RE: ARE YOU MAN ENOUGH TO DIE FOR YOUR LOVED ONES?
I'll be the one willing to write something "negative" (aka real) here.
"I wonder how many of you out there, honestly, would actually take a bullet for your wife or children."
Did you forget the word husband, or are you simply announcing officially you think women's lives are more valuable than men's lives?
"I do find it unfortunate that some would not be willing to do so,"
Yes, it's a real shame our species has a healthy surivival instinct instead of complete and utter codependency and inferiority complexes.
This sounds like a handbook for codependency, and it is rife with implications that men's lives are somehow less valuable then women's, while continually exhorting them to " sacrifice more", despite the fact that men already work far more, at far more dangerous jobs, and are basically 100% responsible for national defense.
I was offended by this article as a man. When will a woman be shamed for not jumping in front of a bus for me?
"many guys out there would be willing to die once for their young bride but then will still turn around and divorce that same woman"
Women initiate divorce MORE THAN TWICE AS OFTEN. Maybe you should target the real problem (hint: it's not male loyalty, it's female frivolity and the "I'm bored now, cash and prizes" mindset):
"The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. "
Remind me again why society has decided that women are somehow fundamentally more valuable than men? It must be due to their brave defense of the Alamo, and all the Nobel Prizes they have accrued. After all, they get a lot of benefits:
The following are indisputable facts about women in the US:
- Can't be drafted.
- Far lighter sentences for the same crime.
- Title IX / AA / "Sexual Harassment" / Diversity. Harder to fire, can sue you.
- Alimony.
- Child Support.
- Presumption of custody in family court.
- Presumption of innocence / belief in rape / domestic cases
- Greater proportion of tax and entitlement benefits despite fewer taxes paid
- Can get enormous amount of free stuff/career advancement from even being remotely attractive, if they so choose.
Women are literally a legally protected class with many rights that no other class has. They are fundamentally given superior status in our society despite lesser objective scientific and economic accomplishments (as of yet).
I am literally a second-hand citizen compared to a woman, both at work and in the courtroom. It is illegal to discriminate against women, but not me.
Remind me again why I should be pre-planning to sacrifice my whole life on the basis of someone's gender and relationship to me?
"yet remain extremely selfish. This is why a lot of relationships do not work. "
Two selfish people make a much better relationship than two codependent ones or a codependent male and an entitled female.
PS - The facts above speak for themselves. White knights, bring a citation or be correctly branded a troll.
PPS - In case it is not clear from this response, I am generally PRO papa-pepper's "idea" here, which is to treat our loved ones with the utmost care and loyalty. My problem is with the clear and ruthless double standard that implies, repeatedly, women > men. Men are not cannon fodder and we do not owe anyone our lives our our time.
As a man, I write from the point of view of a man, husband, father, etc.
The purpose of this article is not to encourage people to "give up their lives" by dying for others, but to "give up their lives" by living for others.
I view my wife and children as more important than myself, which is my opinion, choice, and freedom, and strive to live in a way that demonstrates my view. I meant no "ruthless double standard" when it comes to women and men, or children and parents for that matter.
Again, as I hope my post-script noted, I did not think you had any ill intent. I have the utmost respect for you as a pillar of this community, and though I often do not comment, I try to read most of your posts. I've never detected anything but "good vibes" from you.
However, I feel your post would have been better served to remain gender neutral, rather than specifically excluding people from your list of sacrificers based on sex. There is no reason why women could not have equally been included, because to do otherwise strongly implies yet another benefit for people based on gender.
I went from wanting to fully endorse it, to once again being tired of having my gender used against me to justify responsibilities I apparently have.
If you have not noticed, younger men are getting fed up with a social system that expects these types of sacrifices while simultaneously rendering them no compensatory benefits and, indeed, many disadvantages which I noted above and no reasonable person could possibly dispute in good faith.
As a result, you are seeing a plunging marriage rate and birth rate as well as an increasing divorce rate. This is an area near and dear to my heart as I work in the field of psychology, and relationship therapy is specifically why I got my master's in psych.
In Japan, these young men have basically given up on women entirely. Japan will soon be extinct. I don't want to see that happen in the west, too, however that is exactly what will happen if we continue to expect sacrifices from one party continuously at the benefit of another, as the current family court system enshrines into unethical law.
