Gender Debate

Unreasonable wrote:

At some point in time, 'human' societies did not exist as they do now. Before tribes were formed, human animals may have roamed solo, or always in a group. It is hard to say. But what is not hard to say is that pregnancy relegated to the female gender is a handicap that she cannot afford. If a female mammal gets pregnant in the wild, without help/aid/assistance of any kind, then her chances for survival drop tremendously, especially-considering the amount of time, effort, and devotion needed to successfully-raise a *HUMAN* child.

A human child relys now upon the tribe but if it wasn't ever thus somehow it survived.....

Ask a female tiger about pregnancy in the wild and her inability to 'cope' alone. She would swipe you with her paw and eat your flesh whilst she ponders it.

maryshelley wrote:

A human child relys now upon the tribe but if it wasn't ever thus somehow it survived.....

Ask a female tiger about pregnancy in the wild and her inability to 'cope' alone. She would swipe you with her paw and eat your flesh whilst she ponders it.

Oh wait ... you mean the group of female tigers to which she attaches herself to?

There is strength-in-numbers --indeed-- for women...

Tigers hunt alone, mate, then birth and raise their young alone........

Female tigers will copulate up to 50 times a day when in season.....

Induced ovulators they are; the dirty bitches....


You were saying.

Unreasonable wrote:

To Sappho AD,

Sappho AD wrote:

Hello and Welcome to me the Newbie 'bout these parts.

Now lets get too it shall we?

You, darling man, seem to think that because we women folk have more fat and less muscle and bone density, that we are therefore too... well, feminine in structure to fend for ourselves.

Geeeee, I wonder why???

And yet the woman's body is designed for longevity... something a male body lacks. Females dominate the numbers in older populations.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

You support this with the impossible hypothesis of the woman *alone* in the wild.

I have to wonder how the woman *alone* got to be in the wilds in the first place. Was she raised there? Was she dumped there by some mammoth man?

It's is rather important to know her circumstances if we are to give validity to your hypothesis you see.

What period are we referring to... modern, ancient or pre-historic? You see context is everything.

The context is superfluous, because *IT NEVER HAPPENED*.

Oh I'm sorry... I didn't know you were one of those... you know... stupid, ignorant... more brawn than brains kinda male.

Let me explain... when exploring thought experiements they themselves must be cogent or else the resulting debate becomes flawed.

Take for example Serle's Chinese Room thought experiment and Dennets criticism of same, as a prime example of a thought experiment that leads to irrelevent discussions.

Quote :

Since the birth of Womankind, she has always depended on Mankind for her protection, to this very day.

Now it has progressed to the point where Woman cannot even 'think' without Man thinking for her. -- very sad, indeed.

Actually... social existance for many hunter gatherer societies was matriarchal.
Not only should you read more Philosophy so you can appreciate and apply the 'thought experiment', but it seems that a good dose of Anthropology wouldn't go astray.
I can't understand how you can even be bothered debating gender issues without the required background knowledge.
Stupid is as stupid does... Isn't that what the male of our species 'Forrest Gump' had to say?

Of course we shifted to a Patriarchal world, not because women needed protection, but rather because Womanly Power scares the shit outta men. They don't assert themselves through fisty cuffs like the brawny man... They use words.
And those words now in our post modern existance... are more powerful than ever before.

Otherwise, I prefer to think that women have a tendancy to 'use' men rather than 'depend' upon them... Hense the sugar daddy... Hense the high divorce rates...

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Let me guess... she's *alone* right... so it has to be God and his taste for immaculate conception, inwhich case she'll do just fine... don't you worry. God'll look after her.

At some point in time, 'human' societies did not exist as they do now. Before tribes were formed, human animals may have roamed solo, or always in a group. It is hard to say. But what is not hard to say is that pregnancy relegated to the female gender is a handicap that she cannot afford. If a female mammal gets pregnant in the wild, without help/aid/assistance of any kind, then her chances for survival drop tremendously, especially-considering the amount of time, effort, and devotion needed to successfully-raise a *HUMAN* child.

You do a lot of guess there male type person... why don't you try a little less of the guess work and a little more of the research work.

Go and do some research on pre-colonial aboriginal tribes. Pay attention won't you, when they speak on the pregnent women who were left behind to catch up in their own time... guess thats why they are all such good trackers... the women had to be.

Oh yeah... you wanna know how well women would fair in the wild? Well, is the Aussie outback wild enough for ya? Are girls just as valid as women to your thought experiement? Well go check out the true story of a girl who ran away from the whites and back to her home in the outback. Rabbit Proof Fence.
Seems to me... women can cut it.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Can I suggest Unreasonable that you go back and look with more a critical eye at your thought experiement and flesh it out properly. As it stands it is ludicous and an enjoyment to make fun of.

If that were true, then you should have been able to make a more serious point & contention...

Just did... and have fun with that male type person.

"Give me the boy until they are seven, and i will show you the man." So say the catholics. But it could be equally said by mothers.

Give me my boy until they are seven, and i will show you the civilised man.

Women, through their nurturing and teaching of morality and civilization form the man... and the women.

maryshelley wrote:

Tigers hunt alone, mate, then birth and raise their young alone........

Female tigers will copulate up to 50 times a day when in season.....

Induced ovulators they are; the dirty bitches....


You were saying.

Oh, I was thinking of lions instead of tigers.

I do not know enough about tigers to qualify your points either way.

Regardless, I doubt tiger-society acts like you falsely-believe females do.


If a woman can be impregnated, carry a baby, deliver it, care for it, and feed it alone, then what does this even signify???

It signifies a great deal about the baby/infant/child as a specie. Humans are not this way. -- qualitative differences...

Ape societies are different than cat societies, albeit slightly and by divergence. The gender classification remains the same.

Sappho AD wrote:

And yet the woman's body is designed for longevity... something a male body lacks. Females dominate the numbers in older populations.

