site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 10112 results for

domain:natesilver.net

To give without restraint does not warrant taking without restraint; that should be obvious to anyone without terminal legalism of the brain. Retvrnist rightwingers don't get this when they harp on about marital rights this and women are property that. You sound like women who think that just because their husband has pledged his provision and protection, they can drain his savings on stupid shit or pick a fight with 15 thugs on his behalf just so she can feel protected. Now, you haven't said you want to fuck your wife literally whenever, regardless of sickness/pain/sleep/unwashedness of dick, and maybe you don't. The hyperfocus on muh marital rights certainly gives that impression off.

If you want to be Muslims then I don't see any difference between being replaced by Muslims and becoming like them. I prefer us being better or perish trying.

It’s not though. A universe containing non physical things could very easily contain organisms with wholly genetically determined intelligence. They just don’t have anything to do with one another.

Imagine a purely material universe with species A that is intelligent and has its intelligence completely determined by genetics. Now imagine that one day in that universe species B evolves and has souls (just an example of non physical things, it could be anything you like that is non physical). Nothing has changed for species A, they are still genetically determined.

Yeah, there's seems a pretty weird mix of 'awkward substitutions that probably should just wait for an Amazon delivery instead' (worchestershire sauce), 'not exactly traditional but workable' (fresh chili, green onions, arguably ginger), 'could work as a stir fry, but stretching the limit from americanizing to just bastardizing' (ketchup, that much sugar) and 'what the actual fuck' (breaking the noodles, olive oil, boiling them before pan cooking).

To be fair, he doesn't seem to promoting it as a traditional pad thai and a few other recipes include pretty bastardized versions, too (cacio e pepe e boullion?).

Maybe “vocation” would be a suitable term here?

What could possibly be not "mechanistic paradigm" yet not be souls either?

Practically speaking, what I’ve found works is pretty simple: make sure she gets enough rest, provide ordinary and regular affection, and (this is the big one) start warming her up WELL in advance. Get a little more touchy, flirty, make it obvious what you want, and that it’s her, but don’t demand it right then.

Later on, when it’s a better time, she’ll remember.

So... even though the twin studies can't really be proven, despite two decades of intensive, worldwide research focus and ungodly amounts of funding, he still argues they are "mostly right."

Because he goes through the potential mistakes twin studies could be making and convincingly dismisses them all. The only likely source of error would be assortive mating, which would be under estimating genetic impact. If you have an alternative explanation of what mistake the twin studies could be making and how they could correct for it, I'd love to hear

That was part of the religious rules, yes. Before the modern concept of martial "rape", a man was entitled to take his marital rights from his wife. Consent didn't enter into it; she gave consent when she agreed to marry him, and such was irrevocable.

This is an absolutely essential part of the marriage bargain. Sex is the payment that a man receives for supporting and protecting his wife. Saying that a wife has the right to, at any time, stop providing that payment because she does not feel like it, is ridiculous. Doubly so because the typical man disgusts the typical woman, which means any society where the majority of men get married is a society where the wives are laying back and thinking of England, and will stop performing this unpleasant chore at the first opportunity.

To help conceptualize the absurdity, imagine a pro-worker's rights party in government passing a law that an employee is at any time entitled to stop doing useful tasks for a company, but that the company is legally obligated to continue paying that employee his full salary. Oh, and at any time the employee can decide to quit and receive half of the company's assets. What happens to the employment market in such an scenario? Solve for the equilibrium.

Societies which abide by the zeroth commandment cannot survive. Either we get our heads out of our asses about this, or, more likely, we get replaced by a culture that still understands how marriage works, like Muslims (or, more likely still, AI makes all of this irrelevant, but I have never liked "run for the singularity" as an exit strategy).

Okay, mea culpa!

LOL, not even close. I'm suggesting that biology is stuck in a mechanistic paradigm and needs to move beyond it to make progress. I'm not saying this "proves souls" or anything whacky, though I doubt we would be in the same ballpark of what we think "souls" are.

is to make it so that you can have as much sex with your wife as you want, consent be damned, legally

Which is why this was the historical norm in the first place.

Divorce meaning the man loses most of their assets is, quite literally, a pension plan for when a sex worker has had enough of the job. That this means they're grossly overpaid and encouraged to retire that way is a problem not unique to sex workers, but it does come from the same philosophical place as other pension systems do.

In what way is a beehive "male-created"?

The fundemental problem the hereditarians face is that thier entire edifice rests on an assumption that biology, psychology, and anthropology are not only rigourous and mechanisistic, but sufficiently understood that outcomes can be manipulated in a near deterministic manner. This is manifestly not the case.

Sure biology may be more rigorous than psychology which is in turn more rigourous than anthropology, but none of them are even in the same zip code (much less the same ballpark) as electrical engineering.

Fair enough. If I'm accused of seducing women via lies and deception, it's a charge I'd strongly rebut. If I'm accused of having had sex with women I had no interest in pursuing a serious romantic relationship with - guilty as charged.

The only historical precedent which has to do with natural children is the legal presumption that a woman's husband is the father of her children, absent other evidence.

What do you make of prohibitions on marriage between sufficiently close relatives? ...what do you make of exceptions to those prohibitions when one of the two individuals could demonstrate that they were sterile?

Wish I could utterly root and de-bloat and de-spyware my samsung android phone, but I think I need it bloated for bank apps to function.

I always found it strange for activists to complain about emotional labour (rather than simply describing it neutrally). I mean sure, most emotional-labour heavy jobs are predominantly female, but that's because those are the jobs women want. A woman doesn't become a nurse because she likes changing bedpans, she becomes a nurse because she likes caring for people. The emotional labour is the main appeal of the job.

The fb-word is a slur and offensive to the community of men experiencing relationship expectation mismatches with women, demeaning the challenges they face in their lived experiences and further entrenching casual misandry. *crosses arms and turns away*

There’s a motte-and-bailey. If asked to define fuckboy, I suspect chicks would say something along the lines of what you described: A guy who obtained or obtains sex by lies and/or deception. However, in practice they extend it to any guy who merely banged them without unilaterally preregistering a guarantee of commitment and no commitment ensuing thereafter (shocked pikachu).

Thus resulting in ex-post hoe maddening. principal_skinner.jpg: “Is it possible I have some accountability in the matter? No, it’s the men who are evil.”

“wife-selling” was a well-known Anglo practice of soft divorce

wat

Any man who must say "I am the king" is no true king.

a male-created space, dominated by women, that the males don't even get to stay in

Seems like a perfect metaphor to me.

The former is a foundational axiom of the latter. People latch on to genetic determinism as "obvious" and "true" because they reject the validity of non-material/non-quantifiable explanations.

Or in other words, more proficient [sex] workers tend to end up with more lucrative exclusivity agreements.

Which is why it's understandable that a generation of people who just take being well-off/stable for granted will deny this dynamic exists.

Women who treat them as jobs are otherwise known as gold diggers(barely more positive connotation than the word it rhymes with) or trophy wives(neutral connotation), and most of these women have a high but not above a normal upper class standard of living because rich husbands put their much younger wives on allowances and make them sign prenups and all that.

Women who treat them as investments are the ones who come out ahead, and this is the historical attitude you’re referencing.