|
We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on.
Posts of the following nature are banned:
1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post.
2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no.
3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture.
4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments.
Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating. |
On June 20 2014 11:32 farvacola wrote:
Human consciousness overrode the biological imperative long ago; it is incorrect to suggest that the majority of people on this earth live to procreate. You are the perfect example of a nerd who makes the mistake of attempting to summarize messy things in a neat way, leading to a sterile and impotent perspective on what it is that makes humans tick. The worlds is a more difficult place to understand once one admits that sweeping explanations as to the essence of what drives humans are the wrong way to go.
Making a statement.
No explanation afterward.
Followed by a personal attack.
Way to stay classy.
|
Just because you layered on a bunch of meaningless, Darwinian social theory drivel atop your utterly unfounded assumption that the majority of humans exist and direct their lives in order to procreate doesn't make your post any better than mine. People do things for many, many different reasons: people jerk off while having others whip them, some folks like to take it in the ass while they pretend to be an animal while yet others find the thought of touching another human in a sexual manner utterly abhorrent. There is absolutely no meaningful way in which you can support the assertion that the general human "strives for greatness" only in order to benefit his progeny; in fact, to say so without extensive qualification is tantamount to relegating homosexuality and the likes of those with interests outside of having children to nothing but mere defects, a viewpoint only maintained by 19th century eugenicists and modern-day fundamentalist Christians. You are dressing up your disregard for those who live differently than you in the fancy clothes of a pseudo-scientist, and appealing to the illusion of the status quo won't change that.
So, no, women's number one asset is not sexual appeal. This matter was settled long ago. Perhaps you should watch Mad Men. That might get you on the path to understanding what "class" is in the first place.
|
On June 20 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 04:56 ComaDose wrote:On June 20 2014 04:51 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 04:27 ComaDose wrote:
Xiphos that "women's number one asset is sexual appeal" shit is pretty gross. How is that gross? Please elaborate. I think there is a lot of value in people not tied to how they look. @evo: The man I was referring to himself agree with my statement. So it was relevant to explore the psyche behind men and women in the dating market.
Alright I'll fall for it this time since you claim some form of "psychological exploration" which, quite frankly, is bullshit.
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal, they want to maximize the amount of equity as possible from other attracted people (not discounting lesbians here) while holding out sex as long as possible. And that equity might not be exactly monetary gains, it can be used as emotional tampon. If a man or a woman is seen with on a lot of dates, it psychological augment her values to the others by expressing that she have a lot of options, therefore there must be something phenomenal about her worth dating, thus further her "worth". Additionally, majority of men prioritize beauty over all else and they are simply entranced by it.
1) Men are primarily attracted to good looks. Correct. However, that does not imply that looks are a woman's primary asset or even worse "her equity" which implies it's value she brings into a relationship. Treating a woman's looks as her direct value is exactly what's causing issues the poster you tried to "help" has.
2) The goal of women is to hold out sex as long as possible? Complete bullshit. No matter whether you argue from some form of "biological" view ("Women want providers yo!"), a personal view ("Sex isn't fun for women!") or a social view ("Women who have lots of sex are sluts!") none of these imply withholding sex. None. The first perspective encourages sex with strong males while letting someone else provide, the second encourages sex because it's something humans do for fun and the latter is only an issue if the male side acts as a pretentious prick who will make sure everyone knows about it.
Women tend to "withhold sex" when the man they're dealing with isn't sexual and makes it obvious that he will invest time without a sexual relationship. And in that case it's less about withholding sex, it's more about the girl not being attracted and the guy being clueless about it.
3) Man or women who are seen with lots of potential partners on dates are "psychologically augmented" by this? Bullshit. You're trying to describe social value and apply it completely incorrect. Average man goes with hot women, becomes more attractive to other women. Correct. The other way doesn't work like this. Average woman going with hot man makes her less attractive for the vast majority of men. Why? In the former case you have social proof working, preselection and all that jizz working for the man. In the second case the woman doesn't become more attractive because the man doesn't "amplify" what makes her valuable at first glance (women barely need social prove) and the presence of a strong dude makes it more dangerous to try and grab his woman.
Basically if you're on a date with Angelina Jolie other women will be more attracted to you but if Brad Pitt goes out with a completely average woman Angelina Jolie won't care more or less about him.
