# This is the meta-solution to ethics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566 "2014-03-01T01:22:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/41 "2014-03-01T18:53:57Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > The first major flaw in your argument is highlighted in this sentence. > > Suicide is one way to detect illness in our species, without a doubt. > > But your argument relies on it being the \*only \*way to detect illness in our species. It proceeds from that assumption, and as such it proceeds from an hasty induction. There are plenty of ill people who never commit suicide. there are plenty of desperately unhappy people who won’t commit suicide. There are many, possibly billions, of people who will never commit suicide because of religious convictions. Doesn’t matter how unhappy or ill they are. > > As such your argument is based upon a provable logical fallacy. One we change “Suicide is where we detect illness in our species” to “Suicide is where we \*might \*detect illness in our species”, your argument is no longer cohesive. > > Do you accept that it is perfectly possible to have a society, say within a monastery, of devout Catholics who all converted to Catholicism of their free will while of sound mind, all entered the monastery of their free will while of sound mind, and who are all desperately unhappy and mentally ill, yet who would refuse to commit suicide for religious reasons? > > And do you concede that it is possible to have a population of the same size and demographic makeup outside the monastery who are, on the whole, much more happy, yet with with a much higher suicide rate because they have no religious or ethical objection to suicide? > > If you don’t accept those two scenarios as plausible, can you explain why? > > And if you do accept them as plausible, then you must accept that your premises are flawed. It is possible to have societies with equal freedom of choice where suicide rates are lower amongst the less happy society. And this is precisely because of the choices made by the individuals. > > The only way I can foresee you countering this is arguing that someone who freely chose to embrace a religious philosophy that forbids suicide is not truly free. This would, of course, be a True Scotsman. Freedom to decide \*not \*to do something is a necessary requisite for freedom to exist in any meaningful sense. > > And of course, once we accept that suicide fails to detect illness in some societies, then we are forced to concede that it may fail to detect illness in \*all \*societies. At that stage, you will need to present some evidence that suicide is a reliable metric for detecting illness. Otherwise your are simply begging the question. And I doubt that you can provide evidence to that suicide predicts rate of illness. > > And this sentence highlights the next flaw in your system,. which is that it is, at heart, a false dilemma. > > The members of the [Heaven’s gate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group%29) cult chose not to continue. But they didn’t do it as a vote \*against \*this system. They did it as a vote for the next system. There is no evidence that the members of this cult were in any way unhappy. There is no evidence that any conceivable societal “improvement” would have prevented their suicide. These people were not in any sense voting against this system. They were simply voting for an alternative that could only be reached through death. Unless your are proposing that a society could be engineered to produce the paradise-like conditions and alien contact that the people were voting _for_, then this one example falsifies your claim that when someone doesn’t continue they are voting against this system. > > And once again, once we concede that suicide is note a vote against the system in one society, then we must accept that it may not be a vote against the system in any society. And once again, you will need to produce evidence for your position. > > And ultimately, this si what will kill your position. You are attempting to argue from a purely logical basis. But that requires that all your premises are universally true. As soon as \*one \*of your premises have been shown to be false in even \*one \*instance, you then need to produce argument to prove that they are not false in every instance. And then your argument will collapse because you will need to provide facts and figures which, of course, you can not have. Doing something for religious reasons is not doing something of sound mind. For example, the basic tenet of all religions is faith above all else in the word of what is assumed to be a creator that made us in its image. If the creator made us in its image, than it values faith more than anything else for itself because this is what it asks most from us, which directly contradicts the assumed properties of omnipotence and omniscience, which contradicts it’s authority to give commands. People who don’t commit suicide because of this faith in what they believe to be a word from a creator are contradicting themselves and are not making a rational decision. The Heaven’s Gate Cult did vote themselves out of this system, that they decided to vote themselves into another system does not change that they voted themselves out of this one. ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/42 "2014-03-01T19:23:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > So why not focus on that, instead of a highly indirect, secondary effect like suicide? > > Actually, if you look at those charts I linked to, many nations have a suicide rate higher than their homicide rate. > > Mental illness can make a person do irrational things, that’s the nature of mental illness. > > It’s not illegal. It can be indicative of mental illness, however. A mentally ill person killing themselves isn’t a rational vote to reject the world, it’s an adverse outcome of an illness. > > For one, being prone to suicide is [heritable.