Gonecrazy1099
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:10:37 +0000
Salmenella
Gonecrazy12345
Yorkshire Chaps
Gonecrazy12345
Salmenella
Gonecrazy12345
Guys "worth her time" aka losers who can't get other women.
Good luck finding decently attractive men to be that introspective lol
You're being a douchebag. Normally, you at least use logic, but here you're just being shallow and generalizing.
Someone's occupation doesn't define them. There are tons of open-minded mature guys out there. Physical attractiveness isn't related to the topic at hand at all.
Lol.
Someones occupation doesn't define them? That's easy for us to say when we're young. When we get older I bet our perspective will change on that. When you get older, I'm sure you'll notice lots of women will either be turned off or turned on depending on your occupation and how successful you are.
You're into psychology and you said you want to get a PHD, perhaps get an MD and become a psychiatrist is a possibility for you as well? If so, you have an opportunity to make lots of money, and if you do then you'll have lots of women wanting to be with you for the very reason that they want to be with you precisely because of your occupation and how much money you make.
Your occupation does define you especially as a man. For women, it doesn't really matter unless you're something that's taboo. Guys usually just care about what the woman looks like without clothes on.
Maybe when it comes to relationships you can't use logic because you are bitter yourself. Would explain it.
Generalizing =/= not using logic.
Generalizations can be accurate or inaccurate, meaning they can be used logically or sometimes used illogically. The fact that I'm making generalizations doesn't in and of itself mean that I'm failing to use logic.
You can think my generalization is too broad and therefore is illogical or too vague to explain reality, that's fine. But it's important to point out that a generalization in and of itself doesn't mean that it's illogical.
But see the fallacy in your thinking and many others is that you add a value judgment into the mix that I don't. You say that I "assume the worst" of males and females. But that's your value judgment, not mine. So it's illogical to come to the conclusion just from that premise that I'm bitter about myself and relationships. Because you're assuming that I agree with your perspective that what I'm spouting is the worst of the sex's.
I don't think women dating men for the sake of how much money they make/their career is a bad thing. I also don't think men dating women for the sake of their appearance is a bad thing. To me it's just the way things are. It would be like someone criticizing eagles for killing innocent animals. An eagle is just the way an eagle is because it evolved to be that way. I think the same thing is true with humans.
There's always been a bigger cost for women when it comes to bearing children, and for that reason I think it's logical and a good economical choice for them to pursue males who are socially successful and financially successful. It makes sense for men to be attracted to beautiful women because that's a sign of fertility and health.
To me the behavior and generalizations I'm ascribing to men and women are not bad things, to me it's just the way nature operates.
What annoys me is the fact that people are perfectly willing to assign biological explanations to behavior when it comes to other animals, but they aren't willing to do the same with humans. No no no, with humans we all have to pretend that humans really do put most of their value on "true love" the idea that we really care about a person's personality first and foremost. I simply deny that explanation and think it's incorrect and naive.
I also don't think you explanation that I'm bitter and that's why I hold these opinions is an actual explanation, rather it seems like it's ad hoc speculation. It can't predict anything, also like I said your conclusion is built off of a non sequitur. This is basically your argument:
1. Gonecrazy says and believes X
2. I interpret X as a pessimistic and bitter opinion
3. Therefore Gonecrazy must be bitter to hold that opinion.
The problem with that argument is like I said before, you may interpret what I say as being bitter and pessimistic, but that doesn't mean that I do. So your argument and speculative claim about me being "bitter" and that explains why I say the things I do is not a complete argument and it contains a hole in it.
