Categories
antifeminism beta males bunnies creepy dozens of upvotes empathy deficit entitled babies evil sexy ladies evil single moms excusing abuse idiocy imaginary backwards land imaginary oppression irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA one hundred upvotes only men pay taxes apparently oppressed men reddit sexual harassment

Men’s Rights Redditor: “Going to a strip club as a guy must be like going to a regular nightclub as a girl!”

Peep show
Peep show

How stupid do you have to be to actually believe the following nonsense? Not just regular stupid. Men’s Rights stupid.

Wow, just wow. This blew my mind the other day when I went to the strip club (self.MensRights)  submitted 1 day ago* by horqth  So I went in there, with no intention of buying anything, I just went in there and got something to drink and sat down by myself.  After a few minutes, strippers comes up to me and starts to be nice to me, tells me I look good, that I dress well and, they are just basically trying to charm me and they treats me as a king. (This is just to get me to spend money on them of course, but if we ignore that, these girls are basically making me feel really good about myself)  Then it hit me: going to a strip club as a guy must be like going to a regular nightclub as a girl!  Because when a girl goes to a club all the guys will come up to her and treat her nice, and try to charm her.  Told my friends about this and they said their minds were blown as well, what do you think?  Edit: spelling

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:

milessycamore 162 points 1 day ago (212|50)  except the difference is that you, as a man... pay BOTH places...

Saxonjf thought it would be nice if more women would act like these strippers and make men feel “important special.”

saxonjf 8 points 1 day ago (10|2)  Great analogy. I've never been to a strip club (and have no intention), but it wouldn't hurt women to realize that making a man feel important special will help the relationship.  We've grown up in an era where denigrating men is fashionable, and women don't realize that building us up, rather than tearing us down, will make a huge difference in our relationships.

Itchybrain, putting his economist hat on, suggested that the root of the problem was the massive over-valuation of women:

itchybrain 27 points 1 day ago (36|9)  Very true. Most guys minds would explode if they got the attention the average looking girl gets. I think Marc Rudov said that for a guy to get the kind of attention the average girl gets he would have to be a millionaire. It just shows you how over valued women are sexually and how under valued men are.

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:

FloranHunter 7 points 17 hours ago (8|1)  Not exactly.  The government MASSIVELY subsidizes women, especially single mothers. They still can't get everything they want or possibly need with it but women no longer need a man to survive. This causes a corresponding massive devaluation of unattractive but socially useful (aka has an ok or better job) men. In the past, women needed men or they starved or were vulnerable to violence. This is no longer the case.

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.

I give up.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

445 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
katz
7 years ago

Whether or not women are held to a higher standard of beauty is something that likely depends on the society under discussion.

Unlike every other element of interaction between the genders, which is absolute throughout all space and time.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

Cultural narratives are often believed only in the abstract, and are very often hypocritical and internally inconsistent.

If only he knew how ironic it is for him to be saying this.

kittehserf
7 years ago

::rolls eyes again::

Type I, Type II … who actually gives a shit? What do you want to do, dissect people?

You’re also talking out of your arse if you think they’re separate, or separable. Emotions are essential for even the most basic decision-making.

Or is this a terribly long-winded way of saying you’re a robot who cannot understand emotions and thinks they’re inferior? You can’t be a Cyberman, they wouldn’t waste so many words, and a Dalek would have got straight to the point about how Daleks rule and will exterminate everyone else.

(Never could see the point of that. It’s not like they’d be any good at enjoying life with their ill-gotten gains.)

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Auggz — until recently the idea of not having kids wasn’t just shunned, but nearly impossible — Roe’s 40 years old, the idea of remaining childless is even younger. Under those conditions it makes sense not to mention any potentially problematic genes, and thus not to discuss the heritability.

