Comments by AbbieNormal (page 6)

I wish I could look at this and laugh it off. I wish I could say it doesn't matter, but it does. Self styled "progressives" seem to feel, as Marx "proved" that there is an inevitable direction to history, and that any lack of perfection or nirvana, or utopian society is a willful act, by jews, neocons, pick your villain. Civilization, my friends is a thin veneer. Look at history, study the character of man, what in any way leads you to the conclusion that mankind unrestrained will end up in some sort of utopian collective? The choice we face is not the perfect or the less than perfect, the choice is very clearly presented, by our enemies, if you care to read them and take them seriously, as our liberal democracy, which seeks to excuse their every outrage, or submission. They are quite frank. http://www.memri.org/ All they do is translate. Yet we excuse or allow through some misguided notion that they can't be held to our standard, literal and explicit calls for the destruction of everything the west, or th e "liberals" hold dear. And yet the left claims to be "reality based". No problem, as long as you assume you don't have to take the darkies and wogs seriously. Liberal society, liberal democracy, will last exactly as long as there are people who recognize it as important, and worth fighting for. And by fighting I don't mean criticizing Bush, that requires no courage or sacrifice. I mean people willing to die for an idea. http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=1930 Deride them, call them dupes, that is your privilege. Feel self righteous. That is your right, secured with the blood of better men than you.

The logic escapes me, but I've heard the argument for years. We are not perfect, therefore we can not be good. Since however we aspire to be better but fall short we are also uniquely evil as opposed to 8th century savages who have no pretense or allowing freedom or equality, and are hence excused from all moral judgement. We are the freest, wealthiest, most inclusive, tolerant, most moral and noblest nation the world has ever known. Deal with it. God bless America and Happy 4th of July.

Since I was on the movie thing, and Lopaw was the second to mention the Beretta .25 I simply must post. In one of the Bond movies, Dr. No I believe, Bond is found to be carrying the Beretta .25. M, wishing to scold him gives the weapon to Q. Q extols the virtues of the Beretta with the closing line "a fine weapon, for a woman's handbag." How far we've come, once upon a time women having guns in their handbags was seen as normal, in Europe.

Sorry I meant to quote "and that all-critical component I believe is in the nature of a a bio-chemically induced non-volitional involuntary feeling - and all of that relates to earlier times" To re-iterate, that my friend is the problem, that is an opinion, yours, and it steals many intellectual bases, as I've tried to explain, yet you present it as fact. It is not.

"and all of that relates to earlier times" And that my friend is the problem, that is an opinion, yours, and it steals many intellectual bases, as I've tried to explain, yet you present it as fact. It is not.

"The people I know who own handguns for "self-protection" view the world as a dark, scary, and threatening place" Well, it can be. It is often noted how rural people "cling" to guns. Imagine you live miles from your nearest neighbor and dozens of miles from the nearest town. As P-man said calling 9-11 will not help you if someone with ill intent wishes you harm. I refuse, and this was I think the point of that silly amendment second only to freedom of speech, press and religion, to put my security and safety wholly in the hands of government. I demand, or better yet, I refuse to cede the right to protect myself. We are a people who consent to be governed by those we elect, not a people whose rights are granted by a government. There was a document to that effect drawn up about, oh 232 years ago, and another about 13 years later. In the US home invasion robberies are rare, in Britain, they are increasing. Look into it, ask yourself why. Often people portray the gun issue in stark terms, everyone has a gun, or nobody does. The nobody does won't happen. Neither will the everybody does. The middle ground, where a criminal can't be sure who will or won't actually helps enhance public safety. As always the movies reveal the truth. From Pulp Fiction: Yolanda: This place? A coffee shop? Pumpkin: Why not? Nobody ever robs restaurants. Bars, liquor stores, gas stations... you get your head blown off sticking up one of them. Restaurants on the other hand, you catch with their pants down. They're not expecting to get robbed. Not as expectant anyway. Criminals prey on the weak and unprepared. Why? 'Cause they aren't stupid, at least in that sense.

Gun control is a two handed grip on my father's old model M1911 Colt.

Then again, maybe women also respond to more than one type of behavior. http://www.nypost.com/seven/06222008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/fall_of_the_alpha_male_116567.htm?page=0

Then again, maybe this alpha male stuff is all bullshit... http://www.nypost.com/seven/06222008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/fall_of_the_alpha_male_116567.htm?page=0

Utter inconsequential crap. On rare occasions, something that interests me.

As is true in all areas of life, the answer is in a quote from "Stripes" Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

To re-iterate, non-monogamy among males is not what I take issue with. There is a lot of evidence that the purely "natural" state of humans is polygyny, i.e. one dominant male with several females. For the male this has the obvious benefits of non-monogamy, multiple children by multiple women. For the individual women there is no downside so long as the single male is able to provide for and protect all the women and children. What is decidedly lacking is any evidence that the male's non-monogamy has any benefit to the female, or that the women are more attracted to the man because he has multiple partners. That a desirable man could attract more than one mate, or even that he could convince a woman to bear his offspring rather than her less desirable mate's (i.e. cheating) isn't the same thing as saying women are attracted to men who cheat. If David9999 would say more desirable men cheat more, I'd say it is plausible, because among other things being more desirable gives them more opportunity. But I think he really gets things backward cause and effect wise when he says cheating makes men more desirable. Until someone can explain the advantage a woman derives from the man's non-monogamy (and the example of polygyny is not an advantage, it is the absence of a disadvantage) I'll continue to remain skeptical. However, as I'd repeatedly asked for any evidence of the "bad" traits holding any reproductive advantage for men, instead arguing that the "bad" traits are actually mirroring good ones, I felt obligated to allow that there is in fact some science that "bad" traits confer some advantage to the men in question. So no, I am not conceding the argument, I am conceding on one point that one of David9999's claims apparently has some scientific basis.

