NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, men say that until they need us to plow a field or fix a truck or build a battleship.

You mean when men want women to do "manly" stuff, then they suddenly don't think the idea of women not being able to do "manly" stuff is sexist?

Make sense much?

You mean when men want women to do "manly" stuff, then they suddenly don't think the idea of women not being able to do "manly" stuff is sexist?

Make sense much?

No, I mean that when men need women to do this "manly" stuff, as in WWII, then it suddenly becomes our duty to forget traditional gender roles, stop being such spoiled, soft pets, and get down to the shipyards to build him a battleship.

Then when he comes back from the war and needs his job back, suddenly it's ok to be a soft, spoiled pet, and get my ass out of the factory and back to the kitchen...

I wish people would make up their minds. I do men's work all the time, and I'm at no disadvantage, nor am I lacking in ability. I work harder than some men, even some chauvinist men, when I want to. I can do things considered men's work that some of them can't do, if I choose to use my ex-hubby as a comparison...his dad always asked ME to help him with things, instead of his son, because his son was next to useless, and wouldn't pay attention if you tried to show him how...

No, I mean that when men need women to do this "manly" stuff, as in WWII, then it suddenly becomes our duty to forget traditional gender roles, stop being such spoiled, soft pets, and get down to the shipyards to build him a battleship.

Then when he comes back from the war and needs his job back, suddenly it's ok to be a soft, spoiled pet, and get my ass out of the factory and back to the kitchen...

I wish people would make up their minds. I do men's work all the time, and I'm at no disadvantage, nor am I lacking in ability. I work harder than some men, even some chauvinist men, when I want to. I can do things considered men's work that some of them can't do, if I choose to use my ex-hubby as a comparison...his dad always asked ME to help him with things, instead of his son, because his son was next to useless, and wouldn't pay attention if you tried to show him how...

All good. Just that the quote you were responding to was saying that traditional gender roles are sexist. So your "men say that until" response was a matter of arguing one side against itself. ;)

The "natural law" you were talking about Pepe, how do you know it exists? People make up their own versions of "natural law", it's all relative. I agree with you as much in that people should be free to pursue whatever kind of relationship they want, equal, dominant/submissive, or whatever. Doesn't make it optimal though.

And KELHPTOPIA, if you're still around, you are proof that men are not automatically mentally superior to women. If you're gonna bring in the bible, at least quote it right. Asserting that a math problem is beneath you does not prove anything except that you're an arrogant prick. And putting down negroes as well as women does not strengthen your argument. Racism is so last century.

Hah, you're one of a kind.
It's not pratical for women to brag about being whores.. but it's funny.

Now, now dear, jealously will earn you nothing but pity, and you already have the full extent of mine...

Is this supposed to be more important than family, God and country?
What are you talking about? Unless you imagine a women's sexual organs somehow cut her off from family, God and country in a way that a man's penis does not, may I ask what you imagine the relevence of your comment is?

Traditional relationships support society for a reason: because they promote moral attitudes. Relationships based on hedonism weaken society, and, like it or not, degrade women socially.
Some traditional relationships support society, some do not, some hedonistic relationshops support society, some do not. Some traditional relationships weaken society, some do not, some hedonistic relationships weaken society, some do not. Some traditional relationships degrade people and some do not, some hedonistic relationships degrade people and some do not.

Again, this is the kind of warped logic that assumes women don't or shouldn't care about society as a whole.. a healthy country is one that values family and morality..
It is not warped logic to suggest that relationships shouldnt revolve around the reproduction of children. I dont think it is warped logic to consider that infertile people are as much in need of and entitled to pursue relationships (including marital relationships) as any other person, yet clearly they cannot produce children so whatever sort of relationship they are in will not be one that revolves around the production of children. You're a pretty heartless piece of work if you would condem someone to never be in a loving marital relationship just because they are (through no fault of their own) infertile.

Exactly. The topic is the proper treatment of women, and whether one ideal should be promoted in lieu of natural law. I maintain that it should not.
You are saying absolutely nothing. According to how you have defined natural law, natural law contradicts natural law. To never not follow natural law is impossible according to how you have defined natural law. You can call it natural law, but what it really means is 'it feels so right it cant be wrong'. Clearly since what you call natural law is contradictory (ie person A's natural law tells them abortion is wrong and person's B natural law tells them that abortion is not wrong) natural law cannot possibly be a definitive measurement of truth or rightness.

There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence, friends.

To condense Kelhptopia's argument, women are capable of gaining knowledge in the same areas as a man, but follow paths suiting their own biological proclivites. A man and a woman can obtain the same knowledge, just as two men can, but the more intelligent man is the one who absorbs it more comprehensively and quickly. This is what the statistics reveal about the disparity between the sexes.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with this, just restating what I think the intended argument is.

Whather or not one person or the other can answer a matrix is anecdotal, and misses the greater issue.

Of course men and women can gain usually gain knowledge in the same areas, but it is morally abhorrent for women to do things that conflict with their duties as wives and mothers.

Of course men and women can gain usually gain knowledge in the same areas, but it is morally abhorrent for women to do things that conflict with their duties as wives and mothers.

It is morally abhorrent for you to tell women what their *duties* are.

I have a quick question, have you told any women in real life your views on this subject? If so, how did they respond?

Except when education and experience enter into this equasion. You may have free will, but you can only freely choose between the options you are aware of. If you are unaware of certain options, or believe (mistakenly or not) that certain options are not available to you, then your Freewill, although still there, is quite curtailed.

When the majority of women were only aware of certain limited options regarding subordinate positions in relationships, they had few options. Now, with education and communication, women know that they are no longer limited to specific roles in relationships, and are not locked into being subordinates.

The only way any natural law would enter into it, is that we are limited by our beliefs and knowledge.


