The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
You Must Not Replace You! (Part Two)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Per SFG’s request, the subsequent graph compares self-reported happiness among single men without children to married men with children. The happiness gap is even wider among men than it is among women on these dimensions:

Additionally, the percentage of single men without children who report experiencing poor mental health (defined as “stress, depression, and problems with emotions”) in the last month is 43%. For married fathers, it the figure is 34%.

The usual admonitions about correlation not (necessarily) being causation apply, of course. But anti-natalism propaganda pieces like this must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

GSS variables used: SEX(1), HAPPY, MNTLHLTH(0)(1-30), MARITAL(1)(5), CHILDS(0)(1-8), YEAR(2000-2018)

 
Hide 257 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I wonder if they polled Fotis Dulos.

  2. EH says:

    How happy are the taken-to-the-cleaners divorced dads with kids they rarely see, despite being the ex’s “child support” slave? That’s almost as common an outcome as dads that live with their kids until they’re 18.

    Family law and child support in particular is so stacked against men that it takes a fair bit of irrational optimism to become a father. Debtor’s prison if you don’t pay up; de-facto, amounts can only go up, never down; no forgiveness under any circumstances – and she is under no obligation at all to spend the money on the children. If the kids turn out to not even be yours, tough – you’re still on the hook for the full term.

    Making family law so biased against men is a major way of suppressing family formation. Going back to older laws will be needed.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Choose wisely (for love, not lust) and have a prenup that includes shared custody.

    That said, it is a monstrous problem.
    , @Rosie

    Debtor’s prison if you don’t pay up; de-facto, amounts can only go up, never down; no forgiveness under any circumstances – and she is under no obligation at all to spend the money on the children.
     
    That's because the money is not intended to cover expenses that are particular to the children. Child support is intended to cover living expenses of the family as a whole, in the manner and neighborhood that the child is accustomed.

    Going back to older laws will be needed.
     
    No.
    , @Mark G.
    Child support is often set at a level to maintain the lifestyle the child is accustomed to. Since the mother lives with the child, though, it also maintains her lifestyle at the same level as when she was married. Since she maintains the same lifestyle whether she stays married or not, this provides an incentive for her to leave. Men look at this and see only a downside and no upside here and don't get married in the first place. This is an example of women not really thinking and supporting divorce laws that benefit them and not considering that men can just not get married and have children with them in the first place.
  3. No doubt Jill Duggar’s husband is in the “very happy” category. Jill is a sweet lady, and her input is most welcome in this degenerate age, but 3 or 4 times per week? Really?

    Anyway, she is right in her general assertion that wives ought to make ourselves available. Still, a little tact would go a long way. We don’t need to know about the frequency of Jill and Mr. Jill’s conjugal relations. And for heaven’s sake, we have euphemisms, like “intimacy” and “quality time” for a reason, m’kay Jill?

    I can’t help but think that public frankness about sex contributes to its casualization in the culture and in our consciences. Historical norms of silence, or at least, respectful obliqueness, were much more respectful. Christians should set an example, not join in the degradation.

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jill-duggar-dillard-sex-week.amp

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I mean Agree, that 4 times may not be enough ...


    ;-}

    .

    EDIT: I just clicked on your link and saw the picture.. 4 times per US Census interval would be fine for me.
  4. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    I am surprised by these findings. Conventional wisdom tells us that most (but not all) women are made happier by having a stable marriage and a child.

    But conventional wisdom also tells us that most men love being single, and not having the responsibilities of caring for a wife and a child.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    What time frames are we pulling these conventions from?
  5. @Rosie
    No doubt Jill Duggar's husband is in the "very happy" category. Jill is a sweet lady, and her input is most welcome in this degenerate age, but 3 or 4 times per week? Really?

    Anyway, she is right in her general assertion that wives ought to make ourselves available. Still, a little tact would go a long way. We don't need to know about the frequency of Jill and Mr. Jill's conjugal relations. And for heaven's sake, we have euphemisms, like "intimacy" and "quality time" for a reason, m'kay Jill?

    I can't help but think that public frankness about sex contributes to its casualization in the culture and in our consciences. Historical norms of silence, or at least, respectful obliqueness, were much more respectful. Christians should set an example, not join in the degradation.

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jill-duggar-dillard-sex-week.amp

    I mean Agree, that 4 times may not be enough …

    ;-}

    .

    EDIT: I just clicked on your link and saw the picture.. 4 times per US Census interval would be fine for me.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I mean Agree, that 4 times may not be enough …
     
    Gross.

    I find myself increasingly unable to see sex as anything other than a sublime act of co-creation or a filthy act of degradation, with little space in between. The trivialization of sex in our faces at every turn rules out the first possibility, leaving only the second. Increasingly, I'm just grossed out by the mere thought of it. Perhaps there is some sort of biological change afoot that is causing this sense of revulsion.

    Either way, I think the cultural atmosphere is at least aggravating the situation.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRcG3GQBDyQ&feature=youtu.be&t=90
  6. What this is really saying is that the people who wanted kids and had them as well as the people who did not want kids and did not have them are equally happy. Its the people who wanted kids and, for whatever reason, could not have them who are unhappy. Ditto for those who really did not want kids, but had them anyways.

    With regards to having or not having kids, I think the black dragon blogger has the best advice: Do not have kids unless the intensity of your desire to have them is at least eight on the one to ten scale.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    With regards to having or not having kids, I think the black dragon blogger has the best advice: Do not have kids unless the intensity of your desire to have them is at least eight on the one to ten scale.
     
    That might well be the very worst advice I have ever heard one human being give to another. I have literally never, ever heard of a person having a child and then regretting it. The same cannot be said for the converse.
    , @Travis
    I had no desire to have children. Partly because I fell for the propaganda and mostly because it was never something I hough much about. When i became engaged, my wife and I had no interest in having children. But when she turned 30 she suddenly wanted children, and we decided to have one. It was such a great experience we had 2 more. My biggest regret in life is waiting until I was 35 to have children. Should have started at 28 and had 4 or 5 kids. My children are my greatest joy in life today.
  7. I can’t help but think that a significant fraction of both groups are lying. There just aren’t that many happy people in the world. Happiness reports in the 80-90% range are fairly doubtful.

    • Replies: @dvorak

    Happiness reports in the 80-90% range are fairly doubtful.
     
    A lot of men are content, aka happy.

    So many so that it infuriates women. Why is it so easy for guys to be content?

  8. @Abelard Lindsey
    What this is really saying is that the people who wanted kids and had them as well as the people who did not want kids and did not have them are equally happy. Its the people who wanted kids and, for whatever reason, could not have them who are unhappy. Ditto for those who really did not want kids, but had them anyways.

    With regards to having or not having kids, I think the black dragon blogger has the best advice: Do not have kids unless the intensity of your desire to have them is at least eight on the one to ten scale.

    With regards to having or not having kids, I think the black dragon blogger has the best advice: Do not have kids unless the intensity of your desire to have them is at least eight on the one to ten scale.

    That might well be the very worst advice I have ever heard one human being give to another. I have literally never, ever heard of a person having a child and then regretting it. The same cannot be said for the converse.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    My comment comes from this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/01/29/decision-whether-not-kids/

    and this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/04/02/the-decision-on-whether-or-not-to-have-kids-part-2/

    I don't have kids myself. However, based on my personal observations as well as my personal objectives and long-term planning, I consider this to be rational advice.

    Your mileage may vary.
  9. @Achmed E. Newman
    I mean Agree, that 4 times may not be enough ...


    ;-}

    .

    EDIT: I just clicked on your link and saw the picture.. 4 times per US Census interval would be fine for me.

    I mean Agree, that 4 times may not be enough …

    Gross.

    I find myself increasingly unable to see sex as anything other than a sublime act of co-creation or a filthy act of degradation, with little space in between. The trivialization of sex in our faces at every turn rules out the first possibility, leaving only the second. Increasingly, I’m just grossed out by the mere thought of it. Perhaps there is some sort of biological change afoot that is causing this sense of revulsion.

    Either way, I think the cultural atmosphere is at least aggravating the situation.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Increasingly, I’m just grossed out by the mere thought of it.

    TMI

    Historical norms of silence, or at least, respectful obliqueness, were much more respectful.

    Maybe you just need someone like Thor hitting on you to light your fire.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Sex is being taught to young people as something that is for pleasure only. Birth control and abortion means that you can indulge forever in this great feeling without having any icky responsibilities to take care of! And after all, who wants that. Just relax and feel the dick sliding into you.

    What's healthy is for young people to be married young, at age 20 or 21, and to start fucking right away in a monogamous way. Humans need sex, but when it's in a marriage this is good and will produce children. Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.

    It's very sad but many, many women are so broken from the high number of dicks theyve taken, and they are literally no longer able to pair bond with somebody. Well, I guess thst means they just have to keep fucking...
  10. @Rosie

    With regards to having or not having kids, I think the black dragon blogger has the best advice: Do not have kids unless the intensity of your desire to have them is at least eight on the one to ten scale.
     
    That might well be the very worst advice I have ever heard one human being give to another. I have literally never, ever heard of a person having a child and then regretting it. The same cannot be said for the converse.

    Rosie,

    My comment comes from this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/01/29/decision-whether-not-kids/

    and this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/04/02/the-decision-on-whether-or-not-to-have-kids-part-2/

    I don’t have kids myself. However, based on my personal observations as well as my personal objectives and long-term planning, I consider this to be rational advice.

    Your mileage may vary.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Here's where I stopped reading...


    That’s bad enough, but having a kid with your OLTR or OLTR wife creates even more limits on your freedom.
     
    https://youtu.be/CQ-QfMv7Fzw
    , @Audacious Epigone
    What does "rational" mean in this context? We have an understandable bias towards consciousness existentialism. How does legacy factor into that? Is caring about what you leave behind after you're gone an extreme version of low time preference? I don't think so. Or if that's all it is, our species is in big, big trouble.
    , @Mark G.
    If not having children is rational then I'm glad my parents weren't rational and had me anyway.
    , @SFG
    He doesn't make terrible arguments, given the child-support and divorce laws. They really are rough on men, or the 'male-identified' if you are an SJW.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn't address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass? You can't *guarantee* your kids won't stab you in the back or dump you in an old-age home, but if you have enough at least one is likely to serve as an advocate for you if you don't crap on them too much. You can hire skilled nursing staff, but they're unlikely to care about you as much as your biological flesh and blood.

    So: would you rather have a better life 30-60 or so, and then much worse 60 on? I can see arguments either way to be honest.

    I suspect that's one of the reasons Roosh went God-pilled and you don't see too many old players extolling the lifestyle on the Internet, but I could be wrong on this note.

    Again, issues of legacy and cultural continuity and so on are a separate matter, and I won't speak to those.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce, and part of happiness is living in accordance with your natural programming, then his reasons would be less important than the endorphins and dopamine and serotonin and so on you would get by living in accordance with your natural desire to have kids. (It's also quite possible that Blackdragon has a weak reproductive drive for whatever reason (values his freedom more highly) and so he is maximizing his own happiness by not doing so.)

    After all, we've all seen people come up with reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway; if reason is something we developed to convince others rather than understand the universe (with science just being a 'hack' of our natural persuasive ability), then it would be a less accurate guide than the traditions we've 'evolved' over centuries, since in most cases you'd be convincing yourself to follow whatever impulse you wanted to.

  11. @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    My comment comes from this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/01/29/decision-whether-not-kids/

    and this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/04/02/the-decision-on-whether-or-not-to-have-kids-part-2/

    I don't have kids myself. However, based on my personal observations as well as my personal objectives and long-term planning, I consider this to be rational advice.

    Your mileage may vary.

    Here’s where I stopped reading…

    That’s bad enough, but having a kid with your OLTR or OLTR wife creates even more limits on your freedom.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    Yeah, I know the guy's a "player" (which I tend to ignore since I am not).

    However, if you get past that point, you will find that he actually offers sound reasoning.
  12. @Rosie
    Here's where I stopped reading...


    That’s bad enough, but having a kid with your OLTR or OLTR wife creates even more limits on your freedom.
     
    https://youtu.be/CQ-QfMv7Fzw

    Yeah, I know the guy’s a “player” (which I tend to ignore since I am not).

    However, if you get past that point, you will find that he actually offers sound reasoning.

  13. @Achmed E. Newman
    I mean Agree, that 4 times may not be enough ...


    ;-}

    .

    EDIT: I just clicked on your link and saw the picture.. 4 times per US Census interval would be fine for me.
    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  14. @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    My comment comes from this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/01/29/decision-whether-not-kids/

    and this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/04/02/the-decision-on-whether-or-not-to-have-kids-part-2/

    I don't have kids myself. However, based on my personal observations as well as my personal objectives and long-term planning, I consider this to be rational advice.

    Your mileage may vary.

    What does “rational” mean in this context? We have an understandable bias towards consciousness existentialism. How does legacy factor into that? Is caring about what you leave behind after you’re gone an extreme version of low time preference? I don’t think so. Or if that’s all it is, our species is in big, big trouble.

  15. @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    My comment comes from this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/01/29/decision-whether-not-kids/

    and this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/04/02/the-decision-on-whether-or-not-to-have-kids-part-2/

    I don't have kids myself. However, based on my personal observations as well as my personal objectives and long-term planning, I consider this to be rational advice.

    Your mileage may vary.

    If not having children is rational then I’m glad my parents weren’t rational and had me anyway.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  16. I feel like the mental health part could be a chicken-egg scenario.

    Do men experience poor mental health when they don’t have children to fulfill their lives?

    Or

    Do men with poor mental health not have to confidence it takes to attract women who bear their children?

    Same question in regards to women without children experiencing poor mental health. I’d also be curious to see when women were asked. Asking right after giving birth would yield a different result than asking a woman with children in high school for instance.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Good questions.

    To the extent that good mental health leads to reproduction, well, that's 'eugenic' I guess!
  17. @Rosie

    I mean Agree, that 4 times may not be enough …
     
    Gross.

    I find myself increasingly unable to see sex as anything other than a sublime act of co-creation or a filthy act of degradation, with little space in between. The trivialization of sex in our faces at every turn rules out the first possibility, leaving only the second. Increasingly, I'm just grossed out by the mere thought of it. Perhaps there is some sort of biological change afoot that is causing this sense of revulsion.

    Either way, I think the cultural atmosphere is at least aggravating the situation.

    Increasingly, I’m just grossed out by the mere thought of it.

    TMI

    Historical norms of silence, or at least, respectful obliqueness, were much more respectful.

    Maybe you just need someone like Thor hitting on you to light your fire.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    TMI
     
    That's exactly my point.
  18. You guys seem to be missing the point.

    It is obvious that success in any given endeavor that requires a lot of time and money over a long time period, not to mention the opportunity cost of such, directly correlates with the intensity of wanting to do it in the first place. This is essentially what “black dragon” is saying.

    This is such an obvious point that I fail to see how anyone can argue it.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It is obvious that success in any given endeavor that requires a lot of time and money over a long time period, not to mention the opportunity cost of such, directly correlates with the intensity of wanting to do it in the first place. This is essentially what “black dragon” is saying.
     
    Part of the problem is that you redefine children as a mere lifestyle choice, just one item on a menu of options for life. That is a false characterization.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I don't want to mischaracterize you. My point is that if you're running an ROI calculation that includes your existential enjoyment of your child(ren) but that excludes considerations of legacy, genetic continuity, and the existential experiences of those subsequent to your own, it's going to be tough to come out in the black. For some people--disproportionately women--the experiences themselves are enough, of course, but not for all people who end up having children and being genuinely glad they did so.
  19. O/T

    Adult Supervision

    I sympathize more with Patrick here, but he’s out of line by disrespecting his elders. Named accounts should be above the impulse to purity spiral.

    • Replies: @216
    https://twitter.com/yhazony/status/1136374812077645824

    Manners maketh man

    And why I urge people to 'stay in their lane'.

    "Notice me senpai"
  20. @Abelard Lindsey
    You guys seem to be missing the point.

    It is obvious that success in any given endeavor that requires a lot of time and money over a long time period, not to mention the opportunity cost of such, directly correlates with the intensity of wanting to do it in the first place. This is essentially what "black dragon" is saying.

    This is such an obvious point that I fail to see how anyone can argue it.

    It is obvious that success in any given endeavor that requires a lot of time and money over a long time period, not to mention the opportunity cost of such, directly correlates with the intensity of wanting to do it in the first place. This is essentially what “black dragon” is saying.

    Part of the problem is that you redefine children as a mere lifestyle choice, just one item on a menu of options for life. That is a false characterization.

    • Replies: @iffen
    That is a false characterization.

    Can you elaborate?

    I think that it is pretty clear that whether one has children or not is a choice.
    , @Abelard Lindsey
    Actually no. In fact, your point supports mine.

    People who treat children as a life style choice are those who take a cavalier approach to the decision to having kids. It is the people who clearly understand that having kids is a 20+ year commitment of ones' life who make a clearheaded, well thought-out decision to have or not have kids. These are the kind of people who have kids if their desire to have them is eight or better on the one to ten intensity scale.
  21. @iffen
    Increasingly, I’m just grossed out by the mere thought of it.

    TMI

    Historical norms of silence, or at least, respectful obliqueness, were much more respectful.

    Maybe you just need someone like Thor hitting on you to light your fire.

    TMI

    That’s exactly my point.

    • Replies: @iffen
    That’s exactly my point.

    And my point was that you are giving us waaaaaay too much info on your preferences.
  22. @Rosie

    It is obvious that success in any given endeavor that requires a lot of time and money over a long time period, not to mention the opportunity cost of such, directly correlates with the intensity of wanting to do it in the first place. This is essentially what “black dragon” is saying.
     
    Part of the problem is that you redefine children as a mere lifestyle choice, just one item on a menu of options for life. That is a false characterization.

    That is a false characterization.

    Can you elaborate?

    I think that it is pretty clear that whether one has children or not is a choice.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Can you elaborate?
     
    See Twinkie's post below. Childlessness is civilizational free-riding. You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.
  23. @Rosie

    TMI
     
    That's exactly my point.

    That’s exactly my point.

    And my point was that you are giving us waaaaaay too much info on your preferences.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And my point was that you are giving us waaaaaay too much info on your preferences.
     
    Tough. If we're going to talk about sex, we need to talk about the consequences of talking about sex.
  24. Self-Deplatforming: All of your friends are joining in!

    #GetOffBigSocial

  25. @Rosie

    I mean Agree, that 4 times may not be enough …
     
    Gross.

    I find myself increasingly unable to see sex as anything other than a sublime act of co-creation or a filthy act of degradation, with little space in between. The trivialization of sex in our faces at every turn rules out the first possibility, leaving only the second. Increasingly, I'm just grossed out by the mere thought of it. Perhaps there is some sort of biological change afoot that is causing this sense of revulsion.

    Either way, I think the cultural atmosphere is at least aggravating the situation.

    Sex is being taught to young people as something that is for pleasure only. Birth control and abortion means that you can indulge forever in this great feeling without having any icky responsibilities to take care of! And after all, who wants that. Just relax and feel the dick sliding into you.

    What’s healthy is for young people to be married young, at age 20 or 21, and to start fucking right away in a monogamous way. Humans need sex, but when it’s in a marriage this is good and will produce children. Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.

    It’s very sad but many, many women are so broken from the high number of dicks theyve taken, and they are literally no longer able to pair bond with somebody. Well, I guess thst means they just have to keep fucking…

    • Troll: iffen, 216
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    To iffen:
    What about the comment suggested "Troll?"
    , @216

    Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.
     
    You get the "Troll" tag for this
    , @Rosie

    It’s very sad but many, many women are so broken from the high number of dicks theyve taken, and they are literally no longer able to pair bond with somebody.
     
    Where are all these disembodied dicks without a responsible owner to be found?

    In any event, this crap about women not being able to bond with anyone after so many sexual partners strikes me as an awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls for pump and dumps, then tell themselves they're not hurting anyone because they can't form bonds anyway.
  26. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Sex is being taught to young people as something that is for pleasure only. Birth control and abortion means that you can indulge forever in this great feeling without having any icky responsibilities to take care of! And after all, who wants that. Just relax and feel the dick sliding into you.

    What's healthy is for young people to be married young, at age 20 or 21, and to start fucking right away in a monogamous way. Humans need sex, but when it's in a marriage this is good and will produce children. Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.

    It's very sad but many, many women are so broken from the high number of dicks theyve taken, and they are literally no longer able to pair bond with somebody. Well, I guess thst means they just have to keep fucking...

    To iffen:
    What about the comment suggested “Troll?”

    • Replies: @iffen
    What about the comment suggested “Troll?”

    There is no dickhead tab.
  27. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    To iffen:
    What about the comment suggested "Troll?"

    What about the comment suggested “Troll?”

    There is no dickhead tab.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Ok well keep enjoying your empty DINK lifestyle, and Ahmed and Juan are here to replace your 2 nonexistent children.
  28. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Sex is being taught to young people as something that is for pleasure only. Birth control and abortion means that you can indulge forever in this great feeling without having any icky responsibilities to take care of! And after all, who wants that. Just relax and feel the dick sliding into you.

    What's healthy is for young people to be married young, at age 20 or 21, and to start fucking right away in a monogamous way. Humans need sex, but when it's in a marriage this is good and will produce children. Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.

    It's very sad but many, many women are so broken from the high number of dicks theyve taken, and they are literally no longer able to pair bond with somebody. Well, I guess thst means they just have to keep fucking...

    Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.

    You get the “Troll” tag for this

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Why? Couples should not be putting off children until age 35.

    The "young and free" phase should last until the woman gets pregnant, and then it's time to grow up and have a kid. 25 is the optimal age.

    I plan on having 8 kids so I will not be doing much pulling out.
    , @Mr. Rational
    He didn't say anything that Heartiste hasn't been saying for years.  Does "riding the cock carousel" ring any bells?
  29. @Abelard Lindsey
    You guys seem to be missing the point.

    It is obvious that success in any given endeavor that requires a lot of time and money over a long time period, not to mention the opportunity cost of such, directly correlates with the intensity of wanting to do it in the first place. This is essentially what "black dragon" is saying.

    This is such an obvious point that I fail to see how anyone can argue it.

    I don’t want to mischaracterize you. My point is that if you’re running an ROI calculation that includes your existential enjoyment of your child(ren) but that excludes considerations of legacy, genetic continuity, and the existential experiences of those subsequent to your own, it’s going to be tough to come out in the black. For some people–disproportionately women–the experiences themselves are enough, of course, but not for all people who end up having children and being genuinely glad they did so.

  30. @216

    Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.
     
    You get the "Troll" tag for this

    Why? Couples should not be putting off children until age 35.

    The “young and free” phase should last until the woman gets pregnant, and then it’s time to grow up and have a kid. 25 is the optimal age.

    I plan on having 8 kids so I will not be doing much pulling out.

  31. @iffen
    What about the comment suggested “Troll?”

    There is no dickhead tab.

    Ok well keep enjoying your empty DINK lifestyle, and Ahmed and Juan are here to replace your 2 nonexistent children.

  32. @Abelard Lindsey
    What this is really saying is that the people who wanted kids and had them as well as the people who did not want kids and did not have them are equally happy. Its the people who wanted kids and, for whatever reason, could not have them who are unhappy. Ditto for those who really did not want kids, but had them anyways.

    With regards to having or not having kids, I think the black dragon blogger has the best advice: Do not have kids unless the intensity of your desire to have them is at least eight on the one to ten scale.

    I had no desire to have children. Partly because I fell for the propaganda and mostly because it was never something I hough much about. When i became engaged, my wife and I had no interest in having children. But when she turned 30 she suddenly wanted children, and we decided to have one. It was such a great experience we had 2 more. My biggest regret in life is waiting until I was 35 to have children. Should have started at 28 and had 4 or 5 kids. My children are my greatest joy in life today.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  33. SFG says:

    First of all, thanks for the request!! This is an important contribution to manosphere discourse and may even influence my own decisions. 😉

    I wonder: shouldn’t you check married men with no kids, and single men with kids (I expect this last one to be a pretty small n)? It could be that DINKs are happier or something, or that kids make you less happy but marriage makes you more happy to a greater degree, or vice versa. I suspect the effect will still be as you describe, but it would be probably be more logical to tease out the interaction effects.

    Thanks again!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah. I've looked into mental health in greater detail in previous posts--marriage, income, social class, religiosity, and political conservatism are all stronger predictors of it than children are, though the modest correlation between having children and happiness is positive.
  34. SFG says:
    @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    My comment comes from this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/01/29/decision-whether-not-kids/

    and this:

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/04/02/the-decision-on-whether-or-not-to-have-kids-part-2/

    I don't have kids myself. However, based on my personal observations as well as my personal objectives and long-term planning, I consider this to be rational advice.

    Your mileage may vary.

    He doesn’t make terrible arguments, given the child-support and divorce laws. They really are rough on men, or the ‘male-identified’ if you are an SJW.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn’t address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass? You can’t *guarantee* your kids won’t stab you in the back or dump you in an old-age home, but if you have enough at least one is likely to serve as an advocate for you if you don’t crap on them too much. You can hire skilled nursing staff, but they’re unlikely to care about you as much as your biological flesh and blood.

    So: would you rather have a better life 30-60 or so, and then much worse 60 on? I can see arguments either way to be honest.

    I suspect that’s one of the reasons Roosh went God-pilled and you don’t see too many old players extolling the lifestyle on the Internet, but I could be wrong on this note.

    Again, issues of legacy and cultural continuity and so on are a separate matter, and I won’t speak to those.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce, and part of happiness is living in accordance with your natural programming, then his reasons would be less important than the endorphins and dopamine and serotonin and so on you would get by living in accordance with your natural desire to have kids. (It’s also quite possible that Blackdragon has a weak reproductive drive for whatever reason (values his freedom more highly) and so he is maximizing his own happiness by not doing so.)

    After all, we’ve all seen people come up with reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway; if reason is something we developed to convince others rather than understand the universe (with science just being a ‘hack’ of our natural persuasive ability), then it would be a less accurate guide than the traditions we’ve ‘evolved’ over centuries, since in most cases you’d be convincing yourself to follow whatever impulse you wanted to.

    • Replies: @216
    https://blackdragonblog.com/2017/07/24/chart-typical-man-ages/

    Nothing emperical here. The black dragon is a good content creator, even though I disagree with most of what he says (he advocates polyamory, among others).

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2015/12/14/the-power-of-beta-males/

    He's interesting in that he's the only manosphere blogger that has a semi-positive opinion of betas. To the non-initiate he has a good breakdown of alpha/beta. The Vox Day scale is needlessly complex to most observers.
    , @Rosie

    They really are rough on men, or the ‘male-identified’ if you are an SJW.
     
    How so?

    I keep asking this question, and I never get a satisfactory answer.
    , @iffen
    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce

    People say and write this all the time but provide no evidence of it.

    Men have an instinct to have as much sex with as many partners as possible which has a side effect of producing children.

    Women have an instinct to selectively bond, mate and nurture.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    There is a zero percent chance either of my parents will end up in an assisted care facility--an old folks home. That is, unless it's what they want. But I know for a fact that is not what they want. They'll move in with us or one of my siblings' families.
    , @Scott Locklin

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn’t address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass?
     
    The same thing that happens to modern old people who have selfish kids (basically all of them). They go into the goddamned nursing home until they die of bedsores or watching too much Oprah or whatever.

    Y'awl act like we live in some G.K. Chesterton novel where poppa grows enormous whiskers, mumma bakes pies, and the children marry their childhood sweethearts. The reality is, the average mumma decides she's "unsatisfied," poppa goes to prison for imaginary child abuse, and the kids have blue hair, tattoos and the body count of a victorian prostitute by the time they're 15.

    There is no logical argument for reproduction: it's an act of instinct, narcissism and religious/familial duty. The logical/selfish approach to anyone who understands probability theory is to not breed. Which is probably why @Audacious left out the single/divorced people who did breed from that happiness graph.
    , @Qft
    Funny to see blackdragon get dragged into this. Didn't know he was that well-known.

    First: AE, I assume you know the gap you're showing is (almost) entirely the "marriage gap" and has nothing to do with children. Control for marriage and the kids part goes away.

    With regard to Blackdragon, his general advice is dumb. Basically: date single moms, have no kids (except he already has a kid.... So he's really just trying to convince you not to reproduce. Do as I say not as I do.)

    Taking marriage and childbearing advice from a guy who ended up in a sexless marriage but says he needs sex three times a week to be happy and is hopped up on TRT constantly and brags about all the cougars he bangs is dubious to say the least.

    He has some valid points here and there and some of his stuff is worth reading BUT his overall philosophy is a joke. Leaving no genetic legacy is the road to a purposeless life; work gets old; dating and sex get old if they don't go anywhere.

    I will allow one exception: being a sperm donor to selected high quality women gets you your genetic legacy and kids you may stay in touch with or mentor one day, without the cost or responsibility of child-raising. That plan is a winner, much more than the "zero genetic legacy" strategy that sounds great during the phase it's supposed to sound great, and disasterous after.
  35. 216 says:
    @SFG
    He doesn't make terrible arguments, given the child-support and divorce laws. They really are rough on men, or the 'male-identified' if you are an SJW.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn't address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass? You can't *guarantee* your kids won't stab you in the back or dump you in an old-age home, but if you have enough at least one is likely to serve as an advocate for you if you don't crap on them too much. You can hire skilled nursing staff, but they're unlikely to care about you as much as your biological flesh and blood.

    So: would you rather have a better life 30-60 or so, and then much worse 60 on? I can see arguments either way to be honest.

    I suspect that's one of the reasons Roosh went God-pilled and you don't see too many old players extolling the lifestyle on the Internet, but I could be wrong on this note.

    Again, issues of legacy and cultural continuity and so on are a separate matter, and I won't speak to those.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce, and part of happiness is living in accordance with your natural programming, then his reasons would be less important than the endorphins and dopamine and serotonin and so on you would get by living in accordance with your natural desire to have kids. (It's also quite possible that Blackdragon has a weak reproductive drive for whatever reason (values his freedom more highly) and so he is maximizing his own happiness by not doing so.)

    After all, we've all seen people come up with reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway; if reason is something we developed to convince others rather than understand the universe (with science just being a 'hack' of our natural persuasive ability), then it would be a less accurate guide than the traditions we've 'evolved' over centuries, since in most cases you'd be convincing yourself to follow whatever impulse you wanted to.

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2017/07/24/chart-typical-man-ages/

    Nothing emperical here. The black dragon is a good content creator, even though I disagree with most of what he says (he advocates polyamory, among others).

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2015/12/14/the-power-of-beta-males/

    He’s interesting in that he’s the only manosphere blogger that has a semi-positive opinion of betas. To the non-initiate he has a good breakdown of alpha/beta. The Vox Day scale is needlessly complex to most observers.

  36. If you have not yet, I recommend that all of you read Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”

    He wrote that society… “is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

    People who refuse to have children are breaking this partnership, which makes flourishing of society possible.

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Of course there is the timeless:

    Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have recieved from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.
     
    Your life belongs not only to you but also (principally) to the Lord, your family, ancestors, and descendants. My Father didn't bring me into this world so that I could flippantly choose to end his line to "maximise my own happiness". This type of thinking is eminently selfish and shameful, in refusing to procreate simply out of self-centered hedonism you spit on all the ones who came before you and gave you life, as well as on your descendants who might have been. There's lots of "rational" reasons to have children (not least of which is of course the immense sense of meaning and purpose they provide their parents), but ultimately all good reason simply leads to that which The Lord was merciful enough to tell us outright; woman was made for man and man for woman, do as you were made to and you've done good. We were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. This is a pattern that I discover more and more holds for every subject, the Lord of creation really did know what he was talking about when he told us how we should live.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Being a good steward of the civilization we have inherited includes paying life forward.

    There is a selfish element to it too, though. When I think back to the things I desired most before having children--HB 10, money, fame--I imagine any of those things being dangled in front of me in exchange for having one of my children suffer. I'll gut the woman, burn the money, and give a middle finger to the world before entertaining the thought of willingly allowing my kids to suffer.
  37. @216
    O/T

    Adult Supervision

    https://twitter.com/PatrickCaseyUSA/status/1136298265245310977

    I sympathize more with Patrick here, but he's out of line by disrespecting his elders. Named accounts should be above the impulse to purity spiral.

    Manners maketh man

    And why I urge people to ‘stay in their lane’.

    “Notice me senpai”

  38. @iffen
    That’s exactly my point.

    And my point was that you are giving us waaaaaay too much info on your preferences.

    And my point was that you are giving us waaaaaay too much info on your preferences.

    Tough. If we’re going to talk about sex, we need to talk about the consequences of talking about sex.

  39. Look. Get real. Whatever the media tells them makes no difference.

    What matters is: children cost too much money. And the way things are looking (to almost everyone), they will cost more in the future, while everyone makes less.

    You people seem to be great on all graphs except money graphs.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Health care is the real stinger. If you're able to get that squared away, though, they aren't that expensive. They keep you home on the weekends, especially when they're younger, which can actually save you money if you're someone who likes hitting bars and restaurants.

    They can be costly, of course, but they don't have to be. Siblings can share rooms, clothes, and toys.

    One of the great things about understanding The Nurture Assumption is that all your kids really need from you is attention, affection, and a good peer group.

  40. @SFG
    He doesn't make terrible arguments, given the child-support and divorce laws. They really are rough on men, or the 'male-identified' if you are an SJW.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn't address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass? You can't *guarantee* your kids won't stab you in the back or dump you in an old-age home, but if you have enough at least one is likely to serve as an advocate for you if you don't crap on them too much. You can hire skilled nursing staff, but they're unlikely to care about you as much as your biological flesh and blood.

    So: would you rather have a better life 30-60 or so, and then much worse 60 on? I can see arguments either way to be honest.

    I suspect that's one of the reasons Roosh went God-pilled and you don't see too many old players extolling the lifestyle on the Internet, but I could be wrong on this note.

    Again, issues of legacy and cultural continuity and so on are a separate matter, and I won't speak to those.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce, and part of happiness is living in accordance with your natural programming, then his reasons would be less important than the endorphins and dopamine and serotonin and so on you would get by living in accordance with your natural desire to have kids. (It's also quite possible that Blackdragon has a weak reproductive drive for whatever reason (values his freedom more highly) and so he is maximizing his own happiness by not doing so.)

    After all, we've all seen people come up with reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway; if reason is something we developed to convince others rather than understand the universe (with science just being a 'hack' of our natural persuasive ability), then it would be a less accurate guide than the traditions we've 'evolved' over centuries, since in most cases you'd be convincing yourself to follow whatever impulse you wanted to.

