“Sorry, chaps, you’re obsolete"

Don't count on it.

Nikola Tesla envisioned that happening about a hundred years ago. Supposedly the women of the future would only choose prime genetic specimen like he is, with enormous intelligence and productive capabilities, while shunning anyone with "criminal genes", who contributed to nothing, except for possessing a large "member" and a decent face to look at.

Didn't quite turn out that way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Meeks

The female's idea of selection, differs greatly from the ideas made up by men.

Well, their ideas differ from what men would prefer, but they only differ slightly (and to men's liking) from how men themselves select mates. That was always a silly vision, and would only be semi-coherent if women were entirely dispossessed of any productive abilities themselves, to the point that picking a mate was purely about survival. Even then, to entirely discount physical and emotional attraction would be asinine.

Courtship for men is still a much, much, much more meritocratic game than it is for women. Women deviate from seeking a proportionally attractive mate all the time and bend their physical standards on the basis of intelligence, success, emotional attraction, etc. Men? Not nearly as much. If you're a successful man, it's almost unheard of that you date a woman of lesser attractiveness, and women will be overvalued on the basis of physical appearance to a much greater degree. For a woman with every great quality except remote physical attractiveness, their field of suitors is still extreeeeemley limited.
 
I know the seemingly obvious implication makes for a nice headline but it still makes no sense. Birth rates are dropping in the developed world and in the US something like half of all pregnancies are unplanned. The vast majority of the time women aren't having sex to reproduce, they just want the meat injection.

I spose it becomes a test of the "all women are bisexual or lesbian but never straight" claim doesn't it, in an all female society were that's pushed from birth would women be emotionally/sexually fulfilled?

Personally I tend take the view that society losing diversity would weaken itself, I mean more realistically for example I think genetically engineering homosexuality away wouldn't be a positive as you'd loose a different perspective on the world and the different ideas that potentially brings.
 
The problem is that they will need male scientists for this work to continue. But with that said, any man who fears a takeover by women deserves to be ruled by them.
 
Seems pretty reasonable. Historically women have fulled that role. He wasn't saying it in a 'bitch, get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich' way as you tried to falsely characterize him.

<YeahOKJen>
 
7697fa76f5caded7cf22f1cc23de878f.jpg

I think not!
Oh MY!
 
Nobody is obsolete. Sex still feels great. So until Sex is no longer freaking awesome, then babies will still be born the old fashioned way. Nobody likes Condoms, because they are for sailors and pulling out is only fun for a change of pace. So the sperm will find an egg and bingo bango bongo, a baby is made.
 
Conservatives + Christianity + Science = "then why are there still monkeys moran ?????"

How typical. Defend a truth that applies to everyone with a statement that only applies to a stereotype created by mainstream media pushing a narrative that doesnt stand up to any actual scrutiny.
 
Women can do anything men can do. Except successfully oppress another gender.
 
But, who will change the oil, or change their tires when they pick up a nail somewhere?
 
Not very many Christian's deny evolution. That's a mostly American thing.

Yeah, you're right, but Christianity has been uniquely hostile to science throughout its history. While science was embraced, for instance, in early Muslim countries, it was pretty aggressively suppressed in Christian ones. But I would agree that anti-science strains seem to have mostly melted away in Europe and Latin America.
 
Yeah, you're right, but Christianity has been uniquely hostile to science throughout its history. While science was embraced, for instance, in early Muslim countries, it was pretty aggressively suppressed in Christian ones. But I would agree that anti-science strains seem to have mostly melted away in Europe and Latin America.

The science denial is a weird one and I find it interesting that early Islam didn't fall too deep into it. From what I understand during the dark ages of Europe, the Islamic world was leading in Chemistry, Math, and architecture. At the same time the Europeans were persecuting people for using herbal medicines and denying the earth was round.

Whats more interesting is that as we've learned over the last decade, science denial isn't unique to organized religion. We see it among the radical left with biology denial.

So that brings me to my question. What's it really correlated to if Midievel Islam didn't deny science?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Liberals+LGBTQ+mad scientists = Something that’s not gonna turn out so good

What's bad about it? Nothing inherently good or bad about it. Same with most things.

People have the opportunity to put these discoveries to use for good or for bad. We usually do both. Like most discoveries, we will use it to find ways to help people and to kill them. By the way, Fictional sky bosses are still the all time GOAT kill leaders, for whatever that's worth. Both in personal confirmed kills and kills in their name. But go right on ahead and bend the knee.

Genetically bred genderless super soldiers anyone????
 
Yeah, you're right, but Christianity has been uniquely hostile to science throughout its history. While science was embraced, for instance, in early Muslim countries, it was pretty aggressively suppressed in Christian ones. But I would agree that anti-science strains seem to have mostly melted away in Europe and Latin America.

If by, "aggressively suppressed" you mean "creation of the modern university system and sponsoring the foundations of multiple natural sciences," then I can dig it. You are, however, absolutely correct in your observations about the advances in science and especially mathematics by Islamic societies in previous centuries. It's a shame that, when wistfully wishing for a return to those cultures' respective Golden Ages, more modern religious folks don't account for the celebration of the academia that made them possible.
 
The science denial is a weird one and I find it interesting that early Islam didn't fall too deep into it. From what I understand during the dark ages of Europe, the Islamic world was leading in Chemistry, Math, and architecture. At the same time the Europeans were persecuting people for using herbal medicines and denial the earth was round.

Whats more interesting is that as we've learned over the last decade, science denial isn't unique to organized religion. We see it among the radical left with biology denial.

So that brings me to my question. What's it really correlated to if Midievel Islam didn't deny science?

If I'm not wrong, I believe the Nomadic/Mongol invasions had something to do with Islam being knocked off its "scientific leader of the world" status. Hordes of nomads raided, raped and pillaged their way through the Middle East, taking down much of the Islamic "high culture" along with it.

I would say that outright science denial (not skepticism, which can be a different matter) is correlated with low level of intellect. That is not a matter of pure IQ, but also whether a person subjects themselves to intellectual tasks, and whether they are surrounded by a culture where their intelligence gets challenged, instead of conforming to uniformity of thought, in order to "simplify" their existence.

Keep in mind though, that much of what gets marketed as science, is every bit as much bullshit as any religious texts. What really matters is whether a person is capable of being critical, and sticking to the facts, rather than going with their "gut instinct", emotions, preconceived ideas of what the "truth" ought to be.
 
Back
Top