-->
@Reece101
Stating “racism is a nonsense, malicious term” isn’t an argument.
IT'S A DEBATE RESOLUTION.
Racism is a nonsense, malicious term
Posts
Total:
182
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, your definition is variable, extending to potential associates and strangers whereby trustworthiness and "good guys" is very much speculative.
And of course, expected levels of assistance are also going to be variable.
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, your definition is variable, extending to potential associates and strangers whereby trustworthiness and "good guys" is very much speculative.And of course, expected levels of assistance are also going to be variable.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE "REAL WORLD" IS NOT BINARY ?
-->
@3RU7AL
Please put "BINARY" into context.
As I am not certain of the implication of the question.
-->
@3RU7AL
this is really begging the question of WHY you would bother to mention this "information".it seems obvious that your only possible motive would be to pre-emptively DISCREDIT any FUTURE arguments (specifically from the person in question).any comment on the SPEAKER and not specifically on their WORDS is an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
There is no question begging because the "why" is not an assumed premise residing in my conclusion.
The insults were derived deductively, therefore it cannot be a case of Ad Hominem. Moreover, I didn't argue that *because* he has sub-zero I.Q, his argument is wrong. I argued that his argument is wrong *independent* of his mental bankruptcy.
So no, not "any comment on the speaker" is classified as Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem only occurs when you attack the speaker *in place* of the speaker's argument.
It's not really clear what people mean when they say "racist" these days. It's like when people say something is "rape", the definition has become so amorphous that it now, in some cases, appears to encompass not paying the hooker after having sex.
-->
@Mesmer
I was waiting to see if you'd reply once you read the study you mentioned at the bottom of your reply, so that I could bundle this response together. You might be busy with life or not intending to respond to it, so I'll just respond to what you've already written because it's worth responding to.
Thank you for the compliment. I was planning to read it. Personally, this has been difficult. To be frank, I could just be johnny-on-the-spot and reply quickly to your earlier post. But I appreciate literature and a well-researched OP, so i won't be doing that. I commit time to worthy endeavors (like your op) when I realize that something is worth reading. However, me taking actual time to focus and read what you post is difficult because of my circumstances. I'll keep them short: I'm maintaining dual identities.
My real identity is that I've apostatized from the muslim faith. If Allah exist, he'll know that I've said the words of apostasy. I take solace primarily from my western literature that I read in my free time. I consider DART a close second. Anyway, you could probably guess it: my second false identity is to pretend to be an adherent of the muslim faith, because most of my relatives and friends are religious muslims. I think maintaining both identities are extremely tiring. I have to really act like a muslim and I have to take a hiatus from the website because both identities are really not compatible. I can't really read DART and western poetry while maintaining my second identity. I want to note that transitioning between the two identities takes time and it's only pleasurable if I'm reverting back to my real identity.
Unfortunately, this is still ongoing. There's lots of religious festivals here and I don't want to give cause to my deranged taliban-look-a-like father. My brother (he's equally religious) is also well-versed with the internet, and while he's busy fvcking a complete dumb bum on the side (I'm pretty sure she never held a book in her entire life), who knows what he's up to. He could spy on me and he once snitched on me. I'm not trusting anyone ever again. My father's ire should not be underestimated, I'm currently manipulating my whole family by pretending that I'm one of them.
I think youre going to have to wait even longer. I'm just being honest. I know that's not a satisfactory answer since I think you're looking for insightful views. Again, i can't do much. I think my western literature deserves equal time and I haven't been devoting myself to it either.
It seems that more important issues (such as religion, politics etc.) have greater impact in determining whether people like each other, so I'd lean towards the measured interactions having more weight (less likely to espouse deeper beliefs in conversations with banter and light-heartedness). Although, alcohol will have an effect on this (people more likely to say what they think), but not all spontaneous interactions have alcohol.
Interesting. If the general coming together is measured, then it follows that most people would consider measured interactions as a basis for close friendships. That said, the only possible challenge that I could think of is the probability that i'll enjoy someone with similar experiences. For example, in romantic relationships, opposites attract but they're also the main demographics of divorce. I think people are inadequate; they employ the vast majority of their measured interactions on polar opposites. I think it's probably why I whine alot about my enemies while never mentioning my loyal friends. My enemies are probably polar opposites.
I'd argue that this kind of "measured" love doesn't exist, that "love" is poorly defined lust with many rationalizations bundled in. You don't really get to "choose" (in a thoughtful sense) to love someone because that drive is largely physical sexual appeal, particularly in the facial area. That's probably why a Coptic Christian and Baathist Muslim would come together: they find each other quite physically hot, not because they intellectually stimulate each other after 3 hours of discussing quantum mechanics.
Perhaps, I do think that I agree with the fact that facial attractiveness is a determining factor for most people. There's also attraction on wealth (for most women and some men) and attraction on bodies (for most men and some women). Plus, if a country is currently undergoing an economic crisis, I think people won't read economic journals; they'll just read newspaper opinions. Yeah, I guess you're right.
The studies all prove various levels of correlation, so they implicitly admit there are exceptions. It would be nigh impossible, barring a super small sample size or a lots of time, to account for every exception. It's probably just better to call it a trend of nature, anyway.Exceptions mean something but I'm more interested in what large correlations or consistencies we can find. I guess people's mood can affect this. I guess the type of interactions (spontaneous) can affect this. The time they talk will affect it. Hard to list everything.
Ok. I understand. I'm assuming that you're referring to sociology and psychology. Imho, Soft sciences are still scientifically valid and reliable, despite what some observers would say.
If you have enough data points, I don't think it remains spurious because you've inductively shown consistency on many occasions.
I think It remains spurious because you're trying to make a cause-and-effect from a correlational study. Well, i think I really should've read your sources now that I've read your reply. I should follow a more determined work ethic. Ugh.
The source makes the argument better than I do.
Ok.
-->
@Mesmer
*independent* of his mental bankruptcy.
So, your "defense" is that your comment is a NON-SEQUITUR.
-->
@zedvictor4
Please put "BINARY" into context.As I am not certain of the implication of the question.
A BINARY world is cleanly divisible into two categories.
-->
@3RU7AL
And so what two cleanly divisible categories are you alluding to.
-->
@dfss9788
It's not really clear what people mean when they say "racist" these days. It's like when people say something is "rape", the definition has become so amorphous that it now, in some cases, appears to encompass not paying the hooker after having sex.
True.
That's because the term "racist" is nonsense. In practice, it's a label used to denote anything that implies race which someone might find offensive. Since offence is taken and not assumed, it's a lottery as to whether something is "racist", and hence why it isn't clear what someone means when they say it.
It gets worse when you consider how impactful the term is. For something so poorly defined, it has the ability to end careers and cause complete social ostracization.
It's ridiculous that every time someone says "racist", it has to be followed up by 'what do you mean by that?', 'what's your definition?' or 'how is that racist?'
-->
@3RU7AL
So, your "defense" is that your comment is a NON-SEQUITUR.
If someone repeatedly posts stupid things, they are probably stupid. I never said that he is stupid, therefore his arguments are.
Anyway, I really don't care about this anymore. I read some awfully stupid posts from someone who is probably stupid, and so I called him stupid. If you want to get hung up on trying to label that as Ad hom or a non-seq, I think there are more important things to discuss.
-->
@Mesmer
It gets worse when you consider how impactful the term is. For something so poorly defined, it has the ability to end careers and cause complete social ostracization.
Well stated.
-->
@Mesmer
So, your "defense" is that your comment is a NON-SEQUITUR.If someone repeatedly posts stupid things, they are probably stupid. I never said that he is stupid, therefore his arguments are.
You most certainly (EITHER) implied it (OR) made a nonsensical NON-SEQUITUR.
Calling people names is generally considered off-topic.
Also, if you don't wish to discuss a particular subject or pursue a particular tangent, simply don't respond to it.
-->
@zedvictor4
And so what two cleanly divisible categories are you alluding to.
Most commonly, "good" & "bad".
-->
@Mesmer
It's tremendous that every time someone says "racist", it has to be followed up by 'what do you mean by that?', 'what's your definition?' or 'how is that racist?'
-->
@3RU7AL
Good and Bad.
Therein lies a philosophical argument.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Thank you for the compliment. I was planning to read it. Personally, this has been difficult. To be frank, I could just be johnny-on-the-spot and reply quickly to your earlier post. But I appreciate literature and a well-researched OP, so i won't be doing that. I commit time to worthy endeavors (like your op) when I realize that something is worth reading. However, me taking actual time to focus and read what you post is difficult because of my circumstances. I'll keep them short: I'm maintaining dual identities.My real identity is that I've apostatized from the muslim faith. If Allah exist, he'll know that I've said the words of apostasy. I take solace primarily from my western literature that I read in my free time. I consider DART a close second. Anyway, you could probably guess it: my second false identity is to pretend to be an adherent of the muslim faith, because most of my relatives and friends are religious muslims. I think maintaining both identities are extremely tiring. I have to really act like a muslim and I have to take a hiatus from the website because both identities are really not compatible. I can't really read DART and western poetry while maintaining my second identity. I want to note that transitioning between the two identities takes time and it's only pleasurable if I'm reverting back to my real identity.Unfortunately, this is still ongoing. There's lots of religious festivals here and I don't want to give cause to my deranged taliban-look-a-like father. My brother (he's equally religious) is also well-versed with the internet, and while he's busy fvcking a complete dumb bum on the side (I'm pretty sure she never held a book in her entire life), who knows what he's up to. He could spy on me and he once snitched on me. I'm not trusting anyone ever again. My father's ire should not be underestimated, I'm currently manipulating my whole family by pretending that I'm one of them.I think youre going to have to wait even longer. I'm just being honest. I know that's not a satisfactory answer since I think you're looking for insightful views. Again, i can't do much. I think my western literature deserves equal time and I haven't been devoting myself to it either.
Firstly, thank you for the kind words.
Secondly, I'm sorry to hear that you've left Islam because I know that leaving Islam, especially when everyone around you accepts it, can easily result in severe consequences. It's also a pain to pretend to be someone who you're not. Don't worry if you can't get around to responding to what I write. Your health/life is way more important than responding.
Interesting. If the general coming together is measured, then it follows that most people would consider measured interactions as a basis for close friendships. That said, the only possible challenge that I could think of is the probability that i'll enjoy someone with similar experiences. For example, in romantic relationships, opposites attract but they're also the main demographics of divorce. I think people are inadequate; they employ the vast majority of their measured interactions on polar opposites. I think it's probably why I whine alot about my enemies while never mentioning my loyal friends. My enemies are probably polar opposites.
Yeah it makes sense that measured interactions are reserved for closer friends, if they ever get that far.
I know "opposites attract" is a cliché but it isn't completely true with romantic relationships. Interest wise (e.g. attitudes towards political topics), the research shows that similarity draws people together. However, having sexually dimorphic traits is important in these romantic relationships as well, even when couples are the same biological sex. Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com)
I can't remember where I read it, but in general people overestimate other people's agreement with them (probably because people would rather lie in agreement than cause a stir in disagreement). So, applying measured interactions to people who don't like them happens quite a fair bit, so yeah people are "inadequate" like that.
Perhaps, I do think that I agree with the fact that facial attractiveness is a determining factor for most people. There's also attraction on wealth (for most women and some men) and attraction on bodies (for most men and some women). Plus, if a country is currently undergoing an economic crisis, I think people won't read economic journals; they'll just read newspaper opinions. Yeah, I guess you're right.
Yes, wealth is attractive to people, particularly women.
People tend to read opinions anyway, rather than journals, and if they do read the journal, they've usually already made up their mind and only read the abstract to confirm their bias. Economic ones are somewhat hard to read, to be fair.
Ok. I understand. I'm assuming that you're referring to sociology and psychology. Imho, Soft sciences are still scientifically valid and reliable, despite what some observers would say.
They were mostly sociology but some of them were in the field of biology, wherein it gets remarkably more complicated. Soft sciences tend to produce weaker correlations and never causation, hence their bad wrap.
I think It remains spurious because you're trying to make a cause-and-effect from a correlational study. Well, i think I really should've read your sources now that I've read your reply. I should follow a more determined work ethic. Ugh.
Across more than half-a-dozen studies, I think I've shown that similarity is important in people's choosing of social groups. I agree that it's not *the only* cause of the relationships, but it consistently plays apart across varying social formations. I haven't argued causation.
9 days later
-->
@Mesmer
I managed to read your referenced ideas and Data WordPress.
As I understand it, the Catholic church had been discouraging cousin marriages since medieval times. I observed that the blog makes a claim that IQs are generally higher in Catholics due to the 92% reduction in cousin marriages. I agree that Islam's support for cousin marriages inevitably lowers the IQ of Arabs as seen through the "gaps"(whatever they may be) in the studies. Im still confused, the blog makes a big deal of people preferring extended kin, but then references the Catholic church's longstanding crusade against marriages between relatives. Relatives are similar; if the claim is that people prefer similar values, then it would follow that they'd still marry their relatives in spite of the Church's directive.
I'm guessing for the Catholic church, genetic dispositions matter little in the grand scheme of things. After all, they're told to avoid 4th cousins. I think the argument that we prefer similarities seems to shift from the naturalistic claim that instead of marrying genetically similar individuals, people will be more predisposed to context-dependent cues. I think the latter is more sensible than the former.
The possibilities of language are infinite. The possibilities of experience are infinite. It thus follows that people marry not according to similarities, but rather their collected perception of their spouses at any given time. I mean, cosmetically, people rank races and consider some race more attractive than others. For example, Indonesians consider Chinese to be more attractive than their own Buginese counterparts. I maintain that these are context dependent. I'm pretty sure the Arabs have their own context-dependent preferences that exempts Yellow,Black and White people.
As I understand it, the Catholic church had been discouraging cousin marriages since medieval times. I observed that the blog makes a claim that IQs are generally higher in Catholics due to the 92% reduction in cousin marriages. I agree that Islam's support for cousin marriages inevitably lowers the IQ of Arabs as seen through the "gaps"(whatever they may be) in the studies. Im still confused, the blog makes a big deal of people preferring extended kin, but then references the Catholic church's longstanding crusade against marriages between relatives. Relatives are similar; if the claim is that people prefer similar values, then it would follow that they'd still marry their relatives in spite of the Church's directive.
I'm guessing for the Catholic church, genetic dispositions matter little in the grand scheme of things. After all, they're told to avoid 4th cousins. I think the argument that we prefer similarities seems to shift from the naturalistic claim that instead of marrying genetically similar individuals, people will be more predisposed to context-dependent cues. I think the latter is more sensible than the former.
The possibilities of language are infinite. The possibilities of experience are infinite. It thus follows that people marry not according to similarities, but rather their collected perception of their spouses at any given time. I mean, cosmetically, people rank races and consider some race more attractive than others. For example, Indonesians consider Chinese to be more attractive than their own Buginese counterparts. I maintain that these are context dependent. I'm pretty sure the Arabs have their own context-dependent preferences that exempts Yellow,Black and White people.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I managed to read your referenced ideas and Data WordPress.
Great :D
As I understand it, the Catholic church had been discouraging cousin marriages since medieval times. I observed that the blog makes a claim that IQs are generally higher in Catholics due to the 92% reduction in cousin marriages. I agree that Islam's support for cousin marriages inevitably lowers the IQ of Arabs as seen through the "gaps"(whatever they may be) in the studies. Im still confused, the blog makes a big deal of people preferring extended kin, but then references the Catholic church's longstanding crusade against marriages between relatives. Relatives are similar; if the claim is that people prefer similar values, then it would follow that they'd still marry their relatives in spite of the Church's directive.
The genes involved in religiosity are kinda at odds with reproductive genes, so they seemed to have developed some nuance. People are still picking partners based on similarity, but too much similarity in certain areas is a turn-off. Evolution wouldn't have selected for people who tried to breed with cousins/sisters/brothers because those children are more likely to have health issues, and so they were slowly weeded out of the mix. In particular, breeding with others who have similar immune systems is asking for health problems. So, the nuanced view is that whilst people generally go for people who have similar DNA to them they'll go for people who have *different* immune systems and other different things that prevent health issues Genes matter: People marry mates with similar DNA but different immune systems | Genetic Literacy Project .
I'm guessing for the Catholic church, genetic dispositions matter little in the grand scheme of things. After all, they're told to avoid 4th cousins. I think the argument that we prefer similarities seems to shift from the naturalistic claim that instead of marrying genetically similar individuals, people will be more predisposed to context-dependent cues. I think the latter is more sensible than the former.
The nuance should be explained above. People are generally picking others who are genetically similar to them, they just won't do so for facets like immune systems. The Catholic Church reinforced this good idea.
The possibilities of language are infinite. The possibilities of experience are infinite. It thus follows that people marry not according to similarities, but rather their collected perception of their spouses at any given time. I mean, cosmetically, people rank races and consider some race more attractive than others. For example, Indonesians consider Chinese to be more attractive than their own Buginese counterparts. I maintain that these are context dependent. I'm pretty sure the Arabs have their own context-dependent preferences that exempts Yellow,Black and White people.
I'm not sure that the possibilities of language and experience are infinite. There's plenty of them, but I'd say they're finite.
I quoted the studies that showed people pick friendships/marriage/partners based on similarities: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) . So, even if there was an effect of "collected perception", the studies show that there is still a similarity effect.
Yes, there seems to be "context dependent" facets. I've never encountered the notion that Indonesians prefer Chinese to their Buginese counterparts, so I won't be able to explain that on the spot (never even been to those countries). Maybe it's women chasing wealth. Maybe it's a cultural perception that lighter skin is better. Maybe it's an out-group bias against their ace. I don't know. Maybe those particular examples are context dependent, but these people will still pick these context-dependent partners based on similarity, sexual attractiveness etc.
-->
@Mesmer
The genes involved in religiosity are kinda at odds with reproductive genes, so they seemed to have developed some nuance. People are still picking partners based on similarity, but too much similarity in certain areas is a turn-off. Evolution wouldn't have selected for people...the nuanced view is that whilst people generally go for people who have similar DNA to them they'll go for people who have *different* immune systems and other different things that prevent health issues......The nuance should be explained above. People are generally picking others who are genetically similar to them, they just won't do so for facets like immune systems. The Catholic Church reinforced this good idea.Genes matter: People marry mates with similar DNA but different immune systems | Genetic Literacy Project
I think the nuance you mentioned seemed to have a positive effect on western society as a whole. I could only think of one problem: wasn't there a royal family in the west who loved inbreeding? I'm not a big fan of monarch type governments so I don't know much but I believe this is a counter-example. Regardless, I think people are susceptible to manipulation. I'd grant that they would marry according to similarities with exceptions given to certain factors. And, whenever there are counter-examples in the form of personality opposites, I'd like to think that although they do attract each other because of their polarizing differences, I predict that these couples will inevitably end in divorces. Additionally, it makes sense that people marry with as much similarities as possible, so long as their immune systems do not end up disadvantaging them.
I'm not sure that the possibilities of language and experience are infinite. There's plenty of them, but I'd say they're finite...
Milton wrote that the Angel Gabriel had to delineate the ideas of heaven and hell according to human experiences. In other words, it's impossible for humans to fully understand what it means for Satan to rebel because human capability is limited. I'm not talking about realms beyond experience.
I'm talking about realms within experience. Largely, they're predictable but the amount of randomness would still make it infinite. Aristotle believed that slavery was a permanent part of human nature, because every nation neighboring with greece used slavery. To date, I think nobody believes in slavery anymore unless the person is an anonymous troll in the internet. Unique experiences exist and I believe that these unique experiences make experiences infinite. My honest opinion.
I've never encountered the notion that Indonesians prefer...
Well, I don't believe my whole reply to this point would be particularly useful but I'll write my honest opinion anyway. I believe there is a hierarchy of attraction. Western countries with plenty of diversity would still prefer caucasian partners in most cases. Im just throwing darts at a board because I don't really know; I'm just speculating. I feel like I've exhausted all of my insights, but at least, even though my particular point on attraction may sound dumb, at least I wrote it as honest as I can make it.
For indonesians, we don't see caucasians often, unless you're the son of a rich general. So largely, normal Indonesians settle for the next best thing: the Chinese.
Personally, I think males rating attraction solely in terms of looks are equally stupid as female gold diggers. I mean, girls should really stop conflating wealth with personality and guys should really stop conflating looks with personality. My opinion.
Maybe those particular examples are context dependent, but these people will still pick these context-dependent partners based on similarity, sexual attractiveness etc.
I think this is a fascinating sentence. I had wondered how to make a good sentence that summarizes all of my ideas but I guess yours would do fine.
I think the nuance you mentioned seemed to have a positive effect on western society as a whole. I could only think of one problem: wasn't there a royal family in the west who loved inbreeding? I'm not a big fan of monarch type governments so I don't know much but I believe this is a counter-example. Regardless, I think people are susceptible to manipulation. I'd grant that they would marry according to similarities with exceptions given to certain factors. And, whenever there are counter-examples in the form of personality opposites, I'd like to think that although they do attract each other because of their polarizing differences, I predict that these couples will inevitably end in divorces. Additionally, it makes sense that people marry with as much similarities as possible, so long as their immune systems do not end up disadvantaging them.
I guess the royal family was the exception. I'm not convinced that the Catholic Church fully understood why inbreeding was a bad idea, although I'm not exactly sure when and how they decided it was. Maybe they came to implicitly understand that inbreeding was a bad idea, without being able to explicitly explain why. All I know is that they imposed rules against it and societies started to flourish.
I agree with everything else you wrote.
Milton wrote that the Angel Gabriel had to delineate the ideas of heaven and hell according to human experiences. In other words, it's impossible for humans to fully understand what it means for Satan to rebel because human capability is limited. I'm not talking about realms beyond experience.I'm talking about realms within experience. Largely, they're predictable but the amount of randomness would still make it infinite. Aristotle believed that slavery was a permanent part of human nature, because every nation neighboring with greece used slavery. To date, I think nobody believes in slavery anymore unless the person is an anonymous troll in the internet. Unique experiences exist and I believe that these unique experiences make experiences infinite. My honest opinion.
I can agree that the odd thing is unpredictable and that some experiences are unique. Aristotle couldn't predict the end of slavery, as most people in the 1800s couldn't predict mobile phones or computers, despite them being less than 200 years away. I think people get carried away with their egos when they try to predict the future.
But that isn't the same as saying the possibilities are infinite. Rather, it's just the human experience being too limited (at the moment) to understand everything. There's a finite amount of chemicals and possible chemical interactions that can happen, even if that number is beyond human comprehension.
Well, I don't believe my whole reply to this point would be particularly useful but I'll write my honest opinion anyway. I believe there is a hierarchy of attraction. Western countries with plenty of diversity would still prefer caucasian partners in most cases. Im just throwing darts at a board because I don't really know; I'm just speculating. I feel like I've exhausted all of my insights, but at least, even though my particular point on attraction may sound dumb, at least I wrote it as honest as I can make it.For indonesians, we don't see caucasians often, unless you're the son of a rich general. So largely, normal Indonesians settle for the next best thing: the Chinese.Personally, I think males rating attraction solely in terms of looks are equally stupid as female gold diggers. I mean, girls should really stop conflating wealth with personality and guys should really stop conflating looks with personality. My opinion.
It's a bit hard to find data specifically on only Western countries, but dating apps have provided plenty of data based on race, albeit some of the data is old 7 (Surprising) Online Dating Race Statistics (datingadvice.com):
- As of around 2010, Facebook's dating app showed that White men were the most sought after by women (except Black women). Surprisingly, Asian women were generally the most sought after by men good-responserates.jpg (588×300) (datingadvice.com)
- A 2009 Okay Cupid data dump showed that again, Asian women were the most sought after by men okcupidmatch2.png (588×300) (datingadvice.com)
- Data collected from 2008-2014 from Okay Cupid showed that 35% of people (in 2014) preferred to date only people of their own race, although that number had dropped from 42% in 2008
- In 2014, a bit under 4% of people thought interracial marriage was a bad idea
Based on that data, it's not ridiculous to argue that (1) Western countries have more White people than any other race, (2) therefore, because 35% of people prefer to date their own race, and because most women prefer White men, it's plausible that White people are the preferred date in the Western dating market
There's also theories that argue certain phenotypic traits of races are objectively more attractive, although data for this line of argument is far rarer (likely because it's currently taboo for its "racist" vibes). There's this video that briefly touches on those phenotypic traits, but goes more into the dating statistical likelihoods of various races: WAW3c: Hwīte Men Have The Highest Snuggle Market Value - YouTube
As for your comment about Indonesia, I don't know Indonesia very well, so I don't think I can comment.
As for males rating attraction in terms of solely looks, yes that's stupid, but looks are by far the most important factor in terms of dating/marriage. As for women being gold diggers, I'm not sure there are many people who will defend gold diggers lol. Gold diggers are purely exploitative and men have to be very desperate/lonely to have anything to do with them.
I think this is a fascinating sentence. I had wondered how to make a good sentence that summarizes all of my ideas but I guess yours would do fine.
:)
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Forgot to address the above to you :)
-->
@Mesmer
...but that isn't the same as saying the possibilities are infinite. Rather, it's just the human experience being too limited (at the moment) to understand everything. There's a finite amount of chemicals and possible chemical interactions that can happen, even if that number is beyond human comprehension.
Fair enough. Ive read Hume's theory of Probability, but I have just been informed by scholars that Hume did not adequately read Newtonian Physics. I thought I was onto something very grand in Humean probability but unfortunately, I wasted my time. I despise Hume for not reading enough. I think my level of mathematical comprehension is about the same as Hume: it's pre-Newton. I'm afraid I don't possess much insights in that area. Whatever, Ill read Newton some other day but probability is pretty boring.
It's a bit hard to find data specifically on only Western countries, but dating apps have provided plenty of data based on race, albeit some of the data is old...
Huh, I think that your sources mentioned that there are social problems with race preferences. I disagree with her statement but that's another topic for another time. I do believe people are free to like what they see. Fetishizing men/women on race is not a problem imho.
As for your comment about Indonesia, I don't know Indonesia very well, so I don't think I can comment.
Buginese women tend to criticize and whine about my habits. In other words, they criticize my way of life. For example, if I read a lot, they tend to whine about how I should go outside. In contrast, Chinese women are materialistic, so they're more concerned with making complaints about why I'm not making enough money. I don't mind complaints (people have to socialize) but I highly prefer chinese women over malay women. Their complaints are free of personal attacks, unlike malay women. The same applies to the opposite sex, Chinese men are most desirable to the average malay women. Of course, this is my logical way of approaching attraction.
As for males rating attraction in terms of solely looks, yes that's stupid, but looks are by far the most important factor in terms of dating/marriage. As for women being gold diggers, I'm not sure there are many people who will defend gold diggers lol. Gold diggers are purely exploitative and men have to be very desperate/lonely to have anything to do with them.
Well, I think this is a consequence of seeing love in a very logical way. I can't glean your whole perspective, but I do want to take this opportunity that romantic relationships seen in this manner are completely stupid. Love's not meant to be logical.
For example,
People marrying bums with no money but have the looks? That's idiotic imho.
I think the catchy phrase among dreamers that "love should be without impressions" is a better idea. Sure, it's a panaceas for the young, but I don't care. I don't think logically like gold-diggers reasoning why they chose a sociopath millionaire or how men reasoning how their pretty retail-worker spouses turned out to be a Hume Scholar. Lol, those are some silly u-turns. Amazing how abritrary reason can be.
My opinion.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Fair enough. Ive read Hume's theory of Probability, but I have just been informed by scholars that Hume did not adequately read Newtonian Physics. I thought I was onto something very grand in Humean probability but unfortunately, I wasted my time. I despise Hume for not reading enough. I think my level of mathematical comprehension is about the same as Hume: it's pre-Newton. I'm afraid I don't possess much insights in that area. Whatever, Ill read Newton some other day but probability is pretty boring.
I don't think you need to read a book to understand this.
If everything in existence involves chemical permutations, then surely there would be a finite number of potential outcomes because you'd eventually run out of new chemical permutations (especially if time is a factor).
Huh, I think that your sources mentioned that there are social problems with race preferences. I disagree with her statement but that's another topic for another time. I do believe people are free to like what they see. Fetishizing men/women on race is not a problem imho.
Well the argument is data driven, so I'd prefer that than pretty much anything else. It's not about fetishes, either. It's about some races being objectively more desirable than others. But that's an uncomfortable conversation to have and so if you don't want to talk about it, then fine.
Buginese women tend to criticize and whine about my habits. In other words, they criticize my way of life. For example, if I read a lot, they tend to whine about how I should go outside. In contrast, Chinese women are materialistic, so they're more concerned with making complaints about why I'm not making enough money. I don't mind complaints (people have to socialize) but I highly prefer chinese women over malay women. Their complaints are free of personal attacks, unlike malay women. The same applies to the opposite sex, Chinese men are most desirable to the average malay women. Of course, this is my logical way of approaching attraction.
Hmm okay.
Well, I think this is a consequence of seeing love in a very logical way. I can't glean your whole perspective, but I do want to take this opportunity that romantic relationships seen in this manner are completely stupid. Love's not meant to be logical.For example,People marrying bums with no money but have the looks? That's idiotic imho.I think the catchy phrase among dreamers that "love should be without impressions" is a better idea. Sure, it's a panaceas for the young, but I don't care. I don't think logically like gold-diggers reasoning why they chose a sociopath millionaire or how men reasoning how their pretty retail-worker spouses turned out to be a Hume Scholar. Lol, those are some silly u-turns. Amazing how abritrary reason can be.My opinion.
People marry poor people with looks a lot imo. It happens a lot with men marrying women, wherein the women works a crappy retail or dead-end job, but she's hot and that is sometimes enough for a guy who is a rich virgin at the age of 30. This is one of the reasons why the average income gap between men and women was 58% in a particular study Do unmarried women face shortages of partners in the US marriage market? (phys.org) . This is compounded by the fact that men don't seem to care all that much if women are "ambitious" (which is a strong correlate for making money) The Ugly Truth of People Decisions in Speed Dating | Kaggle . Anecdotally, the inverse can happen but only if the guy is super hot (like borderline male model or better), or if the women is like 40 and he's 20 (a boytoy).
"Love should be without impressions" is just nonsense that doesn't even attempt to see the reality. People won't give others the time of day if they're not physically attractive enough -- that is easily the most important impression and to ignore it is wildly incorrect. After that, generally, men will eventually stop seeing women if their attitude is crap/bitchy (or if he's a degenerate player), regardless of how hot she is. Generally, women will eventually stop seeing men if there isn't enough money (or in rare cases attempt to sperm-jack him if he's that hot, and then cuck another man). When the initial buzz of "love" lessens, people's personalities, status and money start to get measured, but until that buzz dies, people absolutely will Halo Effect all kinds of positive traits onto their partners, even if those traits do not exist.
-->
@Mesmer
Well, you're wrong about me being uncomfortable. It's just that I think I've overstayed my welcome. From now onwards, my new responses will be selective, not because I don't appreciate where this conversation is going, but i'd rather leave this as a good memory, rather than one that involves endless back-and-forth. I hated chain emails when I was a freshman.
It's not about fetishes, either. It's about some races being objectively more desirable than others. But that's an uncomfortable conversation to have and so if you don't want to talk about it, then fine.
Don't really care, tbh. I care more for the fact that people should be allowed to discriminate who they like. Here's an example where Caucasian sperms are most desired in Brazil:
This is pretty predictable. Even the rich Asian Indonesians, Singaporeans and whatever asian filth had Caucasian spouses and they had them for a reason; it's all similar to Brazil. Whites are mostly desired. There is a saying among buginese that no white man/woman will ever be homeless; that's because they're all married to rich Asians.
People marry poor people with looks a lot imo...anecdotally, the inverse...he's 20 (a boytoy).
Lol. I think that anecdote was hilarious.
Well, people are generally irrational when it comes to love. This isn't the best way to live life; if I'm marrying a retail worker, my kids will be dumb and will never read books. That is a fact I will never accept. I'm not going to marry bums.
Love should be without impressions" is just nonsense that doesn't even attempt to see the reality. People won't give others the time of day if they're not physically attractive enough -- that is easily the most important impression and to ignore it is wildly incorrect. After that, generally, men will eventually stop seeing women if their attitude is crap/bitchy (or if he's a degenerate player), regardless of how hot she is. Generally, women will eventually stop seeing men if there isn't enough money (or in rare cases attempt to sperm-jack him if he's that hot, and then cuck another man). When the initial buzz of "love" lessens, people's personalities, status and money start to get measured, but until that buzz dies, people absolutely will Halo Effect all kinds of positive traits onto their partners, even if those traits do not exist.
I'm seeing how arbitrary logic is when deciding on who to love. I just did mine: I'm not marrying bums without book addictions. I think they're bums for a reason. So, I'm understanding that people have a reason, and they're widespread. However, foreknowledge of expected wide-spread predictions isn't a good enough reason for me to follow it. I think it's not nonsense when love is found against the odds. Cohabitation is a new thing among couples, should I follow that and cohabit with my Chinese gf because everyone's doing it? No. It's an unavoidable fact that people are shallow, but IMHO, it's not a reason to follow it.
Well, in the same manner that people choose looks/money, true love doesn't hold among philosophers; it allows abusers more time to harass their partners. Again, that doesn't mean I have to follow them. These are factors beyond my control, but where I have control over things, I will exert control. The things that I can control includes avoiding any of the pitfalls people fall into. The only logic-based decision I made in relationships is avoiding bums with no real love for knowledge.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Well, you're wrong about me being uncomfortable. It's just that I think I've overstayed my welcome. From now onwards, my new responses will be selective, not because I don't appreciate where this conversation is going, but i'd rather leave this as a good memory, rather than one that involves endless back-and-forth. I hated chain emails when I was a freshman.
Oh no I just meant that people usually find talking about race like that uncomfortable, especially in regards to sexual attraction. I think it's mostly because it bundles together two things the general public seem to enjoy being incorrectly liberal on (race and sexual attraction).
And fair enough about the 'selective' responses thing.
I care more for the fact that people should be allowed to discriminate who they like. Here's an example where Caucasian sperms are most desired in Brazil:This is pretty predictable. Even the rich Asian Indonesians, Singaporeans and whatever asian filth had Caucasian spouses and they had them for a reason; it's all similar to Brazil. Whites are mostly desired. There is a saying among buginese that no white man/woman will ever be homeless; that's because they're all married to rich Asians.
I pretty much agree with all of this.
As to how much of this is a result of Whites being genetically more attractive (due to phenotypic traits I'm guessing, as opposed to mere skin skin), compared to environmental forces that make Whites more desirable (maybe seen as having more money), is something I haven't seen quantified and would like to see quantified.
Lol. I think that anecdote was hilarious.Well, people are generally irrational when it comes to love. This isn't the best way to live life; if I'm marrying a retail worker, my kids will be dumb and will never read books. That is a fact I will never accept. I'm not going to marry bums.
:)
Well retail workers aren't necessarily dumb because IQ and job don't correlate too highly. They're more likely to be dumb for sure, but there should be plenty of smart (usually young) female retail workers juggling uni/highschool studies, or ones who simply can't be bothered to have a proper career despite being capable of it because they'd rather work less hours.
I'm seeing how arbitrary logic is when deciding on who to love. I just did mine: I'm not marrying bums without book addictions. I think they're bums for a reason. So, I'm understanding that people have a reason, and they're widespread. However, foreknowledge of expected wide-spread predictions isn't a good enough reason for me to follow it. I think it's not nonsense when love is found against the odds. Cohabitation is a new thing among couples, should I follow that and cohabit with my Chinese gf because everyone's doing it? No. It's an unavoidable fact that people are shallow, but IMHO, it's not a reason to follow it.
If you're going to rebel against your feelings, you're starting to get into territory that isn't 'love' but rather something far more platonic. You're also going to struggle to generate sexual attraction if you're not going to follow these feelings, because these feelings are a result of sexual attraction.
It would be like you marrying a horrendously overweight woman who is 3'10 and 300 lbs. Yes, she's a great cook, an esteemed mechanical engineer and has a love for knowledge, but would you really ignore her physically revolting body for the rest of your life, just because there's "not a reason to follow [the shallowness]?"
Well, in the same manner that people choose looks/money, true love doesn't hold among philosophers; it allows abusers more time to harass their partners. Again, that doesn't mean I have to follow them. These are factors beyond my control, but where I have control over things, I will exert control. The things that I can control includes avoiding any of the pitfalls people fall into. The only logic-based decision I made in relationships is avoiding bums with no real love for knowledge.
I don't think the average person is capable of such discipline. Hell, I'm not even sure if anyone can do this.
But if you can hold out against a woman who doesn't have a love for knowledge, but has a smoking hot body with a pleasant personality who is heavily into you, I'd be amazed.