If you need your spouse to provide for you, it is your job to make sure that he voluntarily wants to keep doing that. — Tarskian

(My bolding). Back to sexism again.

Muslim men are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. Western men are not. — Tarskian

(My bolding) But according to your own story, you advocate running away rather than risking anything. That's the whole point of this thread as you've described things.

It's starting to unravel into incoherency and self-contradiction anyhow.

But according to your own story, you advocate running away rather than risking anything. — Baden

Not everybody can leave, even though many more still could. I can indeed achieve what I want without risking a fight. So, why would I?

In western Europe, however, at a societal level things are increasingly coming to a head. As Elon Musk has said, civil war is inevitable. War is always fought by men. We also know that men who do not believe in what they are fighting for, cannot possibly win the war.

Close to half of the population will live through a harrowing court case, called "divorce". — Tarskian

I have lived through a divorce in the UK. It consisted of signing some papers and if I remember perhaps swearing an affidavit or something. There was no court appearance, and in general, the legal aspect was the least harrowing part of the separation.

Start with bullshit, and conclude with self-justification. This thread should have been put out our collective misery already.

All morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. In Islamic law, you never take care of a former partner. Furthermore, after the age of reason, custody of children reverts to the father of the children. — Tarskian

Historically the dumbest comment so far. Back when women were still chattel in Europe, they had family law giving rights to women to the estate. Maybe actually study this stuff instead of pretending you're a wannabe Andrew Tate.

Edit: it's even on wiki for God's sake.

Upon talaq, the wife is entitled to the full payment of mahr if it had not already been paid. The husband is obligated to financially support her until the end of the waiting period or the delivery of her child, if she is pregnant. In addition, she has a right to child support and any past due maintenance, which Islamic law requires to be paid regularly in the course of marriage.

This is not the type of debate I would directly touch even with a 10-foot pole, but from a bird's eye perspective I think it's a great example of how men and women are ushered into two camps by endless feeds of "news" and fear porn that expertly play on people's inherent vulnerabilities and insecurities vis-á-vis the other sex (possibly one of our strongest weaknesses), which fuels resentment.

The result is a dehumanized view of the other, entirely black & white "All women are X, all men are Y", etc.

I've noticed online media feeds forwarding this type of mental poison without any apparent reason.

The real question here is: where is all the fear porn coming from? Who is creating it and to what end?

That entirely depends on the legal system. The same decision that may be a non-issue in one jurisdiction will result in a lengthy prison sentence in another jurisdiction. That is why jurisdiction shopping is such an important tool. — Tarskian

The problem with this point of view is that it assumes to know the type of legal action which will be applied, before hand. This implies that the person doing jurisdiction shopping intends wrongdoing from the beginning. However, you present the issue as if it is honest mistakes that would be made, which would bring about unwanted legal action, and these would be completely accidental.

The two are inconsistent. If a person going about one's life in a normal way, brings about unwanted legal action against oneself, due to honest mistake, and completely accidental circumstances, then that person would have no way to know in advance what sort of jurisdiction to shop for, being completely unaware of what sort of misadventure one might wander into. If the person is doing jurisdiction shopping, then they know what type of so-called "mistakes" they will be engaging in, and they plan to find somewhere that they can get away with these mistakes without legal ramifications.

Since you seem to be very focused on jurisdiction shopping, instead of focusing on limiting risk through understanding, care, and temperance, as the appropriate means for avoiding unwanted legal action, it appears like you are actively promoting intentional wrongdoing.

The problem with this point of view is that it assumes to know the type of legal action which will be applied, before hand. This implies that the person doing jurisdiction shopping intends wrongdoing from the beginning. — Metaphysician Undercover

Take the example of asking someone out. If it is not well received, it amounts to sexual harassment.

https://www.traliant.com/blog/is-asking-out-a-coworker-considered-sexual-harassment.

Is Asking Out a Coworker Considered Sexual Harassment?

Ultimately, it comes down to the individual circumstances and how the person who is being asked feels about the situation.

However, you won't know how the person who is being asked feels about the situation until you actually try, which in turn, could degenerate into a legal quagmire. That is why you should generally not do that. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and better safe than sorry.

Furthermore, the same problem occurs every time you try to escalate. The dating protocol requires you to try without asking first, which would be awkward. However, if it is not well received, it is legally a problem.

That is one of the many reasons why I do not date.

There are more traditional alternatives to dating which are very common outside the West and that do not have this problem. In my opinion, it is the practice of dating itself that is questionable.

I avoid the trouble above with the 4 no's policy. I strictly keep my private life outside the West.

Considering the extreme statistical unlikelihood that asking someone out or having sex will land a well-meaning commonsensical person in trouble, this is a bit like telling people to emigrate to a country with no roads so they won't get knocked down. Better advice would be "look left and right before you step on the tarmac". I mean, consider the likely hundreds of millions of people having sex just today in Western countries, how many of them do you think are going to end up in prison?

I had thought you were using hyperbole as a rhetorical device to criticize PC in Western countries or some such, which could be a starting point for a sensible critique, but taking this literally it just fails at the first hurdle for anyone with even minimum social skills and understanding of the opposite sex.

The solution is: no civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex (both in China and) in the West. That avoids serious legal problems for both men and women. That is why this lifestyle policy is clearly in everybody's best interest. — Tarskian

If enough of people like you follow this advise the world will be a much better place for the rest of us.

Considering the extreme statistical unlikelihood that asking someone out or having sex will land a well-meaning commonsensical person in trouble — Baden

This kind of trouble is not uncommon especially when there is money to be made from causing it:

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/richest-soccer/ronaldo-net-worth/

Cristiano Ronaldo is a Portuguese professional soccer player, product ambassador, and entrepreneur who has a net worth of $600 million.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38562015/us-appeals-court-hear-arguments-cristiano-ronaldo-rape-case-settlement

Mayorga, a former teacher and model from the Las Vegas area, was 25 when she met Ronaldo at a nightclub in 2009 and went with him and other people to his hotel suite. She alleges in her lawsuit filed almost a decade later that Ronaldo, then 24, sexually assaulted her in a bedroom. Ronaldo, through his lawyers, maintained the sex was consensual. The two reached a confidentiality agreement in 2010 under which Stovall acknowledged that Mayorga received $375,000.

In dismissing the case last year, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey in Las Vegas took the unusual step of levying a $335,000 fine against Mayorga's lead lawyer, Stovall, for acting in "bad faith" in filing the case on his client's behalf.

The dating protocol is legally questionable by design. It effectively requires you to take this kind of risk.

Some football players are less lucky:

https://apnews.com/article/brazil-soccer-robinho-alves-93efaee4cec6a663b68cc48b0842ae39

SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil soccer chief Ednaldo Rodrigues says the rape convictions of former internationals Dani Alves and Robinho ends “one of the most nefarious chapters” in the country’s sports history.

The outcome of the court case is a question of sheer luck:

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230714-french-footballer-benjamin-mendy-acquitted-of-rape-charges-by-uk-jury

French footballer Benjamin Mendy acquitted of rape charges by UK jury

Former Manchester City and France footballer Benjamin Mendy broke down in tears on Friday, as a UK jury cleared him of sex offences.

Why do famous and otherwise handsome and attractive football players get accused of rape so often?

Not because these women were uninterested or unwilling to have sex with them, but obviously, because of the massive potential payoff.

Show me the incentives, and I’ll show you the outcome.

-- Charlie Munger

You are literally rabbiting a South Korean anti-male movement called the 4B Movement. — AmadeusD

No one will take this seriously. — AmadeusD

Different people come to exactly the same conclusion for otherwise entirely different reasons. That outcome is called an "attractor":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

In the mathematical field of dynamical systems, an attractor is a set of states toward which a system tends to evolve,[2] for a wide variety of starting conditions of the system. System values that get close enough to the attractor values remain close even if slightly disturbed.

When every syllogistic chain of arguments leads to the same conclusion, then this conclusion is simply inevitable.

Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised that the South Korean feminist 4B movement comes to this conclusion.

Women may have completely different reasons altogether to adopt the "4 no's" policy but they will also adopt it, regardless, because this conclusion is a natural attractor.

No marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex either.

The West is terminally doomed.

That outcome is called an "attractor" — Tarskian

So you're now confusing sociology, ideology, philosophy and mathematics. Gotcha.

When every syllogistic chain of arguments leads to the same conclusion, then this conclusion is simply inevitable. — Tarskian

You've not presented a single one to base this on. And, doubtless, your Ps will be entirely false, so what's your point? Syllogisms don't come from Mathematical concepts.

Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised that the South Korean feminist 4B movement comes to this conclusion. — Tarskian

You might be surprised to learn that it is hatred of men, destablising social structures, and avoiding populating the country are their reasons. These are terminal reasons (not to mention they are empirically utterly bereft of evidence for either their reasons, or their purported solution). These are reasons for ending the species, not for changing any kind of dynamic. If their ideology was taken up en masse, we are then in a situation where there are no babies. So, you're an anti-natalists? Very unislamic of you.

So, while you may not be surprised, it violates all the points you're making. If you're not surprised, I'd hazard a guess that once again your ideology is clouding your (obviously functional) reasoning and assessment mechanisms.

The West is terminally doomed. — Tarskian

"the West" is a delusion you are glomming on to to, again, support an unsupportable point.

If you hate the West, live elsewhere are shut the fuck up.

Syllogisms don't come from Mathematical concepts. — AmadeusD

Aristotelian logic was first subsumed in mathematical logic and nowadays is only studied for historical purposes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Kant's opinion stood unchallenged in the West until 1879, when Gottlob Frege published his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script). This introduced a calculus, a method of representing categorical statements (and statements that are not provided for in syllogism as well) by the use of quantifiers and variables.

This led to the rapid development of sentential logic and first-order predicate logic, subsuming syllogistic reasoning, which was, therefore, after 2000 years, suddenly considered obsolete by many.[original research?] The Aristotelian system is explicated in modern fora of academia primarily in introductory material and historical study.

Mathematical logic is in turn currently being subsumed by computability:

https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110/2018fa/lec/21-coq-logic/notes.html

We see that

syllogism =
fun (P Q : Prop) (evPimpQ : P -> Q) (evP : P) => evPimpQ evP : forall P Q : Prop, (P -> Q) -> P -> Q

Picking that apart, syllogism is a function that takes four arguments. The third argument evPimpQ is of type P -> Q. Going back to our reading of -> in different ways, we can think of evPimpQ as a function that transforms something of type P into something of type Q, or evidence for P -> Q, or a transformer that takes in evidence of P and produces evidence of Q.

We have come a far way since the millennia-old original publications on the matter. You seem to be stuck in pre-19th century history.

LOL.

Oh brother. You don't understand the majority of what you've posted. I remember that zone well.

Oh brother. You don't understand the majority of what you've posted. I remember that zone well. — AmadeusD

Concerning computability and logic, what is it that I do not understand about my own source code?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15341/a-tough-but-solvable-riddle

A tough (but solvable) riddle.

This riddle was not invented by me, but I have changed all the details to avoid it being easy to look up the canonical answer.

I solved it with a script.

As Linus Torvalds famously quipped, Talk is cheap. Show me the source code.

By the way, where is your source code?

what is it that I do not understand about my own source code — Tarskian

I solved it with a script. — Tarskian

By the way, where is your source code? — Tarskian

@Lionino I apologise, mildly but I thought you should have to read this page.

I apologise, mildly but I thought you should have to read this page. — AmadeusD

So, you cannot handle things alone? Asking for help now? Ha ha ah!

So you are here in bad faith. I had thought so.

So, you cannot handle things alone? Asking for help now? Ha ha ah! — Tarskian

But, to retort your nonsense: Nope. We would just both find you equally as risible. Sometimes, that's entertaining to enjoin someone to. The irony of you positing this, when you require a Cosmic dictator to accept the facts of life - is almost beyond humour.

Level with me mate - are you 19, having trouble getting laid?

The irony of you positing this, when you require a Cosmic dictator to accept the facts of life - is almost beyond humour. — AmadeusD

I confess to being just an utmost humble servant of our Almighty Master, Lord of both worlds, and Creator of this universe. You, on the other hand, seem to be in rebellion to our beloved Lord. Good luck to you because you will probably need it!

I suggest you endeavour not to be wrong about everything

I confess to being just an utmost humble servant of our Almighty Master, Lord of both worlds, and Creator of this universe. — Tarskian

All rise for the Flying Spaghetti Monster/

Please don't bring religion into threads that are not directly about religion. No one needs to be lectured about your religious beliefs. Future comments along these lines will be deleted, both in the lounge and elsewhere.

The rest of you, calm down, please.

Oh come on, this is fun sometimes lol

What is your goal regarding relationships? Do you want an equal partner or just someone to bang once in awhile?

Can I just second that motion! :rofl:

A herd animal, by the looks.

A herd animal, by the looks. — AmadeusD

He wants to bang a herd??????? :gasp: