Hey gents,
I just finished a fairly long-winded debate with a male collegue of mine who works in the same place I do not too long ago; very different job, same place of employment. We talked about two big topics for an hour and a half: women and culture, or specifically how humans are different. There were some good ideas tossed around, but as any blue/red interaction goes – nothing changes, and we’re both frustrated as hell.
Oh, the humanity. Brace yourselves.
On the first subject, he’s a religious-set man with a firm belief in the dream of marriage- you find a woman with the “right” kind of crazy, the one who’s “crazy about you” to the extent that they may occasionally pester you with useless diatribes such as “Why did you like her post on Facebook” or the famous “I’m pregnant” scam – one he even admitted falling prey to at a time. I’m a low-level MGTOW – understanding AWALT though not completely discounting a relationship here and there, assuming it is to my benefit in some way. Three things I told him: “Don’t stick your dick in crazy”, “Don’t tolerate s~~~ tests”, and “Most if not all women can be bedded from day one.”
Despite my various explanations behind the three things I put out point-blank AND his own experiences with them, this poor white knight is vehemently attached to his “right kind of crazy” mentality- the woman who has, say, been cheated on in the past or lost someone in some way and gets extremely clingy to you in the sense that they won’t cheat on you or want to leave you. “What if you try to leave them,” I say, “and you have to start counting the knives in the kitchen?”
Deaf ears, deaf ears. I emphasized many times that with current technology, a Man no longer needs to be sociable to survive and can easily live on his own (MG-Tower, I’m looking at you! 🙂 ) without the aid of others. Thriving was the word I used. We even had a brief debate in what love is- I say it is a chemical reaction designed for procreation, and he agrees at a minor level- but also believes that there is a lot more emotional aspects of it.
The second subject we discussed transitioned to how predictable humans are and to how humans of different cultures can be superior in some ways. (For context, he believes that the main purpose of humanity is the discovery and attainment of knowledge – I perfectly agree!). We had a very long-winded debate in which I talked about statistics: the example I used elaborated on how Asians in the world are generally more intelligent compared to other races. “No,” he says, “that’s rooted in mindset.” That is partially true – on an individual level, I say. His thinking was as such: “If you tell a person of a certain ethnicity that they will succeed or fail in a subject, they will do either.” For example, take a person of every ethnicity and give them the same “I’m gonna win” mindset and put them to an equal test. Yes, that’s not wrong, but it is also on an individual level. I again point to statistics and use a very simple example:
Negating the effects of culture; Take two countries, attain the IQ of every individual person and take the sum of each, and compare. If one is higher, is that not smarter? Or, take a identical sample size of each and conduct the same test. Again, (paraphrasing of course) “No, that’s based on a mindset that will affect the outcome of the result (“Like a placebo,” I say). He believes the only functional test is to take individuals from every ethnicity and expose them to the exact same upbringing, word for word, event for event, and see what the outcome is. Possible in theory, nigh impossible in practice.
In the end, I got so frustrated with the fact that he consciously refused to accept factual statistics as a GENERAL consensus (“Facts do not care about your feelings.” I said), and he continuously referenced individual instances in which one person could be better in one thing. “You’re not wrong, but on a group level…” that I walked off and left it at that. In my opinion, openly discounting ANYTHING, particularly something rooted in years of research and factual analysis, is open ignorance, ironic given his dedication to knowledge as a pillar for mankind’s existence.
All in all, it was an interesting learning experience- I don’t often get into such lengthy conversations and it is honestly refreshing to hear a different viewpoint than my own, even with one openly pleading ignorance. Let it never be said that I would ever entirely discount ANY view without analyzing it first! He’s still a good kid so there’s no hard feelings; I’ll keep chatting him up – on far less philosophical subjects, I’ve no room for disappointment.
How about you gents? What’s the last discussion you’ve had on philosophy, did you learn anything from it?
Logic guides your actions, emotion guides your morals. Only you may decide how you use them.
