4 ms·
Association does not imply causation either. Your entire argument is simply association. You say soldiers and then you associate war; you say war and then you a
by solidsnack9000 7y ago
Association does not imply causation either. Your entire argument is simply association. You say soldiers and then you associate war; you say war and then you associate power; you say power and then you associate sex. What you are not being plain about is that you choose each association. You could have chosen another; there is no reason offered for why we have to consider this particular chain of associations.
This is how so much psychoanalysis worked, by the way, and is part of why that school lost credibility.
Your final point, turning the commenters argument around on itself, is a masterful example of rhetoric but not of argument or explanation. Of course, you leave open the question of why sex is important to us; of what it draws its importance from.
- rinchik 7y agoThat is a great dissection of my comment but it does not provide any reason to doubt my arguments other than a falsy appeal to an authority (psychoanalysis.. right, the thing that "failed"). I have made some argumentative choices strictly because I find those visual and colorful within the scope and the nature of the discussions on the "interents". Sex is the major driver behind evolutionary dynamics in nation states, and macro-economics, and I have yet to see any evidence suggesting otherwise. And hereby I "masterfully" shift the burden of proof onto yourself, SolidSnack9000. Unless you have a solid argument, we can dismiss your comment as a "dissection of banality", an argument for the sake of the said argument.