Lionizing more young men for sacrificing their potential for codependent relationships statistically likely to result in divorce is doing no one any favors.
I presume you are unaware of the fact Dan Larimer was given alimony payments in excess of half his after tax income when his wife recanted on church mediation?
This platform literally exists partially because of what I cited in my post, and while your response is respectful and appreciated, you may note the other responses calling me "triggered" or "MGTOW' simply for stating an unassailable ethical argument based on a sequence of facts.
None of them care what I have to say; they don't follow me. They do follow and listen to you.
Don't set them up for divorce rape and being discarded, like what happened to @dan.
Thank you again for your reply, and I understand more of where you are coming from.
Just to clarify a few things, here is the beginning of your original reply:
I was not intentionally omitting the word husband, but by the use of the word wife rather than woman, I think that it may be implied.
Additionally, you mentioned the following:
My point was that I believe it would be right for me to shield one of my children from harm, like a bullet. If your response was driven to its logical conclusion, then it would be better for me to hold one of my children between me and the bullet, using them as a "meat-shield", in order to protect myself and promote my own survival. I would disagree with that.
The point of my post, as summed up in the last two questions was that if a someone would be willing to die for their loved ones perhaps they should consider living for them in a more intentional way. "Cannon-fodder" has nothing to do with living, but rather dying.
Moreover, to "blame women" for initiating 70% of divorces may seem like they bear the burden of guilt. If they swore 'til death do we part, then obviously they at least broke their vows. However, I believe that certain actions of the husband could lead to the wife initiating divorce, could they not? I could live in such a way today that could convince my wife that it may be best to divorce me.
The main point, written from my personal perspective of a man, husband, and father, was that if we ALL learned to put our loves ones ahead of ourselves, then I believe that families and marriages would be better than they are.
Your point about gender neutral is a very good one indeed. Obviously woman and men, husbands and wives should be "equal" in as what they give and what they get.
I do not think a man nor woman should constantly be giving to someone who is not reciprocating. It is a two way street and a truly healthy relationship requires 200%.
While there is obviously some misunderstandings and some hurt feelings in this thread I do feel that it is a very healthy discussion/exploration. So thanks for starting that.
Best Regards~*~
Thank you, quinneaker. I appreciate your mature viewpoint.
"While there is obviously some misunderstandings and some hurt feelings in this thread I do feel that it is a very healthy discussion/exploration. So thanks for starting that."
I don't mind being a lightning rod anymore. People stopped flagging me for my opinions when they:
"It is a two way street and a truly healthy relationship requires 200%."
You said it. Often even that isn't enough to halt the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" we all must deal with.
Yes well I am sure we both know that people are fragile, judgmental and scared of change/difference/unknown.
In truth most people just accepted that its "not ok" to talk about politics, religion etc etc because its inappropriate and guaranteed to get peoples feelings hurt.
Yet this is all the more reason that we need more discussions. People are so stuck in their ways, that once there is a challenge to it people get offended, angry, scared, upset etc.
It sure would be nice if we could have discussions with objective perspectives and exchange. Alas it seem almost impossible for humans.
I know what its like to have people judge me, condemn me want to change or destroy me. Its part of what a revolutionary has to go through.
I for one will deal with the cognitive dissonance and arrogant judgments to be able to be as liberated and alive as I am. Then when I help someone else awaken its a super bonus which makes it all so worth while.
If you ever need someone to have a conscious and responsible conversation with, let me know.
Blessings~*~
Fully upvoted for complete agreement!
Wow thank you for that!
Very honorable of you and SOOO SOO rare!
I make comments regularly that are very relevant and valuable and yet it is so rare for it to be honored and respected.
I can see that you really care about the truth, even when its an "inconvenient truth" or as I like to say "uncomfortable truth"
You are setting an example we need a LOT more of in this community which is DISCUSSION! Discussion is the real importance for human evolution and the comments are SOOOOOOO lacking here on Steemit.
I have noticed that you are VERY engaged in comments and if I had more time I would probably follow your comments threads to see what you are poking at. Yet I am already so over busy I just find you from time to time.
However I can remember on multiple occasions where I comment on one of your comments and say something to the likes of. This is a comment that we need to see a lot more of and thanks for contributing REAL thought and discussion to this community.
So anyways I could go on and on but I hope you get my point.
Respect~*~
"I make comments regularly that are very relevant and valuable and yet it is so rare for it to be honored and respected."
Mining value in the comments is one of my favorite activities on Steemit. They are vastly overlooked and some of the best discussion happens there. I only with I had more VP.
You might want to check out the @CommentWealth project, if you haven't.
"You are setting an example we need a LOT more of in this community which is DISCUSSION! Discussion is the real importance for human evolution and the comments are SOOOOOOO lacking here on Steemit."
It's unfortunate, but not surprising. Much of the comments are either spam or some form of either begging or sycophancy. It sort of makes sense to do that when you start out (the sycophanting, I mean), but there are so few genuine discussions.
I think this is probably because the rewards for commenting are much harder to quantify. I have observed that I get far fewer payouts from putting work into the comments, relative to making those thoughts a blog post. You can see this effect if you compare your votes to your views - usually the former is significantly higher. However, I do get a lot more followers from comments than I do from posting (from what I can tell).
"I have noticed that you are VERY engaged in comments and if I had more time I would probably follow your comments threads to see what you are poking at. Yet I am already so over busy I just find you from time to time."
I know what you mean. I am unable to keep up with my replies, and totally ignoring my feed at this point. I am being pulled in many different directions with these collaboration projects and even treating Steemit like a 50+ hour a week job, I am not getting everything done I want to.
"So anyways I could go on and on but I hope you get my point."
I do, thank you!
Also, by way of reminder, this was a #family post. It was not about men vs. women, or women vs. men. It was about what I believe to be an appropriate mindset for spouses and parents.
We're both attempting to come at the same goal of "more intact families, less family abuse".
I just deal with the broken pieces on a regular basis in my line of work, so we come from opposite directions: you from the (I would argue, increasingly rare) healthy family, me from the graveyard of abused and entitled relationship "zombies" making a last ditch effort in therapy for a cancer that has already metastasized.
This was very apparent @papa-pepper and I believe most people got that conclusion. You are a very honorable man and that is apparent. Thank you for setting such a high standard of caring and contributing.
The world would be a great place if people actually loved, cared for and respected each other.
Blessings~*~
@lexiconical: why are you offended by this article? I think not all men are willing to die and not all wives loyal. we have to think healthy today. I do not give anyone up here You say 'Women initiate divorce MORE THAN TWICE AS OFTEN' this is proof, not all men think healthy today. I agree with you and also not menyahkan author - @ papa-pepper. @lexiconical thanks for sharing
I hope you made it to my post-script note at the bottom.
I found the implication, supported by much of western culture currently, that men are cannon fodder and more worthy of sacrifice than women to by highly offensive and sexist.
As I noted, I am sure this was not the manner in which it was delivered, but nevertheless this is the comment brought to mind by this post.
You'll note that most users was attacked with labels and handwaved me off as being "triggered", rather than any of my points being fairly responded to.
This was a predictable response when going against the zeitgeist of what is politically correct.
I'm not really interested in discussing the merits of relationship loyalty currently, but that particular statistic on divorce seemed relevant, as one could construe papa's post as implying men were overwhelmingly, or at least equally, the problem.
You never know when it's gonna happen but wow, this post sure did trigger this fella. I guess that means you are doing a good job Papa, at providing thought provoking content.
I suppose dismissing my salient points by saying I'm "triggered" makes the unpalatable easier to ignore.
I think you erred first by dismissing @papa-pepper's salient points in favor of post modern rhetoric.
But I didn't read every word past your first comment. I suggest figuring out a way to make more suscinct comments and author your own Response Post if the discussion is worth such lengthy comments.
In other words, you aren't open to points that require more than a few lines of effort to convey?
Papa's writing is a recipe for codependency in relationships and bad marriages. If you have to be told to sacrifice, something is already wrong.
Yours is not an adequate rebuttal.
In other words, you aren't open to points that require more than a few lines of effort to convey?
