doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[canpakes]

Nope. Retcon our last discussion as much as you want. I’m persuaded that going through research papers with you is a complete waste of my time.

Just give me an explanation. I promise I'll just read and won't respond. I won't say a word, even if you make stuff up.

This paper controls for several variables (such as unemployment, living with parents, and so on) and still concludes that young men who were born after the year 2000 are having less sex. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8649100/

Here’s the fellow from the CNN interview you linked. Have a listen. Galloway gives plenty of his reasons why we might see this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EPZQ_Ed4ao0

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t believe you.

You and everyone here will never again listen to me if I don't keep my promise.

I swear, just give me an explanation, please.

I won't question or challenge your explanation.

Good night, Lucy.

[doubtingthomas]

Why would a man abuse his wife or girlfriend when he’s in a relationship with that wife or girlfriend, and presumably not ‘lonely’ because of it?

You need to consider that you are drawing an exceedingly simplistic ‘cause & effect’ conclusion about human behaviors that is not rooted in reality and facts.

Canpakes,

It's clear you are not trying to understand what I am saying. I am not stupid.

I have never said that loneliness causes all violence. However, reducing loneliness can help to reduce violence. Do you deny there's a correlation between loneliness and misogyny?

Reducing poverty will also help (even more) to reduce violence, but poverty doesn't cause all violence.

Please stop insulting my intelligence.

[doubtingthomas]

"Have you never heard of something called abusive relationships ..?"

Sure, Petito probably rejected a lot of nice guys but decided to be with Laundrie.

A lot of women want to be with handsome charismatic jerks like Laundrie.

I am probably more handsome than Laundrie, but he had a rich family and was charismatic.

[Xenophon]

I am probably more handsome than Laundrie, but he had a rich family and was charismatic.

by the way, these little bits tucked into your comments are a huge tell and why no one here believes your hyper fixation on the topic has anything to do with anything but yourself.

[Kishkumen]

This is quite a scene.

[Kishkumen]

I won't be surprised if this gets ignored. This is so damning to radical feminism.

Here's the full report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK4y6C1Uuhw

Why do you care so much about radical feminism? Just ignore it and move on.

[honorentheos]

Help what? You change your behavior? No. That's on you.

I am not a Laundrie. A lot of women would rather be with a Laundrie than a nice guy.

You're not a nice guy.

This is also a confabulation. When your mysogynistic predatory thinking and behavior is called out, you deflect rather than introspect. You tell yourself it's not that you need to change. It's that women and society need to change. Why? You apparently recognize your mysogynistic mindset well enough, along with your inclination to anger over lack of sex, so you intuit the source of the problem. But you have ego so you shift that off yourself and say if only women and society would change and gave you a relationship then you wouldn't feel anger and resentment.

That is a lie, though. One you are telling yourself. The entitlement and objectifying mindset are baked in. That's in you and as hardwired as your feelings towards broccoli. You aren't helped by people on the Internet either joining in your justifications or rejecting them. You need a real life therapist with whom you are being honest. You first need to want actual help and then seek it out.

That's it. The cosmetics of any thread you start are irrelevant. This is what every single one of them comes down to.

[Some Schmo]

I am not a Laundrie. A lot of women would rather be with a Laundrie than a nice guy.

You're not a nice guy.

This is also a confabulation. When your mysogynistic predatory thinking and behavior is called out, you deflect rather than introspect. You tell yourself it's not that you need to change. It's that women and society need to change. Why? You apparently recognize your mysogynistic mindset well enough, along with your inclination to anger over lack of sex, so you intuit the source of the problem. But you have ego so you shift that off yourself and say if only women and society would change and gave you a relationship then you wouldn't feel anger and resentment.

That is a lie, though. One you are telling yourself. The entitlement and objectifying mindset are baked in. That's in you and as hardwired as your feelings towards broccoli. You aren't helped by people on the Internet either joining in your justifications or rejecting them. You need a real life therapist with whom you are being honest. You first need to want actual help and then seek it out.

That's it. The cosmetics of any thread you start are irrelevant. This is what every single one of them comes down to.

Yep.

And it brings me back to a question I mentioned in another thread that I continue to wonder over: what is his motivation for posting here? I'm starting to suspect that he thinks if he can get just one person to agree with one of his premises, it lets him off the hook for his problems. It's the only explanation I can think of.

He may be brain dead, but at least he's persistent. How long has he been yammering about this stuff now?

[canpakes]

No, decreasing the loneliness of men will NOT reduce misogyny.

Show me the research studies or quote the experts.

I am not interested in your opinion and feelings.

If there's no correlation between loneliness and misogyny, would have to prove it.

Why would a man abuse his wife or girlfriend when he’s in a relationship with that wife or girlfriend, and presumably not ‘lonely’ because of it?

You need to consider that you are drawing an exceedingly simplistic ‘cause & effect’ conclusion about human behaviors that is not rooted in reality and facts.

Canpakes,

It's clear you are not trying to understand what I am saying. I am not stupid.

I have never said that loneliness causes all violence. However, reducing loneliness can help to reduce violence. Do you deny there's a correlation between loneliness and misogyny?

Reducing poverty will also help (even more) to reduce violence, but poverty doesn't cause all violence.

Please stop insulting my intelligence.

This is the point you keep harping on, that (1) loneliness begets violence, (2) young men are lonely, and (3) this is because women are ‘more choosy’.

The same fellow that you introduced us to in your earlier post speaks to the problem in the video linked below, and not once does he mention choosy women as a significant driver of the issue, or at all.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EPZQ_Ed4ao0

Since you’ve created nearly a dozen threads as of late trying to tie the cause and case of lonely men to the choosiness of women, I’ve asked you what you think is supposed to happen to resolve that issue, and who should be responsible. All I’m getting from you is that women should set aside their personal preference for the needs of men they don’t know.

Setting aside for a moment the unrealistic bias of this remark - and barring any sort of mind-control ray being used to cause women to ‘think different’ and to want the men that you or someone else wants them to like - how do you propose to change the current selection process?