This went over your head the first time, and frighteningly enough, it went over your head the second time. When I put “Cite?” at the bottom of my post, I was being sarcastic. There really should be a new logical fallacy for “cite”. I’m obviously presenting an original argument, so there will obviously not be a cite for it!
The argument is simple. When people vote out of the system (sentient), ANY reason that they vote out is a corruption of the system that effects all beings who remain in the system in a negative way… when less people vote out of the system, the system has less “corruption”, when more people vote out of the system, there is more “corruption”. What this means is that if more people leave that the system has less incentive to stay, and since everyone is interconnected, this has an effect on the system on this side in a negative way, if more people stay, then all of these people will have more incentive to stay, the metrics of life satisfaction will be larger for the whole population as those vote outs when it’s easy to vote out go down.
Laugh it up. Look around you, this world is shit. Wanna know why? Because people didn’t start society having people argue their sexual merit in order to have sex, which puts all of the selective pressure on people learning, understanding and innovating ethical arguments. The ONLY culture I know that does anything close to this is the Tibetan culture, where they debate dharma with each other in extended debates… of course if I was there to debate them, I’d point out that not having sex and human lives being the best for the attainment of enlightenment is a contradiction, but whatever… Unfortunately, in their culture, they argue (falsly) that the most ethical people shouldn’t have sex. Which really doesn’t quite get at how a culture puts selective pressure to come up with good ethical arguments and solutions.
Knock it off already.
Your entire argument is “I’m not getting any sex” That’s it.
You aren’t getting any pussy and you want to craft a bullshit argument to force attractive girls to have sex with you.
There have been lots of threads on the SDMB about “nice guys” not getting laid, but I congratulate you for being the first one to actually promote state sponsor rape.
You want women to be forced to have sex with you. Kudos for promoting government sponsored rape.
HEY! One accurate statement in 76 posts! I like that.
As long as posters are willing to waste their time trying to argue with your nonsense, we will very likely let you continue posting your odd and irrational fantasies. (If we discover that you are a returning sock puppet, that would change the situation, of course.) If we discover evidence that you are trolling, you also be banned. However, it is often difficult to distinguish between a troll and a loon and as long as you are not violating rules, you will probably be permitted to continue your assault on rational thinking and the real world.
Di-morphism, by itself, has nothing to do with consent. If the average woman had Wolverine claws, and the average man was a sentient balloon, the ethics of consent wouldn’t change one iota.
And, no, it’s not “another” layer, it’s one layer: no means no.
Yes, that is correct. There’s absolutely nothing unethical about expressing romantic interest in someone (unless they are a student, subordinate employee, married, and other exceptions). Women aren’t fragile gossamer flowers, terrified that every man who makes eye contact is moments away from raping them.
Perhaps you should talk to women about this, and see what they think about men flirting, asking them out, and the like.
No, it’s not usual for a man to talk a woman who’s turned him down into changing her mind. I know it happens in movies all the time, but not real life.
I approached a nice lady three years ago for a date. Now we’re happily engaged. There was nothing wrong about it, as she’d tell you.
This is how human relations work.
Wait, are you conflating all men with pickup artists? I think I’ve spotted your problem, then. The scenario you’ve so vividly etched in your mind - arrogant prick selects target in a bar, wears down her indifference into acceptance, has sex with her, moves on - that’s not the sum of human sexuality.
You’ve honestly never seen books or magazines advising women on how to get the man they want? They generally aren’t couched as “getting laid”, no, but there are indeed romantic advice publications for the ladies.
What problem? So the average man is stronger than the average woman. We aren’t cavemen, selecting mates via club to the head! What woman are you hanging around that are so terrified of rape? Jesus!
Again, the ethics of consent: No means no. That’s really it (well, and they need to be an adult of sound mind).
Refusing to express romantic feelings for a woman is not protecting her from anything.
If you don’t believe in irrational delusions, then I’d advise you to read up on mental illness, and/or spend some time at a local mental health facility. They are quite real. Maybe don’t tell them that you don’t think their delusions are really delusions, though, you’re liable to grossly offend them…
Also, read up on the impulsiveness associated with suicide.
In general, try and glean some information outside your own mind and experiences.
Ok, if you see that arranged marriages are wrong, why would you endorse non-consensual sexual relationships mandated by the third party, which is the same thing?
I actually agree with the moderator, although I don’t think I’m a loon or any of those other things. But I do agree that this is going to wind down. In fact, I think it already has. I don’t think your analogy of balloons and claws works for a species like ours (I tried to make it work, I swear!). Men want to be approached too, actually much more than women do, and there are about three studies that show this, but you don’t see women (logically) being the majority approachers do you? If you actually took the time to think about this, which is what nice guys do, you’d realize that women are screening for forms of ornate aggression, basically a touch of psychopathy that ranks on the continuum of conspicuous consumption.
But, I’m starting to realize that this conversation is going nowhere.
Anyways, that’s the solution to meta-ethics…
Nice guys have a code, there are LOTS of them out there… actually 1-3% of the population depending on which study you believe, although the ones who don’t eventually cave in to the female sexual blackmail system are probably fewer…
And that is a rough box that our species fits in.
The rougher box is that sexual choice determines behavior, and you can use that rougher box to make women like men are and men like women are (if you can control the study enough) - but since humans are hard to get to actually run this study well, you can only go on using other species.
That’s it. Thanks for having this discussion with me.
The three studies I know of are two approach studies, and one study I actually read in the newspaper about a year and a half ago. The two approach studies are well known, well actually at least one of them is VERY well known, which is the study where men and women approached men and women on a college campus and asked for either a date, to go to their place or for sex (this was done in 1989). Another study tried to look at these metrics differently about 20 years later and found some differences with different variables, but it was basically the same. The study I read in the paper, showed that by far the majority of relationships happen because of male approach and not female approach… combining those three studies shows what I am talking about. I can tell you the most about the first one…
when directly asked for sex from a stranger… women accepted 0% of the time and men accepted 75% of the time.
Now what this study doesn’t take into account, and I read the whole thing, because people don’t seem to see the world as I do… is that while men screen for psychopathy and generally sexually deselect it, many sexual theorists still believe that men are not as choosy as women are… thus is FALSE, and these are statistics on who gets love letters in prison, at a minimum that show that men aren’t LESS choosy, it’s just that they select non-aggression. Women and men are actually equally choosy… now this wouldn’t make sense unless you have a deep understanding of the dynamics involved… it is the RIGHT thing to do for women to approach men sexually, and men are so taken aback by this, that they generally will consent, also because it is so RARE, it’s not that men are pigs, which most people would conclude, my experience of men is that if a woman is gruff… they don’t care what she looks like. A gruff man can actually have a really good sex life, but you have to understand the deeper dynamics to get around what the common knowledge is - the pop psychology and pop evolutionary psychology so to speak.
I can’t link them because I don’t have a photographic memory, and to be perfectly honest only the most popular one is on the web, I actually looked for the one in the paper online a year and a half ago and couldn’t find it, nor could I find the modern replication of the approach study online (I read it in hard copy).
There’s actually a lot more to this, such as men being most attracted to smiling and least attracted to brooding/proud, and women being least attracted to smiling and most attracted to “proud” expressions. This is a Canadian study.
Men and women also view humor differently, where women consider it a must (and must humor is putting someone down to elevate oneself) while men aren’t as attracted to it. The problem here is that I read about 500 studies the last three years and I can’t keep them all in my head. I’ll poke around a bit though and see if I can recover some of them.
I actually have a very close friend who has studied a lot of Buddhism, lived in Nepal and even married a woman there. The Tibetans have a huge debate culture, although they mostly debate “dharma”, he even showed me the hand gesture they make which is the English equivalent of “You were just schooled fool” which is to hold one hand out and slap the back of your other hand against it while leaning over a bit.
