Youtube comments of SepherStar (@SepherStar).

  1. 2100
  2. 1100
  3. 295
  4. 168
  5. 154
  6. 143
  7. 108
  8. 101
  9. 69
  10. 63
  11. 57
  12. 56
  13. 55
  14. 52
  15. 47
  16. 44
  17. 41
  18. 37
  19. 32
  20. 32
  21. 31
  22. 29
  23. 27
  24. 26
  25. 25
  26. 23
  27. 22
  28. 21
  29. 21
  30. 20
  31. 18
  32. 18
  33. 17
  34. 16
  35. 16
  36. 16
  37. 16
  38. 15
  39. 15
  40. 15
  41. 15
  42. I'm just going to copy and paste what I already wrote. It's not really about white people displacing brown people because gentrification doesn't mean white people displacing non-white people. It means more affluent people displacing less affluent people. I'm a white jew from an area that was predominantly white, I got displaced from my hometown when housing prices shot from $200,000 to $600,000 and took rents along with them, pushing out people like me and only being affordable to more affluent people, 50% who happened to be hispanic. In your area it's white people displacing latino people but in some areas, that's not the case. In some areas, it's more affluent Asian people displacing less affluent white people. Or more affluent white people displacing less affluent white people. Or more affluent latino people displacing less affluent latino people. Or more affluent black people displacing less affluent white people (the term for this is "white flight" to make it sound like white people are running from black people, and that idea masks growing affluence among black people and the idea that black people can be more affluent than white people), or more affluent latino people displacing less affluent latino people. I don't doubt you felt unwelcome in these restaurants but I'm not in the position to say whether this is because you were not welcome, or your own racial biases. Maybe these places have so many white people because vegan food is more of a thing in white circles? Maybe more latinos need to be turned on to the idea of vegan food? Maybe hipsters are just snob buckets who look down on people who aren't hispsters and need to be educated that anyone can be vegan.
    14
  43. 14
  44. 14
  45. 13
  46. 13
  47. 13
  48. 12
  49. 12
  50. 12
  51. 12
  52. 12
  53. 12
  54. 12
  55. 11
  56. 11
  57. 11
  58. 11
  59. 11
  60. 11
  61. 10
  62. 10
  63. 10
  64. 10
  65. 10
  66. 10
  67. 10
  68. 9
  69. 9
  70. 9
  71. 9
  72. 8
  73. 8
  74. 8
  75. 8
  76. 8
  77. 8
  78. 8
  79. 7
  80. 7
  81. I can't believe how unobservant you lot are. For those of you who have never spent time in marine environments, things in the water float back and forth with the current, so the driver would not have been able to determine that the Ferry was actually pulling away. Apparently, the Ferry employees didn't know the Ferry was pulling away either, as opposed to just drifting with the current, because one pointed her into a parking space as she approached! When they saw it was actually pulling away, they ran off ramp. In most jurisdictions, it's the captains responsibility to ensure the safety of the crew and passengers, and the captain failed here. When passenger ships in the US depart, there is no ambiguity. The entire crew knows departure is underway because specific procedures are followed, and this usually includes untying the vessel and a few blasts of the horn to signal the boat or ship is pulling away from the dock. As to why she stopped and didn't continue forward, it looks like the back tire hit the edge of the deck at the mid point. That usually causes the tire to pop, and sometimes messes up the rims. I can tell you from the experience of being in a car that hit a curb like that, the jolt and sound would cause most people to stop to see what they hit. Remember, she only saw a smooth path in front of her, and probably had no idea what she hit. It appears the car might also be rear wheel drive. If you look closely, you can see water spray up when the back tires enters the water. Anyway, poor little girl. Horrible lack of safety procedures, and this line have received complaints about this in the past.
    7
  82. 7
  83. 7
  84. 7
  85. 7
  86. 6
  87. 6
  88. 6
  89. 6
  90. 6
  91. 6
  92. 6
  93. 6
  94. 6
  95. 6
  96. 6
  97. 6
  98. 6
  99. 6
  100. 6
  101. 6
  102. 5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 5
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 5
  113. 5
  114. 5
  115. 5
  116. 5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 4
  120. 4
  121. 4
  122. 4
  123. 4
  124. 4
  125. 4
  126. 4
  127. 4
  128. 4
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. Mark Rudy I believe you are referring to the paper called "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness" http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.pdf I don't have time to read the paper thoroughly but if I read correctly, the decline in female happiness was across the board....single working women and married female home makers both had a decline in happiness, and the study could not pinpoint the cause, but rejected various theories on it. They did speculate though that the lives of women have become increasingly more complex and that women might feel they have to meet more standards than in the past. Or it could be that society in general is less happy and women are just more forthcoming with this, or it could have been sample selection bias in that they are just not looking in the right places for unhappy men. I seem to come across disproportionately more unhappy men on the internet than I do women. They are usually unhappy that they are single, or have had a bad relationship. I think men actually get more lonely when they are single than women, which is part of the reason I think it's unfortunate that some single older men are not receptive to dating women closer to their age. I'm not saying they should date a woman they find unattractive...it's imperative they be attracted to her, but they are often looking for women in venues where they do not have a chance to interact with her in person, and there are often dimensions of attraction that only come across in person. They are looking for women on venues that you type an age range in a box, and they might be preventing themselves from meeting a woman they would find attractive and are compatible with, by the number they enter into that box.
    4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 3
  153. 3
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. mewabe4 It's not outdated because many marriages still have primary care givers who do their job as home maker and child carer. As I said to the last person I discussed this with though, it's like with infidelity. Of course an adulterer should not receive anything in a divorce because they violated the sanctity of the marriage and undermined it. But if this were a factor in who got what, the courts would be bogged down with a bunch claims that couldn't be proven, and he said/she said arguments...it would be like a Jerry Springer episode, so the courts no longer take this into account. It's the same with alimony. Most divorced caregivers I know, btw, are not living the high life. Most of them become single working parents and have to try to raise the kids and make ends meet with the jobs they can get, which is usually low paying. For most people, who are poor or middle class, divorce is a financial strain on both parties, and personally I think if there is no abuse, people should work harder at maintaining their marriage. For most married couples, at one point they liked each other enough to marry each other. What changed? Did anything even change? Or were expectations not met? And if they weren't met, were they even talked about before marriage? Romance is great. All marriages should have it, but there's also a business end to marriage. In a business, employees know their job description and what is expected of them, and there are meetings and a structure to ensure the business continues to operate smoothly, and the boss understands what the job of his or her employees entail. Marriages should be treated the same way.
    3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. Sage Thinker I did read them, and I also downloaded the Excel spreadsheet and had some fun. I would like to make a correction to my previous post. I missed a column on account of small screen size when selecting columns to sum in Excel. The difference between the average male and female scores is about 1.2 points, which is just less than 6% of the average score. The same questions apply. Is that a statistically significant difference? I also did notice that males scored on the ACT, 0.2 points higher on average. But the sections of this test are "Reading, English, Mathematics, and "Scientific Reasoning". Reading is a relatively gender neutral at this level. While more males are affected by dyslexia, those who are either don't get to the point of taking the ACT, or overcome it by the time they do take the ACT, or they might have a "reader", so we would expect males and females to have similar performance levels on this sub test. Males scored, on average about 0.4 points lower than females on reading. You can calculate the P value to determine if that is statistically significant. If we were to consider reading, for the sake of the ACT a gender neutral subject, that leaves English, Mathematics, and Scientific Reasoning, which is also known as Science Reasoning, and seems to be composed of mathematical word problems. I don't object to the idea that males are inherently slightly better at math than females. They might very well be, or not, but we can assume they are if you wish. My claims are that 1. Mathematics alone is not a good measure of human cognition. 2. Females, while they may be outperformed by males, even if slightly, in tasks such as visual spatial reasoning, and perhaps mathematics, outperform males in other tasks, such as critical thinking (aka "English) and social reasoning. Thus, I would like to point out, the ACT does not have a "Social Reasoning" subsection. It has a gender neutral subsection...reading, a subsection which may be inherently favorable to males...mathematics, a subsection which may be inherently favorable to females...English, and then another subsection which may be inherently favorable to males...Scientific Reasoning. So the test may very well be biased against women in that manner. On that note, I will repeat myself. Western females are just not as interested in STEM fields as western males. Even if they do go into STEM fields, many women leave to start families or because they become tired of being a minority in the workplace. Women generally tend to have different interests and priorities than men. They may not be interested in chess in nearly the same numbers, instead preferring to chat with their friends about social situations, and this may be far more relevant to a woman than chess. What you are doing is the equivalent of claiming fish are better than birds because fish are generally better at swimming, when birds generally need to swim more than fly, and so generally excel more at flying. The article you linked to concerning the SATs actually refutes a lot of your claims. It's a 2 part article, and I suggest you read carefully through both the first and second part. Anyway I have address your comments and you still have not addressed mine. Do you intend to at all?
