Women may marry men who lack power and money but they always trade up and never trade down. Thus, the males must have some valuable intrinsic qualities that the women needs. A woman would never marry a man who was in a lower social/economic position, especially if it was in a work situation.
Women are responsible for the genetic improvement of the human species. Thus, it is only by their selectivity, that the human species can progress. God help us poor males!
Women [insert broad generalization], whereas men [insert broad generalization], therefore [insert broad generalization].
I’m a philosopher. 
flexes
Can you tell I’ve been lifting weights?
That is black-and-white-thinking. If the qualities of the males are not inside of the body, then they must be outside of the body. This “black box” can never be proven or disproven. Great, Puppy, good boy.
[tab]
[/tab]
Said the Darwinist, while the Marxist, the Nietzscheanist, and the Freudianist clapped their hands. Your statement shows that the Darwinism is more an sociological/economical than a biological theory. No surprise to me, because Darwin was a Malthusianist, and Malthus was an economist.
Why should “a woman never marry a man who was in a lower social/economic position, especially if it was in a work situation”? The theory of your false god is false, at least partly false.
You are talking about the “sexual selection” of your false gods. Do you want to murder the women who do not select the “fittest” men?
Nonsense. Shall god or “god*s warriors” murder the women who do not select the “fittest” men?
In those paper bags you’re lifting there, what’s that moist dark brown stuff you’re packing?
I see proof every day. You must observe what is around you. Look at all the couples that you know personally and in great detail and you will see that there is a certain balance of personal qualities which is always slightly in favour of the male. That is, the female will have an aggregate of less wealth, skill, talent and power than the male in all cases. Whereas, the female uses her attractiveness as a genetic weapon and bargaining tool to obtain the best mate. It is generally a cold hearted decision making process of which love is the last and least important criteria. Thus, love is an over-rated Hollywood based concept which has little to do with the generally cold and dispassionate mating processes.
Marx, Freud and Nietzsche were all psychopathic nut cases. So its no surprise to me that you admire them and use them as examples of merit and worth.
Malthusianist - Someone who is concerned about population growth and food supply? What has Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche and Marx got to do with food supply and population growth?
I have never seen a woman have a work based relationship with a man who was in a lower position. Note - Partly false is also partly right! 
I don’t have to murder them, nature will do that for me!
You must observe what is around you. So you have to come out of your puppy nest. Maybe you are just too young to observe, puppy. But, however, you have to open your eyes before you observe. Or are you blind?
I did not say anything against it.
I did not say that I admired them and used them as examples of merit and worth. I am saying that Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud are very similar. Have you not read my text?
Could you read that this time?
You have not read my text. Or are you not capable of reading? This is what I said:
Could you read that this time?
Again: You have to open your eyes before you observe. Or are you blind?
Additionally you often contradict yourself. An example:
Did you get it?
Note: “at least partly false” includes the possibility of “absolutely false”!
What is so funny about that?
Define Love, you probably mean “selflessness and altruism” yes?
I would agree that females are inherently more selfish than males. This is common in nature since females are the “house” and body of a specie (type). A group with 1000 males and 1 females must reproduce very slowly. A group with 1 male and 1000 females can reproduce very quickly. So females are naturally “worth more” than males. This leads to the idea of male expendability. Males are expendable, relatively worthless (cannon fodder) compared to females. It’s rare for a female to meet a male who is actually “worth more” than her. This is how females look for traits like “confidence” and “shit test” a male who she finds attractive.
Phoneutria recently “shit tested” me on one of my threads. She failed, women cannot respect men who “put up with their shit”. Females seek out males who are “higher worth” than themselves, which is rare, especially in globally civilized, emasculated world societies.
Back to the point, presuming by “love” you mean selflessness and altruism, it should be obvious that males are more “loving” than females automatically, due to male expendability. A young man, coming to terms with “gender inequality”, realizes he is worth almost nothing compared to an average woman, what is his reaction? Society forces humility onto males which coincides emasculation and domestication. This is the reason why major, popular religions, make selflessness into “Morally Good”. People applaud it, but, they don’t respect it.
Most males are selfless and altruistic (“loving”) because major, popular religions (christianity) has domesticated men for thousands of years now.
The difference between men and women, is that women are never expected to be selfless and altruistic. That is too unrealistic, too divergent from nature. It doesn’t even register on people’s mental radars, for women to be “good, kind, loving” except to their own biological children. Not to men, though. And less kind than to non-biological children. Females cater to their own kind (family), first and foremost.
