Female power over men

Yes, seriously, I must have a candy ass or something for you to have such a boner for me.

Bullshit! You can’t substantiate your statement and I’d dare you to try if I thought you wouldn’t run away in the middle of it. I’ve never seen you debate anyone without bailing. You’re toothless… all bark and bunghole. You come from behind chucking turds then run like hell so you don’t get your ass kicked.

I asked how you knew your assertion was true and I did it in the nicest way possible since I already knew you were a prick from the way you treat others on here, so apparently my mistake was assuming you were human-ish. You psychotically blew up for no reason or perhaps because your ship was about to be sunk requiring a convenient way out to save face; one or the other, but you are to one who lost it and reacted emotionally/irrationally as you always seem to do.

Oh so you are Urchin eh? You mean you’ve been here since 2006 and you’re still an impressionable boy? Holy shit! The cat is out of the bag now!

Then what’s your excuse?

No one cheers for me unless you consider waving the white flag to be cheering.

That’s obviously your autograph in ratification of your nonsense.

What happened to kek? :laughing: Did I inadvertently help you to realize you were advocating your own destruction? :confusion-shrug:

Now I see why Autsider didn’t like you :evilfun:

For all the gawkers and late arrivals, here is the post that gave jakob a conniption: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&start=75#p2699352

And the relevant quotes are:

No reply.

No reply.

No reply.

Instead intelligent counterpoint, I get this:

Which is essentially saying “Instead of conceding points, I’m leaving and slandering my opponent so it looks like I won.”

I hate it for ya, but the burden of proof is on you if you want to assert an objective right and wrong.

I said the precise opposite.
Id seen you do this before. Obscenely dumb.

Who is this “we”?

By judging

Oh no, Im so sorry I hurt you man.

In the meantime still no one has responded to the pregnancy/risk issue. Or to the issue of women, being the frail gender, being necessarily more risk-taking in seeking a mate.
If these things aren’t understood, all this resentment over women not constantly putting everything completely on the line for the benefit of a bunch of adolescent apes will keep lingering.

Waiting for further responses.

The opposite eh? So I SHOULD think in terms of what I should do?

Should I or should I not?

Perhaps by “opposite”, you meant “you” rather than “me”, but that can’t be true either because you said “rules are necessary” and rules are what people should do. And then you said “but they must be the right rules” as if there is a right and wrong that other people should and should not do.

Either way, you’ve lost. Suck it up like a man; that’s the most admirable thing you could do at this point.

The correct answer is Mark Twain’s “All things in moderation, including moderation.” Clearly we cannot make a religion of no-religion or we’ve defeated the purpose of not having a religion (ie what we should do).

You don’t know who we are but you call me dumb? :laughing:

By what authority do you make yourself judge of others? By what authority do you even make yourself judge of yourself? How do YOU know what is good for YOU?

The only innocent motivation is that of fun; as soon as you’ve embarked on some concept of right or wrong, you’ve made an objective claim and asserted an absolute truth which can only come by authority. Therefore the only innocent motivation is: “I’m eating this food because it’s what I craved, not because it’s good for me. I’m meditating because it’s fun, not because it’s good for me. I’m studying philosophy because it’s fun, not because I think I’m going to achieve something.” That which is not fun is arrogance, but don’t make a religion of gaiety.

So you shit on the board then claimed victory and now you’re flattering yourself that you’ve somehow hurt me? If you’ve hurt anyone, it’s the other people who may not be receiving the same benefit of doubt that I initially gave to you.

You’re epitomizing the Dunning-Kruger offshoot: Unskilled and Don’t Want to Be Aware of It.

“We contend that the unskilled are motivated to ignore (be unaware of) their poor performance so that they can feel better about themselves. We tested this idea in an experiment in which we manipulated the perceived self-relevancy of the task to men and women after they had completed a visual pun task and before they estimated their performance on the task. As predicted, the unskilled and unaware effect was attenuated when the task was perceived to have low self-relevance.”

Not only can one be too dumb to know he is dumb, but can also have a big ego about what he mistakenly knows, and that is especially so when he ought to be knowledgeable in a particular field. Eh? Mr. Philosopher? :laughing:

You identify as a philosopher and therefore it’s very painful to admit error about the very subject with which you’re supposed to be adept and that exactly what the study was about.

To illustrate, the women in the study had more motivation to excel in language because it’s part of the feminine persona to be articulately accomplished while men give less of a shit in general.

[i]"We expected that in this condition, male participants would perceive the task to be less important to men than to women. Hence male participants would see the task to be less self-relevant.

Male participants in the language ability condition did not consider the task to be important to the self. As a result, they were not motivated to self-enhance their performance on the task (see [9]) and therefore did not display a pronounced positive response bias. Instead, they based their estimation primarily on their actual performance. In this case, the unskilled are not motivated to ignore (be unaware of) their incompetence and they estimated their relative performance fairly accurately.

In contrast, female participants in the language ability condition considered the task to be important to the self. Hence, they were motivated to self-enhance; they displayed a pronounced positive response bias and did not base their estimation on their actual performance. In this case, the unskilled are motivated to ignore (be unaware of) their incompetence. As a result, they grossly overestimated their relative performance."[/i]

Keep ignoring man.

I’ve seen it. Too dumb to know he’s too dumb.
Then there is also someone so full of crap that they believe their own lies.

Then you “should” go on crusade to stop it :laughing:

But before you do, you should work on your memory: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&start=75#p2699226

2 weeks ago:

So men are just as much useless bitches as women, eh? Well, at least you’re championing all the useless bitches while on your crusade :icon-rolleyes:

That’s what I should have said last time rather than trying to amiably relate to you.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs[/youtube]

That video is pretty funny.

I have another groupie.
Going back over my posts, quoting me back to me.

:sunglasses:
Yeah but could you please stick to the subject for a change.

ADDRESS MY POINT?
about pregnancy and risk?

Also, the other one, about peoples complaining that they don’t have as much power as this or that other person or group being an excuse for not having power.

You can quote almost as well as Sauwelios, I’m no sucker for quotations though. If you can’t think, leave.

I will. The number one cause of female suicide around the world is pregnancy stuff!!

Either being infertile, or saying it is evil to give birth to a girl.

In fact, tribes that shame female births have higher female suicides than male suicides. Because the country is telling THEM that their birth is evil indirectly by stating not having a son is evil!

I did. Apparently your eyesight is as bad as your memory viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193935&start=125#p2700069
:teasing-slap:

I meant: to address the idea, not to click “quote” and rant some.
101.

The point you certainly didn’t begin to address is vast. It is a revaluation of modern ideas about the female psyche.
She was known in classical times as the more capricious one. Classics understood that a woman, a beautiful one especially, is risk.

Ecm, male suicides are through the roofs in Britain, one every 4 hours.

I’ve never heard of a woman who said “I think I will get pregnant because it’s risky.”

Men do things specifically for the risk while women label that behavior as “stupid”.

Serendipper,

Have you heard of women who so desperately want to get pregnant ~ have a child ~ that they WILL take that risk even though they realize it could be detrimental to their life and to some degree may even cause their death? It depends on what we value.

Every man?
There are many women who indulge in risky behavior too ~ they realize it but they cannot help themselves. The call to excitement, lust, instant gratification is too strong for their psyches.

Look at the Olympians, both the men and women. They take risks that some would never consider even though they are very skilled at what they do for the most part. Life can change on a dime ~ coma, paralysis…

Is risk taking an individual thing or is it more geared toward one gender or the other?

I had a friend some years back who’s daughter got pregnant. She already had one child and there were no problems. The pregnancy and delivery seemingly went fine and the baby was born. The next day something happened ~ I cannot recall what the condition is called ~ but she bled out in the hospital and died. It was a terrible thing for the family.

I am working on it. :mrgreen:

Ive never heard of a man who said “Im going to go to war because it is risky”.

We take risks to allow for certain outcomes beyond ourselves. This is not a choice, but what evolution means. We’re subservient to the risk-taking nature of life. Both genders are inherently lethal to themselves, so during the period we have, both take the risks that have evolved to be taken, and end up with progeny and culture.