    2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. Mark Rudy If a woman does not want a family, if a man does not want a family, they should be aware that they have the option of not having one. I can talk a lot about women being pushed into STEM fields. Mainly, that it rarely happens. At least not in the sense of a girl or woman not having any interest in STEM, pursuing, qualifying for, and graduating from a STEM program. They are very rigorous and competitive and many people just do not have the love to tolerate them, or cognitive capacity for them. I think this "push", at best, can only serve to remind women who might be interested that a STEM field might be an option for them. I'm skeptical that many older single career women had put off marriage and a family for their career, until it was too late. One of the best places to find a mate is a college campus, because you have a high density of young people of the same age group, the most of whom will be marriage ready by the time they graduate...if not with an undergraduate degree, then with a graduate degree. I think the truth of the matter is, that many of these women are the women for whom it just didn't happen. Maybe they were not big on the social scene, or were social misfits. Maybe they had been in a relationship that fell apart. Maybe they just didn't attract many guys or the one guy who was attracted to them never got the nerve to approach her, or maybe he did, and she didn't reciprocate for whatever reason. And then you graduate and get a job and your chances of meeting someone with mutual attraction and compatibility drop off significantly because the population pool you are in shrinks.
    2
  229. 2
  230. Mark Rudy I don't know any 35 year old woman who considers herself infertile unless she actually is. We have a large number of older couples in my city starting families past 35. I'm in STEM and the reason women tend to become discontent with their careers as they get into their mid 30's is because they tire of lack of promotions and the culture. I can't speak for women in other fields. But I can tell you, my grandmother, who married when she was 19 and had 5 kids was so miserable that she wasn't smiling in any of the family photos when she was a housewife. If I had married and had a family when I was young, I know I would have been miserable. What if you, as a young man, were expected to marry and settle down in your early 20's before you even had a chance to explore the world and understand who you are a little better? I think most men would go insane. There's no reason to think women are really any different, particularly because through most of human history, marriage and child bearing had often been somewhat of a forced affair for women and this took away any pressure to evolve an actual preference for marrying and baring children young. So do I regret not marrying young and having kids? Heck no, I would have been absolutely miserable! I would have been sitting there thinking of what I could have done with my life, and to be honest, I think it would have been unfair of me to pretend I was attracted to or loved a man who I didn't. Would I like to marry now? If I find someone I like enough to marry and who likes me enough to marry me, but I do prefer to be alone rather than with someone I don't actually have any interest in or who does not have any interest in me. I might be career oriented but if I marry a man I would like it to be someone I could be a good wife to. Would I want kids? I wouldn't mind them but I would not be devastated if I didn't have them.....I would just think it's a little unfortunate for the world. As for those 35+ single career women who do lament that they can't find anyone, we both know that that's hogwash. These women, as always, just can't find someone they like and maybe they need to accept the fact that they are the female version of those lonely old guys who can't find someone because they are only receptive to dating women between 18-25.
