Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological instinct in female to seek out a mate outside of the group.
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 61 (635930)
10-03-2011 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
10-03-2011 2:44 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Does your anecdote not conflict with my friend marrying her childhood sweet heart, or my buddy marrying the literal girl next door?
Abe: talking to my wife, she seems to that that the number of possible mates is far greater 'out of group' than 'in group' so the likelyhood of pairing up with someone 'in group' is tiny compared with the 'out group', so there dies not need to be an instinct for it as it is a statistical inevitability.
Which seems reasonable, to me.
Edited by Larni, : Talking to my wife.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-03-2011 2:44 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 5 of 61 (635941)
10-03-2011 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
10-02-2011 7:04 PM


Foolishly I replied to Adminmoose's promotion post.
Just letting you know I replied to your post.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 10-02-2011 7:04 PM Taz has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 61 (635956)
10-03-2011 9:22 AM


I thought we were talking about proximity and exposure at a young age to incest?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 51 of 61 (636265)
10-05-2011 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Taz
10-04-2011 7:20 PM


And no one on the planet has anything good to say about a Brumie accent.
But I do remember some research about how attractive people found UK accents; this was was in an absolute sense, rather than about relative proximity. I'll try and find it.
Edited by Larni, : Staying on topic

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Taz, posted 10-04-2011 7:20 PM Taz has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 56 of 61 (636519)
10-07-2011 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Chuck77
10-07-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Biology?
Do you really think these women are being honest?? NO FREEKING WAY. Women are insecure. Women don't want us thinking they are insecure. NO woman is going to say well, I just wasn't what he wanted. Women will settle for men much more than we will settle for women. Most women settle and don't think they deserve a guy like the one you decribed. They are lying.
Are you being funny (in which case I don't get it) or are you being a fucking idiot?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Chuck77, posted 10-07-2011 1:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 61 of 61 (638481)
10-22-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Big_Al35
10-22-2011 2:17 PM


Re: Biology?
Good point.
But, as far as I'm aware the greatest indicator for successful relationship is proximity.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Big_Al35, posted 10-22-2011 2:17 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024