Translation: Send all the women to marxist universities where marxism is forced on them by the masonic cabal and the powers that be. Women aren't really free unless they're doing what I want them to do, and that means going to marxist universities, freedom is slavery.


So-called "higher education" is nothing really more than a disguise for the marxist indoctrination of the young adults of America, often paid for by their parents. Parents are paying to have their children brainwashed by politicized science, politicized literature, politicized everything. The marxists want to spread their filth and lies.

It is morally abhorrent for you to tell women what their *duties* are.

I have a quick question, have you told any women in real life your views on this subject? If so, how did they respond?


I told my mother, she didn't seem to care, she knows how I feel and she simply blamed my father saying he poisoned my mind against women. (My father did no such thing) but seeing my mother, the pinnacle of the modern so-called "liberated woman" and just what she did to my dad, it gave me a realization that "liberated women" are nothing more than abnormal whores who have either too much testosterone or too little estrogen, or perhaps too much marxist indoctrination, they don't act like women should, and they don't even act decent irregardless of gender mannerisms.

He's obviously had his soul damaged by some unnamed marital betrayal on the part of his mother. I pity him.

I told my mother, she didn't seem to care, she knows how I feel and she simply blamed my father saying he poisoned my mind against women. (My father did no such thing) but seeing my mother, the pinnacle of the modern so-called "liberated woman" and just what she did to my dad, it gave me a realization that "liberated women" are nothing more than abnormal whores who have either too much testosterone or too little estrogen, or perhaps too much marxist indoctrination, they don't act like women should, and they don't even act decent irregardless of gender mannerisms.

You ever though perhaps you have too much testosterone? And why do you keep bringing up Marx? I believe the idea of equality came up in numerous other political philosophies.

I told my mother, she didn't seem to care, she knows how I feel and she simply blamed my father saying he poisoned my mind against women. (My father did no such thing) but seeing my mother, the pinnacle of the modern so-called "liberated woman" and just what she did to my dad, it gave me a realization that "liberated women" are nothing more than abnormal whores who have either too much testosterone or too little estrogen, or perhaps too much marxist indoctrination, they don't act like women should, and they don't even act decent irregardless of gender mannerisms.
Well it's very sad that you are so damaged however it occured. However it is possible to seek help, so you only have yourself to blame if you remain as you are. Mental health is a good thing, so why not give it go...?

Can't resist... It states my opinions quite clearly. Guys, I dedicate this song to you all. Enjoy. :D And that's guys as in comon slang, not specifically male, to clarify. ^.^


Can't Hold Us Down - Christina Aguilera & Li'l Kim

So what am I not supposed to have an opinion
Should I be quiet just because I'm a woman
Call me a bitch cos I speak what's on my mind
Guess it's easier for you to swallow if I sat and smiled

When a female fires back
Suddenly big talker don't know how to act
So he does what any little boy will do
Making up a few false rumors or two

That for sure is not a man to me
Slanderin' names for popularity
It's sad you only get your fame through controversy
But now it's time for me to come and give you more to say

This is for my girls all around the world
Who've come across a man who don't respect your worth
Thinking all women should be seen, not heard
So what do we do girls?
Shout out loud!
Letting them know we're gonna stand our ground
Lift your hands high and wave them proud
Take a deep breath and say it loud
Never can, never will, can't hold us down

Nobody can hold us down
Nobody can hold us down
Nobody can hold us down
Never can, never will

So what am I not supposed to say what I'm saying
Are you offended by the message I'm bringing
Call me whatever cos your words don't mean a thing
Guess you ain't even a man enough to handle what I sing

If you look back in history
It's a common double standard of society
The guy gets all the glory the more he can score
While the girl can do the same and yet you call her a whore

I don't understand why it's okay
The guy can get away with it & the girl gets named
All my ladies come together and make a change
Start a new beginning for us everybody sing

This is for my girls all around the world
Who've come across a man who don't respect your worth
Thinking all women should be seen, not heard
What do we do girls?
Shout out loud!
Letting them know we're gonna stand our ground
Lift your hands high and wave 'em proud
Take a deep breath and say it loud
Never can, never will, can't hold us down

[Lil' Kim:]
Check it - Here's something I just can't understand
If the guy have three girls then he's the man
He can either give us some head, sex her off
If the girl do the same, then she's a whore
But the table's about to turn
I'll bet my fame on it
Cats take my ideas and put their name on it
It's aiight though, you can't hold me down
I got to keep on movin'
To all my girls with a man who be tryin to mack
Do it right back to him and let that be that
You need to let him know that his game is whack
And Lil' Kim and Christina Aguilera got your back

But you're just a little boy
Think you're so cute, so coy
You must talk so big
To make up for smaller things
So you're just a little boy
All you'll do is annoy
You must talk so big
To make up for smaller things

This is for my girls...
This is for my girls all around the world
Who've come across a man who don't respect your worth
Thinking all women should be seen, not heard
So what do we do girls?
Should out loud!
Letting them know we're gonna stand our ground
Lift your hands high and wave 'em proud
Take a deep breath and say it loud
Never can, never will, can't hold us down

This is for my girls all around the world
Who've come across a man who don't respect your worth
Thinking all women should be seen, not heard
So what do we do girls?
Should out loud!
Letting them know we're gonna stand our ground
Lift your hands high and wave 'em proud
Take a deep breath and say it loud
Never can, never will, can't hold us down
Spread the word, can't hold us down

Well it's very sad that you are so damaged however it occured. However it is possible to seek help, so you only have yourself to blame if you remain as you are. Mental health is a good thing, so why not give it go...?


I feel enlightened, not damaged, I finally know how things really work.

Received: 3 hours ago
People are not animals. Choose something appropriate

I am very sorry and I do not wish to offend, but I totally fail to see how this is an appropriate remark. It seems to be an attempt at censor certain statements on my behalf that fell into none of the following categories:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam
griefing

It is also a very scientifically unsound statement. All people, in terms of human beings, are homo sapiens, and all homo sapiens are indeed members of the animal kingdom. So it is simply not true to say that people are not animals.

