/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4710483
Whole chapter dedicated to the price of women

http://www.amazon.com/The-Price-Everything-Solving-Mystery/dp/1591843626/

I almost threw up. Fucking slut

god imagine the smell in there

it's true for males. it's better for females to be virgins though, biologically and in nature

>>4710489
What's wrong? Can't handle a strong, independent, feminist woman?

>>4710493
Imagine the smell down there

she must smell like 50 different kinds of dick cheese

>>4710494
Sounds like sexist bullshit to me.

>>4710483
Because monogamy is natural, and most species find one particular mate and stay with them. There are evolutionary reasons for this; it helps if you stay together with them and raise children together.
Raising children by yourself is far more difficult.

It is also healthier, if you stay with just one person, and you know that neither of you have any sexually transmittable diseases, then you are sexually isolated as a pair, and not at risk of infection from anybody else.

If you choose to stay with one person, then clearly they are special to you. Polygamous people are not as picky, and do not know the true value of a soulmate.

because of the roman catholic church

Because all the women would flock to the preferable males, leaving a lot of single men. Single men is bad news because if a man wants some pussy, he's going to get some pussy, whether the girls let him or not.
tl;dr single faggots will rape a lot.

>>4710501
No.
Notice all of the condoms?

>>4710507
Nature is sexist.

>>4710523
You are implying that all men are potential rapists.
This is not true, most men are batter than that, and rapists are extremely rare.

>>4710525
>Implying stinky dicks dont make condoms stinky

>>4710532
Only on the inside. They are not permeable, that is the point.

>>4710531
Of course not all men, but there are way more beta men than alphas.

>>4710523
During humanities evolution only favorable males survived. Life for the male consisted of hunting and fighting, and many of them died. Only the best survived, and had plenty of females to choose from. Polygamy was more common in history than monogamy, which came about as a result of humanity becoming centered around agriculture. But even then the rich and powerful would marry multiple women, and when/where religion made that impossible, they would keep one wife and still have consorts, concubines, and mistresses.

Biologically, males are supposed to have multiple females, and their sexuality reflects that.

Females are supposed to become attached to and serve one male. And they are attracted to violent men even today, because they possess the traits evolution taught them to be attracted to.

>>4710545
Actually the most likely cause of monogamy is rising standards of living. When you can barely provide for yourself, it's clear there will be polygamy. But when everyone can care for themselves and then some, the rest of the dicks want their own pussy.

Disgusting whore.

>>4710531
All men are potential rapists, just like they're potential murderers. Civilization domesticates us, and only those with little self control or the power to evade the legal consequences do it.

But put men, any men, in uniform and send them to war, and their true nature will wake up.

>>4710548
Yet those who enjoy a higher standard of living enjoy multiple women, and the rest are lucky to have one.

Polygamy would be a good strategy when woman don't give a shit whether the man sticks around to raise the kid. Since females invest a lot of time and energy in a foetus, you would expect them to only mate with males who would stick around and father the child. So you've got two competing forces, male polygamy, female monogamy. Maybe monogamy is the best strategy, better 2/3 offspring with one partner than 0 with many partners.

>>4710501
more than that
There are 133 condoms but some pictures are repeated.

Protip: That's more or less how many times a "healthy" female has sex before the age of 25 (about 150 times) with 10+ sexual partners.
Let me remind you that nowadays 1/3 girls lose their virginity before 14 and only 1/10 is still a virgin at her 18th birthday.

>>4710537
And beta men usually do not rape; they would lack the confidence to, I think.

>>4710483
We restrict ourselves to monogamy?
I thought that was just like.. *wink wink* "mono"gamy, and get away with what you can on the side.

> I must have missed the memo

>>4710563
Most women have not had 10 partners by the time they are 25, and I think that 150 times in total is definitely an underestimate.
If a woman starts at 18, that is 7 years.

That means she is having sex less than twice a month.
Very innaccurate.

>>4710565
Sexual frustration is a powerful force. But it can be cancelled out by the instinct for self-preservation.

>>4710574
We are as much restricting ourselves to monogamy as we are restricting ourselves from killing. We say we'll stick to it but we don't really mean to, when it's out of sight we don't really care, makes us feel warm and fuzzy about oursleves while we're killing and cheating.

>Remember, drugs are bad for you now go take your ritalin and coffee so you can pay attention.

>>4710578
>implying that a girl is never single
Are you really that slutty? Once you break up you find the nearest cock to suck?

>>4710591
she's british so yeah, no morals

>>4710578
>>4710591

If we're going to compare unsourced opinions on male/female sexualities, to make it scientific I suggest examining the Yule-Simpson effect as it applies to male/female sexual frequency trends compared to bisexuals.

Sound agreeable?

>>4710578
never been married, eh

God, /sci/ is so fucking retarded...

>>4710563
You're bullshitting. Your statistics are bullshit. You shouldn't do that, not on /sci/.

>>4710624
You are such a gentleman and a scholar.

>>4710591
No, sorry, that is not what I meant. I do not do that.
I would expect most people that age to be in a relationship most of the time, though.

>>4710611
No, not yet.

>>4710594

>>4710483
>dat picture

Both sexes gain from having a monogamous partner while being polygamous themselves. (having someone else take care of the child while you are away getting some poon is good).

>>4710594
You should not be racist.
And I do have morals; I am a very moral person.

If the Queen ordered you to lick her ass, would you do it Harriet?

>>4710657
How does one gain from being polygamous? It is dishonest and immoral. Why be with anybody else if you can be with the person you love?

>see thread
>hoping for a scientific/analytic approach to polyamory, insight from people who practice polyamory, etc

>get this nonsense

>>4710483
Actually we should start sterilizing people at an early age in some way that is reversible later on, because there are already too damned many humans on this planet.

>>4710661
Of course not, the Queen does not have that sort of power, and she would never ask anything like that.
I would quite like to meet her though.

>>4710663
>insight from people who practice polyamory, etc
I would not call it 'insight'.
I think that they just do what they like, and do not care about the long-term consequences.

>>4710662
>How does one gain from being polygamous? It is dishonest and immoral.
That's retarded:
>How does one gain from stealing? It is dishonest and immoral.
Just 'cuz something is wrong, doesn't mean you can't gain from it.
Very simply put: You gain more fucking.
Now, I don't do it, just like I don't steal. But the motives do exist.

>>4710668
But how do you even gain more? If you are monogamous and in a relationship then it is available whenever you like.

To use your analogy, it is like owning a shop that you are able to steal from anytime, so why go out stealing from other shops?

>>4710667
What long term consequences? People practice polygamy all over the world, and they don't seem to have any problems with it.

>>4710662
This has got to be a troll.

Someone's "dishonest and immoral" isn't another person's. As long as all parties are in consent and agreement, what's the problem?

Polyamory can actually eliminate the jealous tendencies that come with a monogamous relationship.

>>4710624
sorry for not providing statistically objective data, mister.
>more or less
>about 150
>10+
I've only asked a few of my female friends. One of them is 15 years old and had sexual relationships(she didn't want to say what) with 4 different guys, another is 19 and had 3 partners but she can't even count(?stupid bitch) the number of 1 night stands. Both of them say their friends are way sluttier then her(fucking 2 guys in the same night and other crazy shit).

tl;dr: bitches & whores (and yes, I am a little bit bitter begauss I'm a virgin at 20)

>>4710672
The point of propagating the idea of promiscuous sex is that people will have less kids, since people don't want to have kids in those sort of relationships.

>>4710674
They never truly know love; it is all just pointless self-indulgence.

>>4710685
What is love? Can you define it? How do you know it even exists as you abstract it?

>>4710675
Maybe you do not have a problem with it, but most people do find cheating to be immoral.

>>4710690
Do you not know?
It is an emotion; a feeling.

>polygamy
>monogamy
I don't see the point of this thread in a place where everyone knows:
>that feel when no gf

>>471066
it was biologically speaking. goes for all/most species

polygamy = more sex = more kids = polygamous-genes are spread accross the world

>>4710697

was meant for
>>4710662

>>4710695
I'm not the guy you're responding to. But can you define these terms?

>>4710489
It's an art photo.
Look at the faces, there are duplicates

Chimps have bigger testicles than humans and gorillas, chimps have big balls because they are completely unfaithful and males go around fucking any female they can find. Gorrillas have smaller testicles than humans because they are completely faithful to a single partner in their lives and don't need as much sperm production. Humans are in the middle as the reality is humans aren't completely monogomous, as any soap opera will show you. Monogamy is popular amongst humans probably because we have shaped our world into a safer one for us so its no longer better for gene survival to have many children with multiple partners and so its better to have a small number of children with a tight and stable monogomous relationship.

>>4710695
I don't think you understand what is the point of a definitions and you probably isn't capable of abstracting things in a deeper way. I am leaving this discussion because there is no point in wasting my time, have a good day.

>>4710721
> women never sleep with the same man more than once

>>4710703
emotion: The noticing of something positively or negatively out of the ordinary from habitual and/or almost unconsious drone-like daily behavior.

feeling: The conscious expression of this abnormality; men occasionally show feelings to make women feel like they are in touch with them, because the practice gets them more sex with more women if done strategically.

>>4710741
Actually the question was directed at Harriet. But now that you answered it, all you did is raising a lot more questions.

>emotion: The noticing of something positively or negatively out of the ordinary from habitual and/or almost unconsious drone-like daily behavior.
What is "something"? What is "positive" or "negative"? How do you objectively measure those? What is "unconscious"?

>feeling: The conscious expression of this abnormality; men occasionally show feelings to make women feel like they are in touch with them, because the practice gets them more sex with more women if done strategically.
You can define feelings via consciousness or via physical expressions. Mixing them up in one definiton won't work.

>>4710741
Those are shallow definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling

>>4710483
'polygamy' specifically means multiple wives.
poly - many
gymy - women

if you're talking about being sexually open in both genders, then the term is 'polyamory'

and i think its just some bullshit christian tradition to be monogamous, dating back to adam and eve, who were 'faithful' to each other (funny, because neither actually really existed)

either works, as long as you're at least getting sex, most people dont mind if its with one person, or many.
i dont see any need to restrict yourself to monogamy, so i personally dont.
i know most people still do, and thats their choice.
each to their own, i guess

>>4710748
ITT: IQ fundie makes us boil everything down to what is truth... again.

>>4710703
You do not have a dictionary online?
I think you are fully aware what an emotion is, and I am not in the mood to be trolled today, thankyou.

>>4710514
'soulmates' dont really exist, dumass.

>>4710751
>gymy - women

He wasn't saying "polygyny", he was talking about "polygamy", where "gamy" comes from "gamos" which can be translated as "married".

>>4710751
>>4710751
OH SHI- here comes EK with some zoology insight
Abandon thread!!

>>4710754
Is there a resaon to disregard the truth? I don't think so.

>>4710756
I do not troll. Your accusations is baseless. I was asking for the definition, because you were using the terms incorrectly. So I'm not interested in a dictionary definition, but in seeing where your mistake in understanding originates.

>>4710765
What is truth? One thing can only be true in to the eye of a observer, and that requires a context, there is no such thing as absolute truth.

>>4710662
how the FUCK is it 'dishonest and immoral' you stupid bitch!??
>implying you can only love one person
let me make this fucking clear: SOULMATES DONT FUCKING EXIST!

it isnt dishonest, because i was always completely honest about it, and made it clear i was never in a monogamous relationship, and how the fuck is it immoral?? who teh fuck am i hurting??
no1
exactly
so shut up!

>>4710770
Prove to me that there is no absolute truth.

>>4710760
oh yeh, my mistake
thanks 4 the correction

>>4710749
>critcizes poster for putting some thought into the definition
>proceeds to post wikipedia definitions instead of offering a better definition
>calls poster's definitions shallow


>>4710748
>What is "something"? What is "positive" or "negative"? How do you objectively measure those? What is "unconscious"?

Something: A person, place, item or intangible idea which characterizes the surroundings and/or behavior of a given entity

positive: beneficial to the routine survival of an involved observer and their connected environment; inclusive of non-conflicting members of the same species.

negative: connotative inverse of "positive"

>You can define feelings via consciousness or via physical expressions. Mixing them up in one definiton won't work.

I was referring to the act of noticing you have a particular emotion. If you don't know you have the emotion, you aren't feeling it. The physical expression was not exclusive, in fact the mental recognition of feeling is a necessary predecessor to any physical expression thereof.

>>4710775
Show me something that is an absolute truth.

>using biology/nature to justify anything
>naturalistic fallacy
just go live in a zoo if you want to succumb to your baser instincts.

>>4710783
Bam, I knew that was coming.

Everybody sit down get off your ideological high horses.

If you've every watched porn while you were in a relationship, you know everything you're saying right now is lies and aids.

If even so much as a single one of you thinks that your desire to be exclusive AT ALL COSTS is anything but a social construct, you're an idiot.

Biologically, it WAS somewhat valuable to pair bond

(of course the same people who tout this as proof of exclusivity in apes are ironically the same who, also not totally incorrectly, assert that there is an evolutionary reason for women to fuck jerks and surround themselves with nice guys - notice the contradiction)

but there is nothing but horny apes standing between other horny apes having sex with anything that moves

(in fact, the second most social ape- after humans - is the bonobo, which "pair bonds"; a bonobo troupe also has an orgy for pretty much every event that occurs in their society)

Surely, you are welcome and encouraged to have sex primarily with one partner, but it's a valuable social exercise to experiment when in the mood. Moreover, dogmatic refusal to enjoy anybody but your other half is religious at best.

Humans generally do not restrict themselves to monogamy, or rather i shud say, monoamory (one love). Humans are naturally moderately polyamorous.

Me and my girlfriend have sex with other people.
what's the issue? it's just sex.
are you worried that your partner will fall in love with the guy she picked up and fucked.

socially monogamous
sexually polygamous.
don't confuse love with sex.
though sex with someone you love deeply is a lot better than sex with a random person.

>>4710778
You still didn't provide a method of objectively measuring if something is "positive" or "negative".

>If you don't know you have the emotion, you aren't feeling it. The physical expression was not exclusive, in fact the mental recognition of feeling is a necessary predecessor to any physical expression thereof.
This is incorrect. We could hypothetically create a robot to express exactly the same physical signals of emotions but without ever feeling them.

>>4710783
Any tautology is trivially absolutely true.

>>4710778
oops almost missed:

>How do you objectively measure those? What is unconscious"?

they are not objectvely measured, they aresubject to the priorities of the observer.

Unconscious: based off of the sections of the brain which function on pattern-recognition from past behaviors as opposed to the weighted logic and reason of the higher thought processes (not "higher" in an objective sense, but in an evolutionary sense)

>>4710795
I could construct that robot by fecundating you mothers womb.

>>4710514
>Because monogamy is natural, and most species find one particular mate and stay with them.
No, the overwhelming majority of species are not monogamous.
And very few are sexually monogamous - some do enter somewhat of a social contract to care for offspring, but it's rare are they sexually exclusive.

>>4710797
So give me a example of one.

>>4710772
You do not know for certain that their are no soulmates.
Just because you have not found yours does not mean that they do not exist.

>>4710792
No they are not; most people do not cheat.

>>4710809
Oh really? I thought it was fairly common.
I know that penguins mate for life.

>>4710809
In fact, many of the species (particularly birds) that have long been thought of to be monogamous, have turned out, one after another, not to be so. Scientists sterilized the males in the couples, but the females continued to lay fertilized eggs.

Polyamory: 1
Monogamy: 0

>>4710795
>This is incorrect. We could hypothetically create a robot to express exactly the same physical signals of emotions but without ever feeling them

Sadly you cannot make a claim incorrect and claim a hypothesis correct until you can provide evidence contrary to my claim and a falsifiable experiment in support of yours. Thus if you can point me to your robot capable of expressing rage instead of just hitting something I'd be glad to tip my hat to you.

>>4710800
So you want to use subjectivity for a scientific definition? That won't work. Scientific definitions have to be objective and independent of individuals' interpretation.
Your definition of "unconscious" is equally flawed. The evolutionary age of brain structures doesn't say anything about the subjective awareness of processes going on there.

>>4710805
They did --->>>4710797

>>4710802
That wouldn't work. The result would be a human and not a robot.

>>4710805
The post you replied to was already an example.

>>4710797
A tautology depends on logic and the law of identity which you first have to accept.

>>4710822
Humans are robots.

>>4710756
>and I am not in the mood to be trolled today,

When are you in that mood?

>nature is like this or that
>excuses to not be virtuous
stay pleb, hippies

>>4710829
So? It is still given independent of human interpretations.

>>4710819
you don't know shit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamous_pairing_in_animals

"The evolution of mating systems in animals has received an enormous amount of attention from biologists. This section briefly reviews three main findings about the evolution of monogamy in animals.
The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90% of birds engaging in social monogamy while only 3% of mammals were known to do the same.
This list is not complete. Other factors may also contribute to the evolution of social monogamy. Moreover, different sets of factors may explain the evolution of social monogamy in different species. There is no one-size-fits-all explanation of why different species evolved monogamous mating systems."

pay attention to 'only 3% of mammals'

humans pretending to be monogamous aint natural, its religious bullshit.
and what you call 'cheating' is bullshit as well, because for 1 thing, this aint a fucking game, and 2, you're automatically equating polyamory with dishonesty, which totally isnt the case.
you can be totally honest about it. and who cares if people call you a slut for it, because they should mind their own fucking business.

and if there's 'soulmates' then there must be a 'soul' rite?
>>>/x/
get your religious shit out of my fucking /sci/

>>4710824
Give me an example of tautology...

>>4710830
No, they are not.

>>4710836
Fuck being natural, you fucking sociopathic hippie.
go live in a zoo, you whore.


fucking atheist whore

>>4710835
>It is still given independent of human interpretations.
No, logic and the law of identity is an interpretation.

>>4710843
No, it's not. Logic is universal.

>>4710842
gullible christfag prude!

>>4710845
Prove it.

(Protip: you can't)

Shit-tier namefags hijack the thread

welcome to /sci/

>>4710839
Yes, they are.

>>4710836
I am not trying to offend you, and I do not have a problem with your way.

"either works, as long as you're at least getting sex, most people dont mind if its with one person, or many.
i dont see any need to restrict yourself to monogamy, so i personally dont.
i know most people still do, and thats their choice.
each to their own, i guess"

I personally prefer monogamy, but I am not looking for an argument.

>>4710836
>and if there's 'soulmates' then there must be a 'soul' rite?
This is incorrect. The use of colloquial word like "soulmate" makes no such implications. Neither is a "soul" exclusively subject to religious connotations. The concept of a soul in most philosophical contexts is used without the concept of an afterlife. Also it is often used synonymously for "mind" or "self".

Strangely enough the quality of these kind of debates regarding morality and sexuality are of less quality than those on /pol/

>>4710848
No.

>>4710820
>So you want to use subjectivity for a scientific definition? That won't work. Scientific definitions have to be objective and independent of individuals' interpretation.

Firstly you are the one asking for scientific definition of subjective notions. It's like asking for an objective definition of space; until we can characterize the question in a manner science can explore you just use the word to reference what you can't objectively express. Like saying what rocks think.

Secondly you confuse experimentation with definition. Scientific experimentation and theories extrapolated from it must be independent of an observer. Not the words which we use to describe them. Think of trying to describe a sunset in 5+1 dimensional space to a redneck. Language is subjective, experimentation and theory is not.

>Your definition of "unconscious" is equally flawed. The evolutionary age of brain structures doesn't say anything about the subjective awareness of processes going on there.

Could you clarify this please I'm not sure I get what you mean.

>>4710851
They are not. Please try to troll less obviously.

>>4710867
>3rd line:
"are" not*

>>4710869
They are .Please try to troll less obviously.

sure is angry feminist in this thread trying to justify why they are such STD-ridden whores

>>4710858
good, then shut the fuck up!

>>4710860
whatever, theres no proof of souls or soulmates anyway

>>4710867
>Firstly you are the one asking for scientific definition of subjective notions.
If these things can be subject to science, then there have to be definitions.

>Secondly you confuse experimentation with definition
No, I do not. First of all you have to have objective definitions. Without definitions you won't even consider starting an experiment.

>Language is subjective, experimentation and theory is not.
Good. Scientific definitions are not a matter of subjective interpretation of language, but of what you call "theory".

>Could you clarify this please I'm not sure I get what you mean.
Informally speaking "unconscious" refers to processes that a person is not consciously aware of. This has nothing to do with the evolutionary age of certain brain structures.

>>4710881
You'd get raped so hard if you were talking to an actual philosopher.
stupid 20 year olds, so full of themselves.

>>4710882
>implying polyamorous people definitely have STD's
fuck off, cunt. i've never had an STD in my life.

>>4710891
I'm sure you don't whore, enjoy dying of HIV because you went to one to many gangbros with negros and thought your condom would save you from everything

>>4710890
He aleady gets what you call "raped hard" in 4chan debates. He's just too unintelligent to notice it and erroneously keeps believing in himself being right.

The best part about this thread is that nobody in it is genuinely interested in evolutionary psychology.

>>4710889
>objective definitions
There's no such thing.
Definitions are made using language, language is subjective.

>>4710891
Enjoy your crotchrot you disgusting cunt

>>4710898
Language was invented to communicate the objective nature of things.

>>4710898
Lol, postmodernism in an evopsych thread. This will end well.

>>4710900
Yes, but they can never be 1:1 correspondence, thus subject to interpretation.
Any type of explanation for something will depend on us agreeing on what those terms are, definitions only work in some particular context, they cannot stand on their own.

>>4710902
Postmodernism on /sci/ is generally a bad idea.

men have a limited appetite for polygamy since their rate of gamete production makes reproducing very low cost and (in theory) consequence free.

women have absolutely zero reason to favor polygamy since male jealousy potentially puts them and their offspring's lives at risk (stepchildren are the most prone to physical abuse). there is a polygamy of sorts in that women want babies from an attractive criminal and for a "provider" type to do the raising, but that's about it.

Holy fuck what an utter explosion of diarrhea this thread is.

It's like I'm really on a combination of /r9k/ and /x/.

>>4710895
>evo psych
>science
you pick 1, evolutionary psychology is pure bullshit and you should go with evolutionary biology if you want science.

http://drbeetle.homestead.com/topten.html

plus it's hard to take evo psych seriously when you see it being use by PUAtards

>>4710889
>If these things can be subject to science, then there have to be definitions.

I until we understand the neuroscience and the lowest level physics behind our decision processes well enough to empirically ask " what is rage" or "what is love" in a way we can measuer and verify, then ask for a definition and expect an objective answer.


>No, I do not. First of all you have to have objective definitions. Without definitions you won't even consider starting an experiment.

So kindly objectively define Light, Photon, Space, Velocity, Mass, Charge and Time please.

>Good. Scientific definitions are not a matter of subjective interpretation of language, but of what you call "theory".

See above.


>Informally speaking "unconscious" refers to processes that a person is not consciously aware of. This has nothing to do with the evolutionary age of certain brain structures.

It is important to divide unconscious processes into reflex and subconscious.

Reflex is hard-wired and cannot be resisted. Subconscious is learned off of pattern and habit and arises from no nurtured logic. Both are unconscious, but one can resist the urge to smoke or drink alcohol but cannot stop a reflex of the knee when tapped.

>>4710910
welcome to /sci/

>>4710905
If definitions refer to objective reality, they can be refined until there is absolute consensus (modulo trolls of course).

>>4710891
>no stds
>implying you don't have AIDS, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Beef Curtains and Crotchrot

Whatever slut, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. I thought you studied Zoophilia or something?

Just goes to show what a whore you are, probably dying for a horsecock up the shitter.

I want a polygamous marriage with EK and Harriet

>>4710910
That's a pretty good description of /sci/.

>>4710910
>mfw I made this thread

I have had precognitive dreams and unexplainable situations with things that shall not be named here.
funny how i blocked these out of my memory when i was in my atheist phase
but no more

>>4710920
where can i find Harriet pictures?

EK pictures are ugly

>>4710917
>evo psych
>science
pick 1

>generalizations
>no proof
>BUTT HURR DURR EVO PSYCH HURR DURR PINKER HURR DURR SELFISH GENE
go back to your ivory tower, evo psych fag

>>4710925
>>4710925
The thread got archived, i think.

>>4710915
>until we understand the neuroscience and the lowest level physics behind our decision processes
That's circular. You first need the definitions to research their possible explanations in neuroscience. Otherwise you have nothing to research.

>So kindly objectively define Light, Photon, Space, Velocity, Mass, Charge and Time please.
I asked you first. Please don't distract.

>See above.
Where?

>It is important to divide unconscious processes into reflex and subconscious.
I agree.

>>4710918
>they can be refined until there is absolute consensus
Consensus doesn't determine truth though, and that is the problem.
And you'll never get consensus as evident by all the philosophical arguing that's been going on since we got language.

>>4710917
While this seems reasonable. There is evidence that women have adaptions for short-term mating. See Evolutionary Psychology (David M Buss) for refs.

EK is a STD-ridden whore
Harriet can't be single for more than a second


Why are these feminists on our board?

>>4710914
And it's hard to take you seriously when you pay more attention to irrelevant misfits who misuse science than actual facts.

>>4710935
>Consensus doesn't determine truth though, and that is the problem.
That's not the problem. The truth is objective. All we need is to express it in a way that accomplishes consensus.

Our threesomes would be sublime

>>4710920
The one on the right its a trap right, look at those large shoulder and male body structure.

>>4710942

>>4710940
Maybe you should actually disagree with them on something rather than raging about how you are butthurt about their arguments or their ability to make them.

>>4710942

the guy has spammed that horrible link in other threads for a good five or six hours now. i have no idea who "dr beetle" is or why i should care, but seriously check out the page if you want a good laugh (one of the reasons he thinks evo psych is unscientific is because "racists agree", apparently someone should inform dr beetle that the nazis were avid anti-smokers as well).

>>4710948
lel

I hate all of you, you are all retarded, your opinions are shit, and you sound like faggots. Fuck you, and the horse you rode in, you dense mother fuckers aught to be euthanized it would make the world a better place. If it isn't clear to you social retards, and aspies, I am fucking enraged by your astronomical idiocy. Once again, fuck all of you.
Cunts.

>>4710948
I like how you think that this is a legitimate counter-argument. It's like I'm really on reddit.

>>4710943
>All we need is to express it in a way that accomplishes consensus.
Why?
Consensus is useless, it doesn't say anything about the truth.
Doesn't matter if every single person believes in X, X can still be false.

Please give me an example of an objective definition.

>>4710954
already got "reference to pinker", don't stop now

>>4710954

what makes me laugh is that people like them and the rest of the redditor crew wouldn't raise a goddamn peep if a study came out saying "women are more compassionate, trusting" or "women have a higher threshold for pain" or whatever, your feigned outrage against reality disappears so long as the study coincides with the things you like

where were your principles and your sputtering indignity over the paper (bmc neurosci 2009) that claimed women are better at understanding another's state of mind than men?

>>4710957
Of course consensus doesn't constitute truth and I see what you did there. By asking me for an example of an objective definition you imply exactly the opposite of what you posted, i.e. you imply consensus being the only way of making something true. You will disagree with my objective definition because in your troll framework it can't be true then because there is no consensus.

>>4710948
To be fair a study did show men will give more money to strippers who are at their most fertile and vice versa.

>>4710951
I previously wasn't going to bother with that link, but thank you for that advice. That site is hilarious.

>>4710947
That would be convenient. We'd only need one strap-on.

>>4710951
LOOK AT THIS!
LOOK AT THIS!

>the guy has spammed that horrible link in other threads for a good five or six hours now
THIS IS NOT TRUE! OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE OR ARE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS UP ABOUT ME! THIS IS UNETHICAL AND A VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS!

OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT DR. BEETLE IS SAYING. YOU HAVE A BIAS AND MISUNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING.

GRIMDARK COLLEGE KIDS WILL HAVE NO SWAY OVER ME!

REPORTED
EVO PSYCH CAN BURN! PINKER IS STUPID! (DON'T FORGET HE IS ALSO MARRIED)

>>4710962
>copypasta from /r9k/
fine, i can fight like you faggot

Holy fuck, do you have any sort of reading comprehension?

>At least 50 emotions have been described = 50,000 genes?
He's mocking evo psych and how it thinks there must be a gene for everything.

>Failure to isolate a selfish gene. After some 30 years of being named selfish, no extra power or mind has been found in genes beyond their station of being dumb-ass chemicals. They have no emotion or hidden plan to spread themselves for their own benefit. They replicate according to the whim of higher level forces in nature. Calling genes selfish because they replicate is about as informative as saying that water is selfish because of how it gouges channels into a landscape when it falls as rain

>At least 50 emotions have been described = 50,000 genes
>forgetting the question mark at the end

misogynists are scum

>>4710934
So kindly objectively define Light, Photon, Space, Velocity, Mass, Charge and Time please.
>I asked you first. Please don't distract.

Something: a person, place, item or idea observable to an entity whether measurable or not.

Positive: A characteristic of 'something' which renders it beneficial to the survival and/or behavior of an entity interacting with said 'something'

negative: A characteristic of 'something' which renders it harmful to the survival and/or behavior of an entity interacting with said 'something'

-Neither positive nor negative may be objectively measured.

Unconscious: A reflexive or subconscious reaction to 'something'


>Undiverted, now: Light, Photon, Space, Velocity, Mass, Charge and Time please.

>>4710963
You say that objective definitions exists, I ask you to give me a example of one.

>You will disagree with my objective definition because in your troll framework it can't be true then because there is no consensus.
We're discussing the existence of the actual framework here, I argue that no such objective framework exists at all.

>>4710959
Oh no, my argument is supported by a highly respected psychologist! Therefore, I must be wrong. Thank you for pointing this out.

>>4710965
>men
I wouldn't.
how about that faget?
I am superior and more evolved (you know what i mean) to you plebs.
Bow before me as I massacre you.

this thread is terrifying

>>4710663

>gets this nonsense
>doesn t abandon /sci/

>>4710966

this is a man who thinks genes (?) are directly responsible for emotions rather than the endrocine glands

the fact that these people have a poorer comprehension of basic biology than the average schoolchild would be laughable if not for how loud and unjustifiably smug they are (evidenced by this thread where a bunch of losers flip their shit over evo psych)

>>4710976
I told you that these definitions are insufficient, if you want to do science with them. Please improve them. And your definition of "unconscious" now only raises the question what "subconscious" means.

>>4710970
My freaking god, how can white woman be so fucking ugly? Arent we supposed to be the master race?
PLEASE HAVE NO KIDS YOU ARE DESTROYING THE GENE POOL!

>>4710979
>psycholinguists
>evolutionary psychologist of all psychologists
real fucking scientific
you fucking normals justifying your unethical and virtuous and amoral behaviour with "science" you sicken me
i will kill you and not feel a thing, you must be ended for the good of all

Has anybody here actually studied animal behaviour? genetics can and does have an effect, to claim otherwise is just stupid.

>>4710978
And I told you that your disagreement doesn't make the truth less true, exactly because truth exists objectively whether there is consensus or not.

Humans have 50 trillion cells, but only 20,000 genes. Explain that, atheists.

>>4710985
> no reading comprehension

>Gene shortage is a problem for evolutionary psychology, as was neatly described by Paul Ehrlich. If there are only about 30,000 functional genes in humans (those that can be transcribed to produce their messengers, the proteins), then there are simply not enough genes to fulfil all the predestined tasks claimed by evolutionary psychology. If it takes some 2500 genes to make an eye, which is a complicated piece of machinery, then maybe some 1000 genes are needed for each other sense as well (say 4 x 1000 = 4000). A similar number may be needed for each emotion, which are often complicated and coordinate a range of physiological reactions such as a narrowed eye, frown, release of adrenalin, flush etc. At least 50 emotions have been described = 50,000 genes?

stupid idiot, stupid evo psych pleb

What is the source of OP's picture, slutty girls are my fetish.

What the hell do people find so offensive about the idea genetics and evolution affect behaviour, its not like you can argue they don't.

>>4710985

Genetics informs the structures which release the chemicals which we interpret as emotions. Natural selection acted upon these genes, creating us, who believe we have emotions when we are merely tugged toward reward states or compelled to run from punishments.

>>4710991
Not true - if you treat a dog like a cat from birth it will act exactly like a cat and will catch mice and climb trees. All differences are the result of social forces, which in turn are the result of a capitali$t conspiracy to oppress workers.

>>4710998
>its not like you can argue they don't.
One COULD argue they are irrelevant because of free will.

>>4710995
Have people not heard of alternative splicing. Also that's a pretty huge leap that there is no sharing of genes between different parts of the brain and body. Many genetic products have multiple functions in different places.

>>4710975

>fine, i can fight like you faggot

except you can't and you won't, because you do not understand science and have nigh to zero scientific training (any you did have was clearly wasted on you)

you can post as much dr beetle bullshit as you want and i can carefully explain why he has no clue what he's talking about ("selfish" does not have the same contours of meaning in the selfish gene theory that it does in daily life; this man seriously thinks that dawkins wrote a 300 page book based on the premise that genes have a hidden soul. his argument is not worth addressing because he doesn't understand the subject matter, let alone the arguments he believes he's opposing)

>>4710998
saying you cant control them will upset those who aren't plebs who don't want to be a zoo animal.

>>4711003
Yes our brains have developed to the point where we can make those choices. Does not change the fact many aspects of behaviour show inheritance to an extent.

>>4710998
Postmodernism means that if a fact is inconvenient for your political beliefs, it must be untrue,

>>4710992
>And I told you that your disagreement doesn't make the truth less true
And neither does your disagreeing with me, see how that works?

>exactly because truth exists objectively whether there is consensus or not.
What? That's not what's being discussed here.
You started this by disagreeing with my statement:
"Object definitions do no exists".
They don't exist because it would be an oxymoron - definitions are always subjective. There exist no "universal language" and there never can be, eventually you come to a roadblock where you have to say "whelp, we just have to accept these first principles on fiat, we wont get any further".

>>4710998

>What the hell do people find so offensive about the idea genetics and evolution affect behaviour, its not like you can argue they don't.

people get selectively upset about genes/evolution because some of the colder conclusions go against the beliefs we're brought up with, beliefs that are mostly there for our comfort

ironically the fervor with which they get angry approaches that of a religious conviction, they simply don't *want* to believe something is the way it is because it *oughtn't* be that way

>>4710987
Subconscious: Behavioral suggestions and reflexive thoughts compiled by the brain through the recognition and comparative frequency of patterns in observed occurrence.


>I told you that these definitions are insufficient, if you want to do science with them please improve them.

We manage to 'do' science without objective definitions of Light, Photon, Space, Velocity, Mass, Charge and Time. If your argument is that science is only valid if performed with objective definitions then you implicitly made invalid all of modern physics and chemistry without a replacement.

That is unless you an provide an objective definition of any 2 of them, which you continue to avoid doing.

>>4711015
If I take the conclusions to heart then boom.

>>4711014
Well that's the thing, you *can* control them, I have never seen a study that suggested any behavioural trait had an inheritance of over 0.5 either.

>>4710949
my butt is not hurt, nor am i raging.

Now go on back to /b/.

We restrict ourselves to monogamy because of arbitrary laws.

The president of South Africa has 4 wives, why can't we?

The reason is social taboos. Muhammed had multiple wives. Joseph Smith (?) Mormon head prophet also had multiple wives.

The trend, though, is toward no wives at all.

Get married, and you will most certainly get fucked. Marriage failure is approaching 100%. Best bet, keep a bunch of bitches in rotation and make sure none of them know about the other.

>>4711013
>And neither does your disagreeing with me, see how that works?
I see how this works and why you're wrong. Me knowing the truth is also irrelevant to the truth being true.
And I tell you once again: Language is developped in order to make objective definitions and to talk about things objectively. If it was the way you think, then we wouldn't even have language.

>>4710489
>>4710483
>> loads of others
you guys do know that picture is obviously a artistic photography thing and set up and not a real person and her room right?

>>4711017
>Subconscious: Behavioral suggestions and reflexive thoughts compiled by the brain through the recognition and comparative frequency of patterns in observed occurrence.
This definition of "subconscious" contradicts the usual notion of "subconscious" as opposed to "conscious", because "reflexive thoughts" would have to be entirely conscious.

>hat is unless you an provide an objective definition of any 2 of them, which you continue to avoid doing.
I'm not falling for an obvious troll bait. Sorry.

>>4711024
>Language is developped in order to _try_ make objective definitions and to _try_ talk about things objectively.
Fixed that for you.

The reason you're refusing to give an example of an objective definition is that you know they don't exist.

>>4711034
Yes, we try to make objective definitions.

>The reason you're refusing to give an example of an objective definition is that you know they don't exist.
The reason I'm refusing to give you an example is because I know that you would just deny it.

>>4711029
Yeah but it is more fun to pretend that not only is the picture real, it's one half of a dorm room that is shared with a bookish virgin.

>>4711039
>Yes, we try to make objective definitions.
And so far we've failed.

>The reason I'm refusing to give you an example is because I know that you would just deny it.
Of course I would deny it, that's how an argument works.
And I would explain why, to try and help you understand why you are wrong.

SO please, give me an example of what you perceive to be an objective definition, and I will show you why you're wrong.

>>4710893
i never fuck niggers, retard.

>>4710899
which part of 'never' do you not underfuckingstand!??

>>4710919
*zoology
and fuck you

>>4710920
i'm never gonna get married. and good luck with haz, lol
>pic
actually, fuck off 7/7/11-fag

>>4710940
>EK is a STD-ridden whore
twat!

>Harriet can't be single for more than a second
lol, she's single now, retard

>>4711032
>This definition of "subconscious" contradicts the usual notion of "subconscious" as opposed to "conscious", because "reflexive thoughts" would have to be entirely conscious.

>Behavioral suggestions (((and))) reflexive thoughts

If you're only going to cherry-pick out half of a definition provided, and then call it incomplete/contradictory to "usual" definition (whatever "usual" is objectively defined as); then it will be exceedingly defficult to have a meaningful conversation.


Also it wasn't troll bait, it was to make a point. Science does not require an objective definition; it requires only an objective observer. As soon as someone is making the observation in any language the observation has become subjectified.

>>4711050
>Of course I would deny it, that's how an argument works.
That's not how an argument works, that's how "trolling" works. In an actual argument you would have to agree that I'm right. We would both be winners in a real argument, because I convinced you and you learned something. Arguments are not about denying anything.

>And I would explain why, to try and help you understand why you are wrong.
I know that I'm not wrong. Try harder.

>>4711001

no kidding, my point is that you do not need 50,000 genes to produce 50 emotions. the anthropic principle suffices here: 20,000 genes is certainly enough to suffice because that is how many the overwhelming majority of our species carries.

just as the human eye (which actually takes a number closer to 2,000 genes) is versatile and capable of a number of different, often remarkable functions (lensing is rare in nature outside of the eyes) from a non-self-centric perspective, the endrocine glands are astonishingly powerful hormone producers, and the possible simultaneous tandems of these hormones can number well into the billions, approaching that of a hard NP problem.

the pituary gland alone is responsible for elation, depression, apathy, the gradations between the three, the circadian cycle and who knows what else. just like a boat built from lego is more than the sum of its parts, the pituary gland, composed solely of protein-coding genes, is as strong and yet intimately tied in with its genome (hence why radiation is so lethal to you).

>>4711051
EK you're trying far to hard to hide the fact that you have STDs and that you're studying to learn how to suck horsecock all day

>>4711051

>retard
>fuck off
>twat

I love you EK you just dont give a shit

>>4711068

wow she has a potty mouth how flippant and unique

>>4711051
>>4711051


mods claim to ban you on a regular basis yet I always see you shit posting/trolling here on /sci/ so either the mod is a lying sack of shit or you're ban evading. Either way I reported you for shit posting

>>4711065
i honestly dont have STD's, all my guys have always been clean and hygenic, and not slutty. i dont think im really into slutty guys.

>>4711068
yep! :D

>>4711055
>If you're only going to cherry-pick out half of a definition provided, and then call it incomplete/contradictory
We need objective definitions in science. As long as your definition is incomplete or even wrong, it has to be improved.


>Science does not require an objective definition; it requires only an objective observer.
That's wrong. An objective observer has to objectively observe things. In order to do so he needs objective definitions.

>>4711061
>That's not how an argument works
Yes, here' some debate 101 for you:

You: Present your case with arguments
I: Disagrees and denies them as valid, gives reasons why.
You: Either accepts the arguments or continues the debate.
I: I give further argument

Eventually you either give up, accept your defeat.

>In an actual argument you would have to agree that I'm right.
That, that's the opposite of arguing.
Arguing implies that two people are different viewpoints and they try to convince the other by reasoning and evidence.
You have failed to give any reasons or evidence for your position so far.

>I know that I'm not wrong. Try harder.
Then give me an example of an objective definition.
If you cannot provide this you're either:
a) Trolling
b) Wrong

>>4711076
>I'm not slutty
>fucks a new guy every month/week/day

>>4711075
i'm not shitposting, you retard. and i actually get along with the mods quite well
reported for declaring reports, and for false reporting
(breaking rule 7 in two ways)

The reason for monogamy from an evolutionary standpoint is quite simple. Women can be pregnant with the sperm of only one male, and seeing how long it takes a woman to have children, unlike most other mammals, it becomes a huge investment. Humans are incredibly social creatures, hence not only must a female find a mate, she must ensure that the male will be there once the baby is born as well, making the process not simply about spreading of genetic code but about helping however possible after birth.

Society pushes values on people based on what has always been accepted practice in the past, so naturally having children and being monogamous is just that. However if you think you can push past society's expectations, more power to you. Don't expect anyone to agree with you though.

>>4711068
if she truly didn't give a shit, she wouldn't be responding because she wouldn't care enough to.

>>4711082
enjoy your ban, rule 7

>>4711078
>Eventually you either give up, accept your defeat.
That's exactly what I'm expecting you to do.

>You have failed to give any reasons or evidence for your position so far.
I did. It's not my fault that you outright deny them.

>If you cannot provide this you're either:
I am right and I won't fall for any obvious trolls.

>Why do we restrict ourselves to monogamy?
Religion

>>4711081
<<<
i've stuck with them for years, and i'm not a slut!

>>4711087
>That's exactly what I'm expecting you to do.
Yes, that's what an argument is, I expect you to be wrong, and you expect me to be wrong - we have opposing viewpoints.
Now please give some reasons and evidence for your points.