    They really are rough on men, or the ‘male-identified’ if you are an SJW.

    How so?

    I keep asking this question, and I never get a satisfactory answer.

  41. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Sex is being taught to young people as something that is for pleasure only. Birth control and abortion means that you can indulge forever in this great feeling without having any icky responsibilities to take care of! And after all, who wants that. Just relax and feel the dick sliding into you.

    What's healthy is for young people to be married young, at age 20 or 21, and to start fucking right away in a monogamous way. Humans need sex, but when it's in a marriage this is good and will produce children. Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.

    It's very sad but many, many women are so broken from the high number of dicks theyve taken, and they are literally no longer able to pair bond with somebody. Well, I guess thst means they just have to keep fucking...

    It’s very sad but many, many women are so broken from the high number of dicks theyve taken, and they are literally no longer able to pair bond with somebody.

    Where are all these disembodied dicks without a responsible owner to be found?

    In any event, this crap about women not being able to bond with anyone after so many sexual partners strikes me as an awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls for pump and dumps, then tell themselves they’re not hurting anyone because they can’t form bonds anyway.

    • Replies: @216

    awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls for pump and dumps, then tell themselves they’re not hurting anyone because they can’t form bonds anyway.
     
    Self-serving, sure.

    But I think there is some psychological differences between sexes. In basic biology, eggs expensive, sperm cheap.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/6px01x/why_does_a_high_female_ncount_damage_pair_bonding/


    Where are all these disembodied dicks without a responsible owner to be found?
     
    https://therationalmale.com/2016/02/23/the-pareto-principle/
  42. @iffen
    That is a false characterization.

    Can you elaborate?

    I think that it is pretty clear that whether one has children or not is a choice.

    Can you elaborate?

    See Twinkie’s post below. Childlessness is civilizational free-riding. You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    Childlessness is civilizational free-riding. You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.
     
    The au courant thinking on the matter is that childlessness is a reponsible and sustainable way of life ... for the planet at least. Who gives a shit about humankind these days?
    , @iffen
    You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.

    If you look at it from a tax angle, people without children are subsidizing "your version" of civilization.
  43. 216 says:
    @Rosie

    It’s very sad but many, many women are so broken from the high number of dicks theyve taken, and they are literally no longer able to pair bond with somebody.
     
    Where are all these disembodied dicks without a responsible owner to be found?

    In any event, this crap about women not being able to bond with anyone after so many sexual partners strikes me as an awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls for pump and dumps, then tell themselves they're not hurting anyone because they can't form bonds anyway.

    awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls for pump and dumps, then tell themselves they’re not hurting anyone because they can’t form bonds anyway.

    Self-serving, sure.

    But I think there is some psychological differences between sexes. In basic biology, eggs expensive, sperm cheap.

    Why does a high Female n-count damage pair bonding? from asktrp

    Where are all these disembodied dicks without a responsible owner to be found?

    https://therationalmale.com/2016/02/23/the-pareto-principle/

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    also suggests that females evolved to have sex with more than one partner roughly simultaneously, and not to be totally monogamous.
     
    This is highly speculative at best.

    Peer-reviewed research shows that cuckolding in human marriages is quite rare (Razib Khan has written several pieces on this topic). Adultery, especially for women, was criminally-sanctioned in most societies until recently and even those communities without criminal penalties imposed significant social ostracism for extra-marital sex.* And because people were much more communitarian, lived with several generations in the same household, and knew each other well (and because the chance of discovery was thusly high), extra-marital relationships were quite risky.

    *Remember the maid in "Downtown Abbey" who slept with an officer convalescing at the estate? She was driven out and ended up as a downscale prostitute, barely eking out a miserable and tragic living.

    In any case, I do not disagree, though, with your contention that "there is some psychological differences between sexes" and that "in basic biology, eggs expensive, sperm cheap." Men and women ARE different and are motivated by different ends.

    , @iffen
    I don't remember the source, but 25-30 years ago it was a popular idea that women (and men) had evolved to pair bond long enough to get the child to about age 3-4. I think that this is a possibility.
  44. I’m not sure if you’ve covered this already but I believe the research in your last link turned out to be based on a basic misinterpretation of GSS data: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/are-single-women-actually-happier-study-misinterprets-data-researchers-say-57318

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Ha! He wasn't using GSS data, his was from another survey, but fundamentally misreading a question like that is going to cause huge problems. His analysis struck me immediately as flawed based on all the other data I've seen on the question.
  45. @216

    awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls for pump and dumps, then tell themselves they’re not hurting anyone because they can’t form bonds anyway.
     
    Self-serving, sure.

    But I think there is some psychological differences between sexes. In basic biology, eggs expensive, sperm cheap.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/6px01x/why_does_a_high_female_ncount_damage_pair_bonding/


    Where are all these disembodied dicks without a responsible owner to be found?
     
    https://therationalmale.com/2016/02/23/the-pareto-principle/

    also suggests that females evolved to have sex with more than one partner roughly simultaneously, and not to be totally monogamous.

    This is highly speculative at best.

    Peer-reviewed research shows that cuckolding in human marriages is quite rare (Razib Khan has written several pieces on this topic). Adultery, especially for women, was criminally-sanctioned in most societies until recently and even those communities without criminal penalties imposed significant social ostracism for extra-marital sex.* And because people were much more communitarian, lived with several generations in the same household, and knew each other well (and because the chance of discovery was thusly high), extra-marital relationships were quite risky.

    *Remember the maid in “Downtown Abbey” who slept with an officer convalescing at the estate? She was driven out and ended up as a downscale prostitute, barely eking out a miserable and tragic living.

    In any case, I do not disagree, though, with your contention that “there is some psychological differences between sexes” and that “in basic biology, eggs expensive, sperm cheap.” Men and women ARE different and are motivated by different ends.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    extra-marital relationships were quite risky.
     
    This is where "redpill" claims about women so obviously fail. The fact s cuckoldry is a very high-risk strategy, and women are risk-averse.

    And female hypergamy is an obnoxious hoax.
  46. @Twinkie

    also suggests that females evolved to have sex with more than one partner roughly simultaneously, and not to be totally monogamous.
     
    This is highly speculative at best.

    Peer-reviewed research shows that cuckolding in human marriages is quite rare (Razib Khan has written several pieces on this topic). Adultery, especially for women, was criminally-sanctioned in most societies until recently and even those communities without criminal penalties imposed significant social ostracism for extra-marital sex.* And because people were much more communitarian, lived with several generations in the same household, and knew each other well (and because the chance of discovery was thusly high), extra-marital relationships were quite risky.

    *Remember the maid in "Downtown Abbey" who slept with an officer convalescing at the estate? She was driven out and ended up as a downscale prostitute, barely eking out a miserable and tragic living.

    In any case, I do not disagree, though, with your contention that "there is some psychological differences between sexes" and that "in basic biology, eggs expensive, sperm cheap." Men and women ARE different and are motivated by different ends.

    extra-marital relationships were quite risky.

    This is where “redpill” claims about women so obviously fail. The fact s cuckoldry is a very high-risk strategy, and women are risk-averse.

    And female hypergamy is an obnoxious hoax.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The fact s cuckoldry is a very high-risk strategy, and women are risk-averse.
     
    Yes and yes. On the other hand, not all people, women included, are rational. There is bell curve to this, as with many human-related phenomena.

    And female hypergamy is an obnoxious hoax.
     
    Again, bell curve. People have - for eons - tried to improve their lot through marriage. For most people - who are by definition average - marriages tended to be assortative. But the edges of the curve produce unusual people and drama, and get more notice and attention therefore, which distort our view of how people are.

    However it’s also true that valuations of prospective husbands and wives have changed over time, especially on the wife side. People used to marry their social peers, usually through family networks (e.g. parents belong in the same club, sibling’s friend, same church, etc.). Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses. Then more and more women became educated and began to work as equals or near equals (and attend the same schools), so cognitively assortative marriages became more common, e.g. doctors marrying other doctors or lawyers marrying other lawyers, etc.

    Now my younger acquaintances tell me that the cognitive assortative mating is being eroded by online dating, which 1) opens up people of very different backgrounds to each other - people who previously lacked social or professional proximity and 2) dating is no longer always with the end goal of marriage in mind, which distorts desired traits toward short-term desires. This doesn’t bode well for the future of marriage.
  47. @Rosie

    extra-marital relationships were quite risky.
     
    This is where "redpill" claims about women so obviously fail. The fact s cuckoldry is a very high-risk strategy, and women are risk-averse.

    And female hypergamy is an obnoxious hoax.

    The fact s cuckoldry is a very high-risk strategy, and women are risk-averse.

    Yes and yes. On the other hand, not all people, women included, are rational. There is bell curve to this, as with many human-related phenomena.

    And female hypergamy is an obnoxious hoax.

    Again, bell curve. People have – for eons – tried to improve their lot through marriage. For most people – who are by definition average – marriages tended to be assortative. But the edges of the curve produce unusual people and drama, and get more notice and attention therefore, which distort our view of how people are.

    However it’s also true that valuations of prospective husbands and wives have changed over time, especially on the wife side. People used to marry their social peers, usually through family networks (e.g. parents belong in the same club, sibling’s friend, same church, etc.). Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses. Then more and more women became educated and began to work as equals or near equals (and attend the same schools), so cognitively assortative marriages became more common, e.g. doctors marrying other doctors or lawyers marrying other lawyers, etc.

    Now my younger acquaintances tell me that the cognitive assortative mating is being eroded by online dating, which 1) opens up people of very different backgrounds to each other – people who previously lacked social or professional proximity and 2) dating is no longer always with the end goal of marriage in mind, which distorts desired traits toward short-term desires. This doesn’t bode well for the future of marriage.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses.
     
    Some people seem to think that men's preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women's preference for social standing and income, because... reasons.
  48. @Twinkie

    The fact s cuckoldry is a very high-risk strategy, and women are risk-averse.
     
    Yes and yes. On the other hand, not all people, women included, are rational. There is bell curve to this, as with many human-related phenomena.

    And female hypergamy is an obnoxious hoax.
     
    Again, bell curve. People have - for eons - tried to improve their lot through marriage. For most people - who are by definition average - marriages tended to be assortative. But the edges of the curve produce unusual people and drama, and get more notice and attention therefore, which distort our view of how people are.

    However it’s also true that valuations of prospective husbands and wives have changed over time, especially on the wife side. People used to marry their social peers, usually through family networks (e.g. parents belong in the same club, sibling’s friend, same church, etc.). Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses. Then more and more women became educated and began to work as equals or near equals (and attend the same schools), so cognitively assortative marriages became more common, e.g. doctors marrying other doctors or lawyers marrying other lawyers, etc.

    Now my younger acquaintances tell me that the cognitive assortative mating is being eroded by online dating, which 1) opens up people of very different backgrounds to each other - people who previously lacked social or professional proximity and 2) dating is no longer always with the end goal of marriage in mind, which distorts desired traits toward short-term desires. This doesn’t bode well for the future of marriage.

    Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses.

    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women’s preference for social standing and income, because… reasons.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women’s preference for social standing and income, because… reasons.
     
    Who?
    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Not morally superior, just superior in sustainability. A hotshot CEO can always find a woman he prefers because there are attractive women of every social status. Whereas high-achieving female careerists are often doomed to a sterile life given the combination of putting off baby-making until very near her fertility's expiration date, and a lack of men of equal or superior status to her own which she would find acceptable (and even fewer of them who would be interested in her, the frumpy shrew). So the high-IQ businessman passes on those genes, whereas the careeress doesn't.

    Actually now that I think of it, the male preference is morally superior in a system where women have access to the job market as a means of boosting their self-percieved status (and thus shrinking their pool of potential mates and reducing fertility). Given these premises:

    i. Fertility at at least replacement level is in nearly every case an unmitigated good, especially for intelligent and capable people

    ii. The male preference boosts instances of replacement fertility (2+ kids), and the female preference reduces instances of replacement fertility, especially among intelligent and capable people

    iii. Therefore the male preference does more good through fertility and is morally superior (within this social system)

    Now on the other hand they are basically neutral to one another in a healthier society where women are encouraged to become loving wives and mothers (which is an infinitely more rewarding occupation than being another sterile corporate cog anyway).
    , @iffen
    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness

    Some people maintain that it is a package deal, i. e., you get a lot more valuable stuff along with the physical attractiveness.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women’s preference for social standing and income, because… reasons.
     
    No.  Because fitness as a parent, in both cases.  In the case of women, physical attractiveness indicates health, and youth means more child-bearing years ahead.
  49. Hmmm … could it be that whack-job parents take out their frustrations on their poor kids, making themselves a bit happier, and leaving the messed up kids single and miserable as a response to the treatment they received from their whack-job parents?

  50. @Rosie

    Can you elaborate?
     
    See Twinkie's post below. Childlessness is civilizational free-riding. You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.

    Childlessness is civilizational free-riding. You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.

    The au courant thinking on the matter is that childlessness is a reponsible and sustainable way of life … for the planet at least. Who gives a shit about humankind these days?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Who gives a shit about humankind these days?

    The planet doesn't, that's for sure. Never has, never will. Worshiping Gaia is like worshiping Crom--neither cares what happens to you.
  51. @SFG
    He doesn't make terrible arguments, given the child-support and divorce laws. They really are rough on men, or the 'male-identified' if you are an SJW.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn't address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass? You can't *guarantee* your kids won't stab you in the back or dump you in an old-age home, but if you have enough at least one is likely to serve as an advocate for you if you don't crap on them too much. You can hire skilled nursing staff, but they're unlikely to care about you as much as your biological flesh and blood.

    So: would you rather have a better life 30-60 or so, and then much worse 60 on? I can see arguments either way to be honest.

    I suspect that's one of the reasons Roosh went God-pilled and you don't see too many old players extolling the lifestyle on the Internet, but I could be wrong on this note.

    Again, issues of legacy and cultural continuity and so on are a separate matter, and I won't speak to those.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce, and part of happiness is living in accordance with your natural programming, then his reasons would be less important than the endorphins and dopamine and serotonin and so on you would get by living in accordance with your natural desire to have kids. (It's also quite possible that Blackdragon has a weak reproductive drive for whatever reason (values his freedom more highly) and so he is maximizing his own happiness by not doing so.)

    After all, we've all seen people come up with reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway; if reason is something we developed to convince others rather than understand the universe (with science just being a 'hack' of our natural persuasive ability), then it would be a less accurate guide than the traditions we've 'evolved' over centuries, since in most cases you'd be convincing yourself to follow whatever impulse you wanted to.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce

    People say and write this all the time but provide no evidence of it.

    Men have an instinct to have as much sex with as many partners as possible which has a side effect of producing children.

    Women have an instinct to selectively bond, mate and nurture.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Great point. We have strong natural instincts to fornicate. Until recently, the consequence of that fornication was procreation. We're now in a world where the two are increasingly being separated. It's conceivable that they become completely separated in the future (birth control methods approach 100%, pregnancy is likewise 100% in vitro).

    In the past, we were selected for ability to successfully fornicate. That is no longer the case. Quite literally, people who have more sexual partners have fewer children. The generations of the future will be selected by the desire of their ancestors to procreate.
  52. @Rosie

    Can you elaborate?
     
    See Twinkie's post below. Childlessness is civilizational free-riding. You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.

    You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.

    If you look at it from a tax angle, people without children are subsidizing “your version” of civilization.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    If you look at it from a tax angle, people without children are subsidizing “your version” of civilization.
     
    Short term thinking. They are not producing future tax payers. Think compounding interests for those who produce descendants.

    Those without children also prioritize short-term consumption and distort the market as such, to the detriment of the social contract.
  53. @iffen
    You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.

    If you look at it from a tax angle, people without children are subsidizing "your version" of civilization.

    If you look at it from a tax angle, people without children are subsidizing “your version” of civilization.

    Short term thinking. They are not producing future tax payers. Think compounding interests for those who produce descendants.

    Those without children also prioritize short-term consumption and distort the market as such, to the detriment of the social contract.

  54. @Rosie

    Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses.
     
    Some people seem to think that men's preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women's preference for social standing and income, because... reasons.

    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women’s preference for social standing and income, because… reasons.

    Who?

  55. @Rosie

    Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses.
     
    Some people seem to think that men's preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women's preference for social standing and income, because... reasons.

    Not morally superior, just superior in sustainability. A hotshot CEO can always find a woman he prefers because there are attractive women of every social status. Whereas high-achieving female careerists are often doomed to a sterile life given the combination of putting off baby-making until very near her fertility’s expiration date, and a lack of men of equal or superior status to her own which she would find acceptable (and even fewer of them who would be interested in her, the frumpy shrew). So the high-IQ businessman passes on those genes, whereas the careeress doesn’t.

    Actually now that I think of it, the male preference is morally superior in a system where women have access to the job market as a means of boosting their self-percieved status (and thus shrinking their pool of potential mates and reducing fertility). Given these premises:

    i. Fertility at at least replacement level is in nearly every case an unmitigated good, especially for intelligent and capable people

    ii. The male preference boosts instances of replacement fertility (2+ kids), and the female preference reduces instances of replacement fertility, especially among intelligent and capable people

    iii. Therefore the male preference does more good through fertility and is morally superior (within this social system)

    Now on the other hand they are basically neutral to one another in a healthier society where women are encouraged to become loving wives and mothers (which is an infinitely more rewarding occupation than being another sterile corporate cog anyway).

    • Replies: @Rosie

    ii. The male preference boosts instances of replacement fertility (2+ kids), and the female preference reduces instances of replacement fertility, especially among intelligent and capable people
     
    Maybe if I keep asking for evidence of these unsubstantiated assertions over and over again, someone will finally feel compelled to provide some.

    Notice here the claim that male mating preferences are eugenic, because they care mainly about looks, whereas women care more about achievement!

    Seriously, how does one cope with such obtuse closed-mindedness?
  56. @Twinkie
    If you have not yet, I recommend that all of you read Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”

    He wrote that society... “is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

    People who refuse to have children are breaking this partnership, which makes flourishing of society possible.

    Of course there is the timeless:

    Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have recieved from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

    Your life belongs not only to you but also (principally) to the Lord, your family, ancestors, and descendants. My Father didn’t bring me into this world so that I could flippantly choose to end his line to “maximise my own happiness”. This type of thinking is eminently selfish and shameful, in refusing to procreate simply out of self-centered hedonism you spit on all the ones who came before you and gave you life, as well as on your descendants who might have been. There’s lots of “rational” reasons to have children (not least of which is of course the immense sense of meaning and purpose they provide their parents), but ultimately all good reason simply leads to that which The Lord was merciful enough to tell us outright; woman was made for man and man for woman, do as you were made to and you’ve done good. We were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. This is a pattern that I discover more and more holds for every subject, the Lord of creation really did know what he was talking about when he told us how we should live.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  57. @Rosie

    Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses.
     
    Some people seem to think that men's preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women's preference for social standing and income, because... reasons.

    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness

    Some people maintain that it is a package deal, i. e., you get a lot more valuable stuff along with the physical attractiveness.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Some people maintain that it is a package deal, i. e., you get a lot more valuable stuff along with the physical attractiveness.

     

    Of course they do! People don't like to admit they are shallow. In reality, physical appearance is at best an unreliable proxy for overall mate quality.

    https://scitechdaily.com/why-narcissists-seem-more-attractive/
  58. @216

    awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls for pump and dumps, then tell themselves they’re not hurting anyone because they can’t form bonds anyway.
     
    Self-serving, sure.

    But I think there is some psychological differences between sexes. In basic biology, eggs expensive, sperm cheap.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/6px01x/why_does_a_high_female_ncount_damage_pair_bonding/


    Where are all these disembodied dicks without a responsible owner to be found?
     
    https://therationalmale.com/2016/02/23/the-pareto-principle/

    I don’t remember the source, but 25-30 years ago it was a popular idea that women (and men) had evolved to pair bond long enough to get the child to about age 3-4. I think that this is a possibility.

  59. @iffen
    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness

    Some people maintain that it is a package deal, i. e., you get a lot more valuable stuff along with the physical attractiveness.

    Some people maintain that it is a package deal, i. e., you get a lot more valuable stuff along with the physical attractiveness.

    Of course they do! People don’t like to admit they are shallow. In reality, physical appearance is at best an unreliable proxy for overall mate quality.

    https://scitechdaily.com/why-narcissists-seem-more-attractive/

  60. @216

    Run the gauntlet using pull out as long as you can, then grow the F up and start raising your children.
     
    You get the "Troll" tag for this

    He didn’t say anything that Heartiste hasn’t been saying for years.  Does “riding the cock carousel” ring any bells?

  61. @Rosie

    Then women started to work and professional proximity came into play. Lawyers would marry pretty paralegals and doctors pretty nurses.
     
    Some people seem to think that men's preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women's preference for social standing and income, because... reasons.

    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women’s preference for social standing and income, because… reasons.

    No.  Because fitness as a parent, in both cases.  In the case of women, physical attractiveness indicates health, and youth means more child-bearing years ahead.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    No. Because fitness as a parent, in both cases. In the case of women, physical attractiveness indicates health, and youth means more child-bearing years ahead.
     
    Mere health and youth do not make for a fit parent. Mothers are more than mere brood sows. Mothering requires a great deal of selflessness, wisdom, and virtue. A single-minded focus on physical appearance is not going to get you the best mate. Indeed, it may be exactly the opposite. Do you not understand that women who are obsessed with keeping their youthful figure and not going to be as eager to bear children as women who have more depth and substance of character?
  62. @Rosie

    It is obvious that success in any given endeavor that requires a lot of time and money over a long time period, not to mention the opportunity cost of such, directly correlates with the intensity of wanting to do it in the first place. This is essentially what “black dragon” is saying.
     
    Part of the problem is that you redefine children as a mere lifestyle choice, just one item on a menu of options for life. That is a false characterization.

    Actually no. In fact, your point supports mine.

    People who treat children as a life style choice are those who take a cavalier approach to the decision to having kids. It is the people who clearly understand that having kids is a 20+ year commitment of ones’ life who make a clearheaded, well thought-out decision to have or not have kids. These are the kind of people who have kids if their desire to have them is eight or better on the one to ten intensity scale.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    People who treat children as a life style choice are those who take a cavalier approach to the decision to having kids. It is the people who clearly understand that having kids is a 20+ year commitment of ones’ life who make a clearheaded, well thought-out decision to have or not have kids. These are the kind of people who have kids if their desire to have them is eight or better on the one to ten intensity scale.
     
    Children are not a lifestyle choice. They are a moral obligation you owe to your parents, your grandparents, and all your ancestors going back to time immemorial. Even more than that, they are a duty you owe to God who gave you life.

    If you don't want kids, there is something wrong with you. The solution is to fix it, rather than just decide kids aren't your thing.
  63. @Mr. Rational

    Some people seem to think that men’s preference for physical attractiveness is morally superior to, and more prosocial than, women’s preference for social standing and income, because… reasons.
     
    No.  Because fitness as a parent, in both cases.  In the case of women, physical attractiveness indicates health, and youth means more child-bearing years ahead.

    No. Because fitness as a parent, in both cases. In the case of women, physical attractiveness indicates health, and youth means more child-bearing years ahead.

    Mere health and youth do not make for a fit parent. Mothers are more than mere brood sows. Mothering requires a great deal of selflessness, wisdom, and virtue. A single-minded focus on physical appearance is not going to get you the best mate. Indeed, it may be exactly the opposite. Do you not understand that women who are obsessed with keeping their youthful figure and not going to be as eager to bear children as women who have more depth and substance of character?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Mere health and youth do not make for a fit parent.
     
    Health and youth will yield more and healthier children, regardless.  The illnesses of the society do not change that.

    Do you not understand that women who are obsessed with keeping their youthful figure and not going to be as eager to bear children as women who have more depth and substance of character?
     
    They are already older, less fertile and less desirable.  They can keep their "youthful" figures until they have hit the wall and fallen out of the sexual marketplace.  They can train for a second career as a barren crazy cat lady; most are, though they don't know it yet.
  64. @Abelard Lindsey
    Actually no. In fact, your point supports mine.

    People who treat children as a life style choice are those who take a cavalier approach to the decision to having kids. It is the people who clearly understand that having kids is a 20+ year commitment of ones' life who make a clearheaded, well thought-out decision to have or not have kids. These are the kind of people who have kids if their desire to have them is eight or better on the one to ten intensity scale.

    People who treat children as a life style choice are those who take a cavalier approach to the decision to having kids. It is the people who clearly understand that having kids is a 20+ year commitment of ones’ life who make a clearheaded, well thought-out decision to have or not have kids. These are the kind of people who have kids if their desire to have them is eight or better on the one to ten intensity scale.

    Children are not a lifestyle choice. They are a moral obligation you owe to your parents, your grandparents, and all your ancestors going back to time immemorial. Even more than that, they are a duty you owe to God who gave you life.

    If you don’t want kids, there is something wrong with you. The solution is to fix it, rather than just decide kids aren’t your thing.

    • Replies: @216
    Mt 19:10-12

    1 Cor 7:9
    , @Abelard Lindsey
    I never said children are just a frivolous lifestyle choice, like buying a new car or going on holiday in Cancun. It is you who keeps bringing up this cunard.

    I previously made the point that having children represents a 20+ year commitment of ones' life and that, as with making any major life decision, prudence alone suggests due diligence and careful forethought before making any such decision.

    You seem to have a problem with this, which strikes me as quite irrational.

  65. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Not morally superior, just superior in sustainability. A hotshot CEO can always find a woman he prefers because there are attractive women of every social status. Whereas high-achieving female careerists are often doomed to a sterile life given the combination of putting off baby-making until very near her fertility's expiration date, and a lack of men of equal or superior status to her own which she would find acceptable (and even fewer of them who would be interested in her, the frumpy shrew). So the high-IQ businessman passes on those genes, whereas the careeress doesn't.

    Actually now that I think of it, the male preference is morally superior in a system where women have access to the job market as a means of boosting their self-percieved status (and thus shrinking their pool of potential mates and reducing fertility). Given these premises:

    i. Fertility at at least replacement level is in nearly every case an unmitigated good, especially for intelligent and capable people

    ii. The male preference boosts instances of replacement fertility (2+ kids), and the female preference reduces instances of replacement fertility, especially among intelligent and capable people

    iii. Therefore the male preference does more good through fertility and is morally superior (within this social system)

    Now on the other hand they are basically neutral to one another in a healthier society where women are encouraged to become loving wives and mothers (which is an infinitely more rewarding occupation than being another sterile corporate cog anyway).

    ii. The male preference boosts instances of replacement fertility (2+ kids), and the female preference reduces instances of replacement fertility, especially among intelligent and capable people

    Maybe if I keep asking for evidence of these unsubstantiated assertions over and over again, someone will finally feel compelled to provide some.

    Notice here the claim that male mating preferences are eugenic, because they care mainly about looks, whereas women care more about achievement!

    Seriously, how does one cope with such obtuse closed-mindedness?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The evidence from the GSS is pretty strong that 'dysgenic' fertility is more a female phenomenon than a male one, though, which seems to be in line with what A&W is arguing here.
  66. @Rosie

    People who treat children as a life style choice are those who take a cavalier approach to the decision to having kids. It is the people who clearly understand that having kids is a 20+ year commitment of ones’ life who make a clearheaded, well thought-out decision to have or not have kids. These are the kind of people who have kids if their desire to have them is eight or better on the one to ten intensity scale.
     
    Children are not a lifestyle choice. They are a moral obligation you owe to your parents, your grandparents, and all your ancestors going back to time immemorial. Even more than that, they are a duty you owe to God who gave you life.

    If you don't want kids, there is something wrong with you. The solution is to fix it, rather than just decide kids aren't your thing.

    Mt 19:10-12

    1 Cor 7:9

    • Replies: @Rosie
    216, are you contemplating having your testicles removed? If not:

    Genesis 1:28
  67. @216
    Mt 19:10-12

    1 Cor 7:9

    216, are you contemplating having your testicles removed? If not:

    Genesis 1:28

    • Replies: @216
    Proverbs 21:9
  68. @EH
    How happy are the taken-to-the-cleaners divorced dads with kids they rarely see, despite being the ex's "child support" slave? That's almost as common an outcome as dads that live with their kids until they're 18.

    Family law and child support in particular is so stacked against men that it takes a fair bit of irrational optimism to become a father. Debtor's prison if you don't pay up; de-facto, amounts can only go up, never down; no forgiveness under any circumstances - and she is under no obligation at all to spend the money on the children. If the kids turn out to not even be yours, tough - you're still on the hook for the full term.

    Making family law so biased against men is a major way of suppressing family formation. Going back to older laws will be needed.

    Choose wisely (for love, not lust) and have a prenup that includes shared custody.

    That said, it is a monstrous problem.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Ah...but how do you know she'll love you back? Or won't become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?

    Not saying nobody should have kids, just bringing up the problem (which you have already described as 'monstrous').

    , @Rosie

    Choose wisely (for love, not lust) and have a prenup that includes shared custody.
     
    Prenuptial agreements do not control custody determinations. That is for the court to decide based on the best interests of the children.
  69. @Rosie
    216, are you contemplating having your testicles removed? If not:

    Genesis 1:28

    Proverbs 21:9

  70. @Locke Smith
    I feel like the mental health part could be a chicken-egg scenario.

    Do men experience poor mental health when they don’t have children to fulfill their lives?

    Or

    Do men with poor mental health not have to confidence it takes to attract women who bear their children?

    Same question in regards to women without children experiencing poor mental health. I’d also be curious to see when women were asked. Asking right after giving birth would yield a different result than asking a woman with children in high school for instance.

    Good questions.

    To the extent that good mental health leads to reproduction, well, that’s ‘eugenic’ I guess!

  71. @Anonymous
    I am surprised by these findings. Conventional wisdom tells us that most (but not all) women are made happier by having a stable marriage and a child.

    But conventional wisdom also tells us that most men love being single, and not having the responsibilities of caring for a wife and a child.

    What time frames are we pulling these conventions from?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't know. But you always see cake toppers at weddings with a woman being happy, and a man being sad and having a ball and chain strapped to his ankle.

    Our popular culture tells us that most women want to have a husband and child for companionship. It also tells us that most men want to stay single forever, so that they can play the field, sleep with many women without consequences, and not have to financially support a wife and a child.
  72. @Audacious Epigone
    Choose wisely (for love, not lust) and have a prenup that includes shared custody.

    That said, it is a monstrous problem.

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?

    Not saying nobody should have kids, just bringing up the problem (which you have already described as ‘monstrous’).

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?
     
    Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.

    People are capable of astounding transformation, but most people don't change much. By and large, you know you are getting if you let your brain do the thinking.
    , @Rosie

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?
     
    You don't. You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.
  73. @SFG
    First of all, thanks for the request!! This is an important contribution to manosphere discourse and may even influence my own decisions. ;)

    I wonder: shouldn't you check married men with no kids, and single men with kids (I expect this last one to be a pretty small n)? It could be that DINKs are happier or something, or that kids make you less happy but marriage makes you more happy to a greater degree, or vice versa. I suspect the effect will still be as you describe, but it would be probably be more logical to tease out the interaction effects.

    Thanks again!

    Yeah. I’ve looked into mental health in greater detail in previous posts–marriage, income, social class, religiosity, and political conservatism are all stronger predictors of it than children are, though the modest correlation between having children and happiness is positive.

  74. @SFG
    He doesn't make terrible arguments, given the child-support and divorce laws. They really are rough on men, or the 'male-identified' if you are an SJW.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn't address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass? You can't *guarantee* your kids won't stab you in the back or dump you in an old-age home, but if you have enough at least one is likely to serve as an advocate for you if you don't crap on them too much. You can hire skilled nursing staff, but they're unlikely to care about you as much as your biological flesh and blood.

    So: would you rather have a better life 30-60 or so, and then much worse 60 on? I can see arguments either way to be honest.

    I suspect that's one of the reasons Roosh went God-pilled and you don't see too many old players extolling the lifestyle on the Internet, but I could be wrong on this note.

    Again, issues of legacy and cultural continuity and so on are a separate matter, and I won't speak to those.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce, and part of happiness is living in accordance with your natural programming, then his reasons would be less important than the endorphins and dopamine and serotonin and so on you would get by living in accordance with your natural desire to have kids. (It's also quite possible that Blackdragon has a weak reproductive drive for whatever reason (values his freedom more highly) and so he is maximizing his own happiness by not doing so.)

    After all, we've all seen people come up with reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway; if reason is something we developed to convince others rather than understand the universe (with science just being a 'hack' of our natural persuasive ability), then it would be a less accurate guide than the traditions we've 'evolved' over centuries, since in most cases you'd be convincing yourself to follow whatever impulse you wanted to.

    There is a zero percent chance either of my parents will end up in an assisted care facility–an old folks home. That is, unless it’s what they want. But I know for a fact that is not what they want. They’ll move in with us or one of my siblings’ families.

  75. @Twinkie
    If you have not yet, I recommend that all of you read Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”

    He wrote that society... “is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

    People who refuse to have children are breaking this partnership, which makes flourishing of society possible.

    Being a good steward of the civilization we have inherited includes paying life forward.

    There is a selfish element to it too, though. When I think back to the things I desired most before having children–HB 10, money, fame–I imagine any of those things being dangled in front of me in exchange for having one of my children suffer. I’ll gut the woman, burn the money, and give a middle finger to the world before entertaining the thought of willingly allowing my kids to suffer.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    HB 10
     
    What is "HB 10"? Is that supposed to be an attractive woman?
  76. @obwandiyag
    Look. Get real. Whatever the media tells them makes no difference.

    What matters is: children cost too much money. And the way things are looking (to almost everyone), they will cost more in the future, while everyone makes less.

    You people seem to be great on all graphs except money graphs.

    Health care is the real stinger. If you’re able to get that squared away, though, they aren’t that expensive. They keep you home on the weekends, especially when they’re younger, which can actually save you money if you’re someone who likes hitting bars and restaurants.

    They can be costly, of course, but they don’t have to be. Siblings can share rooms, clothes, and toys.

    One of the great things about understanding The Nurture Assumption is that all your kids really need from you is attention, affection, and a good peer group.

