Clubbing and Politics

>It's either 100% or 0% because it's either definitely gold or definitely silver

Attached: fuck.jpg (474x338, 24K)

solution to the cat is a line which seems to confuse most Americans who apparently stopped taking math class after the second grade (?)

It's 50/50, you either get it or you don't

it's a given that you get a box with one gold ball in, so the precondition doesn't apply to the next ball taken. it is, in fact, 50% when you isolate it.

And it is isolated, it must be, because the precondition already exists.

I used to like it because I could watch women in short black skirts with short black hair dance to techno.

Then techno became popular again, and it became a packed sweaty yobfest where people snorted coke off dirty toilet seats, the music and sound systems suffered, I got tired of fags grabbing my ass and realised it wasn't about a sequence of notes and beats for most people but hedonistic, performative behaviour.

That and I became an oldnigga. No shortage of men in their thirties in the club but I imagine they look and smell desparate.

Only correct answer is 50%

There are two ways to choose from box A and only one way to choose a gold ball from box B. So if you've drawn a gold ball, you're twice as likely to have drawn from box A as from box B.

Imagine if instead of 2 balls, box A has 300 gold balls.

The question is a trick, it's easier to understand if you rephrase it this way:
You pick a gold ball from a box, what are the chances it was the box with 2 of them.

The same reason most things in America are dying
>Young people have no money
>Young people get anxiety attacks from looking outside
>Black people ruin everything

I like this guy and I agree with most of what he's saying, but I'm not sure his explanation or his hypothesis are particularly accurate. His overall conclusion is what I disagree with—I don't think it's a simple matter of nihilism. People went to clubs even before.

It's simply 2/3 as written and there are a number of proofs of this but the simplest and easiest to follow is pic related in my opinion

Attached: box solution.png (1310x1404, 239K)

You don't care about spending money on clothes, iPhones or clubbing because you're not a social person. Social people have social pressures to tend to. They need to compete for attention and for position in the hierarchy. It starts early. Remember how back in the day, the coolest kids in the class were those who could constantly bring the "new cool thing" into school? The toys everyone else would want? It wasn't about the toy or it's functions. It was personal status marketing. Same with iPhones and other materialist things.

You can call it shallow, but at the end of the day life's a competition and every point matters. You want to settle down in a cushy career, own a sweet house and partner up with the perfect mate. All of that can be done through connections. For that, you need to play the game.

You've chosen not to play it. Now you either become something great, or, chances are, on the sidewalk of life.

>iPhone
look at this normie, gtfo fag

2/3 chance to pick a box with a gold ball in it
1/2 chance that the box you picked has another gold ball in it.
Overall 1/3 chance to pick the box with 2 gold balls in it.
2/3*1/2=1/3

fuck your thread and kys, incel - you will never fit in with the normies

>There are two ways to choose from box A and only one way to choose a gold ball from box B.
Thats absolutely correct, no clue why I missed it.

>I use an iPhone from September 2015
Then you're a consumerist bitch pretending to be a NEET. I use a Pantech from 2003.

No

Is it a 33% chance? What is the answer?

>You pick a gold ball from a box, what are the chances it was the box with 2 of them.
IMO that makes it harder to understand and obscures the fact that the question is asking you about the probability of an intermediary step

>because you're not a social person. Social people have social pressures to tend to.
But nobody cares if I have an iPhone 6s or an iPhone XS. Nobody can even tell the difference most of the time.

>You can call it shallow, but at the end of the day life's a competition and every point matters
Even then, though, prioritizing, virtually nobody cares about which model iPhone I have, or whether or not I go clubbing outside of some specific contexts. I'm talking about society at large, but it's not as though getting shitfaced at a nightclub is something that the average person sees as a status symbol in the way that you're likening to having the newest toy or whatever in school—which, btw, is pretty overblown in my opinion, as it was far more about being a social person than simply owning the latest thing, which was Pokemon cards when I was a kid.

I choose not to play but I think your prescription here is a bit off the mark

t. ENTJ?

Oh and the fact that you're calling people in clubs "unattractive degenerates, riddled with STDs" lends to you being pretty jaded. That, or trying to fit in here. If it's the former, have you ever considered that all of your choices are not guided by some principles, but instead of a deepseated knowledge that you know you can't really compete, stemming perhaps from some painful child hood realizations?

Not necessarily trying to put you down, just some food for thought. I've related to that.

