Attraction is Objectification

[Galloism]

Lies and denial wont make the years of hurt and awkwardness go away.

And trying to fit people you disagree with into your own fictional sexist narratives won't magically get rid of their arguments.

I'm not sure I would lift this particular discussion into the realm of an "argument". It's more like a posit of maxims that, when challenged, are handily ignored, followed by some strawmen, non sequitors, and restating of the previous posit of maxims, with no real discussion taking place.

[Seibertron]

But you're the one arguing morality...

Utilitarian morality.

You also dismiss sex is for the greater good so your comments hypocritical.

[Samuraikoku]

Odd as it is I like this challenge.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

But you value a kebab at a certain amount. There exists a certain price beyond which you would not buy this food item. That is the amount of value you assign to it and is therefore the monetary equivalent of the item.

You missed the point. Your insistence that all values can be adequately translated into monetary values only demonstrates that you don't understand the real value of certain things.

No, he does. He understand the value of friendship and love, he just lacks it and is desperately trying to suppress all the hurt and loneliness with logic and a nonsensical belief in things like his own superiority and objective morality

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I don't - because doing so would be nonsense.

If I want a kebab, and it costs me two dollars, I can assign a monetary value to both the dollars and the kebab, but I can only eat the kebab.

But you value a kebab at a certain amount. There exists a certain price beyond which you would not buy this food item. That is the amount of value you assign to it and is therefore the monetary equivalent of the item.

And that value changes, depending on how hungry I am.

Which is kind of the point - you're pretending to assign equal value to things that have different (and entirely subjective) values.

Inequality of effort doesn't equate to inequality of value.

This claim: "A couple which is happy but not equal is not a worthy result. It simply reinforces and justifies the existence of power asymmetries." and this claim: "A happy couple has power asymmetries if one is contributing more than the other. It means that one is putting in more and getting less out. That is exploitation." both entirely rely on the assumption that everyone involved assigns the same value to everything.

It's a nonsensical assumption.

And to be honest - given the "feminism" thread, I'm not convinced it's even an assumption you believe.

[Gauthier]

You missed the point. Your insistence that all values can be adequately translated into monetary values only demonstrates that you don't understand the real value of certain things.

No, he does. He understand the value of friendship and love, he just lacks it and is desperately trying to suppress all the hurt and loneliness with logic and a nonsensical belief in things like his own superiority and objective morality

And by demanding women take over society and chop off anything that looks remotely phallic.

[Four-sided Triangles]

You missed the point. Your insistence that all values can be adequately translated into monetary values only demonstrates that you don't understand the real value of certain things.

All things can be translated into binary. Surely there exists a map from binary to monetary representation.

[Galloism]

No, he does. He understand the value of friendship and love, he just lacks it and is desperately trying to suppress all the hurt and loneliness with logic and a nonsensical belief in things like his own superiority and objective morality

And by demanding women take over society and chop off anything that looks remotely phallic.

What did the Washington Monument ever do to us?

[Grave_n_idle]

Lies and denial wont make the years of hurt and awkwardness go away.

And trying to fit people you disagree with into your own fictional sexist narratives won't magically get rid of their arguments.

You don't actually appear to have had an argument, yet.

The OP made a claim based on a source that didn't support it. It's arguably gone downhill from there.

[The Congregationists]

No, he does. He understand the value of friendship and love, he just lacks it and is desperately trying to suppress all the hurt and loneliness with logic and a nonsensical belief in things like his own superiority and objective morality

Thomas Covenant?

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

No, he does. He understand the value of friendship and love, he just lacks it and is desperately trying to suppress all the hurt and loneliness with logic and a nonsensical belief in things like his own superiority and objective morality

And by demanding women take over society and chop off anything that looks remotely phallic.

Its like this hilarious combination of political lesbianism, Randian objectivism, and the Renaissance-eta Catholic Church's hatred of the penis.

[Gauthier]

You missed the point. Your insistence that all values can be adequately translated into monetary values only demonstrates that you don't understand the real value of certain things.

All things can be translated into binary. Surely there exists a map from binary to monetary representation.

So you're saying the Holocaust can be translated into monetary values.