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710608/) > > For two, [90% of suicides are committed by persons with a mental illness.](http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/hs/medical/psychmed/1_2004/neuro_suicide.pdf) > > For three, (same cite), there are observable neurobiological characteristics in the brains of the suicidal. It appears to be a flaw in the brain, an particularly in the part of the brain that regulates inhibition. Most suicides are impulsive, momentary decisions, and not considered, rational, acts. > > Yet the rates vary dramatically, even between nations with comparable material circumstances (like the U.S. and Japan). Clearly, there is a cultural factor. > > That’s probably true of some suicides, but not many. I encourage you to do some more research on this subject, you’ve made a lot of assumptions that aren’t supported by evidence. Part of the reason that males go psychotic much more than women do is because of the factors of sexual choice on the nervous system, these tend to be more sane people in a completely insane world, for women this happens less often because men don’t sexually shun nice women specifically (nice women aren’t targeted for sexual discrimination). A perfect example is Ted Bundy, who, while during a trial for raping and murdering 40 women, proposed to a woman on the stand and she accepted his proposal. Because of a strange Florida law, any proposal accepted in a court of law meant they were married, he was able to get conjugal visits and eventually had a child with her. Men sexually shun the female forms of Ted Bundy, while women send them love letters, and it’s not for fame, because the men you don’t hear about get them quite a bit as well. The problem is that we’re dealing with a run-away sexual selection, which is why, even though billions of women wouldn’t have anything to do with Ted Bundy or the like, they do actually get picked by women. Because men don’t select ornate aggression in women, the same run-away sexual selection is not occurring for their gender, they aren’t violent at the magnitude that men are. It’s the same reason you’ll see men blasting their stereos and modifying their tail-pipes and screaming at people on the street when they drive by trying to startle them, while women don’t do this. Ornate aggression is highly selected for on the male side. The problem with increased male psychological struggles and it’s capacity to elicit a real suicide is that men have issues with the sexual abuse that women perpetrate on a massive scale for kind men, which men don’t do to women. Because men actually rescue depression with sexual intimacy and women don’t, men don’t have something to catch them when they start to spiral down because of what female sexuality does to the species and their nervous systems… it’s a feedback loop that gets worse and worse. Some men will feel guilty about being mean to get sex and leave for that reason, but most of it is because they were passed over… again and again for a person who crosses the lines and gets rewarded for it. The highest is not mental illness per se… I read that the two highest reasons given were lack of a partner and loss of a job, which only impacts men because males don’t sexually discriminate against women who don’t have jobs on the scale that women sexually discriminate for men. It looks at first glance like it’s the loss of money, perhaps a stock-broker jumping off a tower, however, when considered deeper, the primary cause has to do with the prospect of losing sexual choice. Like I said earlier, you can run a study for any species on earth and using only sexual choice and not reproductive inheritance, you can make both genders more violent, one gender more violent or both genders less violent… you can also make one gender more depressed, both genders more depressed and both genders less depressed. This depression that you see in other species, will show up as suicide in our species. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/43 "2014-03-01T19:31:29Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > There’s a lot you don’t know then… hmmm… > > I’ll try to keep this brief. The number one cause of suicide is sex, and the number one reason people commit suicide is because of female sexuality, the males commit more suicide each year than all the deaths from wars and homicides combined, in fact so many men commit suicide each year, that it almost totals all the deaths from war, homicide and female suicide each year… we’re talking numbers close to a million with a difference of 70.000! > [@Ecmandu](#): > > The truth is, 10% of the males get 90% of the female sexual choice and variety, and the other 90% of males only get 10% of the female sexual choice and variety… while 90% of women are getting about an equal number of sexual choice and variety from those 10% of males, and sexual neglect is the worst thing you can actually do to a human in terms of developing suicidality > [@Ecmandu](#): > > the kicker, is that the 10% of males who get the most sex are the ones that do rape, positively re-enforce rape (by approaching women, which re-enforces rape because of the di-morphism problem and women always showing minute signs of discomfort that men tend not to show when women approach them (there are exceptions) which allows