How the fuck is this not in The Pit yet?
I don’t think we should over react just because the OP claims that when women say, ‘No’, what they really mean is ‘Yes’.
He’s done studies. :rolleyes:
Is that what you got? I got: asking them yes or no is the same as forcing yourself on them (i.e. not asking).
I got: Women always mean “No”, regardless of what they say, so only men who are willing to proceed without consent (bullies) are able to get sex from women.
Yep. I may have rushed to judge. I re-read this post. It still sounds a little bit like women say no but the guys who push through the no, get sex. Admitedly, that’s not rape. Merely badgering for a yes. However, according to the OP a woman refusing to have sex with a ‘nice guy’, is worse than Stalin.
Are you sure? Women are incapable of choosing the nice guy because we’re not farming hemp and… something about infinite sets.
This is a fucked-up thread.
No - merely asking a woman out is not only suicide, its also bullying in infinite measures that can be combined.
and nice guys NEVER ask women out.
God forbid they offer to shake hands.
One thing we are starting to suspect about genetics, which we haven’t fully hashed out yet, is that there seem to be epigenetic triggers in the environment which will or will not trigger predispositions.
As for the second part, YES, there will be physical changes in the brain based upon my theory.
Agreed. (about my theory needing to explain mental illness better than the current model and that it needs to be falsified).
Well… it’s possible that everyone can be affected by dysfunctional sexual choice, just that some people react to it different than others. The ostracism of asexuals and homosexuals may be more responsible for their suicides than the sex within their orientation, BUT that ostracism MAY come from sexual choice in the heterosexual population (bigotry), which has selective value. This is what I mean when I say that my theory may well be correct, and upon closer examination may also be able to explain things that on the surface seem to contradict it.
The only way to test it for human society is to tests tens of thousands of humans from puberty to until the beginning of college and have only one gender in on it and the other gender having no clue what’s going on (with the entire staff of the schools as researchers). The problem is, someone would tell and the secret would come out, or someone will try to sneak having sex with a nice person or a bully instead of who the researchers said they could have sex with, or explain to people who aren’t supposed to know what’s going on, exactly what’s going on, which would destroy the entire study. You’d have to bug and GPS track tens of thousands of people to pull this off, and offer a penalty for anyone who leaks the study, and pay the people who participate in it… and even then, it might not be possible. As I said before, it’s EXTREMELY hard to do with humans. IF, you could get humans to comply perfectly with the study, I am 100% sure that you can increase or decrease stress, aggression and depression in any gender you want or in both genders at the same time. To do both genders at the same time would be a slightly more complicated study though.
I hold evolution to be true, however, I am not an evolutionary religionist, I don’t believe that evolution is the perfect hand of a perfect universe that makes no mistakes, and you’d be quite stunned how many people actually believe that and get pissed when something bursts that bubble. The Irish Elk that I described before is a perfect example. It died because of run-away sexual selection of ornate aggression, no purpose there, just a mistake. For the evolutionary religionist, THERE ARE NO MISTAKES.
It is the same thing. Actually most encounters with women come from the first advance being a non-verbal reaching to grab their hand, with which the woman will show slight discomfort, and then, more often than not (no asking going on here) be attracted by the man’s “confidence”. For nice guys, the word “confidence” means “rapist”.
Can’t do math. Can’t do ethics. Can dance a little.
The problem isn’t that you keep saying stuff like this. The problem is that you are utterly, unshakably convinced that you alone are right.
BTW, are you going to answer my questions about your claiming to know me on previous pages?
I’ll explain this one more time because people seem to have a lot of difficulty with the nice guy code, and I have met many nice guys and they have the same code, it’s not just some random guy inventing it all by himself and calling himself the only nice guy ever. The code is simple:
Sex Dimorphism (Men being bigger and more threatening than women) always causes at a minimum, minute signs of discomfort in women when men approach them with anything that suggests sexual interest relative to men who either don’t show it or show it less. The only possible exception to this is that if a woman approaches a man, he may become awkward because he’s not trying to show attraction, and is giving a woman the benefit of the doubt that they are merely flirting with them to get attention (which women do and men don’t do), so if the line is blurred a bit, the nice guy will become confused. The rule of thumb for these scenarios is work only with words, and if it’s non verbal then never do something first that a woman doesn’t do to you first… if a woman kisses you, you can kiss her back (first approach only), but if she doesn’t kiss you, never try to kiss her. However, there are exceptions to this rule… if a woman shows attraction in her eyes towards you, she is probably flirting, and female flirting is more about attention than sexual consent, so do not return a look of being attracted to someone in the eyes. The code is a bit more complicated than this…
Basically, women relative to men always show signs of discomfort when approached, whoever said earlier that I “wasn’t taught right” is clearly not observant enough to see this, they may actually be delusional enough to think that there are women who don’t show discomfort when they approach them, BUT the subconscious doesn’t lie, and part of the reason men sexually harass women on the scale that they do, is because men who violate the dimorphism code are the only ones who get sex, the ones who make them, slightly or majorly uncomfortable (major discomfort starts to occur when women gossip about how much of an asshole so-and-so is - where they end up having sex with them instead of people who women say are nice)…
From the female point of view, guys that nice guys know are complete douchbags, can rank as nice people on the female scale, the nice guys know that the woman was ill-gotten gains, and often the douchbag knows it too, but women generally are attracted to aggression so they don’t see it. This is called the female denial system.
