<p>posters who try to contribute to discussions but do not support their statements with logic, or worse, base an argument on flawed logic on a regular basis should be banned, or at least warned. they’re basically the equivalent of tr0lls :P</p>
<p>seconded…</p>
<p>I’m assuming you were referring to [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/468469-social-differentiation.html]this[/url”>Social differentiation - College Confidential Community - College Confidential Forums]this[/url</a>] one.</p>
<p>
[quote=Pyroclasm]
By assumption, there is always some commonality within a given social group (we’ll take the na</p>
<p>Except that Pyroclasm is a genius.</p>
<p>lol…but I definitely agree…I reallly hate it when people post stuff like that…but i guess it’s the cafe…so everything goes.</p>
<p>people do that in discussions outside the cafe, too :P</p>
<p>That on the other hand…**** es me off.</p>
<p>
Regardless of whether or not he actually is a non-hyperbolic genius, posting something like that in a high school/college forum where few responses could actually be expected is more pretension than truth-seeking.</p>
<p>high school needs more logic classes.</p>
<p>that post made my head hurt.</p>
<p>in college life:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>regardless, it’s actually pretty ****ing hard to find an alternative forum to post this stuff in. I’m serious - i’ve literally looked for an alternative forum for THREE years and I’ve failed to find a good one. philosophyforums.com just doesn’t “feel” right. you’re more creative when people aren’t going to reply in a “people have arrived at your insights before” sort of way (they often do that in more specialized forums). </p>
<p>btw, just let them be pretentious. they’ll probably tire of it. sometimes you just feel more creative being pretentious at the moment. i’ve experimented with being pretentious before. sometimes i do feel more creative that way. and it’s fun looking back at your pretentious posts later. :D</p>
<p>it’s more fun when random ppl reply to what you read.</p>
<p>besides we all act emo in our LJ. our emo entries crowd out our psuedo-intellectual posts so we need somewhere else to post those</p>
<p>oh and unfortunately he deleted all his emo-journals. =/</p>
<p>
i thought that you would be able to piece together the argument i was making, but i guess i was wrong. if you did not understand what i was saying then ask me to elaborate; don’t be immature and make an entire thread just to flame me.</p>
<p>since you cannot piece together what i was saying, i will spell it out for you.</p>
<p>first of all, anyone with common sense can see that i was not saying that singleness caused poverty.</p>
<p>second, you have to be kidding me that there is no causal relationship between single parenthood and poverty. almost any publication that discusses poverty in America/the world would indicate child birth as a cause of poverty. in the case of the single parent, the effect of having a child to take care of is more profound since the parent is living on less resources than he or she would be if he or she were married. (one income vs. two incomes… which is bigger?)</p>
<p>third, it is naive to think that wealthy people have a better work ethic than poorer people; that’s just a horrible stereotype. in the future, never list “poor work ethic” as a cause for poverty. also, i find it funny that the next thing you listed was “destructive society” when you are promoting negative stereotypes, like poor people are poor because they have a “poor work ethic.” it is the exitence of these falsehoods that cause people to refuse confronting the realities of poverty.</p>
<p>anyways, your post said that, “marriage is completely unnecessary to survival in today’s society.” a key part of survival is reproduction, or having and raising children. by saying that “marriage is completely unnecessary to [survive] in today’s society” you are saying that marriage is unnecessary for having and raising children. however, science, specifically psychology, statistics, and reality contradict your beliefs.</p>
<p>if people lived by your philosophy and refused to get married, would they stop having children? no. would they be able to raise the children as well as if they were married? no. thus, if people lived by your philosophy there would be an increase in single parent households, which would cause an increase in poverty for the reasons i stated earlier in this post.</p>
<p>the reason why i said your original statement, “marriage is completely unnecessary to survival in today’s society,” was ignorant is because it’s clear that you did not think through all of the repercussions of the philosophy you are advocating.</p>
<p>if you do not agree with my argument, that’s perfectly fine. however, do not say that it is illogical simply because you disagree with it. that’s just beyond immature. (probably even more immature than making this thread :).)</p>
<p>wow…you people are uptight…it’s the internet…you can do whatever you want…why are you so mad?</p>
<p>go read a book.
directed to no one in particular.</p>
<p>unmarried people have survived.</p>
<p>/discussion</p>
<p>
<em>sigh</em></p>
<p>
you’re right. i wouldn’t say that i am uptight but i do think that for some reason i do care too much. idk, some issues that get me passionate are Affirmative Action because i am black, poverty because i have done a lot with inner city communities, and wacko-ultra-feminist rhetoric because some of this stuff is just ridiculous 
(i actually am a true feminist in the sense that i support women’s rights though.).</p>
<p>
once again, beefs is right… lol. i should go chill and just read a book.</p>
<p>whyyyyy did you sighhhhhh? 
are you tired? it’s getting late. and i still have to finish online health. blegh.</p>
<p>
i have hmwk too lol.</p>
<p>anyways the <em>sigh</em> was because i thought you missed the point of my post. the OP was saying in another thread that marriage is not necessary to survive like how food, shetler, etc. are (absurd, and sort of a pointless discussion to start… i know.). the point of my post is to point out that the OP is being completely ignorant of the main goal of survival–reproduction–and how her philosophy of rejecting marriage actually does not facilitate survival as well as marriage does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>really? because, correct me if i’m wrong here, but doesn’t having sex with multiple people produce more babies than having sex with a single person? and doesn’t like, more babies mean, greater chance of species survival? which would be why %99.999999 of animal species don’t engage in monogamous pairings? thus making it overwhelmingly likely that marriage is a human-specific cultural norm like religion and literature, a byproduct of, and not explicitly necessary to, society?</p>
<p>it’s been a long time since health ed. so feel free to correct me.</p>