Notice how Phoney even mentioned “my dad can buy you out” in this thread. Point proved. She’s no different than any other, below average, female.
The truth of it is that women can become almost pure love more easily than men, but they cannot hold onto it as easily as men. Males are notably more stubborn, whether for good or bad. Males do not change their mind as easily and thus cannot learn new attitudes as easily. Women are merely more persuadable, an attribute without which the human race would not exist. And thus the current nihilists go to great lengths to persuade women to be less persuadable; less loving, more selfishly stubborn (new-age femnazis).
Lemme explain humor again to the folks in the handicapped section ( xfzgrwql )
No, I said I can buy him and all he owns with a day’s pay. Intended to mean I do not need a man for money because I make plenty.
And I did not shit test you. I called you stupid, because you are.
A woman screeching “I don’t need a man!” who is she trying to fool? (answer: herself)
The higher priority concerning love from a woman is not in obtaining it, but in maintaining it. The deeper it is, the less easily it is lost. But it is always an issue of the environment vs the man.
Women innately want to love. But in a man’s world of devious warring for control of all things, women have very little to say concerning how they behave or what they actually acquire.
The man who wishes to keep the love of his women must be extremely alert, adept, and prepared to ensure that love at every moment through his understanding, awareness, influence, and spirit.
No love is ever deeper than that obtainable from a woman. But no love is more easily lost.
A less whiny/effete, more scientific take on the subject:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5OnPJoZG8A[/youtube]
So yeah, women are incapable of love, but that’s just what they evolved to be. Men should be aware of that not to get their hopes too high up, but shouldn’t hate women for it no more than one would hate a dog for barking.
But, who, and how?
They don’t know. That is why it is up to you. They are persuadable because they do not know why they want and they also are uncertain as to exactly what to want for. How the universe works is NOT their innate specialty (not that males are particularly good at it). They are willing to be subdued even when they are not. They are willing to learn even when they don’t. They are willing to do what they hate, even while they are hating it. And they are willing to love even when loving seems completely nonsensical.
If you hate women, you are merely fooled by those who wish women to behave in a way that you would predictably hate. If you want it to be different, it doesn’t really take much of a man to alter his own close environment, although changing all of society would take far more.
The bottom line is that women really are as loving as men cause them to be. And that is the end of that story.
Not for money, idiot.
That is the entire point of the exchange.
Joker asked how much for my love.
I answer I do not need to sell love.
Idiot.
Phoney, why try to hide a cheap sell? You can fool all your “friends” in day to day life, but not here…
Average face, below average brain
Whatever you say, idiot.
Phoney just one more quick question before I’m done with you…
Would you, kindly, link me one…just one…response or thread that you’ve posted on this form, that is in anyway “philosophical”. Just one will do, thanks.
And if you cannot, then ask yourself, why, the fuck, are you here?
xyfsomethingsomething. If I may present exhibit A: the sequence of exchanges that occurred between LaughingMan and Phoneutria on page one.
You’ll see that Phoneutria’s first post in this thread was innocuous. Then you must consider how it could be possible for Phoneutria to feel slightly offended by LM’s response to it. Keep in mind the delicate content of the thread; one of those threads where all the male posters bash women and all the female posters rush in to defend themselves against the allegations about women in general.
Whether or not Phoneutria in particular is ‘attracted to wealthy men’ or whatever the premise is of this thread is, is beside the point at the moment. The thread had already turned sour before your exchange with Phoneutria, and to reinforce the premise that she, in particular, ‘needs a man’ or is incapable of sustaining her own well-being by herself, only provokes more hostile interaction between her and the male posters.
Is she attracted to wealthy men or happy to be married to a man who isn’t a dead beat? Perhaps, but that isn’t the argument here. The argument you are making at this point is that she needs a man. I don’t think she needs a man at all. She has a man, but doesn’t need the man, you know what I’m sayin’?
Remember: she said nothing insulting or disrespectful to anyone when she entered this thread. Somebody poked her, and they were venomously disarmed. Pretty simple, really.
Perhaps…
But she did not deny the accusation of the OP, that women are incapable of love. She has not addressed any real points or arguments, really. Instead she posted a neutral “I am here, I am female” response, typical of women.