drumbo

This is great news for the Republicans. I am sorry that a human being died, but everyone dies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPIdRJlzERo

The specific is a pivot to the general unless you are selfish. It surely mandates someone's grandma's death, and you should not care less if she isn't your grandma. Answer the question, would you be OK with it if your grandma died? I ignored the rest of your post since it's riddled with excessive paranoia.

You do not have the right to determine when someone else's life should end. Your freedoms end where other people's safety begins. Grandma may not want to die yet, and you do not have the right to put her in danger for your own personal convinience.

Even one death is too many. Would you still be OK with it if your grandma died because a motor vehicle was being operated by an everyday schmuck? Only trained professionals should be allowed to operate these dangerous machines. Keep in mind that drivers licenses can be gotten by people who have questionable skill. I failed my driving test 4 times in a row before I got it, and I also lied by saying I had the required 10 hours of experience driving on the highway when I did not.

I agree with this, but from a game theoretic perspective it is in our best interest then to assume that the correlation has merit. If the correlation has no predictive value then I have discriminated unjustly, but there is little harm to myself, however it does then I have potentially avoided harm.

This is a popular misconception. Crashes involving two female drivers were overrepresented in five of six crash scenarios, including two by at least 50 percent more and two others by more than 25 percent greater than what was expected. The highest fatalities are found among men because men drive about 60 percent of annual miles and women drive 40 percent, and therefore men would be expected to be involved in a higher percentage of crashes for each scenario, road conditions and driving skills being equal.

This is a miscalculation. You can buy groceries in bulk so that you are set for at least 2-4 weeks. Taking a taxi or an Uber once every 2-4 weeks is much less expensive than owning a car.

Unnecessary. It is sufficient to establish that a statistically significant correlation exists in order to make valid predictions. For example, I can notice that crime rates are higher in neighborhood A than neighborhood B, and even if no causal relationship between crime rates and the neighborhoods can be established, I can still lower my risk level by simply avoiding that neighborhood.

The use of the phrase common peasants was tongue in cheek, but I assure you I am serious. Most people do not need to own a car. It is wasteful and frankly dangerous.

Sometimes on the subway we see people behaving in a rude manner, e.g. blaring music from their phone without headphones. When this happens I take a look at the offender and take note of all of their qualities, including their haircut, facial features, and clothing. My brain then associates all of those qualities with bad people so that I can avoid them. Is this a reliable way of avoiding bad people, or are the correlations drawn invalid?

If you believe that everyday people should be allowed to operate motor vehicles then you are enabling immoral behavior. There were 36,560 motor vehicle deaths in the United States in 2018. There are far safer methods of transportation; including subways, buses, trains, planes, and bicycles. Those methods do not involve allowing common peasants to operate a machine weighing thousands of pounds that can reach speeds of over 100 mph. Older drivers, particularly those aged 75+, have higher crash death rates than middle-aged drivers (aged 35-54). If you are in favor of allowing common folk to operate motor vehicles then I have to ask, are you OK with letting your grandma die in a motor vehicle accident?

Imagine a stone age level of human development. Assume that there were two genotypes of male: Men of genotype A whom are more feminine - They tend to focus on clerical tasks and avoid risk - They have low mortality rates Men of genotype B whom are more masculine - They tend to focus on tasks requiring strength, aggression, and risk taking - They have high mortality rates Note that the prevalence of a genotype in a population can only increase if its reproductive rate exceeds its mortality rate. Therefore if the prevalence of genotype B is to increase in the population then men of genotype B must have higher reproductive success than men of genotype A in order to compensate for the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B. Now assume that there were four tribes in close proximity to one another: In tribe 1 90% of the men were of genotype A, and 10% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype A In tribe 2 75% of the men were of genotype A, and 25% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to have no net preference (the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B would cause their prevalence to drop over time) In tribe 3 10% of the men were of genotype A, and 90% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype B In tribe 4 50% of the men were of genotype A, and 50% were of genotype B - In this tribe women were genetically predispositioned to slightly (to compensate for the higher mortality rate of men of genotype B) prefer men of genotype B Now in tribes 1 and 2 things are nice and peaceful, the feminized men get along and build a harmonious and well functioning society. However in tribe 3 things are not so peaceful, there is constant infighting and aggression. Tribe 3 starts lashing out and attacking tribes 1, 2, and 4. Unfortunately the men in tribes 1 and 2 are too soft and feminine, and they are unable to defend themselves. However since tribe 4 has a decent amount of men of genotype B they successfully defend themselves and survive. The conclusion is that tribes of women who were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype A or have no net preference at all would tend to overproduce those men and the tribe would subsequently be wiped out, women who were genetically predispositioned to highly prefer men of genotype B would overproduce those men and the infighting would cause the tribe to fail and splinter, and finally tribes of women who were genetically predispositioned to slightly prefer men of genotype B in order to compensate for the higher mortality rate of those men would have the best chances of survival. Therefore most women must be primarily descended from tribes of type 4, and women must have a slight overall preference for men of genotype B.

From the Jones, Hahn, Fisher et.al article No Compelling Evidence that Preferences for Facial Masculinity Track Changes in Women’s Hormonal Status (2018) And even more curiously from 2019 by Marcinkowska et.al. women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions:

According to the Pew Research Center 61% of U.S. women say ‘feminist’ describes them well. From that can we assume that 61% of women should prefer feminine men, but that is obviously not the case. Therefore the incongruity does exist and must be explained.

It is well known that most women prefer men that prominently express masculine secondary sex characteristics, and it is also patently true that men are a class of humans who do not bear children. Therefore if women's sexual preferences are a reflection of which traits are optimal in men we must assume they are also a reflection of which traits are optimal in a class of humans who do not bear children. Therefore if feminists believe that feminine traits are not suboptimal for tasks not related to bearing children then they should prefer feminine men, but women generally do not. How can feminists reconcile the incongruity between women's sexual preferences and their position that femininity is not suboptimal?