  77. @Oliver the western engine
    I’m not sure if you’ve covered this already but I believe the research in your last link turned out to be based on a basic misinterpretation of GSS data: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/are-single-women-actually-happier-study-misinterprets-data-researchers-say-57318

    Ha! He wasn’t using GSS data, his was from another survey, but fundamentally misreading a question like that is going to cause huge problems. His analysis struck me immediately as flawed based on all the other data I’ve seen on the question.

  78. @Rosie

    No. Because fitness as a parent, in both cases. In the case of women, physical attractiveness indicates health, and youth means more child-bearing years ahead.
     
    Mere health and youth do not make for a fit parent. Mothers are more than mere brood sows. Mothering requires a great deal of selflessness, wisdom, and virtue. A single-minded focus on physical appearance is not going to get you the best mate. Indeed, it may be exactly the opposite. Do you not understand that women who are obsessed with keeping their youthful figure and not going to be as eager to bear children as women who have more depth and substance of character?

    Mere health and youth do not make for a fit parent.

    Health and youth will yield more and healthier children, regardless.  The illnesses of the society do not change that.

    Do you not understand that women who are obsessed with keeping their youthful figure and not going to be as eager to bear children as women who have more depth and substance of character?

    They are already older, less fertile and less desirable.  They can keep their “youthful” figures until they have hit the wall and fallen out of the sexual marketplace.  They can train for a second career as a barren crazy cat lady; most are, though they don’t know it yet.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Health and youth will yield more and healthier children, regardless. The illnesses of the society do not change that.
     
    How many children do you want, Mr. Rational? We both know you don't want more children than a woman of 30 could easily produce, so stop trying to characterize your shallow obsession with physical appearance as some sort of paternal generosity. It is transparently not that.
  79. @EH
    How happy are the taken-to-the-cleaners divorced dads with kids they rarely see, despite being the ex's "child support" slave? That's almost as common an outcome as dads that live with their kids until they're 18.

    Family law and child support in particular is so stacked against men that it takes a fair bit of irrational optimism to become a father. Debtor's prison if you don't pay up; de-facto, amounts can only go up, never down; no forgiveness under any circumstances - and she is under no obligation at all to spend the money on the children. If the kids turn out to not even be yours, tough - you're still on the hook for the full term.

    Making family law so biased against men is a major way of suppressing family formation. Going back to older laws will be needed.

    Debtor’s prison if you don’t pay up; de-facto, amounts can only go up, never down; no forgiveness under any circumstances – and she is under no obligation at all to spend the money on the children.

    That’s because the money is not intended to cover expenses that are particular to the children. Child support is intended to cover living expenses of the family as a whole, in the manner and neighborhood that the child is accustomed.

    Going back to older laws will be needed.

    No.

  80. @Mr. Rational

    Mere health and youth do not make for a fit parent.
     
    Health and youth will yield more and healthier children, regardless.  The illnesses of the society do not change that.

    Do you not understand that women who are obsessed with keeping their youthful figure and not going to be as eager to bear children as women who have more depth and substance of character?
     
    They are already older, less fertile and less desirable.  They can keep their "youthful" figures until they have hit the wall and fallen out of the sexual marketplace.  They can train for a second career as a barren crazy cat lady; most are, though they don't know it yet.

    Health and youth will yield more and healthier children, regardless. The illnesses of the society do not change that.

    How many children do you want, Mr. Rational? We both know you don’t want more children than a woman of 30 could easily produce, so stop trying to characterize your shallow obsession with physical appearance as some sort of paternal generosity. It is transparently not that.

  81. @Audacious Epigone
    Choose wisely (for love, not lust) and have a prenup that includes shared custody.

    That said, it is a monstrous problem.

    Choose wisely (for love, not lust) and have a prenup that includes shared custody.

    Prenuptial agreements do not control custody determinations. That is for the court to decide based on the best interests of the children.

  82. @SFG
    Ah...but how do you know she'll love you back? Or won't become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?

    Not saying nobody should have kids, just bringing up the problem (which you have already described as 'monstrous').

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?

    Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.

    People are capable of astounding transformation, but most people don’t change much. By and large, you know you are getting if you let your brain do the thinking.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.
     
    Great. Now we've just ruled out another whole swath of young white women as suitable marriage partners.
  83. @Audacious Epigone
    Being a good steward of the civilization we have inherited includes paying life forward.

    There is a selfish element to it too, though. When I think back to the things I desired most before having children--HB 10, money, fame--I imagine any of those things being dangled in front of me in exchange for having one of my children suffer. I'll gut the woman, burn the money, and give a middle finger to the world before entertaining the thought of willingly allowing my kids to suffer.

    HB 10

    What is “HB 10”? Is that supposed to be an attractive woman?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, HB = hot babe.
  84. @SFG
    Ah...but how do you know she'll love you back? Or won't become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?

    Not saying nobody should have kids, just bringing up the problem (which you have already described as 'monstrous').

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?

    You don’t. You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.

    • Replies: @iffen
    You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.

    Or, you could pay your money and still die alone.
    , @Twinkie

    You don’t. You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.
     
    Every game of chance has ways to improve the odds. But you don’t seem to want other people’s sons or daughters to hear about that.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Life includes very few certainties. It's full of probabilities, though, and it's up to you to manage those probabilities to the best of your abilities.
  85. @Twinkie

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?
     
    Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.

    People are capable of astounding transformation, but most people don't change much. By and large, you know you are getting if you let your brain do the thinking.

    Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.

    Great. Now we’ve just ruled out another whole swath of young white women as suitable marriage partners.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Great. Now we’ve just ruled out another whole swath of young white women as suitable marriage partners.
     
    Are you going to advise your son or daughter to marry the first person who’d have sex with him or her just because that person is white?

    Are you going to tell your flesh and blood, “It’s okay, dear one. Sure, he/she comes from a broken home, his/her siblings are all divorced, and all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners, but he/she will be totally different. After all, he/she is white. Go ahead and marry!”
  86. @Rosie

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?
     
    You don't. You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.

    You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.

    Or, you could pay your money and still die alone.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Or, you could pay your money and still die alone.
     
    That's true, but if you don't pay your money, you'll for sure die alone, as you rue your cowardice.
  87. @iffen
    You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.

    Or, you could pay your money and still die alone.

    Or, you could pay your money and still die alone.

    That’s true, but if you don’t pay your money, you’ll for sure die alone, as you rue your cowardice.

  88. @Rosie

    Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.
     
    Great. Now we've just ruled out another whole swath of young white women as suitable marriage partners.

    Great. Now we’ve just ruled out another whole swath of young white women as suitable marriage partners.

    Are you going to advise your son or daughter to marry the first person who’d have sex with him or her just because that person is white?

    Are you going to tell your flesh and blood, “It’s okay, dear one. Sure, he/she comes from a broken home, his/her siblings are all divorced, and all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners, but he/she will be totally different. After all, he/she is white. Go ahead and marry!”

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Are you going to tell your flesh and blood, “It’s okay, dear one. Sure, he/she comes from a broken home, his/her siblings are all divorced, and all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners, but he/she will be totally different. After all, he/she is white. Go ahead and marry!”
     
    You call yourself a Twinkie, but in truth you are just as yellow on the inside as you are on the outside. You will never understand White people's commitment to the right of every individual to be judged on their own merits. You should know from living among us that even self-interest does not negate this commitment among the most principled of our people, hopefully including my children when they grow into their own.
  89. @Rosie

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?
     
    You don't. You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.

    You don’t. You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.

    Every game of chance has ways to improve the odds. But you don’t seem to want other people’s sons or daughters to hear about that.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I should probably read all comments instead of responding as I go to avoid redundancy!
  90. @Twinkie

    Great. Now we’ve just ruled out another whole swath of young white women as suitable marriage partners.
     
    Are you going to advise your son or daughter to marry the first person who’d have sex with him or her just because that person is white?

    Are you going to tell your flesh and blood, “It’s okay, dear one. Sure, he/she comes from a broken home, his/her siblings are all divorced, and all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners, but he/she will be totally different. After all, he/she is white. Go ahead and marry!”

    Are you going to tell your flesh and blood, “It’s okay, dear one. Sure, he/she comes from a broken home, his/her siblings are all divorced, and all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners, but he/she will be totally different. After all, he/she is white. Go ahead and marry!”

    You call yourself a Twinkie, but in truth you are just as yellow on the inside as you are on the outside. You will never understand White people’s commitment to the right of every individual to be judged on their own merits. You should know from living among us that even self-interest does not negate this commitment among the most principled of our people, hopefully including my children when they grow into their own.

    • Replies: @iffen
    You will never understand White people’s commitment to the right of every individual to be judged on their own merits.

    "We" just do this for white people, right? I mean, we don't extend this privilege to people of other races.
    , @Twinkie
    There is nothing but ad hominem in your rant, but you never answered my question. In the scenario I posited, are you going to tell your child, “Go ahead and marry”?

    It’s not a yellow thing to tell your children to marry someone who is virtuous and comes from a decent family. Your position is always that Rosie never has to incur any cost for doing the wrong things - and that anyone who criticizes such a view is against white people.

    It’s self-indulgence masquerading as white nationalism.

    I don’t know why I debate or discuss things with you when you get personal and racial on everything. See, I think you write what you do, because you are who you are as a human being. But you think I write what I do, because I’m yellow.

    Yours is not principled white advocacy. It’s simply self-indulgent and stupid racism - denying humanness of the other and blaming him for your own problems in life. Good luck with all that.

  91. @Rosie

    Are you going to tell your flesh and blood, “It’s okay, dear one. Sure, he/she comes from a broken home, his/her siblings are all divorced, and all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners, but he/she will be totally different. After all, he/she is white. Go ahead and marry!”
     
    You call yourself a Twinkie, but in truth you are just as yellow on the inside as you are on the outside. You will never understand White people's commitment to the right of every individual to be judged on their own merits. You should know from living among us that even self-interest does not negate this commitment among the most principled of our people, hopefully including my children when they grow into their own.

    You will never understand White people’s commitment to the right of every individual to be judged on their own merits.

    “We” just do this for white people, right? I mean, we don’t extend this privilege to people of other races.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    “We” just do this for white people, right? I mean, we don’t extend this privilege to people of other races.
     
    Unfortunately, we've taken the principle too far, extending it to outgroups, much to our detriment.

    The impulse to fairness is so strong in White people that it manifests itself even in the most ethnocentric among us. Twnkie constantly comes on this blog and tells us that, while marriage and children are wonderful in theory, any White girl a young man might meet in the real world ought to be rejected for reasons X, Y, and Z. Given that he is not White, this would trigger suspicion among wilier folk. Yet, even here, it feels good to be fair to him, so back he comes day in and day out discouraging White family formation while claiming to be pro-natalist. Now I can't see Twinkie's heart. Perhaps he is sincere, but his influence is no less pernicious either way.
  92. @iffen
    You will never understand White people’s commitment to the right of every individual to be judged on their own merits.

    "We" just do this for white people, right? I mean, we don't extend this privilege to people of other races.

    “We” just do this for white people, right? I mean, we don’t extend this privilege to people of other races.

    Unfortunately, we’ve taken the principle too far, extending it to outgroups, much to our detriment.

    The impulse to fairness is so strong in White people that it manifests itself even in the most ethnocentric among us. Twnkie constantly comes on this blog and tells us that, while marriage and children are wonderful in theory, any White girl a young man might meet in the real world ought to be rejected for reasons X, Y, and Z. Given that he is not White, this would trigger suspicion among wilier folk. Yet, even here, it feels good to be fair to him, so back he comes day in and day out discouraging White family formation while claiming to be pro-natalist. Now I can’t see Twinkie’s heart. Perhaps he is sincere, but his influence is no less pernicious either way.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Although I disagree, I think your point is coherent and valid within itself.

    One more question if you will. Assuming A. Lindsey is white, is he not entitled to white individualism? You and the others jumped him for having a different opinion on having children and most seemed ready to send him to re-education camp. And that is why I say that most of you are little different from the Leninist left with regard to conformity.
  93. @Rosie

    “We” just do this for white people, right? I mean, we don’t extend this privilege to people of other races.
     
    Unfortunately, we've taken the principle too far, extending it to outgroups, much to our detriment.

    The impulse to fairness is so strong in White people that it manifests itself even in the most ethnocentric among us. Twnkie constantly comes on this blog and tells us that, while marriage and children are wonderful in theory, any White girl a young man might meet in the real world ought to be rejected for reasons X, Y, and Z. Given that he is not White, this would trigger suspicion among wilier folk. Yet, even here, it feels good to be fair to him, so back he comes day in and day out discouraging White family formation while claiming to be pro-natalist. Now I can't see Twinkie's heart. Perhaps he is sincere, but his influence is no less pernicious either way.

    Although I disagree, I think your point is coherent and valid within itself.

    One more question if you will. Assuming A. Lindsey is white, is he not entitled to white individualism? You and the others jumped him for having a different opinion on having children and most seemed ready to send him to re-education camp. And that is why I say that most of you are little different from the Leninist left with regard to conformity.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Assuming A. Lindsey is white, is he not entitled to white individualism?
     
    Sure he is. And I am entitled to my individual opinion that voluntary childlessness is selfish and shallow.
  94. @Intelligent Dasein
    I can't help but think that a significant fraction of both groups are lying. There just aren't that many happy people in the world. Happiness reports in the 80-90% range are fairly doubtful.

    Happiness reports in the 80-90% range are fairly doubtful.

    A lot of men are content, aka happy.

    So many so that it infuriates women. Why is it so easy for guys to be content?

  95. @EH
    How happy are the taken-to-the-cleaners divorced dads with kids they rarely see, despite being the ex's "child support" slave? That's almost as common an outcome as dads that live with their kids until they're 18.

    Family law and child support in particular is so stacked against men that it takes a fair bit of irrational optimism to become a father. Debtor's prison if you don't pay up; de-facto, amounts can only go up, never down; no forgiveness under any circumstances - and she is under no obligation at all to spend the money on the children. If the kids turn out to not even be yours, tough - you're still on the hook for the full term.

    Making family law so biased against men is a major way of suppressing family formation. Going back to older laws will be needed.

    Child support is often set at a level to maintain the lifestyle the child is accustomed to. Since the mother lives with the child, though, it also maintains her lifestyle at the same level as when she was married. Since she maintains the same lifestyle whether she stays married or not, this provides an incentive for her to leave. Men look at this and see only a downside and no upside here and don’t get married in the first place. This is an example of women not really thinking and supporting divorce laws that benefit them and not considering that men can just not get married and have children with them in the first place.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Men look at this and see only a downside and no upside here and don’t get married in the first place.
     
    Except that there is an upside: better than even odds of a happy family.

    Since she maintains the same lifestyle whether she stays married or not, this provides an incentive for her to leave.
     
    No it doesn't. You can say that she ought to be punished for leaving, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but there is no incentive to leave, especially since child support ends at 18. What is she going to do then?

    The problem is no-fault divorce, to the extent it exists in practice, not child custody laws. Indeed, I am intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that men are better than women at some things; the "men's rights movement" must do the same if it is to be considered part of the right and not part of the left. If they will not concede that women are superior caretakers for small children, justifying the tender years rule, which doesn't even exist anymore anyway. If they won't concede that, they are natural allies of radical feminists who claim we're all the same.
  96. @Rosie

    People who treat children as a life style choice are those who take a cavalier approach to the decision to having kids. It is the people who clearly understand that having kids is a 20+ year commitment of ones’ life who make a clearheaded, well thought-out decision to have or not have kids. These are the kind of people who have kids if their desire to have them is eight or better on the one to ten intensity scale.
     
    Children are not a lifestyle choice. They are a moral obligation you owe to your parents, your grandparents, and all your ancestors going back to time immemorial. Even more than that, they are a duty you owe to God who gave you life.

    If you don't want kids, there is something wrong with you. The solution is to fix it, rather than just decide kids aren't your thing.

    I never said children are just a frivolous lifestyle choice, like buying a new car or going on holiday in Cancun. It is you who keeps bringing up this cunard.

    I previously made the point that having children represents a 20+ year commitment of ones’ life and that, as with making any major life decision, prudence alone suggests due diligence and careful forethought before making any such decision.

    You seem to have a problem with this, which strikes me as quite irrational.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You seem to have a problem with this, which strikes me as quite irrational.
     
    I have a problem with your denial of any obligation to continue life, given that you owe your very existence and all your freedoms to countless men and women who raised children in circumstances that your couldn't imagine in your worst nightmare. I object to your presumption of childlessness as the default, and your claim that voluntary childlessness is a morally legitimate lifestyle.
    , @iffen
    It is you who keeps bringing up this cunard.

    Rosie may not want to hit the straw very often, but she has no equal in wielding strawmen.
  97. @iffen
    Although I disagree, I think your point is coherent and valid within itself.

    One more question if you will. Assuming A. Lindsey is white, is he not entitled to white individualism? You and the others jumped him for having a different opinion on having children and most seemed ready to send him to re-education camp. And that is why I say that most of you are little different from the Leninist left with regard to conformity.

    Assuming A. Lindsey is white, is he not entitled to white individualism?

    Sure he is. And I am entitled to my individual opinion that voluntary childlessness is selfish and shallow.

    • Replies: @iffen
    And I am entitled to my individual opinion

    You just accused him of being immoral for not agreeing with you. Next stop after immoral is illlegal.
  98. @Mark G.
    Child support is often set at a level to maintain the lifestyle the child is accustomed to. Since the mother lives with the child, though, it also maintains her lifestyle at the same level as when she was married. Since she maintains the same lifestyle whether she stays married or not, this provides an incentive for her to leave. Men look at this and see only a downside and no upside here and don't get married in the first place. This is an example of women not really thinking and supporting divorce laws that benefit them and not considering that men can just not get married and have children with them in the first place.

    Men look at this and see only a downside and no upside here and don’t get married in the first place.

    Except that there is an upside: better than even odds of a happy family.

    Since she maintains the same lifestyle whether she stays married or not, this provides an incentive for her to leave.

    No it doesn’t. You can say that she ought to be punished for leaving, and I wouldn’t disagree with that, but there is no incentive to leave, especially since child support ends at 18. What is she going to do then?

    The problem is no-fault divorce, to the extent it exists in practice, not child custody laws. Indeed, I am intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that men are better than women at some things; the “men’s rights movement” must do the same if it is to be considered part of the right and not part of the left. If they will not concede that women are superior caretakers for small children, justifying the tender years rule, which doesn’t even exist anymore anyway. If they won’t concede that, they are natural allies of radical feminists who claim we’re all the same.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    It's true that child support ends at eighteen and the ex-wife may have a lower standard of living after that. You have to consider, though, many women will not look that far ahead when making a decision on whether to leave their marriage. The dominant culture portrays divorce as an "Eat Pray, Love" lifestyle for divorced women. The reality is not as appealing as the fantasy but women are not shown the reality. Some other women mistakenly think divorced life will be like it was before they got married when they were in their twenties and got lots of attention from men. I've personally heard middle aged divorced women wonder why there aren't as many guys hanging around them being friendly to them as there was when they were 20. Some women see welfare as a potential safety net that they can fall into after the children grow up. My ex-wife is on a disability pension, part of which may be coming from taxes that I pay. So me and other guys like me may still be providing financial support for ex-wives even after the divorce. On the other hand, you do need protections for women in the situation of the financially successful husband who dumps his faithful wife for a younger model. A faithful wife who is deserted should get a good sized chunk of the property accumulated during the marriage. There needs to be a balance so both men and women see marriage as a good thing. I admit it is difficult to achieve that balance since neither most men or women can ever really be totally objective here. We might want to look at other eras in U.S. history when marriage rates were higher to see what combinations of divorce laws, child support laws, welfare eligibility rules and general cultural values existed that channeled men and women into getting married at higher rates.
  99. @Abelard Lindsey
    I never said children are just a frivolous lifestyle choice, like buying a new car or going on holiday in Cancun. It is you who keeps bringing up this cunard.

    I previously made the point that having children represents a 20+ year commitment of ones' life and that, as with making any major life decision, prudence alone suggests due diligence and careful forethought before making any such decision.

    You seem to have a problem with this, which strikes me as quite irrational.

    You seem to have a problem with this, which strikes me as quite irrational.

    I have a problem with your denial of any obligation to continue life, given that you owe your very existence and all your freedoms to countless men and women who raised children in circumstances that your couldn’t imagine in your worst nightmare. I object to your presumption of childlessness as the default, and your claim that voluntary childlessness is a morally legitimate lifestyle.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    Believe me, I'm into continuing life. In fact, I ramped up my pursuit of it starting last fall when I thought I had a serious medical issue (false alarm, but decided to do my first senolytic therapy anyways). I just completed a second senolytic therapy (5 days of Fisetin and Quercetin) and am continuing with chelation with ALA. I plan to try a mitochondrial fission/fusion (I'm dialed into the DIY life extension community) protocol early next year and expect to do invivo cellular reprogramming on myself sometime in the next 2 to 5 years. So, yeah, you can say I'm into life and its continence.

    Once I've ensured my long term personal future, I can then think about having kids. Doing it the other way around is like putting the cart before the horse.
    , @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    I may well be intending to have kids. Perhaps I'm waiting for the bio-engineering to arrive so that I can design them for superior intelligence and disease resistance.

  100. @Rosie

    Assuming A. Lindsey is white, is he not entitled to white individualism?
     
    Sure he is. And I am entitled to my individual opinion that voluntary childlessness is selfish and shallow.

    And I am entitled to my individual opinion

    You just accused him of being immoral for not agreeing with you. Next stop after immoral is illlegal.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You just accused him of being immoral for not agreeing with you.
     
    Yes, I did, but unlike many around here, I believe he can turn a new leaf.
  101. @Abelard Lindsey
    I never said children are just a frivolous lifestyle choice, like buying a new car or going on holiday in Cancun. It is you who keeps bringing up this cunard.

    I previously made the point that having children represents a 20+ year commitment of ones' life and that, as with making any major life decision, prudence alone suggests due diligence and careful forethought before making any such decision.

    You seem to have a problem with this, which strikes me as quite irrational.

    It is you who keeps bringing up this cunard.

    Rosie may not want to hit the straw very often, but she has no equal in wielding strawmen.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Rosie may not want to hit the straw very often, but she has no equal in wielding strawmen.
     
    Not really. It's just that I don't bother spelling out logical points that seem self-evident to me, often creating the appearance of holes in my logic to the less-endowed.
  102. @iffen
    And I am entitled to my individual opinion

    You just accused him of being immoral for not agreeing with you. Next stop after immoral is illlegal.

    You just accused him of being immoral for not agreeing with you.

    Yes, I did, but unlike many around here, I believe he can turn a new leaf.

  103. @Rosie

    Are you going to tell your flesh and blood, “It’s okay, dear one. Sure, he/she comes from a broken home, his/her siblings are all divorced, and all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners, but he/she will be totally different. After all, he/she is white. Go ahead and marry!”
     
    You call yourself a Twinkie, but in truth you are just as yellow on the inside as you are on the outside. You will never understand White people's commitment to the right of every individual to be judged on their own merits. You should know from living among us that even self-interest does not negate this commitment among the most principled of our people, hopefully including my children when they grow into their own.

    There is nothing but ad hominem in your rant, but you never answered my question. In the scenario I posited, are you going to tell your child, “Go ahead and marry”?

    It’s not a yellow thing to tell your children to marry someone who is virtuous and comes from a decent family. Your position is always that Rosie never has to incur any cost for doing the wrong things – and that anyone who criticizes such a view is against white people.

    It’s self-indulgence masquerading as white nationalism.

    I don’t know why I debate or discuss things with you when you get personal and racial on everything. See, I think you write what you do, because you are who you are as a human being. But you think I write what I do, because I’m yellow.

    Yours is not principled white advocacy. It’s simply self-indulgent and stupid racism – denying humanness of the other and blaming him for your own problems in life. Good luck with all that.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In the scenario I posited, are you going to tell your child, “Go ahead and marry”?
     
    I answered the question very clearly. Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.

    Let me give you another lesson in the Western moral sense, Twinkie. We believe in the universalizability principle. That is to say, we reject as immoral those things that would be harmful to the whole if done by everyone. There might be some personal advantage to restricting one's dating pool to only those who come from perfect families. However, if everyone did that, the effect on the whole would be catastrophic, given that we are in a struggle for our very existence. (You, I might add, have shown yourself to be, at best, indifferent to that struggle.)

    I don't want immoral children, even if being moral entails some degree of personal risk. Is that clear enough for you?
  104. @iffen
    It is you who keeps bringing up this cunard.

    Rosie may not want to hit the straw very often, but she has no equal in wielding strawmen.

    Rosie may not want to hit the straw very often, but she has no equal in wielding strawmen.

    Not really. It’s just that I don’t bother spelling out logical points that seem self-evident to me, often creating the appearance of holes in my logic to the less-endowed.

    • Replies: @iffen
    to the less-endowed.

    The size of the endowment is not important; it's what you do with it that matters.

    The finese with strawmen is somewhat admirable.
  105. @Twinkie
    There is nothing but ad hominem in your rant, but you never answered my question. In the scenario I posited, are you going to tell your child, “Go ahead and marry”?

    It’s not a yellow thing to tell your children to marry someone who is virtuous and comes from a decent family. Your position is always that Rosie never has to incur any cost for doing the wrong things - and that anyone who criticizes such a view is against white people.

    It’s self-indulgence masquerading as white nationalism.

    I don’t know why I debate or discuss things with you when you get personal and racial on everything. See, I think you write what you do, because you are who you are as a human being. But you think I write what I do, because I’m yellow.

    Yours is not principled white advocacy. It’s simply self-indulgent and stupid racism - denying humanness of the other and blaming him for your own problems in life. Good luck with all that.

    In the scenario I posited, are you going to tell your child, “Go ahead and marry”?

    I answered the question very clearly. Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.

    Let me give you another lesson in the Western moral sense, Twinkie. We believe in the universalizability principle. That is to say, we reject as immoral those things that would be harmful to the whole if done by everyone. There might be some personal advantage to restricting one’s dating pool to only those who come from perfect families. However, if everyone did that, the effect on the whole would be catastrophic, given that we are in a struggle for our very existence. (You, I might add, have shown yourself to be, at best, indifferent to that struggle.)

    I don’t want immoral children, even if being moral entails some degree of personal risk. Is that clear enough for you?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.
     
    Ok. Good. Here is a follow-up question. Would you encourage your child to marry someone who appears to be “an otherwise suitable person” whose parents are convicted child pornographers, siblings are drug dealers, and all his/her friends are prostitutes?
  106. @Rosie

    Rosie may not want to hit the straw very often, but she has no equal in wielding strawmen.
     
    Not really. It's just that I don't bother spelling out logical points that seem self-evident to me, often creating the appearance of holes in my logic to the less-endowed.

    to the less-endowed.

    The size of the endowment is not important; it’s what you do with it that matters.

    The finese with strawmen is somewhat admirable.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The finese with strawmen is somewhat admirable.
     
    Anyone who agrees with iffen that I used a straw-man argument in this thread: click agree and I'll respond if three names appear in the next day.

    My honor is important to me.
  107. @iffen
    to the less-endowed.

    The size of the endowment is not important; it's what you do with it that matters.

    The finese with strawmen is somewhat admirable.

    The finese with strawmen is somewhat admirable.

    Anyone who agrees with iffen that I used a straw-man argument in this thread: click agree and I’ll respond if three names appear in the next day.

    My honor is important to me.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Can I help with this vote?

    I have literally never, ever heard of a person having a child and then regretting it.

    you redefine children as a mere lifestyle choice

    an awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls

    Of course they do! People don’t like to admit they are shallow

    this would trigger suspicion among wilier folk

    My honor is important to me.

    I don't consider using strawmen as a mortal sin. It is a good device to use in a discussion and argument. Sooo, I didn't mean to "dishonor" you.
  108. @Rosie

    The finese with strawmen is somewhat admirable.
     
    Anyone who agrees with iffen that I used a straw-man argument in this thread: click agree and I'll respond if three names appear in the next day.

    My honor is important to me.

    Can I help with this vote?

    I have literally never, ever heard of a person having a child and then regretting it.

    you redefine children as a mere lifestyle choice

    an awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls

    Of course they do! People don’t like to admit they are shallow

    this would trigger suspicion among wilier folk

    My honor is important to me.

    I don’t consider using strawmen as a mortal sin. It is a good device to use in a discussion and argument. Sooo, I didn’t mean to “dishonor” you.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Can I help with this vote?
     
    No. I meant three people other than you, iffen. And none of those examples you cited are straw-men, which I'll explain in detail upon seeing three names agreeing with your allegation that I use fallacies and sophistry in my arguments.
  109. @Rosie

    In the scenario I posited, are you going to tell your child, “Go ahead and marry”?
     
    I answered the question very clearly. Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.

    Let me give you another lesson in the Western moral sense, Twinkie. We believe in the universalizability principle. That is to say, we reject as immoral those things that would be harmful to the whole if done by everyone. There might be some personal advantage to restricting one's dating pool to only those who come from perfect families. However, if everyone did that, the effect on the whole would be catastrophic, given that we are in a struggle for our very existence. (You, I might add, have shown yourself to be, at best, indifferent to that struggle.)

    I don't want immoral children, even if being moral entails some degree of personal risk. Is that clear enough for you?

    Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.

    Ok. Good. Here is a follow-up question. Would you encourage your child to marry someone who appears to be “an otherwise suitable person” whose parents are convicted child pornographers, siblings are drug dealers, and all his/her friends are prostitutes?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Ok. Good. Here is a follow-up question. Would you encourage your child to marry someone who appears to be “an otherwise suitable person” whose parents are convicted child pornographers, siblings are drug dealers, and all his/her friends are prostitutes?
     
    Yes, on the parents and siblings. You can't choose your family. No on the prostitute friends. You can choose your friends.
  110. @Rosie

    Men look at this and see only a downside and no upside here and don’t get married in the first place.
     
    Except that there is an upside: better than even odds of a happy family.

    Since she maintains the same lifestyle whether she stays married or not, this provides an incentive for her to leave.
     
    No it doesn't. You can say that she ought to be punished for leaving, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but there is no incentive to leave, especially since child support ends at 18. What is she going to do then?

    The problem is no-fault divorce, to the extent it exists in practice, not child custody laws. Indeed, I am intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that men are better than women at some things; the "men's rights movement" must do the same if it is to be considered part of the right and not part of the left. If they will not concede that women are superior caretakers for small children, justifying the tender years rule, which doesn't even exist anymore anyway. If they won't concede that, they are natural allies of radical feminists who claim we're all the same.

    It’s true that child support ends at eighteen and the ex-wife may have a lower standard of living after that. You have to consider, though, many women will not look that far ahead when making a decision on whether to leave their marriage. The dominant culture portrays divorce as an “Eat Pray, Love” lifestyle for divorced women. The reality is not as appealing as the fantasy but women are not shown the reality. Some other women mistakenly think divorced life will be like it was before they got married when they were in their twenties and got lots of attention from men. I’ve personally heard middle aged divorced women wonder why there aren’t as many guys hanging around them being friendly to them as there was when they were 20. Some women see welfare as a potential safety net that they can fall into after the children grow up. My ex-wife is on a disability pension, part of which may be coming from taxes that I pay. So me and other guys like me may still be providing financial support for ex-wives even after the divorce. On the other hand, you do need protections for women in the situation of the financially successful husband who dumps his faithful wife for a younger model. A faithful wife who is deserted should get a good sized chunk of the property accumulated during the marriage. There needs to be a balance so both men and women see marriage as a good thing. I admit it is difficult to achieve that balance since neither most men or women can ever really be totally objective here. We might want to look at other eras in U.S. history when marriage rates were higher to see what combinations of divorce laws, child support laws, welfare eligibility rules and general cultural values existed that channeled men and women into getting married at higher rates.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You have to consider, though, many women will not look that far ahead when making a decision on whether to leave their marriage.
     
    I'm skeptical that women are dumping perfectly good husbands just to get child support that they won't have long-term anyway.

    A faithful wife who is deserted should get a good sized chunk of the property accumulated during the marriage.
     
    Half, at least. IMO a spouse who leaves for nothing should leave with nothing, if you know what I mean, whether it is the man or woman doing the leaving.

    The dominant culture portrays divorce as an “Eat Pray, Love” lifestyle for divorced women.
     
    If you're going to get mad about something, get mad about this.


    So me and other guys like me may still be providing financial support for ex-wives even after the divorce.
     
    Shall we put the disabled on the streets with tin-cans, then? (Attention, iffen: that is what a straw-man looks like!)

    Still, I don't see much in the way of solutions, here.

    I have made clear my opposition to all forms of forced prostitution, including marriage under economic duress, which I suspect you may be hinting at here. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  111. @iffen
    Can I help with this vote?

    I have literally never, ever heard of a person having a child and then regretting it.

    you redefine children as a mere lifestyle choice

    an awfully convenient excuse for men who target girls

    Of course they do! People don’t like to admit they are shallow

    this would trigger suspicion among wilier folk

    My honor is important to me.

    I don't consider using strawmen as a mortal sin. It is a good device to use in a discussion and argument. Sooo, I didn't mean to "dishonor" you.

    Can I help with this vote?

    No. I meant three people other than you, iffen. And none of those examples you cited are straw-men, which I’ll explain in detail upon seeing three names agreeing with your allegation that I use fallacies and sophistry in my arguments.

    • Replies: @iffen
    with your allegation that I use fallacies and sophistry in my arguments

    Wait a minute! You are trying to change the conditions of the vote with this strawman. Strawmen, fallacies and sophistry are three different devices. You called for a vote on strawman. Now you want the vote to be on whether you have three "violations" rather than just one. Get your fat thumb off the scale!

  112. @Twinkie

    Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.
     
    Ok. Good. Here is a follow-up question. Would you encourage your child to marry someone who appears to be “an otherwise suitable person” whose parents are convicted child pornographers, siblings are drug dealers, and all his/her friends are prostitutes?

    Ok. Good. Here is a follow-up question. Would you encourage your child to marry someone who appears to be “an otherwise suitable person” whose parents are convicted child pornographers, siblings are drug dealers, and all his/her friends are prostitutes?

    Yes, on the parents and siblings. You can’t choose your family. No on the prostitute friends. You can choose your friends.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yes, on the parents and siblings. You can’t choose your family.
     
    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.

    And, no, you can’t choose family, but you can certainly choose in-laws.


    No on the prostitute friends. You can choose your friends.
     
    My earlier scenario also had a friend component (“all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners”).

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.

    For some odd reason, I don’t think most white parents would follow suit. I guess the white race is doomed.