the subliminal environment to constantly blast the message that for women “No” means “yes” and "Women want sexually what they complain about (all men know that the nice guys never approach women, which is why we have the phrase “nice guys finish last” (they actually don’t finish at all…) and actually “don’t hate the player hate the game” means “don’t hate the player, hate the women”, we also call “dickheads” (doing stuff to get sex as a male… a synonym for asshole, I’m really not going into this topic to the depth it deserves… but I’m just covering some basic stuff), positively re-enforce conflict, tribalism, war, homicide, social stratification, bigotry, under-development of technology and environmental degradation, and you can prove it in every instance. The odds of a male who prevents all of these things getting sex from a human female are 0%. When these men are sexually neglected for trying to prevent these things, their emotional bodies take on all of the suffering that this behavior in women causes, which is the entire suffering of the cosmos, which is too much for one being to hold at once, and so they suicide. Female suicides are secondary, because of the abuse men do to them, because of female sexuality… All of ethics boils down to bitches not givin’ it up up the nice guys. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![turtlescanfly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/65b543/32.png) [@turtlescanfly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/turtlescanfly)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/44 "2014-03-01T19:55:28Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > Doing something for religious reasons is not doing something of sound mind. For example, the basic tenet of all religions is faith above all else in the word of what is assumed to be a creator that made us in its image. If the creator made us in its image, than it values faith more than anything else for itself because this is what it asks most from us, which directly contradicts the assumed properties of omnipotence and omniscience, which contradicts it’s authority to give commands. People who don’t commit suicide because of this faith in what they believe to be a word from a creator are contradicting themselves and are not making a rational decision. > > The Heaven’s Gate Cult did vote themselves out of this system, that they decided to vote themselves into another system does not change that they voted themselves out of this one. Wait, so all people who commit suicide are making a rational decision, but some that don’t are making an irrational one? Also, I don’t follow the logic of “if the creator made us in his own image, then it values faith more than anything else”, let alone your assertion that if faith is most important it undermines omnipotence/omniscience, and if that is absent then there is no authority to give commands. It’s like saying “if the sky is blue, then hippos are fat, and if hippos are fat then monkeys must like bananas, and if monkeys like bananas, then butterflies are pretty.” None of these conclusions follows logically from its premise. Using such a flimsy chain of “proofs” doesn’t prove anything. Perhaps you missed some steps in your logic train? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/45 "2014-03-01T20:00:35Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > . . . I have disproved Cantors argument that all the reals cannot be counted, I can prove that Cantors disproof is false. . . . You’ll feel right at home here; we have people who have disproven relativity, evolution, and the World Trade Center attacks. > [@](#): > > . . . you end up with 00.1, which is the same mirror that you get when the number 10 is mirrored, and will occur an infinite number of times as the zeros expand . . . If you count “10” an infinite number of times, then it isn’t a one-to-one correspondence any longer, and thus fails for purposes of addressing Cantor. ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/46 "2014-03-01T20:01:01Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > All of ethics boils down to bitches not givin’ it up up the nice guys. > Got it. Well… all of ethics boils down to suicide rates. The number one cause of suicide (even female ones) are because of female sexuality. I mean, it’s just little things, another thing you can prove in any species is that like ours, you can have the women give the biggest jerks the most sex during the male sexual peak (which is one of the suicide spikes) and then settle down with men who didn’t get nearly as many partners as their female partner. Males resent this, but because of female sexual blackmail, they eventually shut up about it. But you can actually prove that polyamory decreases suicide rates (part of the reason women commit less suicide is because of increased male polyamory). And you can do this in other species and control for polyamory and make one or both genders more or less depressed (which expresses as suicides in humans). Even on the off chance that a woman actually approaches a nice man, she will look for one more sign of asshole-ness before deciding to have sex with them. Sexual jealousy! It is a worse offense for a man to not be sexually jealous if their woman has sex with someone besides them than it is for the man to have sex with another woman. The worst thing a man can say is something like "Good for you, good for him, I hope you had fun! Wanna go to the park?"She won’t feel “loved”. Men don’t place the selective pressure of conflict, tribalism, war on women… in fact they place the opposite sexual pressure on women, that the woman will be HAPPY for them if they have sex with another woman. If a man doesn’t want to completely control a woman’s sex exclusively she will not have sex with them… they look for minute signs of that sexual jealousy, that sexual oppression of women, that financial oppression of women in order to have sex. If they don’t detect sexual jealousy, they will absolutely refuse to have sex with the man in question. The true odds of a nice guy ever have sex with a woman on earth are 0%. All the guys know this, they just can’t say it because of the female sexual blackmail, and they will try to refute the argument, which is irrefutable, in order to keep female sexual choice… they’ll appeal to the female denial system, even if it’s proven beyond all doubt. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/47 "2014-03-01T20:02:19Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > All of ethics boils down to bitches not givin’ it up up the nice guys. > Got it. Care to guess who one of those “nice guys” is? ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/48 "2014-03-01T20:03:26Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > You’ll feel right at home here; we have people who have disproven relativity, evolution, and the World Trade Center attacks. > > If you count “10” an infinite number of times, then it isn’t a one-to-one correspondence any longer, and thus fails for purposes of addressing Cantor. Understood. You have to remove the infinite overlap to get 1:1, which I did. The problem is that Cantor uses a diagonal argument to show that they cannot be corresponded, but when using multiple lists in multiple dimensions, it’s extremely easy to ADD the diagonals, which refutes Cantors argument. I think the problem is that perhaps you didn’t understand what you read. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/49 "2014-03-01T20:10:40Z")
Albert Camus wrote something similar in _The Plague_ … I feel sorry for the OP having wasted 20 years of thought on something already thought before. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/50 "2014-03-01T20:21:40Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > I have disproved Cantors argument that all the reals cannot be counted, I can prove that Cantors disproof is false. Cantor’s diagonal argument shows that you can’t count the reals, and you think you’ve disproven it with a system you claim gives a full count of the rationals … Does not compute. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/51 "2014-03-01T20:25:45Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > The true odds of a nice guy ever have sex with a woman on earth are 0%. All the guys know this, they just can’t say it because of the female sexual blackmail, and they will try to refute the argument, which is irrefutable, in order to keep female sexual choice… they’ll appeal to the female denial system, even if it’s proven beyond all doubt. This is either obviously false, I know lots of nice guys who have sex, a circular argument where you define nice guys as those who never get laid, or the greatest setup for an endless succession of no true Scotsman fallacies ever. You’re really rolling out the nonsense here. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/52 "2014-03-01T21:23:04Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > Suicide is where we detect illness in our species, where this side of the equation cannot represent enough purpose for some to continue, and when someone doesn’t continue, they have decided in context, to vote against this system. Sure, or something like that, but just because it all funnels into one outcome (death) doesn’t mean we should conclude that it’s all the same phenomenon throughout. > [@](#): > > We’ve spoken before MGO. We have? Where? > [@](#): > > Of course, I’m 13 years older and have processed an amazing amount of information since then… truly I am a completely different person. Cognitively, I have aged exponentially. That’s a really weird thing to keep asserting, if you don’t mind my saying so. ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/53 "2014-03-01T21:33:57Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Cantor’s diagonal argument shows that you can’t count the reals, and you think you’ve disproven it with a system you claim gives a full count of the rationals … Does not compute. You’re confusing the system that is a new way to count the rationals, which I just wanted to share, with the fact that when you count multiple lists in multiple dimensions, it is extremely easy to add the diagonals which Cantor used to disprove that you couldn’t count the reals. I disproved Cantors Proof, I did not prove or disprove however that all the reals can or cannot be counted… that’s what I’m currently doing. ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/54 "2014-03-01T21:45:44Z")
> [@naita](#): > > This is either obviously false, I know lots of nice guys who have sex, a circular argument where you define nice guys as those who never get laid, or the greatest setup for an endless succession of no true Scotsman fallacies ever. You’re really rolling out the nonsense here. The argument is not circular at all. So we begin with the female denial system, march, march, march. Nice men never make first advances either by showing attraction, flirting, touching etc… The REASON they don’t do this is because of the di-morphism problem which any guy learns by the time they are 7. The di-morphism problem is that men are larger than woman are and thus more threatening, any sensitive male noticed that women ALWAYS show at a minimum, minute signs of discomfort when men approach them in a sexually suggestive way, nervous energy. What they abstract very quickly, is that because of the di-morphism problem, women don’t consent as an entire gender to first approaches, this is a gender-wide “no”. This is guy talk, actually guy talk 101, so I’m assuming that you’re a woman. What happens is that men who do not approach women hardly ever get approached throughout their entire lives if at all by women. On the off chance that a woman does approach them, the woman seeks signs of sexual jealousy in order to have sex with them… if they do not detect this, they will not have sex with the male. The reason nice guys don’t approach women is because they are not people who take a “no” and try to turn it to a “yes”, it is the guys who keep pushing and pushing who get the sex, amongst other traits. This prevents sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. The men who prevent these things don’t get sex. Another aspect of the female denial system is to call having sex with a person who is falsifiably preventing war and poverty and suicide and rape and sexual assault etc… is that they and men who defend their denial system will call them “pity sex”, what’s interesting about this attempt to shame nice men, is that there is no such thing as pity sex when men have sex with nice women. I honestly cannot get sex for explaining this, but everything I’m writing here is true and can be proven in experiments. In fact, the way you increase incidents of sexual assault in species is you make one gender averse to approaches and only let the opposite gender have sex with the gender that was conditioned to be averse to them… you can do the reverse to reduce sexual assault - in ANY species. That’s not circular either. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/55 "2014-03-01T21:51:51Z")
WTF dude. ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/56 "2014-03-01T22:46:10Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > WTF dude. I’m assuming all of this will be deleted eventually, so don’t sweat it too hard. The mechanism of the female sexual blackmail is quite absolute in this species. It’s an iron curtain covering the globe that pushes life here into hell itself. I’m not condoning rape by the way or sexual harassment, nor is it in my nature, I’m just pointing out that there is a reason that men universally believe when they are raping women that this is what women want, or when they use conspicuous consumption aggression in the many plethora of ways it expresses itself, that this is what women want, even though they complain about it. But psychologically, for men who give into the female sexual consent structure, one of the subliminal messages is that women want sexually what they complain about, which is why men keep doing all this stuff. Does it make any sense at all why we use wood for so many things that we can simply use hemp for? No. The reason people don’t do things that make sense, and many of these decisions are made by men, is that they need to flaunt species wide aggression in order to keep female sexual choice. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/57 "2014-03-01T22:51:42Z")
My emphasis. > [@Ecmandu](#): > > This is guy talk, actually guy talk 101, **so I’m assuming that you’re a woman**. What happens is that men who do not approach women hardly ever get approached throughout their entire lives if at all by women. On the off chance that a woman does approach them, the woman seeks signs of sexual jealousy in order to have sex with them… if they do not detect this, they will not have sex with the male. Like all your other assumptions in this thread, the one I’ve bolded is wrong. If this is what you’ve learned in guy talk 101 you’re living in a messed up culture. If you truly believe this tiny slice of the world you’ve experienced represents universal truths about human nature, you’ve lost out on learning how multi-faceted human culture is. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/58 "2014-03-01T22:56:14Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > Does it make any sense at all why we use wood for so many things that we can simply use hemp for? No. The reason people don’t do things that make sense, and many of these decisions are made by men, is that they need to flaunt species wide aggression in order to keep female sexual choice. Why should we use hemp for things we can simply use wood for? No, sorry, don’t bother answering, I don’t actually care at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/59 "2014-03-01T22:57:23Z")
> [@naita](#): > > My emphasis. > Like all your other assumptions in this thread, the one I’ve bolded is wrong. > > If this is what you’ve learned in guy talk 101 you’re living in a messed up culture. If you truly believe this tiny slice of the world you’ve experienced represents universal truths about human nature, you’ve lost out on learning how multi-faceted human culture is. Hmm… I’ve met men who actually believe the female denial system, not very many, but I have met them, it’s unusual, so it was actually a pretty good guess. Keep telling yourself it’s all wrong… The problem here between what you’re asserting (that everything I’m saying is wrong and not “nuanced enough” and what I’m asserting, is that I know how to take all of these points into a lab and prove them. ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/60 "2014-03-01T22:58:31Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Why should we use hemp for things we can simply use wood for? No, sorry, don’t bother answering, I don’t actually care at this point. It’s more renewable, it’s sustainable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566.md?page=4)