    2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. Angel: You are uninformed. Affirmative action was an idea tossed around in the 90s and is not in effect today. There are few full ride scholarships but the ones that exists are not predominantly nor are they exclusively for black people. Most black people who go to college have to fund their college education the way most white people do. Grants, loans, and maybe a few small scholarships and work study. The UNCF does keep a list of privately funded scholarships that may be available only to people who are ethnically African or have African heritage, however what people such as yourself overlook or are ignorant to is the fact that there are similar scholarships for people of European ethnicity or heritage. You can find scholarships for ethnically British people, people of Kossack heritage, people with French huguenot ancestry. Scholarship offerings are diverse. You can find scholarships for people who descend from revolutionary war soldiers, civil war soldiers, indentured servants, people who's father was a cop, freemason, went to X university or high school.....probably even scholarships for people who's ancestors died of dysentery on the Oregon trail if you looked hard enough. So no, there are not more funding opportunities for black people than white people based on race. Some colleges do have programs for disadvantaged students and their idea of disadvantaged does involve the idea of being a racial minority, however sometimes these programs aren't what they seem. I know this not because I was part of one, I wasn't, but because I had to sit through the info session to one of them at my university. I come from a disadvantaged background but was apparently too white to ever be invited to join this program...I was there because I had a student job and helped with the event set up. So there I was sitting there totally pissed off that I was excluded from the program because of my race, despite being from an economically disadvantaged background, until I realized what was really going on. The entire program was basically a way for the school to try to milk an extra $4,000 out of people of color who were low income....but not so low income that their parents couldn't take out loans. In exchange for the $4,000, students would be permitted to start during the summer rather than the fall (big deal, you get one or two classes out of the way...for twice the typical summer tuition), had access to tutoring (big deal, there were multiple tutoring centers open to all students), and I guess maybe someone would come along and give them a pat on the back for encouragement every so often. I left the event feeling kind of sick that the school would try to scam unsuspecting working class people like that who had spent most of their lives putting away so their kids could be the first in their family to go to college, and realized that if I had been invited to the event as a potential program participant I would have been thinking "$4,000? LO f'ing L! Bye." Anyway most Americans, black or white, are in the same boat as far as funding their college education.
    2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. This list is wrong. Snobbery can't be measured by wealth alone. I doubt Steve Wozniak is a snob. A lot of affluent people are nice people and were not always affluent. That being said, yes, Beverly Hills is snobby. They are hindering the expansion of the subway in Los Angeles because they don't want people from the bad areas coming through their part of town. Malibu is also snobby because it's residents try to block off beach access. They put up illegal fake "no parking" signs, and hire private security guards to harass people on the beach. The police department has wrongly sided with security guards in some instances and once threatened to arrest a representative from the coastal commission for refusing to leave a public section of beach which a private security guard was claiming was private. You forgot Santa Barbara. People in Santa Barbara think Santa Barbara is the absolute best city in the world and everyone else would love to live there. It'd be a great city, if it wasn't full of people from Santa Barbara. Near the top of the list is Hidden Hills. You've probably never heard of it. It's a small city that is occupied almost entirely by a private, gated community of mansions. The city hall and post office and whatever other city services they have literally sit right outside the gates like guard shacks. You, as an American citizen, are not allowed in most of the city unless you live there. The top of the list is the city of Vernon. If you have ever seen Vernon, you may be quite puzzled. For those who haven't seen Vernon, CA, it's nearly 100% tagged up, runned down industrial superfund clean up site with few trees and train tracks running between the factories, warehouses, and slag heaps. You might wonder "How the hell is this place snobby?" Well for decades, the city was ran by a small, related group of people who ran all of the residential population out of the city. The city owns the little residential housing that's remaining and the city employees supposedly live there. I say supposedly because it was discovered during a voter fraud investigation that some of them actually don't. And why would they? It's the ugliest city in the U.S. But they claimed to be residents because a city needs residents so it will have voters and continue to exist, and thus, this is how a very small group of people created their own country within a country and nearly went to jail for it. The city was almost dissolved, but is now expecting 200 new residential housing units. So Vernon is both the worst place, and snobbiest place to live in CA.
    2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. David Leitman I would like to point out some differences between race and gender.  The first is, gender, if defined as the behavioral and cognitive processes most often conveyed by one's culture, and biological sex, has both social and biological components, the latter which is subject to the same variation that all other biological entities are. There is no conclusive or widely accepted evidence that the same holds for race; that there are biological components, conveyed by race, that are responsible for certain behavioral characteristics and cognitive processes, in a generalized way. Dolezal says she identifies as "black" but what she actually identifies as culturally African American. She just thought she had to be black to be a cultural insider. And maybe, on some level, that is the case. But most black people are not African American and black people world wide are not, and don't see themselves as a culturally homogeneous people. African American culture is just as foreign to a black person in Botswana, as Japanese culture.  The second is, sex, and at least some of it's gender components, develops in the womb in a way different from race. The default of the human form is female in phenotype. A person with no genetic sex, as is the case with Turner Syndrome, will develop as female, though will often be infertile. For a human embryo to develop a male phenotype, the fetus has to be exposed to androgens during a certain time frame in fetal development. This process is usually started when the SRY gene causes the ovotestes to develop into testicles and start producing the androgen, but a genetically female fetus will develop a male phenotype all the same if exposed to androgens during the proper time period, and this occasionally happens through external exposure such as medications the mother takes, or internal exposure, such as can arise in certain disorders. An phenotypically male infant must be exposed to further androgens at puberty to develop an adult male phenotype. But racial phenotypes do not rely on such a process to develop in the womb. There is no default racial phenotype and racial phenotype is polygenic. There is no such things as biological race because what we call race is a group of genes or gene variations to which certain physical characteristics can be attributed, but are usually not all present in the individuals of the group in question, and this variation differs from that seen with variation in sex determination. 3. Caitlyn Jenner is not passing herself off as someone who was born with a female phenotype or as someone who was raised female. Rachel Dolezal tried to pass herself off as someone with recent sub-Saharan ancestry, and tried to obscure her actual ancestry, and has possible told more grave lies on top of that. But Bruce/Caitlyn has been very transparent.
    2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. Sage Thinker Actually, most disorders are NOT caused by women having babies when they are older than 35 years of age. The odds of having baby with Down's Syndrome increases with the age of the mother, but there is evidence to show that the odds of other disorders and birth defects decrease with an increase in the age of the mother. Additionally, the combined prevalence of disorders that are not dependent on the age of the mother, such as recessive and dominant disorders, exceeds the prevalence of Down's Syndrome. You are correct that testosterone seems to improve spatial reasoning skills, and this is a factor in the increased IQ scores of men. But that is consistent with my claim that modern IQ tests are less likely to identify gifted women than men, because they are still somewhat biased towards testing for attributes that are more relevant to men. For example, while a man may excel in spatial reasoning, a woman might excel in social reasoning, but while older IQ tests tested spatial reasoning, they did not test for any social abilities. More recent IQ tests have started to include subtests that test social abilities, but they still focus more heavily spatial reasoning. That being said, I disagree that women put emotion above logic. Women simply tend to more often excel at a different type of logic than men. Men are more likely to excel at visual-spatial, and symbolic logic, while women are more likely to excel at social logic and logic pertaining to executive planning. This relates back to primitive roles among humans.
    1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. Most drug users are 1. In denial that they have a problem, and 2. Underestimate the impact of their problems on others. I've had the misfortune of knowing a lot of drug addicts. All kinds of drugs, and it was always the pot smokers who were the worst to interact with. Crack addicts and heroin addicts, they have a time and place for their drugs. When they are drugged up, they know they are impaired, and they are sober for big chunks of time, but pot addicts don't have a time and place. They are like prescription pain killer addicts who try to go about their day under the influence, and they don't think it's a big deal. In fact they don't think that anything is a big deal, even when it is to others, because that's what pot does. It makes you think that nothing is a big deal, and makes you emotionally unavailable. That can have very profound and negative affects on those around you. I saw a documentary about a lady with cerebral palsy who was trying to get pot legalized. Her fiance had committed suicide. They had gotten into a verbal argument and she told him he was worse than the man who had raped her. He was so upset about this that he locked himself in the bathroom, and instead of talking it out, she kept urging him to come downstairs to smoke some pot. He committed suicide in the bathroom. And after recounting this story she added that if he had just come down stairs and smoked some pot, everything would have been fine. She completely discounted his feelings and the hurt she had caused him. She completely brushed it off because pot made her think that what she said wasn't a big deal, and pot was a solution to everything for her.
