Women are villains, men are saints

Rachel Stewart36 said:I think you’re totally misreading my point. I’m not talking about some "concrete" right to choose; I’m talking about freedom within a static-dynamic social structure. I mean the actual possibility of exercising that freedom while playing by the "rules of the game" the system sets. Your example—saying you can't choose to buy a Ferrari or a Porsche, but you *can* choose what to do with the cash you actually have—is just looking at freedom through a narrow lens. You're missing the "higher order" logic based on the abstract definition of freedom I'm discussing. Donna Garcia42 actually touched on this in post # 172 when she talked about unequal starting positions. Looking at your exchange with her, it seems you're still approaching the concept of choice (which is synonymous with freedom in my terms) from a much lower level of abstraction, so I doubt there's any point in continuing this debate.😉

Chatterbox Quote

And that’s only true by definition; in reality, every single human action is conditioned by emotion or impulse to some degree. Consciousness—the intellect—is inextricably linked to will (which is essentially driven by emotion). Any attempt to mechanically strip that organic unity apart just results in a broken outcome.

I'm not talking about just being aware that choice exists—I'm talking about how messy and difficult it actually is to exercise that freedom.

Man, seriously, stop being so damn intense. It was just cynicism... sarcasm... whatever you want to call it. 😉

Missed that one. I'm juggling five things at once right now—my brain is basically fried😉

Rachel Stewart36 said:I think you’re totally misreading my point. I’m not talking about some "concrete" right to choose; I’m talking about freedom within a static-dynamic social structure. I mean the actual possibility of exercising that freedom while playing by the "rules of the game" the system sets. Your example—saying you can't choose to buy a Ferrari or a Porsche, but you *can* choose what to do with the cash you actually have—is just looking at freedom through a narrow lens. You're missing the "higher order" logic based on the abstract definition of freedom I'm discussing. Donna Garcia42 actually touched on this in post # 172 when she talked about unequal starting positions. Looking at your exchange with her, it seems you're still approaching the concept of choice (which is synonymous with freedom in my terms) from a much lower level of abstraction, so I doubt there's any point in continuing this debate.😉

Chatterbox Quote

And that’s only true by definition; in reality, every single human action is conditioned by emotion or impulse to some degree. Consciousness—the intellect—is inextricably linked to will (which is essentially driven by emotion). Any attempt to mechanically strip that organic unity apart just results in a broken outcome.

I'm not talking about just being aware that choice exists—I'm talking about how messy and difficult it actually is to exercise that freedom.

I feel like we’re just spinning our wheels here. Honestly, dragging this conversation into "higher order principles" feels more like a philosophy seminar than a thread titled "Women are Villains, Men are Saints." I've never really had much patience for philosophical deep dives or pseudo-scientific theories—they just aren't my thing. If you're actually trying to convince me that free will is an illusion, why don't you do something useful with that knowledge? Give me a hot stock tip on the NYSE instead.

Rachel Stewart36 said:I think you’re totally misreading my point. I’m not talking about some "concrete" right to choose; I’m talking about freedom within a static-dynamic social structure. I mean the actual possibility of exercising that freedom while playing by the "rules of the game" the system sets. Your example—saying you can't choose to buy a Ferrari or a Porsche, but you *can* choose what to do with the cash you actually have—is just looking at freedom through a narrow lens. You're missing the "higher order" logic based on the abstract definition of freedom I'm discussing. Donna Garcia42 actually touched on this in post # 172 when she talked about unequal starting positions. Looking at your exchange with her, it seems you're still approaching the concept of choice (which is synonymous with freedom in my terms) from a much lower level of abstraction, so I doubt there's any point in continuing this debate.😉

Chatterbox Quote

And that’s only true by definition; in reality, every single human action is conditioned by emotion or impulse to some degree. Consciousness—the intellect—is inextricably linked to will (which is essentially driven by emotion). Any attempt to mechanically strip that organic unity apart just results in a broken outcome.

I'm not talking about just being aware that choice exists—I'm talking about how messy and difficult it actually is to exercise that freedom.

Look, I’m an engineer by trade, so believe me when I say there isn't much room for feelings in my line of work. Try writing code based on your emotions and see what happens—you'll get kicked right in the teeth. If you decide to swap out a semicolon for a colon just because it feels more "artistically expressive," the whole software crashes. The only place where emotions actually have a seat at the table is in the funny comments you leave in the script.

So, I'm an engineer. Guess I should've used some actual systems theory terminology to make my point—at least from what I know of it. Might have actually closed the gap between our two perspectives if I had.
Besides, even engineers need to tap into "emotions"—unless you’re just a mindless drone. Real engineering requires creativity, inspiration, and imagination... which are mostly "irrational" territory anyway.
Anyway, moving off-topic—anyone know what kind of penalties we're looking at? Happy holidays, I guess. 😉

Rachel Stewart36 said:So, I'm an engineer. Guess I should've used some actual systems theory terminology to make my point—at least from what I know of it. Might have actually closed the gap between our two perspectives if I had.
Besides, even engineers need to tap into "emotions"—unless you’re just a mindless drone. Real engineering requires creativity, inspiration, and imagination... which are mostly "irrational" territory anyway.
Anyway, moving off-topic—anyone know what kind of penalties we're looking at? Happy holidays, I guess. 😉

Look, fauxpersona... I’m not hating on your theories... honestly, on a macro level, I kind of see where you're coming from. But you can't just apply those theorems to dating... which is what this thread is actually about. You can't start talking about "conditional static-dynamic social structures" when we're discussing whether or not a woman is going to want to sleep with you. It’s way more straightforward than that... if you're driving a Mercedes, she's in; if you're riding a bike, she's out!😁 ...or maybe she'll still say yes!

Rachel Stewart36 said:So, I'm an engineer. Guess I should've used some actual systems theory terminology to make my point—at least from what I know of it. Might have actually closed the gap between our two perspectives if I had.
Besides, even engineers need to tap into "emotions"—unless you’re just a mindless drone. Real engineering requires creativity, inspiration, and imagination... which are mostly "irrational" territory anyway.
Anyway, moving off-topic—anyone know what kind of penalties we're looking at? Happy holidays, I guess. 😉

The thing about being an engineer is that there's one reality check you don't get in the liberal arts... you can be as creative as you want, lean into your emotions, and pitch whatever wild theory you like... but you're never going to make a rock fall upward. If you catch my drift. That’s why people in STEM tend to stay a bit more grounded than others... might be boring, but that's just how the math works.