LogFAQs > #960603489

Technically he's publicly saying what his misandrist ilk have privately discussed for ages. It's why men are punished far more severely than women in virtually every facet of society.

BlackScythe0 posted... While in general terms women are more biologically important than men,

They technically aren't, though. And the argument for it was fallacious anyway.

MeadCore posted...

they love facts and figures until you start pointing out simple truths

fact is that its a natural dynamic that eggs are rarer and more valuable, sperm is plentiful and much simpler to produce

I'm not sure if that's more misleading or untrue. However, from a natural dynamic, the only time having more women than men is a greater benefit is during repopulation, and even then that's less because of "eggs [being] rarer and more valuable" and more the result that one man with ninety-nine women can result in 99+ babies in a year whereas a 50/50 split would just let to 50+ children. However, that's only an argument in an absurd last-man-on-Earth hypothetical and, even then, you'd run into all kinds of issues because there might be too much common ancestry so you'd need a different breakdown (and that's not even getting into the fact having more males would make rebuilding a lot faster, and that a high birth rate would outstrip resources so there'd be no real benefit there anyway).

ReggieTheReckless posted...

This is some serial killer sociopath shit:

It's also just flat-out wrong, because it takes more than a birthrate to rebuild a society. And whether a society lost half its men or half its women, there would be catastrophic consequences which makes his already-stupid argument meaningless.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.