You are missing the point entirely ... good job toots.

Sappho AD wrote:

Oh I'm sorry... I didn't know you were one of those... you know... stupid, ignorant... more brawn than brains kinda male.

Let me explain... when exploring thought experiements they themselves must be cogent or else the resulting debate becomes flawed.

Take for example Serle's Chinese Room thought experiment and Dennets criticism of same, as a prime example of a thought experiment that leads to irrelevent discussions.

Thought experiments that do not cohere with reality/actuality in any way are solipsistic.

Do you want another word for it? -- how about a few: "fantasy", "fiction", "falsehood".

You do not have a clue of what you/we are talking about here...

Sappho AD wrote:

Quote :

Since the birth of Womankind, she has always depended on Mankind for her protection, to this very day.

Now it has progressed to the point where Woman cannot even 'think' without Man thinking for her. -- very sad, indeed.

Actually... social existance for many hunter gatherer societies was matriarchal.

How so?

Even if true, then does it change anything I have said? (No, it doesn't.)

Sappho AD wrote:

Not only should you read more Philosophy so you can appreciate and apply the 'thought experiment', but it seems that a good dose of Anthropology wouldn't go astray.
I can't understand how you can even be bothered debating gender issues without the required background knowledge.
Stupid is as stupid does... Isn't that what the male of our species 'Forrest Gump' had to say?

I thought that is what you said?

Actions speak louder than words, 99.995% of the time.

Sappho AD wrote:

Of course we shifted to a Patriarchal world, not because women needed protection, but rather because Womanly Power scares the shit outta men.

Keep dreaming little girl! Maybe you can fly if you "feel" hard enough, then you can do it!

Sappho AD wrote:

They don't assert themselves through fisty cuffs like the brawny man... They use words.

...words created by men!

Sappho AD wrote:

And those words now in our post modern existance... are more powerful than ever before.

...thanks to men again!

Sappho AD wrote:

Otherwise, I prefer to think that women have a tendancy to 'use' men rather than 'depend' upon them... Hense the sugar daddy... Hense the high divorce rates...

And you women are going to pay for it in the long run.

Men are going to put you back into your place soon-enough when the backlash hits.

What happened the the Moral Decadence and Hedonism of Rome, you stupid slut?

It burned to the ground; I would love to say History never repeats itself...

Sappho AD wrote:

You do a lot of guess there male type person... why don't you try a little less of the guess work and a little more of the research work.

Go and do some research on pre-colonial aboriginal tribes. Pay attention won't you, when they speak on the pregnent women who were left behind to catch up in their own time... guess thats why they are all such good trackers... the women had to be.

Oh yeah... you wanna know how well women would fair in the wild? Well, is the Aussie outback wild enough for ya? Are girls just as valid as women to your thought experiement? Well go check out the true story of a girl who ran away from the whites and back to her home in the outback. Rabbit Proof Fence.
Seems to me... women can cut it.

None of this discounts anything I have said or any points I have stated.

Pay attention!!! The only reason you exist, and the only reason you can read/write/speak, is because Man allowed you to do so.

Everything you do, say, feel, or "think" is because Man has made it for you. You are a slave to God; bow down to Him.

Seriously-though, you girls are feeble-thinkers. I have never in my life heard a single woman make a single point...

And if I had, then it was because they self-admittedly-copied it from a male. -- pathetic!

Quote :

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Can I suggest Unreasonable that you go back and look with more a critical eye at your thought experiement and flesh it out properly. As it stands it is ludicous and an enjoyment to make fun of.

If that were true, then you should have been able to make a more serious point & contention...

Just did... and have fun with that male type person.

I'm not a fan of your "fun" bullshit.

Say something serious or get the fuck out of here.

Birds of a feather ... You women are a dime-a-dozen to me.

All I need is one; Kriswest is doing fine. Now get lost.

Unreasonable wrote:

Sappho AD wrote:

And yet the woman's body is designed for longevity... something a male body lacks. Females dominate the numbers in older populations.

You are missing the point entirely ... good job toots.

Not really... If men are superior to women, which is your ultimate claim here... hense a womans need to be controlled, then that superiority would also be reflected in longevity! And it isn't. Why? Because men are not designed for the kind of longevity, women enjoy.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Oh I'm sorry... I didn't know you were one of those... you know... stupid, ignorant... more brawn than brains kinda male.

Let me explain... when exploring thought experiements they themselves must be cogent or else the resulting debate becomes flawed.

Take for example Serle's Chinese Room thought experiment and Dennets criticism of same, as a prime example of a thought experiment that leads to irrelevent discussions.

Thought experiments that do not cohere with reality/actuality in any way are solipsistic.

Thought experiments are the spring board for abstract thinking.
Abstract thinking is traditionally as dominant skill of men... a few women.
I notice however that your abstract thinking is left wanting... uptapped and without the nous to access it.
And since you lack, what is traditionally a dominant male skill which they use to great success with females, you can't be much of a man

Kinda sums you up eh? A pathetic man who can't even compete with women. No wonder you are so angry.

Quote :

Do you want another word for it? -- how about a few: "fantasy", "fiction", "falsehood".

Or even "abstraction", "rationalism", "metaphysic".

Quote :

You do not have a clue of what you/we are talking about here...

Well... Why don't you test that pretty little theory?
Show me the money babe? Get that brain of yours into overdrive and justify yourself.

As it stands... This little lady is proving better than you at flaming and cogent argument.

Sappho AD wrote:

Quote :

Since the birth of Womankind, she has always depended on Mankind for her protection, to this very day.

Now it has progressed to the point where Woman cannot even 'think' without Man thinking for her. -- very sad, indeed.

Actually... social existance for many hunter gatherer societies was matriarchal.

How so?

OMG... Like um... you know... it's not hard to google for wiki... like Paris Hilton knows that!

But I conceed, you are an imbecile, therefore....