"post modern rhetoric"
If you'd read any further, you'd have seen my whole argument was based on a list of facts you'll find near impossible to refute. But, it's easier to just dismiss it as rhetoric without actually responding to the arguments, isn't it?
Papa's writing is a recipe for codependency in relationships and bad marriages. If you have to be told to sacrifice, something is already wrong.
Yours is not an adequate rebuttal.
I see you still havent written a post about it.
So it is irrefutably clear that you don't care to make an argument that can be analyzed and examined. You just want to waste peoples' time as they read a rediculously long comment. Plus another overly long comment. Then another. And then you can say arrogantly stupid stuff like: WE BOTH KNOW MY ARGUMENT IS ROCK SOLID AND IRREFUTABLE. But you win...you have gotten me to respond to your idiocy. So you win. Pat yourself on the back and have yourself a beer. Or bourbon. Or Diet coke. And have a great weekend.
Your head must be nearly exploding with the cognitive dissonance you're holding in.
"So it is irrefutably clear that you don't care to make an argument that can be analyzed and examined. "
Yeah, if only I had written an argument somewhere. Maybe one that included a bunch of facts that can't be refuted (since they are public record in the court system).
"read a rediculously long comment."
Gee, do you think maybe a long comment could contain "an argument that can be analyzed and examined"?
"I see you still havent written a post about it."
What are you, my editor? I don't take orders from you.
Care to respond to male/female sentencing? Care to respond to alimony? Care to respond to female draft immunity? Care to respond to even one of my concrete, citeable, so-obvious-it's-stipulated-to-by-anyone-in-the-field facts?
Even if my comments weren't providing copious evidence you completely ignored, this would still be you:
"Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a fallacy where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence."
+1% for having a great weekend. You too.
No, I read every single word of it and broke it down to a tiny synopsis. Triggered.
No, what you did is exactly what I'd expect a person who desires to preserve their unfair privilege to do when confronted with information that highlighted their privilege:
"argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
We both know if you attacked the substance of my argument, you would lose, and be publicly embarrassed. Better to attack the messenger, if one is more concerned with winning at all costs than being honest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The effort in which you put into this is admirable. I, on the other hand am lazy when it comes to arguing. It's usually not worth my effort, as in this case.
"The effort in which you put into this is admirable."
Thank you. It's not like I'm doing this for me. I hope this doesn't look fun to anyone.
"I, on the other hand am lazy when it comes to arguing."
Fair enough. I would accept a one line response to a factual claim I made that could actually be debated. I'm not looking for a research paper.
"It's usually not worth my effort, as in this case."
....and we're back to ad hominem.
I can't imagine debating with you is ever worth the effort, though I sacrificed some of my time to address you on the assumption you might not be a troll. You clearly have no interest in learning or the facts.
You're just here for the fleeting rush of endorphins that come from ranting at someone you perceive to be attacking your identity politics block on the internet. By golly, it feels good to punish that misogynist for stating those facts that I don't like! Facts that give me feelings I don't like must be wrong! I will rant at them and I will feel better!
I should know, I've done it too. After all, we are all only human, but we can learn to recognize and control our biases.
It's amazing, you can actually scan someone's brain during this effect and see it happening in real time as pleasure centers of the brain light up. Why do you think all mainstream media has completely forsaken actual facts and reason? Outrage pays and "feels" better to the audience. Learning and changing our opinions and ego-relevant views is hard!
You should take a lesson from how your host in this thread engages in discourse, to the very same comment you were unable to generate a civil response to.
“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”
― Isaac Asimov
Good day. Hit me up when you get tired of sitting in the dark. I'll still be here, not impugning your character for highlighting facts of public record.
This is all quite amazing. The fact that you edited this response 13, yes 13 times, to get it just right speaks directly to my previous word usage, admirable. (I apologize for the incomplete picture, I couldn't capture all of the edits on one screen.)
So when I say I'm too lazy to argue, it's true. I like to sit back, take it allllllll in and then break it down to it's basic elements. In your case I stand by my initial assessment that you have certainly been "triggered".
I think my favorite part of all this is that you have no idea where I stand. For you never took the time or effort to ask before launching into schooling me. For all you know, I could agree wholeheartedly with you, or not.
