James L Walker wrote:Looks like this thread got moved because it pisses off the liberal, socialist, and conservative regulars of this website despite evolutionary psychology studying biological behavioral patterns being very observant.
Kriswest wrote:It is the male that chooses violence because the woman is horny,
Trajicomic wrote:Kriswest wrote:It is the male that chooses violence because the woman is horny,
Women love violence and you know it, Kriswest. You know it, because it sexually arouses you if it occurs. But it does only occur when a woman is worth fighting over. So it doesn't happen to all women, but, a select minority of sexually attractive or very valuable women. Some women are worth dying for. Others aren't. The ones that are worth dying for, know that they love violence, and want to see much more men, women, and children die in their name, in their vanity. Women are this shallow. Men aren't. Men are the ones who dislike war, because we are the ones who fight and die in it. No women, no wars.
Women could stop war and violence on Earth if you really wanted to.....but you don't. So this proves the fact.
Kriswest wrote:ROTFLMAO, yea, right. And hetromen love football, a homoerotic sport if ever I saw one.
Kriswest wrote:If a female stands to the side of two males fighting over her, yes she is invested in the outcome, yes there are perverted females who do get turned on by that crap.
Kriswest wrote:but the natural one just kicks back waits for the right one to finish , then goes off with him. She wants the most suitable provider for her nest, thats it no more, no drama nothing.. prove you are the best and you get the nest.
of course, I agree. I can't see my post as melodramatic, I am challenging an extreme idea: that women control men, end of discussion. I would never argue that women don't manipulate or that some significant percentage are attracted to violent men or soldiers, etc. It's his blanket blame of women for war I find ludicrous.Kriswest wrote:Yours like his is melodramatic and yes his is has truth. women do control and manipulate the male. Buuhh duuh..
Sure, but saying 'women cause war', period, is just silly.Gee all species the male is led around by his hormone sniffing head. the fanciest noisest cock gets the hen/s. The females rule the roost though, not the rooster. The Rooster follows the lead hen not the other way around. The human female says "I want a nest" Horny human male will go get her the biggest best darn nest he can anyway he can. The female knows this. Once the nest is set up, the female claims it as her home and the male best wipe his feet. The female cares not if another female's nest is taken as long as she gets the nest for herself. but this goes for most species on this planet. the cocky little male rooster will brag about his prowess in order to breed. It is all simply genetics and nesting.
James L Walker wrote:Looks like this thread got moved because it pissed off the liberal, socialist, and conservative right wing regulars of this website despite evolutionary psychology studying biological behavioral patterns being very observant.
No, you are. I'm rubber, you're glue.Trajicomic wrote:Moreno wrote:Women cause war by being projection screens for men's hallucinations. Instead of dealing with their fears of sexual inadequacy or not being lovable, men make assumptions about what women really want and then structure society to reflect this as much as they can. Men have done incredible damage by avoiding feeling their fears, transforming the anxiety into both action and anger and seeing other men as rivals and blaming women for not loving them. This huge freight train of momentum gets built up in society and men rush away from their fears without remembering this is the impetus and then blame women for the horrible sense of panic underlying their machinations.
How dare women exist and be desirable!
You're stuck in your selfish, egotistical delusions.
I haven't found this necessary in my sex life. I am sure there are some women who need this to get wet, but I think you are universalizing strangely.You have yet to see how men are desirable to women, and for which reasons. Killing, raping, and murdering, in a woman's name, is what wets the human female's crotch faster than a garden hose.
Wait, I am supposed to present an 'argument' to rebut your statement of opinion? Let's see you make an argument first. How about some research into women getting turned on by rape, killing and destruction. You know that this is in any way a general pattern.And I know, what women want. Women want violence, death, destruction, in their name! So don't you fucks dare tell me you "know" something when you don't know jack shit. If you truly disagreed with me, then you'd present some sort of rebuttal of SOME KIND. Instead you know every word I'm telling you is correct, is true, is "evil", and it is evil because it's true, and it's true because it's evil.
Romantic idealism? If I don't believe, say, all dogs secretly kill babies, does that mean I romanticize dogs? Or idealize them?Truth is evil, sometimes. And many more pathetic minds here will never accept this absolute fact as a remote possibility. But your ignorance is my advantage. And I can use this knowledge against your romantic idealism. I can use your ignorance about life, facts, and truth, all against you.
[/quote][/quote]You are right, I have no idea how to compete with my own ideals. In fact I would consider that a category error. I can compete against you or a basketball player, say, but competing against my ideals - which are not relevent to this thread - is an activity I cannot even imagine. What do me and my ideals compete in? Chess, marathon running? I am not sure ideals can run or even indicate moves in chess.Kriswest even admitted that I am true. And she knows best. So you're all wrong, to disagree with Kriswest. You're not intelligent enough to know how to compete with your naive, childish ideals.
Trajicomic wrote:Men don't like dying and killing. But war is necessary. War is a fight over resources. But men do not live lavishly. Men live poor, usually.
Women cause war because women want to kill off other groups of women. War involves murder, often of other women and children. So if women really "hated war" and "wanted peace", then women would prevent them from happening. But they don't. Women are greedy and want lots of excess resources. Women want to drive their infants around in SUV, gas guzzling road tanks. Women are driven by instinct. Women want as much resources for her children as she can squeeze out of a man. Sometimes what we have is not enough. This is when women want men to go to war for them, for oil or gold in far away lands, so that men can steal these resources from other people, and give it to the women and the children.
Women are heartless and actually love war. They love the thought of men fighting and dying, for them. Stealing, raping, and killing, for them. Because women are simple beasts who need to "feed the greed". If women truly wanted to "end war", then they would 1: quit being so damn greedy, but they can't because that's their instinct, 2: quit feeling horny for violent, dominant men who kill other people, but they can't because that's their instinct, 3: keep their legs closed to soldiers and murderers, but they can't, for reason number 2.
Final word, women love soldiers. Women "love a man in uniform". Why? Because the military uniform signals that this man is a rapist, thief, and murderer. But the uniform is "covers" that all up. Women intuitively know what the uniform means though. And women get wet for this. Women want men to kill in their name.
If women were less greedy and malicious, then the world would be a better place with less war. The problem is, women are secret murderers who inspire their men to kill for them. War is women plotting the death of other women. That's what it's truly about.
I wouldn't be surprised if I get in trouble for speaking this TRUTH on a PHILOSOPHY forum. But whatever, I'm done here, enjoy.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]