Friend of the laymen, Wiki wrote:

Matriarchy (also gynecocracy) refers to a hypothetical gynecocentric form of society, in which the leading role is taken by the women and especially by the mothers of a community.

There are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, although there are a number of attested matrilinear, matrilocal and avunculocal societies, especially among indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa[9], such as those of the Minangkabau or Mosuo. Strongly matrilocal societies sometimes are referred to as matrifocal, and there is some debate concerning the terminological delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy. Note that even in patriarchical systems of male-preference primogeniture there may occasionally be queen regnants, as in the case of Elizabeth I of England or Victoria of the United Kingdom.

In 19th century scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development — now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some "primitive" societies — enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but it is mostly discredited today.[10]

source

And for a more contemporary example....

Another for the laymen, Softpedia wrote:

In the Xiaolianghshan Mountains, Yunnan province (South East China), live the Mosuo people, one of the last living matriarchal societies today. They are closely related to Tibetans. In their social system, paternity and marriage are not the same as in our world. The main pillar of the family is the mother.

The family units can join three women generations with their sons. Grandmothers, mothers and daughters can inhabit the same house, without the presence of fathers or husbands. Only uncles, brothers, sons and nephews are happily accepted.

Sex is practiced freely. They only have to choose a partner to spend the night and only incest is forbidden. Typical marriage and fidelity are something like heresy. Obviously, they don't seem to present signs of jealousy. The western love tragedies of revengeful and victimized lovers make them laugh. They think the visitor is kidding them "How is it possible to end your precious life for something so banal like sex?"

source

Sounds like my kinda society.

Quote :

Even if true, then does it change anything I have said? (No, it doesn't.)

What ever.... Anthropology will say to you that the early social evolutions that saw us become the civilization we are now, was started through nurturing by matriachies... by women.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Of course we shifted to a Patriarchal world, not because women needed protection, but rather because Womanly Power scares the shit outta men.

Keep dreaming little girl! Maybe you can fly if you "feel" hard enough, then you can do it!

How would you like to be living in a Matriachy... being but a vessel of pleasure for women who control things.

Ha... I'd like to see that!

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

They don't assert themselves through fisty cuffs like the brawny man... They use words.

...words created by men!

Sappho AD wrote:

And those words now in our post modern existance... are more powerful than ever before.

...thanks to men again!

Hmmm... what does neuroscience say about that? I know! And it ain't pretty for men my friend.
Women, you see, have a much larger volume in their brain dedicated to communication.
It's our big skill.

Whilst it was that clan war and matters of ownership prevailed, big brutal men had their place, remembering of course that war is a male creation.
Somewhere along the path of the history of men, they lost their way... Maybe they started listening to the women... I don't know, but they started creating civilizations that were more dependant of cooperation and communication than they were on power and control.
They started creating a womanly world and so we joined it as never before.... and are now in the process of taking charge of it.

It pays to be woman, gifted with communication at birth.

Quote :

Pay attention!!! The only reason you exist, and the only reason you can read/write/speak, is because Man allowed you to do so.

Everything you do, say, feel, or "think" is because Man has made it for you. You are a slave to God; bow down to Him.

Seriously-though, you girls are feeble-thinkers. I have never in my life heard a single woman make a single point...

And if I had, then it was because they self-admittedly-copied it from a male. -- pathetic!

Personal opinion and heresay does not make you very compelling.

Lets get back on topic shall we?

Let us assess who is more superior of the genders by looking at who of the two have been more successful at protecting their genetic diversity?

I cite the Australasian Science magazine... journal... what ever.
Volume 25, Number 1, Jan/Feb 2004 issue.

except from Alan Thorne's, 'Did Adam Meet Eve?' wrote:

Thorne notes that the dates for the ancestral "Eve", from whom all modern women are supposed to be decended, are 120,000-180,000 years ago.
On the other hand, variation in the Y chromosome dates "Adam", a common male ancestor to 60,000.

What's wrong with you men that you cannot take care of your genetic heritage. Do you not know how important it is?
The less diverse you are, the more similar you become and therefore more suseptable disease and extinction.

As it stands... You Are The Weakest Link... Goodbye.

Sappho AD wrote:

Not really... If men are superior to women, which is your ultimate claim here...

Incorrect, you are oblivious to what my "ultimate claim" even is to begin with.

Sappho AD wrote:

hense a womans need to be controlled, then that superiority would also be reflected in longevity! And it isn't. Why? Because men are not designed for the kind of longevity, women enjoy.

Nice try! -- what a laugh! This is what happens when you girls try to 'think'...

Longevity has nothing to do with superiority in the terms I have stated in this thread, and the things I have said in general!

Sappho AD wrote:

Thought experiments are the spring board for abstract thinking.
Abstract thinking is traditionally as dominant skill of men... a few women.

I can dream of goblins and gnomes living under the Earth; in fact I have been writing an epic mythos for some time now doing exactly-that.

Just because I can dream of inconsequential, or even stupid things, does not mean that they relate to Actuality in any shape-or-form.

Sappho AD wrote:

I notice however that your abstract thinking is left wanting... uptapped and without the nous to access it.
And since you lack, what is traditionally a dominant male skill which they use to great success with females, you can't be much of a man

Kinda sums you up eh? A pathetic man who can't even compete with women. No wonder you are so angry.

Wow ... amazing tangents there.

You make Womankind very, very proud indeed! I enjoy this spectacle of yours. You are self-humiliating, pathetic, and wretched.

Sappho AD wrote:

Quote :

Do you want another word for it? -- how about a few: "fantasy", "fiction", "falsehood".

Or even "abstraction", "rationalism", "metaphysic".

But alas, again, you have no point...

Too bad (for you).

Sappho AD wrote:

Quote :

You do not have a clue of what you/we are talking about here...

Well... Why don't you test that pretty little theory?
Show me the money babe? Get that brain of yours into overdrive and justify yourself.

