Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #121
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    There's no baby to come out oif the man knocks the woman up. It is 100% the man's choice to not knock the woman up. Yes or no?



    I think its time someone practiced thinking.

    How can you be responsible for a child you didn't help create? Do you know birth control is?

    No one chooses to to wrap their car around a telephone pole crippling themselves and possibly killing others, but that's an inherent risk with driving. Knocking a woman up, is an inherent risk of having sex, if you can't handle the consequences that come with that risk then don't have sex or take precautions. This is not rocket science. You lose your right to choose as a man, after you've knocked up the woman. Your choices come before that moment. Just as your choices come before you hit the telephone pole.
    Your analogy is flawed as hell, as taking a pregnancy to term is 100% a choice and not an accident. You may become pregnant by accident, but you do not become parent by accident this is again, 100% a choice. Stop being incredibly dense for a moment and let it sink into your mind that BECOMING A PARENT IS 100% A CHOICE MADE SOLELY BY FEMALES.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by SandMax View Post
    Sure, if we actually transform into society where sperm bank is the norm of reproductive method, men would be less valuable. Is that likely to happen anytime soon?
    If we are simply talking about replenishment of society, every man on earth could die tomorrow and as long as there were women alive to give birth and sperm in a sperm bank society could be replenished solely by women. Now reverse that scenario and things don't go so well. So if we are talking about replenishing society women are far more valuable than men, although men have some value.

    If we are talking about raising children and not simply replenishing society, both parents are equally valuable.

  3. #123


    1 out of 20 people in Northern Asia are related to him, like millions of people. He was f*cking everything he could get his hands on and then some.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  4. #124
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by SandMax View Post
    This was seen in american civil war, world wars etc. Women had to become accustomed to idea of living alone, which translated to lots of women never giving birth as well. I highly doubt, that things would go differently if we had some big war in the future.
    A few woman being alone isn't cause for the nation as a whole to start breeding like that.

  5. #125
    whenever there is danger? In every case, we send men, not women.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by jbombard View Post
    If we are simply talking about replenishment of society, every man on earth could die tomorrow and as long as there were women alive to give birth and sperm in a sperm bank society could be replenished solely by women. Now reverse that scenario and things don't go so well. So if we are talking about replenishing society women are far more valuable than men, although men have some value.
    In this scenario yes, but in practise not so much. We have seen in past wars, that women had trouble finding partners and thus contributing to births. If we ended up in war again in near future, we could afford to sacrifise just as many women as men and see no noticeable difference in replenishment.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MeHMeH View Post
    A few woman being alone isn't cause for the nation as a whole to start breeding like that.
    Well, not many wars obliterate nations population to handful of people anyway. Do you think we would change out behavior that much if we got in war, realistically? We have not in the past, and likely not in the future.

  7. #127
    The Insane apepi's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mostly harmless
    Posts
    19,388
    Honestly it would be pretty bad for genetics. No matter how good his genetics is, it would be horrible.
    Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose

  8. #128
    It's obvious someone's argument is flawed...

    something is a myth because we don't see it openly practiced in out society's recent history...

    but is a theory that makes sense in a number of scenarios that have a non-zero percent chance of occuring.

    seems there is the definition the OP is using and then the defintition the rest of the people are using

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by apepi View Post
    Honestly it would be pretty bad for genetics. No matter how good his genetics is, it would be horrible.
    That too, you cant really reduce the number too low on males either. And if we end up in situation where there are only handful of people left, we are fucked anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by mickybrighteyes View Post
    It's obvious someone's argument is flawed...

    something is a myth because we don't see it openly practiced in out society's recent history...

    but is a theory that makes sense in a number of scenarios that have a non-zero percent chance of occuring.

    seems there is the definition the OP is using and then the defintition the rest of the people are using
    Exactly.

  10. #130
    It's true that a woman can get by without a man, even resort to a sperm bank if she has to and soon she won't even have to do that and she'll still be able to raise a family.

    What men bring to the equation is a team mate. All kinds of studies show the benefits of having a father in the scene.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    It's true that a woman can get by without a man, even resort to a sperm bank if she has to and soon she won't even have to do that and she'll still be able to raise a family.

    What men bring to the equation is a team mate. All kinds of studies show the benefits of having a father in the scene.
    You didnt really challenge what I said, but if you disagree please detail why im wrong.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by SandMax View Post
    In this scenario yes, but in practise not so much. We have seen in past wars, that women had trouble finding partners and thus contributing to births. If we ended up in war again in near future, we could afford to sacrifise just as many women as men and see no noticeable difference in replenishment.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Well, not many wars obliterate nations population to handful of people anyway. Do you think we would change out behavior that much if we got in war, realistically? We have not in the past, and likely not in the future.
    If we are talking about reality, and we got in a war, there isn't really a big need for replenishment of lost life in the first place. We could easily lose 75% of the worlds population and still be fine(as in not in risk of extinction). Also if we are talking about reality, we are likely not going to see many big wars where we will need the number of feet on the ground we have needed in the past. We are moving towards unmanned, and remotely guided weapons. We can run a war successfully now with far less ground troops than we needed in the past. So women shouldn't have any problems finding men at wartime. And yes we could send women to the front lines without having to worry about the survival of the species.

