Well the barriers are intended to make sure the best and most informed who were actually contributing to society were voting and not people trying to steal from each other.

I mean people say "smart" they usually mean "some guy who is in school with a degree", sadly many of those are ignorant.

We're supposed to have protection from this by the courts, but they just back whomever is in office at the time for their own "progressive" agendas.

[JACK-2]

What about age? I don't feel safe if 20 year olds are voting.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 12:56:41 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

What about age? I don't feel safe if 20 year olds are voting.

It shouldn't matter if they're competent though. Is a 50 year old voting for more social security a good vote just because they're older? Not sure why we have an age restriction in our current system; we don't restrict anything else and most people don't know much and many don't contribute.

I mean you can have a 24 year old who works and is more competent than a 30 year old bum. I'd rather that person vote is what I'm saying. A 6 year old won't be doing anything productive and won't have that much knowledge anyways for it to be an issue.

[JACK-2]

So, literacy and competence?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 13:19:36 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

So, literacy and competence?

Literacy, competence, and contributing to society. It makes no sense that a person that produces jobs, pays lots of taxes, and has a lot of knowledge about the economy should have his vote canceled out by some welfare loser. That said if we're assuming that people are not able to steal from one another I'd want people who've been exposed to the real world and have some skin in the game. I prefer we just have a sales tax.

That said; in regards to women. They shouldn't be able to vote and not sign the draft. They shouldn't get to vote without signing, that or men shouldn't have to sign the draft period. That's blatantly unfair.

[JACK-2]

So, an oligarchy? That sounds good imo, certain societies had that in the past where rich nobles would elect a king to represent them and their interest. Just as long as everyone is not voting.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 15:31:48 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

So, an oligarchy? That sounds good imo, certain societies had that in the past where rich nobles would elect a king to represent them and their interest. Just as long as everyone is not voting.

You don't necessarily have to be rich. In our older society we only really had a sales tax that everyone paid.

I'm more concerned about competence and being productive. None of these "buying votes with special perks".

A republic was supposed to be elected officials (which is what we were). If the government couldn't steal it wouldn't be as big of an issue, but the lax voting is what caused this to happen.

[JACK-2]

Do you think that a reliable system of voters is possible? Even if it was, I think what can be voted for should be limited to expenditures. Not changing rights and make some up.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Feb 21, 2015 20:51:31 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Do you think that a reliable system of voters is possible? Even if it was, I think what can be voted for should be limited to expenditures. Not changing rights and make some up.

Nothing is completely perfect but you can limit it as much as possible. Look at the quality of civil servants we had in the past vs what we have now. Huge difference.

And I already agreed with you there. We were never intended to be able to vote to steal from our neighbor. Limited government is the best government.

It's annoying when people say "the constitution is a breathing document that changes". That basically means "we can just do what we want" which was never the intention anyways.