Cat is turtle + 20, can't know more than that.

Table is 150.
Cat is 20 taller than the turtle.

The cat is 20cm taller than the turtle.

That's all you can determine without additional information.

Then the question is wrong. We are given as a 100% chance that we have picked a box with a gold ball in and taken it out.

We can ignore the third box. The question is not actually asking which box we chose. It is asking what the chances are that we take out another gold ball once we have the precondition of selecting one to begin with. It must be 50% or the question must be reworded.

Attached: question is wrong.png (1920x1040, 127K)

>IMO that makes it harder to understand and obscures the fact that the question is asking you about the probability of an intermediary step
The intermediary step doesn't matter and is only there to confuse people into giving the wrong answer.

>Then you're a consumerist bitch pretending to be a NEET. I use a Pantech from 2003.
Well, I'm not Mexican and I can afford nice things, so I just buy something nice and use it for as long as I possibly can. I don't even know what Pantech is—it must be some third world thing.

I've taken those tests and the only results I ever get are ENTJ, INTJ, and INFP. I don't know why it varies but they're not exactly scientific so it doesn't matter much in the end.

>Oh and the fact that you're calling people in clubs "unattractive degenerates, riddled with STDs" lends to you being pretty jaded.
Well, yeah, but if we're generalizing, isn't it true? Clubbing is clearly a singles activity and sexuality is a foundational component to the whole concept, and it's not as though women who are saving themselves for marriage and motherhood are also going clubbing, lol. I'm not sure what point you think you're making by simply calling me jaded here when I'm identifying a pretty widely accepted reality.
> have you ever considered that all of your choices are not guided by some principles, but instead of a deepseated knowledge that you know you can't really compete
I've thought a lot about that and there are some instances where that's true (for all people in my estimation) but for the most part, no, I really just feel a certain way and my "autism" as Jow Forums likes to say prevents me from pretending otherwise. I'm handsome and have no trouble competing for women in general, etc.

No OP but im ENTJ and agree 100%. drinking is degenerate as well

Overall there is 1/3 chance to pick the box with 2 gold balls in it.
Since there are 6 balls there is 3/6 chance the first ball you pick is gold.
Since it is 1/3 chance to pick the box with 2 gold balls, the chances the other ball in the box you picked is gold is 2/3.

>can't read
>codes the wrong thing
you're counting boxes and not balls, stop being so smug when you're wrong

>doesn't understand list operators
>you can't code
shiggydiggy

>The intermediary step doesn't matter
It's the entire nature of the question.
Probability of gg: 1/3
Probability of gg given g: 2/3
Probability of gg given gg: 3/3
see?

Getting shitfaced in a club isn't a status symbol and never was. However, being in the VIP area, wearing glimmering watches and doing lines of coke off the tables, being able to invite any of the hottest girls off the dance floor there at your choosing, is a status symbol. Of course that's an exaggeration, but you see where I'm going. That clubbing is simply a very competitive environment, where women tout their natural beauty and men, what has been evolutionarily expected of them, their confidence and status. Thus, clubbing, does entail a huge competitive side to it, discarding the losers that simply get shitfaced and feel depressed over their lives the next day.

Idk maybe it was different in USA, but here, growing up, being one of the poorest kids in my class, I can assure you, I absolutely felt every inch of material wealth I was behind others. Such experiences with fitting in, being able to play the various games and shine with your toys, are crucial formative experience and will determine how you come to see and interact with the surrounding world and people. Will you have a deepseated confidence in your status and abilities, or will you have an inferiority complex.

>make up some random shit with jargon other people ITT might not understand because he was too stupid to do it correctly
unfortunately I'm smarter than you so I can call you out on this but reread my previous post and feel free to explain how the pic to which you were originally responding is wrong

>smug and dumb
case in point: this poster here
This is the kind of guy I'm referring to in the OP, part of the problem

Want to hit the club, brah? Maybe swing by for some sportsball party? I got that new 4k HDR TV brah! 120hz frame interpolation and everything!

Autism. It's fun for some people. Maybe it's not fun for you. Maybe you're bitter because only hambeasts and seacows will roll in the hay with you. Keel to yourself and mind your own business fuck face. Some people like things you don't. For the record I dislike clubbing. But I don't get an autistic fit over it on Jow Forums.