  13. #133
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by SandMax View Post
    In this scenario yes, but in practise not so much. We have seen in past wars, that women had trouble finding partners and thus contributing to births. If we ended up in war again in near future, we could afford to sacrifise just as many women as men and see no noticeable difference in replenishment.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Well, not many wars obliterate nations population to handful of people anyway. Do you think we would change out behavior that much if we got in war, realistically? We have not in the past, and likely not in the future.
    If the war had enough casualties, then yes, but it is very unlikely. It might also happen that now because of artificial insemination woman who never had a man might see this as a viable option. This would skew the numbers quite a lot too, because not every man donates and a few of the very good ones will always be in higher demand.

  14. #134
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by lonely zergling View Post
    Gender threads are not allowed, read the rules. Reported!
    More power to you. I'm glad you took the time to inform us of your internet policing actions.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by jbombard View Post
    If we are talking about reality, and we got in a war, there isn't really a big need for replenishment of lost life in the first place. We could easily lose 75% of the worlds population and still be fine(as in not in risk of extinction). Also if we are talking about reality, we are likely not going to see many big wars where we will need the number of feet on the ground we have needed in the past. We are moving towards unmanned, and remotely guided weapons. We can run a war successfully now with far less ground troops than we needed in the past. So women shouldn't have any problems finding men at wartime. And yes we could send women to the front lines without having to worry about the survival of the species.
    Yeah, but what people are more concerned about is the healthy population pyramid of nation, and they think that we need to preserve women in order to replenish the society to its original level. What I am trying to say, is that of all the war casualties, we could randomly choose the relation of women and men and see not much difference in the rate of replenishment because of our modern behavior. Also fun fact is, that most people who died in ww2 were civilians and quite many of them women, and we still ended up just fine.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MeHMeH View Post
    If the war had enough casualties, then yes, but it is very unlikely. It might also happen that now because of artificial insemination woman who never had a man might see this as a viable option. This would skew the numbers quite a lot too, because not every man donates and a few of the very good ones will always be in higher demand.
    Thats possible.

  16. #136
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by SandMax View Post
    Yeah, but what people are more concerned about is the healthy population pyramid of nation, and they think that we need to preserve women in order to replenish the society to its original level. What I am trying to say, is that of all the war casualties, we could randomly choose the relation of women and men and see not much difference in the rate of replenishment because of our modern behavior. Also fun fact is, that most people who died in ww2 were civilians and quite many of them women, and we still ended up just fine.
    We ended up being fine because we could easily lose those numbers. You have to remember that this stems from a time where the only people you likely knew where your family and maybe some people of a village you lived near to. Then this becomes a thing, but with the amount of humans we have we can easily have 25% of us dying without there being any problem besides "what to do with all these bodies".

  17. #137
    Regarding situation, where we lost incredibly high portion of men. I think in such case, we would be fucked anyway even if we tried the "one man multiple woman model". It would likely be unsustainable in the long term if the sex relation was something like 1:9, and we would see the withering of the society.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by SandMax View Post
    Yeah, but what people are more concerned about is the healthy population pyramid of nation, and they think that we need to preserve women in order to replenish the society to its original level. What I am trying to say, is that of all the war casualties, we could randomly choose the relation of women and men and see not much difference in the rate of replenishment because of our modern behavior. Also fun fact is, that most people who died in ww2 were civilians and quite many of them women, and we still ended up just fine.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Thats possible.
    Kind of what I was saying about losing 75% of the population. As long as there are men and women we will replenish eventually. How fast we replenish post-war however is directly tied to the number of women available. A shortage of men can be overcome, however the number of viable women directly limits the number of pregnancies. Granted I don't think we will ever get to the point of forcing women to give birth to save society. That said, unless their is a drastic shortage of men more women will still lead to quicker replenishment.

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by jbombard View Post
    Kind of what I was saying about losing 75% of the population. As long as there are men and women we will replenish eventually. How fast we replenish post-war however is directly tied to the number of women available. A shortage of men can be overcome, however the number of viable women directly limits the number of pregnancies. Granted I don't think we will ever get to the point of forcing women to give birth to save society. That said, unless their is a drastic shortage of men more women will still lead to quicker replenishment.
    In practical cases of wars, women havent been the limiting factor, its the lack of polygamy-relationships and gaps between kids/family sizes anyway.

  20. #140
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by SandMax View Post
    Regarding situation, where we lost incredibly high portion of men. I think in such case, we would be fucked anyway even if we tried the "one man multiple woman model". It would likely be unsustainable in the long term if the sex relation was something like 1:9, and we would see the withering of the society.
    There would not be a need for it to be sustained. Where there is a great disparity between the number of sexes this might happen, but as soon as the next generation comes of age this problem will be fixed. There won't be more females born, those ratios will remain equal.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by SandMax View Post
    In practical cases of wars, women havent been the limiting factor, its the lack of polygamy-relationships and gaps between kids/family sizes anyway.
    We haven't had any practical cases for centuries, and even then it was only a very local phenomenon like a region that has been warring for a few decades.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •