So sick of the "you are beautiful" message...

[BIGUN 1,345]

41 minutes ago, skybytch said:

Deathly afraid of spiders? Seriously?

https://www.newsweek.com/watch-tarantula-opossum-amazon-rainforest-1347597  

[Coreece 190]

43 minutes ago, skybytch said:

17 hours ago, Justincblount said:

But I identify my philosophy as being from pre-history.

That explains a lot. We don't live in pre-history, we live in the 21st century.  In the 21st century we no longer have to hunt our food or fight off  animal predators so the fact that men are generally physically stronger than women really doesn't matter anymore. 

Obviously that's a fair point, but how sustainable is 21st century comfort given our current rate of consumption.

It's scary that many don't seem to think about how dependent and vulnerable we really are.

I'll never forget how chaotic it was in downtown Detroit during the north east blackout in 2003, and that was only for a couple of days.  Could you imagine if something like that lasted for weeks, months, even years?

I try to be optimistic, but if shit ever hits the fan, those prehistoric instincts are gonna hit us hard, and our preoccupation with beauty will be the least of our worries.

 

1 hour ago, skybytch said:

Is he over 18? Then biologically he is a man. 

At 18 he's legally a man, but if you're looking at it from a strictly biological perspective, then it's about 12-13 years old or so.

[billvon 3,030]

23 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Obviously that's a fair point, but how sustainable is 21st century comfort given our current rate of consumption.

Did you mean "North American level of comfort?"

It is not sustainable at all for a lot of reasons.  But that's a very different discussion.

 

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, skybytch said:

 

The first rule of hole digging is knowing when to stop. Pretty sure you've already hit the bottom of this one.

Pfft.

Betcha a beer he can dig himself deeper.

 

Edit to add:

Now that we are out of the Women's Forum, all of the one liners that I've been fighting off can come out.

Edited March 1, 2019 by wolfriverjoe

[Justincblount 4]

"In the 21st century we no longer have to hunt our food or fight off  animal predators so the fact that men are generally physically stronger than women really doesn't matter anymore."

What about something like 99% of notable inventors, scientists, philosophers, engineers, architects, etc... in the 21st century... being men? Does that factor into the idea that our functional differences have disappeared? Or are those men just not evolved?

"We can lead. We can kill spiders. We can support ourselves and our families. Even if we aren't lesbians."

Thank you for your correct information, I was able to look on Youtube and find video evidence of many females killing spiders. I know you CAN do certain things. A gay man CAN hook up with a lesbian, but that is different from being biologically suited to do it, and having the will or desire to, and it leading in a functional direction. I'm speaking very generally when I say "women are this, men are that". Some women are suited to more masculine things, but those exceptions don't disprove the general rule.

 

"...in most non-biological ways women are the same as men."

 

They are also different in purely superficial ways. Maybe "most", maybe not. Motivations for superficial choices are often instinctive rather than intuitive, so that depends where you draw the line between biology and superficiality.

"An evolved male is considerate of others."

I consider the basic needs of all sentient life, to the extent I am able to discern.

"An evolved man doesn't assume that a woman with short hair wearing comfortable jeans and a tshirt is a lesbian."

I might use certain terms as a shorthand comparison for easy reference, but I would never assume such a thing from style alone. Genetics also play a role, but you can't always pin down genetics from appearance either.

"An evolved male doesn't spout misogynistic bullshit."

You got me there. I have views about gender that you find offensive, so by your definition I am not evolved.

"The first rule of hole digging is knowing when to stop. Pretty sure you've already hit the bottom of this one."

I will always test my views against public scrutiny to identify flawed reasoning, which has already occurred in this discussion. I'm not sensitive to how people react, that's up to you. I only care about identifying the best principles and following them. It's not enough for me to simply accept opinion-based beliefs, I feel a duty to back them up with reason and data, and I have the ability to discard a belief once it has been reasonably discredited.