The Lama’s in Tibet are the VIP’s of the culture and they are all celibate. This is because the Buddha taught celibacy. Obviously the Buddha also taught that the best life to take in the cosmos (I kid you not) for the attainment of enlightenment is the human form. This creates a very serious contradiction, which is, if humans don’t have sex, there can be no additional people to have the best life to attain enlightenment.
Actually the biggest blow to Buddhism, and for some reason, I have the capacity to do this when people throw religious statements at me, is that Buddhism is all about Karma, and if you believe an even more esoteric teaching, the goal is burn all of your positive and negative karma to become “unbound” or “untethered” from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth.
There’s one HUGE problem with this. If everything that happens to us is a result of our Karma, then NOBODY can get positive or negative Karma from doing good or bad things to us, because we brought it all upon ourselves and they can only get neutral Karma for all of it… and from their perspective, whatever we do to them that is good or bad, is what their Karma earned, and we can’t get positive or negative Karma from doing any of it. So actually, how Karma solves, is that it’s all neutral, and no matter what we do, we have burned all of our Karma and we are all unbound and untethered.
There are a multitude of problems with religion to this regard… such as “good people go to a great place (heaven) where bad people aren’t allowed (hell)”, the problem is, if good people even let people go to hell by inaction, by letting others torture them, they’re really not good people, so good people would let bad people into heaven, if the good people torture the bad people, then they really aren’t good people, either way.
The way I take on life… is that the people who have the best experiences in life are male assholes, the second best are female nice girls, the third best are female assholes and the worst is male nice guys. That’s the hierarchy of who enjoys life the most here to who enjoys life the least here.
I’m looking for them. There’s only one ethics law, whatever causes the least suicides when suicide is as easy as possible makes everyone have a better life here, whatever causes the most suicides when suicide is easy causes everyone to have a worse life here. The reason, from an ethics standpoint, is that under all circumstances, suicide is a vote out of here, like a democracy, and because we are all interconnected, something about those votes out of here are places where we need to work on this side of the life-cycle to make it better to stay here, and the life-quality will necessarily go up for all beings when those suicides are lower.
Aside from that… when the suicides are lower, it also makes the life trajectory here more sustainable, when the suicides are high, we’re looking at extinction events… whatever is causing those people to leave is a sickness on this side, and that sickness, if not addressed, will fester and rot this species.
I’m thinking this might be a ‘birds of a feather’ thing that just happens to be concentrated in your little circle of friends. I don’t think many of us out here on Planet Earth think it’s as common or universal as you do.
Given that your opinions require the complete overthrow of multiple fields of science, I don’t think the issue is whether I’ve taken the time to think about it, the issue is whether you have any basis for your beliefs outside your own mind.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
But, I’m starting to realize that this conversation is going nowhere.
[/quote]
Again, that’s what happens when one party refuses to show evidence, or meaningfully address the evidence of others.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
Anyways, that’s the solution to meta-ethics…
Nice guys have a code, there are LOTS of them out there… actually 1-3% of the population depending on which study you believe, although the ones who don’t eventually cave in to the female sexual blackmail system are probably fewer…
And that is a rough box that our species fits in.
The rougher box is that sexual choice determines behavior, and you can use that rougher box to make women like men are and men like women are (if you can control the study enough) - but since humans are hard to get to actually run this study well, you can only go on using other species.
[/quote]
I’m not a therapist or anything, but…if approaching a woman romantically feels wrong to you, maybe you’re not actually attracted to women? Maybe you’re attracted to men, or are asexual? There’s nothing wrong with that, but it requires being honest with yourself.
Creating this elaborate theory with no evidence behind it - which has the effect of keeping you from having a relationship with a woman - seems more like a way to protect yourself from unwanted feelings, or (if you are interested in women) from confronting whatever problem you have with expressing an interest in a woman, be it nerves, some sort of social disorder, or whatever.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
That’s it. Thanks for having this discussion with me.
[/QUOTE]