  113. @Mark G.
    It's true that child support ends at eighteen and the ex-wife may have a lower standard of living after that. You have to consider, though, many women will not look that far ahead when making a decision on whether to leave their marriage. The dominant culture portrays divorce as an "Eat Pray, Love" lifestyle for divorced women. The reality is not as appealing as the fantasy but women are not shown the reality. Some other women mistakenly think divorced life will be like it was before they got married when they were in their twenties and got lots of attention from men. I've personally heard middle aged divorced women wonder why there aren't as many guys hanging around them being friendly to them as there was when they were 20. Some women see welfare as a potential safety net that they can fall into after the children grow up. My ex-wife is on a disability pension, part of which may be coming from taxes that I pay. So me and other guys like me may still be providing financial support for ex-wives even after the divorce. On the other hand, you do need protections for women in the situation of the financially successful husband who dumps his faithful wife for a younger model. A faithful wife who is deserted should get a good sized chunk of the property accumulated during the marriage. There needs to be a balance so both men and women see marriage as a good thing. I admit it is difficult to achieve that balance since neither most men or women can ever really be totally objective here. We might want to look at other eras in U.S. history when marriage rates were higher to see what combinations of divorce laws, child support laws, welfare eligibility rules and general cultural values existed that channeled men and women into getting married at higher rates.

    You have to consider, though, many women will not look that far ahead when making a decision on whether to leave their marriage.

    I’m skeptical that women are dumping perfectly good husbands just to get child support that they won’t have long-term anyway.

    A faithful wife who is deserted should get a good sized chunk of the property accumulated during the marriage.

    Half, at least. IMO a spouse who leaves for nothing should leave with nothing, if you know what I mean, whether it is the man or woman doing the leaving.

    The dominant culture portrays divorce as an “Eat Pray, Love” lifestyle for divorced women.

    If you’re going to get mad about something, get mad about this.

    So me and other guys like me may still be providing financial support for ex-wives even after the divorce.

    Shall we put the disabled on the streets with tin-cans, then? (Attention, iffen: that is what a straw-man looks like!)

    Still, I don’t see much in the way of solutions, here.

    I have made clear my opposition to all forms of forced prostitution, including marriage under economic duress, which I suspect you may be hinting at here. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    • Replies: @iffen
    all forms of forced prostitution, including marriage under economic duress,

    I object to this characterization. You are focusing upon only one aspect (sex). It is infinitely more nuanced than that.
    , @Mark G.
    There are plenty of jobs women can do if they don't want to be married. I don't understand this fixation you have that unmarried women are going to be forced into prostitution. Do you think women are so talentless that being a hooker is all they can do? It's odd that a woman would have such a low opinion of her fellow females. I have a higher opinion of women than that. What is the alternative to women considering the financial stability of various men as one factor among many when deciding to get married and have children? Would the alternative be for women to have children with men without caring whether the men can help support the children and then make other men support those children financially? Are you hinting that men should be made the financial slaves of women they aren't married to by government force?
  114. @Rosie

    Ok. Good. Here is a follow-up question. Would you encourage your child to marry someone who appears to be “an otherwise suitable person” whose parents are convicted child pornographers, siblings are drug dealers, and all his/her friends are prostitutes?
     
    Yes, on the parents and siblings. You can't choose your family. No on the prostitute friends. You can choose your friends.

    Yes, on the parents and siblings. You can’t choose your family.

    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.

    And, no, you can’t choose family, but you can certainly choose in-laws.

    No on the prostitute friends. You can choose your friends.

    My earlier scenario also had a friend component (“all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners”).

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.

    For some odd reason, I don’t think most white parents would follow suit. I guess the white race is doomed.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.
     
    How Twinkie argues:

    Come to a pro-White blog and tell us all our mothers are whores and our fathers were stupid to marry them and we should never have been born, and our children should never have been born because we are also whores who should have been discarded as damaged goods the moment we lost our virginity.

    When called out on said stupidity, move the goal post by concocting phoney baloney hypothetical scenarios that have no basis in reality and nothing to do with original bullshit.

    Declare victory.

    , @Rosie

    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.
     
    You're right, Twinkie. Women should reject outright any man whose father is a criminal. Heck, why stop there? Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!
  115. @Rosie

    Can I help with this vote?
     
    No. I meant three people other than you, iffen. And none of those examples you cited are straw-men, which I'll explain in detail upon seeing three names agreeing with your allegation that I use fallacies and sophistry in my arguments.

    with your allegation that I use fallacies and sophistry in my arguments

    Wait a minute! You are trying to change the conditions of the vote with this strawman. Strawmen, fallacies and sophistry are three different devices. You called for a vote on strawman. Now you want the vote to be on whether you have three “violations” rather than just one. Get your fat thumb off the scale!

    • Replies: @Rosie

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.
     
    Iffen, this is precisely the problem with accusing people of using a straw-man. It is often really just a misunderstanding you see.

    All fallacies are sophistry, and the straw man is but one fallacy in the whole bunch. I have not changed the conditions of the vote, but if it makes you feel better:

    The vote is on whether I used any "straw-men," to clarify.

  116. @Twinkie

    Yes, on the parents and siblings. You can’t choose your family.
     
    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.

    And, no, you can’t choose family, but you can certainly choose in-laws.


    No on the prostitute friends. You can choose your friends.
     
    My earlier scenario also had a friend component (“all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners”).

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.

    For some odd reason, I don’t think most white parents would follow suit. I guess the white race is doomed.

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.

    How Twinkie argues:

    Come to a pro-White blog and tell us all our mothers are whores and our fathers were stupid to marry them and we should never have been born, and our children should never have been born because we are also whores who should have been discarded as damaged goods the moment we lost our virginity.

    When called out on said stupidity, move the goal post by concocting phoney baloney hypothetical scenarios that have no basis in reality and nothing to do with original bullshit.

    Declare victory.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    How Twinkie argues:
     
    I knew once you realize you set yourself up with poor logic, you were going to deviate into ad hominem about my argument.

    Yes, I often use the Socratic method with those who have trouble with white-invented logic.

    pro-White blog
     
    Is it?

    tell us all our mothers are whores and our fathers were stupid to marry them and we should never have been born, and our children should never have been born because we are also whores who should have been discarded as damaged goods the moment we lost our virginity.
     
    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.
  117. @iffen
    with your allegation that I use fallacies and sophistry in my arguments

    Wait a minute! You are trying to change the conditions of the vote with this strawman. Strawmen, fallacies and sophistry are three different devices. You called for a vote on strawman. Now you want the vote to be on whether you have three "violations" rather than just one. Get your fat thumb off the scale!

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.

    Iffen, this is precisely the problem with accusing people of using a straw-man. It is often really just a misunderstanding you see.

    All fallacies are sophistry, and the straw man is but one fallacy in the whole bunch. I have not changed the conditions of the vote, but if it makes you feel better:

    The vote is on whether I used any “straw-men,” to clarify.

  118. @Twinkie

    Yes, on the parents and siblings. You can’t choose your family.
     
    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.

    And, no, you can’t choose family, but you can certainly choose in-laws.


    No on the prostitute friends. You can choose your friends.
     
    My earlier scenario also had a friend component (“all his/her friends have babies out of wedlock and are living with different partners”).

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.

    For some odd reason, I don’t think most white parents would follow suit. I guess the white race is doomed.

    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.

    You’re right, Twinkie. Women should reject outright any man whose father is a criminal. Heck, why stop there? Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!

    • Replies: @iffen
    Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!

    Actually ...
    , @iffen
    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.

    Yes, Rosie, stop paraphrasing!
    , @Twinkie

    You’re right, Twinkie. Women should reject outright any man whose father is a criminal. Heck, why stop there? Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!
     
    Imprisoning people and advising marriage partners are different beasts, to say the least. Everyone has a right to life and a right to avoid unjust imprisonment. Not everyone has a right to be married to my children. It’s a pity you can’t see the difference.

    I teased out your answers to demonstrate something, which is that most principles have conditions and qualifiers.

    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners leads me to think that you either have no child of your own or are disingenuous online. There is a small chance that you are an exceedingly principled person, but all that I have read of you up to this point argues against it.
  119. @Rosie

    You have to consider, though, many women will not look that far ahead when making a decision on whether to leave their marriage.
     
    I'm skeptical that women are dumping perfectly good husbands just to get child support that they won't have long-term anyway.

    A faithful wife who is deserted should get a good sized chunk of the property accumulated during the marriage.
     
    Half, at least. IMO a spouse who leaves for nothing should leave with nothing, if you know what I mean, whether it is the man or woman doing the leaving.

    The dominant culture portrays divorce as an “Eat Pray, Love” lifestyle for divorced women.
     
    If you're going to get mad about something, get mad about this.


    So me and other guys like me may still be providing financial support for ex-wives even after the divorce.
     
    Shall we put the disabled on the streets with tin-cans, then? (Attention, iffen: that is what a straw-man looks like!)

    Still, I don't see much in the way of solutions, here.

    I have made clear my opposition to all forms of forced prostitution, including marriage under economic duress, which I suspect you may be hinting at here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    all forms of forced prostitution, including marriage under economic duress,

    I object to this characterization. You are focusing upon only one aspect (sex). It is infinitely more nuanced than that.

  120. @Rosie

    So you are ok with being in-laws with child pornographers and drug dealers. You are unbelievably principled, Rosie. The best of the best.
     
    How Twinkie argues:

    Come to a pro-White blog and tell us all our mothers are whores and our fathers were stupid to marry them and we should never have been born, and our children should never have been born because we are also whores who should have been discarded as damaged goods the moment we lost our virginity.

    When called out on said stupidity, move the goal post by concocting phoney baloney hypothetical scenarios that have no basis in reality and nothing to do with original bullshit.

    Declare victory.

    How Twinkie argues:

    I knew once you realize you set yourself up with poor logic, you were going to deviate into ad hominem about my argument.

    Yes, I often use the Socratic method with those who have trouble with white-invented logic.

    pro-White blog

    Is it?

    tell us all our mothers are whores and our fathers were stupid to marry them and we should never have been born, and our children should never have been born because we are also whores who should have been discarded as damaged goods the moment we lost our virginity.

    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.
     
    No, you didn't write it, but it logically follows from what you did write, and unfortunately for you, I am here to point that out.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    pro-White blog

    Is it?


    The blog is primarily devoted to providing empirical data that is, for mostly ideological reasons, largely not sought out and/or not reproduced by corporate media sources of information. My position is that knowledge is good.

    Secondarily, I'm motivated by a desire to honor my ancestors by bequeathing the best world I can to my descendants.
  121. @Rosie

    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.
     
    You're right, Twinkie. Women should reject outright any man whose father is a criminal. Heck, why stop there? Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!

    Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!

    Actually …

  122. @Rosie

    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.
     
    You're right, Twinkie. Women should reject outright any man whose father is a criminal. Heck, why stop there? Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!

    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.

    Yes, Rosie, stop paraphrasing!

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yes, Rosie, stop paraphrasing!
     
    I see you are an emotional person whose personal animus distorts his ability to see differences that are astoundingly obvious to objective observers.
  123. @Rosie

    How curious. Rosie’s weight problem is entirely hereditary and requires chemical intervention, but criminality and drug addiction apparently don’t have a hereditary component.
     
    You're right, Twinkie. Women should reject outright any man whose father is a criminal. Heck, why stop there? Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!

    You’re right, Twinkie. Women should reject outright any man whose father is a criminal. Heck, why stop there? Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!

    Imprisoning people and advising marriage partners are different beasts, to say the least. Everyone has a right to life and a right to avoid unjust imprisonment. Not everyone has a right to be married to my children. It’s a pity you can’t see the difference.

    I teased out your answers to demonstrate something, which is that most principles have conditions and qualifiers.

    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners leads me to think that you either have no child of your own or are disingenuous online. There is a small chance that you are an exceedingly principled person, but all that I have read of you up to this point argues against it.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    There is a small chance that you are an exceedingly principled person, but all that I have read of you up to this point argues against it.
     
    Yes, I am an exceedingly principled person, but that's beside the point. As you are well-aware, the chances of well-bred children falling in with a family of child pornographers are nill. As such, your patently ridiculous contrivance fools noone. OTOH, it is all but certain that our children will encounter all sorts of people from broken families and with mistakes in their past. Indeed, they will be the majority, as you well know. Nonetheless, you still discourage men from considering these women as potential spouses.

    Your actions do not reflect well on your intentions here, Twinkie.
  124. @Twinkie

    How Twinkie argues:
     
    I knew once you realize you set yourself up with poor logic, you were going to deviate into ad hominem about my argument.

    Yes, I often use the Socratic method with those who have trouble with white-invented logic.

    pro-White blog
     
    Is it?

    tell us all our mothers are whores and our fathers were stupid to marry them and we should never have been born, and our children should never have been born because we are also whores who should have been discarded as damaged goods the moment we lost our virginity.
     
    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.

    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.

    No, you didn’t write it, but it logically follows from what you did write, and unfortunately for you, I am here to point that out.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    logically follows from what you did write
     
    Reductio ad absurdum is also a fallacy. With most things in life, I believe in balance. Having criminal parents is not an automatic disqualified, but it’s a factor to be considered seriously when making a lifelong commitment.
  125. @iffen
    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.

    Yes, Rosie, stop paraphrasing!

    Yes, Rosie, stop paraphrasing!

    I see you are an emotional person whose personal animus distorts his ability to see differences that are astoundingly obvious to objective observers.

    • Replies: @iffen
    that are astoundingly obvious to objective observers.

    And the objective observer is astoundingly obvious.

  126. @Rosie

    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.
     
    No, you didn't write it, but it logically follows from what you did write, and unfortunately for you, I am here to point that out.

    logically follows from what you did write

    Reductio ad absurdum is also a fallacy. With most things in life, I believe in balance. Having criminal parents is not an automatic disqualified, but it’s a factor to be considered seriously when making a lifelong commitment.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Having criminal parents is not an automatic disqualified, but it’s a factor to be considered seriously when making a lifelong commitment.
     
    Striking a rather different tone here, aren't you, Twinkie?
  127. @Twinkie

    You’re right, Twinkie. Women should reject outright any man whose father is a criminal. Heck, why stop there? Just throw the bad seed in jail along with the parents.!
     
    Imprisoning people and advising marriage partners are different beasts, to say the least. Everyone has a right to life and a right to avoid unjust imprisonment. Not everyone has a right to be married to my children. It’s a pity you can’t see the difference.

    I teased out your answers to demonstrate something, which is that most principles have conditions and qualifiers.

    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners leads me to think that you either have no child of your own or are disingenuous online. There is a small chance that you are an exceedingly principled person, but all that I have read of you up to this point argues against it.

    There is a small chance that you are an exceedingly principled person, but all that I have read of you up to this point argues against it.

    Yes, I am an exceedingly principled person, but that’s beside the point. As you are well-aware, the chances of well-bred children falling in with a family of child pornographers are nill. As such, your patently ridiculous contrivance fools noone. OTOH, it is all but certain that our children will encounter all sorts of people from broken families and with mistakes in their past. Indeed, they will be the majority, as you well know. Nonetheless, you still discourage men from considering these women as potential spouses.

    Your actions do not reflect well on your intentions here, Twinkie.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners

    Rosie, I am old and slow, (and slow-witted from the beginning) but I couldn't find where you wrote this. Can you help me find it?
    , @Twinkie

    the chances of well-bred children falling in with a family of child pornographers are nill.
     
    I wouldn’t say nil, just very unlikely. I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Here is the final question. Would you advise your children to consider race of the prospective spouse?
  128. @Twinkie

    Yes, Rosie, stop paraphrasing!
     
    I see you are an emotional person whose personal animus distorts his ability to see differences that are astoundingly obvious to objective observers.

    that are astoundingly obvious to objective observers.

    And the objective observer is astoundingly obvious.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    You fail again! You just can’t stop reading what I write, can’t you?
  129. @Twinkie

    logically follows from what you did write
     
    Reductio ad absurdum is also a fallacy. With most things in life, I believe in balance. Having criminal parents is not an automatic disqualified, but it’s a factor to be considered seriously when making a lifelong commitment.

    Having criminal parents is not an automatic disqualified, but it’s a factor to be considered seriously when making a lifelong commitment.

    Striking a rather different tone here, aren’t you, Twinkie?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Striking a rather different tone here, aren’t you, Twinkie?
     
    You think so? Let’s look at the original passage from me that you found so objectionable:

    Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.
     
  130. @Rosie

    There is a small chance that you are an exceedingly principled person, but all that I have read of you up to this point argues against it.
     
    Yes, I am an exceedingly principled person, but that's beside the point. As you are well-aware, the chances of well-bred children falling in with a family of child pornographers are nill. As such, your patently ridiculous contrivance fools noone. OTOH, it is all but certain that our children will encounter all sorts of people from broken families and with mistakes in their past. Indeed, they will be the majority, as you well know. Nonetheless, you still discourage men from considering these women as potential spouses.

    Your actions do not reflect well on your intentions here, Twinkie.

    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners

    Rosie, I am old and slow, (and slow-witted from the beginning) but I couldn’t find where you wrote this. Can you help me find it?

    • Replies: @Twinkie


    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners
     
    Rosie, I am old and slow, (and slow-witted from the beginning) but I couldn’t find where you wrote this. Can you help me find it?
     
    Let me help since you are quoting me.

    Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.
     
    “All the rest of it” refers to the family background and the social affiliations I laid out.
  131. @SFG
    He doesn't make terrible arguments, given the child-support and divorce laws. They really are rough on men, or the 'male-identified' if you are an SJW.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn't address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass? You can't *guarantee* your kids won't stab you in the back or dump you in an old-age home, but if you have enough at least one is likely to serve as an advocate for you if you don't crap on them too much. You can hire skilled nursing staff, but they're unlikely to care about you as much as your biological flesh and blood.

    So: would you rather have a better life 30-60 or so, and then much worse 60 on? I can see arguments either way to be honest.

    I suspect that's one of the reasons Roosh went God-pilled and you don't see too many old players extolling the lifestyle on the Internet, but I could be wrong on this note.

    Again, issues of legacy and cultural continuity and so on are a separate matter, and I won't speak to those.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce, and part of happiness is living in accordance with your natural programming, then his reasons would be less important than the endorphins and dopamine and serotonin and so on you would get by living in accordance with your natural desire to have kids. (It's also quite possible that Blackdragon has a weak reproductive drive for whatever reason (values his freedom more highly) and so he is maximizing his own happiness by not doing so.)

    After all, we've all seen people come up with reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway; if reason is something we developed to convince others rather than understand the universe (with science just being a 'hack' of our natural persuasive ability), then it would be a less accurate guide than the traditions we've 'evolved' over centuries, since in most cases you'd be convincing yourself to follow whatever impulse you wanted to.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn’t address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass?

    The same thing that happens to modern old people who have selfish kids (basically all of them). They go into the goddamned nursing home until they die of bedsores or watching too much Oprah or whatever.

    Y’awl act like we live in some G.K. Chesterton novel where poppa grows enormous whiskers, mumma bakes pies, and the children marry their childhood sweethearts. The reality is, the average mumma decides she’s “unsatisfied,” poppa goes to prison for imaginary child abuse, and the kids have blue hair, tattoos and the body count of a victorian prostitute by the time they’re 15.

    There is no logical argument for reproduction: it’s an act of instinct, narcissism and religious/familial duty. The logical/selfish approach to anyone who understands probability theory is to not breed. Which is probably why @Audacious left out the single/divorced people who did breed from that happiness graph.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I've looked at self-reported happiness in more detail over the years. The genesis of this post and the one preceding it was primarily polemical--the piece of propaganda specifically argued that single, childless women are more happy than married women with children. The evidence says that's 180 degrees backwards. If the contention was that single women were more happy than divorced women, I wouldn't have devoted two posts to it.
    , @Abelard Lindsey
    We all know the aging process is an bummer.

    The best approach is to tackle it directly through bio-engineering (which is what guys like Aubrey de Grey and others are doing) rather than trying to craft various social structures to accommodate it in half-ass ways. There is stuff you can do now, like senolytic compounds as well as the sirtuin compounds (NR, Resveratrol, etc.). Like I said, aging is best dealt with directly rather than through social engineering or memetic schemes, which don't do jack to solve the underlying problem.

    I have no idea if "Black Dragon" is plugged into the DIY life extension community because i actually do not read his blog much. He's a fool if he's not.
  132. @Rosie

    There is a small chance that you are an exceedingly principled person, but all that I have read of you up to this point argues against it.
     
    Yes, I am an exceedingly principled person, but that's beside the point. As you are well-aware, the chances of well-bred children falling in with a family of child pornographers are nill. As such, your patently ridiculous contrivance fools noone. OTOH, it is all but certain that our children will encounter all sorts of people from broken families and with mistakes in their past. Indeed, they will be the majority, as you well know. Nonetheless, you still discourage men from considering these women as potential spouses.

    Your actions do not reflect well on your intentions here, Twinkie.

    the chances of well-bred children falling in with a family of child pornographers are nill.

    I wouldn’t say nil, just very unlikely. I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Here is the final question. Would you advise your children to consider race of the prospective spouse?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Here is the final question. Would you advise your children to consider race of the prospective spouse?

    It took us 131 comments to get to the burr under the saddle.

    , @iffen
    I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Most WNs are. Did you not notice before now?
  133. @Rosie

    Having criminal parents is not an automatic disqualified, but it’s a factor to be considered seriously when making a lifelong commitment.
     
    Striking a rather different tone here, aren't you, Twinkie?

    Striking a rather different tone here, aren’t you, Twinkie?

    You think so? Let’s look at the original passage from me that you found so objectionable:

    Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.

  134. @iffen
    that are astoundingly obvious to objective observers.

    And the objective observer is astoundingly obvious.

    You fail again! You just can’t stop reading what I write, can’t you?

  135. @iffen
    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners

    Rosie, I am old and slow, (and slow-witted from the beginning) but I couldn't find where you wrote this. Can you help me find it?

    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners

    Rosie, I am old and slow, (and slow-witted from the beginning) but I couldn’t find where you wrote this. Can you help me find it?

    Let me help since you are quoting me.

    Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.

    “All the rest of it” refers to the family background and the social affiliations I laid out.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Let me help

    Let me help you since I am familiar with your comprehension problems (and others).

    She is saying that if a child brought home someone to meet her she would not go Twinkie-psycho about the fact that she knew that the kid had an alcoholic parent. Neither is she saying that if her kid brings home the banker's kid she would demand an end to the relationship and insist that they find someone whose parent is a drug addict.
  136. @Twinkie


    The fact that you apparently wouldn’t factor in family background and social affiliations in advising your children of suitable marriage partners
     
    Rosie, I am old and slow, (and slow-witted from the beginning) but I couldn’t find where you wrote this. Can you help me find it?
     
    Let me help since you are quoting me.

    Yes, I would encourage my children to marry an otherwise suitable person who had a terrible home life, drug addicts for parents, and all the rest of it.
     
    “All the rest of it” refers to the family background and the social affiliations I laid out.

    Let me help

    Let me help you since I am familiar with your comprehension problems (and others).

    She is saying that if a child brought home someone to meet her she would not go Twinkie-psycho about the fact that she knew that the kid had an alcoholic parent. Neither is she saying that if her kid brings home the banker’s kid she would demand an end to the relationship and insist that they find someone whose parent is a drug addict.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    comprehension problems
     
    Don’t project. It’s tiresome.

    She is saying that if a child brought home someone to meet her she would not go Twinkie-psycho about the fact
     
    Read the exchange very, very carefully. I can’t use any smaller words than I did for your benefit.
    Me:

    Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.
     
    Her:

    Great. Now we’ve just ruled out another whole swath of young white women as suitable marriage partners.
     
    , @Rosie

    She is saying that if a child brought home someone to meet her she would not go Twinkie-psycho about the fact that she knew that the kid had an alcoholic parent. Neither is she saying that if her kid brings home the banker’s kid she would demand an end to the relationship and insist that they find someone whose parent is a drug addict.
     
    Quite right.
  137. @Rosie

    You have to consider, though, many women will not look that far ahead when making a decision on whether to leave their marriage.
     
    I'm skeptical that women are dumping perfectly good husbands just to get child support that they won't have long-term anyway.

    A faithful wife who is deserted should get a good sized chunk of the property accumulated during the marriage.
     
    Half, at least. IMO a spouse who leaves for nothing should leave with nothing, if you know what I mean, whether it is the man or woman doing the leaving.

    The dominant culture portrays divorce as an “Eat Pray, Love” lifestyle for divorced women.
     
    If you're going to get mad about something, get mad about this.


    So me and other guys like me may still be providing financial support for ex-wives even after the divorce.
     
    Shall we put the disabled on the streets with tin-cans, then? (Attention, iffen: that is what a straw-man looks like!)

    Still, I don't see much in the way of solutions, here.

    I have made clear my opposition to all forms of forced prostitution, including marriage under economic duress, which I suspect you may be hinting at here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    There are plenty of jobs women can do if they don’t want to be married. I don’t understand this fixation you have that unmarried women are going to be forced into prostitution. Do you think women are so talentless that being a hooker is all they can do? It’s odd that a woman would have such a low opinion of her fellow females. I have a higher opinion of women than that. What is the alternative to women considering the financial stability of various men as one factor among many when deciding to get married and have children? Would the alternative be for women to have children with men without caring whether the men can help support the children and then make other men support those children financially? Are you hinting that men should be made the financial slaves of women they aren’t married to by government force?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Do you think women are so talentless that being a hooker is all they can do?
     
    No, I do not. This is the language that made me nervous:

    "We might want to look at other eras in U.S. history when marriage rates were higher to see what combinations of divorce laws, child support laws, welfare eligibility rules and general cultural values existed that channeled men and women into getting married at higher rates."

    Some people think that women should be excluded from the workplace so that they are forced to marry for a meal ticket (i.e. prostitution). I thought perhaps this is what you meant. If not, fine.

    What is the alternative to women considering the financial stability of various men as one factor among many when deciding to get married and have children? Would the alternative be for women to have children with men without caring whether the men can help support the children and then make other men support those children financially?
     
    A woman does not advertise for a husband and pick the most qualified. Cupid's arrow hits where it will. Nature takes its course.

    Are you hinting that men should be made the financial slaves of women they aren’t married to by government force?

     

    If you consider paying taxes to be "financial slavery," then yes. What you have to understand is that motherhood is a handicap, and the handicapped are entitled to social support. That remains true even if their handicap is partially their own fault. Suppose a stupid teenage boy wrecks his car and becomes a paraplegic. Should he be left to starve? Is it "slavery" to force you to contribute to his maintenance and healthcare?
  138. @Twinkie

    the chances of well-bred children falling in with a family of child pornographers are nill.
     
    I wouldn’t say nil, just very unlikely. I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Here is the final question. Would you advise your children to consider race of the prospective spouse?

    Here is the final question. Would you advise your children to consider race of the prospective spouse?

    It took us 131 comments to get to the burr under the saddle.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I certainly would. I was wondering whether Rosie’s hereditarianism was selective based on her personal circumstances.
  139. @Twinkie

    the chances of well-bred children falling in with a family of child pornographers are nill.
     
    I wouldn’t say nil, just very unlikely. I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Here is the final question. Would you advise your children to consider race of the prospective spouse?

    I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Most WNs are. Did you not notice before now?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Most WNs are. Did you not notice before now?
     
    Remember the whole reading comprehension thing? Try looking at the word “again.” I am implying that she is selectively hereditarian. It means she is not as “exceedingly principled” as she claims or that she uses the principle of heredity selectively to rationalize her priors. There is a name for that in science.
  140. @iffen
    Let me help

    Let me help you since I am familiar with your comprehension problems (and others).

    She is saying that if a child brought home someone to meet her she would not go Twinkie-psycho about the fact that she knew that the kid had an alcoholic parent. Neither is she saying that if her kid brings home the banker's kid she would demand an end to the relationship and insist that they find someone whose parent is a drug addict.

    comprehension problems

    Don’t project. It’s tiresome.

    She is saying that if a child brought home someone to meet her she would not go Twinkie-psycho about the fact

    Read the exchange very, very carefully. I can’t use any smaller words than I did for your benefit.
    Me:

    Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.

    Her:

    Great. Now we’ve just ruled out another whole swath of young white women as suitable marriage partners.

  141. @iffen
    Here is the final question. Would you advise your children to consider race of the prospective spouse?

    It took us 131 comments to get to the burr under the saddle.

    I certainly would. I was wondering whether Rosie’s hereditarianism was selective based on her personal circumstances.

  142. @iffen
    I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Most WNs are. Did you not notice before now?

    I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Most WNs are. Did you not notice before now?

    Remember the whole reading comprehension thing? Try looking at the word “again.” I am implying that she is selectively hereditarian. It means she is not as “exceedingly principled” as she claims or that she uses the principle of heredity selectively to rationalize her priors. There is a name for that in science.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I am implying that she is selectively hereditarian. It means she is not as “exceedingly principled” as she claims or that she uses the principle of heredity selectively to rationalize her priors.

    She's pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she "selectively" deviate from that? As to her assertion that she considers herself to be a principled person, she can address that. I assume that she means that she doesn't change her argument to fit the comment. That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.
  143. @Twinkie

    I see you are a hereditarian again.

    Most WNs are. Did you not notice before now?
     
    Remember the whole reading comprehension thing? Try looking at the word “again.” I am implying that she is selectively hereditarian. It means she is not as “exceedingly principled” as she claims or that she uses the principle of heredity selectively to rationalize her priors. There is a name for that in science.

    I am implying that she is selectively hereditarian. It means she is not as “exceedingly principled” as she claims or that she uses the principle of heredity selectively to rationalize her priors.

    She’s pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she “selectively” deviate from that? As to her assertion that she considers herself to be a principled person, she can address that. I assume that she means that she doesn’t change her argument to fit the comment. That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    She’s pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she “selectively” deviate from that? As to her assertion that she considers herself to be a principled person, she can address that. I assume that she means that she doesn’t change her argument to fit the comment. That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.
     
    The best I can say for Twinkie is that he doesn't understand the way we date, and is projecting his own ideas of courtship on others. I don't know about you, but I just hit it off with my husband. By the time it would have occurred to me to conduct a thorough background check of all his associates, it didn't matter anymore, because I was already in love with him, and dumping him over a bad family lie would have been unthinkable.
    , @Twinkie

    That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.
     
    I don’t think constantly making up what others say and attributing it to others is a sign of “good faith.”

    Then again, you are also familiar with debate by ad hominem, straw man, and four-letter words.

    She’s pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she “selectively” deviate from that?
     
    I was under the impression that she was not just a white nationalist, but also a biological hereditarian (see her arguments about being overweight), but her hereditarianism goes out the window when it’s inconvenient for her.
  144. Qft says:
    @SFG
    He doesn't make terrible arguments, given the child-support and divorce laws. They really are rough on men, or the 'male-identified' if you are an SJW.

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn't address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass? You can't *guarantee* your kids won't stab you in the back or dump you in an old-age home, but if you have enough at least one is likely to serve as an advocate for you if you don't crap on them too much. You can hire skilled nursing staff, but they're unlikely to care about you as much as your biological flesh and blood.

    So: would you rather have a better life 30-60 or so, and then much worse 60 on? I can see arguments either way to be honest.

    I suspect that's one of the reasons Roosh went God-pilled and you don't see too many old players extolling the lifestyle on the Internet, but I could be wrong on this note.

    Again, issues of legacy and cultural continuity and so on are a separate matter, and I won't speak to those.

    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce, and part of happiness is living in accordance with your natural programming, then his reasons would be less important than the endorphins and dopamine and serotonin and so on you would get by living in accordance with your natural desire to have kids. (It's also quite possible that Blackdragon has a weak reproductive drive for whatever reason (values his freedom more highly) and so he is maximizing his own happiness by not doing so.)

    After all, we've all seen people come up with reasons to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway; if reason is something we developed to convince others rather than understand the universe (with science just being a 'hack' of our natural persuasive ability), then it would be a less accurate guide than the traditions we've 'evolved' over centuries, since in most cases you'd be convincing yourself to follow whatever impulse you wanted to.

    Funny to see blackdragon get dragged into this. Didn’t know he was that well-known.

    First: AE, I assume you know the gap you’re showing is (almost) entirely the “marriage gap” and has nothing to do with children. Control for marriage and the kids part goes away.

    With regard to Blackdragon, his general advice is dumb. Basically: date single moms, have no kids (except he already has a kid…. So he’s really just trying to convince you not to reproduce. Do as I say not as I do.)

    Taking marriage and childbearing advice from a guy who ended up in a sexless marriage but says he needs sex three times a week to be happy and is hopped up on TRT constantly and brags about all the cougars he bangs is dubious to say the least.

    He has some valid points here and there and some of his stuff is worth reading BUT his overall philosophy is a joke. Leaving no genetic legacy is the road to a purposeless life; work gets old; dating and sex get old if they don’t go anywhere.

    I will allow one exception: being a sperm donor to selected high quality women gets you your genetic legacy and kids you may stay in touch with or mentor one day, without the cost or responsibility of child-raising. That plan is a winner, much more than the “zero genetic legacy” strategy that sounds great during the phase it’s supposed to sound great, and disasterous after.

  145. @Rosie

    You seem to have a problem with this, which strikes me as quite irrational.
     
    I have a problem with your denial of any obligation to continue life, given that you owe your very existence and all your freedoms to countless men and women who raised children in circumstances that your couldn't imagine in your worst nightmare. I object to your presumption of childlessness as the default, and your claim that voluntary childlessness is a morally legitimate lifestyle.

    Believe me, I’m into continuing life. In fact, I ramped up my pursuit of it starting last fall when I thought I had a serious medical issue (false alarm, but decided to do my first senolytic therapy anyways). I just completed a second senolytic therapy (5 days of Fisetin and Quercetin) and am continuing with chelation with ALA. I plan to try a mitochondrial fission/fusion (I’m dialed into the DIY life extension community) protocol early next year and expect to do invivo cellular reprogramming on myself sometime in the next 2 to 5 years. So, yeah, you can say I’m into life and its continence.

    Once I’ve ensured my long term personal future, I can then think about having kids. Doing it the other way around is like putting the cart before the horse.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Once I’ve ensured my long term personal future, I can then think about having kids. Doing it the other way around is like putting the cart before the horse.
     
    Face palm. Here's how this whole thing works:

    https://youtu.be/Zn_qirpdBag
  146. @Mark G.
    There are plenty of jobs women can do if they don't want to be married. I don't understand this fixation you have that unmarried women are going to be forced into prostitution. Do you think women are so talentless that being a hooker is all they can do? It's odd that a woman would have such a low opinion of her fellow females. I have a higher opinion of women than that. What is the alternative to women considering the financial stability of various men as one factor among many when deciding to get married and have children? Would the alternative be for women to have children with men without caring whether the men can help support the children and then make other men support those children financially? Are you hinting that men should be made the financial slaves of women they aren't married to by government force?

    Do you think women are so talentless that being a hooker is all they can do?

    No, I do not. This is the language that made me nervous:

    “We might want to look at other eras in U.S. history when marriage rates were higher to see what combinations of divorce laws, child support laws, welfare eligibility rules and general cultural values existed that channeled men and women into getting married at higher rates.”

    Some people think that women should be excluded from the workplace so that they are forced to marry for a meal ticket (i.e. prostitution). I thought perhaps this is what you meant. If not, fine.

    What is the alternative to women considering the financial stability of various men as one factor among many when deciding to get married and have children? Would the alternative be for women to have children with men without caring whether the men can help support the children and then make other men support those children financially?

    A woman does not advertise for a husband and pick the most qualified. Cupid’s arrow hits where it will. Nature takes its course.

    Are you hinting that men should be made the financial slaves of women they aren’t married to by government force?

    If you consider paying taxes to be “financial slavery,” then yes. What you have to understand is that motherhood is a handicap, and the handicapped are entitled to social support. That remains true even if their handicap is partially their own fault. Suppose a stupid teenage boy wrecks his car and becomes a paraplegic. Should he be left to starve? Is it “slavery” to force you to contribute to his maintenance and healthcare?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Your views are all over the place and inconsistent.

    You've been arguing that men have some duty and obligation to have kids, regardless of individual preferences, but you also argue women should be free to be unmarried and even be supported by unrelated men who are forced by the state to pay taxes on their behalf.

    You're also comparing having a child to a "handicap" and akin to being a paraplegic, which is a bizarre and perverse view. Motherhood is only a "handicap" if on assumes that some sort of childless hedonism is the norm and chief pursuit of life.

    If women don't want to depend on a husband, then they have to either depend on their families, or on other sources of income via the market or taxpayers. If they're dependent on the market, the state has to prevent discrimination against women, and even promote positive discrimination in favor of women over men. And if they're dependent on taxpayers, that involves the state forcibly taking money from men to unrelated women who have children with other men.

    It is a form of parasitism and cuckoldry for unrelated men in society to be materially supporting single mothers and their children.
  147. @iffen
    I am implying that she is selectively hereditarian. It means she is not as “exceedingly principled” as she claims or that she uses the principle of heredity selectively to rationalize her priors.

    She's pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she "selectively" deviate from that? As to her assertion that she considers herself to be a principled person, she can address that. I assume that she means that she doesn't change her argument to fit the comment. That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.

    She’s pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she “selectively” deviate from that? As to her assertion that she considers herself to be a principled person, she can address that. I assume that she means that she doesn’t change her argument to fit the comment. That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.

    The best I can say for Twinkie is that he doesn’t understand the way we date, and is projecting his own ideas of courtship on others. I don’t know about you, but I just hit it off with my husband. By the time it would have occurred to me to conduct a thorough background check of all his associates, it didn’t matter anymore, because I was already in love with him, and dumping him over a bad family lie would have been unthinkable.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    he doesn’t understand the way we date, and is projecting his own ideas of courtship on others.
     
    Who is “we” here? Whites? And my idea of courtship has been the norm from time immemorial, including in the Christian West. It’s what every earnest Christian Church teaches of marriage and sex.

    I don’t know about you, but I just hit it off with my husband.
     
    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character. And you have the temerity to complain about men who “pump and dump.”

    By the time it would have occurred to me to conduct a thorough background check of all his associates
     
    More straw men. So, are your children going to get married without meeting their future in-laws or introducing you to them first?

    Don’t confirm Thomm’s ranting about “white trashionalists” by displaying low time horizon and impulsivity that WNs attribute to blacks. What I recommend - “Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.” - used to be called “prudence” in very white, Christian America.

  148. @Abelard Lindsey
    Believe me, I'm into continuing life. In fact, I ramped up my pursuit of it starting last fall when I thought I had a serious medical issue (false alarm, but decided to do my first senolytic therapy anyways). I just completed a second senolytic therapy (5 days of Fisetin and Quercetin) and am continuing with chelation with ALA. I plan to try a mitochondrial fission/fusion (I'm dialed into the DIY life extension community) protocol early next year and expect to do invivo cellular reprogramming on myself sometime in the next 2 to 5 years. So, yeah, you can say I'm into life and its continence.

    Once I've ensured my long term personal future, I can then think about having kids. Doing it the other way around is like putting the cart before the horse.

    Once I’ve ensured my long term personal future, I can then think about having kids. Doing it the other way around is like putting the cart before the horse.

    Face palm. Here’s how this whole thing works:

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    I don't care one wit about what you think about my personal life choices. First, its not any of your business. Second, there is absolutely zero chance of people like you of ever having any influence over people like myself. I think we can only agree to disagree.

    BTW, I find your reference to lions to be rather entertaining. Did you know that, as the only social cats, that lions express all of the sociology that is represented by the worse that the manosphere/MRA could ever come up with? I mean they really are like us (both good and bad, especially bad).

    Watch some of the Mapogo videos and you'll see what I mean (Mr. T is my favorite). I highly recommend them. The Mapogo coalition is really quite enlightening.

    Lets just say I don't romanticize animals at all. But then again, I'm not much of a romantic anyways (in the traditional philosophical definition).

  149. @iffen
    Let me help

    Let me help you since I am familiar with your comprehension problems (and others).

    She is saying that if a child brought home someone to meet her she would not go Twinkie-psycho about the fact that she knew that the kid had an alcoholic parent. Neither is she saying that if her kid brings home the banker's kid she would demand an end to the relationship and insist that they find someone whose parent is a drug addict.

    She is saying that if a child brought home someone to meet her she would not go Twinkie-psycho about the fact that she knew that the kid had an alcoholic parent. Neither is she saying that if her kid brings home the banker’s kid she would demand an end to the relationship and insist that they find someone whose parent is a drug addict.

    Quite right.

  150. @Rosie

    Once I’ve ensured my long term personal future, I can then think about having kids. Doing it the other way around is like putting the cart before the horse.
     
    Face palm. Here's how this whole thing works:

    https://youtu.be/Zn_qirpdBag

    Rosie,

    I don’t care one wit about what you think about my personal life choices. First, its not any of your business. Second, there is absolutely zero chance of people like you of ever having any influence over people like myself. I think we can only agree to disagree.

    BTW, I find your reference to lions to be rather entertaining. Did you know that, as the only social cats, that lions express all of the sociology that is represented by the worse that the manosphere/MRA could ever come up with? I mean they really are like us (both good and bad, especially bad).

    Watch some of the Mapogo videos and you’ll see what I mean (Mr. T is my favorite). I highly recommend them. The Mapogo coalition is really quite enlightening.

    Lets just say I don’t romanticize animals at all. But then again, I’m not much of a romantic anyways (in the traditional philosophical definition).

  151. @iffen
    I am implying that she is selectively hereditarian. It means she is not as “exceedingly principled” as she claims or that she uses the principle of heredity selectively to rationalize her priors.

    She's pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she "selectively" deviate from that? As to her assertion that she considers herself to be a principled person, she can address that. I assume that she means that she doesn't change her argument to fit the comment. That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.

    That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.

    I don’t think constantly making up what others say and attributing it to others is a sign of “good faith.”

    Then again, you are also familiar with debate by ad hominem, straw man, and four-letter words.

    She’s pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she “selectively” deviate from that?

    I was under the impression that she was not just a white nationalist, but also a biological hereditarian (see her arguments about being overweight), but her hereditarianism goes out the window when it’s inconvenient for her.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I was under the impression that she was not just a white nationalist, but also a biological hereditarian (see her arguments about being overweight), but her hereditarianism goes out the window when it’s inconvenient for her.
     
    You know, Twinkie, you're terribly overrated around these parts, probably for the reason I discussed above: even ethnocentric Whites need to feel they're fair to aliens. "See, I'm not such a terrible person! Look how I get along with Mr. Twinkie!)

    But I digress. I don't even know what the hell you mean by "hereditarian." Isn't everyone a hereditarian to one degree or another?

    That said, yes, I think genes control all sorts of things to one degree or another: overweight, criminality, drug addiction, etc.

    But that doesn't mean you shouldn't marry someone with criminals or drug addicts for parents or siblings. First of all, if you come from a whole family of drug addicts, but don't do drugs yourself, that resistance to drug use itself raises the question of whether you enjoy some sort of genetic resistance to drug abuse and addiction, does it not? Ditto for criminality. Parents and siblings aren't genetic clones.

    On the other hand, maybe you are just as susceptible to drug addiction as the rest of your family, but you have compensating strengths, like the ability to learn from others' mistakes, for instance.

    Really, Twinkie, this is so perfectly obvious, that I shouldn't have to go into it at all. Your childish little games of gotcha clog up this thread and no doubt bore people. We obviously don't like each other. I try to be civil, even nice to you, but then you start in on your bullshit about dating only perfect people with perfect families and I just can't abuse it any longer. It's really not your place to come here and caution White people, who again I remind you are in real danger of extinction over the next couple of centuries, about all the various sorts of people they shouldn't date. It's just not a good look.
  152. @Rosie

    She’s pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she “selectively” deviate from that? As to her assertion that she considers herself to be a principled person, she can address that. I assume that she means that she doesn’t change her argument to fit the comment. That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.
     
    The best I can say for Twinkie is that he doesn't understand the way we date, and is projecting his own ideas of courtship on others. I don't know about you, but I just hit it off with my husband. By the time it would have occurred to me to conduct a thorough background check of all his associates, it didn't matter anymore, because I was already in love with him, and dumping him over a bad family lie would have been unthinkable.

    he doesn’t understand the way we date, and is projecting his own ideas of courtship on others.

    Who is “we” here? Whites? And my idea of courtship has been the norm from time immemorial, including in the Christian West. It’s what every earnest Christian Church teaches of marriage and sex.

    I don’t know about you, but I just hit it off with my husband.

    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character. And you have the temerity to complain about men who “pump and dump.”

    By the time it would have occurred to me to conduct a thorough background check of all his associates

    More straw men. So, are your children going to get married without meeting their future in-laws or introducing you to them first?

    Don’t confirm Thomm’s ranting about “white trashionalists” by displaying low time horizon and impulsivity that WNs attribute to blacks. What I recommend – “Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.” – used to be called “prudence” in very white, Christian America.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character.

    It would be interesting if the people who continually whine about ad hominem didn't use it in every other comment.

    by displaying low time horizon and impulsivity that WNs attribute to blacks.

    Does one have to be a WN to make this attribution? Do you make this attribution?
    , @Rosie

    More straw men.
     
    I'll cop to that one. I couldn't resist.


    So, are your children going to get married without meeting their future in-laws or introducing you to them first?
     
    I will have to accept the fact that my children may someday meet and fall in love with someone before I ever meet them, at which point it will be a fait accompli.

    People travel, go to college, take internships in other states, etc. I suggest you prepare for that possibility yourself.
  153. Assuming you guys want to increase birthrates, I think polygamy should be legalized as well as all of the reprogenetics stuff. I have no problem with polygamy and do not understand the bugaboo some of you guys have about it.

    I think a technological innovation that would help to increase birthrate is the development of ectogenesis (exowombs) which would make it easier for women (and couples) to have the children they want. Both gametes (sperm and ova) can now be fabricated from stem cells which, in turn, can be manufactured from any cell in your body (via cellular reprogramming). The synthesis of whole chromosomes from scratch will make it easier to make gametes for increased IQ as well as increased resistance to disease. I would think there ought to be a crowdfunding effort on the part of the pro-natalist alt-right types to develop these technology. Again, I fail to understand why many of you reactionary alt-right types are not keen to develop these technologies.

    Some of you think I am “selfish” not to have kids. However, I would think if I pursued a career in bio-engineering and helped develop some of these technologies (while making money off of it) to make it easier for people like you to have kids that you actually want, that I would be contributing FAR MORE to the (what was it she called it?) the continuance of life (yes), in general, than if I just had kids myself as a nonentity (as vegetative state of middle age mediocrity). You guys should be encouraging me to pursue such a bio-engineering career (and maybe even help finance my efforts).

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I have no problem with polygamy and do not understand the bugaboo some of you guys have about it.
     
    It leaves a whole lot of mate-less males who have no investment in society and a high incentive to tear it down and reconstruct it to THEIR benefit (whether they are able to get beyond the tearing-down part or not).  At the very least, they tend to drop out of the productive fraction.  If they won't have any children to benefit, why should they build anything?

    The West was built in an environment of monogamy, while the polygynous Muslim world stagnated when it was unable to conquer.  Africa, largely without nuclear family units, was and still is much worse off.  There's causal relationship there.

  154. @Rosie

    You seem to have a problem with this, which strikes me as quite irrational.
     
    I have a problem with your denial of any obligation to continue life, given that you owe your very existence and all your freedoms to countless men and women who raised children in circumstances that your couldn't imagine in your worst nightmare. I object to your presumption of childlessness as the default, and your claim that voluntary childlessness is a morally legitimate lifestyle.

    Rosie,

    I may well be intending to have kids. Perhaps I’m waiting for the bio-engineering to arrive so that I can design them for superior intelligence and disease resistance.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I may well be intending to have kids. Perhaps I’m waiting for the bio-engineering to arrive so that I can design them for superior intelligence and disease resistance.
     
    I don't know what you're intending. I can only respond to what you've said.

    You're views have a creepy Dr. Frankensteinish vibe about them. You evidently don't much care for God's creation and his plan for human life.

    That's your prerogative. It's a question of values so there's no point arguing about it. I'll just leave you with this thought:

    There comes a point in time when zest for novelty begins to wane. The restaurants all start to seem the same. Your artwork begins to get repetitive. You've studied all the great masters. There is really nothing new under the sun.

    Then, you have children.

    Then, you wonder if this life is all there is. Don't you want to open the next door and find out?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Have them now so that they can design your grandchildren to have super intelligence and disease resistance!
  155. @Twinkie

    he doesn’t understand the way we date, and is projecting his own ideas of courtship on others.
     
    Who is “we” here? Whites? And my idea of courtship has been the norm from time immemorial, including in the Christian West. It’s what every earnest Christian Church teaches of marriage and sex.

    I don’t know about you, but I just hit it off with my husband.
     
    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character. And you have the temerity to complain about men who “pump and dump.”

    By the time it would have occurred to me to conduct a thorough background check of all his associates
     
    More straw men. So, are your children going to get married without meeting their future in-laws or introducing you to them first?

    Don’t confirm Thomm’s ranting about “white trashionalists” by displaying low time horizon and impulsivity that WNs attribute to blacks. What I recommend - “Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.” - used to be called “prudence” in very white, Christian America.

    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character.

    It would be interesting if the people who continually whine about ad hominem didn’t use it in every other comment.

    by displaying low time horizon and impulsivity that WNs attribute to blacks.

    Does one have to be a WN to make this attribution? Do you make this attribution?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character.

    It would be interesting if the people who continually whine about ad hominem didn’t use it in every other comment.
     
    This is an excellent reading comprehension test question. Who is the object of the alleged ad hominem in my sentence? Hint: it's not whom you thought at first glance.

    Does one have to be a WN to make this attribution? Do you make this attribution?
     
    No. Yes.
  156. @Twinkie

    That is, she is a good faith interlocutor.
     
    I don’t think constantly making up what others say and attributing it to others is a sign of “good faith.”

    Then again, you are also familiar with debate by ad hominem, straw man, and four-letter words.

    She’s pretty clear that her paramount concern is the racial heritage of an individual. Where does she “selectively” deviate from that?
     
    I was under the impression that she was not just a white nationalist, but also a biological hereditarian (see her arguments about being overweight), but her hereditarianism goes out the window when it’s inconvenient for her.

    I was under the impression that she was not just a white nationalist, but also a biological hereditarian (see her arguments about being overweight), but her hereditarianism goes out the window when it’s inconvenient for her.

    You know, Twinkie, you’re terribly overrated around these parts, probably for the reason I discussed above: even ethnocentric Whites need to feel they’re fair to aliens. “See, I’m not such a terrible person! Look how I get along with Mr. Twinkie!)

    But I digress. I don’t even know what the hell you mean by “hereditarian.” Isn’t everyone a hereditarian to one degree or another?

    That said, yes, I think genes control all sorts of things to one degree or another: overweight, criminality, drug addiction, etc.

    But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t marry someone with criminals or drug addicts for parents or siblings. First of all, if you come from a whole family of drug addicts, but don’t do drugs yourself, that resistance to drug use itself raises the question of whether you enjoy some sort of genetic resistance to drug abuse and addiction, does it not? Ditto for criminality. Parents and siblings aren’t genetic clones.

    On the other hand, maybe you are just as susceptible to drug addiction as the rest of your family, but you have compensating strengths, like the ability to learn from others’ mistakes, for instance.

    Really, Twinkie, this is so perfectly obvious, that I shouldn’t have to go into it at all. Your childish little games of gotcha clog up this thread and no doubt bore people. We obviously don’t like each other. I try to be civil, even nice to you, but then you start in on your bullshit about dating only perfect people with perfect families and I just can’t abuse it any longer. It’s really not your place to come here and caution White people, who again I remind you are in real danger of extinction over the next couple of centuries, about all the various sorts of people they shouldn’t date. It’s just not a good look.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You know, Twinkie, you’re terribly overrated around these parts, probably for the reason I discussed above: even ethnocentric Whites need to feel they’re fair to aliens. “See, I’m not such a terrible person! Look how I get along with Mr. Twinkie!)
     
    That doesn't seem to explain why the same people hold some other nonwhites in low regard here.

    But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t marry someone with criminals or drug addicts for parents or siblings.
     
    I never said anything like it. I don't ever recall using the contraction "shouldn't" in any of my comments in this thread.

    First of all, if you come from a whole family of drug addicts, but don’t do drugs yourself, that resistance to drug use itself raises the question of whether you enjoy some sort of genetic resistance to drug abuse and addiction, does it not? Ditto for criminality.
     
    Yes, that's possible. But it also could be that 1) the person did not inherit those genes, 2) the genes are present, but the effects of the genes have not manifested themselves, 3) the person has been able to overcome the effects of the genes with non-genetic means, or 4) the person is hiding the effects of the genes.

    Parents and siblings aren’t genetic clones.
     
    No, but, again, this is a game of probabilities. Family background and social affiliation ought to be considered (and that's exactly the word I used - "consider") as factors when choosing a lifelong partner, to whom one is going to devote oneself, and with whom one is going to have children. Because the fact of the matter is that infatuation/sexual attraction can blind one to many obvious problems. That's why people used to introduce their prospective spouses to their family and friends BEFORE making things permanent. What I did - asking my parents and my future wife's parents for their blessings for our marriage - had been the norm in human civilization for as long as there had been families. It has been an enduring tradition for very good reasons.

    All this is both reasonable and prudent, and is in fact what most white Americans* did until quite recently before too many of them gave way to lust and instinct like animals.

    *Even black Americans too (!), judging by the bastardy rate in the earlier decades (lower than the white bastardy rate today).

    have compensating strengths
     
    Is there a compensating strength that makes up for the tendency to engage in adultery?

    Your childish little games of gotcha
     
    I don't play gotcha. I use the Socratic method with people with low reasoning ability to demonstrate that there is something wrong with their rationalizations.

    We obviously don’t like each other.
     
    I apologize for how this sounds. But you - a name on the computer screen on a website - don't mean that much to me to like or dislike. I do find you occasionally annoying, but mostly the feeling I get is the way I feel when I see a child with a learning disability struggling to understand something that is obvious to most people.

    I try to be civil, even nice to you
     
    You mean like telling me to "Fuck off" or that I am "an asshole." Or that I have no morality or agency and constantly invoking my race as the reason why I do or say what I do and so on and so forth? That is certainly an unusual definition of "civil, even nice."

    It’s really not your place to come here and caution White people
     
    You haven't been paying attention. My advice is usually directed at everyone. In case it is not crystal clear, I am not a white nationalist. I am an America-first civic nationalist. I want to improve the lot of all Americans if possible. Even though I don't hold, for example, black people in high regard in general, I want their lives - especially those blacks of good will - to be moral and fulfilled, both because it is the right thing to wish well of one's fellow citizens and also because, pragmatically speaking, our fates are all tied one way or another. And guess what? That means I want your life and those of your children to be moral and fulfilled as well. It is unfortunate, though, that your philosophy does not reciprocate this. I guess that makes you "too fair" or something.

    who again I remind you are in real danger of extinction over the next couple of centuries, about all the various sorts of people they shouldn’t date.
     
    I don't agree that whites are in danger of extinction. But that's a whole another can of worms.

    It’s just not a good look.
     
    Thankfully you are not the "good look" police here. In fact you are not anything here but everyone not named AE or Unz - a commenter.
  157. @Twinkie

    he doesn’t understand the way we date, and is projecting his own ideas of courtship on others.
     
    Who is “we” here? Whites? And my idea of courtship has been the norm from time immemorial, including in the Christian West. It’s what every earnest Christian Church teaches of marriage and sex.

    I don’t know about you, but I just hit it off with my husband.
     
    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character. And you have the temerity to complain about men who “pump and dump.”

    By the time it would have occurred to me to conduct a thorough background check of all his associates
     
    More straw men. So, are your children going to get married without meeting their future in-laws or introducing you to them first?

    Don’t confirm Thomm’s ranting about “white trashionalists” by displaying low time horizon and impulsivity that WNs attribute to blacks. What I recommend - “Take your time and court the woman properly and get to know her without the intoxicating veil of sex. Look at her parents, her sibling, and her friends. Consider the environment in which she was raised.” - used to be called “prudence” in very white, Christian America.

    More straw men.

    I’ll cop to that one. I couldn’t resist.

    So, are your children going to get married without meeting their future in-laws or introducing you to them first?

    I will have to accept the fact that my children may someday meet and fall in love with someone before I ever meet them, at which point it will be a fait accompli.

    People travel, go to college, take internships in other states, etc. I suggest you prepare for that possibility yourself.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    People travel, go to college, take internships in other states, etc. I suggest you prepare for that possibility yourself.
     
    Another reason to bring up your children well so that they internalize and practice good discernment, prudence, and self-discipline (e.g. learning not to laugh uproariously in solemn places such as a church)… and humility to seek the counsel of their elders.

    I recommend you read "Raising Self-Reliant Children in a Self-Indulgent World."

    You might then learn that this includes teaching children to be prudent.
  158. @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    I may well be intending to have kids. Perhaps I'm waiting for the bio-engineering to arrive so that I can design them for superior intelligence and disease resistance.

    I may well be intending to have kids. Perhaps I’m waiting for the bio-engineering to arrive so that I can design them for superior intelligence and disease resistance.

    I don’t know what you’re intending. I can only respond to what you’ve said.

    You’re views have a creepy Dr. Frankensteinish vibe about them. You evidently don’t much care for God’s creation and his plan for human life.

    That’s your prerogative. It’s a question of values so there’s no point arguing about it. I’ll just leave you with this thought:

    There comes a point in time when zest for novelty begins to wane. The restaurants all start to seem the same. Your artwork begins to get repetitive. You’ve studied all the great masters. There is really nothing new under the sun.

    Then, you have children.

    Then, you wonder if this life is all there is. Don’t you want to open the next door and find out?

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey

    You evidently don’t much care for God’s creation and his plan for human life.
     
    Now I understand where you are coming from. You assumed I was in your religion. I am not. So these kind of arguments don't work for me.
  159. @Abelard Lindsey
    Assuming you guys want to increase birthrates, I think polygamy should be legalized as well as all of the reprogenetics stuff. I have no problem with polygamy and do not understand the bugaboo some of you guys have about it.

    I think a technological innovation that would help to increase birthrate is the development of ectogenesis (exowombs) which would make it easier for women (and couples) to have the children they want. Both gametes (sperm and ova) can now be fabricated from stem cells which, in turn, can be manufactured from any cell in your body (via cellular reprogramming). The synthesis of whole chromosomes from scratch will make it easier to make gametes for increased IQ as well as increased resistance to disease. I would think there ought to be a crowdfunding effort on the part of the pro-natalist alt-right types to develop these technology. Again, I fail to understand why many of you reactionary alt-right types are not keen to develop these technologies.

    Some of you think I am "selfish" not to have kids. However, I would think if I pursued a career in bio-engineering and helped develop some of these technologies (while making money off of it) to make it easier for people like you to have kids that you actually want, that I would be contributing FAR MORE to the (what was it she called it?) the continuance of life (yes), in general, than if I just had kids myself as a nonentity (as vegetative state of middle age mediocrity). You guys should be encouraging me to pursue such a bio-engineering career (and maybe even help finance my efforts).

    I have no problem with polygamy and do not understand the bugaboo some of you guys have about it.

    It leaves a whole lot of mate-less males who have no investment in society and a high incentive to tear it down and reconstruct it to THEIR benefit (whether they are able to get beyond the tearing-down part or not).  At the very least, they tend to drop out of the productive fraction.  If they won’t have any children to benefit, why should they build anything?

    The West was built in an environment of monogamy, while the polygynous Muslim world stagnated when it was unable to conquer.  Africa, largely without nuclear family units, was and still is much worse off.  There’s causal relationship there.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  160. @The Alarmist

    Childlessness is civilizational free-riding. You reap the benefits without contributing to its perpetuation.
     
    The au courant thinking on the matter is that childlessness is a reponsible and sustainable way of life ... for the planet at least. Who gives a shit about humankind these days?

    Who gives a shit about humankind these days?

    The planet doesn’t, that’s for sure. Never has, never will. Worshiping Gaia is like worshiping Crom–neither cares what happens to you.

  161. @iffen
    Finally, if (as seems likely) we have strong natural instincts to reproduce

    People say and write this all the time but provide no evidence of it.

    Men have an instinct to have as much sex with as many partners as possible which has a side effect of producing children.

    Women have an instinct to selectively bond, mate and nurture.

    Great point. We have strong natural instincts to fornicate. Until recently, the consequence of that fornication was procreation. We’re now in a world where the two are increasingly being separated. It’s conceivable that they become completely separated in the future (birth control methods approach 100%, pregnancy is likewise 100% in vitro).

    In the past, we were selected for ability to successfully fornicate. That is no longer the case. Quite literally, people who have more sexual partners have fewer children. The generations of the future will be selected by the desire of their ancestors to procreate.

    • Replies: @Aft
    "The generations of the future will be selected by the desire of their ancestors to procreate."

    Basically this. Women who aren't baby crazy: their genes are being weeded out like crazy. So are those women with an insatiable desire to "have it all"--too much interest in their "career" and dumb hobbies will weed out those genes quickly.

    Studies have shown smart men desire fewer children or even childlessness just like smart women, but once they get into their 30s the men's realized fertility comes through at parity. The women's does not; no one wants a 30+ year old used-up product obviously....



    Jayman has covered this quite well actually; https://www.unz.com/jman/expectations-and-reality-a-window-into-the-liberal-conservative-baby-gap/ -- conservatives are having more kids; those with high "openness" are having ~20% fewer, that's an extraordinarily rapid selective pressure.

    Expect a lot more conservative and less "intellectual" cohort of whites and a lot dumber cohort of blacks due to their dysgenic fertility. Plus immigrants. Sounds lovely...
  162. @Rosie

    ii. The male preference boosts instances of replacement fertility (2+ kids), and the female preference reduces instances of replacement fertility, especially among intelligent and capable people
     
    Maybe if I keep asking for evidence of these unsubstantiated assertions over and over again, someone will finally feel compelled to provide some.

    Notice here the claim that male mating preferences are eugenic, because they care mainly about looks, whereas women care more about achievement!

    Seriously, how does one cope with such obtuse closed-mindedness?

    The evidence from the GSS is pretty strong that ‘dysgenic’ fertility is more a female phenomenon than a male one, though, which seems to be in line with what A&W is arguing here.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The evidence from the GSS is pretty strong that ‘dysgenic’ fertility is more a female phenomenon than a male one, though, which seems to be in line with what A&W is arguing here.
     
    A & W is arguing that men's priority on physical appearance is morally superior to women's priority on achievement, for allegedly eugenic reasons.

    The most obvious problem with this argument is that South Asian men, who marry within caste, are now out competing men White men in their own countries. The reason many high IQ women don't reproduce is because men of their own station reject them in favor of dumber but cuter lower-status women.

    White men's well-being is indeed among my chief priorities.

  163. @Twinkie

    HB 10
     
    What is "HB 10"? Is that supposed to be an attractive woman?

    Yeah, HB = hot babe.

  164. @Rosie

    Ah…but how do you know she’ll love you back? Or won’t become a feminist and divorce you 5 years in?
     
    You don't. You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.

    Life includes very few certainties. It’s full of probabilities, though, and it’s up to you to manage those probabilities to the best of your abilities.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Life includes very few certainties. It’s full of probabilities, though, and it’s up to you to manage those probabilities to the best of your abilities.
     
    Like Twinkie, you ignore moral righteousness (as defined by the universalizeabilty principle) and focus exclusively on personal advantage.

    One man may be able to improve his odds by ruling out entire classes of women as potential mates, but all cannot. Twinkie's advice is a recipe for very near-term White extinction if followed by a significant number of White men. If you're ok with that, maybe I'm in the wrong place.

  165. @Twinkie

    You don’t. You pay your money and you take your chances, or you die alone.
     
    Every game of chance has ways to improve the odds. But you don’t seem to want other people’s sons or daughters to hear about that.

    I should probably read all comments instead of responding as I go to avoid redundancy!

  166. @Twinkie

    How Twinkie argues:
     
    I knew once you realize you set yourself up with poor logic, you were going to deviate into ad hominem about my argument.

    Yes, I often use the Socratic method with those who have trouble with white-invented logic.

    pro-White blog
     
    Is it?

    tell us all our mothers are whores and our fathers were stupid to marry them and we should never have been born, and our children should never have been born because we are also whores who should have been discarded as damaged goods the moment we lost our virginity.
     
    Not what I wrote. Please stop making up things.

    pro-White blog

    Is it?

    The blog is primarily devoted to providing empirical data that is, for mostly ideological reasons, largely not sought out and/or not reproduced by corporate media sources of information. My position is that knowledge is good.

    Secondarily, I’m motivated by a desire to honor my ancestors by bequeathing the best world I can to my descendants.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    My position is that knowledge is good.
     
    Foremost, I see you as a truth-teller, which is why I read you everyday and comment here. And I learn something new every time I do so. Moreover, I trust your intellectual integrity, because you have demonstrated zero inclination to hide what few errors you made - indeed, if anything, you corrected and publicized them to make sure that your readers were not led astray by the original mistakes.

    Secondarily, I’m motivated by a desire to honor my ancestors by bequeathing the best world I can to my descendants.
     
    A most worthy goal, and I have joined in that endeavor.

    I might also add that one of the best way honor our ancestors is to produce descendants who are worthy of them - people who are virtuous, patriotic, and worthy of respect and imitation. And the best way to produce such descendants is to be so oneself.
    , @iffen
    The blog is primarily devoted to providing empirical data that is, for mostly ideological reasons, largely not sought out and/or not reproduced by corporate media sources of information.

    I think this makes it "pro white."
  167. @Scott Locklin

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn’t address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass?
     
    The same thing that happens to modern old people who have selfish kids (basically all of them). They go into the goddamned nursing home until they die of bedsores or watching too much Oprah or whatever.

    Y'awl act like we live in some G.K. Chesterton novel where poppa grows enormous whiskers, mumma bakes pies, and the children marry their childhood sweethearts. The reality is, the average mumma decides she's "unsatisfied," poppa goes to prison for imaginary child abuse, and the kids have blue hair, tattoos and the body count of a victorian prostitute by the time they're 15.

    There is no logical argument for reproduction: it's an act of instinct, narcissism and religious/familial duty. The logical/selfish approach to anyone who understands probability theory is to not breed. Which is probably why @Audacious left out the single/divorced people who did breed from that happiness graph.

    I’ve looked at self-reported happiness in more detail over the years. The genesis of this post and the one preceding it was primarily polemical–the piece of propaganda specifically argued that single, childless women are more happy than married women with children. The evidence says that’s 180 degrees backwards. If the contention was that single women were more happy than divorced women, I wouldn’t have devoted two posts to it.

    • Replies: @Aft
    A multiple regression on GSS yields a very simple picture:
    (this is for college-educated men only which to be fair blackdragon might not be...)
    - marriage matters quite a bit, self-reported health matters way more, each category (excellent, good, fair, poor) is worth more than the entire marriage bonus
    - age matters the most. It's the classic U curve falling continually before picking back up after middle age.
    - income matters

    And there is ultimately no divorce penalty once you control for everything else. If you can get divorced without wrecking your own job/business and health, GSS shows no divorce penalty versus never married. (The putative divorce penalty might just be that older and less healthy people are divorced compared to a much younger healthier cohort of single 20-somethings. Correlation that goes away after halfway decent controls.)

    In short, BD is basically wrong about divorce. (Other studies have shown the same thing: people less happy after divorce go back to the lower happiness they had before divorce. Less happy people (pre marriage) are more likely to end up divorced, it's not the divorce doing it to them.)

    And there's no child bonus: just a marriage and a huge health bonus.
  168. @Audacious Epigone
    The evidence from the GSS is pretty strong that 'dysgenic' fertility is more a female phenomenon than a male one, though, which seems to be in line with what A&W is arguing here.

    The evidence from the GSS is pretty strong that ‘dysgenic’ fertility is more a female phenomenon than a male one, though, which seems to be in line with what A&W is arguing here.

    A & W is arguing that men’s priority on physical appearance is morally superior to women’s priority on achievement, for allegedly eugenic reasons.

    The most obvious problem with this argument is that South Asian men, who marry within caste, are now out competing men White men in their own countries. The reason many high IQ women don’t reproduce is because men of their own station reject them in favor of dumber but cuter lower-status women.

    White men’s well-being is indeed among my chief priorities.

  169. @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    I may well be intending to have kids. Perhaps I'm waiting for the bio-engineering to arrive so that I can design them for superior intelligence and disease resistance.

    Have them now so that they can design your grandchildren to have super intelligence and disease resistance!

  170. @Audacious Epigone
    Life includes very few certainties. It's full of probabilities, though, and it's up to you to manage those probabilities to the best of your abilities.

