Female power over men

Arc and I have answered some of your previous posts. Go back and reread, you’ve forgotten.

You are the only one forwarding that idea, which I have already addressed, then you scurried away in terror lest you became involved in “peripheral bantering” which may have resulted in the shattering of your Weltanschauung if not for your early withdrawal. If you seriously want to debate me, then grow a pair and I’ll consider devoting time and energy into someone who won’t retreat to his safe space in fear of mere words.

Boo!

:laughing:

You mean Urchin?

Are you advocating:

Kill Every Kike? :confusion-shrug:

or

Kiss Every Knob? :laughing:

Obviously you have your kisser firmly affixed to some ideological knob or else you wouldn’t be religiously dispensing infantile murmurings as if you’re privy to some recluse and intimate group of losers who pride themselves on peeing like little boys.

Pepe the Frog designated a hate symbol by ADL

Ping me after you grow up and no longer need gang affiliation of urchins to affirm your worth.

No worries, I can tackle it. Hold my beer! :smiley:

A good soldier obeys orders like a cog in a machine and I don’t believe anyone could be called “loyal” who obeyed only when in agreement with the command. When you join the military, you relinquish the right to march in the streets in protest of an unjust war.

[i]They want their cake and free healthcare too, the honor of wearing the uniform without the risk of serving at the will of the executive branch. This is not how it works, and if they somehow missed this when they signed up then they need to realize it quickly.

Asking that active duty members of the military honor their oath and refrain from politics in no way muffles national debate around defense and security issues. Rather, it protects a basic principle of our democracy—that the armed services do not dictate policy but carry out the will of the people and their elected leaders.[/i] thedailybeast.com/soldiers- … of-service

Just think of how many lives have been ruined because of possession of the wrong kind of plant. Who could enforce that kind of law? What kind of person? At best one could dump the weed on the ground, but to suspend all professional licenses so the person cannot work and then fine them large sums of money or threaten with jail time is morally reprehensible.

Cops should exist to “serve and protect” and that’s it. No enforcement of morality. If people want to use drugs, gamble, engage in prostitution, drive without a seatbelt, drink beer on sunday, then they should be allowed to make their own decisions as they see fit without having to worry about the inquisition seeking to make their life hell over a victimless crime.

It’s traditional that men and women have specific roles. It’s perversion of tradition in equalizing those roles. Right or wrong, that’s what it is.

I agree there, but I don’t think that is as prevalent as some think. In fact, it’s probably more likely to be the other way around. Cue the colloquial cartoon woman with frying pan or rolling pin chasing the man out of the kitchen. Everyone knows women secretly rule the roost :wink:

Abandonment of tradition is how societies always come to ruin as generations lose sight of what made a strong civilization. Just because the water is calm doesn’t mean there are no crocodiles or that they have gone extinct. Traditions seem silly now, but they used to be sensible.

I would never want the mother of my child to forsake attendance to the child for any reason. Whatever the calamity is, I’ll handle it or find someone else to help.

There is more to raising children than merely keeping them safe and fed. She must spend time with them. She can’t dump them off with grandparents and march off to prove she’s just as manly as men.

13.772 billion years according to latest calculations :evilfun:

They’d probably get mad at me rather than the ones who took advantage of some vulnerability that they had.

We’re stirring a beehive and then claim to be fighting the evil bees. If we would leave the arabs alone, they’d leave us alone. So I see troops over there only strengthening the resolve of the enemy and not only are they hurting themselves, but putting me in danger of continued terrorism. I’d feel safer if they’d stop protecting me and come home!

The US is like an infestation:

My freedom is only in danger from within with the passage of new laws that will restrict freedom; not some foreign power or ragtag group of terrorists.

Currently we’re under siege from regular Joes with ARs and a WaffleHouse was just shot-up the other day in TN where 4 died. School shootings, church shootings, Vegas shooting… why are the troops overseas???

Yes, I suppose so.

That’s a perfect example because every one of them thought they were doing good just as our troops and cops are today.

You’re right, I’m overly empathetic imo, but I’m not very personable and that’s pretty much why I appreciate a woman filling the void in capability that I have as a regular guy; a complement. I’m not doting, artistically expressive, emoting, and, even though the desire is there, I have no capability and certainly no proficiency in it. Some have said I’m on the autism spectrum, but I honestly think I’m just a guy; that’s how regular guys are: engineery, mathematical, awkward moments of having no idea what to say or how to say it. Women are better with people and men are better with things, in general.

Well, firstly, artificial selection favored the bootlickers and burned those at the stake who rebelled. This behavior has been happening for generations from the tribal chiefs all the way up to kings and emperors. Secondly, the public education system was implemented as a means of teaching subservience. I’m old enough to remember having to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning. Public education’s indoctrination of societal obligation was inspiration for Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” song.

We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey!
Teacher, leave us kids alone!
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall

So if we’re all part of a larger organism, then who is the head?

You said it! That’s an example of a righteous war.

Don’t read this until you feel you have a strong constitution… and even then it will stay with you for a lifetime darkmoon.me/2015/torture-an … nuremberg/

I know just enough to realize that I don’t know enough to really say who was right, but I think Hitler and the Nazis had many atrocities framed on them that either never happened or weren’t sanctioned by them. History is written by the winners and I know how people are. No doubt embellishment and fabrication exists since the ends justify any means necessary to prevent a resurgence of nationalism. They wanted to portray the egregiousness with such shock and awe that even 100 years later people would still remember. This was definitely meant to be the end-all of nationalism. Never ever again will it rise.

