Cock Size vs. Wallet size?

[LuckyLuke]

Originally posted by smallman@Sep 3 2005, 12:26 AM
what part of all else being equal don't you understand?

[post=340312]Quoted post[/post]​

The point is that all things are not equal and never are.

 

[smallman]

Originally posted by LuckyLuke+Sep 13 2005, 09:56 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LuckyLuke &#064; Sep 13 2005, 09:56 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-smallman@Sep 3 2005, 12:26 AM
what part of all else being equal don&#39;t you understand?

[post=340312]Quoted post[/post]​

The point is that all things are not equal and never are.

[post=342814]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

they are in my question.

 

[jonb]

Oh, just thought of another problem with sociobiology in this case in particular: Class is a relatively recent invention. I seriously doubt 5000 years is enough for a new trait, one with no known mechanic, to become predominant. Also, DNA studies have found somewhere between an eighth and a quarter of all conceptions are cuckoldry.

 

[pippi]

Originally posted by jonb@Sep 17 2005, 02:41 AM
Oh, just thought of another problem with sociobiology in this case in particular: Class is a relatively recent invention. I seriously doubt 5000 years is enough for a new trait, one with no known mechanic, to become predominant. Also, DNA studies have found somewhere between an eighth and a quarter of all conceptions are cuckoldry.

[post=343969]Quoted post[/post]​

class/status, however one might call it, is just how you rank in your social structure. I believe that even 5000 years ago people were living together and therefore some kind of social rank could be established.

to be promiscuous can maximise your chances. it has its part in this model, i just not described it.

 

[pippi]

Originally posted by jonb@Sep 13 2005, 09:05 AM
But having many children alone isn&#39;t enough for reproductive success. Having too many children can really screw up population dynamics.

The problem with sociobiology is, 99% of humans don&#39;t behave anything like what sociobiologists insist is "human nature".

BTW, good work writing that straw man that if someone doesn&#39;t agree with you, they have to be creationists.

[post=342766]Quoted post[/post]​

the problem of overpopulation is relativly new for mankind. in the animal realm there are 2 basic strategies: K and r
K means exponential growth till you reach the capacity limit
r means that there is some internal mechanism regulating the growth, so you smoothly reach the capacity.
looking at the overall population of the earth it seems like we are following a K-Strategy, though looking at countries of the 1st world you see that the birth rate gets lower and these countries only grow in population because of immigrants. so there might be some limiting mechanism.

people might not feel like it would be their driving force, but rather emotions. but why you feel atttracted to a certain man or woman? these emotions must have some reason/basis, if you want to look at them scientifically.
a lot of theories (even experimental proven theories) defy our perception. people have accepted that the materials we see as solid, are made of atoms. But what about quantum mechanics, it´s quarks with discrete properties and it´s probabilistic nature? a lot of people will deny, that nature looks like this on a small scale. even evolution itself is not that accepted. (seeing what the schoolboard in kansas does)

for me it is a two way choice: evoltion or creation. all other theories i know of (aliens comming to earth - erich von däniken) are not believable.

 

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

Originally posted by LuckyLuke+Sep 13 2005, 09:56 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LuckyLuke &#064; Sep 13 2005, 09:56 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-smallman@Sep 3 2005, 12:26 AM
what part of all else being equal don&#39;t you understand?

[post=340312]Quoted post[/post]​

The point is that all things are not equal and never are.

[post=342814]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

This is why it&#39;s a hypothetical question.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by pippi@Sep 17 2005, 05:21 AM
class/status, however one might call it, is just how you rank in your social structure. I believe that even 5000 years ago people were living together and therefore some kind of social rank could be established.

to be promiscuous can maximise your chances. it has its part in this model, i just not described it.

[post=344057]Quoted post[/post]​

Except that your argument also ignores other factors.

The simple fact is, for much of the history of the state, marriages were arranged. Only recently has women&#39;s sexuality not been taboo in state-level societies (or even some pre-state societies).

Also, the working class reproduce more.

 

[jonb]

Also, your hypothesis is very unlike any pre-state society. Or our nearest relatives.

 

[Lordpendragon]

The attitude to status and maintaining it for you and your family, is markedly different between those who have it and those who do not.

Reality often seems hypothetical when you are young.

Older people tend to gravitate towards an empirical approach.

If you think this is patronising, its only because some of you need it.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by Lordpendragon+Sep 18 2005, 06:52 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lordpendragon &#064; Sep 18 2005, 06:52 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>The attitude to status and maintaining it for you and your family, is markedly different between those who have it and those who do not.

[post=344296]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Bravo&#33; There&#39;s a point I couldn&#39;t put my finger on, but seeing it in print makes perfect sense.


<!--QuoteBegin-Lordpendragon@Sep 18 2005, 06:52 AM
Reality often seems hypothetical when you are young.

Older people tend to gravitate towards an empirical approach.

[post=344296]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]


Damn it all, right again, I AM old&#33; Now I can stop banging my head against a brick wall in Etc. arguing with younger people about hypotheses&#33;

 

[pippi]

Originally posted by jonb+Sep 18 2005, 02:22 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; Sep 18 2005, 02:22 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-pippi@Sep 17 2005, 05:21 AM
class/status, however one might call it, is just how you rank in your social structure. I believe that even 5000 years ago people were living together and therefore some kind of social rank could be established.

to be promiscuous can maximise your chances. it has its part in this model, i just not described it.