I don't know about the endorphins, but you have given me more than a fair share of laughter, as I could hardly classify my meager responses as a "rant". I feel it is a title for which I haven't earned. But hey, it was free, so I'll take it.
I haven't the desire to trade fisticuffs with a social justice warrior today. I'm a retired lady of leisure that prefers to sit on my beautiful blue chair out in the woods and read. Today will be one of my favorite authors, Isaac Asimov.
Woah. The MGTOW is strong.
It really depends on your worldview. Read the verse I cited below and perhaps you'll understand the perspective. The question is not about value of men vs women for in God's eyes they are equal serving complementary purposes but this seems about the specific responsibility of a man as protector for the family. Sacrifice is a virtuous thing, right?
"MGTOW"
I'll gloss over the relatively minor attempt to affiliate my irrefutable argument with a fringe movement to discredit me.
It's a rather ironic attempt, given that my goal is to prevent a movement like this from needing to exist by attempting to call attention to the factors that are forcing men into MGTOW so they can be prevented before the Herbivore Men spread out of Japan with their "eggs" (you don't want to know).
"Sacrifice is a virtuous thing, right?"
"Those black slaves in the fields are sacrificing so the American Colonies can have Cotton!"
Sacrifice is good if appreciated, rewarded, and done voluntarily. However, it is no longer rewarded, and the means by which it is "cultivated" in young western men is pretty similar to brainwashing with regular propaganda. The complete lie that is the "Gender wage gap" is one good example.
Sending young men into "sacrifice" for young women who are divorcing them more than 2:1, at the highest rates ever recorded, while also getting alimony, child support, and custody for doing it...there's another biblical phrase for that:
"Lambs to the slaughter".
I know it may seem counterintuitive but bear with me.
As a principle, it is a good thing for families to remain intact in love. It doesn't always play out like that in this sad world. I do agree with your critical stance against the myth that is the gender pay gap and concur that there is definitely inequality concerning the legal system regarding men and women.
I think Christians ought to be wise and exercise as much grace as has been allotted to them in whatever adverse situation they may find themselves but every men has their limit. I believe God certainly understands especially in abusive relationships. But as @papa-pepper indicated, the sacrifice isn't necessarily putting ones neck on the chopping block and committing a form of suicide but the sacrifice may be conducting oneself with longsuffering. Seeking counseling and reconciliation if at all possible but I think we both understand we must have realistic expectation. I, for one, speak from experience. My first wife put me through the ringer while I was deployed and was shacking up with another man. I went through some kind of turmoil but I guess in retrospect the experience refined the man that I am today. Yes, I ended up getting divorced after multiple attempts to reconcile. It just didn't pan out.
So, I think I understand in a visceral manner what you mean by "lambs to the slaughter". I was one of them and I made it out of the killing floor by the grace of God. He later trained my eyes to see the true lamb who was slain from before the foundation of the world. It's been one wild ride but now I have a faithful wife and adorable daughter so I have that going for me which is nice.
Although we may disagree on a few things, I appreciate the passion in your comment and think we do agree on much except there may be a difference on account of our spiritual convictions.
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
Ask the Dalai Lama how this philosophy of leadership has gone for his people.
Leaders do not get the luxury of doing this. Leaders who do will be quickly removed or lead their constituencies over a ledge.
"My first wife put me through the ringer while I was deployed and was shacking up with another man. I went through some kind of turmoil but I guess in retrospect the experience refined the man that I am today. Yes, I ended up getting divorced after multiple attempts to reconcile."
Yes, and you would have been much better off if you hadn't attempted to reconcile and rightly identified yourself as too good for dealing with a person who treats you that way. While you were off potentially dying for her country and security... (I don't know the situation, but it appears) You let yourself be a doormat; justifying it with spiritual conviction merely makes you a faithful doormat.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could impart knowledge into young men that would allow them to reach the goal:
"but now I have a faithful wife and adorable daughter so I have that going for me which is nice."
withoug having to traverse this part?:
"My first wife put me through the ringer while I was deployed and was shacking up with another man."
"think we do agree on much except there may be a difference on account of our spiritual convictions."
