3RU7AL

No shit, genius. Sad that you somehow think the fact Tom Boys exist proves women use the same strategies as men. 

Do you think wives should ask a husband how much they make to support them?

they want to stay home and raise children and cook and clean and never get a job?

How is raising children not a job? It's the entire reason why women biologically screen mates on their net-worth.

Yes. 

Do you think societal conditioning is a myth if there are outliers?

What is the motive behind your question?

All women go to the same handful of stores as girls and are subject to toys for example marketed to girls like kitchens, barbies and play vacuums?

Women start as girls. Correct. 

please be slightly more specific

Every time a parent gives a child resources that the child did not earn, it is a form of nepotism. 

If I woke up with my male experiences and male brain in a women's body, I would likely act like a man. If I grew up a female and had the same experiences and conditioning women have had, I'd likely act significantly different than I do now. 

My strategies for accomplishing what you list would different depending on the wiring of my brain, and my social conditioning.  

That advice is actually true for women. Really, men have very wide variety of what they find attractive. Some of us like fat chicks, some of us skinny chicks, some of us like girls who most would find ugly. Every look a woman could have, will find a ton of men attracted to that particular look. 

Women are attracted to a small minority of men. I think it was a dating site that did an informal survey on what men vs women found attractive. Men in general found 80% of women on the app to be attractive, while women all seemed to just find 20% of the men to be attractive.

The advantages I mention are in the legal system. I am merely talking about how different strategies are collectively used by each group. 

Men just aren't as good at the social games as women. We aren't as intuitive with how the people around us feel and how to navigate social situations as they are, so generally speaking . Men will be honest about why they are not attracted to a woman, and women care about the relationship with their male friend and will not want hard feelings, so will say what best preserves that friendship.

I am not saying either thing is right or wrong, but I do know that, the dating advice your female friends give you, will literally turn you into an incel.

They are unaware of the long term and short term mating strategies of the opposite sex. Women seem intuitively aware of how their mating strategy differs from men's, but men believe in some myths for the most part. 

For example when girls are unattracted to the nice guy they befriended, they will often give him the advice or words of wisdom along the lines of "just be yourself eventually you'll find a girl that will love you"

That's an absofuckinlutely nutso idea.

are you suggesting that just as many oligarchs would exist in a world without NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE ?

I wouldn't characterize them as "oligarchs," but yes, there'd still be a concentration of wealth in the absence of nepotism and inheritance.

parental focus may give someone an emotional advantage or disadvantage

training and or popular style may give a person a social advantage or disadvantage

personal and or parental and or social priority may give someone an intellectual advantage or disadvantage

On what measure do you base a distinction between a "fair" advantage and an "unfair" advantage? How do the advantages you've list meet that criterion/criteria?

public sphere requires regulation

private sphere is private

And management and executive positions are (necessarily) within the public sphere?

, and or what primary goal should those rules be aimed at ?

Maintaining the interests of the involved.

if you do believe there should be some rules to govern commerce, what moral theory

Individualist moral theory.

let's see if we can square this circle

do you believe there should be some rules to govern commerce ?

Yes, privatized rules. That is, the involved parties can determine their participation by the rules they've conceived, and to which they've agreed.

please explain how you managed to leap to this ridiculous conclusion

Because modeling jobs require no particularly stringent merits, correct? How different is it that one is born beautiful from one's being born into money?

HERE'S YOUR PRECIOUS EFFICIENT "FREE-MARKET" IN ACTION,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRg2WcABVmQ

Explain your contention against that which was described in the video you referenced.

I think my next step is realizing I can't cure cancer or save the world, so I can stay in one place long enough to actually stabilize my life. I feel like it is ripping at my soul though, to think I will never have a significant positive impact on the world, no matter how hard I try. 

government regulation currently crushes small business and insulates big businesses

Big businesses are jealous of successful competitors.

what do you believe is the primary function of government ?

To protect the public from jealous people (criminals) or jealous nations (invaders) and allow people the freedom to pursue happiness, not engage in equity schemes that reward jealous people while punishing ambitious people...

are you suggesting that just as many oligarchs would exist in a world without NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE ?

Nearly 68% of the world’s richest people are ‘self-made,’ says new report

Only 8.5% of global high-net-worth individuals were categorized as having completely inherited their wealth

Why on earth are your panties so irredeemably twisted over 8.5% of the super elite oligarchy?

So in your dystopia, a person with bad lifestyle choices is just fucked, right?

So in your dystopia, a person with bad schools is just fucked, right?

So in your dystopia, a person with bad parents is just fucked, right?

Is a person's prospective homelessness and starvation a fault of the system?

OLIGARCHY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF ANARCHY

OLIGARCHY IS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE

Assuming of course that we're focused on the concentration of wealth. And there will always be concentration where the most commerce is generated, nepotism + inheritance notwithstanding. (Yes even trust-fund babies learn how to maintain their wealth given that wealth too is finite.)

EQUALITY = PROVABLY FAIR

EQUALITY = NO "HEAD-STARTS"

NO GIFTS

NO INHERITANCE

NO NEPOTISM

NO CHEATING

Out of curiosity, what are some advantages for which you'd be on board?

your home is your castle

do what you wish in your own home

do what you think is best with your own family in your own home

nepotism only applies to businesses, and more specifically to management positions and executives

How is the logic any different?

Anarchy is poitical/social individualism, which would delineate that in spite/favor of nepotism, inheritance, and social/economic advantages, as an individual, your life is a function of service to your own best interests; that your talents, skills, abilities, labor, time, etc. are yours to do with in whichever manner you see fit, so long as it does not infract on another individual's capacity to exhibit the aforementioned. Nepotism and inheritance are not infractions.

ANARCHY =/= EQUALITY; ANARCHY =/= NO NEPOTISM; ANARCHY =/= NO ADVANTAGES

What about a pretty woman? Do we tag her up a bit, so that the uggos have a "fair shot" at a modeling job?

Say I'm in the market for a babysitter. I meet a candidate who has a Ph.D in both child psychology and child education. She has years of experience and she had numerous reviews which raved about her. She is sure to be a lock. Just before I finalize my decision, my 16 year-old daughter expresses interest in being a babysitter. Ultimately, I decide to hire my daughter because she's my daughter. So if we were to maintain ANARCHY = EQUALITY = NO NEPOTISM, then that would undermine individual interests particularly the ones which concern said individual.

think of it like a game of "monopoly"

would you participate in a game where your competitors already owned hotels on half the board and had vastly outsized cash reserves before you even rolled your first move?

forget the metaphor for a minute

would you play this board game ?

As for whether I'd play the game, in a competitive context, no I would not.

but he was critiquing something anyway

and that's about as real and true to me as any dainty syllogism.

Premise 1 Every human choice or action is driven by past events. 

So is it past events or randomness?

Premise 1  Every human choice or action is driven by past events. 

Premise 2 We do not control past events. 

Conclusion 1 Human free will does not exist. 

From my perspective, the syllogism seems simple to the point where it is irrefutable. What do we think?

For example, though you do not choose whether you prefer one thing to another - you can choose to go against that preference

I know I'm coming off kind of abrasive in this thread, but it's so tropey the number of anti-capitalists that never set foot on a farm and never set foot in a communist country nor ever talked to a person who fled a communist country. And then they loudly complain that capitalism hasn't provided more than their already objectively provable cushy lifestyle.

I actually had a Venezuelan roommate for 3 years. Now that was a learning experience.

Bad ideas, failed businesses, sunk cost. Any sort of central planning can't deal with any of this like capitalism can, capitalism ruthlessly reinvents itself, that's its power. 

do you think that perhaps there are unqualified legacy idiot executives and politicians ?

Not really sure what you do about that, though. It's not really an indictment of capitalism, either. It's surplus, in a way.