All three of those are "examples of a nerd who makes the mistake of attempting to summarize messy things in a neat way, leading to a sterile and impotent perspective on what it is that makes humans tick" which means farva's statement isn't an insult but a (quite accurate) observation. You're taking commonly known concepts, give them new names and apply them incorrectly. That's what makes it horrendous advice.
|
On June 20 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 04:56 ComaDose wrote:On June 20 2014 04:51 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 04:27 ComaDose wrote:
Xiphos that "women's number one asset is sexual appeal" shit is pretty gross. How is that gross? Please elaborate. I think there is a lot of value in people not tied to how they look. @evo: The man I was referring to himself agree with my statement. So it was relevant to explore the psyche behind men and women in the dating market. Let's start the conversation by stating the ultimate goal of the majority of the folks here on this planet: to procreate a successful lineage. Its the main drive behind people's strive for greatness, so that his/her posterity could live a better life. This means that the society is founded upon the act of sex. Now we move into the science behind sex. In order for a women and men to engage in intercourse, the men's reproductive organs have to be erected enough for insertion and the primary way that this can occur is by the influence of a sexually attractive female. Let's observe from the POV from the species of the two identical chromosomes, the female gender. After the subject have been impregnated, she undergo a series of painful time of tribulation, she will get mood swings, womb cramps, not mobile enough to work around for the next couple of years and thus unable to earn a living for herself. During that time, it is expected for men to provide from the women in working extra shift to financial support the family. Since our entire civilization is based upon procreation, this means that it is a constant exchange of beauty and resources in the coitus market. So while women ofc have other qualities to augment her worth, her sex appeal remain her number 1 asset in the society while seeking a mate. Without being able to generate the necessary nervous stimulation of a man, she is basically useless as a childbearer.
Sweeping statements like "the ultimate goal" of people is to have a successful lineage and "our entire civilization" is built on procreation, and that this drives people to greatness just show a very simplistic and faulty world view.
We've grown to be more than just walking sex machines a long time ago. Do you really believe that Einstein worked out the theory of relativity because of boobies? How does your theory explain dealing birth rates in the developed world? I hope you're just a teenager or young adult to whom sex is still some sort of magical thing and so that's why you're putting it on such a pedestal. Because there is a lot more to life than sex.
|
On June 20 2014 12:05 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 04:56 ComaDose wrote:On June 20 2014 04:51 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 04:27 ComaDose wrote:
Xiphos that "women's number one asset is sexual appeal" shit is pretty gross. How is that gross? Please elaborate. I think there is a lot of value in people not tied to how they look. @evo: The man I was referring to himself agree with my statement. So it was relevant to explore the psyche behind men and women in the dating market. Alright I'll fall for it this time since you claim some form of "psychological exploration" which, quite frankly, is bullshit. Show nested quote +A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal, they want to maximize the amount of equity as possible from other attracted people (not discounting lesbians here) while holding out sex as long as possible. And that equity might not be exactly monetary gains, it can be used as emotional tampon. If a man or a woman is seen with on a lot of dates, it psychological augment her values to the others by expressing that she have a lot of options, therefore there must be something phenomenal about her worth dating, thus further her "worth". Additionally, majority of men prioritize beauty over all else and they are simply entranced by it. 1) Men are primarily attracted to good looks. Correct. However, that does not imply that looks are a woman's primary asset or even worse "her equity" which implies it's value she brings into a relationship. Treating a woman's looks as her direct value is exactly what's causing issues the poster you tried to "help" has. 2) The goal of women is to hold out sex as long as possible? Complete bullshit. No matter whether you argue from some form of "biological" view ("Women want providers yo!"), a personal view ("Sex isn't fun for women!") or a social view ("Women who have lots of sex are sluts!") none of these imply withholding sex. None. The first perspective encourages sex with strong males while letting someone else provide, the second encourages sex because it's something humans do for fun and the latter is only an issue if the male side acts as a pretentious prick who will make sure everyone knows about it. Women tend to "withhold sex" when the man they're dealing with isn't sexual and makes it obvious that he will invest time without a sexual relationship. And in that case it's less about withholding sex, it's more about the girl not being attracted and the guy being clueless about it. 3) Man or women who are seen with lots of potential partners on dates are "psychologically augmented" by this? Bullshit. You're trying to describe social value and apply it completely incorrect. Average man goes with hot women, becomes more attractive to other women. Correct. The other way doesn't work like this. Average woman going with hot man makes her less attractive for the vast majority of men. Why? In the former case you have social proof working, preselection and all that jizz working for the man. In the second case the woman doesn't become more attractive because the man doesn't "amplify" what makes her valuable at first glance (women barely need social prove) and the presence of a strong dude makes it more dangerous to try and grab his woman. Basically if you're on a date with Angelina Jolie other women will be more attracted to you but if Brad Pitt goes out with a completely average woman Angelina Jolie won't care more or less about him. All three of those are "examples of a nerd who makes the mistake of attempting to summarize messy things in a neat way, leading to a sterile and impotent perspective on what it is that makes humans tick" which means farva's statement isn't an insult but a (quite accurate) observation. You're taking commonly known concepts, give them new names and apply them incorrectly. That's what makes it horrendous advice.
1) If you read carefully what I wrote. I specially said this:
"But this is all traditional belief. Nowadays with the rise of feminism that women wanted to be treated as equal as men, the dating climate have altered quite a bit and this could work both ways. But as men, we shouldn't exactly just based upon our judgement regarding a women's worth just by their beauty but also by their character, aka their sense of humor, kindness, ability to make a living. This goes same for men that nowadays, women ARE demanding you to have the necessarily body figures and looks of hollywood star instead of just being able to make money, it is beneficial to develop that. So next time you date, notice their characters. If they are all being ambiguous about her feelings and that she is doing that to milk as much time as possible, call her out on it. Don't let beauty control your life. So what if she is considered "hot"? If she use it for the wrong reasons, she is a piece of trash."
2) Quit the accusation, never have I stated that woman don't like sex, they really do but to the right men. As you've stated yourself, they tend to "withhold sex" when the man they're dealing with isn't sexual. And in order for a man to become sexual, he needs to have a level of power, resources, and social dominance. Theses things can directly translate into resources and women tend to withhold sex until they are sure that the man they are dealing with have the potential of sharing those resources. They just simply don't give out sex to some cashless wimpy guy without any influence. So in the end, yes they do withhold sex until they know the benefit of giving it up.
3) "Basically if you're on a date with Angelina Jolie other women will be more attracted to you but if Brad Pitt goes out with a completely average woman Angelina Jolie won't care more or less about him."
Fallacy here is that what I wrote is that if a woman goes out with Brad Pitt, she augment her values. Not that it will do him any good.
It will have an effect of mystery of how was this girl able to tame a superstar and make other guys a bit curious about it. Its like how many people find Megan Fox to be extremely attractive while her appearance is heavily inflated but by the fact that there are many of these type of messages influences your perceptions.
On June 20 2014 11:58 farvacola wrote:
Just because you layered on a bunch of meaningless, Darwinian social theory drivel atop your utterly unfounded assumption that the majority of humans exist and direct their lives in order to procreate doesn't make your post any better than mine. People do things for many, many different reasons: people jerk off while having others whip them, some folks like to take it in the ass while they pretend to be an animal while yet others find the thought of touching another human in a sexual manner utterly abhorrent. There is absolutely no meaningful way in which you can support the assertion that the general human "strives for greatness" only in order to benefit his progeny; in fact, to say so without extensive qualification is tantamount to relegating homosexuality and the likes of those with interests outside of having children to nothing but mere defects, a viewpoint only maintained by 19th century eugenicists and modern-day fundamentalist Christians. You are dressing up your disregard for those who live differently than you in the fancy clothes of a pseudo-scientist, and appealing to the illusion of the status quo won't change that.
So, no, women's number one asset is not sexual appeal. This matter was settled long ago. Perhaps you should watch Mad Men. That might get you on the path to understanding what "class" is in the first place.
First of all, TV series != Reality. Do not confuse between the two.
According to research cited by the American Association of University
Professors, 87% of women and 81% of men reproduce.
"Eighty-seven percent of women become parents during their working
lives. 3
...
3. Jane Waldfogel, "The Effect of Children on Women�s Wages," American
Sociological Review 62 (1997): 209.
Similarly, 81 percent of men become fathers at some point in their
lives. See Nancy E. Dowd, Redefining Fatherhood (New York: New York
University Press, 2000)"
source:
American Association of University Professors
http://www.aaup.org/statements/REPORTS/re01fam.htm
Similar percentages are reported by the US Department of Health &
Human Services
Percentage of adults ages 45 and older who have ever had a biological
child (2000)
Males: 84%
Females: 86%
source:
US Department of Health & Human Services
"Charting Parenthood: A Statistical Portrait of Fathers and Mothers in
America"
http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/charting02/introduction.htm#Who
Because it is only natural to want good things for your kids, the parents will strive to gain resources to secure a bright future for them. So please do some research on what the majority of the people in the most advanced part of the world do. And next time, try to not come out with outlier argument of fetishes and homosexuality which is only 2% of the most open minded country of the world (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/).
|
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol.
|
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life.
|
On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol.
On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life.
Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them.
But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive.
Regarding the car analogy, you wouldn't expect cars to be successful in it careers and not go out there to harm people.
This really says a lot about the ways you guys would raise your kids. If this trend continues, we'll see a whole bunch of delinquent convicts running around in anarchy. Shame on you for equating a living breathing human being to a vehicular tool.
|
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant.
|
On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive.
Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say.
You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way.
|
On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant.
Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting.
Where's my brown cap at?
|
And in order for a man to become sexual, he needs to have a level of power, resources, and social dominance.
Again this showcases fundamental misunderstandings in a nutshell.
I can walk into a place with no friends, no money and no power over anyone and still be the most sexual guy in the room. Similar to being confident it's only going to work if it's not tied to outside influence, just like any other strong frame of mind.
|
On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at?
You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. We are asking that you substantiate that, and not this side issue about parenting.
|
On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children.
On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way.
And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool.
|
On June 20 2014 13:14 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way. And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool.
This assumes a lot, and does not account for falling birthrates in rich countries like Japan and Europe. Plus, knowledge is not exclusive to your genetic off spring. Like I said Einsteins theory of relativity was not founded for his kids. Nor the theory of evolution, nor most scientific discoveries for that matter. These do not provide exclusive benefits to your genetic offspring.
|
On June 20 2014 13:11 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +And in order for a man to become sexual, he needs to have a level of power, resources, and social dominance. Again this showcases fundamental misunderstandings in a nutshell. I can walk into a place with no friends, no money and no power over anyone and still be the most sexual guy in the room. Similar to being confident it's only going to work if it's not tied to outside influence, just like any other strong frame of mind.
Yeah but you won't be laid by the ladies because that's displaying pure thirst and decrease your worth. You will be labelled as a rapist by the girls and the cops will be after you.
The word you are looking for is "sexy".
On June 20 2014 13:19 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:14 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way. And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool. This assumes a lot, and does not account for falling birthrates in rich countries like Japan and Europe. Plus, knowledge is not exclusive to your genetic off spring. Like I said Einsteins theory of relativity was not founded for his kids. Nor the theory of evolution, nor most scientific discoveries for that matter. These do not provide exclusive benefits to your genetic offspring.
But ah you see being famous for being knowledgeable = create wealth and wealth can be inherited by your kids.
P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Japan is in huge debt and so are many nations of Europe being in the top 10. This is a liability that will bite them in the back later on.
|
On June 20 2014 13:14 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way. And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool.
Like farvacola and levelping have said previously - just because you have kids does not mean that your purpose in life was to have kids. You fail to realise that every individual has a choice of what their purpose in life is and thus, your sweeping generalization that 'procreation is the purpose of living' is seriously flawed.
|
On June 19 2014 11:54 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal
a+ posting there dawg, reducing women to sexual objects is awesome
|
On June 20 2014 13:19 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:11 r.Evo wrote:And in order for a man to become sexual, he needs to have a level of power, resources, and social dominance. Again this showcases fundamental misunderstandings in a nutshell. I can walk into a place with no friends, no money and no power over anyone and still be the most sexual guy in the room. Similar to being confident it's only going to work if it's not tied to outside influence, just like any other strong frame of mind. Yeah but you won't be laid by the ladies because that's displaying pure thirst and decrease your worth. You will be labelled as a rapist by the girls and the cops will be after you. The word you are looking for is "sexy". Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:19 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:14 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way. And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool. This assumes a lot, and does not account for falling birthrates in rich countries like Japan and Europe. Plus, knowledge is not exclusive to your genetic off spring. Like I said Einsteins theory of relativity was not founded for his kids. Nor the theory of evolution, nor most scientific discoveries for that matter. These do not provide exclusive benefits to your genetic offspring. But ah you see being famous for being knowledgeable = create wealth and wealth can be inherited by your kids. P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debtJapan is in huge debt and so are many nations of Europe being in the top 10. This is a liability that will bite them in the back later on.
Er how is this point on debt relevant? We're talking about your supposed main purpose in life which is to procreate. If that were true shouldn't people procreation regardless of the status of public debt?
Also being famous for being knowledgeable does not invariably make you rich. Tesla died poor. And I'd be keen to hear your proof that scientists these days are all rich. Instead I put it to you that scientists do what they do not for monetary gain but simply because they enjoy the pursuit of knowledge. Same as artists who enjoy art (and art is hardly a lucrative career). This has nothing to do with procreation, or providing an advantage for your offspring.
|
More on the topic of dating rather than perpetuating the argument at hand (I always feel like we are just one day closer to this thread getting closed):
I've had a few first dates recently, but never a second date. Some of it has been my decision, some the girl's decision but it's usually down to the same factor: I'm just not really having fun or establishing any sort of real connection of the first date. I don't know if it's just a numbers thing and it's hard for me to find girls that I relate to since I'm not into the typical things people in college are into or if it's a personal flaw and lack of ability to really express myself. Anyone relate to this or provide some insight on the matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
