"Evidence trumps logic. It doesn't matter what logic and theory says, if you can witness it in real life."
You are confused. The evidence of our senses is a necessary precondition to logic. They are not antithetical to each other but are, together, the only way to determine truth.

No it does not make me 63! I didn't say "Victrola"!
If you mean the majority of women then say "majority" before you say "women"...WHEN ever you say "women". 8 extra key strokes..I'm sure you can handle extra strokes. No?

Re: "Romantic Love"
A component of romantic love is the admiration of one person of another. A hero admiring a heroine. It is not the product of hormones, nor is sex the only component, although not a component to be disregarded. A rational man is ruled by the product of his brain and not his glands, which means that appearance is only a part the of attraction and not necessarily the major one. Do not forget that the very foundation of man's definition qua man is volition. To think or not to think is as much a part of choosing a life's companion as it is in every other decision. I recommend Rand's 'The Romantic Manifesto, which applies not only to relationships, but also to creativity.

Heck, they do it with a computer now-a-days.

I don't know about that. He's not being held back now, kinda scary.

Smart girl.

I wanted Ron Paul.

The video wasn't about why the government is growing. It's about the nature of women and men. Obviously there is going to be more than one cause, but the fact that there is more than one cause doesn't eliminate this cause. If you want to dispute this you have to target the argument not the outcome.

BambiB, I really really want to give you a point for the cool checkmark things, but you keep back handing us. Listen. Please. Could you, for argument's sake, say, "most women" when you make these accusations, or state facts, or whatever you want to call it? WE women in the gulch (as far as a I know) do NOT fall under this umbrella of retarded voters, non thinkers, wants free stuff, married to the gov..... we despise all of those ideas as much as you do. And try talking about a different topic sometimes....or we may just stop listening and start thinking you're a scratched up 45 that nobody bothers to go bump the needle. I'M BUMPING THE NEEDLE!

I wanted Ron Paul. I don't know many men that really 'wanted' Mitt Romney. They seemed to fall for the false idea of voting for the least bad one on the ballot.

I’m implying that your username should have been Loki. Don’t think I don’t see through this whole divide-and-rule game you got going on for yourself here.You are having great sport at the expense of the women on this board. I don’t think you believe half the things you are writing. Let’s just call it -- a woman’s intuition. (I’m still sensing military.)
So far, as others have pointed out, you rely heavily on fallacies. Isn’t comparing equal pay for equal work to a woman’s ability to land a bomber sort of a mask man fallacy? There. That’s my contribution. Keep writing; I’m reading.

BambiB, for me, the damage done and that yet to come encompasses so much more than just an economic collapse and humans starving. We're 4 to 5, maybe 6 generations into such a radical, near nationwide, (probably global) blind and hysterical attempt to alter and engineer humankind's perceptions of reality, that rational objective thinking and analysis of the overall impact on our species is near impossible for such a huge majority of the population. Ignoring the evolutionary development of our species, with certain genetic traits that so strongly impact perceptive analysis and reactions to the events of life that through 1million years or more has led to our survival and to who and what we are today, in favor of bogus explanations, studies, and junk science to justify the drastic shift of societal power of the late 19th and early 20th centuries has been nothing short of insanity and suicidal for society. How many realize that more than 90% of all the species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct, and that most of them had come and gone long before our little branch even began to form?

When AR began forming and writing of the objectivist philosophy, we were only 2 to 3 generations down the road of feminization of the controls and principle purposes of society at all levels. Can you picture the reception that an AR of today just introducing her philosophy would be subjected to? I'm not even sure of how AR might have responded to the anti-feminization terminology and examples you and I and many others choose to utilize in our arguments, unless she had entered the fray at similar times and circumstances as we. But never the less, her predictions of the collateral and most societally damaging consequences of what she recognized as irrational thinking, analysis, and action have for the most part come to face us in glaring fashion.

As for capitalizing on the situation that we acknowledge to be actual, with some fuzzy delineations still to be determined such as collapse timing, I think it boils down to how much effort we're willing to put into gaining a true understanding of the total impact to our lives. Financially, I think we all grasp that wealth comes from receiving more in value for our contributions of value to the market than it costs to support our life, but more than just accumulating, we must in this situation transform that wealth into things that we can hold and control in such a way that women (divorce, child support, overspending, taxation, confiscation) can't take it from us such as physical gold & silver, even when against the law. In much the same vein, realize that many if not most prohibition laws are feminist in origin and only serve to establish a black market which though higher risk, we should be willing to explore and participate in if we can do so safely and ethically within our personal moral value system. Laws and rules that are inconsistent with the ethics and morals of a rational minded producer can and should be dealt with as with any civil disobedience issue, ie. slavery, alcohol prohibition, mixed marriage, etc.

But to capitalize personally, we should do as the two female psychologist that I referenced in a previous post, suggested. Women's suffrage leading to the feminist movement has convinced young women of all the fallacies that we recognize, but instinctually, at a sub-conscious level in personal relationships, acting on those teachings make them very unhappy. In the experience of the referenced psychologists in treating young to middle aged women, when women learned to accept being true to their biology or on occasion found themselves in a relationship with a man that dealt with them as, he a male and her as a female, they became happy and content. In their (psychologist) words, if you're a man in any type of relationship with such a woman, listen to them, just don't do or try to be what they seem to want you to do.

Our main difficulty in addressing this situation is that I don't think, regardless of the ads from Chili and Argentina, a Galt's Gulch is available except in our minds. We can learn to apply the Objectivist philosophy and Libertarian politics to ourselves and our lives for our benefits. We may have to learn to accept and defend selfishness from the viewpoint of self-interest vs. self-centeredness. Being very different than those around us and gaining internal strength from that, based on real knowledge formed and investigated within a rational mind, particularly when verified within true, peer reviewed science studies and literature, can form a strong individualist that can then proceed to innovation and actual progress. I fear that most men in today's world simply fear, or are too tired, or too lazy to go against what the group think is. Feminization is not just a female condition.

Or in Pandora's case...leave her box alone!

Congratulations, Herb7734

Thank-you. I like it when my errors are pointed out reasonably. I didn’t ping you because of your spelling. I pinged you because you behave like a troll. It’s annoying to try and have a conversation with someone who thinks it is okay to smack you down because of your sex. It’s not debate; it’s abuse.

Furthermore, I will never show you my shoe collection.

yes