As it stands... This little lady is proving better than you at flaming and cogent argument.

First of all, I have never felt the need to justify myself to women ... ever. So don't flatter yourself. You are brainless.

You want the money? Of course you do, slut! I am nearly-broke in "real life" and have college institution debts to pay off.

Guess what? -- you cannot even figure out the basic premise of this thread. This is about 'thinking' and what the act-itself demonstrates.

Sappho AD wrote:

OMG... Like um... you know... it's not hard to google for wiki... like Paris Hilton knows that!

But I conceed, you are an imbecile, therefore....

Friend of the laymen, Wiki wrote:

Matriarchy (also gynecocracy) refers to a hypothetical gynecocentric form of society, in which the leading role is taken by the women and especially by the mothers of a community.

There are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal,

although there are a number of attested matrilinear, matrilocal and avunculocal societies, especially among indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa[9], such as those of the Minangkabau or Mosuo. Strongly matrilocal societies sometimes are referred to as matrifocal, and there is some debate concerning the terminological delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy. Note that even in patriarchical systems of male-preference primogeniture there may occasionally be queen regnants, as in the case of Elizabeth I of England or Victoria of the United Kingdom.

In 19th century scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development — now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some "primitive" societies — enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but it is mostly discredited today.[10]

source

And for a more contemporary example....

Another for the laymen, Softpedia wrote:

In the Xiaolianghshan Mountains, Yunnan province (South East China), live the Mosuo people, one of the last living matriarchal societies today. They are closely related to Tibetans. In their social system, paternity and marriage are not the same as in our world.

The main pillar of the family is the mother.

The family units can join three women generations with their sons. Grandmothers, mothers and daughters can inhabit the same house, without the presence of fathers or husbands. Only uncles, brothers, sons and nephews are happily accepted.

Sex is practiced freely. They only have to choose a partner to spend the night and only incest is forbidden. Typical marriage and fidelity are something like heresy. Obviously, they don't seem to present signs of jealousy. The western love tragedies of revengeful and victimized lovers make them laugh. They think the visitor is kidding them "How is it possible to end your precious life for something so banal like sex?"

source

Sounds like my kinda society.

That is no surprise to me; women want power. No kidding!? -- wow, I had no idea!!!

But, next time, perhaps you should read the horse shit you present to me --before-- you put it on a silver platter and smash it around.

Both of these examples exclude the role of Man as males. I never contended the fact. Woman is the House of the Embryo.

I have never said otherwise. Your petty insinuations say nothing substantial; you cannot even 'think' for yourself...

Sappho AD wrote:

Quote :

Even if true, then does it change anything I have said? (No, it doesn't.)

What ever.... Anthropology will say to you that the early social evolutions that saw us become the civilization we are now, was started through nurturing by matriachies... by women.

And men were the Guardians, as I have stated a bazillion times. Man thought; Woman did not.

You even said it yourself: "Abstract thinking is traditionally as dominant skill of men..."

Now go fuck yourself with a dildo and get out of my sight. I don't need anymore female-Satyrs around my threads, thank you.

Sappho AD wrote:

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Of course we shifted to a Patriarchal world, not because women needed protection, but rather because Womanly Power scares the shit outta men.

Keep dreaming little girl! Maybe you can fly if you "feel" hard enough, then you can do it!

How would you like to be living in a Matriachy... being but a vessel of pleasure for women who control things.

Ha... I'd like to see that!

Wow, you are so, so stupid that I cannot even begin to answer half of the shit you say...

"Womanly Power scares the shit outta men"???

Are you fucking-insane? Woman pose absolutely-no threat to Reason. -- Thank God for that. Nature, like you, is a whore.

All it takes is a few dollar bills inserted into the right slots, and you women turn into sluts. It is not difficult (for anyone) to manipulate such stupidity.

Sappho AD wrote:

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

They don't assert themselves through fisty cuffs like the brawny man... They use words.

...words created by men!

Sappho AD wrote:

And those words now in our post modern existance... are more powerful than ever before.

...thanks to men again!

Hmmm... what does neuroscience say about that? I know! And it ain't pretty for men my friend.
Women, you see, have a much larger volume in their brain dedicated to communication.
It's our big skill.

Then why do you suck my dick at it?

Let me help you out AGAIN ... you need my help, because you cannot abstract *ANYTHING* at all. You cannot Reason.

Sappho AD wrote:

Whilst it was that clan war and matters of ownership prevailed, big brutal men had their place, remembering of course that war is a male creation.

You are just soothing your own, broken, fragile, and petty ego here.

Without Mankind doing *EVERYTHING* for you, you would be a pile of manure, shit out of a tiger's ass.

And then you go beyond this to kick dirt on, spit, and deride Mankind. You are a fucking whore indeed.

Get out of my thread slut; how many dollar bills did it take to break your bank I wonder? -- $20? Am I stretching it?

Do you need a few Benjamin Franklins!?!? Sorry, I cannot afford it, and don't want to afford it. Get lost.

Sappho AD wrote:

Somewhere along the path of the history of men, they lost their way... Maybe they started listening to the women... I don't know, but they started creating civilizations that were more dependant of cooperation and communication than they were on power and control.
They started creating a womanly world and so we joined it as never before.... and are now in the process of taking charge of it.

It pays to be woman, gifted with communication at birth.

The only thing you are capable of is what Man allows you to do. Yet, you are ignorant of this fact, because you are a fool.

You and your sisters were never intended to 'think'. Say this to simplify the concept: "It wasn't part of God's Plan".

Oh well (for you)!!!

Sappho AD wrote:

Personal opinion and heresay does not make you very compelling.

Lets get back on topic shall we?

Yes, indeed let us, if that is even possible for you...

Sappho AD wrote:

Let us assess who is more superior of the genders by looking at who of the two have been more successful at protecting their genetic diversity?

Definitely-man. There is no doubt about this. Women have no genetic diversity: 'XX'.

It's "science" babs ... and you cannot argue with "science". Deal with it; you are second-best at most.

Sappho AD wrote:

I cite the Australasian Science magazine... journal... what ever.
Volume 25, Number 1, Jan/Feb 2004 issue.

except from Alan Thorne's, 'Did Adam Meet Eve?' wrote:

Thorne notes that the dates for the ancestral "Eve", from whom all modern women are supposed to be decended, are 120,000-180,000 years ago.
On the other hand, variation in the Y chromosome dates "Adam", a common male ancestor to 60,000.

What's wrong with you men that you cannot take care of your genetic heritage. Do you not know how important it is?
The less diverse you are, the more similar you become and therefore more suseptable disease and extinction.

As it stands... You Are The Weakest Link... Goodbye.

You are a riot!!!

God created Adam before Eve, you dumb bitch! Thank you for submitting to scientific-religious metaphor though!

You just shot yourself in the face. Now that is a beautiful sight!!! Let us see how far you can get without your 'looks'.


Oh, wait...

Nowhere.

Here is how clear I see the division between Man & Woman, male & female:



Are you blind?

Can you see the difference?

If you are stupid, then you cannot see the difference.


Hint: the tiger on the left is "white", the tiger on the right is "colored" & "stripped".

Simple-enough yet, or do I need to bring crayons and coloring books to class tomorrow?

Unreasonable wrote:

Sappho AD wrote:

Not really... If men are superior to women, which is your ultimate claim here...

Incorrect, you are oblivious to what my "ultimate claim" even is to begin with.

And yet...

You wrote:

You [women] have no self-authority; that only exists through your association with Man.

To be without self-authority, it to be powerless, which is an inferior position to men whom you claim hold all the self authority.

That you can't even see what your ultimate claim is, shows you have no fucking idea of what you are on about... and we will further confirm this latter in this post... and therefore have claim no authority either as a man or a debator.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

that superiority would also be reflected in longevity! And it isn't. Why? Because men are not designed for the kind of longevity, women enjoy.

Nice try! -- what a laugh! This is what happens when you girls try to 'think'...

Longevity has nothing to do with superiority in the terms I have stated in this thread, and the things I have said in general!

You mean that stupid, ill concieved and poorly presented thought experiment of a *woman* of no location, no historical context who happens to be alone in the wild for no rational reason?

I thought you and I both agreed that your fanasty counts for nothing in debate... at least that's what you said... look...

Quote :

Thought experiments that do not cohere with reality/actuality in any way are solipsistic. Do you want another word for it? -- how about a few: "fantasy", "fiction", "falsehood".

You're going around in circles mate... on my leash.

Now lets put this whole business of the unexplaned woman, unexplainably alone in an unexplained wild with your final words on the matter...

You wrote:

I can dream of goblins and gnomes living under the Earth; [or women in the wild alone] in fact I have been writing an epic mythos for some time now doing exactly-that.

Just because I can dream of inconsequential, or even stupid things, does not mean that they relate to Actuality in any shape-or-form.

That's right Unreasonable... that is very, very right.... bravo. It sounds as though you finally believe that you can prove nothing about women through the use of your 'woman alone in the wild' thought experiement... at least whilst it remains so feeble in its shallow incomplete state.

Quote :

You make Womankind very, very proud indeed! I enjoy this spectacle of yours. You are self-humiliating, pathetic, and wretched.

We women have much to be proud of. So far in this thread alone, we have learnt...

1. Women live longer, than do men.
2. Women are more genetically diverse, than are men.
3. Women use more of the temporal and parietal regions of the brain for communication, than do men.
4. Women control the crucial stages of socialisation, impacting their whole life, more so than do men.

And as you persist with your nonsense... we will all continue to learn just how damned impressive the fairer sex really is.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

As it stands... This little lady is proving better than you at flaming and cogent argument.

First of all, I have never felt the need to justify myself to women ... ever. So don't flatter yourself. You are brainless.

You want the money? Of course you do, slut! I am nearly-broke in "real life" and have college institution debts to pay off.

Guess what? -- you cannot even figure out the basic premise of this thread. This is about 'thinking' and what the act-itself demonstrates.

Oh look everyone.... Unreasonable (perfect name by the way... suits you to a tee) is having a hissy fit... just like a girly girl.

Grow some balls man.... God knows, you need 'em.

Otherwise... you think this is about thinking and what that demonstrates eh? Bullshit... that's a non gender statement and you are in a gender bias thread.

Quote :

That is no surprise to me; women want power. No kidding!? -- wow, I had no idea!!!

To want and pursue power and then aquire that power, demonstrates women are thinking.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Quote :

Even if true, then does it change anything I have said? (No, it doesn't.)

What ever.... Anthropology will say to you that the early social evolutions that saw us become the civilization we are now, was started through nurturing by matriachies... by women.

And men were the Guardians, as I have stated a bazillion times. Man thought; Woman did not.

You even said it yourself: "Abstract thinking is traditionally as dominant skill of men..."

Now go fuck yourself with a dildo and get out of my sight. I don't need anymore female-Satyrs around my threads, thank you.

[/quote]

The only abstract thinking going on in the early days spoken of in my reference to Anthropology, was the metaphysical kind done by witch doctors and other mentally ill folk.

You wanna have your claim to fame where it concerns metaphysical fables of gods and spirits... sure, so long as you appreciate that man first created the female godess.
Now isn't that funny... man's first abstract thinking was to make women superior to men.

Quote :

"Womanly Power scares the shit outta men"???

If it didn't, then why were our Greek fathers of civilisation so draconian and seemingly focused on female sexuality and reducing their social roles?

Quote :

...words created by men!

Prove to me that men created words.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Whilst it was that clan war and matters of ownership prevailed, big brutal men had their place, remembering of course that war is a male creation.

You are just soothing your own, broken, fragile, and petty ego here.

Without Mankind doing *EVERYTHING* for you, you would be a pile of manure, shit out of a tiger's ass.

And then you go beyond this to kick dirt on, spit, and deride Mankind. You are a fucking whore indeed.

Oh... you misunderstand me... I do not deride Mankind. Mankind is a non gender specific term referring to what is now called Human kind.
I'm just deriding you and your silly draconian ideas... which have already been thought and failed. You should check that ancient greek link.

Quote :

Get out of my thread slut; how many dollar bills did it take to break your bank I wonder? -- $20? Am I stretching it?

Do you need a few Benjamin Franklins!?!? Sorry, I cannot afford it, and don't want to afford it. Get lost.

I don't actually think there is anything wrong with the term slut. I appreciate that men use it when they feel threatened in the hope that they may offend the woman and unsettle her self confidence... but that doesn't work with me.
A slut is no different to a stud... when you think about it. Just females or males with a higher sex drive than most.

Otherwise, I educated, employed and by the looks of it, earning a shit load more than you. Do you need a loan?

Quote :

The only thing you are capable of is what Man allows you to do. Yet, you are ignorant of this fact, because you are a fool.

You and your sisters were never intended to 'think'. Say this to simplify the concept: "It wasn't part of God's Plan".

Oh well (for you)!!!

And yet here I am... doing what I want, when I want and how I want. How on earth do you account for that?

Otherwise I'm agnostic... God's Plan has no currancy with me.

Sappho AD wrote:

Personal opinion and heresay does not make you very compelling.

Lets get back on topic shall we?

Yes, indeed let us, if that is even possible for you...

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

Let us assess who is more superior of the genders by looking at who of the two have been more successful at protecting their genetic diversity?

Definitely-man. There is no doubt about this. Women have no genetic diversity: 'XX'.

It's "science" babs ... and you cannot argue with "science". Deal with it; you are second-best at most.

XY means less DNA duffus.... you are missing that extra bit women have.

Quote :

Sappho AD wrote:

I cite the Australasian Science magazine... journal... what ever.
Volume 25, Number 1, Jan/Feb 2004 issue.

except from Alan Thorne's, 'Did Adam Meet Eve?' wrote:

Thorne notes that the dates for the ancestral "Eve", from whom all modern women are supposed to be decended, are 120,000-180,000 years ago.
On the other hand, variation in the Y chromosome dates "Adam", a common male ancestor to 60,000.

What's wrong with you men that you cannot take care of your genetic heritage. Do you not know how important it is?
The less diverse you are, the more similar you become and therefore more suseptable disease and extinction.

As it stands... You Are The Weakest Link... Goodbye.

You are a riot!!!

God created Adam before Eve, you dumb bitch! Thank you for submitting to scientific-religious metaphor though!

You just shot yourself in the face. Now that is a beautiful sight!!! Let us see how far you can get without your 'looks'.


Oh, wait...

Nowhere.

Oh dear.... You are about to have egg in your face silly man.

Do you really believe that the excerpt quoted claims women came before men? Are you really so profoundly stupid?
For goodness sake THINK MAN THINK! Use that brain of yours.

Ask yourself...

Why is the genetic history of woman longer than that of man?

I'll give you two clues.
1. Woman did not come first.
2. My previous post, also quoted here, alluded to it when discussing the threat that reduced diversity causes.

Your claim that men are the thinkers is falling to bits by your own hand.
Try a bit of this....
I know... I know... you've already tried study... but hey... if at first you don't succeed... try, try, try again.

Brainless Woman wrote:

To be without self-authority, it to be powerless, which is an inferior position to men whom you claim hold all the self authority.

That you can't even see what your ultimate claim is, shows you have no fucking idea of what you are on about... and we will further confirm this latter in this post... and therefore have claim no authority either as a man or a debator.

You are blind. Learn some basic English & Grammar.

What third-world country are you from???

Brainless Woman wrote:

You mean that stupid, ill concieved and poorly presented thought experiment of a *woman* of no location, no historical context who happens to be alone in the wild for no rational reason?

I thought you and I both agreed that your fanasty counts for nothing in debate... at least that's what you said... look...

Quote :

Thought experiments that do not cohere with reality/actuality in any way are solipsistic. Do you want another word for it? -- how about a few: "fantasy", "fiction", "falsehood".

You're going around in circles mate... on my leash.

Now lets put this whole business of the unexplaned woman, unexplainably alone in an unexplained wild with your final words on the matter...

You are so fucking dense ... your skull must be made of bricks. (not necessarily a good thing in your case)

I demonstrated my point to prove in the negative how impossible it is to idealize Man or Woman in the abstract.

The truth of the matter is that Human Sociality has always existed, never completely-individuated. There is no apparent possibility for it.

You only helped to prove my points so far, thank you. You are making yourself look like quite the fool by helping me out.

Brainless Woman wrote:

You wrote:

I can dream of goblins and gnomes living under the Earth; [or women in the wild alone] in fact I have been writing an epic mythos for some time now doing exactly-that.

Just because I can dream of inconsequential, or even stupid things, does not mean that they relate to Actuality in any shape-or-form.

That's right Unreasonable... that is very, very right.... bravo. It sounds as though you finally believe that you can prove nothing about women through the use of your 'woman alone in the wild' thought experiement... at least whilst it remains so feeble in its shallow incomplete state.

You have no idea, by your very own definition.

You have proven to me, irrefutably, the lower position of woman to man.

You depend on mankind to think for you, because you cannot 'think' at all. You copy. You paste. Good job (not really)!

Brainless Woman wrote:

Quote :

You make Womankind very, very proud indeed! I enjoy this spectacle of yours. You are self-humiliating, pathetic, and wretched.

We women have much to be proud of. So far in this thread alone, we have learnt...

