Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#221

Post by endtime » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 1:10 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #210

endtime wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pretty much universally" is not a universal quantifier Wait, what? I'd say it pretty much is a universal quantifier.

A universal quantifier is absolute. Actually, it's a pedantic point. The better point for tm to claim is most chaste women are moral, whereas the same cannot be said for unchaste women. So, to guarantee a better chance of developing a relationship with a moral woman (i.e. more likely to not commit adultery and be temperate), we men should be chaste and look for chaste women. This is probably what he intended anyways,…

I don't think you've read the rest of his comments. He absolutely meant what he said, and he meant "pretty much universally" as a universal. Sad, I know.

Re: undefined

#222

Post by acgourley » Mon, Mar 30, 2009, 4:37 PM UTC

time_management wrote: post #86

acgourley wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what bothers me about your comments in this thread is that you expect a large stock of "decent" women to exist. As if there were some universally acceptable type of women. It's far more complex than that. A better way to simplify it might be to say that for any given person there is probably 1% of the population (in the right age and gender group) that is suitable for a long term commitment. And it is not the…

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but the perception I (and others in this thread) are getting from you is you don't want to find a soul mate, you want to find a wife to 'manage your household' or do fulfill a similar role that has little to do with being your counterpart. Where do you get that idea? Maybe I'm miscommunicating drastically, but I see a world of difference between being against casual sex and…

Okay, I must be being unfair. But at least look at my post again to understand why you're catching some flack in this thread... I believe that is one of the common lines of thought.

Re: undefined

#223

Post by cos » Fri, Apr 03, 2009, 4:36 PM UTC

time_management wrote: post #38

cos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay then, your comment about this in the post was dishonest. Rather than explain that this is something you oppose and that's the reason you won't do it, you tried to explain it as something that "quality women" won't do (and then added an aside about how you're not really interested so that's not a big deal). I wonder if this attempt to rationalize is related to the reasons you're dissatisfied, and whether there ar…

It's both something that I oppose and something that I've observed most potentially marriage-worthy women oppose. I don't think casual sex is necessarily immoral, assuming that neither person intends to get married in the future. The main victims of consensual casual sex are future romantic partners of the participants, so if both participants have completely foresworn the possibility of having long-term relationship…

That's a bizarre statement, and certainly not grounded in facts, yet you seem to believe it is factual. Plenty of long-term happily married men and women have had non-relationships sex. Your worldview is blinding you in a seriously astounding way.