On The Distribution of Spouses

[Costa Fierro]

They are wildly different. "Some" (or even "most") and "all" are wildly different statements, and you have provided only evidence for the former. I notice you continue to ignore the whole Prosopagnosia point.

I'm not ignoring it, it's irrelevant to the point that I am making, and to the point that I originally made.

[Salandriagado]

They are wildly different. "Some" (or even "most") and "all" are wildly different statements, and you have provided only evidence for the former. I notice you continue to ignore the whole Prosopagnosia point.

I'm not ignoring it, it's irrelevant to the point that I am making, and to the point that I originally made.

Really? So you think that people who literally can't recognise their spouse by physical appearance choose said spouse by physical appearance? I notice you still didn't provide evidence that all humans (or, if you prefer, just Kat in particular) base relationship decisions on physical appearance.

[Costa Fierro]

Really? So you think that people who literally can't recognise their spouse by physical appearance choose said spouse by physical appearance?

Not recognising them doesn't mean that they didn't find them attractive, it means they don't recognise who they are.

I notice you still didn't provide evidence that all humans (or, if you prefer, just Kat in particular) base relationship decisions on physical appearance.

I did. As per usual, you have ignored it. There's not much point in continuing this if you're going to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any evidence presented.

[Salandriagado]

Really? So you think that people who literally can't recognise their spouse by physical appearance choose said spouse by physical appearance?

Not recognising them doesn't mean that they didn't find them attractive, it means they don't recognise who they are.

And you have evidence that they found them attractive?

I notice you still didn't provide evidence that all humans (or, if you prefer, just Kat in particular) base relationship decisions on physical appearance.

I did. As per usual, you have ignored it. There's not much point in continuing this if you're going to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any evidence presented.

No, you didn't. You simply failed to understand the difference between general trends and specific examples. I'll happily accept any evidence you provide that actually supports the claim that you're making. Something biologicial/neurological is the only obvious way to do that, but I'm happy to accept anything else you can think of.

[Costa Fierro]

And you have evidence that they found them attractive?

Yup. A study in Germany took 22 people with face-blindness and 22 people who weren't affected by it. They found that the ratings in terms of how attractive they were did not differ between the two groups, only that the face-blind people did not find them distinctive.

No, you didn't.

I did. Refusal to accept this isn't helping your case.

[Salandriagado]

And you have evidence that they found them attractive?

Yup. A study in Germany took 22 people with face-blindness and 22 people who weren't affected by it. They found that the ratings in terms of how attractive they were did not differ between the two groups, only that the face-blind people did not find them distinctive.

Well done, that was actually relevant evidence. Now try that with the main point.

No, you didn't.

I did. Refusal to accept this isn't helping your case.

No, you didn't. Not in the slightest. "Some" and "all" are fundamentally different things. Your argument is equivalent to saying "every company had its stock value go up last year" and quoting evidence that the total value of the stock market went up.

[Costa Fierro]

Well done, that was actually relevant evidence. Now try that with the main point.

Already have.

[Salandriagado]

Well done, that was actually relevant evidence. Now try that with the main point.

Already have.

As demonstrated, you haven't. I notice that you continue to edit out the relevant portions of my posts to avoid responding to them. Or are you conceding the point, or accepting the claim that every single company in America had its stock value go up over the course of the last year?

[Costa Fierro]

Already have.

As demonstrated, you haven't. I notice that you continue to edit out the relevant portions of my posts to avoid responding to them. Or are you conceding the point, or accepting the claim that every single company in America had its stock value go up over the course of the last year?

You haven't demonstrated anything. You've repeatedly ignored what I posted, then claimed I was avoiding an irrelevant point which I then proved was irrelevant, and then claimed that I've been ignoring whatever it is you've been claiming I've been ignoring.

Do you have an actual argument to make here or is this just a rather extravagant way of screaming for sources?

[Nettunia]

I haven't followed the whole discussion amongst you, but I can at least give my personal perspective.

I really do not care what a man looks like, in a broad sense. Pretty much any physical feature is really irrelevant to me...however that does not mean there don't exist some dealbreakers. Personally they relate to personal care, so hygiene and health. If someone is devastated by acne or is obese, those factors do make them a no-go for me. So you can say that whilst there are no physical features that encourage my desire, there are ones that discourage it strongly.

[Salandriagado]

As demonstrated, you haven't. I notice that you continue to edit out the relevant portions of my posts to avoid responding to them. Or are you conceding the point, or accepting the claim that every single company in America had its stock value go up over the course of the last year?

You haven't demonstrated anything. You've repeatedly ignored what I posted, then claimed I was avoiding an irrelevant point which I then proved was irrelevant, and then claimed that I've been ignoring whatever it is you've been claiming I've been ignoring.

Do you have an actual argument to make here or is this just a rather extravagant way of screaming for sources?

Once again: you are claiming that Kat, specifically, chooses partners based on appearance. You have entirely failed to demonstrate that.

[Costa Fierro]

You haven't demonstrated anything. You've repeatedly ignored what I posted, then claimed I was avoiding an irrelevant point which I then proved was irrelevant, and then claimed that I've been ignoring whatever it is you've been claiming I've been ignoring.

Do you have an actual argument to make here or is this just a rather extravagant way of screaming for sources?

Once again: you are claiming that Kat, specifically, chooses partners based on appearance. You have entirely failed to demonstrate that.

I am saying that physical appearance is a factor in the partners she chooses. I've been saying this the whole damn time.

[Isilanka]

This thread is just goddamn hilarious.

But seriously this is just awful.
If you want to implement a dystopian system of forced marriages at least make it so that spouses are distributed based on optimal physical/intellectual compatibility parameters. It would be arbitrary, stupidly hard to implement, oppressive as fuck and counter-productive in most cases but at least it wouldn't be blatantly stupid.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

This thread is just goddamn hilarious.