Except this was used to justify eugenics — mental patients were sterilized for decades (among other “undesirables”) because gods forbid we might pass on a crazy gene! (It’s a risk I’m not willing to take, but that’s my personal choice and other people should be free to decide that they are okay with the risk)

In short, I think we don’t want to talk about it because it would admitting that eugenics wasn’t COMPLETE crap, just 99% crap. That is, that yes, you can pass on flawed genes, and maybe should decide not to, but that’s your choice. That’s not gonna be a thing high schoolers grasp well. Am I making sense? What I’m trying to say is I don’t think we want to touch anything remotely related to eugenics, and at the same time don’t want to admit that we may pass less than ideal genes onto our kids, especially if those genes are related to something stigmatized.

kittehserf
7 years ago

The “males have more variance than females” bit: He’s just saying that he can’t tell women apart, isn’t he?

Well, it’s tricky when you can only see breasts.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

@katz, no idea. Under the Bayesian system, you focus a lot more on distributions than on point estimates (like you do in frequentist statistics, with the mean, etc). It sounds like he’s saying that the posterior distributions for traits are larger for males when compared to females, but that doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. For trait expressions, like eye colour, they’re all binary: you either have green eyes or you don’t. So for each eye colour, you could do an estimate of the proportion of the male population that has green eyes, and the proportion of the female population that has green eyes, and with the Bayesian approach you would be more interested in the distribution, not the point estimate (i.e. you would be interested in the minimum and maximum proportions calculated, not the mean proportion). But each person with eyes must have an eye colour, so how does that equate into the variance for males being larger?

It’s not that I don’t have a clue about what they’re trying to say, I don’t think anybody else could understand it either.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Wait, beauty standards besides breasts are culturally dependent? Hate to break it to you but breasts aren’t sexual idea in all cultures.

Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

*sexualized

Fucking autocorrect

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

To equate two things is to say that they are the same. It is not equating to say that two things are both bad or both good, unless you only equate things modulo Z2.

kittehserf
7 years ago

What’s your problem, trolly (apart from being unable to write in plain English)? Why do you feel the need to trot out this evopsych bullshit? You had jibes at MRAs buried in your first screed. Fine, they exist to be mocked, as far as this site’s concerned. So why flap around with the same garbage they like to trot out, pretending humans are little more than breeding machines on autopilot?

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

It is not equating to say that two things are both bad or both good, unless you only equate things modulo Z2.

o_O. To say two things share the same characteristics is equating them. To say being fat and being lazy are bad in the same way is to equate fatness with laziness.

LOL. You’re really backpedaling here.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

1. An equation of being fat with being lazy would forego the necessity of the “and” conjunction. There is no need to say that something is “red and scarlet.” To do so would be redundant. Hence, my use of “and” is an indication that I do not find the additional adjectives to be absent additional information. One would hope you to be a non-native speaker and that you speak a language where the closest analogue to our “and” conjunction has a different logical truth table. Otherwise, your lack of comprehension signifies either dishonesty, laziness, or cognitive deficiency.

You didn’t specify “and”, your sentence were broken up by commas, which imply continuinity in the listed terms. It read:

Most MRA’s are fat, lazy, lower IQ, genetically inferior individuals

I would be careful with stating someone is cognitively deficient when one appears to be grammatically ineffective oneself. We could assume the “and” in question was actually there, replacing the commas, but then your sentence would read “fat and lazy and lower IQ and genetically inferior”, which is two things – bad writing, and untrue.

Don’t be insulting and high fallutin’ if you cannae get the writing down without crapshootin’

2. I am well-aware that triangles possess only three sides, and I’m fairly certain you know that I know this. The name, as you are probably aware, is a deliberate absurdity. Pretending that I don’t understand basic geometry is an adorable attempt at poisoning the well, but adults can see that it for the petulance it represents.

Yeah, I was giving you lip. I like your name though, I find it neat.

I’d be careful about claiming petulance (interesting attempt at ascribing a typically feminine emotion to me, though, and deliberately reducing any conversation to me as a childishly sulking and you as intellectual superior… that’d be dishonest, and, what’s that phrase, poisoning the well? Well, you wouldn’t…) when mere “sass” would be more appropriate.

On the other hand, I know of no proof that all triangles must have three sides. To be sure, any sufficiently topologically trivial Riemannian manifold has the property that a closed, 2-dimensional figure with three internal angles must be comprised by the intersection of three arcs, and if we wish, we can specify that the arcs must be geodesics in order to properly generalize the notion of a polygon to non-Euclidean geometry. In particular, any flat space with finite dimension (R^N, SxSxSx…xS, or even R^NxSxSx…xS) will almost certainly have this property. However, I am not aware of any proof that there’s no manifold (or orbifold) wherein all geodesic polygons with three internal angles must be constructed by exactly three geodesics. In particular, spaces in which the homology contains torsion elements may not pass this test. For example, must all “triangles” in the real projective plane (RP^2) or any of its higher dimensional analogues be comprised of three distinct geodesics? It’s not obvious that this must be the case, even if it is true. You may also note that the “tri” in “triangle” signifies the presence of three internal angles, not the presence of three “sides,” as you asserted. It’s even in the name. It’s tri-ANGLE, not tri-SIDE.

Take your Non-Euclidean inanity elsewhere, you parallel apologist, you’re being hyperbolic enough without attempting to move into hyperbolic geometry. A triangle has three sides and three internal angles, and any attempts at pretending that such a thing as manifolds exist or that sufficiently advanced mathematics allows us to envision dimensions with a non-complete z axis is the Devil’s Math.

3. Also, I included the possibility for exceptions to the general rule of sexual selection. This is obvious in that I even included a particular exception by name. To act as if I allowed for no exceptions is patent dishonesty.

No, it’s patent truth, given that you allowed for exceptions, then went right on stating your argument as if those exceptions were irrelevant – then included a further summation that invoked elements of different species mating patterns attributed to humans and constructed an eugenic argument which ignored your own stated exceptions.

You’re being patiently dishonest if you claim otherwise, and for the record, this is me being petulant at your petty inability to maintain a cohesive argument.

4. Certainly males exhibit some degree of mate selectivity. Indeed, the existence of exceptions, something to which I attested, proves this to be the case. However, the difference in male and female reproductive biology all but guarantees that, ceteris paribus, the selectivity of females will be larger. Also, as I indicated, the X/Y sex determination scheme ensures that male phenotypic variance will be larger than female phenotypic variance for all X-linked traits, and also that the phenotypic variance of Y-linked traits will be non-existent for females. For all other chromosomes, both males and females have two pairs. Barring extreme epigenetic factors, the overall variance of males should be greater than that of females. As a “Bayesian prior,” for any given trait, males will have a higher than 50% chance of having more variance than females. This provides an even stronger indication that the primary sexual selectors will be female.

But all other things aren’t equal in mating, and parity in the biological sense is a constantly shifting circumstance based on the environment. This isn’t physics or math where we can neatly disregard the rest of the world and assume friction is just a petty annoyance, this is evolutionary biology, where such mere thing as complete disregard for the rules of the world is rather a big deal.

Also, read a genetics primer about the chromosomal distribution of human genotypes (Hint: It’s not just xx and xy)

So with that, variance and variability has little impact on sex selection because all it results in is varying phenotypes from males at a somewhat higher rate than females – that changes nothing about the notion of sex selection, and pretending it does is… patently dishonest. Merely repeating your dross science won’t make it true, but it will make you seem petulant. Ceteris paribus works in economics, because we know it’s a dismal science, and it works in accounting, because fuck if I’m testing for tax, but proclaiming that “All else being equal” when all else is patently not equal is utter madness, of the inane kind – humans don’t rely on genotypic variation to test for selective parameters, because, oh dear, we have brains and can talk (Sapien sapien, I say again).

Also, as a bayesian prior, for any given trait with a higher variance, the person with the highest possibility of being exceptional gets to make the choices in that field – but that would make sufficiently lucky genetic constructions with a male genotype more likely to be selective and oh shit wait I just messed up your argument by changing the assumption. Ups. It’s almost like it’s just dressing up a stereotype in scientific language. Odd.
Yeah, now I’m being petulant.