    Life includes very few certainties. It’s full of probabilities, though, and it’s up to you to manage those probabilities to the best of your abilities.

    Like Twinkie, you ignore moral righteousness (as defined by the universalizeabilty principle) and focus exclusively on personal advantage.

    One man may be able to improve his odds by ruling out entire classes of women as potential mates, but all cannot. Twinkie’s advice is a recipe for very near-term White extinction if followed by a significant number of White men. If you’re ok with that, maybe I’m in the wrong place.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Like Twinkie, you ignore moral righteousness (as defined by the universalizeabilty principle) and focus exclusively on personal advantage.
     
    I don't know what "universalizeability" means, but it is patently false that AE and I "focus exclusively on personal advantage." That is entirely your invention.
  171. If a woman comes from a dysfunctional family it doesn’t mean she is certain to be dysfunctional herself, but it suggests she is probably susceptible to it, so it’s something to bear in mind as the relationship proceeds. Bonus points for her if she is honest about her susceptibility and has actively taken steps to guard against falling into the same traps her family of origin has fallen into.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If a woman comes from a dysfunctional family it doesn’t mean she is certain to be dysfunctional herself, but it suggests she is probably susceptible to it, so it’s something to bear in mind as the relationship proceeds.
     
    Not at all. In fact, all else equal, a woman from a dysfunctional family who succeeds is actually more impressive than a woman from a perfect family who succeeds. A metaphor from Eastern religion may illustrate the point: the lotus flower.

    https://spiritualray.com/lotus-flower-meaning

    "This magnificent flower emerges from the dirty and unclean bottom of a pond, but still remains untouched and unstained by the dirt and mud surrounding it in the pond."

  172. @Audacious Epigone
    If a woman comes from a dysfunctional family it doesn't mean she is certain to be dysfunctional herself, but it suggests she is probably susceptible to it, so it's something to bear in mind as the relationship proceeds. Bonus points for her if she is honest about her susceptibility and has actively taken steps to guard against falling into the same traps her family of origin has fallen into.

    If a woman comes from a dysfunctional family it doesn’t mean she is certain to be dysfunctional herself, but it suggests she is probably susceptible to it, so it’s something to bear in mind as the relationship proceeds.

    Not at all. In fact, all else equal, a woman from a dysfunctional family who succeeds is actually more impressive than a woman from a perfect family who succeeds. A metaphor from Eastern religion may illustrate the point: the lotus flower.

    https://spiritualray.com/lotus-flower-meaning

    “This magnificent flower emerges from the dirty and unclean bottom of a pond, but still remains untouched and unstained by the dirt and mud surrounding it in the pond.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Fair. Accounting for regression to the mean, net-net she is probably as good a catch as the one from a perfect family.
    , @Twinkie

    Not at all. In fact, all else equal, a woman from a dysfunctional family who succeeds is actually more impressive than a woman from a perfect family who succeeds.
     
    What if she is from a dysfunctional family, but just average?

    Or worse still, what if how she presents herself is an act and she is pretending? (That goes the same, by the way, for a prospective husband.) Or, what if - gasp! - your child's good sense is overwhelmed by the lustful relationship (it's demonstrated empirically that sexual pleasure affects one's reasoning ability) and is not able to discern other facets of the person in question?

    This sidetrack all started because someone asked how you know ahead what another person is going to be like in five years. Your advice was to simply roll the dice and jump in (and presumably start having sex). Mine was to weigh the circumstances and get to know the person slowly without rushing to a sexual relationship. If the person in question is, indeed, "a lotus flower," her/his true self will emerge just fine through the courtship process. Rushing could only hide, not reveal.

    Your response to this was that I had no moral ("white") principles, this was typical of "yellows," etc. while boasting of your "exceedingly high principles."

    This would be comical if it weren't so sad.

  173. @Scott Locklin

    From the selfish point of view, the one big thing he doesn’t address is: what happens when you get old and there is nobody to take care of your decrepit carcass?
     
    The same thing that happens to modern old people who have selfish kids (basically all of them). They go into the goddamned nursing home until they die of bedsores or watching too much Oprah or whatever.

    Y'awl act like we live in some G.K. Chesterton novel where poppa grows enormous whiskers, mumma bakes pies, and the children marry their childhood sweethearts. The reality is, the average mumma decides she's "unsatisfied," poppa goes to prison for imaginary child abuse, and the kids have blue hair, tattoos and the body count of a victorian prostitute by the time they're 15.

    There is no logical argument for reproduction: it's an act of instinct, narcissism and religious/familial duty. The logical/selfish approach to anyone who understands probability theory is to not breed. Which is probably why @Audacious left out the single/divorced people who did breed from that happiness graph.

    We all know the aging process is an bummer.

    The best approach is to tackle it directly through bio-engineering (which is what guys like Aubrey de Grey and others are doing) rather than trying to craft various social structures to accommodate it in half-ass ways. There is stuff you can do now, like senolytic compounds as well as the sirtuin compounds (NR, Resveratrol, etc.). Like I said, aging is best dealt with directly rather than through social engineering or memetic schemes, which don’t do jack to solve the underlying problem.

    I have no idea if “Black Dragon” is plugged into the DIY life extension community because i actually do not read his blog much. He’s a fool if he’s not.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    We all know the aging process is an bummer.
     
    Since I'm dipping into Asian wisdom today, perhaps the Hindu notion of the stages of life will help you cope with the ineluctable facts of life and death:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_(stage)

    Personally, I rather look forward to the retirement and renunciate stages.
  174. @Abelard Lindsey
    We all know the aging process is an bummer.

    The best approach is to tackle it directly through bio-engineering (which is what guys like Aubrey de Grey and others are doing) rather than trying to craft various social structures to accommodate it in half-ass ways. There is stuff you can do now, like senolytic compounds as well as the sirtuin compounds (NR, Resveratrol, etc.). Like I said, aging is best dealt with directly rather than through social engineering or memetic schemes, which don't do jack to solve the underlying problem.

    I have no idea if "Black Dragon" is plugged into the DIY life extension community because i actually do not read his blog much. He's a fool if he's not.

    We all know the aging process is an bummer.

    Since I’m dipping into Asian wisdom today, perhaps the Hindu notion of the stages of life will help you cope with the ineluctable facts of life and death:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_(stage)

    Personally, I rather look forward to the retirement and renunciate stages.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    I'm cool with it.

    As for me, I prefer the bio-engineering approach.

    In any case, whatever floats your boat.
  175. @Rosie

    I may well be intending to have kids. Perhaps I’m waiting for the bio-engineering to arrive so that I can design them for superior intelligence and disease resistance.
     
    I don't know what you're intending. I can only respond to what you've said.

    You're views have a creepy Dr. Frankensteinish vibe about them. You evidently don't much care for God's creation and his plan for human life.

    That's your prerogative. It's a question of values so there's no point arguing about it. I'll just leave you with this thought:

    There comes a point in time when zest for novelty begins to wane. The restaurants all start to seem the same. Your artwork begins to get repetitive. You've studied all the great masters. There is really nothing new under the sun.

    Then, you have children.

    Then, you wonder if this life is all there is. Don't you want to open the next door and find out?

    You evidently don’t much care for God’s creation and his plan for human life.

    Now I understand where you are coming from. You assumed I was in your religion. I am not. So these kind of arguments don’t work for me.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Now I understand where you are coming from. You assumed I was in your religion.
     
    No, I didn't. I'm not nearly stupid enough to think you are religious when it is patently obvious that you are not.

    Still, I think you err if you believe you will never be ready to die.
  176. @Rosie

    We all know the aging process is an bummer.
     
    Since I'm dipping into Asian wisdom today, perhaps the Hindu notion of the stages of life will help you cope with the ineluctable facts of life and death:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama_(stage)

    Personally, I rather look forward to the retirement and renunciate stages.

    I’m cool with it.

    As for me, I prefer the bio-engineering approach.

    In any case, whatever floats your boat.

  177. @Abelard Lindsey

    You evidently don’t much care for God’s creation and his plan for human life.
     
    Now I understand where you are coming from. You assumed I was in your religion. I am not. So these kind of arguments don't work for me.

    Now I understand where you are coming from. You assumed I was in your religion.

    No, I didn’t. I’m not nearly stupid enough to think you are religious when it is patently obvious that you are not.

    Still, I think you err if you believe you will never be ready to die.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    Well why did you use religious arguments with me if you knew I was not into religion? Perhaps you were explaining the basis of your life choices. But what drove this whole was the fact that I am not into kids. Since we were discussing my situation, using an argument based on religion made no sense at all.
  178. Rosie,

    I would be more amenable to these life after death memes if they were not so logically inconsistent about this issue. If human consciousness really does survive destruction of the physical body, then prohibitions against suicide make no sense because suicide would not really be suicide. It would be more analogous to getting rid of an old car when the repair bills and hassles start to become an issue. Yet, all of the major Abrahamic religions prohibit suicide, even in cases of terminal decline, which makes absolutely no sense to me. We had this case of a young woman with terminal brain cancer in Portland about 5 years ago where she utilized the “death with dignity” thing. You would not believe the number of Christians who came out of the woodwork to try to convince her not to do it, even though they admitted she was going to die anyways. Clearly organized religion places a great value on life in a physical body. Radical life extension only extends this value.

    The other thing is if we really do survive physical body death and move on to something new, is this not analogous to graduating from high school and moving on into the adult world? I never left anything behind in my high school and have had a reasonably satisfactory adulthood (at least more enjoyable than my childhood and teen years, thats for sure). Likewise, if I “die” and move on to the next life, I see no reason why I need to leave anything behind in this life. If I’m perfectly happy in the next life, I could care less about leaving anything behind in this life.

    It like an SF movie where they develop FTL space travel and there are lots of new worlds to emigrate to (the chance to begin again in a new land of opportunity and adventure). Any possible afterlife would be analogous to those new worlds people would emigrate to. Pioneering types who do such emigration generally do not care about leaving anything behind when they emigrate.

    If the afterlife is real, I see no reason to treat it any differently than if I were to be emigrating to a new world via FTL ship. I don’t feel the need to leave anything behind (e.g. have children).

    The fact that all of the life after death memes I know of contain logical inconsistencies with regards to these points makes me think they are not, in fact, real. So you can pardon my skepticism about such things.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Yet, all of the major Abrahamic religions prohibit suicide, even in cases of terminal decline, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
     
    Actually, there is a remarkably consistent principle that underlies all you observe. We believe that life is good, and that it exists in the hereafter as well as the here and now.

    Suicide is wrong for exactly the same reason that indefinite life extension is wrong. The former shortchanges this life, the latter shortchanges the next life, both in violation of God's plan for our souls. Now, I understand you don't believe in God, but certainly you can see that orthodox Christian views on life and death are perfectly coherent for those of us who do.

  179. @Abelard Lindsey
    Rosie,

    I would be more amenable to these life after death memes if they were not so logically inconsistent about this issue. If human consciousness really does survive destruction of the physical body, then prohibitions against suicide make no sense because suicide would not really be suicide. It would be more analogous to getting rid of an old car when the repair bills and hassles start to become an issue. Yet, all of the major Abrahamic religions prohibit suicide, even in cases of terminal decline, which makes absolutely no sense to me. We had this case of a young woman with terminal brain cancer in Portland about 5 years ago where she utilized the "death with dignity" thing. You would not believe the number of Christians who came out of the woodwork to try to convince her not to do it, even though they admitted she was going to die anyways. Clearly organized religion places a great value on life in a physical body. Radical life extension only extends this value.

    The other thing is if we really do survive physical body death and move on to something new, is this not analogous to graduating from high school and moving on into the adult world? I never left anything behind in my high school and have had a reasonably satisfactory adulthood (at least more enjoyable than my childhood and teen years, thats for sure). Likewise, if I "die" and move on to the next life, I see no reason why I need to leave anything behind in this life. If I'm perfectly happy in the next life, I could care less about leaving anything behind in this life.

    It like an SF movie where they develop FTL space travel and there are lots of new worlds to emigrate to (the chance to begin again in a new land of opportunity and adventure). Any possible afterlife would be analogous to those new worlds people would emigrate to. Pioneering types who do such emigration generally do not care about leaving anything behind when they emigrate.

    If the afterlife is real, I see no reason to treat it any differently than if I were to be emigrating to a new world via FTL ship. I don't feel the need to leave anything behind (e.g. have children).

    The fact that all of the life after death memes I know of contain logical inconsistencies with regards to these points makes me think they are not, in fact, real. So you can pardon my skepticism about such things.

    Yet, all of the major Abrahamic religions prohibit suicide, even in cases of terminal decline, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

    Actually, there is a remarkably consistent principle that underlies all you observe. We believe that life is good, and that it exists in the hereafter as well as the here and now.

    Suicide is wrong for exactly the same reason that indefinite life extension is wrong. The former shortchanges this life, the latter shortchanges the next life, both in violation of God’s plan for our souls. Now, I understand you don’t believe in God, but certainly you can see that orthodox Christian views on life and death are perfectly coherent for those of us who do.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    A prohibition against suicide makes sense for someone who is young and has a future in front of them (in this life). My mother used to say that suicide is a cop-out in this situation (we were discussing the teen suicide at dinner once) and I agreed with her. However, this is certainly not true in the case of a terminal medical condition.

    If the "next" life is real, then I think space colonization analogy is the best way to view it. "Dying" is like going into cold sleep (on a long space voyage) where you are reanimated when you get to the new world. Since the new world is presummably better than this one (greater freedom and opportunity, expanded possibilities of being, etc.) of course you want to go to the new world. But you want to exhaust all of the possibilities you have here on Earth before you depart for the new worlds.

    My point that YOU, AS A FREE INDIVIDUAL, chooses when to emigrate to the new worlds. The decision is not forced on you by external agencies or, worse, where you are required to endure a certain period of incarceration before you are allowed to emigrate when you should just be allowed to leave when you want. Being forced to endure a period of decrepitude before you are allowed to "depart" is analogous to the incarceration requirement before you are allowed to leave for the new worlds. I see no rhyme or reason for it.

    I recently saw a youtube short SF video called "The Leap" that was a story about emigration to the new worlds. If the death process is really a transition to a new world, I view it as analogous capsules to the cold sleep capsules in the ship (the transit time is something like 9 months in the sotry) where you wake up in orbit of the new world.

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)? Me? When I go on to a new life, I never look back. Its all in my rear-view mirror as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not saying any of this to try to convince you to thinking like me (I have no desire to convert anyone to anything). Rather, it is a list of points that have to be addressed in order to sell me on the idea that this afterlife exists. Your argument about short changing this life or after life or whatever life simply does not cut it with me. You have to do better if you want to convince me.

    Hence my pursuit of radical life extension.

    Here's the thing. I have no desire to "sell" you or anyone else who is not interested in it on radical life extension. As i said before, I have no desire to convert anyone to anything. However, those of us who ARE interested in radical life extension will not tolerate any interference whatsoever in our pursuit of it by those who do not share our interest. Please do not misunderstand me on this last point.
  180. @Rosie

    If a woman comes from a dysfunctional family it doesn’t mean she is certain to be dysfunctional herself, but it suggests she is probably susceptible to it, so it’s something to bear in mind as the relationship proceeds.
     
    Not at all. In fact, all else equal, a woman from a dysfunctional family who succeeds is actually more impressive than a woman from a perfect family who succeeds. A metaphor from Eastern religion may illustrate the point: the lotus flower.

    https://spiritualray.com/lotus-flower-meaning

    "This magnificent flower emerges from the dirty and unclean bottom of a pond, but still remains untouched and unstained by the dirt and mud surrounding it in the pond."

    Fair. Accounting for regression to the mean, net-net she is probably as good a catch as the one from a perfect family.

  181. @Rosie

    Now I understand where you are coming from. You assumed I was in your religion.
     
    No, I didn't. I'm not nearly stupid enough to think you are religious when it is patently obvious that you are not.

    Still, I think you err if you believe you will never be ready to die.

    Well why did you use religious arguments with me if you knew I was not into religion? Perhaps you were explaining the basis of your life choices. But what drove this whole was the fact that I am not into kids. Since we were discussing my situation, using an argument based on religion made no sense at all.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Perhaps you were explaining the basis of your life choices.
     
    No, I was explaining to you the basis of my negative judgment of your life choices. I didn't expect them to persuade you. If I wanted to do that, I would engage you first in a debate about the existence or nonexistence of God.
  182. @Rosie

    Yet, all of the major Abrahamic religions prohibit suicide, even in cases of terminal decline, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
     
    Actually, there is a remarkably consistent principle that underlies all you observe. We believe that life is good, and that it exists in the hereafter as well as the here and now.

    Suicide is wrong for exactly the same reason that indefinite life extension is wrong. The former shortchanges this life, the latter shortchanges the next life, both in violation of God's plan for our souls. Now, I understand you don't believe in God, but certainly you can see that orthodox Christian views on life and death are perfectly coherent for those of us who do.

    A prohibition against suicide makes sense for someone who is young and has a future in front of them (in this life). My mother used to say that suicide is a cop-out in this situation (we were discussing the teen suicide at dinner once) and I agreed with her. However, this is certainly not true in the case of a terminal medical condition.

    If the “next” life is real, then I think space colonization analogy is the best way to view it. “Dying” is like going into cold sleep (on a long space voyage) where you are reanimated when you get to the new world. Since the new world is presummably better than this one (greater freedom and opportunity, expanded possibilities of being, etc.) of course you want to go to the new world. But you want to exhaust all of the possibilities you have here on Earth before you depart for the new worlds.

    My point that YOU, AS A FREE INDIVIDUAL, chooses when to emigrate to the new worlds. The decision is not forced on you by external agencies or, worse, where you are required to endure a certain period of incarceration before you are allowed to emigrate when you should just be allowed to leave when you want. Being forced to endure a period of decrepitude before you are allowed to “depart” is analogous to the incarceration requirement before you are allowed to leave for the new worlds. I see no rhyme or reason for it.

    I recently saw a youtube short SF video called “The Leap” that was a story about emigration to the new worlds. If the death process is really a transition to a new world, I view it as analogous capsules to the cold sleep capsules in the ship (the transit time is something like 9 months in the sotry) where you wake up in orbit of the new world.

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)? Me? When I go on to a new life, I never look back. Its all in my rear-view mirror as far as I’m concerned.

    I’m not saying any of this to try to convince you to thinking like me (I have no desire to convert anyone to anything). Rather, it is a list of points that have to be addressed in order to sell me on the idea that this afterlife exists. Your argument about short changing this life or after life or whatever life simply does not cut it with me. You have to do better if you want to convince me.

    Hence my pursuit of radical life extension.

    Here’s the thing. I have no desire to “sell” you or anyone else who is not interested in it on radical life extension. As i said before, I have no desire to convert anyone to anything. However, those of us who ARE interested in radical life extension will not tolerate any interference whatsoever in our pursuit of it by those who do not share our interest. Please do not misunderstand me on this last point.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)?
     
    I understand (could be misinformed) that the earliest Christians in Rome practically volunteered to go up against the lions in the Coliseum.  It was a one-way ticket out of the misery of slavery to paradise, like mohammedan martyrdom.  Why bother with a wife and family and all that stuff?

    It took a while for Christian theology to deal with the problem of the flock literally walking like sheep to the slaughter.  One more reason I have difficulty taking it seriously, as if the rest hadn't already done it long before I learned that little factoid.
    , @Rosie

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)? Me? When I go on to a new life, I never look back. Its all in my rear-view mirror as far as I’m concerned.
     
    Your reasoning is backward. If I may, it seems to me you are making the following error:

    You claim that Christian morality doesn't make sense, therefore you reject belief in God (and the corollary doctrine of the soul). If Christian morality made sense, then you would believe in God.

    The problem with this reasoning is that Christian morality cannot possibly be understood with presuppoaing the existence of God. If you sincerely wish to understand Christian morality, you will have to assume the existence of God, for the sake of argument. Now, of course that doesn't mean you must actually believe in God; it just means you suspend disbelief for the sake of the following thought experiment: Imagine you believe in God and think about what He would want you to do if He existed and created the world as He has. Once you know the answer to that, you will begin to understand Christian morality.
  183. @Abelard Lindsey
    A prohibition against suicide makes sense for someone who is young and has a future in front of them (in this life). My mother used to say that suicide is a cop-out in this situation (we were discussing the teen suicide at dinner once) and I agreed with her. However, this is certainly not true in the case of a terminal medical condition.

    If the "next" life is real, then I think space colonization analogy is the best way to view it. "Dying" is like going into cold sleep (on a long space voyage) where you are reanimated when you get to the new world. Since the new world is presummably better than this one (greater freedom and opportunity, expanded possibilities of being, etc.) of course you want to go to the new world. But you want to exhaust all of the possibilities you have here on Earth before you depart for the new worlds.

    My point that YOU, AS A FREE INDIVIDUAL, chooses when to emigrate to the new worlds. The decision is not forced on you by external agencies or, worse, where you are required to endure a certain period of incarceration before you are allowed to emigrate when you should just be allowed to leave when you want. Being forced to endure a period of decrepitude before you are allowed to "depart" is analogous to the incarceration requirement before you are allowed to leave for the new worlds. I see no rhyme or reason for it.

    I recently saw a youtube short SF video called "The Leap" that was a story about emigration to the new worlds. If the death process is really a transition to a new world, I view it as analogous capsules to the cold sleep capsules in the ship (the transit time is something like 9 months in the sotry) where you wake up in orbit of the new world.

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)? Me? When I go on to a new life, I never look back. Its all in my rear-view mirror as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not saying any of this to try to convince you to thinking like me (I have no desire to convert anyone to anything). Rather, it is a list of points that have to be addressed in order to sell me on the idea that this afterlife exists. Your argument about short changing this life or after life or whatever life simply does not cut it with me. You have to do better if you want to convince me.

    Hence my pursuit of radical life extension.

    Here's the thing. I have no desire to "sell" you or anyone else who is not interested in it on radical life extension. As i said before, I have no desire to convert anyone to anything. However, those of us who ARE interested in radical life extension will not tolerate any interference whatsoever in our pursuit of it by those who do not share our interest. Please do not misunderstand me on this last point.

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)?

    I understand (could be misinformed) that the earliest Christians in Rome practically volunteered to go up against the lions in the Coliseum.  It was a one-way ticket out of the misery of slavery to paradise, like mohammedan martyrdom.  Why bother with a wife and family and all that stuff?

    It took a while for Christian theology to deal with the problem of the flock literally walking like sheep to the slaughter.  One more reason I have difficulty taking it seriously, as if the rest hadn’t already done it long before I learned that little factoid.

  184. @Rosie

    Life includes very few certainties. It’s full of probabilities, though, and it’s up to you to manage those probabilities to the best of your abilities.
     
    Like Twinkie, you ignore moral righteousness (as defined by the universalizeabilty principle) and focus exclusively on personal advantage.

    One man may be able to improve his odds by ruling out entire classes of women as potential mates, but all cannot. Twinkie's advice is a recipe for very near-term White extinction if followed by a significant number of White men. If you're ok with that, maybe I'm in the wrong place.

    Like Twinkie, you ignore moral righteousness (as defined by the universalizeabilty principle) and focus exclusively on personal advantage.

    I don’t know what “universalizeability” means, but it is patently false that AE and I “focus exclusively on personal advantage.” That is entirely your invention.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t know what “universalizeability” means

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability

    Wiki can be a friend.

    Amazing. The stuff they don't teach in Ph. D. school anymore.

  185. @Rosie

    If a woman comes from a dysfunctional family it doesn’t mean she is certain to be dysfunctional herself, but it suggests she is probably susceptible to it, so it’s something to bear in mind as the relationship proceeds.
     
    Not at all. In fact, all else equal, a woman from a dysfunctional family who succeeds is actually more impressive than a woman from a perfect family who succeeds. A metaphor from Eastern religion may illustrate the point: the lotus flower.

    https://spiritualray.com/lotus-flower-meaning

    "This magnificent flower emerges from the dirty and unclean bottom of a pond, but still remains untouched and unstained by the dirt and mud surrounding it in the pond."

    Not at all. In fact, all else equal, a woman from a dysfunctional family who succeeds is actually more impressive than a woman from a perfect family who succeeds.

    What if she is from a dysfunctional family, but just average?

    Or worse still, what if how she presents herself is an act and she is pretending? (That goes the same, by the way, for a prospective husband.) Or, what if – gasp! – your child’s good sense is overwhelmed by the lustful relationship (it’s demonstrated empirically that sexual pleasure affects one’s reasoning ability) and is not able to discern other facets of the person in question?

    This sidetrack all started because someone asked how you know ahead what another person is going to be like in five years. Your advice was to simply roll the dice and jump in (and presumably start having sex). Mine was to weigh the circumstances and get to know the person slowly without rushing to a sexual relationship. If the person in question is, indeed, “a lotus flower,” her/his true self will emerge just fine through the courtship process. Rushing could only hide, not reveal.

    Your response to this was that I had no moral (“white”) principles, this was typical of “yellows,” etc. while boasting of your “exceedingly high principles.”

    This would be comical if it weren’t so sad.

    • Replies: @iffen
    (it’s demonstrated empirically that sexual pleasure affects one’s reasoning ability)

    Maybe you should get some of that and let us see if it improves your reasoning ability.
  186. @Twinkie

    Not at all. In fact, all else equal, a woman from a dysfunctional family who succeeds is actually more impressive than a woman from a perfect family who succeeds.
     
    What if she is from a dysfunctional family, but just average?

    Or worse still, what if how she presents herself is an act and she is pretending? (That goes the same, by the way, for a prospective husband.) Or, what if - gasp! - your child's good sense is overwhelmed by the lustful relationship (it's demonstrated empirically that sexual pleasure affects one's reasoning ability) and is not able to discern other facets of the person in question?

    This sidetrack all started because someone asked how you know ahead what another person is going to be like in five years. Your advice was to simply roll the dice and jump in (and presumably start having sex). Mine was to weigh the circumstances and get to know the person slowly without rushing to a sexual relationship. If the person in question is, indeed, "a lotus flower," her/his true self will emerge just fine through the courtship process. Rushing could only hide, not reveal.

    Your response to this was that I had no moral ("white") principles, this was typical of "yellows," etc. while boasting of your "exceedingly high principles."

    This would be comical if it weren't so sad.

    (it’s demonstrated empirically that sexual pleasure affects one’s reasoning ability)

    Maybe you should get some of that and let us see if it improves your reasoning ability.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    You still here? What happened to your self-discipline? Or are you going to reply to every comment I make here with inane personal attacks?
  187. @Twinkie

    Like Twinkie, you ignore moral righteousness (as defined by the universalizeabilty principle) and focus exclusively on personal advantage.
     
    I don't know what "universalizeability" means, but it is patently false that AE and I "focus exclusively on personal advantage." That is entirely your invention.

    I don’t know what “universalizeability” means

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability

    Wiki can be a friend.

    Amazing. The stuff they don’t teach in Ph. D. school anymore.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Amazing.
     
    Yes, indeed. Someone seem not to be able to discern things in his own comment. Par for the course for the Only Best People.
  188. @Audacious Epigone
    pro-White blog

    Is it?


    The blog is primarily devoted to providing empirical data that is, for mostly ideological reasons, largely not sought out and/or not reproduced by corporate media sources of information. My position is that knowledge is good.

    Secondarily, I'm motivated by a desire to honor my ancestors by bequeathing the best world I can to my descendants.

    My position is that knowledge is good.

    Foremost, I see you as a truth-teller, which is why I read you everyday and comment here. And I learn something new every time I do so. Moreover, I trust your intellectual integrity, because you have demonstrated zero inclination to hide what few errors you made – indeed, if anything, you corrected and publicized them to make sure that your readers were not led astray by the original mistakes.

    Secondarily, I’m motivated by a desire to honor my ancestors by bequeathing the best world I can to my descendants.

    A most worthy goal, and I have joined in that endeavor.

    I might also add that one of the best way honor our ancestors is to produce descendants who are worthy of them – people who are virtuous, patriotic, and worthy of respect and imitation. And the best way to produce such descendants is to be so oneself.

  189. @Rosie

    I was under the impression that she was not just a white nationalist, but also a biological hereditarian (see her arguments about being overweight), but her hereditarianism goes out the window when it’s inconvenient for her.
     
    You know, Twinkie, you're terribly overrated around these parts, probably for the reason I discussed above: even ethnocentric Whites need to feel they're fair to aliens. "See, I'm not such a terrible person! Look how I get along with Mr. Twinkie!)

    But I digress. I don't even know what the hell you mean by "hereditarian." Isn't everyone a hereditarian to one degree or another?

    That said, yes, I think genes control all sorts of things to one degree or another: overweight, criminality, drug addiction, etc.

    But that doesn't mean you shouldn't marry someone with criminals or drug addicts for parents or siblings. First of all, if you come from a whole family of drug addicts, but don't do drugs yourself, that resistance to drug use itself raises the question of whether you enjoy some sort of genetic resistance to drug abuse and addiction, does it not? Ditto for criminality. Parents and siblings aren't genetic clones.

    On the other hand, maybe you are just as susceptible to drug addiction as the rest of your family, but you have compensating strengths, like the ability to learn from others' mistakes, for instance.

    Really, Twinkie, this is so perfectly obvious, that I shouldn't have to go into it at all. Your childish little games of gotcha clog up this thread and no doubt bore people. We obviously don't like each other. I try to be civil, even nice to you, but then you start in on your bullshit about dating only perfect people with perfect families and I just can't abuse it any longer. It's really not your place to come here and caution White people, who again I remind you are in real danger of extinction over the next couple of centuries, about all the various sorts of people they shouldn't date. It's just not a good look.

    You know, Twinkie, you’re terribly overrated around these parts, probably for the reason I discussed above: even ethnocentric Whites need to feel they’re fair to aliens. “See, I’m not such a terrible person! Look how I get along with Mr. Twinkie!)

    That doesn’t seem to explain why the same people hold some other nonwhites in low regard here.

    But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t marry someone with criminals or drug addicts for parents or siblings.

    I never said anything like it. I don’t ever recall using the contraction “shouldn’t” in any of my comments in this thread.

    First of all, if you come from a whole family of drug addicts, but don’t do drugs yourself, that resistance to drug use itself raises the question of whether you enjoy some sort of genetic resistance to drug abuse and addiction, does it not? Ditto for criminality.

    Yes, that’s possible. But it also could be that 1) the person did not inherit those genes, 2) the genes are present, but the effects of the genes have not manifested themselves, 3) the person has been able to overcome the effects of the genes with non-genetic means, or 4) the person is hiding the effects of the genes.

    Parents and siblings aren’t genetic clones.

    No, but, again, this is a game of probabilities. Family background and social affiliation ought to be considered (and that’s exactly the word I used – “consider”) as factors when choosing a lifelong partner, to whom one is going to devote oneself, and with whom one is going to have children. Because the fact of the matter is that infatuation/sexual attraction can blind one to many obvious problems. That’s why people used to introduce their prospective spouses to their family and friends BEFORE making things permanent. What I did – asking my parents and my future wife’s parents for their blessings for our marriage – had been the norm in human civilization for as long as there had been families. It has been an enduring tradition for very good reasons.

    All this is both reasonable and prudent, and is in fact what most white Americans* did until quite recently before too many of them gave way to lust and instinct like animals.

    *Even black Americans too (!), judging by the bastardy rate in the earlier decades (lower than the white bastardy rate today).

    have compensating strengths

    Is there a compensating strength that makes up for the tendency to engage in adultery?

    Your childish little games of gotcha

    I don’t play gotcha. I use the Socratic method with people with low reasoning ability to demonstrate that there is something wrong with their rationalizations.

    We obviously don’t like each other.

    I apologize for how this sounds. But you – a name on the computer screen on a website – don’t mean that much to me to like or dislike. I do find you occasionally annoying, but mostly the feeling I get is the way I feel when I see a child with a learning disability struggling to understand something that is obvious to most people.

    I try to be civil, even nice to you

    You mean like telling me to “Fuck off” or that I am “an asshole.” Or that I have no morality or agency and constantly invoking my race as the reason why I do or say what I do and so on and so forth? That is certainly an unusual definition of “civil, even nice.”

    It’s really not your place to come here and caution White people

    You haven’t been paying attention. My advice is usually directed at everyone. In case it is not crystal clear, I am not a white nationalist. I am an America-first civic nationalist. I want to improve the lot of all Americans if possible. Even though I don’t hold, for example, black people in high regard in general, I want their lives – especially those blacks of good will – to be moral and fulfilled, both because it is the right thing to wish well of one’s fellow citizens and also because, pragmatically speaking, our fates are all tied one way or another. And guess what? That means I want your life and those of your children to be moral and fulfilled as well. It is unfortunate, though, that your philosophy does not reciprocate this. I guess that makes you “too fair” or something.

    who again I remind you are in real danger of extinction over the next couple of centuries, about all the various sorts of people they shouldn’t date.

    I don’t agree that whites are in danger of extinction. But that’s a whole another can of worms.

    It’s just not a good look.

    Thankfully you are not the “good look” police here. In fact you are not anything here but everyone not named AE or Unz – a commenter.

  190. @Rosie

    More straw men.
     
    I'll cop to that one. I couldn't resist.


    So, are your children going to get married without meeting their future in-laws or introducing you to them first?
     
    I will have to accept the fact that my children may someday meet and fall in love with someone before I ever meet them, at which point it will be a fait accompli.

    People travel, go to college, take internships in other states, etc. I suggest you prepare for that possibility yourself.

    People travel, go to college, take internships in other states, etc. I suggest you prepare for that possibility yourself.

    Another reason to bring up your children well so that they internalize and practice good discernment, prudence, and self-discipline (e.g. learning not to laugh uproariously in solemn places such as a church)… and humility to seek the counsel of their elders.

    I recommend you read “Raising Self-Reliant Children in a Self-Indulgent World.”

    You might then learn that this includes teaching children to be prudent.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You might then learn that this includes teaching children to be prudent.
     
    Indeed. and prudence includes, inter alia, the ability to judge individuals according to their own merits without relying on crude proxies.
  191. @iffen
    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character.

    It would be interesting if the people who continually whine about ad hominem didn't use it in every other comment.

    by displaying low time horizon and impulsivity that WNs attribute to blacks.

    Does one have to be a WN to make this attribution? Do you make this attribution?

    Says every other loose girl who hit it off with men of dubious moral character.

    It would be interesting if the people who continually whine about ad hominem didn’t use it in every other comment.