    1
  356. 1
  357. +OCTANE91 I understand that you feel that "black and Mexicans score a lot lower than whites and still get the same degree" and if that were the case it would certainly be unfair, but it's not the case. Colleges and universities have GPA policies which are applied uniformly throughout the program of study. At my university, in my particular program, a passing grade was a D but to graduate and receive a degree, you had to maintain a GPA above 2.0. That applied to everyone. Most masters programs in my field require a GPA of at least 3.0. And that also applies to everyone. There are ethnicity and race based scholarships offered by private organizations or trusts that anyone can set up. That being said, I've seen as many for students of specific European heritages as I have for black and latino students. Because there is always competition for scholarships, there are always merit requirements as well, and often requirements as to the type of institution you are at, your field of study, and so on. Are you of Lithuanian heritage? You can find scholarships for Lithuanians at the Lithuanian Foundation. Scottish? Try Scottish Heritage USA. There's even scholarships for children of coal miners, and railway workers, and steel workers. You can look this stuff up. I do seem to recall some students were to upset to take exams due to a noose at some university. I don't know if the university decided to accommodate their requests or not but universities actually accommodate what are considered to be extenuating circumstances all the time, and if they did accommodate these students then they would have also accommodated a white student who was equally upset by the incident. If not because they believed the student, then because they just wanted to avoid the hassle of a legal battle. You know your problem is that you don't challenge your perceptions. Of course if you think others are getting things you aren't, you are going to be upset but your upset was based on false perceptions. There's a scholarship for you based on your heritage if you want one, you just have to find it and then meet the additional criteria.
    1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. webherring He divorced her for a 25 year old model. I think he will be getting enough sex. I don't know the marriage laws in the jurisdiction in which the divorce is taking place. Where I am, each spouse gets 50% of what was brought into the marriage, and the custodial parent get's child support and possibly alimony. There is logic behind alimony. I'll illustrate is using myself as an example. I'm career oriented and single, but if I were to marry, and be a home maker, I would be forgoing the ability to build an income earning career, to dedicate my time to caring for my husband, children, and the household. After however many years of marriage, if we were to divorce, he has probably been in the work force all of that time, and does not lose his ability to bring in an income. However I as the care giver, would be left up the creek without a paddle, an older person with minimal or no work experience, who has been out of the work force for x number of years, and probably am not going to be able to make enough to support myself. So why would I take such a risk? Would you? The purpose of alimony was to offset that risk so women (at the time), and their parents, would be more agreeable to the marriage and know that she wouldn't be left destitute if the marriage fails. Other cultures tackle this issue in different ways. In some cultures, a woman's family must pay a dowry before their daughter is married. For the average Indian this could amount to the equivalent cost of a car or house, and this is why daughters are viewed as burdensome. Imagine if you had to come up with $200,000 to marry your daughter off. Then imagine you had 4 daughters. Theoretically the husband's family holds on to the dowry and must return it in a divorce so your daughter will not be impoverished, but this can be troublesome when it was cash. In many tribal culture, the dowry is in the form of cattle, and is easier to return/get back, because they are usually kept around for milk, and produce offspring. In Islam, they have mahr, or a dower in English. This is an amount agreed upon in the marriage contract that, that the husband or the husband's father agrees to pay the wife in the event of a divorce. In the US, we also have marriage contracts, but since they are built in contracts in the form of marriage and divorce laws, not enough people seem to be aware of them until they decide to get divorced. Personally I'm not a big fan of divorce. It's warranted for instance of abuse or infidelity, or infertility, but that aside, I think it's best in the long run for couples to make a mutual effort to keep their marriage together. I see a lot people who don't make the effort, and I'm sorry to say that most of these people seem to be men. That always perplexes me being the fact that divorce is a huge financial burden to most of these men, as they tend to be the wage earners, and I think men take a bigger emotional hit regardless. But in my observation, they tend to avoid addressing the problems in the marriage, even when they know the marriage is dying because of it. I'm not saying all men, just a lot of men. They will exhibit avoidance behavior, whether that is with video games, work, or affairs. I think this is because they might think they don't have as much power in the marriage as they actually do. There's a horrible myth that men are poor communicators, but most men communicate just fine at the office and on job sites. A marriage, like an office, needs structure, and protocols, and board meetings, and too many people go into them thinking love alone is enough.
    1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. John D Internet dating is like window shopping. Everyone likes to gawk at and inquire about things they want and can't have, marketed by retailers who try to make the things look better than they actually are. It's a fantasy land that isn't good for anything except for confirming that a man would like a super model if he could have one, and a woman would like a rich guy if she could have one. The number one predictor of whether or not two people will hook up, is their general physical proximity. Famous people tend to date famous people because said famous people typically meet at a "Hollywood" party or through mutual social connections. It's not any different with business executives. The primary  reason it might turn out that most female CEOs who are married to male CEOs have spouses who are more successful than themselves, is likely due to the fact that male CEOs tend to be more successful than female CEOs in general.  When career minded men look for wives to be home makers, they tend to want someone pretty, but they still tend to want her to be educated. It's not much different when career minded women look for husbands to be home makers. But there is one caveat and it's not how much he made before she met him. It's how much he aspired for before she met him. It's the difference between the guy making $8 an hour at McDonald's who is doing noting else with his, life, and the guy who makes $8 per hour at McDonald's but is also writing a book, or is an aspiring actor, or spends every night planning the ice cream shop he wants to open some day. It's not about wanting a guy with money to these women. It's about wanting a guy who has the capacity to be creative and ambitious. I guess the male equivalent would be wanting a woman who's fun.
    1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. ***** Maybe I've been on the internet too long but I don't see where he starts being nasty. Impassioned, yes, but not nasty, unless I've missed something. Yes, you have a right to refuse, but you resorted to tactics, possibly subconsciously, that are meant to shame and defame, and as there is not a word for them in the English language (a common problem when trying to call out bullying) I will simply highlight what you did. When Paul suggested you talk face to face, you could have said "No" or "I'm not interested" or "I prefer text" but you said "Okay...." When "okay" doesn't mean yes, or "well then" it is used as a sarcasm, and sarcasm is a form of passive aggressiveness often intended to shame or humiliate the receiver.  You later state  "You creeped me out with your "offer."  It's like asking for my mobile phone number.  Are you that desperate?  Men only want to have contact with a woman for a reason.  They want "something".  Scary."  Maybe he did creep you out...what you consider creepy or not isn't for me to dictate. You decide that based on your own experiences and perceptions. But then you launch attack #2. You accuse if of being "desperate" and accuse him, via implication, that he only wants sex from you. That constitutes a defamation of character.  Then you proceed to laugh at him (attempted invalidation, though admittedly common on the internet), and end the conversation in a manner reminiscent of a teenaged girl. You asked if I was male or female. I am a FEMALE with Asperger's Syndrome. I have two sisters. I have been a life long witness, and occasional target of the very same type of aggression you have just subjected Paul to....passive aggressiveness, ostracization, hostile invalidation, attempts to humiliate, and character defamation. It's wrong, and in the name of all that's fair and just, I'm calling you out on it. 
    1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. Paul Johnson I agree with most of your statement. I don't have a problem with the notion of men having intrinsic value as human beings....I never thought they didn't. I've never been of the opinion that a man needs a woman to be worth something, and I don't have a problem with MGTOW to the extent of it serving as a platform for men to recognize their intrinsic value, be their own person, and grow as people. We don't have a problem with women doing their own thing? Why should we have a problem with men doing their own thing? A note on Nicola Tesla. When pressed on the matter, he would sometimes refer to he changing behaviors and perceptions of women concerning their place in society, as a reason for his solitary life. However, he very likely was on the autistic spectrum, or had juvenile onset schizophrenia. He most certainly had untreated OCD. Any one of these things would have made it difficult for him to have a relationship, and none of these things would he have easily been able to explain to society, because the terms and words did not yet exist for him to do so. He would occasionally try to explain...he experienced what we would now call hallucinations. He heard voices and saw flashes of light, and had running trains of thoughts. He was severely germophobic, and could not easily tolerate anyone in his living quarters. He was certainly a great man, but as is common in profound geniuses, the trade off for his genius was poor mental health, which probably impacted his day to day life and social relations more than most people know. I would suspect that was the reason for his solitary life more than the reason he is perceived to have eluded to.