I hate to do it, but sadly in the interest of intellectual honesty I must. David9999 has some science to back him up. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg19826614.100-bad-guys-really-do-get-the-most-girls.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 I am still skeptical, and the article does not say that women are more attracted to the cheating as opposed to the alpha male part, but it appears that cheating is a viable reproduction strategy for some men. I suppose this is why in so many more primitive cultures the powerful men make sure nobody can get to their women, so they don't end up investing time and energy in raising someone else's kid, and why the penalties were so great for either the men or women if caught.

Marginal and "on the margin" mean the same thing (i.e. minimal, insignificant, peripheral, small, negligible, of limited importance). Saying that "on the margins" means that when several other more important determinative factors are in place the determination is going to be made by a less important less determinative factor does not seem to be much more than an argument about small degrees of difference, at the margins. Once again leading to the question, if you are already a tall, good looking, assertive, successful alpha male exactly why do you need these strategies, and how can you tell it is these strategies that are making a difference? In the end a lot of this, and all the "how to pick up girls" genre of sites and literature comes down to the advice "be more attractive to women". Well duh. The other point is that being attractive, I agree, has a strong genetic component, but human behavior and attraction is not wholly a matter of genetics. Anyone think Bill Gates fits the traditional genetic definition of an alpha male? However, the other part of my question, is there any evidence whatsoever, and assertions of fact are not evidence, that a cheating mate is something desirable for a woman

And again I ask the question, if the effect is so marginal, how are you so sure it is really having any effect, or even exists? The two sides of the argument I keep hearing are that the effect is undeniably real and unconscious, and that it is a marginal effect that is only going to work on some subset of women and only with a man they find attractive anyway. In the past I suggested some ways such an effect could be studied, or isolated. To my knowledge no such studies exist, if I'm incorrect I'd love to be informed. In addition I have mentioned that much of what is often described as the bad-boy part is really just assertive male behavior. Is there a way to differentiate? Yes, David9999 contends it is cheating. Men more likely to cheat will be more attractive to females. I await any shred of proof other than assertion that it is so, as I have done every time this thread comes up.

Tipping is expected, applause is polite. Considering applause "gay", as in "lame" is pretty sad. But it is part of the whole "I'm authentic, nobody tells me what to do and I'm cool because I don't subscribe to the man's rules" attitude, which is also sad. Saying someone is gay used to be uncontroversial, it meant they were happy, likewise queer meant odd. If you wish to appropriate a word for a cause, be prepared for the blowback. This is not an endorsement of any point of view, merely an observation. My father went by the name of Dick voluntarily, till the day he died. This was not unusual for men of his generation, and nobody snickered behind his back.

Well, I meant that last post as a joke, but seriously there are a few reasons. 1) I've been posting here a long time, and I've seen just about every topic and posted about it 3 or 4 times by now. 2) There seems to be a group of self appointed moderators who rarely seem to post on anything other than someone else's post and how stupid they are or the post is. 3) There are some other posters who will turn any topic into their own preferred topic, pretty much shouting down or ignoring contrary opinion. 4) All that has made the board rather boring.

And people ask me why I don't bother posting anymore...

Remember that for the most part we are talking about social security here, not income tax. It has, as mentioned above, been a long term effort by the IRS to get more money from tipped employees. My experience, as a waiter and bartender, is that if it weren't for the fact that you were paid in cash for a large percentage of your wage, and could "forget" to report it nobody would make enough money at these jobs to take them (more jobs Americans won't do). Recent changes in technology have made things tougher for the tipped employees. All sales are recorded by individual, and the IRS assumes that you are tipped at a minimum 12% of your sales. This accounts for various tipouts, etc. If you report less, you're screwed. If your credit card tips show greater that 12% tips on average, you're screwed. Essentially the IRS decides how much you make and taxes you on it in those cases. As for contractors, some clubs do treat dancers as contractors, which is realistic if they dance at more than one club or do bachelor parties etc. In addition a lot of businesses have decided to make employees contractors for tax reasons. Colleges are one of the prime offenders. Most entry level instructors are contractors and are given a 1099 and must pay both their, and the employer share of social security. I was in this situation also. I quit because frankly it wasn't worth the time for the money I was making after taxes.

I think they'll go the way of Bond Girl names, which started suggestive, Honey Ryder, but quickly went to the blatant, Pussy Galore and Dr. Goodhead. In a few years they'll all be calling themselves Hotass and Juggs just to stand out.

FONDL, what about the hot tub?

Founder is right, you can read all you want for free, and even post. However, there isn't, as far as I can tell any real information about the clubs, at least when I've checked. The posts tend to resemble the worst of the name calling bitch sessions you see on unmoderated sites, with an occasional post about the club in question.

You mean, like, in person?

Seen it, I was trying to be nice. I'll be back? OK, decent, but come on, it is the equivalent of "fuck you, I'll kill you later." But delivered by a machine it loses all meaning beyond irony. "Leave the gun. Take the canolli." The pathos, the emotion, the humanity, and the pure simple utilitarian view of death compete to make it a pure expression of the human condition.

Sergeant Hulka? Are we done for the day?