I’ll spell it out – mating is not a one time transfer, it’s a process over time. Now adjust for that, and try again… You might arrive at a conclusion that isn’t ham-fistedly unconcerned with the 99 % of sexual selection science.

5. Humans think, but you largely overestimate the degree of Type II reasoning in humans. Humans engage in unconsciously-driven and heuristically-derived behaviors (Type I reasoning) far more often than you would like to believe. Type II reasoning (rational deliberation, empirical evidence, etc.) is hard and time-consuming. Most decisions must, of necessity, be left to less reliable but faster methods.

…. So the method that grants you a mental short cut like: “This person can talk to me, and he has hair” is more likely to end up being followed by people than the method wherein they sit down, get genetically screened, and then finally find out if they’re genotypically compatible? So… people in an emotionally charged situation will often not take the most reasonable course of action or maximize their utility, but will instead probably do something stupid?

Now you’re just fucking with us, chap. Because that would mean your entire argument shot itself in the foot. Come on, one more time now – explain to us exactly why humans who often persue the less optimal, less rational, less utility maximizing path will nevertheless entirely disregard genetically unfit people when they have no way to test for genotype variance other than phenotypic stand in like a marker of some kind, and then, as a bonus, explain to me that testing becomes solely the onus of the woman in this hypothetical situation.

(oh, and being really petulant as opposed to merely boring – None of those arguments explain why MRA’s are the lowest of the low who should have their genes die off to passive eugenics, nor did you apologize for randomly calling a bunch of people losers, lazy and jobless, you shiftless intellectual ivory tower of dishonest rambling. Given the constraints of your set up, any given person could still sleep with anyone else, because human beings don’t have genetic scanners in their eyes. )

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

It’s rather obvious what I meant. Before any additional analysis, it is more likely than not that a trait will have higher variance in males than females. Given that this is a prior, belief can be modified after analysis. The fact that a given trait is neither X-linked nor Y-linked would almost certainly lower the probability down to 50%.

Even binary traits can have variance, by the way. If minimal constraints are imposed, then the maximum entropy distribution for binary traits is the Poisson distribution. The variance is equal to the mean.

kittehserf
7 years ago

Trolly must be a hoot at a party or on a date. Instant insomnia cure.

kittehserf
7 years ago

You still haven’t said what’s your point in posting here.

Ally S
7 years ago

Oh, look – another cissexist evo psych enthusiast. Very new and refreshing.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

He’s the Ghost of Terrible Parties Past, here to remind us all to ask the host(ess) who else is going to be in attendance before RSVPing.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

You could have just said you were wrong when you stated this:

Barring extreme epigenetic factors, the overall variance of males should be greater than that of females. As a “Bayesian prior,” for any given trait, males will have a higher than 50% chance of having more variance than females.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Also this:

Before any additional analysis, it is more likely than not that a trait will have higher variance in males than females. Given that this is a prior, belief can be modified after analysis.

If you know anything about Bayesian statistics, you know that you have to enter a mathematic value for the priors, not some vague shite about it being “higher”. You’ve basically said that the analysis should use an informative prior. So what values are you actually using and what research are they based on?

Do you have a fucking clue?

kittehserf
7 years ago

He’s the Ghost of Terrible Parties Past, here to remind us all to ask the host(ess) who else is going to be in attendance before RSVPing.

Whoa shit yes, that reminds me of some parties I’ve avoided.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Good lard, this troll is fucking dull.