Self-righteousness. Exactly. That’s why the cops have no business imposing their morality on other people. That’s what Hitler did to the Jews: “We don’t want your homosexuality and smut, but the highest calling of a woman is motherhood.”

Prussia, the largest and most populous of the länder, did not enforce Paragraph 175 under the leadership of the Social Democratic Otto Braun from 1918 to 1932, which had the effect of making Prussia into a haven for homosexuals all across Germany. In the 1920s, gay culture had flourished in Prussia, especially Berlin, which was known as the “homosexual capital of Europe”, and many homosexuals had came out of the closet.[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti … aust#Purge

In 1934, Hitler proclaimed, “[Woman’s] world is her husband, her family, her children, her house.”[28] Women’s highest calling was to be motherhood. Laws that had protected women’s rights were repealed and new laws were introduced to restrict women to the home and in their roles as wives and mothers. Women were barred from government and university positions. Women’s rights groups, such as the moderate BDF, were disbanded, and replaced with new social groups that would reinforce Nazi values, under the leadership of the Nazi Party and the head of women’s affairs in Nazi Germany en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_ … y#Nazi_era

In the same way that drugs, gambling, sodomy, prostitution are morally wrong, then so is a mother or potential mother having a career morally wrong. For the same good ole fashioned christian reasons!

And every one of those people responsible thought they were doing the right thing. Righteousness is extremely hazardous to the population. Most people stigmatize wars fought for greed, like Saddam attacking Kuwait, and praise the righteous defenders for coming to the rescue, but the virtue pyramid is upside down. Wars fought for good ole fashioned greed are less atrocious than righteous wars because the greedy do not want to destroy, but capture for their own use, yet the righteous want total annihilation of whatever they deem as “evil”.

I wonder how the cities in the UK compared in terms of devastation from evil Hitler’s carpet bombing campaigns.

Well, he said at the beginning that if you wanted to hear that side of it, you’d only need to read or watch anything else in existence… any history book, Hollywood film, history channel, etc.

Yes but he should realize that he’s approaching it from the assumption of the Nazi atrocities that he neither witnessed nor has really seen proof. I mean, I’m no fan of Hitler, but surely everyone has wondered how anyone could be so evil as he’s portrayed.

The piled-up bodies you’ve seen on tv are explained by being the result of starvation due to the allies cutting off supply lines and consequent disease that wiped them out. Look how skinny they were. Those people starved and died of disease. They didn’t get off a train all fat n happy just to walk into a gas chamber. Look at the pics of google images and see if you can find a dead fat person at a concentration camp.

I’m sure a lot of bad things happened and I’m pretty sure the germans used diesel engines to gas some people in poland, but I also think the story has been embellished to aid in demonizing the nazis, which I think most people would see as “perfectly fine” since Hitler deserves it, and there is my point (righteous indignation).

Because valor only comes due to having a choice not to choose it. If you chase an animal into a corner and suddenly it becomes brave because it has no other option, would you say that was a courageous animal?

Climbing a tree to save a kitten is heroic, but climbing a tree for fun is stupid. Why the difference? Why is that called “discretion”?

I suppose so.

It’s juxtaposed to the last quote: Saving a drowning child is noble, but swimming for fun is an unnecessary risk. I’m saying that taking unnecessary risks for fun is more a demonstration of fearlessness than taking risks for a noble cause.

It was a safe bet, but if I hadn’t said anything… then what? We had a discussion going a few weeks ago on another thread and as far as I know, you left me dangling there (maybe you didn’t know), so I just assumed it was a trend among the women as men also leave me hanging, but last longer than the women due to men’s competitive nature.

Well if you expect that no one is going to read it, then why would you reply? This will only end when no one talks because the odds of getting a reply is too low. I think the idea of being here is to engage in philosophical conversations and if one doesn’t have time for that, I’d have to wonder what other motivation exists.

I don’t know. The relevant part of the quote is missing.

Any choice he makes will ultimately be for his own perceived good. So if he chooses to die with honor by saving someone, then he’s doing what is best for himself.

Yes, one would be plastered all over the news as a baby-saver.

If he wants to “see if he can”, then he’s not an expert, but is walking into the unknown with low odds of surviving just to see if he can.

I’m merely referring to a propensity to take risks in general. It will be expressed in all aspects of life: from skydiving to how one drives their car to whether or not they jump into debates. Sometimes the differences are small, subtle, nuanced and sometimes not.

Fun conversation! You’re east-going, honest, fair and I like that!

There is something seriously wrong with you. I know this is no news, just an observation.

You addressed nothing besides your own cognitive dysfunction fetish. You even went back to literally inverting my statement and then asking me to verify if you got that right. I already saw this debility in you on BTL, which is why I erased you. It is just too repulsive.

That you’re ugly and physically “underprivileged” does not give you the right to be stupid.
I mean everyone has that right but don’t flaunt your stupidity. Even in a pool of people that may appear to cheer you on for it.

Disgusting.

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!