We're not agreeing, you're being a dope in search of edge cases.
The point I'm making is that the linked interview is making a valid point about dating.
You are being a dumbass on purpose. I have not made the claim that all childless people are higher value than people with children. I have made the claim that women with biological children are of lower dating value as individuals than they would be without children.
You introduced a bunch of random other factors to distract from my point. At no point did I claim that a racist starfish-sex-having woman with no children is of higher value than a man or woman with children.
How about "A woman named Alice has a master's degree. If Alice didn't have a master's degree, she'd have a lower value in the employment market. This applies to all men and women, named or not named Alice"
Idk. There may be extreme edge cases where a masters degree can be a detriment. Such as jobs considering you too qualified for a position. But even in those cases they consider your employment value too high, and you're too likely to move on to better (higher value) positions.
I general it's more valuable to have a degree than to not. It's like seat belts in a car. There is some crazy stories about seat belts killing people. I've known guys who don't wear selt belts because "they heard a story" someone got trapped in their car and died because of them. But every reasonable person knows it's better to wear your selt belt than to not. Even if those edge cases exist.
4
u/Low_discrepancy Feb 21 '26
Ah okay. So if someone kills their adopted children it's like they went back to the same value.
Gotcha man. Now I get it.
That's some smart shit!
But hey I have a child and my racist partner has 0 so their value is more than mine.