You said, Men do not “drive women away” from Philosophy
Those quotes are not mine.
I don’t appreciate being misquoted.
These domesticated environments may be sheltering folks on one hand to behave less typically, but there are harmful agents in everything eaten, drank, breathed, etc.
People are not complete victims. People could change, to adjust, and better adapt, if they have the will and knowledge.
I don’t think we are on the same page regarding our polluted environment and its potential effects on biology, expected and as in this case, unexpected.
You said that philosophy (men) “left women out”, which is false. Men do not “leave women out” of philosophy. Women simply do not participate. Philosophy has almost always been an impractical pursuit. Men seek out the greatest mysteries in life, and existence. Women are more pragmatic. Women focus on bare necessities, and do not explore the outer realms.
Women are focused upon the home, civilization, domestication, and have no interest in existence ‘outside’ humanity.
You may now continue being melodramatic.
You’re blaming the environment for what people could change in themselves, if they wanted to.
Even if a food were bad for you, people will still eat it, like sugary and fatty foods. People “know” it’s bad, but eat it anyway. So a conscious willpower must be exerted to stop the behavior.
Civilization is over-abundant, and so, people must consciously starve themselves (the origin of Fasting in cultures), to offset the over-abundance of food.
You see, religions have traditions in them, based on these original causes. Where do you believe Fasting comes from, if not this?
True, there is great quantities of food in the West, but the GMO , pesticide, contaminated water absorbed by the food…ALL FOOD is what may be causing the problem. Fasting is no answer to avoid the contamination of pollutants and unnatural modifications made to the food products themselves. Healthy foods are no longer truly healthy and THAT is my point. Drinking waters are processed with unnatural chemicals. The very air we breathe is full of hazards that affects the bodies of pregnant woman and male sperm is distorted, the very genetic materials being found in children has been damaged from simply living in this modern environment. Fasting and exercising will not keep the polluted junk from affecting your DnA code.
More misquotes. I said women have been left out, I never said men did that.
Your sloppy reading is truly boring as fuck.
This sounds like victim-mentality to me. Food is a side-effect if anything, not a cause. People are actively, repeatedly, making poor decisions throughout their lives.
Your words, retard. Why am I not surprised that somebody of your low calibre doesn’t even remember what he wrote within the first page of his own thread?
Learn to fucking read…your own writing.
Everyone is a genetic victim to this toxic reality, there’s no way of circumventing it other than to implement major industry changes to clean up the environment. Food, water, air, all things we ingest may be permanently affecting our DnA. Why is this possibility so hard for you to acknowledge when it’s common sense cause and effect I’m describing?
Still playing the victim card… I knew it. Still too soft.
Since you say you are very curious, ask a geneticist about my point which is simple and explanatory.
The way genes work are affected, making men more girly and women more manly. 
Zero_Sum
A criticism? Hardly ~~ but you might consider my words to be a challenge and a Question to reflect on in order to examine the effect[s] that these words of yours might have on young children growing up, both male and female.
Do we want to raise autonomous, independent, self-thinking children who realize that they can be just as “whole” without another, can stand securely on their own two feet, more or less, or do we want to raise children who grow up to become alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts, stalkers and obsessively-possessive men and women, because they feel that something is always missing from their life, and children who are not capable of experiencing and enjoying their own solitude and aloneness and Self because, after all, they have been pre-conditioned, indoctrinated, to believe that they are “nothing” without another.
Do you think that women who endure physical abuse by their husbands endure it because they feel that it is such a great experience or do you feel perhaps that they endure it because they feel that “they are nothing on their own”?
Does that NOT make for them such a cocoon-like world even though in the “real” cocoon eventually the caterpillar becomes the butterfly and transcends his cocoon and flies onward and upward. lol
Not so these human caterpillars who feel they are incapable of becoming something on their own without a man or a woman.
Words have power and meaning. This is all that I am saying.
All I said was men and women are nothing on their own because in society it requires both sexes working together complimenting each other to make it work. That’s not even a radical assertion!
The way you speak it sounds like you want to sexually alienate and isolate men or women from each other, why?
Zero_Sum
We can agree to disagree on the first part of that. I intuit that when it comes to certain things, men can achieve them without women and vica versa.
The way I look at it, the “nothing on their own” statement is kind of radical and misleading and my last post still holds and does rings.
But about the first part ~~ is it your thinking that men and women ARE basically nothing on their own? As that statement stands alone?
Do not get me wrong here. I do intuit that men and women harmonize one another in ways, and not just when it comes to pro-creation. I enjoy a man and his company but does this mean that a man or a woman becomes less human and capable and falls apart without the other?
Sexually alienate? No, that is not the case. But at second glance above I did think that you were speaking about some worthy or vital cause where men and women, according to you, have to come together in order to achieve it.
Can you give me an example of this? Something comes to mind for me.
What prime example would YOU give?
Why even use the term “sexually alienate”?
It’s because without men or women vice versa people become alienated, isolated, and alone. The human species wasn’t naturally designed where women stay amongst themselves or where men stay amongst themselves also. This form of sexual segregation, seclusion, or division is completely unnatural where that is what I meant by saying men and women are nothing on their own. No, human beings were designed where men and women interact, work, socialise, or live together. When I said sexually alienate I wasn’t referring specifically to reproduction or procreation, it meant more on the lines of the alienation of gender.
I would say so, ever seen the psychological deterioration and toll on either men or women that have spent decades alone by themselves without interaction of others especially of the opposite sex? People fall apart real quick, self destruct, and find unusual coping mechanisms as a sort of psychological reaction.
It’s also very hard to be successful as a man without a woman because you must understand that the concept of success for a man is having a woman at his side where if there is none that is perceived as mark of failure. The most worst kind of failure actually for any man.
Having a woman in a man’s life isn’t just sexual or about reproduction but also is psychological, it makes up for man’s psychological wellbeing for things like companionship. So much of a man’s success revolves around that psychological peace of mind having a woman in his life. For a man a woman is the ultimate motivation or motivator that drives himself to become better and ultimately succeed in his ambitions.
There are several psychological things going on in the background between men and women where if you cut them off it’s only psychologically damaging on both sexes in the end.
We need a sort of conservative sexually collectivist organization of society that gets rid of the division between men and women once for all that will only improve the psychological mental existence of civilization itself. Like a national public organization that brings younger men and women together where they can make social bonds with each other through work, education, civic activities, sporting events, social gatherings, or through public works. That would get rid of sexual antagonisms very quickly.
There is a great difference between the two statements “something happened” and “something happened because men made it happen”.
Only a totally worthless fucktard could possibly confuse those two things.
Totally worthless fucktard doesn’t seem like a string of words that would belong in a rational argument or that should be a part of any philosophical discourse.
Any defense of their use would be great to hear.