Just to point out on a serious side: that’s not true. In fact it’s a total lie. Non Classical Logic: take your pick. On an argumentative level: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum]Absurdity[/url]… not the same as the philosophical [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism]Absurdity[/url]
That been said… I welcome our new Penguin Masters… just in case.
If you want more screwy logic that drives people insane, check out 0.999 = 1
Not a paradox or imaginary either. So if I borrow exactly $1, I only owe you exactly 0.999999999999999~ cents. Mathematically proven by the greatest minds and most powerful computers. Yea… figure that one out. So why doesn’t the bank believe me?
Wouldnt 0.9999… = 1-h where h is infinitesimally small? I think its more of a convention.
I also came across this logic sometime ago.
suppose a+b+c=0
then 3a-2a+3b-2b+3c-2c = 0
then 3(a+b+c)= 2 (a+b+c0
or 3=2
LOLZ. I cant beleive I actually asked a professor about this “situation”.
Having fame and fortune is only considered desirable due to societal idealogy, not due to survival. If it were based on genetic make-up and survival, then those qualities wouldn’t mean squat for women. Survival alone nullifies the argument. Unlike a lot of people in the western world, I know many of the natural survival qualities that humans relied upon extensively ages ago (hunting, gathering, how to build and maintain a hospitable living enviroment, etc). This isn’t a state secret either. Yet this means less than money/fame to many women.
Also on cheating… is it possible it has nothing to do with genetics or providers? Maybe women cheat because they aren’t in love.
I think the real issue is that society has demeaned love by always latching onto materialistic totems to truly “show” love. Add this into science’s attempts to marginalise the notion of romantic love as nothing more than a hunt for genetic material and you have a large population of people that have given up on love altogether. Thankfully, there are those that still truly understand love and dismiss modern society’s attempts at eliminating true love. I think I can hold out for someone who isn’t looking for a wallet or a piece of meat.
“Infinitely small” and “zero” are the same difference. You’re on the right track, though. That’s actually close one of the ways to prove .9999999… = 1.
Put it this way - remember how this calculus thing involes all these limits? So let’s define F(n) = n 9’s after a decimal point. F(1) = .9, F(2) = .99, etc.
What is the limit as N goes to infinity of 1 - F(n)? Pretty clearly, zero. Then, since .999… actually IS F(infinity), it must follow that 1 - F(infinity) = 0, and that therefore, F(infinity)=1.
For some REAL confusing fun math facts, see the proof that the set of positive integers, and the set of positive even numbers, are the same size. (No, really. It’s true. You can prove it.)
I’m confused by what you are arguing in the first half of your post. My point was that natural survival abilities which you know (including how to protect yourself and others in the wild) essentially mean nothing to most women in an industrialized nation. In an industrialized nation all that is really necessary is money and property for survival. (I’m simplifying a bit, but this is pretty much the case.) It is a bit cynical, but think about it for a second. With enough money, you essentially don’t have to do anything, since you can pay someone else to do it for you. This includes making more money (usually through investment).
Now don’t think I completely dismiss love. There are many men that can be a good genetic match to a woman. Of those men, there are probably many who can provide well enough. Even when you narrow it down further with things like “compatible personalities” and such, given how many men there are in the world, there is more than one man that is a “perfect” match to a woman. So what is left? Chance of course, but beyond that the only thing really left is the concept of love.
But money - survival is not a natural instinct… it is only instilled by societal indoctrination, and then it isn’t universally successful. That was my point. If it was about the natural instinct of survival, then money would have little to do with “love” under that definition. Money does not equate to survival in the natural world. If “love” were based on the natural instinct for survival, then women would be more inclined towards survivalist types… those that have the ability to survive in nature. This is not the case, which begs several questions about the role of evolutionary processes in love.
I agree with the odds assesment on love. Considering that there are enough men/women that are both a “perfect” genetic match as well as pyschological match, there must be something else involved in the process other than the evolutionary processes.
Also, the near universal condemnation of rape is quite telling. Considering that sex, by the evolutionary ideology, is a means to procreate a species… rape is inherently not a villanous act. It only becomes so when human understanding enters the equation. Another strike against evolution being a significant driving factor in sexual relationships.
I think the problem many scientists and people in general have with love is that there is no real reason behind falling in love. It is simply one of those things that simply is. Humans have a need for reasons, steps, and processes… love defies all that, so there is “natural” backlash by some people against the notion.
The problem with your thinking is you don’t account for the malleable nature of instinct by the rational mind. Equating money with survival may not be “natural”, but neither is equating a gun with danger. The fact of the matter is that the base instinct of survival is modified by the forethought of the rational mind. Just as we only fear a gun because we know what it can do, we equate money with survival for the same reason. Without this kind of forethought, we would lose one of the defining characteristics of being a human.
It is still social conditioning, even with the gun. It is not part of the natural instinctual part of our mind. Point a gun at someone who doesn’t know what it does, they will probably not react accordingly. The intent behind the gun is easily part of that instinctual make-up though. So, if one has a significant deal of empathy, they might instinctual react to the intent and not the actual gun.
You say it is social conditioning, I say it is the rational mind altering basic instinct. We could go back and forth on this for quite some time. In truth, both are probably the case, at least in part.
A question I saw posted on MSNBC, that didn’t get answered…
How would the law punish Siamese twins if one of the twins committed murder without the other being involved? For instance, if the twins were walking down the street and one pulled out a knife and stabbed someone. It seems to me that you couldn’t punish one without the other suffering the same punishment.
Well, since this society really does not seem to care for innocence, that poor twin is going to the slammer.
I am growing tired of society. Too bad urban sprawl across the globe has basically destroyed the earth and removed any real chance of someone simply locking themselves off from the world… well, unless they can someone survive in the arctic of course.
“Pregnancy that arises from sexual assault would not be punished, [General Anthony] Cucolo said.” So getting pregnant from rape is okay? That is messed up.