But seriously this is just awful.
If you want to implement a dystopian system of forced marriages at least make it so that spouses are distributed based on optimal physical/intellectual compatibility parameters. It would be arbitrary, stupidly hard to implement, oppressive as fuck and counter-productive in most cases but at least it wouldn't be blatantly stupid.

Maybe that's what they are after.

How are unattractive, unaccomplished, unintelligent, coveting losers going to get spouses who are way out of their league if people are matched according to compatibility, right? Distribute them randomly, and maybe a pathetic incel will get lucky.

[Isilanka]

This thread is just goddamn hilarious.

But seriously this is just awful.
If you want to implement a dystopian system of forced marriages at least make it so that spouses are distributed based on optimal physical/intellectual compatibility parameters. It would be arbitrary, stupidly hard to implement, oppressive as fuck and counter-productive in most cases but at least it wouldn't be blatantly stupid.

Maybe that's what they are after.

How are unattractive, unaccomplished, unintelligent, coveting losers going to get spouses who are way out of their league if people are matched according to compatibility, right? Distribute them randomly, and maybe a pathetic incel will get lucky.

Yeah, or just let life go its way and people will eventually find someone who finds them attractive, interesting or funny ?

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Maybe that's what they are after.

How are unattractive, unaccomplished, unintelligent, coveting losers going to get spouses who are way out of their league if people are matched according to compatibility, right? Distribute them randomly, and maybe a pathetic incel will get lucky.

Yeah, or just let life go its way and people will eventually find someone who finds them attractive, interesting or funny ?

Exactly.

But it's hard to wait in the mean time, right? So incels decide to fill that gap with self-pity and hatred towards those whom they see as their "tormenters."

Must be fun.

[Salandriagado]

Once again: you are claiming that Kat, specifically, chooses partners based on appearance. You have entirely failed to demonstrate that.

I am saying that physical appearance is a factor in the partners she chooses. I've been saying this the whole damn time.

Which you have not provided evidence for.

[Costa Fierro]

I am saying that physical appearance is a factor in the partners she chooses. I've been saying this the whole damn time.

Which you have not provided evidence for.

I have. You ignored it, we're back to square one.

[Salandriagado]

Which you have not provided evidence for.

I have. You ignored it, we're back to square one.

No, you've provided evidence that some women tend to underestimate how they weight physical appearance when asked. That does not support any claims whatsoever about Kat specifically.

[Katganistan]

Next you'll be telling me what I like to eat, and what my favorite color is.

Senior Moderator Blue.

Admirable use of context clues -- but no.

And another person with no ability to comprehend what I've said.
Next you'll be telling me what I like to eat, and what my favorite color is.

Lamb

I would never consume you, Blaat.

Actually, when out, the meal I generally get at Italian restaurants is Zuppe di pesche fra diavolo.

Physical attractiveness is a factor in who you chose as a partner. Physical attractiveness is a factor in what keeps you with them.

Oh look, more blind assertions.

Y'know, I think I'm beginning to see some whys and wherefores about attracting mates.
"That's not what you think, no matter what you think you think!"

It's not wildly different. Kat said that she didn't believe that physical attractiveness wasn't important to her, or important at all, and I said "that's not true" and provided evidence that proved this.

It's fucking arrogant telling me that what I am saying about myself is untrue.

The issues with the study aside, it's not universal, and all studies have a margin of error.

You haven't demonstrated anything. You've repeatedly ignored what I posted, then claimed I was avoiding an irrelevant point which I then proved was irrelevant, and then claimed that I've been ignoring whatever it is you've been claiming I've been ignoring.

Do you have an actual argument to make here or is this just a rather extravagant way of screaming for sources?

Once again: you are claiming that Kat, specifically, chooses partners based on appearance. You have entirely failed to demonstrate that.

And will continue to do so, because "the study says so, so that's what you do" is a shit argument.

[New haven america]

Once again: you are claiming that Kat, specifically, chooses partners based on appearance. You have entirely failed to demonstrate that.

And will continue to do so, because "the study says so, so that's what you do" is a shit argument.

But Kat, obviously you do, as you are part of the greater transcendental being known as "Woman" that Costa believes is out to destroy those with a Y chromosome.

[Katganistan]

I am saying that physical appearance is a factor in the partners she chooses. I've been saying this the whole damn time.

Which you have not provided evidence for.

I can do it, too.

Costa Fierro is 69.3 inches tall, exactly. Why? Because that's average height in the US. Not one iota taller, nor shorter. Also, their eyes are brown -- they can be no other color. Their hair is black. Any variation does not exist, the sources say so.

Their favorite food is buttered popcorn, too.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Their favorite food is buttered popcorn, too.

There is no hope for humanity.

[Salandriagado]

Which you have not provided evidence for.

I can do it, too.

Costa Fierro is 69.3 inches tall, exactly. Why? Because that's average height in the US. Not one iota taller, nor shorter. Also, their eyes are brown -- they can be no other color. Their hair is black. Any variation does not exist, the sources say so.

Their favorite food is buttered popcorn, too.

Wow, this is going to make catering so much easier.

[Purpelia]

For the longest time I've been puzzled as to why this discussion even exists. And not like why he came to this idea. I can understand that thought process once you make certain base assumptions such as that slavery is not evil and that sex is the single most important thing in all existence and can thus justify slavery. What I don't understand is why the OP feels sex of all things is that important, either as a breeding tool or for recreation.

I mean seriously, what is it these days with entire movements based around sex being the be all and end all of human existence? It's like we were mindless animals or something. It's just dumbfounding.