    This is an excellent reading comprehension test question. Who is the object of the alleged ad hominem in my sentence? Hint: it’s not whom you thought at first glance.

    Does one have to be a WN to make this attribution? Do you make this attribution?

    No. Yes.

  192. @iffen
    (it’s demonstrated empirically that sexual pleasure affects one’s reasoning ability)

    Maybe you should get some of that and let us see if it improves your reasoning ability.

    You still here? What happened to your self-discipline? Or are you going to reply to every comment I make here with inane personal attacks?

    • Replies: @iffen
    What happened to your self-discipline?

    Change of tactics. I decided to not go cold turkey. It's working really well.
    , @iffen
    Or are you going to reply to every comment I make here

    No, just the ones showing boastfulness, ignorance, mean-spiritedness or arrogance.

    Damn! How many comments have I signed myself up for?
  193. @iffen
    I don’t know what “universalizeability” means

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability

    Wiki can be a friend.

    Amazing. The stuff they don't teach in Ph. D. school anymore.

    Amazing.

    Yes, indeed. Someone seem not to be able to discern things in his own comment. Par for the course for the Only Best People.

  194. @Twinkie
    You still here? What happened to your self-discipline? Or are you going to reply to every comment I make here with inane personal attacks?

    What happened to your self-discipline?

    Change of tactics. I decided to not go cold turkey. It’s working really well.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I decided to not go cold turkey. It’s working really well.
     
    Isn’t that what addicts often say?
  195. @iffen
    What happened to your self-discipline?

    Change of tactics. I decided to not go cold turkey. It's working really well.

    I decided to not go cold turkey. It’s working really well.

    Isn’t that what addicts often say?

  196. @Twinkie
    You still here? What happened to your self-discipline? Or are you going to reply to every comment I make here with inane personal attacks?

    Or are you going to reply to every comment I make here

    No, just the ones showing boastfulness, ignorance, mean-spiritedness or arrogance.

    Damn! How many comments have I signed myself up for?

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Just don’t confuse me with other Asian commenters since we all look the same as you said.

    Only the best people, you and Rosie. It’s good that your shared dislike of me has increased the social cohesion of the two of you instead of telling each other to “fuck off” as one of you did earlier. I guess white nationalism works!
  197. @Abelard Lindsey
    Well why did you use religious arguments with me if you knew I was not into religion? Perhaps you were explaining the basis of your life choices. But what drove this whole was the fact that I am not into kids. Since we were discussing my situation, using an argument based on religion made no sense at all.

    Perhaps you were explaining the basis of your life choices.

    No, I was explaining to you the basis of my negative judgment of your life choices. I didn’t expect them to persuade you. If I wanted to do that, I would engage you first in a debate about the existence or nonexistence of God.

  198. @Abelard Lindsey
    A prohibition against suicide makes sense for someone who is young and has a future in front of them (in this life). My mother used to say that suicide is a cop-out in this situation (we were discussing the teen suicide at dinner once) and I agreed with her. However, this is certainly not true in the case of a terminal medical condition.

    If the "next" life is real, then I think space colonization analogy is the best way to view it. "Dying" is like going into cold sleep (on a long space voyage) where you are reanimated when you get to the new world. Since the new world is presummably better than this one (greater freedom and opportunity, expanded possibilities of being, etc.) of course you want to go to the new world. But you want to exhaust all of the possibilities you have here on Earth before you depart for the new worlds.

    My point that YOU, AS A FREE INDIVIDUAL, chooses when to emigrate to the new worlds. The decision is not forced on you by external agencies or, worse, where you are required to endure a certain period of incarceration before you are allowed to emigrate when you should just be allowed to leave when you want. Being forced to endure a period of decrepitude before you are allowed to "depart" is analogous to the incarceration requirement before you are allowed to leave for the new worlds. I see no rhyme or reason for it.

    I recently saw a youtube short SF video called "The Leap" that was a story about emigration to the new worlds. If the death process is really a transition to a new world, I view it as analogous capsules to the cold sleep capsules in the ship (the transit time is something like 9 months in the sotry) where you wake up in orbit of the new world.

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)? Me? When I go on to a new life, I never look back. Its all in my rear-view mirror as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm not saying any of this to try to convince you to thinking like me (I have no desire to convert anyone to anything). Rather, it is a list of points that have to be addressed in order to sell me on the idea that this afterlife exists. Your argument about short changing this life or after life or whatever life simply does not cut it with me. You have to do better if you want to convince me.

    Hence my pursuit of radical life extension.

    Here's the thing. I have no desire to "sell" you or anyone else who is not interested in it on radical life extension. As i said before, I have no desire to convert anyone to anything. However, those of us who ARE interested in radical life extension will not tolerate any interference whatsoever in our pursuit of it by those who do not share our interest. Please do not misunderstand me on this last point.

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)? Me? When I go on to a new life, I never look back. Its all in my rear-view mirror as far as I’m concerned.

    Your reasoning is backward. If I may, it seems to me you are making the following error:

    You claim that Christian morality doesn’t make sense, therefore you reject belief in God (and the corollary doctrine of the soul). If Christian morality made sense, then you would believe in God.

    The problem with this reasoning is that Christian morality cannot possibly be understood with presuppoaing the existence of God. If you sincerely wish to understand Christian morality, you will have to assume the existence of God, for the sake of argument. Now, of course that doesn’t mean you must actually believe in God; it just means you suspend disbelief for the sake of the following thought experiment: Imagine you believe in God and think about what He would want you to do if He existed and created the world as He has. Once you know the answer to that, you will begin to understand Christian morality.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey

    The problem with this reasoning is that Christian morality cannot possibly be understood with presuppoaing the existence of God. If you sincerely wish to understand Christian morality, you will have to assume the existence of God, for the sake of argument. Now, of course that doesn’t mean you must actually believe in God; it just means you suspend disbelief for the sake of the following thought experiment: Imagine you believe in God and think about what He would want you to do if He existed and created the world as He has. Once you know the answer to that, you will begin to understand Christian morality.
     
    This is called circular reasoning.
  199. @Twinkie

    People travel, go to college, take internships in other states, etc. I suggest you prepare for that possibility yourself.
     
    Another reason to bring up your children well so that they internalize and practice good discernment, prudence, and self-discipline (e.g. learning not to laugh uproariously in solemn places such as a church)… and humility to seek the counsel of their elders.

    I recommend you read "Raising Self-Reliant Children in a Self-Indulgent World."

    You might then learn that this includes teaching children to be prudent.

    You might then learn that this includes teaching children to be prudent.

    Indeed. and prudence includes, inter alia, the ability to judge individuals according to their own merits without relying on crude proxies.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Indeed. and prudence includes, inter alia, the ability to judge individuals according to their own merits without relying on crude proxies.
     
    1. People are not islands, and are products of their families and peer groups. Individuals can often hide their true selves (temporarily), but it’s more difficult to hide one’s entire primary group. Yes, there are exceptions who transcend, but they are exceptions, because they are not the norm.

    2. It’s almost amusing that you accuse me of using crude proxies when they (the primary social groups) are far more salient while you ascribe the things I write and do to my Asian-ness as such.

  200. @iffen
    Or are you going to reply to every comment I make here

    No, just the ones showing boastfulness, ignorance, mean-spiritedness or arrogance.

    Damn! How many comments have I signed myself up for?

    Just don’t confuse me with other Asian commenters since we all look the same as you said.

    Only the best people, you and Rosie. It’s good that your shared dislike of me has increased the social cohesion of the two of you instead of telling each other to “fuck off” as one of you did earlier. I guess white nationalism works!

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  201. @Rosie

    You might then learn that this includes teaching children to be prudent.
     
    Indeed. and prudence includes, inter alia, the ability to judge individuals according to their own merits without relying on crude proxies.

    Indeed. and prudence includes, inter alia, the ability to judge individuals according to their own merits without relying on crude proxies.

    1. People are not islands, and are products of their families and peer groups. Individuals can often hide their true selves (temporarily), but it’s more difficult to hide one’s entire primary group. Yes, there are exceptions who transcend, but they are exceptions, because they are not the norm.

    2. It’s almost amusing that you accuse me of using crude proxies when they (the primary social groups) are far more salient while you ascribe the things I write and do to my Asian-ness as such.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    2. It’s almost amusing that you accuse me of using crude proxies when they (the primary social groups) are far more salient while you ascribe the things I write and do to my Asian-ness as such.
     
    But the important thing is that I was willing to take you at your word that you are White on the inside, as that is what your handle implies. Yet, you have revealed yourself to be nothing of the sort. I have not prejudged you. I have postjudged you.
  202. @Twinkie

    Indeed. and prudence includes, inter alia, the ability to judge individuals according to their own merits without relying on crude proxies.
     
    1. People are not islands, and are products of their families and peer groups. Individuals can often hide their true selves (temporarily), but it’s more difficult to hide one’s entire primary group. Yes, there are exceptions who transcend, but they are exceptions, because they are not the norm.

    2. It’s almost amusing that you accuse me of using crude proxies when they (the primary social groups) are far more salient while you ascribe the things I write and do to my Asian-ness as such.

    2. It’s almost amusing that you accuse me of using crude proxies when they (the primary social groups) are far more salient while you ascribe the things I write and do to my Asian-ness as such.

    But the important thing is that I was willing to take you at your word that you are White on the inside, as that is what your handle implies. Yet, you have revealed yourself to be nothing of the sort. I have not prejudged you. I have postjudged you.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    But the important thing is that I was willing to take you at your word that you are White on the inside, as that is what your handle implies.
     
    Twinkie is what my detractors (other Asian pupils who were anti-assimilationists) called me in high school. So I wear it as a badge of honor, of sorts, half in jest.

    Yet, you have revealed yourself to be nothing of the sort. I have not prejudged you. I have postjudged you.
     
    You are more deluded than I thought if you think you are the final arbiter of “whiteness,” whether that is defined biologically or culturally.

    But this is yet another inane attempt to personalize the conversation and make me the subject rather than argue the merits of your assertions. As with ”iffen” I find this an unwilling, but transparent admission of poor argument on your part. Note how you don’t actually engage the two points I made!

    Basically, the two of you get emotional (“Fuck off,” “Asshole,” “Yellow,” “You all look the same” are pretty good indications) and descend into name-calling when you run out of arguments. You will find that your online discussions with me go much more smoothly if you rely on good reasoning and sound data, and address me as if I’m right in front you, instead of hurling invectives anonymously.

    And if you and iffen think you can wear me down with childishness, you got another thing coming - I homeschool a baseball team. One thing I have is patience. :)
  203. @Rosie

    2. It’s almost amusing that you accuse me of using crude proxies when they (the primary social groups) are far more salient while you ascribe the things I write and do to my Asian-ness as such.
     
    But the important thing is that I was willing to take you at your word that you are White on the inside, as that is what your handle implies. Yet, you have revealed yourself to be nothing of the sort. I have not prejudged you. I have postjudged you.

    But the important thing is that I was willing to take you at your word that you are White on the inside, as that is what your handle implies.

    Twinkie is what my detractors (other Asian pupils who were anti-assimilationists) called me in high school. So I wear it as a badge of honor, of sorts, half in jest.

    Yet, you have revealed yourself to be nothing of the sort. I have not prejudged you. I have postjudged you.

    You are more deluded than I thought if you think you are the final arbiter of “whiteness,” whether that is defined biologically or culturally.

    But this is yet another inane attempt to personalize the conversation and make me the subject rather than argue the merits of your assertions. As with ”iffen” I find this an unwilling, but transparent admission of poor argument on your part. Note how you don’t actually engage the two points I made!

    Basically, the two of you get emotional (“Fuck off,” “Asshole,” “Yellow,” “You all look the same” are pretty good indications) and descend into name-calling when you run out of arguments. You will find that your online discussions with me go much more smoothly if you rely on good reasoning and sound data, and address me as if I’m right in front you, instead of hurling invectives anonymously.

    And if you and iffen think you can wear me down with childishness, you got another thing coming – I homeschool a baseball team. One thing I have is patience. 🙂

    • Replies: @iffen
    You may have patience, but you are absolutely an intellectual mediocrity with nothing original to say.

    bada boom bada bing

    Yes, and about that data thing. How about reading something current, much of that information from the AEI that you repeatedly push is dated.

    Don't blame Rosie and me for regretting a choice that you made in high school.

    The quality that I admire in Rosie is that she has a strong communitarian streak and is not interested in looking around to see who needs to be thrown out of the sled. She is also a good interlocutor and does not use a lot of obfuscatory constructs in her comments like some.
  204. And if you and iffen think you can wear me down with childishness, you got another thing coming – I homeschool a baseball team. One thing I have is patience. 🙂

    You may have patience, but you are absolutely an intellectual mediocrity with nothing original to say.

    This argument is a new low even for you:

    People can sometimes pretend to be something they’re not, therefore you should avoid dating anyone that doesn’t come from a perfect family.

    That is obvious desperation, Twinkie.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    People can sometimes pretend to be something they’re not, therefore you should avoid dating anyone that doesn’t come from a perfect family.
     
    You never run out of straw men, do you?

    You bring up that word a lot - “perfect.” Why are you so terrified about ideas such as virtue and prudence? Why is it that every time others suggest that society ought to encourage the pursuit of the same, you are reflexively triggered into straw men, curse words, and name-calling?
  205. @Twinkie

    But the important thing is that I was willing to take you at your word that you are White on the inside, as that is what your handle implies.
     
    Twinkie is what my detractors (other Asian pupils who were anti-assimilationists) called me in high school. So I wear it as a badge of honor, of sorts, half in jest.

    Yet, you have revealed yourself to be nothing of the sort. I have not prejudged you. I have postjudged you.
     
    You are more deluded than I thought if you think you are the final arbiter of “whiteness,” whether that is defined biologically or culturally.

    But this is yet another inane attempt to personalize the conversation and make me the subject rather than argue the merits of your assertions. As with ”iffen” I find this an unwilling, but transparent admission of poor argument on your part. Note how you don’t actually engage the two points I made!

    Basically, the two of you get emotional (“Fuck off,” “Asshole,” “Yellow,” “You all look the same” are pretty good indications) and descend into name-calling when you run out of arguments. You will find that your online discussions with me go much more smoothly if you rely on good reasoning and sound data, and address me as if I’m right in front you, instead of hurling invectives anonymously.

    And if you and iffen think you can wear me down with childishness, you got another thing coming - I homeschool a baseball team. One thing I have is patience. :)

    You may have patience, but you are absolutely an intellectual mediocrity with nothing original to say.

    bada boom bada bing

    Yes, and about that data thing. How about reading something current, much of that information from the AEI that you repeatedly push is dated.

    Don’t blame Rosie and me for regretting a choice that you made in high school.

    The quality that I admire in Rosie is that she has a strong communitarian streak and is not interested in looking around to see who needs to be thrown out of the sled. She is also a good interlocutor and does not use a lot of obfuscatory constructs in her comments like some.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    You still here like a jilted girlfriend?

    She is also a good interlocutor and does not use a lot of obfuscatory constructs in her comments like some.
     
    You mean like when you disagreed with her and she told you to “Fuck off”?
  206. @Audacious Epigone
    pro-White blog

    Is it?


    The blog is primarily devoted to providing empirical data that is, for mostly ideological reasons, largely not sought out and/or not reproduced by corporate media sources of information. My position is that knowledge is good.

    Secondarily, I'm motivated by a desire to honor my ancestors by bequeathing the best world I can to my descendants.

    The blog is primarily devoted to providing empirical data that is, for mostly ideological reasons, largely not sought out and/or not reproduced by corporate media sources of information.

    I think this makes it “pro white.”

  207. @Rosie

    And if you and iffen think you can wear me down with childishness, you got another thing coming – I homeschool a baseball team. One thing I have is patience. 🙂
     
    You may have patience, but you are absolutely an intellectual mediocrity with nothing original to say.

    This argument is a new low even for you:

    People can sometimes pretend to be something they're not, therefore you should avoid dating anyone that doesn't come from a perfect family.

    That is obvious desperation, Twinkie.

    People can sometimes pretend to be something they’re not, therefore you should avoid dating anyone that doesn’t come from a perfect family.

    You never run out of straw men, do you?

    You bring up that word a lot – “perfect.” Why are you so terrified about ideas such as virtue and prudence? Why is it that every time others suggest that society ought to encourage the pursuit of the same, you are reflexively triggered into straw men, curse words, and name-calling?

  208. @iffen
    You may have patience, but you are absolutely an intellectual mediocrity with nothing original to say.

    bada boom bada bing

    Yes, and about that data thing. How about reading something current, much of that information from the AEI that you repeatedly push is dated.

    Don't blame Rosie and me for regretting a choice that you made in high school.

    The quality that I admire in Rosie is that she has a strong communitarian streak and is not interested in looking around to see who needs to be thrown out of the sled. She is also a good interlocutor and does not use a lot of obfuscatory constructs in her comments like some.

    You still here like a jilted girlfriend?

    She is also a good interlocutor and does not use a lot of obfuscatory constructs in her comments like some.

    You mean like when you disagreed with her and she told you to “Fuck off”?

    • Replies: @iffen
    You still here like a jilted girlfriend?

    Isn't this childish name calling, or do you need to put Truth's Socratic method to work and explain why it is not?

    You mean like when you disagreed with her and she told you to “Fuck off”?

    I don't recall that comment. I do remember her telling me to go to Hell. I fail to see how those comments disqualify her from being a good interlocutor. As a matter of fact, comments like those are clarifying.
  209. @Twinkie
    You still here like a jilted girlfriend?

    She is also a good interlocutor and does not use a lot of obfuscatory constructs in her comments like some.
     
    You mean like when you disagreed with her and she told you to “Fuck off”?

    You still here like a jilted girlfriend?

    Isn’t this childish name calling, or do you need to put Truth’s Socratic method to work and explain why it is not?

    You mean like when you disagreed with her and she told you to “Fuck off”?

    I don’t recall that comment. I do remember her telling me to go to Hell. I fail to see how those comments disqualify her from being a good interlocutor. As a matter of fact, comments like those are clarifying.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I don’t recall that comment. I do remember her telling me to go to Hell. I fail to see how those comments disqualify her from being a good interlocutor. As a matter of fact, comments like those are clarifying.
     
    Grown ups are capable of turning the page and moving on. Twinkie holds a grudge.

    BTW, where's Abelard? I kind of got a kick out of him. I was hoping we could finish our chat.

    , @Twinkie

    Isn’t this childish name calling
     
    What substantive argument have you made that I can reply in earnest? You have made a series of comments that are nothing but personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. At this point, you are basically a stalker/jilted ex-girlfriend, often leaving TWO replies to my comments that are not directed at you, all the while strenuously avoiding addressing anything that has any relevance to the thread.

    I think if you were to go back up thread and read your comments in reflection, you are going to realize that the tiresome personal attacks you have made doesn’t make me look bad, but shows you to be an obsessive, petty person holding a grudge from losing a previous argument. And that’s on top of making tasteless remarks such as “Fuck off,” “You all look the same to me,” and “I heard Asian pussy is tight.”

    Go get some help.
  210. @iffen
    You still here like a jilted girlfriend?

    Isn't this childish name calling, or do you need to put Truth's Socratic method to work and explain why it is not?

    You mean like when you disagreed with her and she told you to “Fuck off”?

    I don't recall that comment. I do remember her telling me to go to Hell. I fail to see how those comments disqualify her from being a good interlocutor. As a matter of fact, comments like those are clarifying.

    I don’t recall that comment. I do remember her telling me to go to Hell. I fail to see how those comments disqualify her from being a good interlocutor. As a matter of fact, comments like those are clarifying.

    Grown ups are capable of turning the page and moving on. Twinkie holds a grudge.

    BTW, where’s Abelard? I kind of got a kick out of him. I was hoping we could finish our chat.

    • Replies: @iffen
    BTW, where’s Abelard?

    He's off making comments in threads on other blogs and articles.

    Maybe Twinkie can locate him for you. He is an expert in chasing people through other threads and comment blogs.

    Twinkie holds a grudge.

    I have the tendency to do so as well. It is one of my faults of which I am aware, and even though it sometimes takes me a while, I always move on.

    , @Twinkie

    Twinkie holds a grudge.
     
    No. I just have a good memory. I already told you how I feel about you. To repeat:

    I apologize for how this sounds. But you – a name on the computer screen on a website – don’t mean that much to me to like or dislike. I do find you occasionally annoying, but mostly the feeling I get is the way I feel when I see a child with a learning disability struggling to understand something that is obvious to most people.
     
  211. @Rosie

    I don’t recall that comment. I do remember her telling me to go to Hell. I fail to see how those comments disqualify her from being a good interlocutor. As a matter of fact, comments like those are clarifying.
     
    Grown ups are capable of turning the page and moving on. Twinkie holds a grudge.

    BTW, where's Abelard? I kind of got a kick out of him. I was hoping we could finish our chat.

    BTW, where’s Abelard?

    He’s off making comments in threads on other blogs and articles.

    Maybe Twinkie can locate him for you. He is an expert in chasing people through other threads and comment blogs.

    Twinkie holds a grudge.

    I have the tendency to do so as well. It is one of my faults of which I am aware, and even though it sometimes takes me a while, I always move on.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I always move on.
     
    I hope you do.
  212. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    What time frames are we pulling these conventions from?

    I don’t know. But you always see cake toppers at weddings with a woman being happy, and a man being sad and having a ball and chain strapped to his ankle.

    Our popular culture tells us that most women want to have a husband and child for companionship. It also tells us that most men want to stay single forever, so that they can play the field, sleep with many women without consequences, and not have to financially support a wife and a child.

  213. @iffen
    BTW, where’s Abelard?

    He's off making comments in threads on other blogs and articles.

    Maybe Twinkie can locate him for you. He is an expert in chasing people through other threads and comment blogs.

    Twinkie holds a grudge.

    I have the tendency to do so as well. It is one of my faults of which I am aware, and even though it sometimes takes me a while, I always move on.

    I always move on.

    I hope you do.

  214. @Rosie

    I don’t recall that comment. I do remember her telling me to go to Hell. I fail to see how those comments disqualify her from being a good interlocutor. As a matter of fact, comments like those are clarifying.
     
    Grown ups are capable of turning the page and moving on. Twinkie holds a grudge.

    BTW, where's Abelard? I kind of got a kick out of him. I was hoping we could finish our chat.

    Twinkie holds a grudge.

    No. I just have a good memory. I already told you how I feel about you. To repeat:

    I apologize for how this sounds. But you – a name on the computer screen on a website – don’t mean that much to me to like or dislike. I do find you occasionally annoying, but mostly the feeling I get is the way I feel when I see a child with a learning disability struggling to understand something that is obvious to most people.

  215. @iffen
    You still here like a jilted girlfriend?

    Isn't this childish name calling, or do you need to put Truth's Socratic method to work and explain why it is not?

    You mean like when you disagreed with her and she told you to “Fuck off”?

    I don't recall that comment. I do remember her telling me to go to Hell. I fail to see how those comments disqualify her from being a good interlocutor. As a matter of fact, comments like those are clarifying.

    Isn’t this childish name calling

    What substantive argument have you made that I can reply in earnest? You have made a series of comments that are nothing but personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. At this point, you are basically a stalker/jilted ex-girlfriend, often leaving TWO replies to my comments that are not directed at you, all the while strenuously avoiding addressing anything that has any relevance to the thread.

    I think if you were to go back up thread and read your comments in reflection, you are going to realize that the tiresome personal attacks you have made doesn’t make me look bad, but shows you to be an obsessive, petty person holding a grudge from losing a previous argument. And that’s on top of making tasteless remarks such as “Fuck off,” “You all look the same to me,” and “I heard Asian pussy is tight.”

    Go get some help.

    • Replies: @iffen
    What substantive argument have you made that I can reply in earnest?

    I am not interested in having you reply to my comments or arguments, substantive or not.
  216. By the way, Rosie, you keep saying that my recommendation of pursuing virtuous marriages and families is bad for white people while low time horizon and imprudence are good for them somehow. What you advocate is more likely to lead to more “pump and dump,” out-of-wedlock births, and no-fault divorces.

    Do you realize you are advocating that whites should behave more like blacks?

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Do you realize you are advocating that whites should behave more like blacks?
     
    There is something you need to understand, Twinkie. The fact that you have made an argument does not give rise to any obligation on my part or anyone else's to respond to it. I try to make it a habit to only respond to arguments that I believe have a reasonable possibility of persuading someone whose opinion I care about (not you).

    I am more than happy to drop this and let readers conclude for themselves who has the better of this argument.
  217. @Twinkie
    By the way, Rosie, you keep saying that my recommendation of pursuing virtuous marriages and families is bad for white people while low time horizon and imprudence are good for them somehow. What you advocate is more likely to lead to more “pump and dump,” out-of-wedlock births, and no-fault divorces.

    Do you realize you are advocating that whites should behave more like blacks?

    Do you realize you are advocating that whites should behave more like blacks?

    There is something you need to understand, Twinkie. The fact that you have made an argument does not give rise to any obligation on my part or anyone else’s to respond to it. I try to make it a habit to only respond to arguments that I believe have a reasonable possibility of persuading someone whose opinion I care about (not you).

    I am more than happy to drop this and let readers conclude for themselves who has the better of this argument.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I try to make it a habit to only respond to arguments that I believe have a reasonable possibility of persuading someone whose opinion I care about (not you).
     
    Yes, yes, I am well aware of you picking and choosing arguments and evidences, and have pointed this out before. It’s called intellectual dishonesty. You are not interested in truth - you just want to “win” arguments and reinforce your priors.

    I am more than happy to drop this and let readers conclude for themselves who has the better of this argument.
     
    Do what you would like. I always write with the public in mind.
  218. @Twinkie

    Isn’t this childish name calling
     
    What substantive argument have you made that I can reply in earnest? You have made a series of comments that are nothing but personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. At this point, you are basically a stalker/jilted ex-girlfriend, often leaving TWO replies to my comments that are not directed at you, all the while strenuously avoiding addressing anything that has any relevance to the thread.

    I think if you were to go back up thread and read your comments in reflection, you are going to realize that the tiresome personal attacks you have made doesn’t make me look bad, but shows you to be an obsessive, petty person holding a grudge from losing a previous argument. And that’s on top of making tasteless remarks such as “Fuck off,” “You all look the same to me,” and “I heard Asian pussy is tight.”

    Go get some help.

    What substantive argument have you made that I can reply in earnest?

    I am not interested in having you reply to my comments or arguments, substantive or not.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I am not interested in having you reply to my comments or arguments, substantive or not.
     
    Of course not. You just like to engage in mental masturbation.
  219. @Rosie

    Do you realize you are advocating that whites should behave more like blacks?
     
    There is something you need to understand, Twinkie. The fact that you have made an argument does not give rise to any obligation on my part or anyone else's to respond to it. I try to make it a habit to only respond to arguments that I believe have a reasonable possibility of persuading someone whose opinion I care about (not you).

    I am more than happy to drop this and let readers conclude for themselves who has the better of this argument.

    I try to make it a habit to only respond to arguments that I believe have a reasonable possibility of persuading someone whose opinion I care about (not you).

    Yes, yes, I am well aware of you picking and choosing arguments and evidences, and have pointed this out before. It’s called intellectual dishonesty. You are not interested in truth – you just want to “win” arguments and reinforce your priors.

    I am more than happy to drop this and let readers conclude for themselves who has the better of this argument.

    Do what you would like. I always write with the public in mind.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    If I were you Twinkie, I would see my priest about this unwillingness to acknowledge the Christian truth of redemption and consider the implications of your denial of same for the fate of your immortal soul. I notice you finally admitted that your real desire is to punish women for not behaving as you think they should.

    https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/5-catholic-saints-with-a-sinful-past.aspx?p=3

    You would love to throw some literal stones at women, wouldn't you?
    You disgust me.

  220. @iffen
    What substantive argument have you made that I can reply in earnest?

    I am not interested in having you reply to my comments or arguments, substantive or not.

    I am not interested in having you reply to my comments or arguments, substantive or not.

    Of course not. You just like to engage in mental masturbation.

  221. @Twinkie

    I try to make it a habit to only respond to arguments that I believe have a reasonable possibility of persuading someone whose opinion I care about (not you).
     
    Yes, yes, I am well aware of you picking and choosing arguments and evidences, and have pointed this out before. It’s called intellectual dishonesty. You are not interested in truth - you just want to “win” arguments and reinforce your priors.

    I am more than happy to drop this and let readers conclude for themselves who has the better of this argument.
     
    Do what you would like. I always write with the public in mind.

    If I were you Twinkie, I would see my priest about this unwillingness to acknowledge the Christian truth of redemption and consider the implications of your denial of same for the fate of your immortal soul. I notice you finally admitted that your real desire is to punish women for not behaving as you think they should.

    https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/5-catholic-saints-with-a-sinful-past.aspx?p=3

    You would love to throw some literal stones at women, wouldn’t you?
    You disgust me.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I notice you finally admitted that your real desire is to punish women for not behaving as you think they should.
     
    That’s in your mind. I encourage both men and women to be virtuous.

    Christian truth of redemption
     
    Oh, I understand redemption better than you do. The thing that you have trouble understanding is that redemption requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance for the same. Your idea of redemption is defiantly rubbing your mistakes on other people’s noses and saying “So what?” That’s most certainly not the behavior of someone who seeks redemption. And when others point that out, you accuse them of wanting to stone you.

    If I were you
     
    If.
  222. @Rosie

    Additionally, if you are happily partying it up in the afterlife, why the obsession with leaving anything back here on Earth (e.g. having kids)? Me? When I go on to a new life, I never look back. Its all in my rear-view mirror as far as I’m concerned.
     
    Your reasoning is backward. If I may, it seems to me you are making the following error:

    You claim that Christian morality doesn't make sense, therefore you reject belief in God (and the corollary doctrine of the soul). If Christian morality made sense, then you would believe in God.

    The problem with this reasoning is that Christian morality cannot possibly be understood with presuppoaing the existence of God. If you sincerely wish to understand Christian morality, you will have to assume the existence of God, for the sake of argument. Now, of course that doesn't mean you must actually believe in God; it just means you suspend disbelief for the sake of the following thought experiment: Imagine you believe in God and think about what He would want you to do if He existed and created the world as He has. Once you know the answer to that, you will begin to understand Christian morality.

    The problem with this reasoning is that Christian morality cannot possibly be understood with presuppoaing the existence of God. If you sincerely wish to understand Christian morality, you will have to assume the existence of God, for the sake of argument. Now, of course that doesn’t mean you must actually believe in God; it just means you suspend disbelief for the sake of the following thought experiment: Imagine you believe in God and think about what He would want you to do if He existed and created the world as He has. Once you know the answer to that, you will begin to understand Christian morality.

    This is called circular reasoning.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    This is called circular reasoning.
     
    No it isn't. It's called arguendo.
  223. @Rosie
    If I were you Twinkie, I would see my priest about this unwillingness to acknowledge the Christian truth of redemption and consider the implications of your denial of same for the fate of your immortal soul. I notice you finally admitted that your real desire is to punish women for not behaving as you think they should.

    https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/5-catholic-saints-with-a-sinful-past.aspx?p=3

    You would love to throw some literal stones at women, wouldn't you?
    You disgust me.

    I notice you finally admitted that your real desire is to punish women for not behaving as you think they should.

    That’s in your mind. I encourage both men and women to be virtuous.

    Christian truth of redemption

    Oh, I understand redemption better than you do. The thing that you have trouble understanding is that redemption requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance for the same. Your idea of redemption is defiantly rubbing your mistakes on other people’s noses and saying “So what?” That’s most certainly not the behavior of someone who seeks redemption. And when others point that out, you accuse them of wanting to stone you.

    If I were you

    If.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Rosie

    That’s in your mind. I encourage both men and women to be virtuous.
     
    I must have missed all your posts about how women shouldn't marry men who have had numerous sexual partners.
    , @Rosie

    The thing that you have trouble understanding is that redemption requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance for the same.
     
    So are you now admitting that men shouldn't shunt women who have sincerely turned a new leaf? If so, I graciously accept your admission of defeat.
  224. Aft says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    I've looked at self-reported happiness in more detail over the years. The genesis of this post and the one preceding it was primarily polemical--the piece of propaganda specifically argued that single, childless women are more happy than married women with children. The evidence says that's 180 degrees backwards. If the contention was that single women were more happy than divorced women, I wouldn't have devoted two posts to it.

    A multiple regression on GSS yields a very simple picture:
    (this is for college-educated men only which to be fair blackdragon might not be…)
    – marriage matters quite a bit, self-reported health matters way more, each category (excellent, good, fair, poor) is worth more than the entire marriage bonus
    – age matters the most. It’s the classic U curve falling continually before picking back up after middle age.
    – income matters

    And there is ultimately no divorce penalty once you control for everything else. If you can get divorced without wrecking your own job/business and health, GSS shows no divorce penalty versus never married. (The putative divorce penalty might just be that older and less healthy people are divorced compared to a much younger healthier cohort of single 20-somethings. Correlation that goes away after halfway decent controls.)

    In short, BD is basically wrong about divorce. (Other studies have shown the same thing: people less happy after divorce go back to the lower happiness they had before divorce. Less happy people (pre marriage) are more likely to end up divorced, it’s not the divorce doing it to them.)

    And there’s no child bonus: just a marriage and a huge health bonus.

  225. Aft says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    Great point. We have strong natural instincts to fornicate. Until recently, the consequence of that fornication was procreation. We're now in a world where the two are increasingly being separated. It's conceivable that they become completely separated in the future (birth control methods approach 100%, pregnancy is likewise 100% in vitro).

    In the past, we were selected for ability to successfully fornicate. That is no longer the case. Quite literally, people who have more sexual partners have fewer children. The generations of the future will be selected by the desire of their ancestors to procreate.

    “The generations of the future will be selected by the desire of their ancestors to procreate.”

    Basically this. Women who aren’t baby crazy: their genes are being weeded out like crazy. So are those women with an insatiable desire to “have it all”–too much interest in their “career” and dumb hobbies will weed out those genes quickly.

    Studies have shown smart men desire fewer children or even childlessness just like smart women, but once they get into their 30s the men’s realized fertility comes through at parity. The women’s does not; no one wants a 30+ year old used-up product obviously….

    Jayman has covered this quite well actually; https://www.unz.com/jman/expectations-and-reality-a-window-into-the-liberal-conservative-baby-gap/ — conservatives are having more kids; those with high “openness” are having ~20% fewer, that’s an extraordinarily rapid selective pressure.

