Dating coach banned from several countries after internet feminist outrage over misogynist vid

[pessimist]

This is in reference to WAR MACHINE (mma fighter) types

 

[pessimist]

That may be because these women have been with men who have these traits before and the men dominated them and they have learned to avoid those traits, even if they may find that at their base sexual attraction it was a benefit. Their conscious mind learned to stay away. Even though this new guy may not dominate women and may only dominate through intellectualism, wealth, status, they may see those traits as being intimidating still.

Dude you are very knowledgeable on gender relations. You should like write a book or something.

 

[pessimist]

"I know what women want, I just don't know how to get it, but here is how YOU can" - PUA

 

[erowe1]

Pessimist, it seems like this whole topic touched a nerve. I'm not sure what's behind your reaction, but it seems kind of strange.

 

[Dr.3D]

Pessimist, it seems like this whole topic touched a nerve. I'm not sure what's behind your reaction, but it seems kind of strange.

Could it be he is really a she?

 

[pessimist]

Pessimist, it seems like this whole topic touched a nerve. I'm not sure what's behind your reaction, but it seems kind of strange.

lol. No I'm just an emotional creature. And passive-aggressive. And like to amuse myself.

 

[pessimist]

Could it be he is really a she?

No, he is not.

 

[Dr.3D]

No, he is not.

Thought that would get a rise out of ya.

So what has your feathers ruffled?

 

[pessimist]

Thought that would get a rise out of ya.

So what has your feathers ruffled?

Arguing with someone on a different planet

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I wanna take you all the wwaaaayyyy bbbaacckkkk.....bbbaccckkk......baackkk.... (*echoes*)

People received their biological imperatives before there was a such thing as houses or wives. I'm talking about tribal times when it was absolutely essential that women be protected by a strong man in their tribe, as well as being a part of a tribe which is strong. Women were not doting housewives, they helped gather and prepare food, heal with medicine, make blankets and other items and most importantly raise children.

Men hunted and protected the tribe and their women. While no doubt optimally they would want to be with a guy who was nice to them but dominated the tribe and helped their tribe dominate other tribes, or at least ward them off, women were in fact often better off with a man who dominated them, told them what to do and protected them over a man who let his woman or children be kidnapped, raped, tortured and/or killed by an opposing tribe. So they looked for these traits primarily in their sexual selections for millions of years for their own protection. They want a guy who is strong and can organize or lead other men to help create a larger group to protect each other. We just started growing grain like 10,000 years ago and that was around the time societies began growing much bigger, and humans have not had a lot of time to evolve beyond that.

No doubt there were women in tribal times who may have wanted to hunt or even fight, although it was probably pretty rare that they would. So ya, everybody is different, but in order to understand humanity as a whole and why people act the way they do is by finding commonality.

Just curious where you got your time machine from, as you seem quite knowledgeable about ancient human behavior. Have you personally observed the behavior of people who lived 50,000 years ago? You are essentially implying current human behavior and social structure (the relations between the sexes) is the product of natural selection, but this presupposes that ancient behavior is analogous to modern behavior, and that natural selection is the only force that shaped our destinies. When your whole argument rests on something that is not directly observable, that is a problem. You cannot throw these claims out there and expect people to believe them with no evidence. It's not just common sense; it is something that has to be proven if you are to be taken seriously. The question remains, how are you able to prove that tribal social behavior is innate and not the product of their own culture?

You are using a fallacious argument when you take modern behavior, translate it into hunter-gatherer life and assert that the hunter-gatherers' behavior can somehow explain modern behavior, while taking as given the assumption that modern social relations are the product of natural selection. Of course your argument sounds good when you've managed to sneak its conclusion into its method. It's nothing but circular thinking.

Furthermore, even assuming we knew for sure how ancient humans interacted, it is scientifically shoddy to base thinking on analogies. And even if your reasoning were true, why are you being so deterministic? Humans have the capacity to change patterns of social thought, and so even if there were a biological basis for this behavior, it wouldn't consign us to having to tolerate it forever.

 

[erowe1]

Just curious where you got your time machine from, as you seem quite knowledgeable about ancient human behavior. Have you personally observed the behavior of people who lived 50,000 years ago?

Back in caveman days the man carried around a big club shaped like one of those fat whiffle ball bats, and when he found the woman he wanted, he clubbed her over the head with it and dragged her back to the cave by her hair. This is common knowledge. You can even find cartoons depicting it.

Do I need to pull a Ronin and prove the accuracy of this by linking you to a google search?

 

[Danke]

Back in caveman days the man carried around a big club shaped like one of those fat whiffle ball bats, and when he found the woman he wanted, he clubbed her over the head with it and dragged her back to the cave by her hair. This is common knowledge. You can even find cartoons depicting it.

Do I need to pull a Ronin and prove the accuracy of this by linking you to a google search?

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Back in caveman days the man carried around a big club shaped like one of those fat whiffle ball bats, and when he found the woman he wanted, he clubbed her over the head with it and dragged her back to the cave by her hair. This is common knowledge. You can even find cartoons depicting it.

Do I need to pull a Ronin and prove the accuracy of this by linking you to a google search?

Oh, I'm sure it happened. I'm just curious as to how dannno knows this sort of behavior is a biological imperative and not simply the product of hunter-gatherer culture. I am sure evolution factors into human conduct, but his argument is inadequate for understanding the relationship between the biological and the social. The very essence of human freedom is that we are able to create our own history and thus overcome our evolutionary heritage.

 

[erowe1]

Oh, I'm sure it happened.

I actually doubt it. I was just joking.

 

[pessimist]

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I actually doubt it. I was just joking.

It really is a silly argument, isn't it? I was trying to be as charitable as possible. But even if that were at all an accurate depiction of the caveman days, it still doesn't change many of my other points.

 

[Wooden Indian]

No doubt it works. But it's more about the confidence shown than it is about anything else. Not being afraid of them is a turn-on for most women because it shows you must have something going on and like she may have to prove herself worthy of your attention.

That said, banning a man from your Country for the things he has said is about as stupid as can be.
Good grief. Ban him from your home because he's a douche... not from your nation.

Kill millions in warfare... no problem! Talk about women in a misogynistic way... BANNED!

Brilliant.

 

[pessimist]

No doubt it works. But it's more about the confidence shown than it is about anything else. Not being afraid of them is a turn-on for most women because it shows you must have something going on and like she may have to prove herself worthy of your attention.

That said, banning a man from your Country for the things he has said is about as stupid as can be.
Good grief. Ban him from your home because he's a douche... not from your nation.

Kill millions in warfare... no problem! Talk about women in a misogynistic way... BANNED!

Brilliant.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I was not familiar with the picture, so I actually looked him up. He's an MMA fighter who's had his share of run-ins with the law. He's done pornography. Looks like he just attempted suicide.

It also looks like his parents split or divorced. He lived with his mother, who was a drug addict/abuser. His father was a police officer in the L.A. Police Department.

Seems to me that one or two scenarios are possible contributors. His father committed his share of domestic abuse, something generally more common with law enforcement than the population at large. The other scenario is the absent father who was not there to teach his son how to be a man, a role model, and a proper human being. This MMA fighter did live his mother only. He moved in with his father at 13 years of age. His father died shortly after the son moved in, so I'd say the second scenario of absent father is likely.

I rest my case from a few pages back.

Then again if his father was a cop, well, this one was probably doomed anyway.

 

[nobody's_hero]

So have I and it makes me wonder how people can think evolution is true. If evolution is true, we are heading in the wrong direction with people breading for the wrong reasons.
It's not survival of the fittest, it survival of the dirt bags with the punks out breading the decent folks.