doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[Gadianton]

But that can be true. There's probably nothing wrong with base jumping, as long as the individuals understand the risks involved, they should be free to try it. If they land safely, then it was a great adventure.

No, it's guaranteed to be true based on the way the sentence was constructed. You're still using circular reasoning. Rather than explain it, change the ages to 65 and 7, and see if you can still write the above with a straight face.

But that's probably not the case anymore.

It wasn't the first movie of that kind and it won't be the last. Society didn't just suddenly turn on a dime after that movie, dumb ass. And I said "intrigued" not "endorsed". There is a certain level of endorsement, however, with things that intrigue people. The point is, it's not totally taboo. It's supposed to be half intriguing and half inapprpriate and shocking. If the girl were 11 instead of 18, even if the actress was 18, it would be taboo and widely condemned. The examples of outrage were relatively minor. It wasn't like the ACLU or some Christian parants organization tried to get the movie banned.

No idea, can you show me some articles saying that people were outraged about the penises in Euphoria?

That was your job, not mine. In order to show a double standard, you have to show how the same people who condemn one thing, failed to condemn another thing of similar kind. These are apples/oranges, beginning with the reasons I already explained -- the popularity and type-cast nature of the leads. But your comparison goes downhill from there. Showing nudity is different than showing a controversial relationship.

Male nudity is gaining popularity as a way for liberals to take revenge against the objectification of females in art and film since time began. I'm not a liberal, and so I am uninterested in supporting such a campaign by watching these kinds of movies myself. However, if I condemned the making of a movie like Euphoria on moral grounds, then I need to be equally outraged at the hundreds of 80's coming-of-age films that showed female nudity.

You picked the wrong comparison. If there is anything morally wrong with your movie, it's probably a subtext of sexism. In young-girl / older-guy dramedy, the young girl is always the aggressor. In young-guy / older-woman movies, the older woman is always the aggressor.

But it's not as common as it used to, it's becoming less common. You won't find a lot of new movies about older men with women under 25.

You'll have to count them and let me know for sure. I would say this movie played it really safe, having a 21-year-old actor play a girl who was 18. It's probably true that Hollywood doesn't dare push the age differences below 18 as it used to do. In the 90s, the movie American Beauty with Kevin Spacey got high reviews and the girl he liked was 16 or something, and the actress really was 16. There was also a 90s movie about a girl pursuing an older guy and she was 14 or 15. I highly doubt it showed them doing anything. But even just implying a relationship between a middle-age guy and underage girl is probably taboo enough today that such a film wouldn't get made. That I think is definitely true. Do you see that as a problem?

[doubtingthomas]

No, it's guaranteed to be true based on the way the sentence was constructed. You're still using circular reasoning. Rather than explain it, change the ages to 65 and 7, and see if you can still write the above with a straight face.

The problem is that you miss the point in a lot of the things I say. Jumping off a cliff wouldn't result in landing safely and healthy. Same with changing the ages to 64 and 7, the evidence is pretty clear that that would be harmful to the 7 year old, and it obviously doesn't result in a consensual and healthy relationship.

So, it can be true based on how the sentenced it's constructed, but that wouldn't be true in the real world.

That was your job, not mine. In order to show a double standard, you have to show how the same people who condemn one thing, failed to condemn another thing of similar kind. These are apples/oranges, beginning with the reasons I already explained -- the popularity and type-cast nature of the leads. But your comparison goes downhill from there. Showing nudity is different than showing a controversial relationship.

It seems that it was mostly liberals who were mad about Miller's girl. Nudity is different than showing a controversial relationship, but nudity involving High School characters is supposed to be more taboo than a controversial relationship involving adults. Of course, no female genitalia was shown in Euphoria; that's likely a reason why there wasn't widespread outrage among liberals about the series.

The thing is liberals seem to have a personal hatred towards men who date younger women under 25. I have enough evidence to suspect that.

Male nudity is gaining popularity as a way for liberals to take revenge against the objectification of females in art and film since time began.

I agree with that. However, it was very uncommon for a film to show female genitalia, and when it did, it was always covered by pubic hair. These days, male penises are shown in a lot of movies; it simply shows how some people are full of hate and revenge.

There was also a 90s movie about a girl pursuing an older guy and she was 14 or 15. I highly doubt it showed them doing anything. But even just implying a relationship between a middle-age guy and underage girl is probably taboo enough today that such a film wouldn't get made.

You have to realize that it is slowly becoming taboo to see large age gap relationships, especially large age gap relationships involving women under 25. But, somehow HS characters showing their penises isn't taboo. Makes perfect sense.

To be clear, I have watched Euphoria and I liked it, but I simply don't understand the double standard that liberals have.

[doubtingthomas]

Of course, I don't personally believe that the white race is superior, but society does seem to hold that belief. White people tend to receive better treatment, white women are way more likely to avoid criminal charges, and generally have more privileged social lives compared to others.

In online dating, Asian and Latina women appear to prefer white men over men of their own race, according to some articles and peer-reviewed studies that I read. Of course, that's not an issue that affects me, so I can't be accused of talking about my personal problems.

Asian and Indian men in the US are the loneliest racial group of men. Women are avoiding them; the evidence is overwhelming that Filipina women treasure white men. That's why it's very easy for a white guy to find a good wife in the Philippines.

In general, women seem to prefer white men, even after adjusting for things like income.

Some Sources:
"As an Asian American man, the dating world made me feel invisible"
https://www.today.com/popculture/essay/ ... -rcna27189

"How America tells me and other Asian American men we’re not attractive"
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/i-gre ... ttractive/

"White men more often inter- marry with Asian women than they do with black women, while white women more often marry black men than Asian men" https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/673129

Asian and Latina women prefer white men
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch ... sian-women

To be considered attractive to white women, an Asian man would need to earn $247,000 more than the average white man, while Hispanic men would need to earn $77,000 more, and black men would need to earn $154,000 more.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 010-9088-6

I will provide more sources later.

Moved by RI

[doubtingthomas]

Apparently, the internet experts think they know what's best for me. I don't use this board to alleviate anxiety, and I don't talk about the same subject all the time.

The mods clearly don't want me to have discussions here; their message is clear. There's no point in me coming back. Whatever.

Moved by RI

[Gadianton]

The problem is that you miss the point in a lot of the things I say. Jumping off a cliff wouldn't result in landing safely and healthy. Same with changing the ages to 64 and 7, the evidence is pretty clear that that would be harmful to the 7 year old, and it obviously doesn't result in a consensual and healthy relationship.

Perhaps you should take an online course in basic logic, or phil 101 from your local community college? We can can make minor adjustments to the sentence you wrote in order to -- hopefully -- educate you as to your error:

"There's no harm when a 64 year old gorilla dates a 7 year old duck, as long as the relationship is healthy and consensual." The conclusion absolutely follows because it's a tautology. "no harm" is implied by "healthy and consensual". If you still don't understand:

"It's healthy and consensual when a 26 year old dates a 17 year old, as long as the relationship is healthy and consensual."

Is that more clear? Do you see that "no harm" is just another way of saying "healthy", or rather, a predicate of being healthy? You can never be in a "healthy" relationship that is also "harmful". If you're in a healthy relationship, then by definition, it's also a relationship with "no harm".

It seems that it was mostly liberals who were mad about Miller's girl.

Not according to the links you pasted that you obviously didn't read.

but nudity involving High School characters is supposed to be more taboo than a controversial relationship involving adults

why? (oh, and bear in mind, we're talking about "adults" as in, one older adult, and one bare-minimum adult)

and when it did, it was always covered by pubic hair. These days, male penises are shown in a lot of movies;

That's actually a fair point. If you had an issue with these new movies exploiting men, this would be a fair point to make in terms of equity between male and female exploitation.

You have to realize that it is slowly becoming taboo to see large age gap relationships, especially large age gap relationships involving women under 25.

I don't buy that. You haven't established this at all. I think people are rightfully concerned about large age differences, but it's not taboo by any means. And it's less of an issue with every year you add to 18. Once you're at 23 or 24, please --.

[Dr. Shades]

I no longer view myself as a helpless victim, but it is true that society makes my dating life harder. Many discourage women from dating older men, and US society seems to promote unrealistic expectations.

BUT THEN:

Just to make it clear, I'm not suggesting that the problem lies in women being too picky or that society discourages younger women from dating older men.

So society is making your dating life harder, but that isn't the problem?

In that case, what's the problem, and what is the reason for all of these threads??

The mods clearly don't want me to have discussions here; their message is clear. There's no point in me coming back. Whatever.

See you tomorrow.

[Gadianton]

Thank you mods for quickly merging DT's latest fake new topic with his mega thread. Very appropriate.

Of course, I don't personally believe that the white race is superior, but society does seem to hold that belief.

It's almost too obvious to ask, but did you start this topic as a way to argue that society has deeply ingrained false beliefs about race, therefore, it's possible and even likely that they might also have false beliefs about -- oh I don't know -- older men dating younger women? Just as society is wrong about white superiority, they are also wrong about older men dating young women?

If that is your game plan, then how can you be so offended by the mods sticking to the 1-thread policy for your 1 topic? And if it wasn't your game plan, then let this be a lesson to you, that you must always carefully think about how other people with interpret the things you say. If you've given people precedent to misinterpret you, then take responsibility for that.

I'll also point out this psychological oddity: when trolling, people always take greater offense at getting the expected negative reactions they are trolling for than if they were to receive the same negative reactions while posting sincerely.

[doubtingthomas]

Is that more clear? Do you see that "no harm" is just another way of saying "healthy", or rather, a predicate of being healthy? You can never be in a "healthy" relationship that is also "harmful". If you're in a healthy relationship, then by definition, it's also a relationship with "no harm".

Jesus Christ, why are you making such a big deal about the wording instead of focusing on the point? Besides, do you really think you're better than me at logic? If I were to present you with complex propositions, I doubt you could keep up, man. Anyway, my statement above simply serves as a way to reiterate myself because many people here seem to struggle with understanding my points. Lastly, "No harm" and "healthy and consensual" are not necessarily synonymous.

but nudity involving High School characters is supposed to be more taboo than a controversial relationship involving adults

why? (oh, and bear in mind, we're talking about "adults" as in, one older adult, and one bare-minimum adult)

A large age gap relationship among adults shouldn't be controversial at all. Why don't you ask Doc or the other geniuses here about which one is worse: HS characters showing their penises, or adult characters in a large age gap relationship?

or let me ask you, is it okay to sexualize HS students?

Put it to rest and just say what State had the pleasure of your amazing rendezvous.

Hey dumbass, why don't you tell Gadianton which one is supposed to be more controversial?

I don't buy that. You haven't established this at all. I think people are rightfully concerned about large age differences

BS. Didn't you read the first thread I created when I came back? Young women are actually safer dating older men.

but it's not taboo by any means. And it's less of an issue with every year you add to 18. Once you're at 23 or 24, please --.

Don't you expect it to be taboo when people are "rightfully concerned about large age differences"? Most people aren't very tolerant about things (that can be avoided) that cause them to be concerned. And it's not my fault that you refused to see the sources I gave you.

[doubtingthomas]

In that case, what's the problem, and what is the reason for all of these threads??

What threads? Thinking hard enough, it's not that hard to find a way of how one thread may possibly be related to another, even if they aren't related at all. I created a thread about how young women may be safer, but you guys have somehow decided that it's related to my supposed dating problems.

I created another thread about the dating difficulties of Asian American men, but that's again somehow related to my own problems, just ask Gadianton. Even threads about cancer are being thrown to this megathread. And of course, most people here won't read the new topics in the megathread, so there's no point for me to keep participating, or at least no point for me to create new topics.

My suggestion is for you to openly acknowledge that not everyone here is treated the same way, and that some members are more valuable than others. There's nothing wrong with that; just be open about it so people who expect the mods to be fair and impartial won't be wasting their time.

[honorentheos]

My suggestion is for you to openly acknowledge that not everyone here is treated the same way, and that some members are more valuable than others.

True statement. The issue is you don't see the valuation being the product of an appraisal over time. And there is an allowance for making improvements to restore value.

There's nothing wrong with that; just be open about it so people who expect the mods to be fair and impartial won't be wasting their time.

Fair? I think anyone behaving a certain way gets treated about the same as others behaving the same way.

Impartial? See the comment above regarding valuation being a result of appraisal over time.