I've realized that I'm never going to get married

That's fine, but in an earlier post you stated that you were a libertarian, which is what the OP is. I don't think you'd see eye-to-eye with many libertarians outside of their stances on social issues.

Good points about religion, though.

Steven R,

Congratulations! You've just come to terms with the fact that nobody wants to marry you.

I thought that crap too...but one will get a hold of you..I was 41 before I started my desent into hell.....

The devil's waitin'..she's out there just waiting to pounce......

Steve R... why don't you just leave DC? That area sucks as far as I'm concerned, especially if there's that many women and not a single like-minded one for you to bed down with. Get the eff out already!

For what it's worth, my roommate once got dumped hard because he doesn't drink (AA guy, was a huge alky at one time). He and this chick dated for quite a while and he was clearly falling in love, then she just dumped him with no explanation. I ran into her a few weeks later and she admitted it was because she like to party and couldn't be with someone who would never have a drink with her. So yes, chicks do some stupid things, and just when you think things are fine with her (like being sober, atheist, etc.), she may one day decide they are not.

Best bet... stay single Steve. I'm a lot like you but a little older (don't drink but I smoke bud, agnostic, don't really want kids, libertarian) and even though there are chicks out there that seem OK with a these qualities, issues will come up (especially the kid thing).

Thanks for the post. The D.C. area can be pretty crappy sometimes, but I really cannot complain...I have a great life here (great job, live close to work so I don't have a commute, fantastic trails and racing scene, etc.). A more serious relationship might be nice, but it isn't necessary for me to feel "complete."

You actually sound like a lot of my older married friends. The vast majority of them tell me that I'm in an ideal situation and repeatedly tell me not to get married. Plus I've read the "post-nuptial shutoff" thread.

The thing is though, would you want to be with a girl like that?

I don't drink and it's never been an issue...

You just haven't met you a big-booty ho yet. Don't worry - it'll happen.

Have you made that appointment for your vasectomy yet? Your statemnets are specious otherwise.

Kiko wrote:

Have you made that appointment for your vasectomy yet? Your statemnets are specious otherwise.

Agreed. It's very simple Steven, men who don't want kids get snipped. You aren't snipped so you want kids. Which is probably why you want to get married. If you were to get snipped and thus truelly didn't want kids of your own, you wouldn't give a crap about marrying anyone. You'd be happy dating and when it ended then you'd just date another woman. That life my friend is very nice, but you aren't happy with it, so you must want more. Until you get snipped, you can't state "I don't want kids" without being a hypocrite.

my gf has a whooty wrote:

Agreed. It's very simple Steven, men who don't want kids get snipped. You aren't snipped so you want kids.

Or, they wear a condom. Perhaps you've heard of them?

how old wrote:

my gf has a whooty wrote:

Agreed. It's very simple Steven, men who don't want kids get snipped. You aren't snipped so you want kids.

Or, they wear a condom. Perhaps you've heard of them?

A condom? What is that? Jack ass.... of course I know what a condom is. Condoms fail. And who wants to wear a condom for the rest of their life? The fact remains that men who truelly don't want kids don't take a chance at a condom failing. They take care of business and get snipped so there is no chance. Since he hasn't, I'm calling bs on his statement of "I don't want kids".

By the way, a lifetime supply of condoms costs more than getting snipped. So any logical adult who doesn't want kids would get snipped rather than using condoms until the age of 80.

my gf has a whooty wrote:

Kiko wrote:

Have you made that appointment for your vasectomy yet? Your statemnets are specious otherwise.

Agreed. It's very simple Steven, men who don't want kids get snipped. You aren't snipped so you want kids. Which is probably why you want to get married. If you were to get snipped and thus truelly didn't want kids of your own, you wouldn't give a crap about marrying anyone. You'd be happy dating and when it ended then you'd just date another woman. That life my friend is very nice, but you aren't happy with it, so you must want more. Until you get snipped, you can't state "I don't want kids" without being a hypocrite.

It's too bad that your father didn't get snipped just a little bit earlier.

madarin wrote:

It's too bad that your father didn't get snipped just a little bit earlier.

Wow, what an awesomely original and witty put-down.

This has been the worst thread ever so I'm out. It's been fun, Paulo etc..

That's odd, you claim it's not debatable, yet here I am debating you. Either I agree with you and don't realize it, or you're wrong about it being debatable.

I NEVER said that the earth can feed an infinite amount of mouths. But we do produce enough food to feed the world. Look at the American diet vs. the diet of starving people. We have massive population centers such as NYC and LA where people can find food just fine. People in Africa starve because the tribal groups that dominate individual governments only give out the food we send out to others of their tribes. There's not national loyalty because the nations never really existed... they were carved out by old Europeans on arbitrary lines.

That's not to say we can grow out population forever, but I would argue that our current food output could feed the world if we had a better distribution system.

2+2=4 because 2+2=4. What isn't circular about that? Truth, almost by definition, is circular. One of the most basic tenets of symbolic logic is that the statement "X is true" determines the truth of the statement "it is true that the statement 'X is true' is true." THIS is something that is not debatable.

OK, there's no evidence of any supreme being(s). Fine. That doesn't necessitate non-existence, it's just a reason not to believe with any assurance in such an existence. I can say 2+2=5, and I would LOVE for you to tell me a non-arbitrary reason why it's not true. You need to understand that to some people, the existence of a higher power, with or without reason, is as fundamental to reality as 2+2=4, and saying there is no God is like suggesting 2+2=5... why is it wrong? Because it just is! would be the frustrated answer.

I'm not saying I personally think religion is logical, I'm just saying that when you're raised to believe that certain premises about existence are true, religion makes fine sense. Religion is not inherently stupid (which doesn't make it right, either).

Wow you're stupid. I wish that I could demonstrate this with four apples or something else that's tangible so you might be able to understand why elementary addition works, but I'll just use the letter "X" instead. Here we go.

Now start counting.

X - how many X's do you count? One.

XX - now how many? Two.

XXX - how many X's are there now? Three.

XXXX - there are four X's

Now, here comes the tricky part. I am going to have two groups of X's. You count how many are in each group and then count how many there are when I add them together. Can you do that? XX---XX. XXXX. Count how many were in each group. There are TWO in each group. When I add the two groups together and then count how many I have, there are four. Now I can repeat this little experiment many times with different objects or letters, but the result is always the same. Adding a group of two things with two more things gives me four things. Therefore I can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that 2+2=4.

By trying to be an intellectual you just made an ass out of yourself. Congratulations.

Sorry, try again.

Hey, I sure hope that you aren't spending your whole date outlining your beliefs and stances on certain things, cause that shit is downright BORING. Have fun on your outings with girls, it doesn't matter if the girl is a christian or a muslim, a commy or a fascist, she'll want to spend more time with you.

Good luck!

If you took two apples, and added them with two apples, you would have four pieces of fruit. But what if the apples are different sizes? Isn't there then some leftover amount of apple?

The whole concept of a number is abstract. Anything tangible to which you apply an abstract cannot be measured perfectly. And when you work with abstracts, you apply rules which we have termed in our own words, our own ideas.

I'm not going to compare religion to numbers here, I'm just illustrating a point that when you take a certain abstract as a given premise, it is possibly for a rational person to be something other than a gnostic atheist. That's all I'm saying. Can you at least agree that people who aren't gnostic atheists aren't collectively morons? I'd call that more than reasonable.

TrendyRunner wrote:

your wrong. I'm 22, female, and I don't see what the problem is. I also don't drink (well... seldom drink... it's obviously difficult when you're training), I'm an adamant atheist (and could only ever be with someone who shares my passion for logic and reason), I guess I would say I'm a libertarian... and highly attracted to a socialist government- and as far as the children thing goes... I just don't think it's responsible to bring more people into a world that's in the midst of a population crisis.

At least you're 22 and have an excuse for the above. But just to let you know ... reason, logic, and religion are not mutually exclusive. In fact there is a lot of the natural world that reasonably suggests a Creator with certain traits. Maybe you should expand your reading list. Socialism and libertarianism are not compatible systems. There is no population crisis. There is a responsible government crisis. There is more than enough food and resources in the world for everyone, but it's not well distributed. Finally, having a beer every once in a while will not hurt your training.