It is also not an accurate conveyence of the meaning and sprit of my statement, which was, that while humans (arguably) evolved from lower animals, and still possess animal natures (or as those who argue against evolution might say, sin natures), we also possess higher natures, civilized, even devine natures. And it is our duty to rise above our animal natures and realize our devine natures.

I apologize if that was not clear to some.

But I still fail to see how, with all of the grossly offensive political, sexist, homophobic, nationalist and/or religiously intolerent views that are allowed to be expressed here (and should continue to be), even a misinterpretation of my meaning could be viewed as something worthy of censorship. Much less, if I was in fact understood correctly.

I also do not understand the reference of "choose something appropriate". Choose for what? Appropriate to what?

Whether I am to be deleted for asking this, or for restating my (quite widely shared) belief that homo sapiens are in fact a species of animal, or not at all, I would appreciate an explaination as to why this is an appropriate topic for censorship.

Love to all, respect to most, I will see you all someday, tomorrow, 30x days from now, or in the great hereafter.



- Andrew

the fact that mysogenists still exist is 100% the fault of women. if women would have the dignity, intelligence, and strength to stop sleeping with mysogenists then they would simply die out, but women still go for them. women still marry them. women still have their babies, take their shit, and then go to support groups to cry about it. if being a mysogenist asshole meant you were never going to get laid, there would be no mysogenists (because they are invariably also homophobic, and so would never be able to have any sex at all) and women could get on with their lives.

so if you hate mysogeny, look to your "sisters." it's their fault for perpetuating it and they have had the power to stop it for centuries. they choose to be victims, and you reep what they sow.

I feel enlightened, not damaged, I finally know how things really work.
That is an entirely typical sympton. Enlightenment very rarely (if ever) results from misreasoning. You have stated that because of the traits of one women who you categorise as liberated, all women who can be so categorised must exhibit those traits. This is a logical fallacy, the chances of becoming enlightened by following a logical fallacy are very slim indeed, and as it happens that has not occured in your particular case. The fact that a women is liberated does not cause her to be a whore, nor need she be a whore to be liberated. Many liberated women have never exchanged sex for money (or kind). Equally a women does not require any particular level of testosterone before she can be liberated, neither does being liberated cause the sudden production of excess testosterone. Equally there is no maximum amount of estrogen which disqualifies a woman from becoming liberated, nor does being liberated interfere with the production of estrogen.
The fact that your thinking on this issue could be so impaired that you would actually believe some of the illogical easily disproven nonesense that you have stated is proof in itself. Basically you are stating that women can only be free if they are inclined to sell sexual services (presuming you actually know what a whore is), and have a chemical imbalance. If you really honestly think that this is even possible (much less likely) then you are one damaged unit, regardless of how you 'feel'.

the fact that mysogenists still exist is 100% the fault of women. if women would have the dignity, intelligence, and strength to stop sleeping with mysogenists then they would simply die out, but women still go for them. women still marry them. women still have their babies, take their shit, and then go to support groups to cry about it. if being a mysogenist asshole meant you were never going to get laid, there would be no mysogenists (because they are invariably also homophobic, and so would never be able to have any sex at all) and women could get on with their lives.

so if you hate mysogeny, look to your "sisters." it's their fault for perpetuating it and they have had the power to stop it for centuries. they choose to be victims, and you reep what they sow.


misogyny is a buzzword used to silence any who want women to act feminine, much like "racist" is a buzzword used to silence any who don't want black on white crime being the epidemic that it is. "xenophobe" is the buzzword to any who won't hand their nation over to the boat people. "Homophobe" is the word used to silence any who won't bend over for the gay parade.

That is an entirely typical sympton. Enlightenment very rarely (if ever) results from misreasoning. You have stated that because of the traits of one women who you categorise as liberated, all women who can be so categorised must exhibit those traits. This is a logical fallacy, the chances of becoming enlightened by following a logical fallacy are very slim indeed, and as it happens that has not occured in your particular case. The fact that a women is liberated does not cause her to be a whore, nor need she be a whore to be liberated. Many liberated women have never exchanged sex for money (or kind). Equally a women does not require any particular level of testosterone before she can be liberated, neither does being liberated cause the sudden production of excess testosterone. Equally there is no maximum amount of estrogen which disqualifies a woman from becoming liberated, nor does being liberated interfere with the production of estrogen.
The fact that your thinking on this issue could be so impaired that you would actually believe some of the illogical easily disproven nonesense that you have stated is proof in itself. Basically you are stating that women can only be free if they are inclined to sell sexual services (presuming you actually know what a whore is), and have a chemical imbalance. If you really honestly think that this is even possible (much less likely) then you are one damaged unit, regardless of how you 'feel'.


I have made this clear:

My definitions

Prostitute= takes money for sex.

Whore= Promiscuous (sex without exchange of goods or other services) but might be a prostitute. All prostitutes are promiscuous, but not all women who are promiscuous are prostitutes.

misogyny is a buzzword used to silence any who want women to act feminine, much like "racist" is a buzzword used to silence any who don't want black on white crime being the epidemic that it is. "xenophobe" is the buzzword to any who won't hand their nation over to the boat people. "Homophobe" is the word used to silence any who won't bend over for the gay parade.

Here lies the problem. You think that each of these groups is trying to be better than the mainstream/majority. They are not.

They are trying to be EQUAL.

And your best defense against their struggle for equality is that they're somehow trying to gain the upper hand.

Sad.

If you ask me, women and men are about as equal now as they are probably going to get... bar a few points (i.e. pay will equalise eventually but that will take another half century I think to even out completely) but there are certain biological constants, which nobody can deny...

As for women, I would make an observation: You are all different, some of want to be housewives with a rich husbands, some of you want to go out to work and be the breadwinner etc... I've personally met many many more of the former than the later but my fiance is the later, which works well simply because we respect each others choices in life.

Women have reputation, and if they get pregnant before about 22 in my opinion they are making a stupid mistake, but it is theirs to live and cope with.

Men, have reputation and if they get a girl pregnant, they need to pay for that offsprings upkeep... not dodge out of it... it's called taking responsability something a lot of both sexes don't do a lot of at the moment.

misogyny is a buzzword used to silence any who want women to act feminine, much like "racist" is a buzzword used to silence any who don't want black on white crime being the epidemic that it is. "xenophobe" is the buzzword to any who won't hand their nation over to the boat people. "Homophobe" is the word used to silence any who won't bend over for the gay parade.
wow, you are really terrified, aren't you? i'm so sorry, i wish there was something i could do to help you.

I have made this clear:

My definitions

Prostitute= takes money for sex.

Whore= Promiscuous (sex without exchange of goods or other services) but might be a prostitute. All prostitutes are promiscuous, but not all women who are promiscuous are prostitutes.
Setting aside the fact that the meaning of the word whore was standardised and defined long before you were born, and assuming that the other words in your post conform to the standard English definition, this still does not address the fact that it is possible for a woman to be free without being promiscuous. To believe that a woman can only be free if she is promiscuous and suffers from a chemical imbalance (or that being free will cause such a condition) requires a disconnect with reality, and that disconnect in itself constitutes mental disfunction.

Setting aside the fact that the meaning of the word whore was standardised and defined long before you were born, and assuming that the other words in your post conform to the standard English definition, this still does not address the fact that it is possible for a woman to be free without being promiscuous. To believe that a woman can only be free if she is promiscuous and suffers from a chemical imbalance (or that being free will cause such a condition) requires a disconnect with reality, and that disconnect in itself constitutes mental disfunction.



Please shut up with that "You're crazy" line! I'm tired of people saying I'm not right in the head, it's just a leftist lie and I know I am perfectly fine and healthy.

My choosing to define words as it suits me does not make my mentally dysfunctional.

Please shut up with that "You're crazy" line! I'm tired of people saying I'm not right in the head,
I dont know who these other people are, but it's certainly the first time I have brought up the issue with you. Consider this, I dont remember the last time someone questioned my sanity and I think you will find this is the case with most people, it could be everyone else is nuts and you are the only sane one, but the chances are it's the other way around.

it's just a leftist lie
I cant speak for the others who apparently have questioned your mental health, but I can assure that my words were utterly in earnest. It's possible that I am mistaken, but I gaurantee that I am not lying.

and I know I am perfectly fine and healthy.
Many people who are 'damaged' or suffer mental ill health feel that they are perfectly fine.

My choosing to define words as it suits me does not make my mentally dysfunctional.
No it just makes you a poor communicator. However I never claimed that your choosing to make novel use of standardised parts of the English language makes you mentally dysfunctional, nor that is indicitive of your mental health. What I am trying to clarify is the extent of the disconnection from reality that your belief constitutes, and the implication this has with regards to your mental function. Your belief cannot exist in the absence of a disconnection from reality and that disconnection is in itself indicitive of ill-mental health in either a symptomatic or causitive capacity (and possibly both).

the fact that mysogenists still exist is 100% the fault of women. if women would have the dignity, intelligence, and strength to stop sleeping with mysogenists then they would simply die out, but women still go for them. women still marry them. women still have their babies, take their shit, and then go to support groups to cry about it. if being a mysogenist asshole meant you were never going to get laid, there would be no mysogenists (because they are invariably also homophobic, and so would never be able to have any sex at all) and women could get on with their lives.

so if you hate mysogeny, look to your "sisters." it's their fault for perpetuating it and they have had the power to stop it for centuries. they choose to be victims, and you reep what they sow.

Mmmm. I agree. I take full responsibility for what came to me from making poor choices in men, and I have a lot of sympathy for any woman who takes up with said men in the future. Hell, one of them was even a self-proclaimed male feminist, but that didn't put domestic violence beyond his reach. I can't speak for all women, but I think that once you've slummed a bit with men who aren't worth the trouble, you raise your standards. I did, and my current relationship is one based on mutual respect and tolerance.

I wish more women would cut their men loose, if the man isn't much of a man, and raise their standards. Maybe it would cut that extra chromosome out of the loop, and teach men that they have to have manners if they want to have a lady in their lives. On the same token, maybe more women should be ladies, and give a better example to their daughters, show them that they're worth more than that.

whore

n : a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money [syn: prostitute, cocotte, harlot, bawd, tart, cyprian, fancy woman, working girl, sporting lady, lady of pleasure, woman of the street] v 1: corrupt by lewd intercourse 2: have unlawful sex with a whore

In other words, be careful that you know the definition of the words you sling around.

An article defining nymphomania:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030822.html

obviously Man created woman (as says in the bible) to serve by his side as a companion.The adam was created male and female, back to back, and later cleaved in twain. No this isn't what the bible, in its mistranslated glory, says, but neither is what you said.

First tell me how you want me to solve the equation using a matrix.. what does the equation represent? A probability? You are not making any sense.What does it matter what the equation represents? You could take it as representing a set of points (x,y) on a cartesian plane whose coordinates satisfy the equation if you want to.

Women are statistically worse at math. It's been proven in research. Just like that one broad who copied some 'matrix' problem from the back of her textbook. She told me to solve it without any respect to a variable. Shameful, really.I understand what she's asking for. That isn't it. But then, I'm a physics graduate. What she's asking for is matricies of the following form:
|x y|
times
Inverse(A)
times
M
times
A
times
|x|
|y|
=
[1]
such that the matricies multiply out to equal the 1x1 matrix [3x^2 + 8xy + 3y^2]. (and hence the matrix equation is equivalent to the equation given), and furthermore, M is a diagonal 2x2 matrix (the non-diagonal elements are zero). You need to find a 2x2 matrix A such that M is a diagonal matrix. The first step to doing this is to find a symmetric 2x2 matrix S such that:
|x y|
times
S
times
|x|
|y|
=
[3x^2 + 8xy + 3y^2]

Once you find M you can use that to figure out what the conic section is.