Hopefully that explained it better.
Of course I again want to state that the reason this aspect came up in a thread about a world with no suicides when suicide is as easy as possible is the best possible world to have and the only viable measure of ethics, is because someone stated that suicides are done by mentally ill people so I can’t be right, I challenged this by saying that while that may be true, sexual choice affects neuro-biology, which is actually mentally ill people causing sane people to become even more mentally ill than they otherwise would. If someone commits suicide because they think they are being unjustly persecuted by “the man”, even if they are wrong about it, and thus it’s considered an irrational suicide, I would really actually want to look into that fear reaction and where it is coming from - because bullies often occupy positions of power, and the person may think that they are nice and the bully needs to make an example of them in order for women to have sex with the bully, which isn’t a completely irrational thought for a male to have.
When you say ‘always’, you actually mean ‘sometimes’, right?
Trin, you have lost this before you even started it, and saying I’m wrong really does make you look dumb for this in particular. The very first thing I listed (LIST # 1!!!) was a list of all the rationals. After that I showed how you can prove that all the reals cannot be counted using a 1 dimensional flooding technique, not a diagonal argument, BUT I proved that you can make multiple lists and still have countability even though one dimension is flooded, including EVERY diagonal. If you run the diagonals infinitely, you will definitely have all of the counting numbers distributed between an infinite number of lists (remember the first list uses intervals of 1!!! every counting number!!!).
To say I haven’t made a complete list is beside the point that I disproved Cantors proof… I NEVER said I knew how to count all the reals, I said that Cantors proof that the reals cannot be counted is FALSE, and if you could comprehend what I wrote, you’d see very clearly that I defeated cantors argument flawlessly.
(sorry I used the word “dumb” on you… it’s just that you really don’t know what you’re talking about)
No… in the instance of telegraphing minute discomfort, for women it is always… that’s why nice guys have their code, the easiest way to find a nice guy in the heterosexual population is to ask them if they are heterosexual and then ask them if they approach women with a hopeful outcome of sex or look at them in a way that shows attraction, if they say they are heterosexual and they don’t approach women, you have found a nice guy… nice guys do not reveal specific attraction verbally to other people either, that’s another way to spot them, if they are heterosexual and they do approach women, they are assholes, if you hear someone in a group say , "I really like her (in an implied sexual way) they are assholes. It’s that simple.
Bullshit.
You’re living in the land of the female denial system. The di-morphism problem always causes minute signs of discomfort, look for it, you will see it every time, just go into a bar and watch people… you’ll understand why there’s nice guy code if you pay enough attention to the body language.
So you say, but you still provide a fallacious and incorrect interpretation of Cantor’s proof.
You have demonstrated that it is possible to construct a list of numbers that is not in a one-to-one correspondence with the counting numbers.
You have also demonstrated that you can construct such a list which is one-to-one, but which is not “onto.” The list 2, 4, 6, 8…etc is such a list.
You may have proven this to your own satisfaction, but no mathematician is convinced.
Answer this: if it’s really so simple, so very very simple…then why is Cantor still being taught in college math classes today?
This is the same problem that our local relativity-challengers face: if relativity can be disproven using nothing more than simple descriptive language, and maybe some junior high school arithmetic, why is relativity still taught at the graduate level in universities?
You just don’t know what you’re talking about. Cantor’s proof doesn’t operate on “every diagonal.” It operates on the main diagonal, so that a difference is shown from the first digit of the first number, the second digit of the second number, the third digit of the third number, etc.
Your fancy cases can all be reduced to a single list, with a main diagonal. Your decorative and involute manipulations serve no purpose. They can all be reduced. A three-dimensional list can be reduced to a one dimensional list. Once in that form, Cantor’s proof applies.
I’ve been a bit snippy toward you, too. But it’s just that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. And…I’ve got the math textbooks to back me up.
So, don’t bother answering this post: we, you and I, are obviously at an impasse and cannot proceed. Take the time to read a description of the issue. It’s stupid of us to go around any further with “You’re wrong,” “No, you’re wrong.”
If you won’t listen to me, then take it to someone whose opinion you respect and whose answers you will listen to.
That’s not a field I’m at all conversant with. If you have something from epigenetics that supports your theory, feel free to cite it.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
As for the second part, YES, there will be physical changes in the brain based upon my theory.
[/quote]
And you don’t find it odd that this effect hasn’t been observed?
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
Agreed. (about my theory needing to explain mental illness better than the current model and that it needs to be falsified).
[/quote]
Glad there’s some common ground.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
Well… it’s possible that everyone can be affected by dysfunctional sexual choice, just that some people react to it different than others. The ostracism of asexuals and homosexuals may be more responsible for their suicides than the sex within their orientation, BUT that ostracism MAY come from sexual choice in the heterosexual population (bigotry), which has selective value. This is what I mean when I say that my theory may well be correct, and upon closer examination may also be able to explain things that on the surface seem to contradict it.
[/quote]
Putting your various ideas together, we’d conclude that, in terms of torture/suffering (which you claim to be the basis of all suicide), and as reflected in rates (assuming for the sake of discussion that your still-unsourced claim about concentration camps is true:
Anti-gay bigotry > heterosexual sexual dysfunction in partner choice > concentration camps.
Correct? If so, it sure seems like these hetero “nice man” problems you’re on about are small potatoes, since gay people who aren’t affected by them commit substantially more suicide, and their suffering has no connection to the sexual choice problem you’re claiming exists.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
The only way to test it for human society is to tests tens of thousands of humans from puberty to until the beginning of college and have only one gender in on it and the other gender having no clue what’s going on (with the entire staff of the schools as researchers). The problem is, someone would tell and the secret would come out, or someone will try to sneak having sex with a nice person or a bully instead of who the researchers said they could have sex with, or explain to people who aren’t supposed to know what’s going on, exactly what’s going on, which would destroy the entire study. You’d have to bug and GPS track tens of thousands of people to pull this off, and offer a penalty for anyone who leaks the study, and pay the people who participate in it… and even then, it might not be possible. As I said before, it’s EXTREMELY hard to do with humans. IF, you could get humans to comply perfectly with the study, I am 100% sure that you can increase or decrease stress, aggression and depression in any gender you want or in both genders at the same time. To do both genders at the same time would be a slightly more complicated study though.
[/quote]
Or, you could start with animals. Or, look at other predictions implied by your theory, which are cheap and easy.
[QUOTE=Ecmandu]
I hold evolution to be true, however, I am not an evolutionary religionist, I don’t believe that evolution is the perfect hand of a perfect universe that makes no mistakes, and you’d be quite stunned how many people actually believe that and get pissed when something bursts that bubble. The Irish Elk that I described before is a perfect example. It died because of run-away sexual selection of ornate aggression, no purpose there, just a mistake. For the evolutionary religionist, THERE ARE NO MISTAKES.
[/QUOTE]
So, then, the sexual dynamic you claim exists came about as a random mutation, spread to the entire species, and hasn’t been enough of a disadvantage to wipe out the species? Or is it somehow an advantage? Why is it universal to humankind?
The fate of the Irish Elk is disputed, remember the Nature piece I cited?
Most male encounters with women begin with the male grabbing the woman’s hand? That’s news to me. I’m sure cultural flirting practices vary dramatically, but that’s not how it’s done in America.
Let’s apply Occam’s Razor here:
A. Everything we think we know about mental illness and neurology is completely wrong; women are, for some reason, hardwired to react negatively to all romantic advances; human males are naturally selected for aggressiveness; there exists a tiny cadre of sane people in an insane world; women only kill themselves due to violence brought on by their own natures; humans have an innate logical sense, which human society has evolved to violate; and etc.
B. Men who are uncomfortable approaching women turn a flaw in themselves into a flaw with women, and, ultimately, men who are comfortable approaching women, in a display of delusional projection.
Which you are totally unable or unwilling to show evidence for.
Wait, what? This is new. Are you saying what mental illness is universal, or what?
Do you accept that irrational delusions exist?