>I did. It's not my fault that you outright deny them.
No you haven't, you've refused every time I've asked so far.

>>4711092
you're a slut EK.

Not only do you cheat on your current ``sexmate'', but you do it on a monthly basis with new people each time

>>4711083
we arnt evolutionary robots, tard
and everyone is different
i'm not planning on ever having kids, so i'm completely out of evolution, as far as this shit goes
my genetic line ends here

sex is just for pleasure.

>>4711088
And religions encourage monogamy because....

>>4711085
and also you
we're both Hippocrits, fuck rule 7

>>4711099

>we arnt evolutionary robots, tard

>my genetic line ends here

not all "robots" are successful, lmao

>>4711098
ive never cheated on anyone ever, and thats a fucking fact

>>4711100
for no reason
they just like to repress sexuality because their made-up god wants it, apparently
just like fapping/jilling is a sin, even though everyone does it and theres nothing truly immoral about it anyway

>>4711099
>my genetic line ends here
good to see one less retard

I'm sure eventually your sluttish ways will catch up to you and you'll get prego and kill the baby since you're a satanist.

>>4711100
ask a Christian or a Muslim. Christianity and Islam are the two largest religions in the world

>>4711095
I gave you the objective evidence. Read my posts again and see why you're wrong.

>>4711110
>I gave you the objective evidence.
No. you haven't even given any arguments at all yet, all you've said is "lol ur wrong".

I ask again, for like the fifth time:

Give me an example of an objective definition.

>>4711113
i'm actually pretty intelligent, and if i ever did have kids i'd make sure the father was as well
any kids i have would be genetically intelligent, and i'd raise them to try hard as well.
they definitely wouldnt be retards

>I'm sure eventually your sluttish ways will catch up to you and you'll get prego and kill the baby since you're a satanist.
atheist =/= satanist, and i'm careful about contraception, i'll never have to abort.

>caring about your "genetic line" or "bloodline"
seriously
the psychology of 4chan is disturbing

>>4711112
So you apparently understand that the entire cosmology is made up and that these religious values come entirely from humans. That being the case, where do you think these inclinations originally come from? (hint: it's not "free will")

>>4711118
Your post is an obviousl troll post. Whatever objective definition I give you, you're just gonna deny it. You don't want to be convinced.

>>4711078
Stop wasting your time. IQ Fundie is a resident troll on /sci/. He never supports his positions with actual arguments. The only thing he ever does is go after others using absurd semantic reductionism to the point where he'll ask you to define the word "define". Half the time I suspect that he can't even fully understand the arguments being made. He's a Dunning-Kruger poster boy who conflates logic with puerile bickering. Just ignore him.

Speaking of tripfag trolls, I see EK is here as usual. It would be interesting to see the site logs to quantify just how much time of your miserable existence you spend shitposting on this board. Ffs, kick the habit and try to find something more meaningful to do with your life. Blowing off some steam now and then by being a 4chan badass is ok, but not for hours at a time every single fucking day. You will never get this time back. Maybe you think you're the oracle of Delphi or something and the board would be lost without your often factually inaccurate opinions, but I'm sure the shit would continue to flow in your absence.

Really, you're not going to look back in 5 years and think to yourself "oh boy, I'm glad I pissed away all that time being a fucking namefag on 4chan... what a fucking wise investment of my time that was".

xoxoxox, you fat slag

>>4711099
If you aren't going to have kids, you're removed from the evolutionary chain. The rules don't apply to you anymore, which is ideal if you're trying to be a nonconformist, but guess what? You're not going to pass your genes on to future generations, so you won't have kids that think the same way as you. Everyone who has kids thinks they ought to have kids otherwise they don't have them. This is why everyone is brainwashed into wanting to have kids. If we weren't, the human race would simply die out.

In a way, yes that everyone an evolutionary robot.

EK fucked a nigger in high school. His name is Jamal Smith.

>>4711123
i reckon just butthurt betas that fluked power and were pissed off at all the alphas 'hogging all the pussy'
so they invented a monogamoous system just to give themsleves less competition.

>>4711121
>i'm actually pretty intelligent

No you aren't. Now go back to sucking that horsecock since that's about all you're learning with your worthless degree that won't help anyone

>>4711123
humanity has convinced itself that it needs to do good if it wants to live for eternity(a rather selfish idea). therefore, it created something called religion, where there is a definitive list of what you can and cannot do in order to live forever, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

>>4711128
Except that my arguments are always backed up by evidence and logic.

>>4711126
>Your post is an obviousl troll post.
Dodging the challenge still I see.

>Whatever objective definition I give you, you're just gonna deny it.
Yes of course I'm gonna deny it - I'm disagreeing with you.
Now go head and post it, I'll show you why you're wrong.

>You don't want to be convinced.
I know I'm right, I'm simple trying to make you understand.

>>4711133
This is factually incorrect and is actually part of the men's rights mythology, btw. Please become educated.

>>4711128
>The only thing he ever does is go after others using absurd semantic reductionism to the point where he'll ask you to define the word "define"

Yeah I know he's a troll, but funnily enough I'm playing his game because that's exactly what's being discussed here; semantics.

>>4711155
your dumb ek

>>4711144
Once again proving that arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics. If you enter an argument knowing you're right, chances are so is your opponent hence nothing halfway productive is going to come from such a discussion. Now if you were trolling on the other hand...

>>4711147
>Yes of course I'm gonna deny it - I'm disagreeing with you.
>Now go head and post it, I'll show you why you're wrong.
See? This is exactly what's wrong with how you argue. A priori you exclude any chance of me convincing you. Such an argument is pointless.

>>4711132
nope

>>4711134
i aint into beastiality, but i aint even insulted by that, tard.

>>4711149
just my guess, whats the real reason then?

>>4711155
Have you understood limits by now?

>>4711154
>See? This is exactly what's wrong with how you argue.
That's how everyone argues.
Why would you argue a point you're not convinced of unless you're a troll?

>A priori you exclude any chance of me convincing you. Such an argument is pointless.
It's not pointless because I will show you the fault in your logic and hopefully teach you something and maybe change your outlook on things.

If you're so sure of your reasoning, why are you afraid of posting any arguments?

>You don't want to be convinced.

lololololololol, arguments that only work when someone wants to be convinced...

next up, IQ Fundie demonstrates that he can levitate if everyone really, truly believes he can

Oh man, normally I would insult you but that is just too funny. You're either a troll nearing the top of his game, or you really are so delusional that you don't realize your own failings. If you never make the argument, then you will never fail defending it, amirite?

Bah, either way, that gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

>>4711170
>Why would you argue a point you're not convinced of unless you're a troll?
I am not arguing, I'm explaining why you're wrong.

>It's not pointless because I will show you the fault in your logic and hopefully teach you something and maybe change your outlook on things.
Haha, nope.

>If you're so sure of your reasoning, why are you afraid of posting any arguments?
I did post them and you ignored them.

>>4711157
>your
<<<
troll or stupid, i dont care, fuck off

>>4711159
no, but i dont care

>>4711171
>arguments that only work when someone wants to be convinced...
Arguments DO only work when the other one wants keeps up the possibility of being convinced by them. You can't argue with a troll who keeps denying everything you post.

>>4711175
Why don't you care about limits? Do you not like math?

>>4711175
>resorting to grammar nazi because you know you're stupid and you can't defend against it

>>4711173
>I am not arguing
You are, this very post is you arguing with me.

>I'm explaining why you're wrong.
And I'm waiting on that explanation.

>I did post them and you ignored them.
Where?
I've searched every single one of your replies to my posts, and I can't find any arguments.

I want you to specifically respond to this challenge, which I repeat once again:

Show me an objective definition.

>>4711177
it's ok, i just dont study it.

>>4711178
lol wut? all he said is 'your dumb', i dont exactly have to defend against that, i just dont care.

>>4711181
>And I'm waiting on that explanation.
It has already been posted.

>I've searched every single one of your replies to my posts, and I can't find any arguments.
Then search again. This time maybe without your troll attitude.

>I want you to specifically respond to this challenge, which I repeat once again:
I told you why I'm not gonna fall for your troll tricks.

>>4711176
>Arguments DO only work when the other one wants keeps up the possibility of being convinced by them.
No, arguments work when they are backed up by reasoning and evidence.

>You can't argue with a troll who keeps denying everything you post.
Calling someone a troll is not an argument.
You haven't even given any arguments to dispute yet.

>>4711185
you're dumb EK

ek is a buttnigger

>>4711190
you're both just calling each other trolls, this is basically the definition of shitposting
<<<

if you're arguing, just do it properly, who cares if the other guy is a troll, it's more important to be right!

>>4711199
fuck off troll EK

>>4711185
EK answer the following questions:

1) 1+1=?
2) Integrate e^(x^-2)
3) find the series representation of sin(cos(x))

>>4711192
>No, arguments work when they are backed up by reasoning and evidence.
Not if the person you are arguing with doesn't give a fuck about reasoning or evidence and keeps outright denying everything you say.

>Calling someone a troll is not an argument.
It's stating a fact. If someone trolls, he gets called a troll.

>>4711199
>it's more important to be right!
We already closed that case. Everyone knows I'm right.

Societies with monogamy are more successful than societies with polygamy. Furthermore, the ratio of male-to-female is ~50/50, meaning there are just as many men as there are women.

Therefore, it's more reasonable to assume that monogamy is more "true" to the evolutionary needs of humans.

>>4711199
That's not the "definition of shitposting". The definition of shitposting is posting shit

>>4711190
>It has already been posted.
Which of these posts has your arguments in them?
>>4711176
>>4711173
>>4711154
>>4711144
>>4711126
>>4711110
>>4711087
>>4711077
>>4711061
>>4711039
>>4711032
>>4711024
>>4711003
>>4710992
>>4710987
>>4710963
>>4710943
>>4710934
>>4710918
>>4710900
>>4710889
>>4710845
>>4710835
>>4710820
>>4710795
>>4710775
>>4710769

>I told you why I'm not gonna fall for your troll tricks.
It's not a troll trick, failing to meet this challenge means you don't have any arguments to back up your points.

>>4711213
Just read them and you'll see.

>>4711209
the 50/50 split doesnt matter.
if only one gender was polygamous then we'd have a problem.
if both genders are, then it works.
everyones available to everyone else (potentially)

>Societies with monogamy are more successful than societies with polygamy
what the hell does this even mean? citation? most society's are usually a bit of a mix between the 2. the ancient greeks were promiscous as fuck, and they were the most enlightened of the time.

>>4711203
>Not if the person you are arguing with doesn't give a fuck about reasoning or evidence and keeps outright denying everything you say.
Agreed, which is why I'm asking you for arguments and evidence instead of "lol, ur wrong".

>It's stating a fact. If someone trolls, he gets called a troll.
It's called an ad hominem, attacking my character to try and negative the truth and dodging the points raised.

>>4711213
Dude, just ignore him if he bothers you that much.

Attention is a form of currency on the internet. And it doesn't matter what attention you give, good and bad will achieve the same goals. Just look at Rebecca Black. The bitch became famous from creating something that sucked.

What are you trying to accomplish here? All you're doing is giving him what he wants.

>>4711218
fuck off feminist slut

>>4711219
lel

Why don't you post YOUR arguments instead of denying mine. Oh wait, you have none.

>>4711214
>Just read them and you'll see.
I just did, found no arguments to support your point that objective definitions exist.

Just showing me one valid example would be a smack down argument against my position since I've argued no such example exist - you have it easy!

>>4711223
im not a feminist im a humanist.
i believe the genders should be equal, but i respect men just as much as women, in fact i get along with men better.
and like i keep saying, im not a slut, so you can fuck off

>>4711227
Alright. So in order to provide an objective definition, I'll first have to know what you mean by this term. Can you please (objectivley) define "objective definition"?

>>4711226
>Why don't you post YOUR arguments instead of denying mine. Oh wait, you have none.

Objective definitions doesn't exist because definitions rely on language, language is subjective.
Even if a universal language could be constructed (something we haven't done yet), it's still up to interpretation by humans (your brain stores word -> reality association, this is not a 100% reliable process).

I even challenge the notion of a universal language since it would ultimately rely on first principles in logic, principles which have to he accepted on fiat - and someone can always come along and challenge them, and no one would have any response expect "dunno, accept them just because".

Challenge: Prove an example of an objective definition.

Is not only our sexuality that is repressed, our agression is too, this in favor to live in a society.

>>4711218
Citing dead societies as examples of "power" doesn't make well for your argument. If anything, it just shows how societies that practiced polygamy died off in the long run, only to be replaced by religious societies which mandated monogamy.

And the 50/50 ratio matters because there are physiological and psychological differences between Males and Females. "Polygamy" means different things when applied to each gender, especially when the sex is a combination of physiology and psychology.

Also, do I really need to create citation to show you monogamous societies are more successful than polygamous ones? I mean, I could if you wanted me to. But I'm not sure what that would achieve if you don't realize that on your own already.

>>4711199
>>4711199

Why hasn't one of this bitches innumerable partners had the ball to the whore in her place?

I mean, it wouldn't even be so bad if she didn't come to a science forum pretending to know fuck all about science. Honestly, she could put her slutty attitude and gaping vagina to use in a whore house or something, but why pretend she knows anything about science or math?

I CAN'T FIND THE INTEGRAL BUT CWAAN WUUSE MWATHAMATICA, BAAAWWWWWWWWWWW
LIM 1/x x-->1 = 0
BTW GUISE I'M BISEXUAL ND I'M A GURRRL GIMMIE ATTENTION

TL;DR EK is a giant self proclaimed prostitute who should fuck off and never come back.

>>4711239
>Can you please (objectivley) define "objective definition"?
That would be circular reasoning.

>>4711248
>Why hasn't one of this bitches innumerable partners had the ball to the whore in her place?
Excuse my atrocious grammar, this should be:
>Why hasn't one of this bitches innumerable partners had the balls to put this whore in her place?

>>4711244
This argument only works, if you provide a defnition of "objective definition". Otherwise we're both using different subjective definitions and can't agree.

>>4711252
No, it's not.

>>4711235
I'd argue that it's only possible to maintain gender equality as long as monogamy is maintained.

Humans are very jealous creatures. Polygamy does nothing but further the notion that people are a commodity, and the more you have under your belt, the more powerful you are.

Also, Men have a virtually unlimited sperm count while women are limited in the number of children they can produce. Exactly how long can gender equality be maintained when there are distinct physiological difference between men and women?

>>4711259
Yes it is.

'Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with"'

>>4710948
Never seen this before. But clearly, it is either a troll or plain dumb. I feel like clarifying things for whoever might be in doubt, which is obviously not the anti-science academic left dude.

1) Pinker is pretty cool guy, eh, doesn't afraid of PC academic left.
2) ?
3) This is correct, in that women prefer men that are good at gathering resources.
4) Yes, many things can be traced back to our evolutionary environment.
5) True.
6) Guessing this means a lack of cross-culturally studies? There have been plenty of those.
7) ?
8) No.
9) No.
10) Men prefer younger females. Symmetricalness is a sign of health, so yes to that too.
11) Has nothing to do with EP.
12) EP claims no such thing.
13) ..
14) Breasts are remarkable as secondary sexual characteristics in humans. They are much larger in humans than in our nearest relatives.
15) No.
16) Have never heard of this claim.
17) No EP claims that. This called is called appeal to nature.
18) Men are better at it, and sexually atypical women are better at it, and sexually atypical males are worse at it.
19) No idea what this is about.
20) True, pretty much all geniuses are and have been men.
21) Yes, important stuff.
22) Averages are surprisingly important in fysical attractiveness of faces.
23) ? I seem to recall studies that showed that the sexes talk equally much during a day.
24) Possibly. There is a book about this. It is interesting, altho i haven't read it.
25) No problem. There is a human nature just as there is a chimp nature, and a good nature. Such things are possible to study, hence EP for studying human nature.

>>4711262
>'Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with"'

It is not also known as "paradoxical thinking".

>>4711262
According to that definition my post was not circular.

>>4711260
>Humans are very jealous creatures.
not always, im human and i'm not jealous.
i dont mind that my guys might be with other women, as long as they use contraception and arnt getting infected with anything, then its totally fine and its not even any of my business.

>Polygamy does nothing but further the notion that people are a commodity
they arn't a commodity, they're friends.

>Also, Men have a virtually unlimited sperm count while women are limited in the number of children they can produce.
aint an issue, like i said, im not interested in having kids. at least not anytime soon.

>>4711256
>if you provide a defnition of "objective definition"
Except the argument is precisely saying that isn't possible.

>>4711268
Then he shouldn't use an argument that implicitly assumes such an objective definition to exist. In his reasoning his own argument must be flawed then.

>>4711269
This is a circular argument
>Can you please (objectivley) define "objective definition"?
Because you're starting out with "Can you please define" what you're trying to end up with "definition".
Your question illustrates my point perfectly.

>>4711273
I didn't ask you to define "definition" but "objective defnition". What would make a definition "objective"?

>>4711267
>not always, im human and i'm not jealous.
I'm speaking as a generality.

Humans are also very adaptable creatures. But there are still morals and ethics in each society that lead to success and stability in the long run. Citing yourself as an example when you're just one of many doesn't really refute my point.

>they arn't a commodity, they're friends.
Human trafficking exists, as does prostitution and slavery. Humans can, have been, and will be treated as a commodity.

>aint an issue, like i said, im not interested in having kids. at least not anytime soon.
Well, there's the issue. I'm fine if you sleep around before having children. But promiscuity after having children doesn't bode well for home life.

Children are extremely impressionable. Having more than 2 parental figures in their life leads to confusion. This doesn't happen all of the time, mind you. But frankly, I rarely see stability in situations where the child's role models/parental figures are ambiguous.

>>4711271
Never heard of proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum?
It basically goes like this:

a. Assume the proposition holds.
b. Show that the proposition leads to an illogical result
c. Conclude that the proposition is thus invalid.

>>4711276
Fuck yeah! My posts get screencapped and captioned.

Okay, I've read through most of this thread, and found that it is full of utter shit. I actually have valid information on the subject, and will share it here.

IF YOU ONLY READ ONE POST IN THIS TREAD, LET IT ME THIS ONE.

1) >>4710731 is partially right. The chimp and gorilla testicles are valid, and humans are in between, but humans are actually #2 in terms of both overall testicle size and testicle size compared to body size. This is strong evidence for male polygamy.

2) I don't care for the term soulmates, but romantic love does exist. There is a measurable chemical and electrical reaction in the brain when falling in love. Even more interestingly, while most people eventually no longer have this response, there are a number of couples that, by social standards, seem to be deeply in love after many, many years of marriage, and they have been shown to still have these same brain patterns. This is evidence for at least SOME monogamy.

>>4711281
I'm using this technique pretty often to show others why they are wrong.

>>4711283 (cont.)

3) Women actually have different attraction patterns when they are ovulating. Woman rate a more feminine male face more attractive during most of their cycle, but when they are fertile, they prefer masculine faces. This applies to the scent of these men as well (when asked to smell without being given any picture). What this implies is that a woman wants a fertile and masculine male to impregnate them, but a more emotional or sensitive guy to care for their children. This is evidence no so much for polygamy, but blatant cheating, as one man would be expected to (presumably unknowingly) raise the child of another man.

4) This is the most speculative of my points, but it is believed that early hunter-gatherer humans were more so serial monogamists than polygamists. It is believed that a couple would mate, and conceive a child. The man would want to start mating with others relatively soon (and may have), but the woman would want to stick with him while the child was young, and would try to make the man do the same. The best evidence for this is what is known as the "seven year itch" in women. It is shown that women's infidelity rates, and desire to cheat raise dramatically at about 7 years.

Yes, these all came from legitimate sources, but I can't be fucked to find them, and I have to leave anyway. I don't really care if you believe me, but I felt it was a good idea to bring something actually relevant to this thread full of bull shit.

>>4711279
>What would make a definition "objective"?
I have no idea, since such a thing is an absurd idea.
Definitions are made using language, language is not objective. So to call something an "objective definition" doesn't make any sense, which is what I've been arguing.

last one for now

>>4711288
So all the time you were arguing about something without knowing what it is?

>>4711291
I don't need to know what something is if it's logically incoherent.
For example, I don't need to know what a "quadrilateral triangle" is to show that such a thing can't exist.

>>4711294
Yes, you do need to know what it is supposed to be. Otherwise you can't show that it's impossible.

>>4711289
See >>4711220

You're only making things worse. Knock it off.

>>4711267
>im not interested in having kids
>im human and i'm not jealous

EK you fucking dumb cunt, can't you hack logic or something? Is it an area like calculus for you? Are you facing difficulties in logic similar to your notorious limits?

Do you not know that you are just one member of the race? There are 7bn people on this earth, you crackhead.

>>4711297
>Yes, you do need to know what it is supposed to be.
No, you actually can't - in fact - know what it is.
If something is logically incoherent you can't say anything about it's nature since without logic "anything goes".

If objective and subjective are opposites, and a definition relies on subjective means (language), then an "objective definition" is logically incoherent because something can't both be objective and subjective.

QED

>>4711305
Well it isn't logically incoherent.

>>4711306
There you go again.
And you accuse ME of being dismissive?
What part of the argument are you disputing?

>>4711303
>Addressing tripfags by their name
>>>/b/
You're shitting this thread just as much, if not more than they are.

>>4711305
This has nothing to do with what you're replying to. In order to show that it's logically incoherent, you'd still first need to know what it is.

>>4711310
Stop getting trolled, you faggot.

Christ. This is why we need mods to reinforce the underageb& rule.

>>4711310
All of it. First read and reply to >>4711312. Then we can discuss >>4711306

>>4711312
>In order to show that it's logically incoherent, you'd still first need to know what it is.
No, you don't.
If something is logically incoherent you CAN'T know what it is, because how can you? It goes against logic, you can't describe it or give it any attributes, you're outside logic, nothing makes any sense.
This is generally how we define "absolute non-existence" - if something is logically incoherent, it can't exist.

>>4711323
Exactly what are you trying to accomplish by responding to him?

It seems like you want him to go away. And yet you're giving him motivation to stay in the thread.

I don't get it. You seem like a very silly person.

>>4711318
>All of it.
Ok, now give some reasons.
Or did you already forget how a debate goes?
Need that 101 again?

>>4711325
So very, very silly.

>>4711323
If you can show that it is logically incoherent (which is NOT the same as logically impossible), then you first need to know what it is. You are talking about something and using its definition to show what's wrong about it. Let me demonstrate how flawed your reasoning is. I give you the term "vnaifadhbvofabn" and tell you that it's logically incoherent. Please prove this is the case. I'm not gonna give you a definition or any hint what that term means, because according to you this isn't necessary.

>>4711324
He thinks he can troll me with his logical fallacies. I just keep explaining him why his reasoning is wrong.

>>4711325
I gave you reasons.

>>4711336
This discussion has been derailed long enough, and I've read enough of your debate to know it's utterly pointless drivel.

Polygamy vs. Monogamy.
Which do you think is more acceptable?

>>4711346
Define "acceptable".

>>4711331
Here is the argument again, this time in more standard deductive form:

Proof by contradiction:

Premise A: Objective definitions exist.
Premise B: Objective and subjective refers to opposite attributes.
Premise C: Language is subjective.
1. A definition is constructed using language.
2. Therefor a definition is subjective.
3. Contradiction, something cannot be both objective and subjective.
4. Conclusion: "Objective definition" is logically incoherent.

>>4711356
No.

You define it. I'll accept whatever definition you provide me as long as it's consistent. I just want to understand your line of reasoning.

>>4711359
You are repeating yourself. Please address the point I made.

>>4711365
Sorry, not today. The bump limit has been reached and I have other things to do now.

>>4711359
Shut the hell up. You've done nothing but make things worse.

>>4710953
>I hate all of you, you are all retarded, your opinions are shit, and you sound like faggots. Fuck you, and the horse you rode in, you dense mother fuckers aught to be euthanized it would make the world a better place. If it isn't clear to you social retards, and aspies, I am fucking enraged by your astronomical idiocy. Once again, fuck all of you. Cunts.

I would like to second this. Fuck sociology. Fuck this shit.

>>4711374
I'm fine with that.

But it's hard for me to listen to your thoughts on the matter when you have none to share.

>>4711368
I did, that is the argument that conclusively shows that "objective definitions" are logically incoherent, thus cannot exist.

Your analogy does not apply because even though I don't know what an "objective definition" is, I have shown what "objective" and "definition" refers to, and shown that they exhibit mutually exclusive properties, thus something that exhibits both is logically incoherent.

>>4711376
Sociology is a necessary evil.

"Life" and organic processes defy entropy, so it's hard to create closed systems to observe them.

Like with QM, there are indeterminable factors that you need to accept as inevitabilities before anything can be observed and rationalized.

That's just how sciences like this need to fucntion. But they are still replicable observations, so they still fall within the realm of science.

>>4711385
Your discussion is boring, stupid, and completely off topic.

Polygamy vs. Monogamy.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

There's some truth in the cliche of the 7-year itch. Love holds a couple together long enough to pool resources and raise a child to useful age. Love runs out, increasing likelihood that new partners are found for more mixing. Some feels there.

>>4711283
>>4711286

Wow, what a fucking waste of my time this was. I can see that /sci/ has no interest in discussing anything objectively, but just wants to circlejerk about their opinions on morality and evolutionary psychology.

>>4711283
>>4711286
These are good posts.

>>4711502
This guy cannot into understanding human nature.

>>4711519
>human nature
Is to be destroyed.