Congratulations, Stormfront would love you.

[Galloism]

You missed the point. Your insistence that all values can be adequately translated into monetary values only demonstrates that you don't understand the real value of certain things.

All things can be translated into binary. Surely there exists a map from binary to monetary representation.

As is true with all things, an XKCD applies:



Not all things can be mathematically expressed.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

Love is sexism. Misogynist pig.

[Samuraikoku]

You missed the point. Your insistence that all values can be adequately translated into monetary values only demonstrates that you don't understand the real value of certain things.

All things can be translated into binary. Surely there exists a map from binary to monetary representation.

Can a feeling be translated into binary?

[Lauchlin]

You missed the point. Your insistence that all values can be adequately translated into monetary values only demonstrates that you don't understand the real value of certain things.

All things can be translated into binary. Surely there exists a map from binary to monetary representation.

Incorrect, again. Descriptions can be translated into binary. Many things are incapable of being translated into binary. No matter how many sides you add to that polygon, you'll never get to a circle.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Not all things can be mathematically expressed.

Yes they can. Holography demonstrates that the entropy of a finite volume of space is finite. Combined with Planck time, we see that the entropy of a finite space-time hypervolume is also finite.

As entropy is simply information with a proportionality constant, we see that the information of a finite hypervolume of space-time is finite.

Even if holography were not true, it is still the case that the axiom of choice permits a mathematical model of any scenario.

[Galloism]

And trying to fit people you disagree with into your own fictional sexist narratives won't magically get rid of their arguments.

You don't actually appear to have had an argument, yet.

The OP made a claim based on a source that didn't support it. It's arguably gone downhill from there.

An enjoyable downhill ride it's been, though.

[Galloism]

Not all things can be mathematically expressed.

Yes they can. Holography demonstrates that the entropy of a finite volume of space is finite. Combined with Planck time, we see that the entropy of a finite space-time hypervolume is also finite.

As entropy is simply information with a proportionality constant, we see that the information of a finite hypervolume of space-time is finite.

Even if holography were not true, it is still the case that the axiom of choice permits a mathematical model of any scenario.

Ok, explain, mathematically, how you feel about all of us destroying everything you say.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Many things are incapable of being translated into binary.

Like what?

No matter how many sides you add to that polygon, you'll never get to a circle.

Only if you insist on stopping with finite cardinals.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Ok, explain, mathematically, how you feel about all of us destroying everything you say.

Principle/practice distinction. Learn it.

[Lauchlin]

Not all things can be mathematically expressed.

Yes they can. Holography demonstrates that the entropy of a finite volume of space is finite. Combined with Planck time, we see that the entropy of a finite space-time hypervolume is also finite.

As entropy is simply information with a proportionality constant, we see that the information of a finite hypervolume of space-time is finite.

Even if holography were not true, it is still the case that the axiom of choice permits a mathematical model of any scenario.

Whether or not information is finite is irrelevant. I'm convinced now that you are not being sincere.

[Seibertron]

Not all things can be mathematically expressed.

Yes they can. Holography demonstrates that the entropy of a finite volume of space is finite. Combined with Planck time, we see that the entropy of a finite space-time hypervolume is also finite.

As entropy is simply information with a proportionality constant, we see that the information of a finite hypervolume of space-time is finite.

Even if holography were not true, it is still the case that the axiom of choice permits a mathematical model of any scenario.

Listen I am a comptuer programemr and you are just
That what it is FST is = (Always Equal to)

[Galloism]

Ok, explain, mathematically, how you feel about all of us destroying everything you say.

Principle/practice distinction. Learn it.

If you cannot define your feelings mathematically, than the feelings of the parties within a relationship can also not be defined mathematically. It is, therefore, difficult if not impossible to value them, and thus, defining a relationship entirely mathematically is doomed to failure from the start, because in practice the feelings within cannot be defined.

[Grave_n_idle]

You don't actually appear to have had an argument, yet.

The OP made a claim based on a source that didn't support it. It's arguably gone downhill from there.

An enjoyable downhill ride it's been, though.

Yeah, except I got flies in my teeth.

And not in the good way.

*nods*