[post=344057]Quoted post[/post]​

Except that your argument also ignores other factors.

The simple fact is, for much of the history of the state, marriages were arranged. Only recently has women&#39;s sexuality not been taboo in state-level societies (or even some pre-state societies).

Also, the working class reproduce more.

[post=344237]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

the subject i am taling about is criteria for partner choice. if you have no choice (arrenged marriage) who will be your partner, none of this will make sense.
if you have an arrenged marriage, will this really be your partner or just someone with whom you have official ties? (and still have a selfchoosen secret lover)

 

[pippi]

Originally posted by Lordpendragon@Sep 18 2005, 06:52 AM
The attitude to status and maintaining it for you and your family, is markedly different between those who have it and those who do not.

Reality often seems hypothetical when you are young.

Older people tend to gravitate towards an empirical approach.

If you think this is patronising, its only because some of you need it.

[post=344296]Quoted post[/post]​

im 30 years old. its your choice if this young or old according to your theory.

im also not telling you anything about my attitude about status. its part of a theory. does newton´s work have a certain attitude concerning mass or force?

 

[headbang8]

Originally posted by jonb@Sep 17 2005, 11:41 AM
Also, DNA studies have found somewhere between an eighth and a quarter of all conceptions are cuckoldry.

[post=343969]Quoted post[/post]​

Especially second and subsequent children, I read somewhere. Hence Prince Harry&#39;s resemblance to that soccer player, rumour has it.

Maybe there&#39;s an evolutionary advantage there somewhere.

 

[jonb]

Maybe there is. It&#39;s just like diversification if anything: You never sink all your money in one stock, lest they pull an Enron on you.

But sociobiology is largely teleological, ideological anthropomorphism. Anyone familiar with ethology, psychology, or genetics would say as much.

 

[pippi]

Originally posted by jonb@Sep 19 2005, 02:27 AM
Maybe there is. It&#39;s just like diversification if anything: You never sink all your money in one stock, lest they pull an Enron on you.

But sociobiology is largely teleological, ideological anthropomorphism. Anyone familiar with ethology, psychology, or genetics would say as much.

[post=344503]Quoted post[/post]​

sociobiology is to study social behavior from a biological point of view.
anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to machines, animals or things.
i see no conection between these both.
theology doesnt fit in the context too.

i can say im familiar with ethology and genetics, as i have studied biology for 5 years at the university of vienna.

i have the feeling you are starting to throw around terms without really saying anything. if you want to have a disscusion, it would be helpfull if you post something which is understandable for me.

 

[jonb]

Which is why you got teleology mixed up with theology. The former is a logical fallacy, the latter is a branch of metaphysics.

 

[jonb]

And another element which shows ethnocentrism: You&#39;re essentially arguing paleolithic cultures were the same as the modern West.

 

[BigBen]

Originally posted by beautifulbrunette@Sep 21 2005, 12:04 AM
I would pick the middle class budget and the giant dick because I can make my own money but I can&#39;t make my own man.

[post=345127]Quoted post[/post]​

As someone who has saved and invested all his life (and did forego a lot of expensive "fun" earlier to have the money to save/invest) and been very fortunate with my investments, I am very "comfortable". As I am also very excessively endowed, the question does raise an interesting perspective. When I was younger, and not so well off, but still doing well, many of the women I met were also younger and solely, at least at first, interested in me because they had from one source or another become aware of my oversize. I suppose after a time they knew or could figure out I was doing or would do well financially, but they were all seemed to be more interested in my genitalia and sexual abilities. Being a "nice" guy was occassionally mentioned but that did not seem to be a discriminating factor in their interest in me. Now, I meet women, of all ages, who are reasonably aware that I am financially secure and "comfortable" because they see my cars and they are aware of my home address and a few toys. While that interests some women, actually quite a few of them, most of the younger ones who find out I am so endowed seem to be interested in that too, but still focus on what comforts I can provide them by dating me. Interestingly, the tad older ladies (and I mean thirties and up here) who are interested appreciate that I am able to pick up the checks, but all other things being equal on their "wish list" (personable, fun, good hygiene, not violent, communication skills, not a couch potato, etc, etc) they really are more interested in that I am endowed bigger than their most erotic dream. So, from my experiences and perspective at this stage of my life...some women are more interested in the bank account...various degrees of what might be considered "golddiggers"....and some appreciate the balance sheet but really could care less as long as I will play with them. I easily prefer the latter. A woman who is in to "me" and appreciates that is really got my interest. All other things being good and acceptable about a woman (we are attractive to each other in other ways), I really do like and prefer women with a very high sex drive whose mantra is "the bigger the better".

 

[Dr. Bubbles]

The posed question does call for attention in making it seem the women here "might be really shallow." Granted, there maybe some... but who am I to judge or accuse?

I make my own money... and actually do very well (thank God I can do consulting work in addition to my position)&#33; Ya&#39;ll know I love to shop&#33; Do we really need a man (this should stir up some interesting conversation)? Besides, they make rubber, supposedly, "flesh like" dicks everyday... just something to consider.

Now, seriously, money, dick size and anything else like that does not truly hold any revelance in making choices. Those are intangibles. Lots of money will not make a woman happy, even though she can shop a lot, and a man with a big dick just might not know how to use it - which consequently, will not make her too happy either.

As Tag said... a decent, hard-working, caring and compassionate man makes all the difference in the world.

Enough of me.................

bb

 

[Simon9]

...on the other hand, bb, he just might know how to use it.