19 Nov 2014, 2:24 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
CynicalWaffle wrote:
anthropic_principle wrote:
CynicalWaffle wrote:
I'm not gonna say what race I am, but I won't date most women my race because they are more preoccupied with whether the guys they are dating/marrying are thugs or not (in other words, THEY ONLY DATE AND MARRY THUGS.). I'm not about that life, so that particular race is cut out for the most part. If I meet a nice lady who's part of my race who isn't my mom or my sister, that's fine, and I will look into getting to know her. But there are very good reasons for not wanting to date other races, or even your same race.
stab in the dark, you're black?
Yeah, I guess the thugs part gave it away huh
I may be incorrect, but a complaint I've encountered repeatedly both in person and in magazines like Madame Noire is a lack of suitable black men, usually combined with strongly expressing a distaste for 'thuggish' behaviour. Isn't this really just a more specific version of the utterly wrong 'all women want jerks' meme?
I don't have particularly strong racial preferences. Even living in a relatively rural small town I had pretty diverse relationships when I was younger.
I see no issue with others having racial preferences though. As repeatedly stated, people have little conscious control over their attraction. We like what we find appealing, and we don't usually have long, rational inner dialogues with ourselves dissecting the logic of what we find attractive. For all the claims otherwise, no reasonable argument has been made, no evidence offered, just repeating the word 'no'. That's not evidence for a position, that's a verbal tick.
BS. A does not neccesarily suggest B and B does not suggest C. I study psychology and I think no reasonable argument has been made for 'we don't control what we like'. Load of crap. So again: NO. Just repeating 'we don't control what we like' is no argument, that's a verbal and dogmatic tick.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,567
Location: Right over your left shoulder
19 Nov 2014, 2:59 pm
Cafeaulait wrote:
BS. A does not neccesarily suggest B and B does not suggest C. I study psychology and I think no reasonable argument has been made for 'we don't control what we like'. Load of crap. So again: NO. Just repeating 'we don't control what we like' is no argument, that's a verbal and dogmatic tick.
You're welcome to discount the described experiences of so many people as entirely false and insist you know how their minds work better than they know themselves. But, if you're going to do so you bear the burden of supporting your position. If you can't support your position it's bound to be discarded when people reflect upon their own experiences. I hope your continued studies lead you to start to understand psychology.
19 Nov 2014, 3:04 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
BS. A does not neccesarily suggest B and B does not suggest C. I study psychology and I think no reasonable argument has been made for 'we don't control what we like'. Load of crap. So again: NO. Just repeating 'we don't control what we like' is no argument, that's a verbal and dogmatic tick.
You're welcome to discount the described experiences of so many people as entirely false and insist you know how their minds work better than they know themselves. But, if you're going to do so you bear the burden of supporting your position. If you can't support your position it's bound to be discarded when people reflect upon their own experiences. I hope your continued studies lead you to start to understand psychology.
No, why don't YOU support the burden of your position? Your position is not the 'H0', the null hypothesis. Most people don't have a clue about how their minds work. I understand psychology to a large extent, in fact I will be graduating summa cum laude this december with one of the best thesis written in the last 5 years
So thank you very much, funeral.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,567
Location: Right over your left shoulder
19 Nov 2014, 3:58 pm
Cafeaulait wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
BS. A does not neccesarily suggest B and B does not suggest C. I study psychology and I think no reasonable argument has been made for 'we don't control what we like'. Load of crap. So again: NO. Just repeating 'we don't control what we like' is no argument, that's a verbal and dogmatic tick.
You're welcome to discount the described experiences of so many people as entirely false and insist you know how their minds work better than they know themselves. But, if you're going to do so you bear the burden of supporting your position. If you can't support your position it's bound to be discarded when people reflect upon their own experiences. I hope your continued studies lead you to start to understand psychology.
No, why don't YOU support the burden of your position? Your position is not the 'H0', the null hypothesis. Most people don't have a clue about how their minds work. I understand psychology to a large extent, in fact I will be graduating summa cum laude this december with one of the best thesis written in the last 5 years
So thank you very much, funeral.If you're correct, that people indeed control what they like you should be able to explain how this control is expressed. You've made no attempt to explain why you're right, so why should your unsupported opinion be accepted as anything but?
My evidence is the amassed experiences of everyone saying they can't. Yours is..?
19 Nov 2014, 4:19 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
BS. A does not neccesarily suggest B and B does not suggest C. I study psychology and I think no reasonable argument has been made for 'we don't control what we like'. Load of crap. So again: NO. Just repeating 'we don't control what we like' is no argument, that's a verbal and dogmatic tick.
You're welcome to discount the described experiences of so many people as entirely false and insist you know how their minds work better than they know themselves. But, if you're going to do so you bear the burden of supporting your position. If you can't support your position it's bound to be discarded when people reflect upon their own experiences. I hope your continued studies lead you to start to understand psychology.
No, why don't YOU support the burden of your position? Your position is not the 'H0', the null hypothesis. Most people don't have a clue about how their minds work. I understand psychology to a large extent, in fact I will be graduating summa cum laude this december with one of the best thesis written in the last 5 years
So thank you very much, funeral.If you're correct, that people indeed control what they like you should be able to explain how this control is expressed. You've made no attempt to explain why you're right, so why should your unsupported opinion be accepted as anything but?
My evidence is the amassed experiences of everyone saying they can't. Yours is..?
No, because that's not neccesarily the null hypothesis. Everyone saying something is no evidence whatsoever. Masses of people say never proven things all the time and make incorrect assumptions, even about themselves. If you're correct, tell me why people cannot control anything, You've made no attempt to explain why you're right, so why should your unsupported opinion be accepted as anything but? The knife cuts both ways, funeral.
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
19 Nov 2014, 4:42 pm
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,567
Location: Right over your left shoulder
19 Nov 2014, 4:49 pm
Cafeaulait wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
BS. A does not neccesarily suggest B and B does not suggest C. I study psychology and I think no reasonable argument has been made for 'we don't control what we like'. Load of crap. So again: NO. Just repeating 'we don't control what we like' is no argument, that's a verbal and dogmatic tick.
You're welcome to discount the described experiences of so many people as entirely false and insist you know how their minds work better than they know themselves. But, if you're going to do so you bear the burden of supporting your position. If you can't support your position it's bound to be discarded when people reflect upon their own experiences. I hope your continued studies lead you to start to understand psychology.
No, why don't YOU support the burden of your position? Your position is not the 'H0', the null hypothesis. Most people don't have a clue about how their minds work. I understand psychology to a large extent, in fact I will be graduating summa cum laude this december with one of the best thesis written in the last 5 years
So thank you very much, funeral.If you're correct, that people indeed control what they like you should be able to explain how this control is expressed. You've made no attempt to explain why you're right, so why should your unsupported opinion be accepted as anything but?
My evidence is the amassed experiences of everyone saying they can't. Yours is..?
No, because that's not neccesarily the null hypothesis. Everyone saying something is no evidence whatsoever. Masses of people say never proven things all the time and make incorrect assumptions, even about themselves. If you're correct, tell me why people cannot control anything, You've made no attempt to explain why you're right, so why should your unsupported opinion be accepted as anything but? The knife cuts both ways, funeral.
If a mass of people all believe they have experienced a blinding flash of light and someone comes along and insists otherwise without providing any evidence, there's no reason to take that person seriously. The person claiming they're all wrong needs to explain why that is in order to have credibility. Simply saying 'you're all wrong and know nothing of your experience' isn't an argument.
I admit, my evidence is weak. But weak evidence beats no evidence. So far you've done nothing at all to support your position. Mine is indeed weakly supported, so why not flesh out your position and demonstrate how superior your argument is? I'm sincerely interested in understanding your position. I wouldn't be bothering you to explain it if I didn't believe you may potentially be right, but since so far your argument hasn't gone beyond people make incorrect assumptions, therefore I'm right and they're wrong. So, what makes you right?
19 Nov 2014, 5:13 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Cafeaulait wrote:
BS. A does not neccesarily suggest B and B does not suggest C. I study psychology and I think no reasonable argument has been made for 'we don't control what we like'. Load of crap. So again: NO. Just repeating 'we don't control what we like' is no argument, that's a verbal and dogmatic tick.
You're welcome to discount the described experiences of so many people as entirely false and insist you know how their minds work better than they know themselves. But, if you're going to do so you bear the burden of supporting your position. If you can't support your position it's bound to be discarded when people reflect upon their own experiences. I hope your continued studies lead you to start to understand psychology.
No, why don't YOU support the burden of your position? Your position is not the 'H0', the null hypothesis. Most people don't have a clue about how their minds work. I understand psychology to a large extent, in fact I will be graduating summa cum laude this december with one of the best thesis written in the last 5 years
So thank you very much, funeral.If you're correct, that people indeed control what they like you should be able to explain how this control is expressed. You've made no attempt to explain why you're right, so why should your unsupported opinion be accepted as anything but?
My evidence is the amassed experiences of everyone saying they can't. Yours is..?
No, because that's not neccesarily the null hypothesis. Everyone saying something is no evidence whatsoever. Masses of people say never proven things all the time and make incorrect assumptions, even about themselves. If you're correct, tell me why people cannot control anything, You've made no attempt to explain why you're right, so why should your unsupported opinion be accepted as anything but? The knife cuts both ways, funeral.
If a mass of people all believe they have experienced a blinding flash of light and someone comes along and insists otherwise without providing any evidence, there's no reason to take that person seriously. The person claiming they're all wrong needs to explain why that is in order to have credibility. Simply saying 'you're all wrong and know nothing of your experience' isn't an argument.
I admit, my evidence is weak. But weak evidence beats no evidence. So far you've done nothing at all to support your position. Mine is indeed weakly supported, so why not flesh out your position and demonstrate how superior your argument is? I'm sincerely interested in understanding your position. I wouldn't be bothering you to explain it if I didn't believe you may potentially be right, but since so far your argument hasn't gone beyond people make incorrect assumptions, therefore I'm right and they're wrong. So, what makes you right?
Masses of people finding something is no evidence at all, because you are describing and not explaining. No evidence = no evidence. You are misplacing the burden of proof and so far you've done nothing to support your position.
19 Nov 2014, 5:17 pm
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,567
Location: Right over your left shoulder
19 Nov 2014, 6:38 pm
19 Nov 2014, 6:40 pm
19 Nov 2014, 6:46 pm
Cafeaulait wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
CynicalWaffle wrote:
anthropic_principle wrote:
CynicalWaffle wrote:
I'm not gonna say what race I am, but I won't date most women my race because they are more preoccupied with whether the guys they are dating/marrying are thugs or not (in other words, THEY ONLY DATE AND MARRY THUGS.). I'm not about that life, so that particular race is cut out for the most part. If I meet a nice lady who's part of my race who isn't my mom or my sister, that's fine, and I will look into getting to know her. But there are very good reasons for not wanting to date other races, or even your same race.
stab in the dark, you're black?
Yeah, I guess the thugs part gave it away huh
I may be incorrect, but a complaint I've encountered repeatedly both in person and in magazines like Madame Noire is a lack of suitable black men, usually combined with strongly expressing a distaste for 'thuggish' behaviour. Isn't this really just a more specific version of the utterly wrong 'all women want jerks' meme?
I don't have particularly strong racial preferences. Even living in a relatively rural small town I had pretty diverse relationships when I was younger.
I see no issue with others having racial preferences though. As repeatedly stated, people have little conscious control over their attraction. We like what we find appealing, and we don't usually have long, rational inner dialogues with ourselves dissecting the logic of what we find attractive. For all the claims otherwise, no reasonable argument has been made, no evidence offered, just repeating the word 'no'. That's not evidence for a position, that's a verbal tick.
BS. A does not neccesarily suggest B and B does not suggest C. I study psychology and I think no reasonable argument has been made for 'we don't control what we like'. Load of crap. So again: NO. Just repeating 'we don't control what we like' is no argument, that's a verbal and dogmatic tick.
so I'm a racist then?
also if this is true then you should have no problem dating those less "intelligent" people. so go find a fat ugly, stupid person and change how you feel attracted and live the rest of your life with them.
when you can do that then the rest of us will work on overcoming our attraction preferences.
seems hypocritical of you to tell us that who we are attracted to is wrong and can be changed yet you do the same things in what you regard as intelligent . so you should be able to change how you don't feel attracted to people who are less smart.
19 Nov 2014, 6:53 pm
So, my liking blonde hippies is dumb. I never thought of it that way. I've always thought of it as me liking blonde hippies. After all, opposites attract.
I really should cook supper. Oh yeah....I'm too dumb to cook an elaborate meal. I'll just have bacon. 
19 Nov 2014, 6:55 pm
19 Nov 2014, 6:59 pm
19 Nov 2014, 7:10 pm