    1
  597. Paul Johnson I've never said men's contributions weren't significant......when I was younger I probably would have thought the same as you, assigning infrastructure, knowledge, and technology to be of greater importance than care giving, and home making, and interpersonal bonds. I have Asperger's Syndrome and I've historically been more of a machine and animal person than a people person. But as I've made more efforts to develop socially, I've been forced to closer examine the nature of humanity and ask what is really important to human beings. I came to realize that when you take away all of the technology, and infrastructure, you are left with human beings, and their family units, and their relations. I believe unhappiness is so common in modern societies because they are socially deficient and rife with isolation. At the end of the day, we put ourselves in boxes by ourselves...how strange is that? I'm sitting in my box by myself and my neighbor is sitting in his box by himself, and the person who has lived 20 feet away from me for 7 years, who I have never met, is sitting in their box by themselves....how strange is that? This is not the type of environment humans evolved in.  Even when we are surrounded by people, we can be alone in this strange society. We can be surrounded by thousands of people, not know a single one of them, and be alone.  Humans are so much social beings, that human brains do not develop properly in the absence of social interaction, we can use isolation as a form of torture, and elderly individuals who have limited social interactions have much higher rates of mortality and dementia than elderly individuals who are socially active. So I have been forced to acknowledge that the most important thing to humans is actually other humans, and ideally, when you come home at the end of the day from building bridges or roads, there should be another human waiting for you, to provide you with that warmth and care, and social interaction that you need. It doesn't have to be a woman, it could be a friend or a roommate. But in most instances, for most men, it was a woman for 18 years of their life, and it still is a woman who does this. I think men tend to overlook this because we, as a species, have evolved to prioretize things most relevant to our responsibilities. If you have ever read "Brave New World", each rank of person Alpha, Beta, Delta.....Epsilon, were all made to think that their role in society was the most important so they would be content in them and do them, when, in reality, for the society to function, all roles were equally important.  Men, in general, make and build. This is how they have evolved, so apparently this is important. Women, in general, care for and socialize. This is how they evolved so apparently this is important. And apparently these things are so important that each tends to think their role is the most important. What a clever thing nature is.
    1
  598. 1
  599. Jeff Huston I did not mean to imply that men made no contributions to Himba society...they do, and the women value those contributions greatly. But it is a largely matriarchal society and I think one of the best approximations of how a society of only women would be. I believe it's testosterone that provokes men to be action takers. Genetic males with complete androgen insensitivity disorder (who are not able to respond to androgens) grow up to be externally physically, and behaviorally identical to females. I did not omit the benefits that men provide to women and children. We had just arrived at that point in our conversation yet. And now here we are. In human society, of course men are just as much a valuable part of the equation as women are. As we agreed upon previously, it's men who are largely responsible for the infrastructure on which our civilizations are based. They protect and provide. They spend most of their life away form their family, working at tasks they would probably rather not be doing so often, with just a photo on their desk or in their wallet to remind them why they are doing it. They make great sacrafices for both women, and human children, some of the most resource intensive offspring on the planet, and they take huge risks, that have ultimately...at least to this point in time, have served to make humans one of the most survival successful species on the planet. I fully and officially acknowledge the importance of men to human societies and the human species. It would just be nice if more men acknowledged the equal importance of the contributions of women....or the contributions of women at all. Anyway Mr. Huston, it is rare that I come upon someone on the internet who is such a pleasure to converse with as you have been. It is nice to know that there are still others out there who are willing to have such respectful conversations on matters. You have restored my faith in humanity.
    1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1