How stupid do you have to be to actually believe the following nonsense? Not just regular stupid. Men’s Rights stupid.
Heck, this is even stupid by normal Men’s Rights standards. It made me think of this line from Ruthless People.
Now, horqth could very well be a troll. His account is brand new, and, I mean, this is just amazingly dumb. But here’s the thing: his comments are being treated as if they are completely reasonable by the Men’s Rights subreddit. I noticed only a couple of mostly ignored comments out of more than 100 even raising the possiblity that he was a troll.
Not only has his post gotten dozens of upvotes, but in the comments there are numerous other Men’s Rights Redditors — not trolls — who’ve actually managed to outdo him in the sheer ridiculousness of their opinions. And they’re getting upvotes too.
Milessycamore seemed to suggest that horqth had understated the degree to which men were being victimized in both places, and more than 200 Redditors agreed:
Saxonjf thought it would be nice if more women would act like these strippers and make men feel “important special.”
Itchybrain, putting his economist hat on, suggested that the root of the problem was the massive over-valuation of women:
So how did the ladies get so overvalued in the first place? Blame the government and all that darn welfare. Responding to one contrarian Men’s Righster who suggested — get this! — that women are appropriately valued — FloranHunter laid down this truth bomb, by which I mean a bunch of complete and utter crap:
If only we could return to the good old days, when women would starve unless they were super nice to unattractive dudes who pestered them in bars!
Lawtonfogle also has no problem with the idea of men being valued for their money; he just wants to get more bang(s) for the buck.
![Lawtonfogle 10 points 1 day ago (12|2) Government intervention in the means of social support programs that result in a woman having far more bargaining power in relationship dynamics. If it weren't for laws that provided support for children and forced fathers to pay for children (even when they aren't the biological father), it would be a very different issue. Men would still be valued for their money and women for their attractiveness, but money would hold more value and being a male willing to commit would also hold (more) value. permalink source parent save give gold hide child comments [–]IOIOOIIOIO 5 points 23 hours ago (7|2) Effective male contraception is going to be amazing.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/lawton.png?ssl=1)
I give up.
LOL it’s definitely trolling. Questioning that ‘intelligent people’ still reproduce via sex? Didn’t know intelligenec equalled wealth, or the ability to get onto IVF programs.
Rational reasons to have sex? Hey dude, if you’re asexual and just don’t feel sexual attraction, that’s fine, nobody here is going to give you shit about it. You don’t need to pretend you’re a robot.
Or, on the off-chance you’re sincere, can you really not understand the concepts of love and desire for another person? The desire to breed plays precious little part in why most people (those who can reproduce at all) want sex.
Or, a simpler question: do you understand simple pleasure? I don’t mean the pleasure you presumably get from trolling.
Hm.
repeating:
I had to brush up on my math, given that I don’t normally deal in Riemannian manifolds or differential geometry (or for that matter, compact spaces or geodesics).
but… this is wrong.
I mean, I’m not an expert on algebraic topology, isomorphisms or metric tensor math, I do fun rhymes on the internet to pass the time between bouts of insomnia (And also, because you’re all generally lovely company), but this boils down to asking if torsion elements in a manifold can allow geodesics to intersect with themselves to form a single geodesic forming multiple angles (homology contains torsion elements)
Which is just… wrong. That isn’t right. That’s not math, that’s impossible. And in any given case, you wouldn’t get more than three, and certainly not four, so we’re back to the sides here.
I mean, they could, but they wouldn’t be triangles, it’d be breaking the constraints of the conversation.
Did you just try out-math me with the hope no one here knew what a manifold was?
It’s kind of like saying that “No one here has seen a sheep with wool of solid gold, but gold exists, so perhaps somewhere in the universe there might be a sheep with wool of solid gold”.
To which I can only answer “Yes, but… What?“
There are less risky methods to derive pleasure. Of course, there are some economic and rational benefits to social bonding, but sexual activity is not a necessity for any social bonds.
This equation:
is incorrect when dealing with a single trait. The trait is either sex-linked, or it is not sex-linked, so you wouldn’t include both in the same equation.
Back to what you said originally:
You are now saying:
These two quotes from you do not mean the same thing.
But continue trying to double-down with your comments, it amuses me.
Nothing wrong with not wanting or desiring or enjoying sex. Nothing at all. But you sure do seem rather overly icked out about it. And I assure you, being a “breeder” myself, that there was absolutely nothing dirty, risky or time-consuming about the act that created my daughter. So you, pompous windbag, can kindly fuck off.
Yeah, disease can be transmitted sexually. Disease can also be transmitted by sneezing or touching doorknobs or eating contaminated food or drinking contaminated water. There are lots of ways disease can be transmitted. Should we then, also, wear gloves and masks wherever we go?
I think you’ll find an awful lot (like, billions) of people would be majorly unimpressed to be told they shouldn’t be making love.
Oops, there’s that word again. Okay, I’ll play: you talk about social bonds but ignore the matter of love. L.O.V.E. Social bonds (which are essential for a healthy society, btw; they’re not an optional extra) can mean a huge range of things. I’m talking about the physical expression of love and desire.
Do you understand love?
Also, troll, you’re confusing trait (e.g. eye colour) with phenotype (e.g. green eye colour). I come back to my previous comment that males cannot have a higher variance in eye colour, unless males have more eyes than females. To have a variance in a trait, there must be the ability to have more or less of something. Eyes do not fit that type of mathematical model. IQ, height, weight, etc, do.
Learn to science.
There is no necessity to post comments in blogs, so why are you here?
What is the generalized definition of a triangle? Certainly, triangles can be defined on the surfaces of spheres and hyperboloids, so how far are we allowed to take the concept before it doesn’t count as a triangle anymore? What’s wrong with self-intersecting geodesics? All geodesics on a cone which don’t pass through the apex self-intersect, and cones aren’t even that weird.
Applause to Kiwi girl from here. Statistics! They’re not just for lies q:
Yeah, they self intersect, but they don’t allow the existence of a triangle without defining separate parts of them as separate parts of the triangle, not the geodesic. There’s nothing wrong with self intersecting geodescics (And fyi, there’s nothing really wrong with self intersecting or intersecting with others, bow chica chica bow wowww)
And you can map a triangle on a sphere and a hyperboloid, but you still map a triangle by separating out three intersecting generalized lines (with geodesics, sure!), not by allowing them to count as one geodesic but still mark a triangle.
I quite like self intersecting geodesics actually. They’re fun examples of geometric math, which is a great field all by itself.
I… have to ask, what’s going on here?
Let me disprove your statement about variation with a simple example. Consider the eye colors of people who are Caucasian and people who are African. White people may have many different eye colors. With only a few exceptions, black people all have brown eyes. One group of people has a much, much larger variation in eye color than the other. This is trivially easy to see.
Back to triangles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle
When the definition of a triangle is:
Then, by definition, a triangle has 3 sides. QED.
Fuck off with the higher dimensional maths because it is irrelevant. The triangle is defined in 2D space as it is a plane. Once we get into 3D space, the closest shape is a pyramid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_%28geometry%29 It’s not called a “triangle” any more, although each side (i.e. plane) can be a triangle.
See how this is a semantics problem? Whether or not a “triangle” may have more or fewer that 3 sides depends on how it is defined. You wish to define it so that such a thing is impossible.
And you prove my point by coming back to phenotypes. Overall, the proportion of people with all possible eye colours must equal 100%.
I also don’t think you understand variability in phenotypes either. For variability to occur, all that needs to be shown is that an example exists. This means that your statement “With only a few exceptions” has no bearing. It doesn’t matter if the “exceptions” are few: if, including “few exceptions”, the variability is the same, then there is no fucking difference in variability. The level of variability in a population is not predicated on the commonness of the variability. But you would know that if you fucking understood science or statistics.
Dealing with the phenotypes, you don’t posit a sex difference here, yet your comments up to now have said that males have higher variability in *all* traits compared to females. Your racial example is irrelevant to your assertion.
Please continue with the doubling down as I’m sure the others here are as amused as I am.
Shorter troll: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the definition of a word disagrees with me.
Algebraic topology provides one very general way to define a triangle. In simplicial homology, a triangle is “singular 2-simplex,” a continuous map from the standard 2-simplex into a given topological space. That defines a “triangle” in such a space. Sufficiently degenerate “triangles” need not even be two dimensional. Points and lines can be thought of as degenerate 2-simplices. This, amusingly, allows for 1-sided and 0-sided “triangles.”
This definition is probably too general to be useful for our purposes. You think a triangle needs three sides, by definition. I think, linguistically, it should involve three internal angles. The best hope to show that all triangles must have three sides, even in my definition, is to dispute what counts as an internal angle and what doesn’t. If a geodesic intersects with itself, does its angle of intersection count as an internal angle or an external angle? It’s hard to say what counts as internal and external in such a context.
I’m not even going to bother responding to the “proof by dictionary” other than to point it out.
What is your understanding of love, foursidedtriangles? I’m quite curious.
“The level of variability in a population is not predicated on the commonness of the variability.”
What? Yes it is. Variance is a continuous parameter. It isn’t binary. A population where 50% of people are plumbers and 50% are electricians has more variation in career choice than one where 75% are plumbers and 25% are electricians. A population where 100% are plumbers has a variance of zero w.r.t. career choice.
I don’t even think you believe what you’re saying at this point.
So now we’re talking about shapes that are considered “triangles” instead of triangles. And “can be thought of” is not actually the same as “is understood”. Funny how, in the simplex family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex) only the 2-simplex is actually given the name triangle, and has 3 faces.
What do triangles have to do with mate selection?
Love is a vaguely defined concept that can mean multiple things depending on context. It’s another word like “spiritual” or “family values” or “freedom.” It’s a buzzword. It’s a nice-sounding word that means whatever the listener wants it to mean.
Pro tip – trolling is most effective when it’s not too obvious. The thing about there being no good reason to reproduce via sex was much too obvious.
If you want to have an idiotic dictionary war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_homology#Singular_simplices