http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...ps84056fb9.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
That one.
Printable View
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f3...ps84056fb9.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
That one.
hashtag sweatergate
It wasn't until I cropped and expanded aubrey's tit that I noticed how nice the pattern is on her top.
What tits?
Kind of looks like my other other bitch, pic: http://i.imgur.com/UH5WsIo.jpg
She's got a bit of a weird chin going on. Not like aubrey. Aubrey has a lovely chin.
Dick riding turnt up
That sweater lost big points for me when I figured out the cat wasn't part of the pattern.
Fuck the endless Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaigns, and fuck all that goofy pink shit. Know how much attention Prostate Cancer Awareness Month gets? Exactly. Eat a dick with your bullshit trying to feminize everything more masculine than a pack of Skittles.
When I saw that spoon had just posted in the commune, I thought to myself "what's the chance he's ranting about sexism".
No doubt he'll see that I've just posted and think "what's the chance ong is talking pointless drivel".
Prostate cancer is the most commonly-diagnosed type of cancer in the United States, but since it only happens to men, nobody gives a shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Boob cancer is popular because boob
All of that pink headband money must be getting used well.Quote:
Breast cancer incidence rates in the U.S. began decreasing in the year 2000, after increasing for the previous two decades. They dropped by 7% from 2002 to 2003 alone.
Or not.Quote:
One theory is that this decrease was partially due to the reduced use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) by women after the results of a large study called the Women’s Health Initiative were published in 2002. These results suggested a connection between HRT and increased breast cancer risk.
Hey you know what, fuck Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
Guess how much of their bullshit charity money actually goes to goddamn breast cancer research?Quote:
In 2012, a Komen attempt to withdraw funding to Planned Parenthood for mammograms drew controversy, leading to a significant decline in donations and event participation from which Komen has yet to fully recover.
LESS THAN 21 FUCKING PERCENT.
This isn't exactly a bad thing and not entirely something you should worry about with charitiesQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MsjvsAX-Og
Guy gets the chance to experience something amazing and he's so busy snapping off a ton of photos I bet he could have watched it on video and got the same experience. Seriously, put down the fucking cameras and enjoy a moment.
Am I wrong here?
You don't give a shit either. You only give a crap about the imbalance. It's yet another them-us issue to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Pretty fucking sweet train that is. And yeah I think that when I see people at gigs fliming it. Like, you pay £25 so you can watch the gig through your fucking camera?Quote:
Originally Posted by jyms
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Spoon, here's a question for you... if you had two buttons, one removes 50% of the global male population, and the other removes 50% of the female global population, and if you don't press a button then you have to spend the rest of your life being buttraped by a Norwegian biker, which button do you press?
You definitely survive if you hit the men, just to be clear.
http://gifsound.com/?gif=i.imgur.com...L6n0FJZpk&s=33
quick cheap shoot air out of your nose.
I would press the button that removes 50% of the male population, and it's not even close. I can go into details if you want, but I don't think the option of removing 50% of the female population is remotely reasonable because of the resulting dynamic.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
omg spoon u radfem
There is a strictly correct choice to this question.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ong if you're trying to make the "only men have waged war" argument, I'm not sure that's the way to go about it. Women would be equally as capable of that in a male-less society.
Wrong. If I was offered the button, clicking the men is clearly the superior option. But for you, a 50/50 shot at killing me is a price no one is willing to pay. Your ass is getting reamed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I wonder what the ratio of men to women (with the majority women) would have to get to before men said fuck it and just took shit over to keep women from ruining everything through their majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
What? How would women take control in the first place? There are still men. And still these shirts:Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
http://i.imgur.com/hVdEfTA.jpg
Vox has an article titled: "Marvel's fix for its sexist Spider-Woman cover? Put a logo over her butt."
Not clicking. The irony of wrongness in media is that the more attention it gets, the more it incentivizes the media to be wrong. Which, I suspect, is why the absolute last place you want to go to find factual and reasonable claims is the media. I had hope for Vox at one time. It's still way better than trash like Slate
So yeah, if you want to get rid of bullshit like the unreasonable claims of sexism, you have to either do what Spoon does by attacking it, or just ignore it entirely
Nah I just wanted to see if spoon hates women that much that he'd hit the women button.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I'd hit the men button, probably twice or maybe even three times.
Why do you hate men that much?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't. I just like women more, and figure there's a population problem and I have a solution.
nah, he just hates not getting laid that muchQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
that's a great article.
^ that was pretty much what I was thinking when I said I'd hit the button more than once. If 75%+ of women are single, well I'd be dripping in bitches then wouldn't I?Quote:
Originally Posted by daven
sick soulread daven
I was gonna watch some lesbian porn and knock one out before I go to bed, but now I'm full of self pity thanks to you guys. I hope you're all happy, with your active sex lives.
Toxic is problematic. Wrong is more like it. They showed how wrongheaded they were when those guys invented date-rape-detecting nail polish and it was roundly rejected because no one is expected to use locks to protect against thieves, why should women need nail polish to protect against predators?Quote:
Originally Posted by daven
There was a time when feminism was a necessary force for change, and those feminists developed a very strong playbook for accomplishing that. Now the playbook is still open and half of those playing off it don't know where to stop.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...s-abusers.html
We're Brits, we've been taken to war by hormonal women before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
actually all men's lives are run by their women, and secretly they're all glad they do.
Nope. And women don't want to be the ones leading.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
So the conversations in the randomness thread still sound exactly the same.. And.total no-brainer to kill half the guys!
I'd prob kill half of them now anyway, no nasty alternative option required.
so... we're killing the better-looking half right?
oh also society would have to become open to polygamy, obv.
that's the main problem with polygamy right now. with a roughly even male/female split the math just doesn't add up. unless you're allowed to be in multiple marriages at once.
Let's take the top 15% and then those between the bottom 25% and 55%. I'm pretty sure I'm somewhere in the 55-85% range. So this should serve me well.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
I concur.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30119100
why is that a problem tho, not everyone wants to be polygamousQuote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
broader topic: imo people would be happier & healthier if they knew polyamory was a viable option
When you say people, you mean you.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
Polygamy is an option.
Become Islamic.
Plus the fact that some guys would be pushing 35+ wives ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us...ives.html?_r=0 ) and some guys would struggle to find 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
Well, it's an option for men. Any woman who wants more than one husband is a whore.
Monogamy is from a time when women needed men to survive and society needed men to work.
In a polygamous society, hotties would make out like thieves.
No. I mean people.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
In that regard I'm pretty damn happy and healthy, so I don't need to have artificial constructions about what's moral in love and sex dismantled for me.
Yeah, I'm willing to bet people would be just as healthy and just as happy. That's kind of how happy works.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, lol. If you think what I was saying was "everyone would be healthier/happier if they were polyamorous" you misinterpreted.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Then I did.
admittedly what I said wasn't super clear, i don't have the time to clarify but i hope at least some of you can figure it out :)
Fuck yesss
Girl in the center holds it down.
Inequality is the wrong framing. Problems do not get solved by trying to create equality, and equality isn't necessarily a product of solving problems and improving standards across the board.
It is a destructive idea with no natural or theoretical backing. It's really just something people like the sound of, to our own detriment
The problem with open polygamy is that the vast majority of women become paired up with a minority of men. This leaves a large number of men who are not able to gain sex, and this leads to civil unrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
Note: When this option is left open, it always leads to a situation where the majority of polygamous relationships are with one man and a number of women instead of the other way around.
I think that people who want equality (along these lines) tend to not realize that they have it a lot better than the average person on the planet. Instead, they see themselves as being on the bottom half of some unfair scenario and think that achieving a higher level of equality will improve their own situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Bullseye. In a world of perfectly equal opportunities and options for everyone, with a rich history of successful men and women in every field and endeavor, there will still be apparent inequalities - more men in engineering and women in caretaking, for example. And for obvious reasons. That Y chromosome, it changes things.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
On a related note, allowing polygamous relationships to be accepted as a social norm helps women as a whole and hurts men as a whole. It helps women because it puts them in a situation where they are able to gain access to much better men (including better resources, opportunities, safety, health care, etc.) than they would have been able to access before. It hurts men because the majority of them stop having access to sexual partners who are on an equal or lesser footing.
A man who is a 6 would normally not have a problem getting a female who is a 4. But if females who are a 4 can pull men who are 7s without a problem, then the men who are a 6 are going to be in trouble.
True. It applies to more than just gender. In economics, for example, it is important to have wealth inequality. It takes a tremendous amount of capital, controlled by a small number of people, to create a lot of new products and services. Elon Musk and Gabe Newell are my favorite examples, but Steve Jobs is probably the best exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Very trueQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
But on the flip side, this would be excellent for society since it would create huge incentives of self-improvement and it would vastly improve mobility for both sexes even if that incentive is non-existent. An example of the latter: women would be more capable of improving status by marrying, and men would be more capable of improving their status by not being bogged down by being poor and married with kids
My personal belief is that people should date/marry outside of their class. This would help optimize value that each party brings to the relationship, since the wealthy person could better improve their position by selecting for other things they value like looks and personality, while the poor person could improve their position by using their looks and personality to gain wealth
Is there a problem that remains unsolved when people embrace markets? Sure, but not that many
Any time you have people engaging in any transaction, it's a market. There's huge incentive for self improvement with how things are already.
True, but there is also a substantive, virtually immeasurable, institution that deters that. Start listing all the transactions people would like to willingly make that they're not allowed to, and you'll hit a thousand different ones and not even have gotten started.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Not to mention the indirect problems created by that system, which too are immeasurable. You can't put a value on stymie
Imagine what Thaddeus Russell would have to say if it was illegal to pay black people to play music. He would say that one law stopped jazz from being created. Which in turn would have had a colossally negative impact on the rest of the future
Well, today it's illegal to pay people for sex. What reason do we have to believe that this policy isn't causing just as many problems as making paying black musicians illegal would be?
It's gonna be funny (or not) if the 2016 election is Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush, and after Bush wins (if), sexism-crymongers claim she lost because of misogyny or male privilege
^^^I forgot to add the second part to that:
It's particularly Clinton vs Bush since everybody would believe that Bill Clinton would beat Jeb Bush, but if Hillary loses to Jeb, the sexism claims will be ripe for the pickings
The further you let your imagination run, the farther it will drift. It's entropy. If you don't have a reality check mechanism, you're just strolling through la-la land.
You said you imagine that people in a polygamous society would self-improve based on incentives. I pointed out that incentives still exist for self improvement and the world is chalked full of fat, lazy, slobs. I suspect that the problem is that in your mind people act rationally and would be moved by the incentives of the system, whereas I recognize people are dumb. Or rather, we don't understand the true incentive structure.
I'm a big believer in the power of incentives to move people, just not a believer in people's ability to predict the future. I understand the power of the marketplace, because so much of human interaction can be described as one, not because it solves anything. And yes, laws change how people act in the market place because they levy punishment against actions and so change the incentives. You may be right, but you wouldn't know it from the times you're wrong.
polyamory -//- polygamy btw I wasn't opining on the latter
Separate the ideas for me because I sound close enough.
Yeah, we live in a monogamous society but I was talking about monoamary. Same difference.
You're only right when you exhaust wrongness. I will always be wrong, but that wrongness is a part of discovering that which is correct. The real problem is when learning what is wrong is devaluedQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Dumb is rational. Rational behavior in economics isn't about smart behavior, but merely consequential behavior. A drug addict rationally acquires drugs.
Sure incentives exist for self-improvement, but a whole bunch also exist for self-diminishment. Aggregate incentives don't heavily favor success. They probably only slightly favor it, which could explain why we have a society that makes slight positive improvement
Yeah, economics is full of it on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/...l-behavior.asp
Rational behavior yields the highest utility? How do we measure utility? Well whatever they choose had the most it, be it emotional gains or financial.
That's why I'm backing Behavioral Economics.
They're not full of it on that one. It appears that the dissenters of rational choice theory in behavioral economics simply don't understand rational choice theory. The dissent seems a little much like the "god of the gaps" fallacy, where if you can't explain how something is rational, just call it irrationalQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Rational choice theory holds that even that which appears irrational is rational. This is because the making of a decision, regardless of how or why, is the optimal choice that the person could make, which is why it was made. The body doesn't make choices it doesn't deem optimal, regardless of how "wrong" that may be
The difference is this:
Group A thinks they can set up a series of assumptions and derive from them models which predict economic reality. Group B thinks they should observe economic reality and model it to see if any of them can predict the outcome of a novel situation.
Pick your pony.
On the topic of polyamory: Primarily, women are driven biologically to find the single strongest male they can to mate with, so it doesn't really work for them to begin with in the general sense. On the other hand, men are driven to mate with as many of the best females that they can get as they can handle. Polyamory being socially acceptable leads to polygamy with the same problems because of these dynamics.
Polygamy is about marriage and polyamory isn't. That's a huge, huge difference. Polyamory is just about how you conduct your relationship. You can be married to one person and be polyamorous.
The reason I think people would on the whole be happier if they understood that polyamory was a viable option is because many people grow up thinking that there is something inherently immoral or wrong about having sex with someone else/being sexually attracted to someone else/having feelings for someone else/etc. while you are in a relationship. There isn't. What makes a relationship work is honesty and communication, with yourself and with your partner. That's the essence of a successful relationship. Not sexual, or even emotional, exclusivity.
Imagine how many people are serial cheaters because they are trying to force themselves into the square hole of monogamy when they are clearly circles. ("Square" is incidental here, that wasn't a jab at monogamous folk.) This is not a defense of cheating but just illustrating the point that many people think monogamy is the right way, the moral way, and that they have to force themselves into it because there is no other option.
Well, there is. And if we didn't grow up having all these notions of what the model relationship looks like forced down our throat, and narrow, confining delineations of what kinds of sexuality are acceptable, we might understand ourselves and each other better.
I know many polyamorous and happy women, lol.
Spoon, what you said might apply to the majority of females, and that's fine. I don't think polyamory is going to eclipse monogamy any time soon. But it should be socially acceptable because we're all adults and can make our own decisions about our love lives, and other people should accept that.
edit: Actually, no. I don't think that applies to the majority of females. I have no idea why you are so wedded to these silly gendered blanket statements. It's not that there's no truth to them but come on. People are way more complicated than this. Women are sexual as fuck. We've just been guilted for it from day 1.
doubledit: On second thought... You might be right regarding a problematic dynamic arising from a very general pattern (the difference between men and women) if polyamory was 100% socially acceptable. I don't know. It's complicated. I have to think about this, there are so many factors. Polyamory isn't necessarily relationship anarchy.
Also, polyamory doesn't mean that the guy can just do whatever he wants and then woman needs to suck it up (and vica versa) -- it still requires mutual agreements and compromises on both ends. So that alone could also mitigate the problematic dynamic you bring up.
I do wonder whether monogamy would remain prevalent if polyamory was socially acceptable. For the current generation, I would say yes, because it would be too uncomfortable of a shift for most people. But future generations... I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if monogamy was the majority, but I just don't know. Maybe I should finally read Chris Ryan, lol.
I feel like the psychological landscape of society would be so radically different when/if that day rolls around anyway, so it's so hard to really guess what will happen.
Biological determinism is pretty much always wrong. We have no reason to believe that women seek fewer sexual partners than men. In fact, we have reason to believe the sexes seek equal number of partners. The idea that women seek fewer partners is pretty much just a product of investiture and passing things down through the male line. When we look at cultures that most resemble the natural state of humans and what reflects the environment in which we evolved, the sexes have equal amount of partners. If we want to discuss biology, we have sexual organs that favor this notion as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The dichotomy is false. Both use assumptions and modelsQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I'm not terribly interested in opining what behavioral economics is or isn't. But I am comfortable stating that what they (or others) claim is irrational behavior is included in rational choice theory. It doesn't matter if you got "short-circuited" when you stood in front of an aisle of 20 cereals, because your choice was still fully rational. Perhaps the behavioralist wants to call this irrational, but that's sorta like how we colloquially and scientifically use words like "theory" different. Colloquially, we make irrational decisions all day, but economically, we don't, even if there are no models of it
The bold is provably false.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://i.minus.com/iH5iHvsZX5raO.gif
Do you have cases that control for culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If it's not possible for anyone to ever make an economically irrational decision, then rational choice theory is unfalsifiable.
The fact that you don't recognize this shows how wrongheaded you are.
And yeah, I'd bet most women would practice polyamory. Though I still don't see the huge difference between amory and gamy.
The difference is marriage which is a legally binding contract. It's not just something between two people anymore, it involves the government. Maybe there's not a huge difference emotionally but when we're talking about societal repercussions, I'd imagine there is one.
Philosophically, rational choice theory is unfalsifiable and tautological. The wiki on it even says soQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I don't think it's a particularly useful concept, but I've just wanted to be sure to clarify what it is since I've seen you use it like it's a moral rationality. I think it is useful to provide perspective. Gary Becker did a whole lot of good for the economics profession with it, not because of what it proves, but because of how it improved the way economists view things
They say polyamory is really hard. Which I assume it is and/or can be. Instead of having one person who deserves to know what's going on with you and deserves your attention, you have two! Or three! Or four! Or polyamoooore!
actually that's not necessarily true. Not everyone has multiple partners that have equal primacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Nonetheless yes, it takes a lot of work to set up a healthy structure for everyone involved.
I'm not talking about moral rationality. I'm talking about how it is that people make choices. I don't care to give it a name, just to know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnmann. Influence by Robert Cialdini.
I seriously can't believe that you know its tautological and unfalsifiable and still hold to it. That means it's impossible to ever be shown to be wrong. You have the answer because you have the answer. This is how religions are formed.
I'm reminded of how I kept telling you that you couldn't compare free market evolution to actual evolution. Because actual evolution is utterly falsifiable and has stood countless tests against it. It was developed by a man who payed close attention to every bit of evidence that suggested he was wrong. Each time it became less wrong. It represents the pinnacle of rational, critical, proper thinking. This bullshit is no where close.
It is a perspective, not a proof. The foundation of all truths/sciences have assumptions at their roots and are unfalsifiable tautology. Rational choice theory is an assumption about the foundation of behavior. It basically says "when somebody makes a choice, they made that choice because from the perspective they had, it was the most desired". This is hardly that debatable a concept even though it is just an assumption. You can't find an example where somebody made a choice and that choice was not the most desired. Everything we understand about choosing is that we choose the most desired. Even when that choice is "wrong" in any way, it was still the most desired because choices made by definition are of the most desiredQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I don't go around talking about rationality. The only time it ever comes up is when you claim it's wrong by using examples that fit just fine into it.
Besides, all things that use language are tautology at their core. Hell, irrationality is tautology. You could no more prove that somebody acted irrationally than you could prove they did rationally
Also, even if rationality wasn't a thing, it wouldn't change anything. Incentives are still incentives.
One way of looking at it is the word "preference". When we speak of choice, we also speak of preference, even when unknown. Full logical regression of preference shows that it's tautology (I prefer it because I prefer it). Rational choice theory is basically trying to make that point. It says that it's wrong to claim that people make preferences they do not prefer. Much good was done for the economics profession when it became consensus that preference is indeed preference. As strange as it may sound, it's not the most common thing in social sciences to be as logical as that. A lot of people inadvertently make claims that imply preference isn't preference