Bored now.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

I am unable to see females except as breasts? Amusing claim, though it describes the sexually desperate MRA’s far more than it describes me. I have no desire to reproduce and, barring reproduction, there is no rational reason to have sex. Sex is a risky action which involves a large allocation of resources to procure. Even with prophylaxis, it is still far riskier than celibacy. Indeed, even if I had the desire to reproduce, I would do so without sexual intercourse. Unhygienic, risky, time-consuming, and disease-transmitting “breeding” vs. sterile and controlled procedures? The choice seems obvious to those not blinded by hormones. With artificial reproduction, one can even introduce a degree of control over which genes are actually passed on. It disturbs me that there are still intelligent people who reproduce via sex.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Now we’re dumb for liking sex. Hey troll, have you thought about going and fucking yourself?

Myoo
Myoo
7 years ago

Is this Pell? Or is it just some other obnoxious pseudo-intellectual?

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

The prior would come from an estimate of the total number of genes on the X vs. the total number of genes in the genome. Either a trait is X-linked or it isn’t. If we (roughly) know Nx/N, that gives us a probability. If a trait is not X-linked, there’s a 50/50 chance that variance is higher in men than women. If it is X-linked, there’s (very close to) a 100% chance it’s higher in men than women.

P(Higher variance in males) = .5*P(Not X-linked) + P(X-linked)

Since P(~X) + P(X) = 1, it’s obvious that P(Higher sigma in males) is bigger than 0.5.

kittehserf
7 years ago

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.

kittehserf
7 years ago

Or, a simpler question: do you understand simple pleasure? I don’t mean the pleasure you presumably get from trolling.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

Hm.
repeating:

On the other hand, I know of no proof that all triangles must have three sides. To be sure, any sufficiently topologically trivial Riemannian manifold has the property that a closed, 2-dimensional figure with three internal angles must be comprised by the intersection of three arcs, and if we wish, we can specify that the arcs must be geodesics in order to properly generalize the notion of a polygon to non-Euclidean geometry. In particular, any flat space with finite dimension (R^N, SxSxSx…xS, or even R^NxSxSx…xS) will almost certainly have this property. However, I am not aware of any proof that there’s no manifold (or orbifold) wherein all geodesic polygons with three internal angles must be constructed by exactly three geodesics. In particular, spaces in which the homology contains torsion elements may not pass this test. For example, must all “triangles” in the real projective plane (RP^2) or any of its higher dimensional analogues be comprised of three distinct geodesics? It’s not obvious that this must be the case, even if it is true. You may also note that the “tri” in “triangle” signifies the presence of three internal angles, not the presence of three “sides,” as you asserted. It’s even in the name. It’s tri-ANGLE, not tri-SIDE.

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?

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

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.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

This equation:

P(Higher variance in males) = .5*P(Not X-linked) + P(X-linked)

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:

As a “Bayesian prior,” for any given trait, males will have a higher than 50% chance of having more variance than females.

You are now saying:

If a trait is not X-linked, there’s a 50/50 chance that variance is higher in men than women.

These two quotes from you do not mean the same thing.

But continue trying to double-down with your comments, it amuses me.

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

Unhygienic, risky, time-consuming, and disease-transmitting “breeding” vs. sterile and controlled procedures? The choice seems obvious to those not blinded by hormones

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?

kittehserf
7 years ago

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?

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

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.

Myoo
Myoo
7 years ago

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.

There is no necessity to post comments in blogs, so why are you here?

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

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.

Fibinachi
7 years ago

Applause to Kiwi girl from here. Statistics! They’re not just for lies q:

Fibinachi
7 years ago

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?

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

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.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Back to triangles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle

When the definition of a triangle is:

A triangle is one of the basic shapes in geometry: a polygon with three corners or vertices and three sides or edges which are line segments.

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.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

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.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

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.

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.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

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.

Shorter troll: waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the definition of a word disagrees with me.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

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.

scott1139
scott1139
7 years ago

What is your understanding of love, foursidedtriangles? I’m quite curious.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

“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.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

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.”

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.

sparky
sparky
7 years ago

What do triangles have to do with mate selection?

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

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.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
7 years ago

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.

foursidedtriangles
7 years ago

If you want to have an idiotic dictionary war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_homology#Singular_simplices

1 3 4 5 6 7 9