It’s not the simple. Would that not be confirmation bias and not to mention immediately dismissing someone because they seem crazy? Isn’t it as homeniem as well?
Nope. Dismissing someone for an irrelevant factor, like say, because they’re male, or young, or look goofy, is an ad hominem. But I’m dismissing his ideas because he seems crazy, and when I say he seems crazy I mean HIS IDEAS ARE COMPLETELY BUGSHIT INSANE.
In other words, I’m dismissing his ideas because of the most relevant factor of all: the quality of his ideas.
This.
Formally, this is called the fallacy of the excluded middle. This is the sort of blinkered thinking that “all which is not perfectly white is therefore perfectly black.” The Ancient Greek philosophers loved to reason like that.
It’s bunk of course.
It certainly IS true that all which is not perfectly white is “non-white”. The error comes in conflating non-white with black. It’s pretty obvious that gray or red are each simultaneously non-white and non-black.
IMO it’s because you’re very prone, for whatever reason, to think with an excluded middle. You want the simplicity of binary categorization. Something either IS or IS NOT, there are no other or intermediate alternatives.
Wanting that is a defective mode of thinking. It’s a very common human failing; you’re far from alone in it.
Whenever you read somebody who says something like “Here’s fact 1. Therefore conclusion 2”, stop and think. Is conclusion 2 the *only *possible situation consistent with fact 1? If so, it’s valid logic. But that’s almost never true, especially in matters involving humans. Much more commonly, there’s another hundred different conclusions all consistent with fact 1. And even that is assuming fact 1 is actually a fact. Often it’s bunk too. Or it’s true, but only rarely under special circumstances.
We’re dismissing his arguments because they are crazy. He’s crazy also, but that’s just a bonus.
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
It’s just not true that unattractive people are doomed to have less sex than attractive people. I mean, sure it’s true that if you’re as pretty as Brad Pitt you can have sex with lots of attractive strangers. But take me. I’m a dumpy middle aged loser with a boring career. I have sex with my dumpy middle aged wife just about every day. You think a gorgeous single pretty boy can have sex with a different supermodel every day?
Being pretty only helps you if you need to have sex with a new person regularly, and also if you are totally allergic to having sex with someone who isn’t super hot. If you’re a regular old chubby loser, maybe find another regular old chubby loser who’s got a nice personality, and marry them and have sex with them every day for the rest of your life. Problem solved. Oh, you only want to have sex with supermodels? Well then, I guess you need to become rich, or famous, or be a smoldering volcano of virile manhood. You’re not any of those things? You’re a schlub with not that much going on? But you still deserve a high quality sexing every other day? So the members of the opposite sex you meet, who are just as schlubby and losery as you? Do they deserve high quality sex too? Or just you? If everyone deserves it, and they’re obligated to provide it for you, then what exactly are your obligations to provide high quality sex for chubby middle aged underemployed women?
It just doesn’t add up. Everyone else is an asshole for not catering to your specific needs, but you have no particular obligation to cater to anyone else’s needs? Like, you don’t have an obligation to turn yourself into a successful person that women would desire? You get to keep on being you, even though nobody would want to be with a person like you, and you don’t have an obligation to be with people that you don’t want to be with?
It’s a simple lack of empathy, an inability to treat other people as real human beings and not just props in your own private story.
Unstigmatized birth control and abortion as de facto rights in current culture. It should also include severable fatherhood (father can not claim the child and bear no responsibility) if we are being honest with the term, but we are not. No stigma in regards to sexuality as a more idealized goal.
It is sex without responsibilities. STD also muddy this utopian dream.
No, it’s not. Saying a cite isn’t trustworthy isn’t an ad hominem. I mean, you wouldn’t use David Duke as an authority on the Holocaust, would you?
This guy is completely, utterly bonkers.
Even further than that: David Duke could conceivably say something true about the Holocaust, and supposed facts he states about the Holocaust can’t be summarily dismissed simply because he says them.
But this dude isn’t even stating facts. He’s stating beliefs and opinions, all unverifiable. There’s nothing to do but evaluate them using reason and logic, and they’re all crazypants. Literally everything I know about this dude–from his bragging about handsoff jerkoff to his adoration for serial killers to his overuse of capitalization–is terrible.
I have trouble with the excluded middle because having absolutes makes it easy to build a life around something. Even if it isn’t the best things it makes it easier. I’m just afraid of being close minded though, and I do value truth. I was taught that you can’t dismiss something as crazy just because you don’t agree with it (most likely that came from college). Either that or I’m afraid that I’ll be missing out on something that might change everything I know about the world. But the more I look at him the more I see he just asserts without data, and the data he does give is dubious at best.