(Unfortunately, ASCII is not well suited to writing math.)

Face it, Dakini pwns you.

All people, in terms of human beings, are homo sapiens, and all homo sapiens are indeed members of the animal kingdom. So it is simply not true to say that people are not animals.Yup. We are indeed animals. Animals who build on the knowledge of previous generations and create societies far removed from paleolithic ones.

P.S.
Women were underrepresented in physics (though not in math) at my university. But the ones that were there could hold their own. And grad school physics requires some heavy-duty math. Heck, third year physics requires rather more than first year calculus.

why is it that so many people here have such a negative attitude towards women?


it's quite disgusting, frankly.

if she gets pregnant outside marriage, it's because she's a stupid whore.
highschool girls are dirty whores.

if ever a woman enjoys sex or does it with more than one person in her whole life, she's a whore.

1 word is the answer: Hypocrisy!

well, let's see, of the girls i knew in highschool, only three of them had ever gotten laid.

that's out of a couple hundred...

so uh... yeah.... not every girl is a slut, and if they were, then the guys would be equally sluts for sleeping with all the girls who are sluts, now wouldn't they?
Yes there are slutty guys as well as slutty goirls. Its just easier to spot slutty girls because they get pregnant and men don't unless you are a seahorse.

You shouldn't be having premartial hanky panky. Wait till you are of age (19 or older)or at least married. But I'd say married. A couple studies proved that those who lived together before marriage were more likely to get divorced.

What do you people have against "equal but different"?

Men and women are physiologically different. There's no point in arguing with that, and I doubt anyone is trying.

Physiologically speaking, men will tend to be better at the heavy lifting than women. Does this mean that all men are stronger than all women? NO! That's a stupid extrapolation. The point is that it tends to be thus. Likewise women will tend to be better at logic and reasoning than men. It's just inherent in brain chemistry, and there's no getting around it.

Ok broad, you obviously won't ask me any calculus so enough with this brainless physics dirt you throw at me. Stop wasting my time.

you can't do it!

calculus is a walk in the park on a bright sunny day, man. not only that, it was invented for the purpose of doing physics problems, so umm, way to knock physics while

i also strongly suspect you want a calc problem so you can plug it into your ti-83 and not have to do any real work. for future refrence, being good at math is not the same as being good at plugging numbers into a calculator.

good luck with the oh so mathematically easy subject of actuarial sciences... i know some friends who had to take stats classes who slept through them and still got A's, so i don't see how your math is so much more difficult than my "physics dirt"

Yeah exactly.. the broad wouldn't shut her face though. I could have asked her to state me hawaiian alphabet.. but what good would that have proven?

you said that all men are better than all women at math.

and you can't even answer the problem i gave you, yet that was a much simpler problem than the ones i've had to answer since the numbers work out nicely and there are only two variables.

Indeed there are. But since I am not a female (you just found this thread and answered the first post you read, didn't you? ;) admit it! I do that too sometimes), it is not an inverse statement. However, I am sure there are many many MANY men who are better at the traditional female roles than, say, Daniki is.

excuse me?

what would you consider a traditional female role?

'cause i know i can cook and i know i can keep house wonderfully. i know that i can listen and i know how to confort people when they need it, i can be quite nurturing and warm...

except of course to people who are idiots... they get their asses handed to them, right kelthoptopia?

Women are discouraged from mathematical and scientific endeavors from an early age and therefore don't pursue these sciences as earnestly as men do who are encouraged in these areas.
I'll show you my proof when you show me yours.

she's right you know, women are conditioned to keep out of the phsyical sciences, so much so that i'm one of three girls in my entire class. so much so that i'm considered a visible minority for being a woman in physics by some schools around here.

i don't see too many more female math majors either...

Translation: Send all the women to marxist universities where marxism is forced on them by the masonic cabal and the powers that be. Women aren't really free unless they're doing what I want them to do, and that means going to marxist universities, freedom is slavery.


So-called "higher education" is nothing really more than a disguise for the marxist indoctrination of the young adults of America, often paid for by their parents. Parents are paying to have their children brainwashed by politicized science, politicized literature, politicized everything. The marxists want to spread their filth and lies.

I'm guessing someone here couldn't get into higher education...

You got it, just one thing...whores get paid. If you sleep around a lot, it doesn't mean you're a whore. If you get PAID to, you are. Nymphomaniacs are typically frigid, hence do not enjoy sex.

As for getting pregnant outside of marriage, it's a woman's prerogative, assuming she meant to get pregnant. Just because someone got preggers outside of marriage doesn't mean she wasn't prepared for it.

the term nymphomaniac is reserved for women with an "excessive" desire or enjoyment of sex. so basically, women who take sex as men do... i've yet to hear a male term for the word, if anyone knows of one, feel free to share.

Of course men and women can gain usually gain knowledge in the same areas, but it is morally abhorrent for women to do things that conflict with their duties as wives and mothers.

by whose twisted morals? yours?

and i'm not a wife or a mother at this point so does that mean i can do whatever the hell i please?

Translation: Send all the women to marxist universities where marxism is forced on them by the masonic cabal and the powers that be. Women aren't really free unless they're doing what I want them to do, and that means going to marxist universities, freedom is slavery.


So-called "higher education" is nothing really more than a disguise for the marxist indoctrination of the young adults of America, often paid for by their parents. Parents are paying to have their children brainwashed by politicized science, politicized literature, politicized everything. The marxists want to spread their filth and lies.

yeah, you know, we talk a lot of politics in optics class... same with math... yeah, lots of politics there.

have you ever been to a lecture at any university other than one in a political science class perhaps examining marxism? i somehow doubt you'd be let past the doors.

the most political thing i have ever heard in a science class was last year when my modern physics prof encouraged us to go vote for the provincial election, and he even added that he didn't care who we voted for, so long as we voted.

I understand what she's asking for. That isn't it. But then, I'm a physics graduate. What she's asking for is matricies of the following form:
|x y|
times
Inverse(A)
times
M
times
A
times
|x|
|y|
=
[1]
such that the matricies multiply out to equal the 1x1 matrix [3x^2 + 8xy + 3y^2]. (and hence the matrix equation is equivalent to the equation given), and furthermore, M is a diagonal 2x2 matrix (the non-diagonal elements are zero). You need to find a 2x2 matrix A such that M is a diagonal matrix. The first step to doing this is to find a symmetric 2x2 matrix S such that:
|x y|
times
S
times
|x|
|y|
=
[3x^2 + 8xy + 3y^2]

Once you find M you can use that to figure out what the conic section is.

(Unfortunately, ASCII is not well suited to writing math.)

Face it, Dakini pwns you.

thank you deittbok, you kick ass!

Women were underrepresented in physics (though not in math) at my university. But the ones that were there could hold their own. And grad school physics requires some heavy-duty math. Heck, third year physics requires rather more than first year calculus.

it's always interesting to hear how women are lacking in physics everywhere, it's quite sad, i think.

Yes there are slutty guys as well as slutty goirls. Its just easier to spot slutty girls because they get pregnant and men don't unless you are a seahorse.

You shouldn't be having premartial hanky panky. Wait till you are of age (19 or older)or at least married. But I'd say married. A couple studies proved that those who lived together before marriage were more likely to get divorced.

aren't there also studies that say that people who get married young (usually 'cuase they can't wait to jump in the sack) also have a higher divorce rate?

and why wait until 19? i would say 18, as that's when the cervix is usually fully mature. and there's no real reason that one has to wait until one's married to have sex i mean, if that's your choice, then that's your choice. that's not to say that means everyone shoudl sleep around.

and also, you don't have to be a "slut" to get pregnant. it only takes one time and one boy.

Has anyone ever considered the fact that it's the 'sluts' (i.e those who are more confident and experienced) who are least likely to get pregnant as they know what they're doing and would be feel less embarrassed when, for example, insisting a guy wears a condom...

Also, my GCSE Maths class was about fifty fifty and the girls seemed to hold their own with the boys (though perhaps working harder than us lazy buggers), but this year and last year my A level class has been about seventy thirty in favour of boys and I suspect that it is higher at University...

the term nymphomaniac is reserved for women with an "excessive" desire or enjoyment of sex. so basically, women who take sex as men do... i've yet to hear a male term for the word, if anyone knows of one, feel free to share.

It's still called nymphomania in males. The term is just used less.

misogyny is a buzzword used to silence any who want women to act feminine, much like "racist" is a buzzword used to silence any who don't want black on white crime being the epidemic that it is. "xenophobe" is the buzzword to any who won't hand their nation over to the boat people. "Homophobe" is the word used to silence any who won't bend over for the gay parade.

Actually, the vast, vast majority of crime is "horizonatl crime". It's less sensationalized but it's far more common. Most white crime victims are victimized by white criminals. Most black crime victims are victimized by black criminals. Most Asian crime victims...well, you get the picture.

Actually, the vast, vast majority of crime is "horizonatl crime". It's less sensationalized but it's far more common. Most white crime victims are victimized by white criminals. Most black crime victims are victimized by black criminals. Most Asian crime victims...well, you get the picture.

Statistically, a Black person is 50 times more likely to commit a hate crime towards a white than vice versa... 50 times!

Statistically, a Black person is 50 times more likely to commit a hate crime towards a white than vice versa... 50 times!

source? proof? any evidence whatsoever...

^
|
|
|
What she says.

can I have an apricot?

If a girl wants respect - a simple way, beat the crap out of a couple of guys. I'm serious!

If a girl wants respect, she need only demand it. I'm a senior in High School right now, and I've seen it and heard boys admit it. A girl who dresses trashy gets treated trashy. But if a girl dresses like she respects herself and her body, boys tend to be more respectful around them and to them.

Then there's me, who's the highest ranking officer in JROTC and so hardcore I've got people flinching when I raise my fist for 'pound' or 'dap' or whatever the hell you guys call it.

Seriously, though, a girl who doesn't respect herself won't find respect in the men around her. And the same goes for guys, too. Some guys out there are just complete sluts. Christ, it's sickly. Afriad to touch them lest you get infected. Bleh. (Not all, definitly not all, but some. 'Specially in High School, when being a male slut is called a 'player' and, thus, is cool.)

If a girl wants respect, she need only demand it. I'm a senior in High School right now, and I've seen it and heard boys admit it. A girl who dresses trashy gets treated trashy. But if a girl dresses like she respects herself and her body, boys tend to be more respectful around them and to them.

Then there's me, who's the highest ranking officer in JROTC and so hardcore I've got people flinching when I raise my fist for 'pound' or 'dap' or whatever the hell you guys call it.

Seriously, though, a girl who doesn't respect herself won't find respect in the men around her. And the same goes for guys, too. Some guys out there are just complete sluts. Christ, it's sickly. Afriad to touch them lest you get infected. Bleh. (Not all, definitly not all, but some. 'Specially in High School, when being a male slut is called a 'player' and, thus, is cool.)

Jedi Republicans of the City?

lol. That is by far the best JROTC translation I've ever seen. You, my friend, rock. ^_^

No, it's Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. It's a thing set up in American High Schools. A military / leadership class. We wear our military uniforms and get inspected and learn how to march and how to be a good leader and get exposed to the different branches of the military (Each school JROTC is only one branch, though. Mine's Army.) and when you go to college, you might join ROTC and after four years get comissioned as a fresh officer in the military.

^_^

source? proof? any evidence whatsoever...


Color of Crime Report


www.amren.com

www.amren.com/color.pdf

www.amren.com/colrcrim.html

I'm guessing someone here couldn't get into higher education...


I'm in higher education right now... I will stop here because my desire to flame your butt is simply overwhelming and if I continue, I'll get into trouble. But I love how the marxist left degrades any on the right as simply "ignorant" or "stupid"... Was Dr. Stoddard stupid or ignorant?

the term nymphomaniac is reserved for women with an "excessive" desire or enjoyment of sex. so basically, women who take sex as men do... i've yet to hear a male term for the word, if anyone knows of one, feel free to share.

It's basically sex addiction all around. A compulsion, which is not enjoyed so much as done as a matter of obsessiveness.

It's basically sex addiction all around. A compulsion, which is not enjoyed so much as done as a matter of obsessiveness.


It's perfectly normal for men and women to enjoy sex. But the point is that they should enjoying it inside the confines of marriage (and it goes without saying that they should only be enjoying it with their spouse... Well obviously it doesn't go without saying or else 50-60% of marriages wouldn't have adultery going on)

If a girl wants respect, she need only demand it. I'm a senior in High School right now, and I've seen it and heard boys admit it. A girl who dresses trashy gets treated trashy. But if a girl dresses like she respects herself and her body, boys tend to be more respectful around them and to them.

Then there's me, who's the highest ranking officer in JROTC and so hardcore I've got people flinching when I raise my fist for 'pound' or 'dap' or whatever the hell you guys call it.

Seriously, though, a girl who doesn't respect herself won't find respect in the men around her. And the same goes for guys, too. Some guys out there are just complete sluts. Christ, it's sickly. Afriad to touch them lest you get infected. Bleh. (Not all, definitly not all, but some. 'Specially in High School, when being a male slut is called a 'player' and, thus, is cool.)

Yeah, it's basically the ol', "she might not be trailer trash, but she's wearing the uniform", syndrome. I dig, and I agree. Women who flash have no subtlety, it's too obvious what they're after. I personally take this as signifying a lack of finess more than anything.

Please DA, keep your partisan bullsh*t out of these forums

(and dont bother calling me conservative or liberal and being partisan as such, coz I'm neither!)

It's perfectly normal for men and women to enjoy sex. But the point is that they should enjoying it inside the confines of marriage (and it goes without saying that they should only be enjoying it with their spouse... Well obviously it doesn't go without saying or else 50-60% of marriages wouldn't have adultery going on)

I would have left it at, "It's perfectly normal for men and women to enjoy sex", and don't get me wrong, I'm monogamous, but I don't think that they should get shit for having sex before they're married. It's pretty normal, and most people with half a brain get over it, grow up having learned something from the experience, and learn to enjoy a relationship with one person, a rich and happy one.

I would have left it at, "It's perfectly normal for men and women to enjoy sex", and don't get me wrong, I'm monogamous, but I don't think that they should get shit for having sex before they're married. It's pretty normal, and most people with half a brain get over it, grow up having learned something from the experience, and learn to enjoy a relationship with one person, a rich and happy one.
I agree.

While I'm monogamous too, we don't need some group like the government having to regulate our sex lives.

lol. That is by far the best JROTC translation I've ever seen. You, my friend, rock. ^_^

No, it's Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. It's a thing set up in American High Schools. A military / leadership class. We wear our military uniforms and get inspected and learn how to march and how to be a good leader and get exposed to the different branches of the military (Each school JROTC is only one branch, though. Mine's Army.) and when you go to college, you might join ROTC and after four years get comissioned as a fresh officer in the military.

^_^


Sounds interesting but it doesn't sound like a reason for people flinching when you raise your hand.
:confused:

Please DA, keep your partisan bullsh*t out of these forums

(and dont bother calling me conservative or liberal and being partisan as such, coz I'm neither!)



I am sorry but the general forums are about partianship if nothing else. This is where the right and left slug it out, and the centrists just sort of roll their eyes and try to avoid getting caught in the middle.


I will post anything I want here so long as it doesn't go against the forum rules. And posting my political and moral views in a calm, polite, and non-threatening manner, that is perfectly fine. If you cannot come to terms with other people posting their views in appropriate manners, then I strongly suggest you stop posting here and go to a forum where censorship is the accepted norm.

Sounds interesting but it doesn't sound like a reason for people flinching when you raise your hand.
:confused:

Oh, sorry. I mentioned that because I've taken on a 'tough' persona due to my time in the Corps. Like, being physically active, push-ups, authority, that sort of thing.

Not many people flinch. Two, I think. But I like that response. lol

Oh, sorry. I mentioned that because I've taken on a 'tough' persona due to my time in the Corps. Like, being physically active, push-ups, authority, that sort of thing.

Not many people flinch. Two, I think. But I like that response. lol

Ah ok.
I knew a girl like that who went to a school where girls could to anything because the boys wouldn't retaliate.
Then she met me...
:mp5:

But like her, I'm sure you're lovely really.

source? proof? any evidence whatsoever...

Well, I remember reading it in sociology class, but here is a random link I found.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a8c66d2182a.htm

I'm sure you can find many others

But his point was also (and very loudly) that men were better at math than women. He failed to prove his point when he refused to do the math.

I said men are better at math than women, I stand by my statement. Just because some broad asked me a physics problem about matrices (in which i didnt feel like breaking out my notes from 8th grade) doesn't mean I'm not better than her at math. I asked her to try me on a quesiton that involved calculus or anything within the Actuarial Sciences field.-- She would not comply. Such arrogance.

