I’m happy to discuss the ethical implications of suicide, and whether there are metrics by which a society’s ethics can be objectively measured, but I am not going to discuss your bizarre theories on gender relations.
You can start by addressing the cites I gave you about the neurobiological basis of suicide, and citing your claim about why people commit suicide, and we can go from there. Your sharp left turn into sexual choice belongs in its own thread.
None of what you’re saying makes any sense. You keep stating things as universal that, in my experience, are somewhat rare.
You sound sort of manic, if I’m honest.
Men can transfer the no-means-yes problem from women to men in special circumstances, prison is a good example, where men will often take their sexual energy for women and cognitively re-write it to encompass men, and after they get out of prison, they will never touch another man again. Men can often transfer this to little boys in the absence of women because they look most like women. Rape crisis centers will tell you that rape is about power, that is not true, it is about sex, and men often interpret the larger dynamics of what occurs sexually as female consent to being raped. Heterosexual men don’t have erotic rape fantasies (if they have them, they are averse), 30% of women have them on a regular basis, the most popular architecture of the highly erotic rape fantasies is an ugly stranger who finds them so irresistible that they cannot control their urges and forces sex upon them, the problem with this on the subliminal sphere is profound, which is that you basically have 30% of women who fantasize about being forcefully taken in order to give them a sense of power over men (the man finds them so desirable that he cannot control himself - which gives them a huge sense of self-esteem and power)… now I wouldn’t recommend raping women because of this, because obviously 70% percent definitely want nothing to do with this, and aside from studies, women are very unlikely to admit these fantasies because it’s actually a form of consent, which defeats the whole purpose to the fantasy, so a man can never tell which ones want it or which ones don’t, and statistically, they are probably going to choose incorrectly. Even if a woman wanted it, you’d be re-enforcing a system where lack of consent gets rewarded, which from a life systems point of view, has no good end.
The problem however, is this very strong tendency with all women to “gain power by having a man desire them so much he cannot control himself”, which even for non-rapists transfers often to sexual harassment, which includes approaching women.
One thing women are completely turned off by is sexual merit, men who work to reduce species aggression, while men are turned on by it in women, so women will often make sure that their sex gets to men who are less deserving of it and shun those who are more deserving of it, often hording it for the less deserving when they settle down, which is something men do not do to women.
If a male made it impossible for homicide and rape to occur in this species, it is impossible for women to have sex with him, they aren’t wired that way, they are actually repulsed by sexual merit… but they will occasionally engage in infidelity with those who are much less deserving. This is why the male suicide rate is so high compared to women.
The more good a male does for the species, the more sexual neglect the women throw at them with their sexual blackmail system… it’s the same old thing that women do when nice men are younger… the “you’re such a good friend” speech, while complaining in men’s ears how much of an asshole their sex partners are… it abstracts all the way through the life cycle for men, such that men who deserve the most sex, who have the highest sexual merit in the species, will have the least sexual choice with women. While women with the highest sexual merit have the most sexual choice with men.
Hmm… manic eh?
The reason I delved into the neurological aspect with the sexual selection arguments is because human sexually has a profound impact on these neurological conditions… I gave you three studies that can prove them in fact.
You gave me three studies that prove suicide is a product of mental illnesses, which are themselves a product of sexual opportunities? When did you do that?
Yes, manic.
And far too much use of absolutes.
And the whole “I’m a nice guy -why can’t I make women give me sex?” thing - that’s something that often betrays a male’s complete lack of understanding that women are actually independent functioning beings, not just a commodity.
What I gave you were studies to prove that you can induce depression by controlling sexual choice, by controlling aggression, polyamory and percentage distribution.
You can effectively create mental illness in any animal species for any gender by simply doing what women do to men in this species. You can make a rat, or a bee, or an antelope more depressed by controlling for sexual choice… in humans, if you did this study, you can control for psychotic breaks and suicide (sexual choice has an effect on the neurology of the animals studied).
You can use sexual choice to control suicide rates in the human species. The number one cause of suicide in this species is sexual rejection of sexual merit. You can make the women be the ones who commit suicide and not the men, simply by controlling sexual choice. You can make both genders equally suicide by controlling sexual choice either very high, or very low suicide rates.
The point is that sexual choice is causal to the mental illness… it has neuro-biological effects. In the same way that because of people like Ted Bundy… women aren’t forced to choose bullies, Ted Bundy is not causal for female sexual choice, however, you can always create Ted Bundy’s in a species by controlling sexual choice… sexual choice is causal for Ted Bundy (you can make all the Ted Bundy’s of the world be the women of the species and not the males, simply by controlling sexual choice). For those who see no point in acting out to get sex from women, they suffer and then they suicide… so female sexual choice is also causal for suicide, suicide however is not causal for female sexual choice.
The problem is that a species is not sustainable when it’s suicide rates are high when suicide is as easy as possible, which is why so many men leave relative to women.
Not seing the studies, can you give the post number where you cited them?
You have made this dubious assertion several times now. I’m going to have to go ahead and ask for a cite.
Interesting read, of course nice guys don’t ask for sex, and men unlike women, even though flirting is very unethical for a man to do, will never flirt with someone they have no intention of having sex with.
Nice guys don’t play the game, they sense a dysfunctional woman and leave, tghey don’t stick around to try to convince them otherwise – remember I said the guys who keep pushing get the sex — so this guy confided his feelings for her, which was approach, and then he waited… he got rewarded for sexually harassing a woman, which is something women fail to comprehend.
The delusion of women is they don’t know a nice guy when they see one… and you have to understand, sexual rejection of kind people is a worse crime than Stalinist Russia, so actually the amount of suffering abstracted into the emotional bodies of kind people for being sexually “rejected” (although they never ask) is tremendous and profound, they can figure out that the woman will string them along as a proxy gay friend for life and they won’t put up with the abuse so they’ll simply stop interacting with the woman in question.
Women say that relationships are a give and take scenario, there are people on this earth that have given way more than the guys women do have sex with to this world in terms of protecting women and society from it’s ills that women will not have sex with… because that’s not romantic enough for them.
And actually, nice guys hate romance… because the distilled concept of romance is MINDREADING CONSENT (approaching women first) for the purpose of eliciting sex - which is sexual abuse, nice guys do NOT mindread female consent. They don’t say to themselves “Well, I’m going to offer to take this woman to a restaurant because I think she’ll want it telepathically, even though my plan is to have sex with her…” they aren’t dishonest like this.
This woman wouldn’t know a nice guy from anyone in the world. I read it through and through.
Antelope tend to have one alpha male who has exclusive sexual access to the females; the other males hang around on “bachelor hill,” a territory removed from where the females graze. They are, by nature, sexually deprived. Every so often, one of them will challenge the alpha male.
They aren’t “depressed” any more than dogs are “depressed” when around a female that isn’t on heat.
You can’t generalize human sexual behaviors to other animals.
Your biology is about as good as your mathematics.
Hmm… You can make any gender more aggressive by splitting them up when they try to mate with less aggressive mates, and it would be easy to observe the depression ensuant from the more aggressive mates getting all the sexual choice. If you give the less aggressive mates the most sexual choice, you will find that the more aggressive ones become less aggressive in order to not be split up when someone tries to mate with them, and you will find less stress and depression in the species as a whole. It’s straight behaviorism from sexual choice, and all species will act accordingly to this law. I don’t think it’s my biology that’s the problem here.
As for your snipe about the math comment. We know that Cantors diagonal argument shows that the diagonals cannot be listed… so obviously, if someone can list the diagonals, Cantors proof is wrong. The issue, is that you cannot count all of the reals in one dimension with one list… and Cantor did not show the LIMIT for one dimension with one list, only that it could not be done. However, when you add multiple LISTS, it is TRIVIAL (and these are still COUNTABLE!) to add the diagonals, which means that Cantors proof is WRONG. It’s not me misunderstanding the math here.
I wanted to add to this. Nice guys don’t show attraction and they don’t reveal attraction (because this is sexual harassment)… this entire scenario where all the guys knew he was attracted doesn’t happen with nice guys… they don’t tell friends “Wow, I think she’s hot” because to them, saying this to a friend is the same as saying this to the woman herself, nice guys don’t do things in front of their friends that they wouldn’t do to the woman… this entire story and the dichotomy of the nice guy vs. the Nice Guy is impossible to happen… this is a story about douchbag A and douchbag B. Like I said before… this woman wouldn’t know a nice guy from anyone.
[archiebunker]Ah geez, Edith![/archiebunker]
I outlined studies where you can take any animal species and separate them in various patterns to get specific outcomes throughout this thread.
You can raise the aggression of any gender by splitting apart members when less or more aggressive ones get sexually selected and leaving them alone when less or more aggressive ones get sexually selection. You can use this technique to make one gender or both genders more or less aggressive than the others, just by using sexual choice and not reproduction (like the Russian experiment with the foxes that’s been going on for 40 years… where some foxes are so passive they are now pets that wag their tails to foxes so aggressive that they try to bite the hand of people who try to feed them - which is a GENETIC BREEDING EXPERIMENT!) This is not about genetic breeding, this is about NON-REPRODUCTIVE sexual choice! Simple behaviorism from sexual choice metrics… and you can use sexual choice, not genetic breeding, to make any gender more or less aggressive, more or less depressed.
