D
Deleted member 23656
Self-banned
-
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2019
- Posts
- 4,137
I'm disappointed. I expected more from the man.
I like jordan Peterson mostlyI think he's getting incels mixed up with doomer Jordan Peterson dickriders.
Big yikes. Explain?I like jordan Peterson mostly
I just watched his program with the bbc disgusting femshitBig yikes. Explain?
He's an egomaniac tradcuck shill. But whatever I don't even know why I brought it up. He's wholly unimportant to me and you can like him if you want.I just watched his program with the bbc disgusting femshit
and he was good at the debate, thats all i know about him tbh
Communism says workers deserve their fair rights of wealth. But when it comes to female dating they go full capitalist lol.just what i expect from a marxists
OP is queer apparentlyFucking lol![]()
![]()
![]()
Elab this op
i dont judge![]()
isn't that just a sticker?Nice nail polish, faggot.
Anime has fried your brain. It's his thumb.isn't that just a sticker?
fuark I did not want to believe. that's tragic actuallyAnime has fried your brain. It's his thumb.
OP is a tranny.
Firstly, sexual competition is zero sum. Attractiveness is relative. You are only attractive if you are more attractive than others. Therefore winners create losers. This isn't how other resources work. Hunger, for example, is absolute. How hungry you are is independent of how much food other people have. Some people being fat doesn't magically cause everyone else to starve.
We can therefore divide all resources into two classes on this basis, "absolute resources" and "relative resources" depending which behaviour they obey.
Communism is a position people arrive at under the (potentially implict) assumption that all resources are relative resources and all resource competition is zero sum. Laissez-Faire capitalism is a position people arrive at under the (potentiall implicit) assumption that all resources are absolute resources and all resource competition is finite sum.
Supporting "communist" like policies for relative resources and opposing it for absolute resources is not hypocrisy nor is it a double standard.
This seems like a totally idiotic thing to say.
It conflates monogamy (which has been historically near universal in Europe) with forced distribution of females, as if one thing was just a more soft version of the other, which is just false.
Then it portrays monogamy and hierarchical structures as some kind of conflict, which neither historically nor in reality ever existed.
This is just a ridiculous argument to make and totally nonsensical beyond even a surface investigation.
Utilitarian: Communism is bad because it doesn't work. Polygamy/Hypergamy are bad because they don't work as well.
Zero contradition.