Indeed. Ethically and morally we are similar. That doesn't prevent me from being a lightning rod for angry ad-hominems, though.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I would agree with your analysis in regard to leadership but as with everything we need to consider it contextually. In the course of military duty and warfare, things work a little differently. Romans 13 lays out a bit of the function of the civil authorities and principles I believe may also be applicable to miltary service.
I don't want to go too deep but will caveat by saying that even if there may be a biblical function of these agents it is not to say the intentions of those employing them are necessarily moral. Of course, I believe America has a long and illustrius history of dubious political intentions in the "defense" of it's way of lif but I digress. Suffice it to say that I believe loving your enemies and defending one's way of life are not mutually exclusive.
Also, yes I could have bypassed the terrible ordeal I had with my former spouse had I known the outcome in advance but that's life for you. I could have also bought Bitcoin when I first heard about it in 2013. I learned a nugget of wisdom from a chat program called Alice way back when and wanted to share. Alice told me that it is not profitable to speak in hypotheticals. In light of ones mistakes in life that could have been prevented through knowledge, I think she is spot on. I did learn from my ordeal but the "what if"s aren't going to do me a whole lotta good. Rather it should always be the "what now" that we must consider after a mistake (such as misplacing one's trust for instance).
Likewise, I had learned from my latest from not buying that Bitcoin when I caught it under $3000 that sometimes, in life, there are risks that are worth taking. Hell, in the military they have these things called operational risk management worksheet where in you actually determine an acceptable level of risk for an operation (using mitigation strategies etc). In retrospect, maybe an ORM worksheet would have been helpful before I married the last one. Maybe the whole mess could have been averted. Lol
Ultimately, I believe in a sort of divine determinism (aka everything happens for a reason) so even, if something I am going through sucks, I could always look back and most assuredly I find some sort of silver lining maybe even a purpose. For instance, what did I learn from x experience. I believe we are prone to learn more from our failures than our successes.
Hey, I'm sorry if anyone had called you any names on this thread. I was really taking a playful jab on the mgtow remark. I actually believe most of their grievances with society are legit and even sub to one of their channels on YT. I appreciate your comment.
I'm sorry I didn't get to this comment sooner, I would have liked to upvote it.
Thank you for your thoughts. Great reply.
@lexiconical It's fine. Yeah, don't you hate when that happens. Many of us have very busy lives on the "outside" and it happens. I must say that I really like the effort you put into discussions/engagement. That's good stuff!
I really appreciate that anyone even read this far!
Are you serious right now?! You sir need to take a seat at the kids table because this was directed towards the men and you could not possibly be that after reading your response,I would almost be willing to bet your not even married and know nothing of sacrifice and devotion!#getalife!
Congratulations, you have officially produced the most easily refutable argument I may ever have dealt with. This is exactly the response I would expect from a person who knows they have privilege, has no concern for intellectual honesty, and wishes to preserve their privilege.
Ironically, your argumentation is operating at about a 1st-grade level. Perhaps you should leave your glass house before hurling stones.
"take a seat at the kids table "
Ad hominem.
"you could not possibly be that"
Ad hominem.
"bet your not even married and know nothing of sacrifice and devotion!"
Ad hominem.
"!#getalife!"
Ad hominem.
"argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
PS - Try to use a fact next time. That's how adults debate things rationally.
The biological differences between men and women have an effect on the way they think and this leads to seemingly double standards. In a crisis it often makes biological sense to save children and their mothers first and this drives family men to do extraordinary things.
It has nothing to do with white knights or co-dependency or offending someone who has read to much and lived too little.
"The biological differences between men and women have an effect on the way they think and this leads to seemingly double standards."
Ah, so I guess it's only women/feminists/minorities/other identity politics groups that get to complain about double standards. Gosh, I guess that's just another double standard us men should shut up about while we sacrifice more for you!
"In a crisis it often makes biological sense to save children and their mothers first and this drives family men to do extraordinary things."
Do you see any crisis around, like the Titanic going down, that necessitates such cruel "lifeboat logic" to justify women being more valuable? I don't.
"makes biological sense"
Do we have a population or genetic undersupply that makes this true? Didn't think so.
"someone who has read to much and lived too little."
Ah, you were doing so well until you decided to start attacking my character, rendering you the first to concede the debate:
"argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem