To interact with this page you must login. Signup
ask a person to answer this questionAsk to answer
Compesh is a question and answer (and debate) website, so before you make a debate, you better learn what an assertion is. I suppose you already know what a question is, and that you've typed it in the box. ;)
An assertion, is basically a statement you can make, that is either true or false.
Richer people have better health.
The question for that would be, Do richer people have better health?
And don't forget to make your assertion, match your question.
The argument and pretext behind this question, is that feminists are less attractive and can't get men, so they jump on the feminist train, to stop better looking women getting "objectified" because they are jealous.
How you would answer this question, has to do with whether you believe in Game Theory or not.
Game Theory, is a theory that the world is zero-sum, and that everyone in life has interest, wants to maximise their interest, primarily at the expense of others.
So to explain how Game Theory works in terms of this question, women have an interest in men, they maximise their interest in men by wearing make-up, and they maximise their interest in the expense of others, by lesser attractive women becoming feminists. (I'll let you think about how farfetched that sounds.)
When said so plainly whilst observing our capitalist society, Game Theory might sound correct. But actually Game Theory is a lot more farfetched than you think.
Going back to how Game Theory says that life is a zero-sum, it pictures the world like a game of reversi, where one must lose for another to gain. It makes the assumption that everyone in the world wants the maximum amount of interest, and that due to our shortcomings, that we only do the things we do, because we are lacking in an X trait or benefit, that people who have the thing, have as a trait or benefit.
To put it simply, under Game Theory, it is not possible for someone to get richer, without someone getting poorer. The concept of someone boosting the economy (to help all social classes) does not exist. Under game theory, all boosts to anything to "help" it, are only a mirage, to make the under-privleged hold their tongues.
For instance, Game Theory suggests the following things...
Still strapped in your seats? Because Game Theory suggests more outrageous things, using the same logic.
It is very easy for people in corrupt communist countries to develop an attitude of Game Theory, as communism works by stopping people from getting rich and getting rewarded for their hard work. This is very much like the countless examples of people including children in China who are trampled over by vehicles in the road, who are left to die by passers by, including their own parents. People who save injured people will be sued for harming them, and people who save people will be forced into exhile by their village/residence, as they don't want saviours "stealing" their glory and fame.
But is life a zero sum game? No.
Can we use Game Theory to make such sweeping statements about individuals? No.
So if there is a feminist who is less attractive, please don't equate it to that, as there are plenty of feminists who are more attractive, to make your viewpoint flawed.
Game Theory fails to realise that people are people, and that we all are different, even if we are the same in some way. You could never use such theories when counselling people, as to work with vulnerable people, as you must learn that we are all different, and that we all experience the same thing, differently.
So the answer is no.
People are who they are, for more substantial reasons than such primitive ones. This isn't the Stone Age.