Welcome to the Dope, Dr. Xavier.
If that’s true, wouldn’t it mean that – humor me – what you’re describing is not actually sexual merit? Whatever women are attracted to is sexual merit. Kinda a truism.
Things I’ve learned from this glorious thread:
Ethics is something that can be solved.
All ethics is suicide. All of it. Even thought experiments and moral dilemmas that have nothing to do with suicide.
Men kill themselves because women won’t have sex with them. Women kill themselves because mumble mumble.
Women are worse than Nazis and communist Russia.
Women caused Nazism.
Human sexuality is not semi-monogamous. We’re more like elephant seals where alpha males control large harems and beta males go pound sand.
It’s women’s fault men rape, kill, and harass them.
Men never have fantasies where they’re raped, belittled, or controlled by women.
Men who try to better the world die alone and childless. All of them.
Women don’t approach men or initiate sex unless he’s a bad boy.
So you banged out ethics, real number theory, and evolutionary gender relations all in two pages. Can I suggest a new topic? How about race relations? That’s always entertaining.
That is not giving me a study. Giving me a study would be citing someone actually doing a study.
Also, I can’t help but notice that no experimenters are intervening in human relationships, splitting them up based on aggression.
I tried to explain this before…
When I explained suicidal tension, I explained a scenario where 1000 people were put in rooms with a butter knife and 1000 in rooms with a serrated knife, and then they were tortured, now what this study will always show is that there will be way more suicides in the room with the serrated knife because of a concept called suicidal tension. Now… we know it’s a fact even if we don’t conduct the studies!! And this study would be EXTREMELY unethical. You arguing with me about the effect of sexual choice on aggression and depression and suicide is like you saying to me for the concept of suicidal tension “show me the study” It’s OBVIOUS that there is such a thing as a suicidal tension… nobody needs to actually do the study.
This is exactly the same,
When you tag the most aggressive members of a species with one color dye and the less aggressive members of a species with another color dye and control which group is allowed to have sex… the other members of the species will either act more aggressively or less aggressively in order to be able to have sex. It’s the biggest “Duh” experiment there is. The point, is that sexual choice determines behavior… the LAW is:
Whatever receives the most sexual choice with intensify in affect and behavior for the larger group. It’s actually a bit more subtle than this, because the stress levels for the entire species or targeted gender will RAISE when the more aggressive members get the sex and will DECRTEASE when the less aggressive members get most the sex, which is why women in OUR species commit much less suicide than men do… because men, give non-ornate aggression the MOST sexual choice in women, which makes sense from a species survival standpoint, so the women don’t get nearly the level of existential depression that falls on the men.
You can use sexual choice studies to induce depression in any species by giving the most aggressive members the most sexual choice and you can decrease depression in species by giving the least aggressive members the sexual choice. You can do this with any species.
You can even prove that polyamory is more ethical than monoamory by controlling who gets sexual choice, the reason I know this is because the other species WILL act like the human species does, and part of the reason males are so much more suicidal than women is because males are more polyamorous than women are, which gives women the life-long opportunity to have sex with any male they see fit to have sex with relative to men throughout the duration of their life-cycles, and these sexual selections tend to be attraction towards KINDNESS, which is a sexual merit attraction. Women aren’t attracted to sexual merit, they are actually repulsed by it… men with the highest sexual merit are the people that women want as life-long gay surrogate friends, and NEVER sexual partners.
Men who are nice guys NEVER reveal attraction to women, because they are trying to prevent sexual assault and rape, there’s no gushy “I find you so attractive, I hope you see the same in me because I’d like to explore taking this further if you would.” THAT is sexual harassment on the order of rape to a nice guy… nice guys don’t do shit like that to women or the species as a whole.
sigh people really don’t get it. Nice guys are all the same… and women have NO clue about what’s really going on… as evidenced by MGO’s link.
Rather, because Cantor’s proof is correct, you cannot list all the real numbers. He proved this by showing how, in an exhaustive listing, a new number can be constructed which was not on the list.
Moving the numbers around doesn’t change this. The proof still works, in five dimensions or in seven, just as it works in base 8 or base 889.
You would have to show an actual flaw in Cantor’s proof. Your construction doesn’t do this.
(Actually, you haven’t formally described a construction. You’ve spoken gibberish, but you haven’t actually said what your system consists of. You described a “mirror notation” that pairs numbers up – except that it isn’t a one-to-one pairing, and so it fails to serve any purpose as far as listing all numbers. It is also relatively easy to use a variant of Cantor’s proof to show that there is a number that is not contained in your listing.)