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.
I hope our little visitor steps on a few four-sided triangles.
This four-sided fool is a Poe, right?
Please tell me this is a Poe.
Give me one good reason to prefer sex over non-sexual reproduction. IVF even gives you some degree of genetic control, and that degree of control will only rise in the future. Sexual reproduction is a genetic crap shoot.
Incorrect. That’s a variability of two, two and one. The expressed percentages of people with different variances is different from the available variabilities (Or: The amount of people with blue and green eyes is irrelevant to the fact that in this example, only people with blue or green eyes exist)
Nope, sorry, you tipped your hand too obviously there. Chin up – if you learn some restraint you may yet live to troll another day.
Oh lookie, we have a fish monger. Go peddle your red herrings elsewhere. Among other nonsense, you said — “The X/Y genetic sex determination scheme also ensures that males will have greater levels of phenotypic variance in all X-linked traits than will females.”
Now you’re doing shitty math with non-x-linked traits, which somehow still have a variance based on genetic gender, despite having fuck all to do with gender. You’re missing the entire set of genes with no gender related variance, and playing guessing games with the percentage of genes in each category.
And continuing to ignore that having duplicate genes allows for a wider range of expression. That is, have two (or more, that’s a thing you know) X chromosomes makes for more potential phenotypes for (cis) women and thus *gasp* greater levels of phenotypic variance.
The dancing goalposts are cute though.
Does “variability” mean something different than “variance”? Every attempt to look for a definition equated it to the square of the standard deviation. In other words, I couldn’t find a difference between the two concepts.
No, two X chromosomes ensures less variance due to the lower probability of inheriting two copies of the same recessive gene. If all genes were equal, you might have a point.
WTF are you talking about? Can you actually stay on topic and argue the points I make, instead of shifting the goal posts every time you comment back? Please address what I said in my earlier comment.
Point estimates of proportions don’t tell me the variance, so your example isn’t an example. You’re also alternating between “variance” and “variation” which are not the same thing. It’s also not a Bayesian example because you’ve given me point estimates and not distributions.
Can you stick to the same mathematical frame you originally proposed and answer my earlier questions? Or is doing anything other than copying and pasting from somewhere else beyond your capabilities?
No, no, no. You’re not getting it. How you, personally, feel about sex is not an issue. There’s nothing wrong with not being into sex. The point is that your personal preferences cannot be generalized to the rest of the population. The point is that people who enjoy and/or want sex are not engaging in icky, dirty behaviors when they have sex.
Your personal preferences are not the standard by which all behavior is judged.
*sigh* yes!p, which means men have two options — expressing that recessive gene, or not having it. Whereas women can have a third option — being a carrier for the gene.
LOLOLOLOL so troll is mindlessly copy pasting stuff.
Yes,
Not
Yes!p,
I can type, I swear!
I already did answer you questions.
P(Var) = 0.5*P(~X) + P(X)
This is just a prior. As you can see, it doesn’t even take into account information about a trait being X-linked or not. It can easily be updated in response to any additional information. What is so hard to understand about that?
@foursidedtriangles Thank you for the answer; I appreciate it.
“barring reproduction, there is no rational reason to have sex”
“there are some economic and rational benefits to social bonding”
I’d like to know more about what you mean by “rational” and “economic” in the above two phrases.
Though at this point calculating !p might be fun…though p! would be more fun.
Being a carrier is the exact opposite of phenotypic expression. I’m talking about phenotypic variance, not genotype variance.
Essentially, there are financial reasons why living with someone else can be beneficial. That’s what I meant by “economic.” “Rational” covers all other self-interest benefits.
*grumble* carriers USUALLY don’t have a phenotypic expression. I repeat, USUALLY. As in sometimes they do. As in you’d need to show that the cases where they don’t outweigh traits more common in women, for all possible reasons (and lots of mental disorders are more common in women, and show strong inheritance patterns)
So, can you give me an alternative definition for variability or not? It seems like your definition is “the number of distinct alleles for the same gene.” Am I wrong?
What does it mean to be a carrier if not to have no phenotypic expression? If someone carries only one recessive copy of a gene but it somehow still expresses itself, would you call that being a carrier?
Like the word “triangle” apparently.
No you didn’t. Go back.
WTF is your prior? P normally refers to a probability. Your equation seems to be the probability of variance (huh??? how can you have a probability of variance???) is equal to half times the probability of something (what is ~X, do you mean “not X”, if so your construction is incorrect) plus P times X.
What we normally do is sub in a value for P and then use 1-P for the other term, so everything on the right hand side sums to 1, with respect to probability.
What do you think your equation is?
All reproduction is a genetic crapshoot. I could decide I want a child with musical talent and go to the sperm bank and pick out the sperm of a man who is a concert pianist. Does that mean my child will be a talented pianist? Nope.
If there is a gene, or set of genes for musical talent it hasn’t been isolated. There would be no way to be sure that every sperm carried that gene.
Even if the gene was isolated and I made sure my baby had the gene, that doesn’t meant the gene would be expressed.
Until we develop a way to get genes to express, we can never have designer babies. There is no control over what a baby is going to be like.
LOLOLOLOL troll jumps in here with combat boots and then wants us to fix their “argument” for them.
Poor troll, poor, poor troll.