1. Women live longer, than do men.
2. Women are more genetically diverse, than are men.
3. Women use more of the temporal and parietal regions of the brain for communication, than do men.
4. Women control the crucial stages of socialisation, impacting their whole life, more so than do men.

And as you persist with your nonsense... we will all continue to learn just how damned impressive the fairer sex really is.

WOW!!! -- completely amazing...! Where do you pull this shit from, your ass?

#1 - True (on average)
#2 - False (absolutely)
#3 - False (by exception)
#4 - False (by institution)

Now, my student, you have overwhelmingly-failed this course. And this isn't clown college. Your grade is: F for Failure.

What can I say? Try again next semester I suppose. Or, do not waste your time and just give up already.

Brainless Woman wrote:

Oh look everyone.... Unreasonable (perfect name by the way... suits you to a tee) is having a hissy fit... just like a girly girl.

Grow some balls man.... God knows, you need 'em.

Otherwise... you think this is about thinking and what that demonstrates eh? Bullshit... that's a non gender statement and you are in a gender bias thread.

All you have is meager declarations? -- no surprise to me brainless woman...

Shall we dance? Let us do the waltz; or do you prefer the foxtrot? -- tango?

Just kidding ... get out of my sight. (LOL that was funny; see I'm joking around!)

Nothing serious!!! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!! It's all FUN & GAMES!!!

Brainless Woman wrote:

To want and pursue power and then aquire that power, demonstrates women are thinking.

No "dumbshit", it does not, "you simpleton". In fact, it does just the opposite.

(Yeah, you heard me, cock-sucker...)

Brainless Woman wrote:

The only abstract thinking going on in the early days spoken of in my reference to Anthropology, was the metaphysical kind done by witch doctors and other mentally ill folk.

You wanna have your claim to fame where it concerns metaphysical fables of gods and spirits... sure, so long as you appreciate that man first created the female godess.
Now isn't that funny... man's first abstract thinking was to make women superior to men.

You must be one of the "other mentally ill folk".

Wrong, mankind's first abstract thinking saved his own ass from being killed by a lion in the Savannah...

Brainless Woman wrote:

Quote :

"Womanly Power scares the shit outta men"???

If it didn't, then why were our Greek fathers of civilisation so draconian and seemingly focused on female sexuality and reducing their social roles?

The Greek fathers were some of the first to realize the (passive) power that women have.

Judeo-Christianity is the direct result of this realization. But then again, you are too stupid to understand such thoughts.

Not ironically, The Romans, after conquering Greece, went on to dominate the civilized world = English Empire = Amerikan Empire.

Brainless Woman wrote:

Quote :

...words created by men!

Prove to me that men created words.

Simple: define to me any word with your own authority. If you cannot do so, then woman-herself cannot have created words (at all).

(not to mention that the very fact of me leading you to this truth derides all subsequent retorts ... woman follows man, because she is brainless.)

Brainless Woman wrote:

Oh... you misunderstand me... I do not deride Mankind. Mankind is a non gender specific term referring to what is now called Human kind.

Suck my dick you Humanist piece of trash. Get the fuck out of my thread! I am going to start deleting your responses outright.

And then I am going to laugh after I do it:

And then I am going to think to myself: "HEY I WAS JUST JOKING AROUND! CANT TAKE A JOKE CAN YA!?"

Brainless Woman wrote:

I'm just deriding you and your silly draconian ideas... which have already been thought and failed. You should check that ancient greek link.

What you know of Greeks is your own ... Nothing at all.

You were probably born to a Russian whorehouse the way you speak around here. Does that hit a little too close to home for you???

Brainless Woman wrote:

Quote :

Get out of my thread slut; how many dollar bills did it take to break your bank I wonder? -- $20? Am I stretching it?

Do you need a few Benjamin Franklins!?!? Sorry, I cannot afford it, and don't want to afford it. Get lost.

I don't actually think there is anything wrong with the term slut.

Of course you don't because you are a slut/whore yourself.

The first guy who raped you probably kicked you right out his door afterward. Or he left you some change on the counter.

I wonder if you mind being spat upon? Excuse me if I reject such self-degradation; I desire to detach myself from cretins.

Brainless Woman wrote:

I appreciate that men use it when they feel threatened in the hope that they may offend the woman and unsettle her self confidence... but that doesn't work with me.

Oh wow, on top of being a common whore, you are *PROUD* of it too!?

Marriage is definitely out of the question for this one folks. I am surprised you haven't been sterilized by your Government yet...

Then again, your time will come. Sluts/whores are only worth so much time until the wrinkles appear. Then what have you got?

Brainless Woman wrote:

A slut is no different to a stud... when you think about it. Just females or males with a higher sex drive than most.

Incorrect.

A stud would never marry a slut/whore. He marries a good girl. He fucks the bad girls on the side.

Now guess which girls bear the brunt of his progeny??? That's correct: the wife, not the whores. Whores are whores.

Brainless Woman wrote:

Otherwise, I educated, employed and by the looks of it, earning a shit load more than you. Do you need a loan?

No thanks.

I will work my debt to The State off and then bury myself six-feet-under, somewhere I don't have to deal with scum like you and the others.

My choices in life are rather simple: Prison A or Prison B.

I detest everything you say; it makes me want to vomit.

Brainless Woman wrote:

And yet here I am... doing what I want, when I want and how I want. How on earth do you account for that?

Keep telling yourself that; maybe if you repeat it enough in your head it will become true.

How do I account for it? Easy, I look at what you are walking on: concrete. Guess who invented that? -- Man.

Oh boy ... are you fucked.

Brainless Woman wrote:

Otherwise I'm agnostic... God's Plan has no currancy with me.

More godless heathens, just what this world needs...

Your God, my dear, is $$$. You are a slut; you have already-proven this to me.

Get the fuck out of my sight or I will pimp you to my imaginary friends: Steve, Bill, and Bob.

Brainless Woman wrote:

XY means less DNA duffus.... you are missing that extra bit women have.