    Expect a lot more conservative and less “intellectual” cohort of whites and a lot dumber cohort of blacks due to their dysgenic fertility. Plus immigrants. Sounds lovely…

    • Replies: @iffen
    Expect a lot more conservative and less “intellectual” cohort of whites and a lot dumber cohort of blacks due to their dysgenic fertility.

    Discussions of whether we need more babies or not inevitably ends up here; we need more of the "proper" sort of babies.

    One sentiment that I observe, and I definitely think that it is becoming more common, is "How could you possibly want to bring a child into a world like this?" Are those people saying that more likely to be conservative or liberal? Doesn't seem like they would be liberals because we are becoming more liberal by the hour.

    Considering that "smart" people led us to the edge of this cliff, even if we get a fairy godmother to grant us our wishes and we wish for more "smart" babies, wouldn't the scenario just play out again?
  226. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Do you think women are so talentless that being a hooker is all they can do?
     
    No, I do not. This is the language that made me nervous:

    "We might want to look at other eras in U.S. history when marriage rates were higher to see what combinations of divorce laws, child support laws, welfare eligibility rules and general cultural values existed that channeled men and women into getting married at higher rates."

    Some people think that women should be excluded from the workplace so that they are forced to marry for a meal ticket (i.e. prostitution). I thought perhaps this is what you meant. If not, fine.

    What is the alternative to women considering the financial stability of various men as one factor among many when deciding to get married and have children? Would the alternative be for women to have children with men without caring whether the men can help support the children and then make other men support those children financially?
     
    A woman does not advertise for a husband and pick the most qualified. Cupid's arrow hits where it will. Nature takes its course.

    Are you hinting that men should be made the financial slaves of women they aren’t married to by government force?

     

    If you consider paying taxes to be "financial slavery," then yes. What you have to understand is that motherhood is a handicap, and the handicapped are entitled to social support. That remains true even if their handicap is partially their own fault. Suppose a stupid teenage boy wrecks his car and becomes a paraplegic. Should he be left to starve? Is it "slavery" to force you to contribute to his maintenance and healthcare?

    Your views are all over the place and inconsistent.

    You’ve been arguing that men have some duty and obligation to have kids, regardless of individual preferences, but you also argue women should be free to be unmarried and even be supported by unrelated men who are forced by the state to pay taxes on their behalf.

    You’re also comparing having a child to a “handicap” and akin to being a paraplegic, which is a bizarre and perverse view. Motherhood is only a “handicap” if on assumes that some sort of childless hedonism is the norm and chief pursuit of life.

    If women don’t want to depend on a husband, then they have to either depend on their families, or on other sources of income via the market or taxpayers. If they’re dependent on the market, the state has to prevent discrimination against women, and even promote positive discrimination in favor of women over men. And if they’re dependent on taxpayers, that involves the state forcibly taking money from men to unrelated women who have children with other men.

    It is a form of parasitism and cuckoldry for unrelated men in society to be materially supporting single mothers and their children.

  227. @Aft
    "The generations of the future will be selected by the desire of their ancestors to procreate."

    Basically this. Women who aren't baby crazy: their genes are being weeded out like crazy. So are those women with an insatiable desire to "have it all"--too much interest in their "career" and dumb hobbies will weed out those genes quickly.

    Studies have shown smart men desire fewer children or even childlessness just like smart women, but once they get into their 30s the men's realized fertility comes through at parity. The women's does not; no one wants a 30+ year old used-up product obviously....



    Jayman has covered this quite well actually; https://www.unz.com/jman/expectations-and-reality-a-window-into-the-liberal-conservative-baby-gap/ -- conservatives are having more kids; those with high "openness" are having ~20% fewer, that's an extraordinarily rapid selective pressure.

    Expect a lot more conservative and less "intellectual" cohort of whites and a lot dumber cohort of blacks due to their dysgenic fertility. Plus immigrants. Sounds lovely...

    Expect a lot more conservative and less “intellectual” cohort of whites and a lot dumber cohort of blacks due to their dysgenic fertility.

    Discussions of whether we need more babies or not inevitably ends up here; we need more of the “proper” sort of babies.

    One sentiment that I observe, and I definitely think that it is becoming more common, is “How could you possibly want to bring a child into a world like this?” Are those people saying that more likely to be conservative or liberal? Doesn’t seem like they would be liberals because we are becoming more liberal by the hour.

    Considering that “smart” people led us to the edge of this cliff, even if we get a fairy godmother to grant us our wishes and we wish for more “smart” babies, wouldn’t the scenario just play out again?

  228. @Twinkie

    I notice you finally admitted that your real desire is to punish women for not behaving as you think they should.
     
    That’s in your mind. I encourage both men and women to be virtuous.

    Christian truth of redemption
     
    Oh, I understand redemption better than you do. The thing that you have trouble understanding is that redemption requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance for the same. Your idea of redemption is defiantly rubbing your mistakes on other people’s noses and saying “So what?” That’s most certainly not the behavior of someone who seeks redemption. And when others point that out, you accuse them of wanting to stone you.

    If I were you
     
    If.

    That’s in your mind. I encourage both men and women to be virtuous.

    I must have missed all your posts about how women shouldn’t marry men who have had numerous sexual partners.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I must have missed all your posts about how women shouldn’t marry men who have had numerous sexual partners.
     
    My advice of a deliberate courtship without sex was for both men and women. And, yes, women should avoid cads.

    But we don’t get to discuss that much, because you inevitably steer the conversation to women having it all.
  229. @Twinkie

    I notice you finally admitted that your real desire is to punish women for not behaving as you think they should.
     
    That’s in your mind. I encourage both men and women to be virtuous.

    Christian truth of redemption
     
    Oh, I understand redemption better than you do. The thing that you have trouble understanding is that redemption requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance for the same. Your idea of redemption is defiantly rubbing your mistakes on other people’s noses and saying “So what?” That’s most certainly not the behavior of someone who seeks redemption. And when others point that out, you accuse them of wanting to stone you.

    If I were you
     
    If.

    The thing that you have trouble understanding is that redemption requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance for the same.

    So are you now admitting that men shouldn’t shunt women who have sincerely turned a new leaf? If so, I graciously accept your admission of defeat.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    women who have sincerely turned a new leaf?
     
    You are going to have to define “sincerely” there for me. Remember that redemption requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and remorse.

    The other thing you should keep in mind is that Christian redemption is spiritual and afterlife. Here on earth you still pay for your mistakes. God forgives a murderer who sincerely repents and lets him into paradise, but he still gets a lethal injection or a lifetime imprisonment here on earth. There is no escaping the consequences of your choices in life. Accepting that is grownup.


    If so, I graciously accept your admission of defeat.
     
    You should fixate less on “winning” at the internet and acquiring wisdom.
  230. @Abelard Lindsey

    The problem with this reasoning is that Christian morality cannot possibly be understood with presuppoaing the existence of God. If you sincerely wish to understand Christian morality, you will have to assume the existence of God, for the sake of argument. Now, of course that doesn’t mean you must actually believe in God; it just means you suspend disbelief for the sake of the following thought experiment: Imagine you believe in God and think about what He would want you to do if He existed and created the world as He has. Once you know the answer to that, you will begin to understand Christian morality.
     
    This is called circular reasoning.

    This is called circular reasoning.

    No it isn’t. It’s called arguendo.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Here is an example of a circular argument:

    If I assume God doesn't exist, Christian morality makes no sense.
    Therefore, God doesn't exist.

    It is actually you who are assuming the premise you are trying to prove.
  231. @Rosie

    This is called circular reasoning.
     
    No it isn't. It's called arguendo.

    Here is an example of a circular argument:

    If I assume God doesn’t exist, Christian morality makes no sense.
    Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

    It is actually you who are assuming the premise you are trying to prove.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    Whatever.

    Your worldview doesn't for me and mine doesn't work you, and we can leave it at that.

    I will say this. I know Christians who are totally on-board with both life extension and cryonics. At one point, one of the major cryonics organizations (Alcor) had a Christian CEO. So I think you're wrong about life extension/cryonics being incompatible with Christianity.
  232. @Rosie
    Here is an example of a circular argument:

    If I assume God doesn't exist, Christian morality makes no sense.
    Therefore, God doesn't exist.

    It is actually you who are assuming the premise you are trying to prove.

    Whatever.

    Your worldview doesn’t for me and mine doesn’t work you, and we can leave it at that.

    I will say this. I know Christians who are totally on-board with both life extension and cryonics. At one point, one of the major cryonics organizations (Alcor) had a Christian CEO. So I think you’re wrong about life extension/cryonics being incompatible with Christianity.

  233. @Rosie

    That’s in your mind. I encourage both men and women to be virtuous.
     
    I must have missed all your posts about how women shouldn't marry men who have had numerous sexual partners.

    I must have missed all your posts about how women shouldn’t marry men who have had numerous sexual partners.

    My advice of a deliberate courtship without sex was for both men and women. And, yes, women should avoid cads.

    But we don’t get to discuss that much, because you inevitably steer the conversation to women having it all.

  234. @Rosie

    The thing that you have trouble understanding is that redemption requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing and repentance for the same.
     
    So are you now admitting that men shouldn't shunt women who have sincerely turned a new leaf? If so, I graciously accept your admission of defeat.

    women who have sincerely turned a new leaf?

    You are going to have to define “sincerely” there for me. Remember that redemption requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and remorse.

    The other thing you should keep in mind is that Christian redemption is spiritual and afterlife. Here on earth you still pay for your mistakes. God forgives a murderer who sincerely repents and lets him into paradise, but he still gets a lethal injection or a lifetime imprisonment here on earth. There is no escaping the consequences of your choices in life. Accepting that is grownup.

    If so, I graciously accept your admission of defeat.

    You should fixate less on “winning” at the internet and acquiring wisdom.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    There is no escaping the consequences of your choices in life. Accepting that is grownup.
     
    This isn't about escaping consequences, you insufferable little liar. You do that men impose unnecessary punishments on women and then claim those punishments are just "the consequences."

    You should fixate less on “winning” at the internet and acquiring wisdom.
     
    Hey, anyone remind me of that time Twinkie admitted he was wrong and shut his mouth for five minutes?

    Me neither.
  235. @Twinkie

    women who have sincerely turned a new leaf?
     
    You are going to have to define “sincerely” there for me. Remember that redemption requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and remorse.

    The other thing you should keep in mind is that Christian redemption is spiritual and afterlife. Here on earth you still pay for your mistakes. God forgives a murderer who sincerely repents and lets him into paradise, but he still gets a lethal injection or a lifetime imprisonment here on earth. There is no escaping the consequences of your choices in life. Accepting that is grownup.


    If so, I graciously accept your admission of defeat.
     
    You should fixate less on “winning” at the internet and acquiring wisdom.

    There is no escaping the consequences of your choices in life. Accepting that is grownup.

    This isn’t about escaping consequences, you insufferable little liar. You do that men impose unnecessary punishments on women and then claim those punishments are just “the consequences.”

    You should fixate less on “winning” at the internet and acquiring wisdom.

    Hey, anyone remind me of that time Twinkie admitted he was wrong and shut his mouth for five minutes?

    Me neither.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Hey, anyone remind me of that time Twinkie admitted he was wrong and shut his mouth for five minutes?
     
    If you are diligent and don’t ask help from other people, you will find comments of mine in my comment history where I admit my mistakes.

    It just doesn’t happen with you, because your arguments are poorly constructed and argued.

    men impose unnecessary punishments
     
    Avoiding women with dubious history isn’t so much a punishment for the women in question as self-preservation for the men.

    you insufferable little liar.
     
    Again with the name-calling. You are never going to grow up, are you? Ah, well, pearls before swine. But I keep trying, because I do believe redemption is possible... even for you.
  236. @Rosie

    There is no escaping the consequences of your choices in life. Accepting that is grownup.
     
    This isn't about escaping consequences, you insufferable little liar. You do that men impose unnecessary punishments on women and then claim those punishments are just "the consequences."

    You should fixate less on “winning” at the internet and acquiring wisdom.
     
    Hey, anyone remind me of that time Twinkie admitted he was wrong and shut his mouth for five minutes?

    Me neither.

    Hey, anyone remind me of that time Twinkie admitted he was wrong and shut his mouth for five minutes?

    If you are diligent and don’t ask help from other people, you will find comments of mine in my comment history where I admit my mistakes.

    It just doesn’t happen with you, because your arguments are poorly constructed and argued.

    men impose unnecessary punishments

    Avoiding women with dubious history isn’t so much a punishment for the women in question as self-preservation for the men.

    you insufferable little liar.

    Again with the name-calling. You are never going to grow up, are you? Ah, well, pearls before swine. But I keep trying, because I do believe redemption is possible… even for you.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Avoiding women with dubious history isn’t so much a punishment for the women in question as self-preservation for the men.
     
    Isn't that special? You're so concerned about men's well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as "not good enough"!

    Then why do you always go on about "encouraging virtue," Twinkie?

    One minute, its self-preservation, then its encouraging virtue, then we're back again.

    Again with the name-calling.
     
    Am I not supposed to point out the fact that you're a liar?
  237. @Twinkie

    Hey, anyone remind me of that time Twinkie admitted he was wrong and shut his mouth for five minutes?
     
    If you are diligent and don’t ask help from other people, you will find comments of mine in my comment history where I admit my mistakes.

    It just doesn’t happen with you, because your arguments are poorly constructed and argued.

    men impose unnecessary punishments
     
    Avoiding women with dubious history isn’t so much a punishment for the women in question as self-preservation for the men.

    you insufferable little liar.
     
    Again with the name-calling. You are never going to grow up, are you? Ah, well, pearls before swine. But I keep trying, because I do believe redemption is possible... even for you.

    Avoiding women with dubious history isn’t so much a punishment for the women in question as self-preservation for the men.

    Isn’t that special? You’re so concerned about men’s well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as “not good enough”!

    Then why do you always go on about “encouraging virtue,” Twinkie?

    One minute, its self-preservation, then its encouraging virtue, then we’re back again.

    Again with the name-calling.

    Am I not supposed to point out the fact that you’re a liar?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    You’re so concerned about men’s well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as “not good enough”!
     
    You're saying they're practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.
    , @Twinkie

    You’re so concerned about men’s well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as “not good enough”!
     
    Are women born, immutably, as promiscuous?

    Were you slutty as a young woman? Is that why my calls for virtue among men is ignored by you, but my advocacy for female virtue triggers your hysterics?

    One minute, its self-preservation, then its encouraging virtue, then we’re back again.
     
    I hope you realize the realms of self-preservation and virtue intersect. Indeed a wise government enacts policies such that virtue intersects with self-interest as much as possible
  238. @Rosie

    Avoiding women with dubious history isn’t so much a punishment for the women in question as self-preservation for the men.
     
    Isn't that special? You're so concerned about men's well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as "not good enough"!

    Then why do you always go on about "encouraging virtue," Twinkie?

    One minute, its self-preservation, then its encouraging virtue, then we're back again.

    Again with the name-calling.
     
    Am I not supposed to point out the fact that you're a liar?

    You’re so concerned about men’s well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as “not good enough”!

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?
     
    Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.
     
    Actually, sexual promiscuity is driven by men's poor morals, not women's.
    When women have power, monogamy prevails. When men have power, promiscuity prevails.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12118

    But never mind, how about we take up that White Sharia thing after we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. For now, it's counterproductive to say the least.

    , @Twinkie

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?
     
    She seems to be projecting.

    I believe the average lifetime number of sexual partners for women in the U.S. is 7, but the median is only 2. Even with the associated issue of self-reporting, that difference between mean and median tells you that a small fraction at the upper end of the numbers is driving the average high while a very large fraction - a majority - has had 0-2 partners in their whole lives.

    One could also guess to which fraction Rosie belongs.
  239. @Mr. Rational

    You’re so concerned about men’s well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as “not good enough”!
     
    You're saying they're practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?

    Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.

    Actually, sexual promiscuity is driven by men’s poor morals, not women’s.
    When women have power, monogamy prevails. When men have power, promiscuity prevails.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12118

    But never mind, how about we take up that White Sharia thing after we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. For now, it’s counterproductive to say the least.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Mate scarcity had no effects on women's sociosexuality or infidelity intentions. Findings suggest that when mates are scarce, men will adopt a sociosexual orientation aimed at maintaining a single partner.
     
    Read that again, Rosie. And thanks for citing something that lends further evidence for my view.
    , @Mr. Rational


    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?
     
    Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.
     
    In other words, patriarchy is required to control female sexual appetites to make today's thots the least bit marriageable.


    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.
     
    Actually, sexual promiscuity is driven by men’s poor morals, not women’s.
    When women have power, monogamy prevails. When men have power, promiscuity prevails.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12118
     

    That must be why women are such raging sluts in Islamic societies where they are forbidden contact to unrelated males and stoned for adultery.... oh, wait...

    But never mind, how about we take up that White Sharia thing after we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.
     
    Re-establishment of patriarchy is a precondition for that security and future.  Feminism is a large part of the poz killing us.
  240. @Rosie

    Avoiding women with dubious history isn’t so much a punishment for the women in question as self-preservation for the men.
     
    Isn't that special? You're so concerned about men's well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as "not good enough"!

    Then why do you always go on about "encouraging virtue," Twinkie?

    One minute, its self-preservation, then its encouraging virtue, then we're back again.

    Again with the name-calling.
     
    Am I not supposed to point out the fact that you're a liar?

    You’re so concerned about men’s well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as “not good enough”!

    Are women born, immutably, as promiscuous?

    Were you slutty as a young woman? Is that why my calls for virtue among men is ignored by you, but my advocacy for female virtue triggers your hysterics?

    One minute, its self-preservation, then its encouraging virtue, then we’re back again.

    I hope you realize the realms of self-preservation and virtue intersect. Indeed a wise government enacts policies such that virtue intersects with self-interest as much as possible

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Are women born, immutably, as promiscuous?
     
    As you define it, a very large fraction are. In colonial times, more than 1 girl in 3 was pregnant when she walked down the aisle. The difference was men felt duty-bound to marry them. Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?

    https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/holiday07/court.cfm

  241. @Mr. Rational

    You’re so concerned about men’s well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as “not good enough”!
     
    You're saying they're practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?

    She seems to be projecting.

    I believe the average lifetime number of sexual partners for women in the U.S. is 7, but the median is only 2. Even with the associated issue of self-reporting, that difference between mean and median tells you that a small fraction at the upper end of the numbers is driving the average high while a very large fraction – a majority – has had 0-2 partners in their whole lives.

    One could also guess to which fraction Rosie belongs.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    One could also guess to which fraction Rosie belongs.
     
    Suppose I'm a raging slut. That is yet further evidence of the stupidity of your view, as there are now six White children who exist but would not exist had my husband followed your stupid advice.
  242. @Rosie

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?
     
    Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.
     
    Actually, sexual promiscuity is driven by men's poor morals, not women's.
    When women have power, monogamy prevails. When men have power, promiscuity prevails.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12118

    But never mind, how about we take up that White Sharia thing after we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. For now, it's counterproductive to say the least.

    Mate scarcity had no effects on women’s sociosexuality or infidelity intentions. Findings suggest that when mates are scarce, men will adopt a sociosexual orientation aimed at maintaining a single partner.

    Read that again, Rosie. And thanks for citing something that lends further evidence for my view.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Read that again, Rosie. And thanks for citing something that lends further evidence for my view.
     
    As a matter of fact, women's views of sexuality change in accordance with men's views. The dynamic is as follows:

    Men have disproportionate dating market power.
    They use it to get casual sex.
    Women adjust their views of casual sex to resolve the cognitive dissonance.
  243. @Twinkie

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?
     
    She seems to be projecting.

    I believe the average lifetime number of sexual partners for women in the U.S. is 7, but the median is only 2. Even with the associated issue of self-reporting, that difference between mean and median tells you that a small fraction at the upper end of the numbers is driving the average high while a very large fraction - a majority - has had 0-2 partners in their whole lives.

    One could also guess to which fraction Rosie belongs.

    One could also guess to which fraction Rosie belongs.

    Suppose I’m a raging slut. That is yet further evidence of the stupidity of your view, as there are now six White children who exist but would not exist had my husband followed your stupid advice.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Suppose I’m a raging slut.
     
    Were you or were you not? Because the argument changes depending on the answer.

    Moreover, what about other “raging sluts”? Would they also have produced six children each, in stable, loving, attentive homes without divorce and immorality? Under this scenario, would following your husband’s model of marrying a raging slut writ large have worked in producing a large group of healthy, well-cared for children in stable families, or would we have more white children growing up in stereotypically black-like environments of baby daddies, single moms, and welfare dependence? Is that really your vision for whites? That’s some kind of white advocacy.

    By the way, how are your husband and six children doing? I’m amazed between caring for them, working full time, and not having a maid, you have the wherewithal to comment on my every recent comment.
  244. @Twinkie

    Mate scarcity had no effects on women's sociosexuality or infidelity intentions. Findings suggest that when mates are scarce, men will adopt a sociosexual orientation aimed at maintaining a single partner.
     
    Read that again, Rosie. And thanks for citing something that lends further evidence for my view.

    Read that again, Rosie. And thanks for citing something that lends further evidence for my view.

    As a matter of fact, women’s views of sexuality change in accordance with men’s views. The dynamic is as follows:

    Men have disproportionate dating market power.
    They use it to get casual sex.
    Women adjust their views of casual sex to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Men have disproportionate dating market power.
     
    How so? Is that why men traditionally courted women, but not the other way around?

    Men can’t have heterosexual sex unless women consent.

    The article you cited says as much. It says men respond to scarcity/abundance of supply. Who controls the supply?

    Per the conclusion of the article, it means that when women are chaste and restrict supply, men go monogamous. When women are promiscuous and enlarge supply, men become cads.
  245. @Twinkie

    You’re so concerned about men’s well-being that you encourage them to shun practically every woman they meet as “not good enough”!
     
    Are women born, immutably, as promiscuous?

    Were you slutty as a young woman? Is that why my calls for virtue among men is ignored by you, but my advocacy for female virtue triggers your hysterics?

    One minute, its self-preservation, then its encouraging virtue, then we’re back again.
     
    I hope you realize the realms of self-preservation and virtue intersect. Indeed a wise government enacts policies such that virtue intersects with self-interest as much as possible

    Are women born, immutably, as promiscuous?

    As you define it, a very large fraction are. In colonial times, more than 1 girl in 3 was pregnant when she walked down the aisle. The difference was men felt duty-bound to marry them. Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?

    https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/holiday07/court.cfm

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?
     
    I condemn such behavior. It’s ugly and immoral. Women should avoid such men.

    In colonial times, more than 1 girl in 3 was pregnant when she walked down the aisle.
     
    You quote selectively.

    Beyond doubt, most people stayed strictly within the bounds of propriety...

    For upper-class English and Americans, keeping up appearances was paramount, and heaven forbid that a daughter should tie the knot with, in the vernacular, a bun in the oven. The family would be mortified. Of enormous concern to quality folk was the social standing of a child's potential mate. In Romeo and Juliet tradition, status, property, and wealth were the dealmakers or the dealbreakers.
     

    Moreover, the overwhelming chances are that the pregnant young women question had had ONE partner and one partner only. Not five, not seven, not twenty. These were not “raging sluts.”

    The difference was men felt duty-bound to marry them.
     
    Social pressure works. One question though. Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?
  246. @Rosie

    One could also guess to which fraction Rosie belongs.
     
    Suppose I'm a raging slut. That is yet further evidence of the stupidity of your view, as there are now six White children who exist but would not exist had my husband followed your stupid advice.

    Suppose I’m a raging slut.

    Were you or were you not? Because the argument changes depending on the answer.

    Moreover, what about other “raging sluts”? Would they also have produced six children each, in stable, loving, attentive homes without divorce and immorality? Under this scenario, would following your husband’s model of marrying a raging slut writ large have worked in producing a large group of healthy, well-cared for children in stable families, or would we have more white children growing up in stereotypically black-like environments of baby daddies, single moms, and welfare dependence? Is that really your vision for whites? That’s some kind of white advocacy.

    By the way, how are your husband and six children doing? I’m amazed between caring for them, working full time, and not having a maid, you have the wherewithal to comment on my every recent comment.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Would they also have produced six children each, in stable, loving, attentive homes without divorce and immorality?
     
    Yes. People grow up and become responsible members of society.
  247. @Rosie

    Read that again, Rosie. And thanks for citing something that lends further evidence for my view.
     
    As a matter of fact, women's views of sexuality change in accordance with men's views. The dynamic is as follows:

    Men have disproportionate dating market power.
    They use it to get casual sex.
    Women adjust their views of casual sex to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

    Men have disproportionate dating market power.

    How so? Is that why men traditionally courted women, but not the other way around?

    Men can’t have heterosexual sex unless women consent.

    The article you cited says as much. It says men respond to scarcity/abundance of supply. Who controls the supply?

    Per the conclusion of the article, it means that when women are chaste and restrict supply, men go monogamous. When women are promiscuous and enlarge supply, men become cads.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    How so? Is that why men traditionally courted women, but not the other way around?
     
    They do not always have disproportionate power, but they do right now.

    Men can’t have heterosexual sex unless women consent.
     
    And this is where your bullshit pretensions to even-handedness always break down.


    The article you cited says as much. It says men respond to scarcity/abundance of supply. Who controls the supply?
     
    Noone controls mate supply. That is a circumstance beyond anyone's control. Women control access to sex; men control access to the forms of intimacy women desire, which gives them power.

    Women cannot impose monogamy when they lack dating market power.

    When women are promiscuous and enlarge supply, men become cads.
     
    Nothing is ever men's fault.
  248. @Rosie

    Are women born, immutably, as promiscuous?
     
    As you define it, a very large fraction are. In colonial times, more than 1 girl in 3 was pregnant when she walked down the aisle. The difference was men felt duty-bound to marry them. Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?

    https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/holiday07/court.cfm

    Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?

    I condemn such behavior. It’s ugly and immoral. Women should avoid such men.

    In colonial times, more than 1 girl in 3 was pregnant when she walked down the aisle.

    You quote selectively.

    Beyond doubt, most people stayed strictly within the bounds of propriety…

    For upper-class English and Americans, keeping up appearances was paramount, and heaven forbid that a daughter should tie the knot with, in the vernacular, a bun in the oven. The family would be mortified. Of enormous concern to quality folk was the social standing of a child’s potential mate. In Romeo and Juliet tradition, status, property, and wealth were the dealmakers or the dealbreakers.

    Moreover, the overwhelming chances are that the pregnant young women question had had ONE partner and one partner only. Not five, not seven, not twenty. These were not “raging sluts.”

    The difference was men felt duty-bound to marry them.

    Social pressure works. One question though. Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Moreover, the overwhelming chances are that the pregnant young women question had had ONE partner and one partner only. Not five, not seven, not twenty. These were not “raging sluts.”
     
    No shit, Sherlock.. She doesn't need any more partners. She has a husband.
    , @Rosie

    Social pressure works. One question though. Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?
     
    Yes, unless there is a threat to her personal safety, i.e. intimate partner violence.
  249. @Twinkie

    Suppose I’m a raging slut.
     
    Were you or were you not? Because the argument changes depending on the answer.

    Moreover, what about other “raging sluts”? Would they also have produced six children each, in stable, loving, attentive homes without divorce and immorality? Under this scenario, would following your husband’s model of marrying a raging slut writ large have worked in producing a large group of healthy, well-cared for children in stable families, or would we have more white children growing up in stereotypically black-like environments of baby daddies, single moms, and welfare dependence? Is that really your vision for whites? That’s some kind of white advocacy.

    By the way, how are your husband and six children doing? I’m amazed between caring for them, working full time, and not having a maid, you have the wherewithal to comment on my every recent comment.

    Would they also have produced six children each, in stable, loving, attentive homes without divorce and immorality?

    Yes. People grow up and become responsible members of society.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yes. People grow up and become responsible members of society.
     
    Statistics don’t bear that out no matter what fantasy you harbor. Promiscuity is inversely correlated to all the good stuff.
  250. @Twinkie

    Men have disproportionate dating market power.
     
    How so? Is that why men traditionally courted women, but not the other way around?

    Men can’t have heterosexual sex unless women consent.

    The article you cited says as much. It says men respond to scarcity/abundance of supply. Who controls the supply?

    Per the conclusion of the article, it means that when women are chaste and restrict supply, men go monogamous. When women are promiscuous and enlarge supply, men become cads.

    How so? Is that why men traditionally courted women, but not the other way around?

    They do not always have disproportionate power, but they do right now.

    Men can’t have heterosexual sex unless women consent.

    And this is where your bullshit pretensions to even-handedness always break down.

    The article you cited says as much. It says men respond to scarcity/abundance of supply. Who controls the supply?

    Noone controls mate supply. That is a circumstance beyond anyone’s control. Women control access to sex; men control access to the forms of intimacy women desire, which gives them power.

    Women cannot impose monogamy when they lack dating market power.

    When women are promiscuous and enlarge supply, men become cads.

    Nothing is ever men’s fault.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    they do right now.
     
    That’s an evasion of my comment I cited (“traditionally”).

    Women control access to sex; men control access to the forms of intimacy women desire, which gives them power.
     
    You are unwittingly very funny, Rosie. Did you not get enough cuddling growing up? Is that your excuse for being “a raging slut”?

    Women cannot impose monogamy when they lack dating market power.
     
    I think this is another projection.

    Nothing is ever men’s fault.
     
    I’m only summarizing the study YOU cited.
  251. @Twinkie

    Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?
     
    I condemn such behavior. It’s ugly and immoral. Women should avoid such men.

    In colonial times, more than 1 girl in 3 was pregnant when she walked down the aisle.
     
    You quote selectively.

    Beyond doubt, most people stayed strictly within the bounds of propriety...

    For upper-class English and Americans, keeping up appearances was paramount, and heaven forbid that a daughter should tie the knot with, in the vernacular, a bun in the oven. The family would be mortified. Of enormous concern to quality folk was the social standing of a child's potential mate. In Romeo and Juliet tradition, status, property, and wealth were the dealmakers or the dealbreakers.
     

    Moreover, the overwhelming chances are that the pregnant young women question had had ONE partner and one partner only. Not five, not seven, not twenty. These were not “raging sluts.”

    The difference was men felt duty-bound to marry them.
     
    Social pressure works. One question though. Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?

    Moreover, the overwhelming chances are that the pregnant young women question had had ONE partner and one partner only. Not five, not seven, not twenty. These were not “raging sluts.”

    No shit, Sherlock.. She doesn’t need any more partners. She has a husband.

  252. @Twinkie

    Say, Twinkie, where ie your concern for the morals of these men who get girls pregnant and then dump them?
     
    I condemn such behavior. It’s ugly and immoral. Women should avoid such men.

    In colonial times, more than 1 girl in 3 was pregnant when she walked down the aisle.
     
    You quote selectively.

    Beyond doubt, most people stayed strictly within the bounds of propriety...

    For upper-class English and Americans, keeping up appearances was paramount, and heaven forbid that a daughter should tie the knot with, in the vernacular, a bun in the oven. The family would be mortified. Of enormous concern to quality folk was the social standing of a child's potential mate. In Romeo and Juliet tradition, status, property, and wealth were the dealmakers or the dealbreakers.
     

    Moreover, the overwhelming chances are that the pregnant young women question had had ONE partner and one partner only. Not five, not seven, not twenty. These were not “raging sluts.”

    The difference was men felt duty-bound to marry them.
     
    Social pressure works. One question though. Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?

    Social pressure works. One question though. Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?

    Yes, unless there is a threat to her personal safety, i.e. intimate partner violence.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?
     

    Yes
     
    Ok, then. So you want either whites behaving like blacks or Pakistan with white people. Good luck attracting other whites to these visions.
  253. @Rosie

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?
     
    Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.
     
    Actually, sexual promiscuity is driven by men's poor morals, not women's.
    When women have power, monogamy prevails. When men have power, promiscuity prevails.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12118

    But never mind, how about we take up that White Sharia thing after we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. For now, it's counterproductive to say the least.

    You’re saying they’re practically all unfit to marry by traditional standards?

    Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying.

    In other words, patriarchy is required to control female sexual appetites to make today’s thots the least bit marriageable.

    If you were being paid to make a case for White sharia, you could hardly do a better job.

    Actually, sexual promiscuity is driven by men’s poor morals, not women’s.
    When women have power, monogamy prevails. When men have power, promiscuity prevails.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12118

    That must be why women are such raging sluts in Islamic societies where they are forbidden contact to unrelated males and stoned for adultery…. oh, wait…

    But never mind, how about we take up that White Sharia thing after we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

    Re-establishment of patriarchy is a precondition for that security and future.  Feminism is a large part of the poz killing us.

  254. @Rosie

    Would they also have produced six children each, in stable, loving, attentive homes without divorce and immorality?
     
    Yes. People grow up and become responsible members of society.

    Yes. People grow up and become responsible members of society.

    Statistics don’t bear that out no matter what fantasy you harbor. Promiscuity is inversely correlated to all the good stuff.

  255. @Rosie

    How so? Is that why men traditionally courted women, but not the other way around?
     
    They do not always have disproportionate power, but they do right now.

    Men can’t have heterosexual sex unless women consent.
     
    And this is where your bullshit pretensions to even-handedness always break down.


    The article you cited says as much. It says men respond to scarcity/abundance of supply. Who controls the supply?
     
    Noone controls mate supply. That is a circumstance beyond anyone's control. Women control access to sex; men control access to the forms of intimacy women desire, which gives them power.

    Women cannot impose monogamy when they lack dating market power.

    When women are promiscuous and enlarge supply, men become cads.
     
    Nothing is ever men's fault.

    they do right now.

    That’s an evasion of my comment I cited (“traditionally”).

    Women control access to sex; men control access to the forms of intimacy women desire, which gives them power.

    You are unwittingly very funny, Rosie. Did you not get enough cuddling growing up? Is that your excuse for being “a raging slut”?

    Women cannot impose monogamy when they lack dating market power.

    I think this is another projection.

    Nothing is ever men’s fault.

    I’m only summarizing the study YOU cited.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  256. @Rosie

    Social pressure works. One question though. Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?
     
    Yes, unless there is a threat to her personal safety, i.e. intimate partner violence.

    Do you believe that any woman who is impregnated by a man is duty-bound to marry that man by the force of law or social pressure?

    Yes

    Ok, then. So you want either whites behaving like blacks or Pakistan with white people. Good luck attracting other whites to these visions.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS