Unattractive Girls & Asexuality

[traffic.]

In this context, I meant "objective taste" as the ability to measure "objective worth." Given that such a sense is based in subjectivity without a third-party (e.g. God) to inform to the contrary, it does not exist. From my understanding of this, the argument changes to something else.

Man I'm not trying to be rude, but you seriously dont understand what objective and subjective mean. Nor is it proper to use a word to define itself. Objective means without personal bias, and value is literally personal bias. Even if God came down and said "hey everyone gold is worth this much" that's still subjective because I don't have to listen to him or value gold. They are literally opposite ideas.

What if humans haven't actually lost their "primal initiative," but rather have evolved to go about it in a way that is superficially different from other creatures? For example, opening the door for a woman and smiling at her does not seem to be a sexual advance, yet common culture has come to understand that this can be used as an "ice breaker" that advances him toward being able to make such an advance several steps down the line.

I understand how mating rituals work, and there is absolutely a directive and personal responsibility to propagate the species, however, we aren't bound by it like dogs are. We have the ability to decide when and how to do it, and why. If we didn't have a choice, and had to have as much sex and as many children as possible just to make sure humans survive that would be existence for sex's sake. But we don't have that problem, we have too many people, and we are not concerned at all about whether or not humans are gonna die off from not having enough babies.

I do believe that cars, clothes, and jobs affect a person's survival; the former two even provide "environmental protection." Video games and music have a better basis for your argument, but, as you said, those too can be seen as mating criteria similar to bird calls and mating dances. You assume that because a mating criterion does not seem to hold a direct value to success (e.g. wealth) that it doesn't. What undesirable traits do you believe are being spread through the population?

I really recommend spending some time reading on darwinism, because I'm not talking about how they affect your time in society. Environmental threats to a antelope, for example, are lions, crocodiles, hyenas, starvation, lack of mates. They are the things that threaten our survival. You're telling me that an Audi R8 and 800 dollar jeans protect me from, actually, you didnt give an example of anything that threatens the survival of the human race. Success is a vapid term that doesn't mean anything, and the criteria humans display for mating purposes are very different than animals. Animals show off their genetics, essentially, how strong i am, how agile or intelligent i am. In animals it's to display how they will better their offspring by providing the traits most suited to survive. Humans only look at physical traits to determine a mate when they are strictly looking for sex. It absolutely still exists in humans, but it does not drive our will to live. The basic logic here is that if people have less sex with less people for more reasons, there will be no more people. Do you see the correlation to population decline?

Humans display the most criteria based reproduction in individuals who value intelligence, which is an entirely new concept as far as billions of years on this earth is concerned.

edit- oh right, undesirable traits. This is less of a big deal, but breakdown, because we can cure diseases and protect stupid people from killing themselves (oh hey environmental threats) we are not culling weak genetics. If a disease killed half of humanity, and the other half was immune, then 100% of humanity would be immune moving forward. Obviously that is an extreme example, but thats how evolution works. We have removed the need to evolve certain traits because we can fix things.

Unless it is given otherwise, you cannot determine objective value, making this argument moot.

The irony of this sentence.

 

[Jam Stunna]

sorry if this has already been addressed somewhere in the thread, but this can just as easily be applied in the negative

it's really easy for an attractive person to suddenly become quite repulsive by virtue of their actions

Get out of my forums!

 

[Exdeath]

Man I'm not trying to be rude, but you seriously dont understand what objective and subjective mean. Nor is it proper to use a word to define itself. Objective means without personal bias, and value is literally personal bias. Even if God came down and said "hey everyone gold is worth this much" that's still subjective because I don't have to listen to him or value gold. They are literally opposite ideas.

I understand what the difference is between subjective and objective. I was thinking on a particular line of thought that was theological in nature, and I hastily revised it to suit the current discussion. The matter of whether or not a statement from God is objective is an entirely different matter.

I understand how mating rituals work, and there is absolutely a directive and personal responsibility to propagate the species, however, we aren't bound by it like dogs are. We have the ability to decide when and how to do it, and why. If we didn't have a choice, and had to have as much sex and as many children as possible just to make sure humans survive that would be existence for sex's sake. But we don't have that problem, we have too many people, and we are not concerned at all about whether or not humans are gonna die off from not having enough babies.


I really recommend spending some time reading on darwinism, because I'm not talking about how they affect your time in society. Environmental threats to a antelope, for example, are lions, crocodiles, hyenas, starvation, lack of mates. They are the things that threaten our survival. You're telling me that an Audi R8 and 800 dollar jeans protect me from, actually, you didnt give an example of anything that threatens the survival of the human race. Success is a vapid term that doesn't mean anything, and the criteria humans display for mating purposes are very different than animals. Animals show off their genetics, essentially, how strong i am, how agile or intelligent i am. In animals it's to display how they will better their offspring by providing the traits most suited to survive. Humans only look at physical traits to determine a mate when they are strictly looking for sex. It absolutely still exists in humans, but it does not drive our will to live. The basic logic here is that if people have less sex with less people for more reasons, there will be no more people. Do you see the correlation to population decline?

I'm not sure whether you misunderstood or missed my point, but I was suggesting that it's subtle and not overt. Ultimately it's an argument based on technicality.

Humans display the most criteria based reproduction in individuals who value intelligence, which is an entirely new concept as far as billions of years on this earth is concerned.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

edit- oh right, undesirable traits. This is less of a big deal, but breakdown, because we can cure diseases and protect stupid people from killing themselves (oh hey environmental threats) we are not culling weak genetics. If a disease killed half of humanity, and the other half was immune, then 100% of humanity would be immune moving forward. Obviously that is an extreme example, but thats how evolution works. We have removed the need to evolve certain traits because we can fix things.

It's obvious that you believe me to be incompetent.

The irony of this sentence.

I was aware of the irony while posting, but it conveyed its purpose and was effective.

 

[traffic.]

It means that in certain parts of the world where there haven't been environmental threats for the longest periods of time, humans use intellectual and emotional traits to decide who they mate with. It's an interesting byproduct of developing psychology, as animals typically develop bonds (if they do at all) through mating, which does occur in humans, but not primarily.

 

[Ramen King]

I really wasn't serious with this thread at all. I can't believe how many of you are douche bags

 

[Jam Stunna]

Yeah, nothing good is coming out of this thread after that post.