I never called women bad. I said in the beginning it's not their fault to be attracted to alphas. Just as it is not men's fault to be attractive to young women. It's nature. As Fates-Blade-900 has just pointed out, it forces betas to better themselves. Competition improves gen material and men favoring young women increases the chances of healthy offspring. Both things are positive.Calling all members of one gender "bad" doesn't change any of that. The Internet has changed a lot of how we view things, I think.
As a woman it's your "job" or more correctly: It is in your best interest to find out which men are dangerous for you. Bad alphas might toss you aside after having slept with you. Bad betas might stalk you after the break-up or become violent.Speaking personally, a lot of what scares me about dating is running into people who see me as "lesser", or people that might seriously harm me just because "all women are bad".
Aye, that's the point I was trying to make. you're saying if there's a population of women being taller than men, it must be because of a lack of nutrition of the women. That's the unfortunately large leap I'm suggesting not to take. Could simply be a trait pressured by a isolated group, a cultural pressure. Or something else. Point is, all the data tells you is what the data tells you. To assume the why and how without testing is making a leap not available in the data. That part is a guess and has to be tested directly.Okay, so you are not hopeless case in terms of discussing differences. Thank you.
The caveat about women could be taller than men in some populations is unnecessary. It would only be possible in a population in which men starve while women get proper nutrition. We could also take always George Clooneys money and force him to crawl on his knees all day (then he wouldn't be an alpha anymore). Why would we waste time on these scenarios? Do you think I'm not intelligent enough to imagine outlandish caveats?
The fact or possibility that there is no average woman or men in terms of height (down to the 1/100 of a millimeter) does not negate the statement (I don't care if he/she exists, the average is something else).
You're right.men *on average* tend to be taller than females. Which means in terms of raw numbers, there will be a larger total number of men that are taller than X height when compared to the larger total number of women taller than X height. Or you could total everyone's height and say men are taller than women on average, but that average isn't any single person. Point is, if you're going to use statistics to prove a point, you have to make sure the statistics are saying what you're thinking they're saying. For height, it's incredibly important proper nutrition and various genetics are taken into account. For instance, in some populations, women may be equal in height to men on average, others the difference may be larger in one way or the other. You have to know what's being measured or it doesn't actually support what you think it does. statistics tend to only help illuminate one thing, and only a professional can translate that into understandable English. those who are less professional make massive leaps in guesswork to say the data actually says all these other things when they don't. It's the difference between someone who understands science and someone who has an agenda.
Alphas and betas aren't anything we see in nature, not in the way you're presenting them. They're certainly not a thing in regards to the selfish gene. It's a good book, you should read it. It's where the term "meme" comes from. Anyway, Alpha/beta is completely a social construct, which you could impose on a group...but it's not a very successful way to see things. It doesn't really answer most questions, and it unnecessarily plops people into categories they don't really fit into. Instead of the unnecessary categories, just think of it as down to personal preference and fulfilling personal needs. It might be better to think of it as what're someone's goals, what're their emotional maturity level (EQ), what're their abilities to communicate like, and what're their perceptions of the situation. You'll find when you ask those questions, you'll find your categories evaporating into uselessness.
It sounds like you have a vague grasp of older genetic thinking, put through the distorting and misrepresentative red-pill filter, and attached your own personal biases to come up with this...hypothesis. The genetical thinking you're relying on doesn't actually say what you think you're saying, and we've come a long long way since the actual scientific bits you're relying on were presented. If you wish to have a proper understanding, I'd suggest you stick to just books like the selfish gene and proper scientifically researched stuff. Genetics is a fun topic, avoid those who twist it to validate their own insecurities. It's far better to know you don't know than to trick yourself into thinking you know something you don't actually know.
I really hope this thread gets closed cause it sounds like a breeding cestpool of hatred
I'm sorry... when did I ever imply I considered you indecent? I apologize if I genuinely have, people with similar viewpoints have attacked people like me in the past, so maybe accidental hostility jumped out.The fact that you seem to think of me as indecent is rather sad, but I don't care because this is an anonymous forum. Maybe you just read the insults many here flung against me.
Look man, I'm trying not to be rude, but saying that the fall of civilization was caused by giving women the same rights as men, I'm not so sure this statement has much water.I never called women bad. I said in the beginning it's not their fault to be attracted to alphas. Just as it is not men's fault to be attractive to young women.
Well it seems his information is from observation "I'm simply an agent in this world, observing things." Post #42, I think he's talking about his opinion of his observations, or am I wrong?I'm sorry... when did I ever imply I considered you indecent? I apologize if I genuinely have, people with similar viewpoints have attacked people like me in the past, so maybe accidental hostility jumped out.
Look man, I'm trying not to be rude, but saying that the fall of civilization was caused by giving women the same rights as men, I'm not so sure this statement has much water.
You also didn't, uh, tell me where exactly you're getting your statistics from. Regardless of if you tell me or not, I'm wasting my time in this thread and am going to dip.
Maybe you feel offended because civilization has a positive ring to it. As a moral nihilist I do not tell others whether civilization is good or bad. It depends on the perspective. Western civilization has (so far) successfully managed social unrest usually caused by unsatisfied betas. Maybe you define civilization as stability or social progess. As I said in the beginning, I define it as "social justice or communism between men regarding the resource women". If you do think that civilization has something to do with stability, then you must logically accept that a large number of unsatisfied men is a potential powder keg.Look man, I'm trying not to be rude, but saying that the fall of civilization was caused by giving women the same rights as men, I'm not so sure this statement has much water.
This is the funniest thing I've seen on the forums since Valwin, with some luck it will never die. Everyone involved should be very embarrassed, especially those who should know better.I really hope this thread gets closed cause it sounds like a breeding cestpool of hatred
You only need logic and basic knowledge of the world. Just answer the following questions with yes or no.Yeah, I want sources on this
Sources, give me freaking sources!I want to know more about Valwin or his thread.
You only need logic and basic knowledge of the world. Just answer the following questions with yes or no.
A) Do females prefer alpha (i.e. strong, successful) males YES NO
B) Are males ok with having multiple females? YES NO
C) Can alpha males afford to have many sexual partners (at the same time or one after another) YES NO
D) Does monogamy limit the naturally occurring pattern of one men + multiple females YES NO
E) Does monogamy give more men access to women? YES NO
F) Does more men having access to women tame male aggressiveness? YES NO
G) Have we moved away from monogamy in dating and family planning in recent history (let's say decades compared to a hundred or a thousand years ago YES NO
If you answered with yes to each question, we are in agreement. The rest are semantics or emotions.
You sound a bit bitter, are you okey?So if I can't or don't want to find you sources that we revolve around the sun or that men are taller than women, my words mean nothing to you?
My sources are my brain and the world around us. You sound like a Christian fundamentalist: "Where does it say that in scriputre?"
It's a monument to the sillyness of everyone involved that must be preserved in a time capsule for future generations to enjoy.This is beautiful.
You: "Sources, give me freaking sources!"You sound a bit bitter, are you okey?