Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
Because a portion of females use sex as a commodity. A commodity is less valuable when given away. That is why they despise girls who “give it away” since males don’t need to go to them for attention, males can go to these easy females for attention.
That is correct. Now we’re getting somewhere. Females despise girls that are giving it away.
So as I said, the problem is competition. People do not like competitors giving more attractive offers
I look at it a different angle. Not as much as other females giving it away more cheaply but giving something better. Ugly women hate prettier girls.
But our idea is essentially the same. The issue is competition.
Now, if a girl choose to “give it away”, it’s her right right? It’s her body. Maybe she get something out of it. Maybe not. But it’s her right. So why would some other females oppose that? Simple. They don’t want to compete with girls that are more capable and/or willing to give more attractive offers to males. We’re on the same page on that one.
That is not a descriptor of good or bad. That is a descriptor of what benefits a person in their situation. Good or bad are always universals, good or bad are not relative. You’re confusing wants with good and bad. Yes poor people will vote to take money and property from rich people since it advantages them to do so. But that does not mean its good, it just means it benefits them at that moment. Another example is theft. Rich people don’t mug people for wallets, poor people do. That does not make theft good for poor people because theft benefits poor people more than it benefits rich people.
Ups. Language barrier. I forget that objectivitivist think that good or bad is objective. I used to think that way before. Let’s use less controversial language, like interests and benefits then.
As you said, “it benefits them at that moment”. So poorer people will want higher income tax, for the same reason ugly women would want criminalization of porn. “At that moment it benefits them”. No amount of proof, or reasoning, no matter how true it is, will make them vote differently.
Even if you can give them math and more math and statistic saying that you’re right, they’re just going to close their eyes, scream “does not” and quote religions, fairy tales, or whatever other nonsense to maintain their believe, that bigger government is good for everyone.
Errr… I won’t touch the rape comment with a 10 foot pole. There exists no condition in which rape is good for someone. As for gun control, liberals tend to want gun control due to their Hobbsean view of humanity. They usually think people are essentially evil and left unto themselves will destroy each other. Therefore only a state with guns can exist since the populace cannot be trusted to defend themselves. Also, if one governs themselves and has the power (gun) to back that up, they cannot easily be centrally controlled by the state. I doubt liberals are worried about being shot per say. More they are worried they cannot exert power through the state on others if others are armed.
Rape is of course
good, ups I mean, benefit the rapist. If it doesn’t, no males would rape.
ANYTHING people do they do it because they believe that it “benefits them at that moment”. And their beliefs maybe way more correct than what you think. This is the essence of our difference. I think seeing that stealing is “good” for the thief can lead to many correct prediction, like that some people, if not most, would steal in absence of laws.
Here are some quotes to help us see reality
“The arrangement you describe would definitely be disadvantageous to men (even though us dumb guys would probably think it sounded like a great deal). The problem is, for every guy with two ladies, there’d be a guy with none. If you want a stable society, you don’t want too many unhappy guys with no partners.” – Michael Snyder http://cocksofthealphamales.com/
David Friedman and Steve Sailer have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that doesn’t provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer uses it to argue against legalizing it.
This same result of polygamy is used to justify it as a way to improve the genetic characteristics in a population. The logic being that women will generally tend to marry men of wealth and health. Wealth has a high corrolation with intelligence, thus polygamy has the effect of increasing the intelligence inside the population that practices it.
In the US, the Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.
Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy also support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.
In Uruguay the “Colorado Party” supports polygamy.
Mmmmh… How the hell David Friedman, and Wendy go into wikipedia and I am not. Well, I am anonymous. So yea. Never mind then.