[Justincblount 4]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

Why do you think that most women need to be led, and can't kill spiders?

Most women self-report as wanting the man to lead. Most women are utterly terrible at killing spiders. Note that this ONLY applies to MOST women. Nowhere did I say they CAN'T do the opposite.

[jakee 1,535]

1 hour ago, Justincblount said:

Most women are utterly terrible at killing spiders. 

Back that up with data.

[Justincblount 4]

Are we still not done with the spiders? Fine. It's an entirely trivial, tongue-in-cheek example, but you asked for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cnwAVfW2GI&t=0s&list=PLv5HnNA7SQui9Y-5l8zg0I7_cPz6LYAJ2&index=8

 

[jakee 1,535]

32 minutes ago, Justincblount said:

It's not enough for me to simply accept opinion-based beliefs, I feel a duty to back them up with reason and data

Yeah, thought you were full of shit.

[Justincblount 4]

The problem I have with that is you haven't really confronted any of my claims. You can disagree with the methodology, you can provide conflicting data... even reasoning would suffice for a response, but you have provided neither reasoning nor data, nor information. It's lazy, it's vague, it doesn't get to why you believe what you believe. For purposes of communication, it's useless. I want my views to reflect reality as much as possible, not my own subjective emotions, or the subjective opinions of another person or group.

[Nataly 38]

Hahahahahaha!!!  

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the coffee squirting out of my nose and covering my phone!!!!

Keep going - this is fun 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Nataly
Bad grammar!!! Oooopsie!

[wmw999 2,485]

1 hour ago, Justincblount said:

The problem I have with that is you haven't really confronted any of my claims. You can disagree with the methodology, you can provide conflicting data... even reasoning would suffice for a response, but you have provided neither reasoning nor data, nor information. It's lazy, it's vague, it doesn't get to why you believe what you believe. For purposes of communication, it's useless. I want my views to reflect reality as much as possible, not my own subjective emotions, or the subjective opinions of another person or group.

Excuse me, but what data have you provided to refute? You’ve also provided vague statements. The problem with assumptions about others is that you begin to box them into a corner, which means they may have to work harder to overcome those assumptions and complete whatever they think their task is because of it.

Maybe women let men lead because it’s just easier than always arguing about what to do. And maybe those are the only types of women who interact with you on a deeper basis  

Your same arguments about who’s “succeeded” are flawed; the people doing the recognizing are (white) men. Is it surprising they’d value the contributions of others they identify with easily the most?

Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,535]

1 hour ago, Justincblount said:

The problem I have with that is you haven't really confronted any of my claims. You can disagree with the methodology, you can provide conflicting data... 

The problem isn’t you haven’t supported your claim with any data. You haven’t even provided any reason or logic.

 

You’re quite right, it IS lazy, it IS vague and it IS pointless communicating with you if you’re not even going to admit that your claims are purely opinion based beliefs unsupported by anything else. It’s staggeringly arrogant and hypocritical.

[Coreece 190]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

13 hours ago, Coreece said:

Obviously that's a fair point, but how sustainable is 21st century comfort given our current rate of consumption.

Did you mean "North American level of comfort?"

As per skyb's post, I was talking about areas with a level of comfort where "we no longer have to hunt our food or fight off  animal predators," and where a man's physical strength "really doesn't matter anymore." 

 

13 hours ago, billvon said:

It is not sustainable at all for a lot of reasons.  But that's a very different discussion. 

Ok, so at our current rate of consumption vs our rate of progress, it's inevitable that we will deplete our resources and no longer live the life to which we're accustomed.  We're also extremely vulnerable to failing technology upon which we've become exceedingly dependent.

So in these instances, it's very likely that we will have to hunt for our food and fight off animal predators, and that a man's strength will matter once again.

Conservatives with guns will have to revert back to a 19th century way of life, while progressive liberals will regress to a medieval way of life with their bows and arrows.  Moderates on the other hand will have conservative friends with guns and liberal friends with solar panels thus allowing them to remain in the 21st century, however, without facebook (thank God).  I'd assume home networking would remain intact.

[Phil1111 1,149]

On 11/13/2018 at 7:12 PM, Nataly said:

I swear these messages all over the place addressed to women, telling us "love yourself, you are beautiful" bla bla...

Why in this day and age are we still continuing to equate "beauty" with "value"??? Yuk! So sick of it.

We badly need a puke emoji on here

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

"beauty"

Not "beauty"

"beauty"

Not "beauty"

 

[wmw999 2,485]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

As per skyb's post, I was talking about areas with a level of comfort where "we no longer have to hunt our food or fight off  animal predators," and where a man's physical strength "really doesn't matter anymore." 

 

Ok, so at our current rate of consumption vs our rate of progress, it's inevitable that we will deplete our resources and no longer live the life to which we're accustomed.  We're also extremely vulnerable to failing technology upon which we've become exceedingly dependent.

So in these instances, it's very likely that we will have to hunt for our food and fight off animal predators, and that a man's strength will matter once again.

Conservatives with guns will have to revert back to a 19th century way of life, while progressive liberals will regress to a medieval way of life with their bows and arrows.  Moderates on the other hand will have conservative friends with guns and liberal friends with solar panels thus allowing them to remain in the 21st century, however, without facebook (thank God).  I'd assume home networking would remain intact.

You forgot the tongue in cheek icon.

I hope.

Wendy P.

[Coreece 190]

40 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You forgot the tongue in cheek icon.

I hope.

Correct.  I would never expect a progressive liberal to hunt with a bow and arrow.  For that, they could rely on local criminals with guns to provide hunted game in exchange for cannabis and/or other herbs/essential oils.

[skybytch 273]

10 hours ago, Justincblount said:

What about something like 99% of notable inventors, scientists, philosophers, engineers, architects, etc... in the 21st century... being men? Does that factor into the idea that our functional differences have disappeared? Or are those men just not evolved?

  And your source for that data is?

And no, your made up statistic does not factor into the idea that our functional differences have disappeared.  Being evolved has nothing to do with it either.  

And you know that.

10 hours ago, Justincblount said:

A gay man CAN hook up with a lesbian, but that is different from being biologically suited to do it, and having the will or desire to, and it leading in a functional direction.

Wait.  Biologically, a gay man has a penis and a lesbian has a vagina right? It is entirely possible for a gay man and a lesbian to have sex.  I know several gay men who used to be married, have kids and still love their ex-wife. One of them was in a relationship with a woman who has since come out as a lesbian.

And anytime an uncovered penis enters an unprotected vagina there is certainly a chance of it leading in a functional direction.  Biologically that is.

10 hours ago, Justincblount said:

I'm speaking very generally when I say "women are this, men are that". Some women are suited to more masculine things, but those exceptions don't disprove the general rule.

Why do men have to be one thing and women another? Why can't we all be people and not be judged for what we look like, wear, do? 

 

10 hours ago, Justincblount said:

"An evolved male doesn't spout misogynistic bullshit."

You got me there. I have views about gender that you find offensive, so by your definition I am not evolved.

I don't find them offensive.  I find them ridiculous and antiquated.  So, yeah, I'd say that you have yet to evolve - to become the person you could be, and it is quite possible that your views about many things are holding you back.

 

10 hours ago, Justincblount said:

It's not enough for me to simply accept opinion-based beliefs, I feel a duty to back them up with reason and data, and I have the ability to discard a belief once it has been reasonably discredited.

I assume you'll be providing data to back up your claims in your next post then.  
 

[skybytch 273]

6 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Correct.  I would never expect a progressive liberal to hunt with a bow and arrow.  For that, they could rely on local criminals with guns to provide hunted game in exchange for cannabis and/or other herbs/essential oils.

Conservatives could provide hunted game to liberals in exchange for nuts and berries and veggies and cannabis - c'mon you know there are conservatives who get high and/or use CBD's. 

[Coreece 190]

2 minutes ago, skybytch said:

11 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Correct.  I would never expect a progressive liberal to hunt with a bow and arrow.  For that, they could rely on local criminals with guns to provide hunted game in exchange for cannabis and/or other herbs/essential oils.

Conservatives could provide hunted game to liberals in exchange for nuts and berries and veggies and cannabis - c'mon you know there are conservatives who get high and/or use CBD's. 

So good!  I've always said that it would take some sort of serious wide-spread disaster to ever bring this country back together again.

[mistercwood 287]

Troll, troll, troll your boat, gently down the stream...

[Justincblount 4]

12 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Excuse me, but what data have you provided to refute? You’ve also provided vague statements. The problem with assumptions about others is that you begin to box them into a corner, which means they may have to work harder to overcome those assumptions and complete whatever they think their task is because of it.

Well reasoned, but how is video evidence nothing to refute? It's basically a first-hand witness. If people want to deny their lying eyes, I can't help that. I also haven't witnessed MOST women confronted with potentially threatening bugs, so it's pointless to argue about what we CAN'T know. That's why more info is needed for a productive exchange of ideas. I've definitely provided more data than those in disagreement, so I've met my burden. There are a lot of assumptions being made about me as well. Apparently I'm antiquated, unevolved, etc, and yet I continue on my journey.

12 hours ago, jakee said:

you’re not even going to admit that your claims are purely opinion based beliefs unsupported by anything else

"I think women are better than men at growing babies inside of them." Is this an opinion-based belief? 'Cus by your inept logic, we can never make a general statement grounded in fact. If you disagree with something I've said, show me how your data conflicts, show me how my data is faulty. Show me anything that suggests you have integrity, and aren't just asserting that you are already correct by default.

8 hours ago, skybytch said:

And your source for that data is?

It's not a single source, I'm not sure what you're asking me. Anyone can look up scientists, inventors, etc, and see that it's mostly men. If you're talking about my 99% figure, I couldn't possibly defend that, because I'd have to list 99 for each one you could mention, which isn't a productive use of my time, but it may actually be possible to do. I'm not convinced it is definitely possible though, which means this is devolving into an argument over something that isn't even a real disagreement, but rather a stylistic choice. No one should be expecting "99%" to be an accurate statistic in simple conversation.

8 hours ago, skybytch said:

Wait.  Biologically, a gay man has a penis and a lesbian has a vagina right? It is entirely possible for a gay man and a lesbian to have sex.

Why are you almost literally repeating what I just said, as if you're contradicting me?

9 hours ago, skybytch said:

I know several gay men who used to be married, have kids and still love their ex-wife. One of them was in a relationship with a woman who has since come out as a lesbian.

You call that functional? I call it going against your own instincts and denying who you naturally are. It sounds like a huge psychological burden, which is dysfunctional. If the kids did ok, then that's good, but the fact they are EX-wives should tell you something about whether it was a functional relationship.

 

9 hours ago, skybytch said:

Why do men have to be one thing and women another? Why can't we all be people and not be judged for what we look like, wear, do?

Men have to be one thing and women another because of genetic and hormonal differences. Doesn't mean these genetic and hormonal differences are the same in all men or women.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way for the 5th time or so, why can't we not be judged for what we look like, wear, or do? Because humans have good pattern recognition, for example we know that this is a mime.

http://spice4life.co.za/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/Sibo Masondo (2).jpg?itok=Sqz0avE2

Is it possible that this is not a mime, and is actually a goth? Possible. Very unlikely. Most of us know what a mime looks like, and what a goth looks like. We also know it is statistically more likely to be a goth mime than a non-mime goth. We can make assumptions based on what people wear, and especially what they DO. If this person is communicating with only their hands, are we seriously gonna keep saying they might be something other than a mime? Maybe they identify as a basketball player! ::sigh::

[billvon 3,030]

20 hours ago, Justincblount said:

What about something like 99% of notable inventors, scientists, philosophers, engineers, architects, etc... in the 21st century... being men? Does that factor into the idea that our functional differences have disappeared? Or are those men just not evolved?

?? They are not.  It's closer to 70-80% nowadays, because we have a culture where women tend to be pushed into caretaker roles, and men get pushed into engineering roles.  (Although we are getting better; we've moved from 90% to 70-80%.)  Even in a perfectly egalitarian society you'd likely still see some biases based on sex - but if women really had the same opportunities, you'd see much less difference between the roles each sex chooses for themselves.

The population of MIT while I was there is instructive.  MIT was almost all male until female, and later coed, dorms opened in the 1960-1970's.  While I was there in the late 1980's it was about 70-30%.  During that time they made a big push to get that closer to equality.  And they did it, without reducing admissions standards for women.

Today it is very close to 50-50.  Some majors are more male, some are more female.  Ocean engineering and mechanical engineering, for example, were mostly female last time I checked.  It's not perfect, of course - many women still report that they feel pressure to not take "guy majors" but it's a lot better than it was.

That's something that society in general could do a lot better.

Quote

A gay man CAN hook up with a lesbian, but that is different from being biologically suited to do it, and having the will or desire to, and it leading in a functional direction.

?? A lesbian and a gay man are biologically suited to "hook up" and the result can be quite functional (i.e. can lead to a child.)  They choose not to in general because they are not attracted to the opposite sex.   Did you mean just "having the will to?"  If so, yes - but none of that refutes Lisa's statement that women can lead, kill spiders and support themselves.

Quote

I'm speaking very generally when I say "women are this, men are that". Some women are suited to more masculine things, but those exceptions don't disprove the general rule.

If "masculine things" means impregnating women, agreed.  If "masculine things" means being inventors/entrepreneurs, then definitely not.

Question for you - do you use a cellphone, and do you live in the US?

Quote

I consider the basic needs of all sentient life, to the extent I am able to discern.

"I considered that" is not at all equal to "I am considerate." 

Quote

It's not enough for me to simply accept opinion-based beliefs, I feel a duty to back them up with reason and data, and I have the ability to discard a belief once it has been reasonably discredited.

Then by all means do so!

 

[Justincblount 4]

Thank you for your well reasoned, data-rich, informative response. You brought many things to my attention that I was unaware of, and I will look into it further.

[billvon 3,030]

16 minutes ago, Justincblount said:

Well reasoned, but how is video evidence nothing to refute? It's basically a first-hand witness. If people want to deny their lying eyes, I can't help that.

Did you just use a Youtube video to "prove" something?  With that level of proof, I could quite easily prove all men are incompetent, nearly homicidal drivers.  There's plenty of evidence on Youtube to prove that.

Quote

Anyone can look up scientists, inventors, etc, and see that it's mostly men.

The #1 inventor in my company is a woman.  (Marta)  So are the #4 and #7 inventors.  In the top 10, there are more patents by women than by men.  You may be looking at too many Youtube videos.

Quote

"I know several gay men who used to be married, have kids and still love their ex-wife."  You call that functional?

If everyone is happy, and support each other - yes.

Skydivers jump out of airplanes and hurl themselves suicidally at the Earth.  Would you call that dysfunctional?

Quote

I call it going against your own instincts and denying who you naturally are.

So is not stealing, saving your money, exercising and eating right.  Civilization can be grossly defined as a lot of people who go against their base instincts to achieve higher objectives (like a safe society.)

Quote

It sounds like a huge psychological burden, which is dysfunctional.

Again, so is an alcoholic who decides to stop drinking.  Is an alcoholic who is 100% sober "dysfunctional?"  

Quote

Men have to be one thing and women another because of genetic and hormonal differences. 

It means they develop different physical characteristics, and it means that they have different biological abilities.  It does NOT mean they "have to be one thing."