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.
“Triangle” is well-defined in Euclidean geometry, and it’s also well-defined in certain generalizations to non-Euclidean cases. However, the way it should be generalized beyond such cases is ambiguous, as there seem to exist multiple incompatible ways to do it.
“would you call that being a carrier?”
Does it matter what’s it called if it means women have three possible expressions while men only have two?
And how does any of this matter in regards to anything besides a very annoying intellectual exercise?
Has anyone contacted the dark lord? This one is making for a very tedious All About Me show.
I gave a longer response earlier explaining what each term meant. Also, P(~X) + P(X) = 1, for any X, so your concerns about normalization are silly.
As for the probability of a variance taking on a specific value, that happens all the time in parameter estimation. Confidence intervals for estimating the true mean or true variance of a population give you an interval where there’s a known probability that the true value of the parameter is inside the interval.
Not I, but feel free. This one moves goal posts and doubles down. I agree that tedious troll is tedious.
Troll is kind of like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory except without any charm.
@foursidedtriangles Ah, I understand now–thank you for explaining. So, about the people who don’t want children but still derive many benefits from having sex, how are they behaving irrationally?
So in other words, you have no intention of actually giving me your alternative definition. Until you do, I see no point in debating with you w.r.t. variance. I’m not interested in theology.
Congratulations, foursidedtriangles. You are more tedious and boring than Diogenes the Cynic.
The only benefits one can obtain from sex can be obtained from less risky endeavors. Sex is not unique in the benefits it can bring. Every single one has chemical or procedural alternatives.
And the mindless copy paste by troll is annoying, see latest example:
Foursidedtriangles is really digging in and conveniently ignoring that they’re getting their ass handed to them. I pity every teacher and classmate they ever had.
I aim to be cynical (in the modern sense of the word), so a comparison to the most famous of the ancient cynic philosophers will be taken as a complement, even though that was not your intent, and even though the ancient school has little in common with the modern definition.
Imagine the poor person who’s stuck sitting next to him on a plane.
“Congratulations, foursidedtriangles. You are more tedious and boring than Diogenes the Cynic.”
Damn. While not a worthwhile accomplishment, it certainly is a difficult one.
I bet he reclines his seat the full way for the entire flight too.
I am not copying and pasting. Some people actually have knowledge about quantitative domains of reasoning. This may be novel to you.
People here have the knowledge. You don’t. The fact that you don’t is not novel to me as you’ve been proving your lack of knowledge over and over again. Go back and start answering my questions one by one.
Who knew that “novel” had changed its meaning to “boring”?
Yes, it is. For those who enjoy sex, it is both a unique and beneficial experience that is valuable in and of itself. No chemical in the world can replicate it.
For what it’s worth, I apologize for making a dig at your name, foursidedtriangles. I didn’t know triangles were indeterminable objects of varied mystery, but I do now, so I won’t make that mistake again.
I’m not so sure about quantitative reasoning though, given that you still think variability and variation are the same thing. It really isn’t.
Still, you got me to look up Reimannian manifolds and sympletic geometry, so that was fun.
Have a lovely day everyone.
I have answered your questions. You apparently have some novel definition of “variability” that I’ve never seen anyone else use ever. This means we are talking past each other.
four-sided does seem to have a mystical connection to triangles.
Troll, fail. Go back and answer my questions. We’re not talking past each other, you’re getting repeatedly called on the BS you write and then changing the goal posts and doubling down.
You mean in that the triangle is the most irritating and pointless instrument in any orchestra?