Erroneous insofar as how does one best provide for offspring without money as the primary resource in the current environment we live in?
Bruh.. I don't think you know how to interpret definitions well. No offense. Also, it's still silly that you're referencing both definitions... but I'll play.
No definition provided confined hypergamy to the current environment, and even so human nature doesn't care about the current environment. Money is simply a means to get the "resources" and that means can still go away. Think of poorer countries with inhabitants that get by without money. Does the occurrence of hypergamy just go away? Of course not. The guy working his ass off gathering resources can better provide than the guy who lazes around. A more extreme example is a person who has millions of dollars worth of essential assets without a cent on hand would be a better provider than the person with a hundred bucks. Money by all means can promote hypergamous conditions, but hypergamy by definition doesn't need money.
In arguendo, fallaciously adopting that “best provide for offspring” meant “food and shelter which could be bought without money,” doesn't invalidate the argument that so me women will trade "down" (within the scope of status alone), hence hypergamy is invalid in such contexts.
Here we are picking and choosing our definitions again to suit the moment. You were just defending the "best provide for offspring" condition of the 2nd definition in the above rhethorical question to support a point, and now you want to exclude it to just status, changing the meaning itself! Also, your argument about how trading down "refutes hypergamy" is based on the assumption that both are inconsistent. I proved hypergamy to be consistent with trading down using my counter-examples - the consistent logical structure being the point here, not the irrelevant content.
If a theory does not hold under certain circumstances --not delineated as exceptions--then the theory is invalid.
Accordingly, the very act of trading down is not a delineated exception to, and thus contradicts, Hypergamy.
Diametrically, the superseding Needs Theory explains trading down and trading up.
This is saying nothing but putting us back to square one. The central hidden premise here is that the "very act of trading down doesn't hold the hypergamy theory," which itself is at the heart of the issue and has already been made false with my counter-examples. Additional note: Using loaded sentences with terms like "fallaciously" doesn't make my statements any less true.
You attempt to validate hypergamy by alleging there is a desire without means to validate that such a desire exists?
E.g. Every woman has an instinctual desire to eat blackberries. ==>New Theory: Blackberry Theory
I said no such thing. My examples weren't meant to assert anything, but prove the
possibility of hypergamy and thus its
consistency. Its consistency has been proven and reveals your "argument" to be unsound.
Erroneous insofar as individual’s needs are concrete and could be objectively measured with accuracy, whereas a unicorn cannot be found.
Your attempt to compare the two even as an analogy demonstrates “hyperbolic reaching” due to the clear weakness of your position.
Needs don’t change quickly as they are indoctrinated “workings” conditioned and reinforced throughout a lifetime. Though, they can change in time with new conditioning.
Nah, I should have just watered it down, no offense. The point is that your concept of needs is not understood by anyone, so even if your hypothetical were true, how could we verify those needs for it to have any substance? The unicorn statement, though true, doesn't have an existential bearing. If your statement is true, how can we test its existential bearing to separate it from being just a fantasy, but true statement, like the unicorn? You're always talking around as to what "need" means, but the closer we inspect it the more absurd it gets. Hyperbolic reaching? lol...bro. Get a course in logic and you'll hopefully see future "analogies" like this right away.
The original quote, “If she has eyes for you, hypergamy is dead” <> “if her hypergamy is alive, then she doesn't only have eyes on you".
If X then Y <> If not Y, then not X.
By reversing the order of a condition, you invalidate the equation.
The fallacies in your argument invalidates Hypergamy Theory further. Thanks for the support.
LOL do you even logic bro? First off, it's not "equation." It's logical syllogism. WFF. Or form. Secondly, I didn't
reverse anything. I constructed a logical proof of which the premise and conclusion were logically equivalent. Really. Among the several material conditional equivalence laws, [If X then Y] IF AND ONLY IF [If not Y then not X]. So in other words, it's impossible for both the premise to be true and the conclusion false. So, a valid argument. As for it being sound, well, that depends on your obscure idea of "needs".
Additional note: Your original quote is actually
When a girl has eyes only for you, hypergamy is dead.
C'mon man, you can at least fact-check your own stuff. You even have it in bold font! lol
In all serious, this has been entertaining and I enjoy your stubbornness in a non-condescending way.