>Getting shitfaced in a club isn't a status symbol and never was. However, being in the VIP area, wearing glimmering watches and doing lines of coke off the tables, being able to invite any of the hottest girls off the dance floor there at your choosing, is a status symbol. Of course that's an exaggeration, but you see where I'm going.
I completely agree and I can't deny what you're saying is true, but at the same time, context matters. What you're talking about here is more akin to something you see in a big city and not really in even slightly less populated areas. Also, I know some finance guys who do this kind of shit and I've gone to their weddings, and they're mostly, to confirm the stereotype I guess, at least partly Jewish, and their wives tend to be old-school-style bimbos—not good catches by any means. This reminds me of the guys who go to auto enthusiast meetups with their $200,000 custom Ford F-250 Super Duty painted bright, solid blue, with some kind of custom trailer and shit like that, on roids, with a giant ass coke can watch on their wrist... Yeah, it's a status thing for sure, the guy is built as fuck, clearly has a lot of money and all that, but at the end of the day, the sum of the parts is just shit. I don't deny the reality of it and the way it fits into a theoretical hierarchy, but when I complain as I do in the OP, my implied alternative is something patrician, or aristocratic, and an aristocrat would not be caught dead doing this shit. I'm not just whining because I can't afford blow jobs in the VIP section if you get my drift.

I just long for something better

Attached: 21431541351251.jpg (629x505, 33K)

I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm pretty confident that a huge majority of women partake in clubbing and attending concerts and festivals. Dismissing them all as degenerates won't do you any good, probably. It may be that you won't see the richest kids in the down the street clubs very often, but that doesn't mean they don't have their equivalents, like private house parties, where the competitive nature is just the same, if not more extreme.

>makes up shit with jargon
lol.

python uses falsey values. this means that an integer value of not 0 is true, and a value of 0 is false.

given a selected box a, a[0] is the ball we pick out since we are guaranteed it's gold, a[1] is the second ball that we pick up.

if a[1] is the equivalent or writing if a[1]==1, or if selected_box[1]=='gold' in your case. just because you don't understand how to read pretty basic code in python doesn't mean the other person doesn't know how to code

not that i can be offended, you're obviously very new to coding in general if you wrote something as disgusting as
>if ball is not 'gold': continue
and uses .format when f strings exist

if that wasn't enough of an indication, you think the code i posted is counting boxes which is enough to convince me i'm talking to a retard

>discussion thread
>autistic fit
Why are you here? Did you leak out of Reddit? Here to troll? lol

>Idk maybe it was different in USA, but here, growing up, being one of the poorest kids in my class, I can assure you, I absolutely felt every inch of material wealth I was behind others. Such experiences with fitting in, being able to play the various games and shine with your toys, are crucial formative experience and will determine how you come to see and interact with the surrounding world and people. Will you have a deepseated confidence in your status and abilities, or will you have an inferiority complex.
I guess I can't relate to this as much because I basically had access to all of these things, as do most kids in a 'normal' income range here. Anyone can afford the latest trash if they want it, maybe except for the blacks and Mexicans.

>but I'm pretty confident that a huge majority of women partake in clubbing and attending concerts and festivals.
I don't doubt it, but at the same time, "huge majority" is really ambiguous.
>Dismissing them all as degenerates won't do you any good, probably
But that's where the "cock carousel" meme comes from and it is indeed degenerate even if it's "unproductive" in your mind. In fact, this post just makes you sound like a woman, or like you've been infected with feminine ideals

>not that i can be offended, you're obviously very new to coding in general if you wrote something as disgusting as
I wrote it this way to clearly express what was happening in a way that corresponds to the language in the OP, I'd have written if ball != g or something like that otherwise, but it's the same exact thing and there's no reason not to use continue as a filter in this instance.

Again you failed to even code the right thing and you're using some intro to coding tier loop and dividing by the number of iterations so we're just arguing over nothing while you explain shit I already understand and ignoring the entire substance of my comments like an absolute moron

Hahha yeah alright. Yeah small town bars and clubs work the opposite. They're mostly populated by the dregs and losers.

The part with bimbos is something I don't understand either. They're successful, they could have the most naturally beautiful and smart girl they'd want, and instead they opt for stupid silicon make up mannequins. I think it may just be partly a control thing and something resulting from their competitive nature. Their impulses are so strong that it may drive them over the edge when selecting for a mate, in the lines of supernormal stimulus.

>Hahha yeah alright. Yeah small town bars and clubs work the opposite. They're mostly populated by the dregs and losers.
true

>The part with bimbos is something I don't understand either. They're successful, they could have the most naturally beautiful and smart girl they'd want, and instead they opt for stupid silicon make up mannequins
Because it's all illusory. It's meta. It exists in their minds and it's all built on false premises. Each new layer is degraded further because it's built on something flawed, until the end result is something grotesque and not at all like what it should have been, like cancer or a game of telephone played between mentally handicapped people

My contention here, again, is aristocracy types (sort of fading away, like WASPs) vs. this nihilistic, spiritually toxic bullshit that is just utterly devoid of meaning or content or result

and I can see what you mean about supernormal stimulus, that makes some sense

Naah, no feminism in here. My point was that calling them degenerate is usually an emotional standpoint, one that is embraced most always after negative experiences and that functions as a sort of defence mechanism. Kinda like when kids get a toy taken from them and they go "I never wanted it anyway!"

Of course I'm not suggesting you consider taking one of those normies for a partner. I'm just appealing for you to remove the emotional component. I may not have a lot of respect for that kind of behavior on their part, but I objectively understand where they're coming from and am able to empathize, when they suddenly start panicking in their 30s because they can't seem to find anyone. It's not their fault they're dumb, and that much of the stable human interaction has been eroded by the conveyor method of clubbing, dating apps, and simply the ability to pick a new partner easily even irl.

It's just that I don't feel the need to call them names, and automatically assume that anyone doing so, comes from the Jow Forums or Jow Forums bitterdom.

So where do you derive your inspiration for aspiring towards this aristocratic lifestyle?

>My point was that calling them degenerate is usually an emotional standpoint, one that is embraced most always after negative experiences and that functions as a sort of defence mechanism. Kinda like when kids get a toy taken from them and they go "I never wanted it anyway!"
I mean, that's what I assume about "MGTOW" and other such bullshit, but in this case, to use your analogy, I can have the toy, I'm just disappointed that it's trash and made to a poor standard when a theoretical alternative could be so much better at a similar price point if the populace in general just had different priorities (or something else—getting a bit off the analogy there)

Let's say there's no emotional component and I'm just calling a spade a spade—you're not offering me much with your advice beyond that in this post

>It's not their fault they're dumb
I could go either way on this desu; it depends on your other stances

Aristocracy in the pure sense, as opposed to the elite—aristocrats being the elite of old who had a vested interest in the people, and so who behaved distinctly differently. It's a character trait, a manner of conduct, and a series of priorities.

Modern example of aristocratic conduct: Jared Taylor, kind of a low hanging fruit but well known enough to illustrate my point

>you're using some intro tier coding loop and dividing by the number of iterations
>return (g/(s+g)
>g is total gold
>either s or g increases by 1 each iteration
>iterations are s+g
>g/s+g
>g/iterations

are you retarded? they're literally exactly the same method you fucking mong, the only difference is i didn't over complicate the shit out of my code while claiming to have written it clearly on purpose.

Corresponding to the language is fine, I don't know what kind of programmer thinks that for loops are intro to coding whereas while loops aren't, especially when you use the while loop as a substitution for a for loop by increasing i on each iteration.

I remember in my first year of University I saw people using while loops and throwing in an i += 1 at the end, you're unbelievably misled if you think your while is better than my for.

I'm just going to leave this where it is now, you seem to understand some python to a degree but you're incredibly misled and just generally narcissistic and stupid so this won't go anywhere

Honestly, on the topic of dumbness and not seeing the societal changes that have taken place, I'd be willing to bet that I would've probably been suckered right into the degenerate materialistic lifestyle of normies, had I not been pushed aside during my childhood experiences. Being pushed here is what gave me the ability to observe. That's also what I had in mind when I said you can become something great, or stay a loser. Maybe you've already achieved what you wanted, so that may not even be an issue anymore. But this experience of being shoved on the sidelines, hitting rock bottom, seeing the game from the side, is what in my opinion drove some people to huge success. Since we're on Jow Forums, I'll use Hitler as an example.

To sum, in a way, my ability to see the things most people don't, may stem only from my loserdom. If I play my cards right, however, I can turn it to my advantage.

>Why the fuck do normies go clubbing?
take drugs and fuck random idiots

>are you retarded? they're literally exactly the same method you fucking mong, the only difference is i didn't over complicate the shit out of my code while claiming to have written it clearly on purpose.
kek
>gets it wrong
>does the wrong thing in a stupid way
>gives me middle school tier knowledge in response to my criticism while simultaneously missing the point entirely
>his own standard of code is shit, criticizes others for the same
you are mentally handicapped

also,
>explain what's wrong with mine
>doesn't do it

>I'm just going to leave this where it is now, you seem to understand some python to a degree but you're incredibly misled and just generally narcissistic and stupid so this won't go anywhere

Attached: laughing woody.jpg (269x319, 8K)

>some unattractive, unlikable loser tries to act like he's above it all

>To sum, in a way, my ability to see the things most people don't, may stem only from my loserdom. If I play my cards right, however, I can turn it to my advantage.
Personality "type" and outgoingness and all of that is just a learned skill and nothing more. We all have innate temperaments but you can just as easily fake being a "Chad" or whatever the new gay meme is.

typical response

>I have more fun engaging in productive and wholesome activities,
dancing can be both, but thats generally not what you find at nightlife scenes unless you live someplace special

Humor me: What if an attractive, likable person has the opinions that I posted? For the sake of argument, what is your response? I could just as easily pidgeonhole you
>middling, average person is offended by being called out in a way that hits close to home

>dancing can be both, but thats generally not what you find at nightlife scenes unless you live someplace special
dancing is fine but you can't really deny that most clubs are about grinding on a slut for a short period of time followed by a one night stand, that's really the entire premise at this point, and the only thing more efficient at the same cycle is tinder which is why they're on the decline rather than what the article here proposes

So if its not 50% what is it then?

Just determine the probability that any one box will have 2 of the same coins (2/3). This remains the same even after eliminating the third box by pulling the first gold.

Attached: peter-garrett-dancing-gif-4.gif (317x248, 199K)

>I'm just calling a spade a spade
Idk man, degenerate contains judgement. I refrain from judging, because just as I wouldn't judge a ball missing the goal, as per physical laws determining that it was determined by the bad hitter, I don't judge dumb people for falling prey to such things. Degenerate implies choice. However how I see it, it's human nature, being subject to civilizational changes it was never meant to contend with. What we get, is a mangled behavioral output, stemming from modern input and ancient (evolutionary) processing methods.

I'm not familiar with Jared Taylor. But it's strange how I've also seen the ancient aristocrats as an ideal. Firstly they were wealthy and educated generation after generation, so the problems the noveau riche have, like dysfunctional horrible relations and spoiled brat kids, didn't affect them. They were knowledgeable, well behaved, confident, and high status. And since their status was tied to the wellbeing of their lands and lineages, this automatically made them loyal rulers and family members. Something modern politicians and populations lack.

I can't deny I get envious as hell when I see someone like that irl. Someone who's smart and confident and well spoken. Something to aspire towards.

>Idk man, degenerate contains judgement. I refrain from judging
The "no judgment" thing is why the west is in the mess that it's in, and it's a distinctly feminine trait. Degenerate doesn't imply choice at all, and even if it does, sometimes that's deserved, too.

That's a massive and gross simplification, that also manages to miss the point. I don't have to judge a stinking pile of shit to know to keep away of it. Or how to remove it from the lawn.

how is suggesting that judgment is fine in response to your comment an oversimplification while your comment about value judgment being wrong not an oversimplification? that makes no sense

Sorry, oversimplification as to the causes of why the West hit the gutter, not towards the subject at hand.

I'm not sure I follow, it wasn't meant to be some grand insight

Point being that it wasn't lack of judgement that got us here, and neither will it be more judgement that will get us out.

>Point being that it wasn't lack of judgement that got us here
That was certainly a major component

Table: 150
Cat: Turtle + 20

Market forces.

Firstly labor market forces - women became obsolete for house chores, as large part of it became automated. This began a shift, whereby starting from the lower classes, women were forced into labor. World wars merely accelerated the process by shortening male labor. As it became, you couldn't work side by side with someone and not have the same rights, this began a movement to equalize the sexes legally. Misinformed people attribute this feminist movement as the cause, whereas in reality it was only a reactive movement, bringing the cultural sphere up to date with economic affairs and realities.

Then sexual market forces - due to numerous reasons, largely contraceptives, women became able to sleep around with no strings attached. This freed them of the responsibility of having to raise kids, which had long forced them into stable relationships with men who were less than ideal, evolutionarily. Instead, they could all now aim for the same 10% of men they were evolutionarily wired to chase. Sexual liberation. Feminist writings on the subject were thus again, nothing but a reactive movement to bring cultural affairs up to date with sexual market changes.

Things like these go unnoticed. People often confuse the cause with its effects.

It's 2/3

I have a short video for this, trying to find it

>he uses visual studio

Attached: 1531092940531.jpg (600x532, 40K)

well, the short version is that I agree with you, and I'd even go so far as to use the same exact logic to explain my position, too. Shame was a major part of any civilized society and it played important roles in policing things that we simply degenerate. There was a reason that stuff existed, and it wasn't due to ignorance or bigotry—it was a natural social response to large-scale social problems

looking at your code now and you failed to do the specific thing you criticized me and called me stupid for doing, which is omitting the first result being silver when picking from the first two boxes, you stupid fuck

kek

>code compares odds of getting (gg) vs (gs+sg)
pic related, I fixed your shitty code, retard
and, lo and behold, it's totally unintelligible to any pedestrians

Attached: fixed.png (1224x984, 149K)

>Then sexual market forces - due to numerous reasons, largely contraceptives, women became able to sleep around with no strings attached. This freed them of the responsibility of having to raise kids, which had long forced them into stable relationships with men who were less than ideal, evolutionarily. Instead, they could all now aim for the same 10% of men they were evolutionarily wired to chase. Sexual liberation. Feminist writings on the subject were thus again, nothing but a reactive movement to bring cultural affairs up to date with sexual market changes.
There's more to wanton sex than pregnancy and even STDs btw, it's not so cut and dried

I don't have a lot of pictures saved for this particular topic

Attached: women sexual partners and marriage.jpg (1223x1541, 366K)

But the cause wasn't a loss of shame. Cause was technological progress. Loss of shame only came as a result of new behaviors that became possible. Previously, for example, modern whoredom was impossible, because a woman couldn't escape from the risk of becoming pregnant.

Only a change in market forces could bring monogamy back. Now, whether that includes more technological progress. Perhaps technology allowing everyone experience 10/10 sex life with themselves, doesn't matter, but it would reduce the need to sleep around and restore monogamy. A cultural shift could also restore it, if it could manage shaming sluts enough that women become afraid of sleeping around, lest they'll never enter a stable relationship due to their reputation.

One thing to keep in mind is that things will never return to "as they were". New solutions will inevitably entail side effects, that will in turn potentially cause new problems. For example a cultural shift towards shaming might also produce an overly dogmatic atmosphere, where creativity and progress become shunned and a steady decline will follow. Or a technological fix, allowing for a 10/10 sex life alone, might destroy relationships in their entirety, annihilating the need to remain in a relationship with the opposite sex, even if platonic. We can never know.

Yes, as I said, numerous reasons. Contraceptives is just a hypothesis. I believe it played the biggest role, however that's just my opinion. I don't think you should underestimate the importance of women having to avoid sex with random partners, because of the catastrophic consequences of being a single mother with children and no man in sight. That's what enforced monogamy, the mutual need for loyalty. For a man, to be sure that it was *his* kids he was raising, and for the woman, to be sure that the man sticked around and took care of the material side of things.

>But the cause wasn't a loss of shame. Cause was technological progress
The cause of what? You accuse me of oversimplification and then you shoehorn all of degeneracy into the consequence of simple progress, which makes absolutely no sense. Yes, contraception removed ONE of the negative factors of promiscuity, which thus enabled it, but the reduction in shame response in recent years is not at all proportional to that. You could make the same argument for HIV because of recent advances in preventative drugs, yet faggots are still dying en masse and are probably responsible for really disgusting freak mutations of MRSA among other things, and we don't even know much about that because it's politically incorrect to even study it directly at this point for example

You talk about cause and effect but miss the mark entirely

>0.66
what a surprise

Attached: 1509149553119.jpg (1173x1086, 674K)

Nowadays, however, the catastrophic effect is removed by contraceptives. Ironically enough, this also produces sexless men, who are now willing to raise the children of other men, simply because otherwise they'd be entirely left out.

That's not "the" catastrophic effect, it's one effect. I think something you don't yet understand is that this the scope of this topic is extremely broad. Shame as a cultural phenomenon was a societal-level response to a societal-level problem, evolved over literally thousands of years, just as gender roles were. The invention of home automation has not somehow invalidated the underlying factors here! The BIOLOGICAL reality of gender roles has a whole slew of implications, only 1/1000 of which are addressed with convenience technology, so to then say that subsequent (and not necessarily resultant) degeneracy is accounted for by that is extremely short-sighted

fyi im an american that grew up on Jow Forums and the internet and im going to go clubbing right now.

i'm 0% normie and i know what the rock is cooking, habeeb it, but i do it cuz it's vapid empty loud music so i dont have to thinks and drunk sloots throw themselves at me for an ego trip to not consider myself worthless.

>what a surprise
of course he left the thread after throwing a fit, 'educating' me on basic language features, and calling me stupid and narcissistic

I think people inherently understood this, even in the early 1900s. In the past, there was simply less room to take these things for granted, something which results from what you describe here about contraception and so forth, but that's limited only to their ability to acknowledge it—not to the entirety of its implications.

>exact same method
>literally just testing gg vs gs
>insists on a "precondition" by simply arbitrarily slicing the last box off instead of just making his code scalable and removing the ss box from the list
having autism and a low IQ simultaneously must be hell

Did you change computers?

Sorry I think you're simply not acquainted enough with the topics of evolution and ethology. It's not a mere negative factor, but a matter of literal life and death of both the mother and the offspring. The female is dependent on the male for material support. However the male has nothing keeping him in the relationship, since it is the mother that invests more into the offspring, as per a limited number of female eggs, limited timespan of fertility, and huge risks and costs associated with pregnancy and giving birth. This is opposed to the male investment of potentially limitless semen and one intercourse. As you see, the formula is for the males advantage in that the male retains his freedom. This is why the woman had to absolutely be sure that the male would stick around long enough to help raise the children. This is why she couldn't allow herself to become pregnant off a one night stand, because she would then, quite literally, likely starve to death herself during pregnancy, or watch her offspring do so.

The simple matter that you overlook the importance of pregnancy and the sex dynamics, is an indicative that you should do more reading into it. I could post some articles, if you're interested. It's quite rooted knowledge in its fields, by now.

This pertains to your knowledge, however you also committed a reason of error. If one should think that the modern behavior is a result of cultural changes, they should be able to explain then the absolute lack of any precedents. If it was really a subject of cultural changes, and culture has always changed, both in time as well as in geography, then how come there has literally never been a single culture, where monogamy was as low as nowadays, ever since the neolithic revolution? No, if one really goes by the facts at hand, the only thing that changed since now and then, is the technology. Culture has played a very minuscule role, reactive role.

Alright, I can admit, culture may have played the role of some sort of a catalyst. But the initial inertia came most certainly from technological changes, and technological changes are also what made the cultural changes possible. Had there been no easily accessible contraceptives, it would have been in no way conceivable to engage in modern sexual revolution. You simply cannot argue otherwise. And as mentioned, history stands by my side on this.

Maybe culture could've gone some other way as well, and the end result been different. But what made the current situation possible, was technology. I believe in materialistic determinism, so I assume modern route must've been the path of least resistance.

It's meant to be somewhat confusing. The point is to test your ability to decipher a question which is clear but multi-faceted. this means you're low iq

>Sorry I think you're simply not acquainted enough with the topics of evolution and ethology. It's not a mere negative factor, but a matter of literal life and death of both the mother and the offspring. The female is dependent on the male for material support. However the male has nothing keeping him in the relationship, since it is the mother that invests more into the offspring, as per a limited number of female eggs, limited timespan of fertility, and huge risks and costs associated with pregnancy and giving birth. This is opposed to the male investment of potentially limitless semen and one intercourse. As you see, the formula is for the males advantage in that the male retains his freedom. This is why the woman had to absolutely be sure that the male would stick around long enough to help raise the children. This is why she couldn't allow herself to become pregnant off a one night stand, because she would then, quite literally, likely starve to death herself during pregnancy, or watch her offspring do so.
And over time those other things become selective pressures, too, potentially no different from attitudes on homosexuality, ancient Chinese medicine, etc.

>But the initial inertia came most certainly from technological changes
That's pure speculation based on your unproven hypothesis and nothing else

It's totally unambiguous, but it's great for ousting people like the guy above