So in your sexual dimorphism theory, you’ve used numbers in the billions to represent estimated total men and women worldwide. So roughly 3.7 billion women and 3.7 billion men.
Of those 3.7 billion men, you say that 0.4 billion are nice guys, which essentially means they are aware of the system, object to it and refuse to participate, right?
Admittedly, 0.4 billion is far fewer than 3.3 billion, but you say they exist. So my question: Are there any women out of that 3.7 billion who are also aware of the system, object to it and refuse to participate? Or do all 3.7 billion willingly participate?
This. Before you discuss Buddhism, Tibet, or Tibetan Buddhism, I strongly suggest studying it on your own instead of relying on “something a friend told you.”
Also, whenever you can provide some evidence for any of your claims, as I requested above, I’m very interested in seeing it and discussing it with you.
6 people is actually very statistically significant considering that it’s a 1-3% of the population phenomenon, that would be about 1-15 people out of every 600, how many people do you have deep discussions about this topic with?
I think I would know by now if I was a repressed homosexual, considering I’ve never had a fantasy about having a child my entire life, it would even be MORE bizarre for me to be a repressed homosexual than most people, to some extent, I’m actually jealous of homosexuals, because of their sexual distribution … some guy a few days ago offered to give me a blowjob, which had the eroticism of a piece of card-board to me, I said “thx, but no thx.” I don’t even think I’m bi-sexual.
Well… we’ll just have to disagree that there’s no evidence for it.
I pointed the way experimentally, and I even said exactly what those experiments will find, how could I possibly predict what those experiments will find if there’s no evidence for it in life systems? I even gave the reasons why you will find those outcomes. All of it is observed from watching people, listening to people, talking with people, paying attention to culture and my personal experiences.
I’ve read most of the Pali Canon and other texts. Just because the Pali canon doesn’t list the obvious contradiction the foundation of it’s major premise, doesn’t mean I haven’t read it, or that I am wrong.
Other aspects of Buddhism for example are the concept of “non-clinging” and “non-attachment” which means nothing, because it also implies non-clinging to non-clinging and non-attachment to non attachment, even the teaching of impermanence refutes itself because that also means that impermanence is impermanent which again solves as saying nothing at all. The Buddhists teach about not ever feeling a sense of entitlement, however, they also teach that you should give to those who deserve it (for example, a little boy gave the Buddha a handful of sand because he was too poor to give him anything else, and the Buddha said that because of this offering to one who deserves it, the boy would be born a king in his next life… etc…"
It goes on and on and on.
The problem with religions is that they aren’t consistent. I do believe there is cause and effect, but the concepts of karma as taught through that tradition solve as nonsense.
You have some interesting thoughts, Ecmandu. Thank you for sharing them.
Unfortunately, they are based in so many unsupported and incorrect claims that I cannot take them at all seriously. Moreover, you have shown no interest in supporting your ideas with fact. I have to conclude that they are not based in reality in any way, and you have no intention of honestly examining them yourself.
Also…it’s Mangetout. Mangetout. Not Man get out. If you wish to use an abbreviation, it would more appropriately be MT than MGO.
Well… I’ve never had fantasies about gay sex either. I think some people think you’re supposed to have a child, and so they feel repressed about being gay, like it’s some mistake or aberration to the natural order, I’ve actually met people like this, which is why I made this comment.
I’ve also not had homosexual fantasies, if that helps.
On the issue of homosexuality, my take on it, is that homosexuality in itself doesn’t cause any aggression in the species… now the oppression of minorities has some selective value for heterosexuals, so they get oppressed, but it’s not the same thing as “being gay causes war”.
But perhaps you don’t care what I think about these things… it’s not really that important.
Some people are well into middle age before coming to terms with their orientation, others never do.
Never had a fantasy about having a child, therefore you’re less likely to be a homosexual?
Perhaps you’re asexual. Or have some sort of social disorder.
Those possibilities, for you and for your like-minded fellows, are far more likely than what you’re espousing here.
You can predict what you think will happen, by having an opinion as to the outcome. Say I’m convinced that phlogiston exists. I could propose an experiment that would prove it: burn metals, and show that they lost mass. I can even have a mechanism in mind for how it’d happen. Until the experiment is done, all it is, is my opinions.
And people really did predict that metals would lose mass, and that profit would be higher in labor-intensive industries than capital-intensive industries, and that stars rotated around the earth, and all the rest. They were still wrong, even though, like you, they had confident predictions as to what their experiments would find.
On the matter of evidence, there’s the uncomfortable tendency for it to come out against your theory. For instance, in the period 1990-2010, the rate of murder in the U.S. dropped from 9.4 to 4.8 per 100,000, and the rate of rape dropped from 41.2 to 27.7 per 100,000.
My take on this is that women will acknowledge the system but they aren’t interested in changing it. With the few discussions I’ve had with women about this, they like to say something like, "yeah, I think that’s true, but how could women get bad karma for just having sex with bullies if this happens for all species, how can you get bad karma for being natural and just yourself? (or something like, “Yeah… but it’s just what it is)” I had one woman tell me that “it doesn’t matter if giving bullies the most sex causes suicide because more people are born to replace them.”
Surprisingly, a lot of women have conceded the point that the assholes get the most sex in my discussions, they just tend to look at it as “natural” and “fit”, when I point out that the aggression is conspicuous instead of adaptive, they simply comment that there must be some good reason to choose it otherwise they wouldn’t choose it, etc… Actually in these discussions, I’ve also heard women say “Yeah, lot’s of guys have said that to me before.”
What’s interesting to me about this… is that we’re literally dealing with something, that in my estimation has probably been going on for millions of years, and guys have probably been saying this since they could start to talk, but what’s peculiar about it, is that people usually brush it off as insignificant or unimportant.
And until you can back up your fanciful and illogical suppositions with cites people will continue to brush them off as insignificant and/or unimportant…and rightly so.
How could the rate of rape be 27.7 per 100,000… 1:5 for women alone???
You can go on about how there’s no evidence to support my theory, or that it is wrong because of stuff you dug up…
I’ll state it again. I gave you experiments that can falsify the theory. You don’t believe there’s a di-morphism problem and that not violating it prevents rape, then do the study I suggested.
You don’t think sexual choice has neuro-biological impact, do brain-scans.
You don’t think it effects depression and aggression, do the studies and see.
You don’t think it effects mental states, do the studies and see.
If you can get the studies so that you can control these variables for both or either gender at will, simply by using sexual choice, even perhaps developing entire culture statistics because of different types of pressures given to sexual choice, then you’ll have some pretty damn compelling evidence that what I’m saying has merit.
That doesn’t directly answer my question, though. Are you saying that all 3.7 billion women support the system (either actively or passively), unlike men, where 1-3% of them opt out?
So basically all women are eeevil? There are no nice women in the world? Geesh guy. Has anyone in this thread asked you when the last time you got laid was?
Pardon? Here’s an alternate source, the federal government, if you don’t believe the numbers for murder and rape.
If you want the figure per 100,000 women, instead of per 100,000 people, they are in that cite. Between 1990 and 2009, the rate declined from 80.5 to 52.3. And yet, female suicides stayed remarkably stable.
This is how you falsify a theory: test its predictions.
Yes, I can, and will.
I’m not trying to prove anything, though I’ve presented some evidence anyway because I’m that sort of guy. The burden of proof is on you. And yes, if studies support what you’re saying, then it will have merit. Until then, it doesn’t.
Pages of you pulling theories, suppositions and numbers out of your ass, and you think the only problem here is that we haven’t busted our collective asses creating and conducting studies to prove you right? How do you fit that much scientifically wrong and intellectually lazy into one brain?
WTF??? How could female rape rates be 52.3 per 100,000 when the rate of rape for women that’s constantly quoted is 1:6 or 1:5? That’s not possible.
I get that you are an evidence guy, and I don’t have a problem with that. Actually, even though I know you can prove the concept of suicidal tension, I would seriously kick anyone’s ass who actually did the study that could prove it! You could also prove it by just making suicide socially sanctioned, instant painless and messless for society as a whole and watch the suicide rates go up, now, I wouldn’t kick someones ass if they did that.
The point I’m trying to make, is that you can use reason to figure out how experiments will turn out without actually doing those experiments (which I know is against your credo).
But we are in agreement here, if what I’m saying is verified, than it will have merit. I think on this impasse, we will have to agree to hold our positions until, or if, further data comes along.
Yeah… sorry. I don’t think women know nice guy rules (nice guys know nice guy rules and lots of assholes know nice guys rules, but women don’t know nice guy rules), the implications of violating those rules, and even if they did know the implications, I don’t think they’d sexually select it. They would think that there’s something wrong with it because that’s not how they “feel”, no matter how much evidence supported it.
Well, it is if you’re comparing an annual rate to the life-long chance of a woman being raped or sexually assaulted, and using different definitions of rape/sexual assault (my sources are using the FBI definition of forcible rape, so things like date rape aren’t counted).
Women don’t have a 1-in-6 chance of being raped or sexually assaulted every year..
Any thoughts on the implications for your theory, which predicted that female suicides were correlated with violent crime?
Clearly, though, the ease of suicide isn’t the whole shebang, though. Suicide in the U.S., where firearms are easy to get and make for painless suicide, is half as common as in Japan, where firearms are almost impossible to get.
Well, you can form a hypothesis, but that’s all. You certainly can’t draw conclusions from a hypothesis.
Or, you can look at other ways to falsify your theory, that involve analyzing data, not performing experiments. I’ve given several.
You’re simply saying you don’t have any data, you can’t see any way to get data (or are unwilling to think about it), but you’d like people to provisionally accept your ludicrous hypothesis at face value. Your position has dozens of strikes against it but you refuse to acknowledge any of them.