As for the topic, how does sexual freedom play into modern society where sex is essentially used to sell things? Where people feel like they have to look a certain way in order to find any sort of social capris among others. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight, though in my experience it’s pretty bad in the community. Not to mention that as a kid I felt that “having lots of sex” gains you some kind of status with others. Of course if it’s with guys you can’t really share that with anyone, especially with people I usually hang around. I think that’s the main motivation behind it for me, to not feel like that sorry virgin. I guess for me it would be to not have to feel like I need to prove something.
Except it’s not going to make it easy, becuase life doesn’t work that way.
And nobody said to dismiss something because you don’t disagree with it. People aren’t dismissing it as crazy because “we disagree”. We’re dismissing it because the guy is completely batshit. There’s a big difference.
As you are seeing, choosing to believe in false absolutes makes it easy to decide. But then it makes it hard to actually *live *because the world keeps failing to conform to your mistaken absolutes.
As specifically to sex, adolescent males idolize it and spend much of HS and college exaggerating to one another just how much they’re getting. If you haven’t figured out by now that most of them are lying and most males that age are clueless, jerks, or both, I don’t know how much more I can add. As you now know, many people have lots using Lemur866’s approach. Others, such as priests and guys who work on ships, have essentially zero. Everyone survives. Sex is not a biological need like breathing or eating or sleeping. Sex is a desire, like beer, entertainment, or air conditioning.
Big picture:
An 80 year life consists of about eleventy jillion decision points. At each and every one of them you (any you) has an opportunity to end up in a completely different place by the end of the road. The truth is you’ll only take one path out of the 2[sup](eleventy jillion)[/sup] possibilities. Dwelling on max-performing any one aspect of your life, much less all of them, is a recipe for paralyzed indecision. You’d damn near do better to simply wake up each day and roll some dice: 2=quit job, 3=walk out on SO, 4=move to Alaska, 5=???, 6, 7, 8=eat & go to work like always, 9=move to Florida, 10=???, 11=??? 12=move to Thailand.
One of the very satisfying things about getting older (I’m 59) is recognizing that all the agonizing I did over choosing the right path back when I was in college and such amounted to nearly a hill of beans and I don’t have to keep trying to drive by looking into the far future. The far future is much too contingent for human planning. Avoid doing near-term gross stupids and it’ll all work out OK.
There is almost no significant decision I made in my life that
A) I was actually qualified to make that decision OR
B) it worked out as I expected.
In almost every case what really happened was
A) I had no clue what factors actually mattered for that decision and was working mostly off guesswork & fantasy with no awareness of my own cluelessness AND
B) Although I executed on my plans well, the longer-term outcome was utterly different because unpredictable shit just keeps happening.
Try a little Zen: take responsibility for the little things and let the big things happen as they may. We’re not each Captains of our own ship on the open ocean. Instead we’re all paddling our little canoe in a raging river. The river will take you along its course at a speed of its choosing whether you like that or not. You can pick sorta where you go within the banks and sorta which way you’re pointed while you get there. Either way you gotta keep moving because the game is played on a rapidly moving and continuously changing surface. By continuously morphing players, including yourself.
IOW “Building a life around absolutes” better be made of pretty flexible “absolutes.”
Modern society is a lot less conformist than the society of the '50s, say. Sure sex is used to sell things - that is hardly a modern invention. And you can believe LSLGuy about not believing what kids say. For sex, everyone claims that they are above average.
Less conventionally attractive people have lots and lots of sex, they just don’t often have it with the most conventionally attractive people in their area. The idea that only the ‘top 20%’ of men are regularly having sex is just one of those weird ideas developed by guys who’d rather theorize on message boards about why they don’t get laid than go meet people and/or learn real social skills. The idea that women over 35 can’t get laid is silly too; I know an overweight 60-year old woman who routinely bangs bemuscled dudes in their 20s who are into cougars. And lots of non-conventionally-attractive people find partners who like them and have routine sex, despite not being in the ‘top 20%’ of men or ‘slim women 18-35’.
Just two? Prude.
Hopefully he inadvertently omitted the “or more”.
I guess there is a point. I mean if the title and spelling of words isn’t a red flag, the fact that he deletes anything that contradicts him in the comments (like 95%) of the time should be another.
Serial freedom is like freedom of speech: It doesn’t really exist.
I don’t give two shits what people think in their heads about my sexual behavior. If they don’t like it, I hope they die mad about it. What they can’t, or shouldn’t be permitted to do, is to make their preferences legally binding or punitive on me if I’m not assaulting or deceiving another legally consenting adult. About that…
That’s not a question, it’s a law with a very bright line. Different states put the line at different ages, but there’s never a question where it is. That’s just life under this crazy hodgepodge of federalism chosen for us by a bunch of doddering white slave-owners 200+ years ago.
I think freedom of speech exists.
But I’m starting to think that sexual freedom isn’t what this “seer” wants it to be