Wrong, dipshit.

Women are not "more genetically-diverse" for having two X-chromosomes. They are COPIES!!!

They don't count for shit. In fact, they only allow for feminine duplicity. -- Congratulations idiot.

Brainless Woman wrote:

Oh dear.... You are about to have egg in your face silly man.

Do you really believe that the excerpt quoted claims women came before men? Are you really so profoundly stupid?
For goodness sake THINK MAN THINK! Use that brain of yours.

Ask yourself...

Why is the genetic history of woman longer than that of man?

YOU ARE SPEAKING NONSENSE!!!

You are so far deviated from the Truth that you cannot be helped. Just do us both a favor and leave.

I will probably just delete your next responses outright anyway. You cannot be helped...

Brainless Woman wrote:

I'll give you two clues.
1. Woman did not come first.
2. My previous post, also quoted here, alluded to it when discussing the threat that reduced diversity causes.

Your claim that men are the thinkers is falling to bits by your own hand.
Try a bit of this....
I know... I know... you've already tried study... but hey... if at first you don't succeed... try, try, try again.

#1 - You disprove your very own assertion...
#2 - Reduced genetic diversity is incestuous genetic diversity. That has nothing to do with gender...

You fail, again.

Now do not return to this thread whore. Go get paid.

Honestly, you will make us *BOTH* feel much happier about ourselves. Forget that we ever had this discussion.

Unreasonable wrote:

Then again, your time will come. Sluts/whores are only worth so much time until the wrinkles appear. Then what have you got?

The same goes for married sluts. The answer is the same:

"A woman who got her brain back".

maryshelley wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

Then again, your time will come. Sluts/whores are only worth so much time until the wrinkles appear. Then what have you got?

The same goes for married sluts. The answer is the same:

"A woman who got her brain back".

First of all, not all married women are sluts. Some people actually-are monogamous, despite the myth.

Second of all, no shit she gets her brain back. This is what happens when superficiality is exposed by its own shallowness.


Peel off the top layer of the Common Mind and you will see nothing inside.

Welcome to my World.

Unreasonable wrote:

Some people actually-are monogamous, despite the myth.

Prove it.

Then get some debt counselling and some psychiatric help. Why don't you?

Quote :

Unreasonable wrote:

Some people actually-are monogamous, despite the myth.

Prove it.

Then get some debt counselling and some psychiatric help. Why don't you?

Fuck you bitch. How many different men have fucked you in the ass? I guess: 12.

Post on this thread again and I will delete your responses outright.

Banned from this thread are as follows:

#1 - Brainless Woman
#2 - Bitch



(JUST HAVING SOME FUN LOL!!! JUST JOKING AROUND! WHAT'S WRONG LADIES, CAN'T TAKE A JOKE!?)

......

Quote :

With the notable exception {??? -UR} of Plato, Athenian philosophers believed that women had strong emotions and weak minds. For this reason they had to be protected from themselves and they had to be prevented from doing damage to others. Guardianship was the system developed to deal with this perceived quality in women.

P.S. This is a fucking laugh!!! -- so false! I should have stopped reading right there.

(Better luck next time...)

Quote :

It is often noted that Greece was the culture that invented democracy. Before handing out kudos for this achievement, however, we should remember the rather large number of slaves and other non-citizens who were excluded from any role in government, and we should also remember that of all the major civilizations in the ancient world it was Greece that offered the worst treatment of its women.

Oh dear-fucking-Christ, what kind of sick, twisted Feminazi bitch wrote this garbage?

Greeks probably-treated their women second-to-none other than the Romans...

And I should know...

is this really a 'debate'?

where are the 'debaters'?

Drone wrote:

is this really a 'debate'?

where are the 'debaters'?

It was Kriswest and I last time I checked, until I was so rudely-interrupted by three separate children...

Now, please contribute, or leave, mindless-Drone. Bzzzz, bzzz bzzzzzzzzzzz.

I guess I can't 'contribute' anything to this 'debate' that you wouldn't see as signs of my 'feminized' mind...

tell me, why are you censoring sweet Maryshelley?

Drone wrote:

I guess I can't 'contribute' anything to this 'debate' that you wouldn't see as signs of my 'feminized' mind...

tell me, why are you censoring sweet Maryshelley?

I am kicking the shit piles out of my threads when they directly-attempt to insult my person through slander. Then again, this is "okay" for me to do since I am "mentally-ill". I can do & say whatever I want according to some 'special' individuals. I would not allow this in real life either. Whenever a person mocks me in real life, I can sense it immediately. Take your senses and magnify them 10000x over. Then you will understand things as I do. I have to work with morons such as maryshelley. Humiliating them in front of everybody only makes matters much, much worse for me (as I have learned within the last two months at my previous occupation), since they will go well out of their way to get an underhanded revenge. Like you, they devote themselves to taking what is not rightfully-theirs. Instead of raise themselves up, they will knock another down. I am finished with this kind of bullshit. Anybody who slanders me will not become tolerated by me, personally-speaking. They are rejected from my sight. I delete them. I kill them metaphorically.

I would act this way in real life if I had lived a few hundred centuries before now; it is in my blood.

I am also Germanic: Honor thyself! Back when people were allowed to kill each other, duels to the death were commonplace.

This has been removed due to an overpowering of Western Christian Fundamentalism; it allows for *MY* disgrace. I cannot accept it.

Also, Drone...

Leave this thread, or contribute, or your subsequent posts will be deleted, starting...









Now!!!

Unreasonable wrote:

Drone wrote:

is this really a 'debate'?

where are the 'debaters'?

It was Kriswest and I last time I checked, until I was so rudely-interrupted by three separate children...

Now, please contribute, or leave, mindless-Drone. Bzzzz, bzzz bzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ahh, don't sweat it hon, I figured to wait til the dust clears. I have been busy of late anyway, will reply to your last post soon.

*thread locked due to inactivity*