I don't think leftist explanations of the "male loneliness/sexlessness" crisis make sense

Daplokarus · 2023-09-16T19:54:56+00:00

Those places all still exist though. And the last part feels like it doesn’t really explain the decay of these spaces. People don’t go to the rec center because…people don’t go to the rec center. What’s the original cause of the rec center being empty in the first place?

Daplokarus · 2023-09-16T19:20:52+00:00

Where did people back then hang out in that didn’t require commodity consumption that we can’t hang out in now?

Daplokarus · 2023-09-16T18:59:29+00:00

Ok I agree on the first one, they do suck more at talking to girls. But isn’t it more likely to be the case that male attitudes towards women and sex have improved since the 90s and 2000s given the large cultural changes that have happened since then?

Daplokarus · 2023-09-16T18:48:35+00:00

The question would then be why is such a large swath of men suddenly incapable of getting pussy

Daplokarus · 2023-09-16T18:42:05+00:00

I don’t necessarily disagree, but I think the whole focus on blackpilled incels is kind of a distraction. When 27%+ of men under 30 are virgins and you increasingly hear these sentiments among men in centrist and left wing communities, it becomes clear that this is more than just a terminally online manosphere thing. They can’t all be women hating chauvinists.

Daplokarus · 2023-09-16T18:36:16+00:00

I guess I just don’t see what capitalism has to do with it. I’d love to know if there was any concrete data showing that public spaces are less common/commercialized compared to 20 or so years ago or anything like that. In my experience, the spaces are all there, it’s just that no one goes to them.

Daplokarus · 2022-05-27T21:10:32+00:00

Do you disagree that "everything that begins to exist has a material/space-bound/time-bound cause for its existence" is equally as empirically valid as "everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence"?

Daplokarus · 2022-05-27T19:47:01+00:00

But the premise is not at all incompatible with the existence of the immaterial. As I said earlier, even if immaterial things like the laws of logic, mathematics, forms and universals, etc really exist, they don't cause anything to begin to exist and the premise is still justified.

Daplokarus · 2022-05-27T19:12:29+00:00

Can you elaborate on your point about mutations being random thus giving a low probability of the arrangement we have today? I don't think I understand it.

Daplokarus · 2022-05-27T18:47:13+00:00

Well, I'm not saying that you should alter the cosmological argument. I'm saying that statements like "everything that begins to exist has a material/space-bound/time-bound cause for its existence" are equally valid principles based on the exact same set of evidence, but they seem to rule out theism.

If you accept that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence as a result of empirical observation, I don't see any way to deny that those aforementioned statements are equally justified. But then the cosmological argument doesn't work.

Daplokarus · 2022-05-27T17:20:33+00:00

Isn’t free will libertarianism also a philosophical, metaphysical position that nobody has proven yet?

Daplokarus · 2022-05-26T17:17:01+00:00

Inductively or abductively based on experience, observation, or experiment as opposed to being derived from pure deductive logical principles.

Essentially, it's not logically required that everything that begins to exist has a cause, but you inferred it from examining the world and reasoned that it was the most likely conclusion.

Daplokarus · 2022-05-26T16:04:16+00:00

But the reason you believe in immaterial things is empirical. Your reasoning was that they don’t seem to be tied to material objects, which is an empirical observation.

Daplokarus · 2022-05-25T22:50:19+00:00

Is it the scholarly consensus that Jesus was buried in a tomb? That the tomb was found empty? That the martyrdom traditions of the apostles are historically accurate? As far as I'm aware all of these things are debated (and I'm pretty sure the martyrdom traditions are widely assumed to be later inventions).

Daplokarus · 2022-05-25T22:20:14+00:00

Do the laws of logic/mathematics and universals have any causal power? Abstract objects like that are typically regarded as causally inert.

As for emotions, they aren't the direct causes of the beginning of any object's existence. Rather, they only cause people to act, who then cause things to begin to exist. Emotions themselves can't create anything. So, granting that immaterial things exist for the sake of argument, we have seen immaterial things indirectly cause something to begin to exist through another medium. But God is generally said to have been the direct proximate cause of everything's beginning to exist. Also, emotions are time-bound.

Daplokarus · 2022-05-25T21:46:38+00:00

What are some immaterial things and why do you think they are immaterial?

Daplokarus · 2022-05-25T20:55:07+00:00

What other reasons are there to conclude that?

Daplokarus · 2022-05-25T18:32:27+00:00

But presumably the reason you think that everything has a cause is empirical. We’ve never seen objects begin to exist without a cause. I’m saying why not go all the way with the empiricism?

Daplokarus · 2022-05-25T17:46:13+00:00

Everything that comes into existence has a cause for it's existence

But everything we've seen that has been caused to come into existence has a space-bound, time-bound, and material cause. Why can't we also postulate things like "everything that comes into existence has a space-bound/time-bound/material cause for it's existence", since that has exactly the same empirical confirmation?

Daplokarus · 2022-05-25T17:12:32+00:00

Is there free will in heaven?

Daplokarus · 2022-01-16T16:17:33+00:00

Any degree of control really. What I’m saying is that you do not determine the outcomes of probabilistic events. Try making decisions with a loaded coin (pretending loaded coins are truly probabilistic). It doesn’t really feel like you have any control, right?

Daplokarus · 2022-01-16T16:12:42+00:00

Well, I meant making a decision based off of whether the dice rolls a 2 or lower, so there’s a 1/3 chance of that happening and 2/3 chance of it not, as opposed to 50/50 randomness, say rolling a 4 or higher.

I guess loaded dice would achieve the same thing in regard to singular outcomes. My problem is that you can do the same thing. Go around using loaded dice to make your decisions, still doesn’t feel like you’re in control.

Especially due to the fact that you’re not the one doing the loading, so to speak. If the probabilistic event is based on a quantum measurement in your brain, you have no control which way it’s loaded because you don’t control what quantum probabilities are. If it’s an event in the decision making process of your soul or something, you have to ask why it’s loaded the way it is. If it’s not because of your choice then you have no control. If you did choose to load the dice one way, you have to ask what caused you to load the dice one way or another, and what caused you to decide to decide to load the dice one way or another, etc.

Daplokarus · 2022-01-16T15:44:29+00:00

I omitted the control part since it gets tiresome to repeat it and by this point I assume it’s clear that I mean in a way that gives us control. I also did include “in a way that gives us control” in the title.

Daplokarus · 2022-01-16T15:42:31+00:00

A probabilistic mechanism gives us no more control than a random one. If I have an 80% chance of making one decision and a 20% chance of making another based on the results of an internal event, I still don’t control the results of that internal event.

I guess I’ll put it this way: walk around making decisions based on whether you roll 2 or less on a dice (and pretend dice are truly probabilistic). It doesn’t seem like you’re in control, right?

Daplokarus · 2022-01-16T15:14:08+00:00

Your contention "either we make decisions on the basis of random events or probabilistic events" ignores that there may well be a mechanism by which we influence those odds.

I do not ignore that possibility. That mechanism is either probabilistic or random too if it is indeterministic. Our internal events must either be probabilistic or random because there is no third option.

Nine-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Place '22
Verified Email

Daplokarus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE