Who is online
In total there are 66 users online :: 7 registered, 0 hidden and 59 guests
Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm
I think my views are supported by logical argument, in as much as I believe my premises to be factual. My views when I was younger (for which I will agree I mean "less experienced") were based on beliefs I was raised with which with time (experiece) I discovered to be false.
You could and probably would argue I have been made bitter by negative experiences, and that if you went through different ones you would come to different conclusions. It would be interesting to see if you do but anything in the meantime is of course pure speculation.
I have some family living in France who showed me the movie while I was staying there
Thank you, but I prefer the Dutch kind of cookie, available in some specialized shops
"ñøw mÿ šįg šüçkś!"
here is something for you MrC to read and consider ->
an article on sex ratios, feimnism and stuff
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
Some people hope their premises are true. I would surmise this is where we get "spiritual" beliefs
Exactly, the first tenet of naive realism.
Because the cognitive bias assumes the belief/views are held because of rational thought that considers self-bias and other things, it pretty much guarantees that anyone who accepts the first tenet also has to accept the second and third tenet as well. If you don't accept the first tenet, you're sort of saying that your argument is biased or not based on fact. If you do accept the first tenet, you have to conclude that, given a person has had access to the same knowledge, information and experience as you, they should reach the same conclusion if they follow a rational thought process. Thus, you can only conclude that anyone who doesn't share your views falls under one of the three parts of the third tenet.
As logical a reason those three parts are for why someone might not share your views, I don't think it explains actual reality in most cases and instead the problem lies with the false-acceptance of the first tenet. We all like to think that we follow the first tenet, but in reality it may be a false-construct, impossible to fully achieve.
Those three articles linked at the bottom look like interesting reading
As for that paper, POLAND, I'll have to read over it later.
I've often pondered this, there will surely be a time in the non-too-distant future when these things will be indistinguishable from real women: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealDoll
Femminists have long been saying that men are now obsolete but once babies can be grown in a lab and men's sexual needs can be met otherwise it might be women who find themselves on the way to extinction.
Well that could work either way, if you can grow female reproductive cells in a lab you can do the same for male reproductive cells. Considering it would be much easier to grow male reproductive cells and implant them in females than to grow a baby fetus in a lab, men would be at risk of extinction far quicker.
However, I can't picture a not-so-distance future in which growing babies in a lab is a wide-spread practice, men are in a position to force women to extinction, and men feel the need to force women to extinction. Also, heterosexuals will have emotional needs that can't necessarily be filled by the same sex. I don't think either gender will ever have the power, nor the will, to kill off the the other sex. If we got to a stage where such a thing is possible, I'm sure we would find away to kill ourselves off through much different means.
By the way, who are these 'feminists'? I'm sure there are feminists out there who are open in their dream of a world in which men are obsolete, but surely they're fundamentalists. I can't argue that that particular spokesperson is not a feminist, but it doesn't seem right to carry that generalization when making that particular point if the majority of feminists don't share that view. I wouldn't represent the views of Pat Robertson as "Christians have long been saying..." but rather "some Christians" or "fundamentalist Christians...". I'm sure you can dig up a few feminist books that flaunt their misandry but the typical feminist doesn't share those views in my experience.
None of the arguments in this post support feminism in any way, so no need to go down that road. The first half deals with the theoretical logistics and complications of exterminating a gender and the second half goes back to rhetoric and sophistry
edit: Goddamit I hate it when I identify too much with Mark from Peep Show, he watches Das Boot with a girl in one episode.
Think it was in the first season that he also started quoting the battle of Stalingrad all the time because he was reading Antony Beevor's book of the same title
You're missing the wood for the trees, who designed and built and maintains the lab and everything inside it? The only way your scenario of male extinction would be plausible if we managed to make self replicating and maintaining robots to replace male functions in the industrial sphere, but at that point I suppose we would be talking of human extinction regardless of gender.
I'm not arguing for the erradication of any gender, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that if I had a sufficiently realistic sex-bot, I would likely not associate with actual women at all if cats can fill emotional needs, good enough androids certainly can.
The ones that actually call for men to be "phased out" are indeed the fundamentalists, but the whole "girl power"/"strong smart independent women" movement is a mainstream view which essentially says the same thing without calling for gendercide.
No one seems to want to acknowledge that all that would collapse outside the innovations and labours of the men within society, and I object to this notion of male disposability.
Mind you don't take it too far
Nahhh this part is better ->
Interesting conclusion - but women are in college for just a few years - would feminist movements have ever emerged in the first place if there was a real shortage of men in the USA ??
I don't think so
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
This is nearly enough to explain this whole debate
I don't want to live with cats!
But whatever they say, they'll still, for the most part, be looking for men for companionship or sex.
It summarises my position certainly. I'm not sure I would be diagnosed as a dysfunctional sociopath for holding it, but I see it as deeply rational. Whether it is "naive realism" or not is ironically a matter of opinion
As a man I have my "needs", I'm not willing to resort to violent coercion to satisfy them, nor am I comfortable with a direct monetary exchange (though not above it, and very pleasant it can be too) so deeper social interaction is somewhat of a necessary evil. As I grow older, the satisfaction I get from the results of playing this game vis a vis the effort I put into it decreases progressively to the extent that I will most likely lose interest altogether. I also note that this leaves me with much more disposable income and time to spend on things I genuinely enjoy.
Me neither, but given the option of living with an actual woman or cat + realistic sex-bot, give me Mittens and the iSlut every time
My view is that being alone and being lonely are two very, very different things. I should say, these are my 30 year old views. I wonder if I will have the same opinion in a couple of decades, but as it's calculated in my head I would imagine that unless I abandoned reason, it will stand.
It's the same about my views on the so-called "spiritual" realm - as I've rationalised my belief in its non-existence, it would seem that in order to go back on them would be to forgo critical thinking as a way of being.
Precisely, so why should their double standards be tolerated, let alone protected?
Sexier in Japan
edit: about "living with cats" : http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/
This isn't just idle banter, my other half is insisting that we tie the knot this year. She has a clearly defined lifestyle in mind, including a large house, several children as well as frequent foreign trips, and has made it plain that I am expected to fund this in spite of the fact that she currently earns over twice of what I make.
Thin ice indeed.
Well no, I think is is quite a common situation.
But there are also people who even if they had an infinite supply of free of charge prostitutes that they never had to see again, would not feel satisfied and could indeed end up feeling lonely.
However, one does have to be able to meet interesting people, there are plenty of irritating characters that are hard to live with regardless of their gender and I don't feel once can generalise about this sort of thing.
Of course there are the stereotypical cases of the nagging wife (which, of course, exist for a reason) but, for example, that is not something I've ever seen with my parents who are both very rational people. Any arguments I have witnessed were never about stereotypical issues of not misunderstanding the opposite sex. Living with someone will sprout tensions but I don't believe that living with someone of the same sex would resolve this. Living with a cat, removing the human factor, probably would but that doesn't really cut it for me.
I often find that the women that tend to complain about all men being the same, always seem to pick the same type of person that acts out in just the way they hate. Men do it also. It seems some people get wiser about this, some just don't and end up complaining about their marriage.
Just as with finding friends, every now and then you just meet someone with whom you get on and things seem effortless (which is far from being the case with a large majority of people). These events are rare, and can be even more so in some environments.
In a similar way, they're talking about bringing back bands using old footage combined with generated scenes.
Haven't some artists already done concerts where the show was live in one place and streamed to another location?
Last edited by al-xg on Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What, the French
That's an interesting point, and indeed my personal sample size is dwarfed by the total female population of the planet, and selected based on my personal biases.
I would say though that my views are confirmed looking at relationships from the outside too. I've often thought "Lucky bugger, he gets to bang her" but never "Lucky bugger, he gets to live with her". It's often said that behind every beautiful woman there's a man who's tired of her crap
There are pleasant and unpleasant people of both genders, true, but in all my relationships I note that the traits I dislike are female traits. I am attracted to girly girls, I will grant that, but have also dated some that the Spanish describe as "una chica todo terreno" who have a bit of dirt under their fingernails. My experience has been that it is a very thin veneer indeed which wears off rather quickly.
Fair point, but even leaving sexuality aside I would a priori much rather have a male room mate than a female one. Much more for work colleagues.
I find that works for the first couple of months before things fall into a familiar mould...
Don't forget this one JSR
"ñøw mÿ šįg šüçkś!"
Who is online