You obviously are inferior in math.

If I'm wrong, prove it.




Oh, and I'm a guy, and I'm horrid at math. And science. Just not my thing at ALL. I love logic puzzles and whatnot, but when it comes to decked out formulaes, long equations, and difficult proofs, my mind just goes "Hey, screw that man. Go read some Wilde"

Not that this has anything to do with the topic.. But I think this is funny.
http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL627/2482533/4915525/62414816.jpg
Haha. Faggot.

why is it that so many people here have such a negative attitude towards women?


it's quite disgusting, frankly.

if she gets pregnant outside marriage, it's because she's a stupid whore.
highschool girls are dirty whores.

if ever a woman enjoys sex or does it with more than one person in her whole life, she's a whore.
if a man has sex out of marriage he is also a whore
if a man has sex with more than one person he is also a whore
I use the same standard in judging both men and women.

I said men are better at math than women, I stand by my statement. Just because some broad asked me a physics problem about matrices (in which i didnt feel like breaking out my notes from 8th grade) doesn't mean I'm not better than her at math. I asked her to try me on a quesiton that involved calculus or anything within the Actuarial Sciences field.-- She would not comply. Such arrogance.

umm... as deittbok stated earlier, what i was talking about wasn't greade 8 mathmatics. nor was it easier than calculus. you have no clue what i'm talking about when it comes to this question, as i've tried to explain... but then what would i know, i'm just a broad....

furthermore, why would i give you an easy question? if you're claiming that you, as a man, are better at math than me, who is a woman, then you should be able to do a question that a woman can do with ease.

if a man has sex out of marriage he is also a whore
if a man has sex with more than one person he is also a whore
I use the same standard in judging both men and women.

But I maintain that those rules are unfair and untrue.

Sex out of marriage doesn't make you a whore. What if you're in a serious, monogamus relationship and both partners feel they are ready to have sex? Does that make them whores? No. Besides, what about those people who disagree with the institution of marriage. Because of personal beliefs, they aer whores? I don't think so.

And having sex with more than one person doesn't exactly make you a whore, either. What if you thought you'd found 'the one', had sex with that person, then the relationship ended? Does that mean you can no longer have sex with people in other relationships without being labeled a whore?

I would have left it at, "It's perfectly normal for men and women to enjoy sex", and don't get me wrong, I'm monogamous, but I don't think that they should get shit for having sex before they're married. It's pretty normal, and most people with half a brain get over it, grow up having learned something from the experience, and learn to enjoy a relationship with one person, a rich and happy one.

exactly.

Well, I remember reading it in sociology class, but here is a random link I found.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a8c66d2182a.htm

I'm sure you can find many others

umm... you might want to check your source... i'm not so sure i'd trust something with an agenda for info like that.

But I maintain that those rules are unfair and untrue.

Sex out of marriage doesn't make you a whore. What if you're in a serious, monogamus relationship and both partners feel they are ready to have sex? Does that make them whores? No. Besides, what about those people who disagree with the institution of marriage. Because of personal beliefs, they aer whores? I don't think so.

And having sex with more than one person doesn't exactly make you a whore, either. What if you thought you'd found 'the one', had sex with that person, then the relationship ended? Does that mean you can no longer have sex with people in other relationships without being labeled a whore?

I don't know if you saw it but I left a message about the previous thing you said about the Jedi Republican movement you're a part of a page or so back.

why is it that so many people here have such a negative attitude towards women?


it's quite disgusting, frankly.

if she gets pregnant outside marriage, it's because she's a stupid whore.
highschool girls are dirty whores.

if ever a woman enjoys sex or does it with more than one person in her whole life, she's a whore.


Well if a guy even gets a bonnar he's a "pervert." Now let's post a lie that women say, often:

"I like to have fun.."

Lie. Some girls I've talked to have been so shallow, that when asked what they like to do, she'll simply say "I like to have fun.." No shit? I thought you liked being bored like the rest of us. What the hell kind of answer is "I like to have fun.." Who doesn't like to have fun? Upon further probing for what they like to do, they'll say "well.. uhhh.. I like to swim, and go hiking, and uhh.. I like to just hang out with friends.. uhhh.. I like to see movies.. uhhh..." Okay, she likes to see movies.
Potential for a conversation. So, I'll ask them what movies they like, and with out fail, they always say "oh.. uhh... I like all movies.." No, dipshit, you don't like all movies. Nobody does. What movies do you like? "uhh.. I like romantic movies mostly.." (I don't really say dipshit.. I'm usually very mannered around women.. not that it matters, since they only want a rich guy to screw). My fault on that one, I should have known. Upon further interrogating (at least it seems like interrogation, since they have nothing to say about anything that matters outside of their microcosm of existence), they tell me that they like music, "all kinds" of music, of course. This is all torture to me. Why the hell should I waste my time with someone so damn boring?

I am not anti-woman. I hate mankind.

But women are horrid gossiping creatures. They never shut-up!

Well if a guy even gets a bonnar he's a "pervert." Now let's post a lie that women say, often:

"I like to have fun.."

Lie. Some girls I've talked to have been so shallow, that when asked what they like to do, she'll simply say "I like to have fun.." No shit? I thought you liked being bored like the rest of us. What the hell kind of answer is "I like to have fun.." Who doesn't like to have fun? Upon further probing for what they like to do, they'll say "well.. uhhh.. I like to swim, and go hiking, and uhh.. I like to just hang out with friends.. uhhh.. I like to see movies.. uhhh..." Okay, she likes to see movies.
Potential for a conversation. So, I'll ask them what movies they like, and with out fail, they always say "oh.. uhh... I like all movies.." No, dipshit, you don't like all movies. Nobody does. What movies do you like? "uhh.. I like romantic movies mostly.." (I don't really say dipshit.. I'm usually very mannered around women.. not that it matters, since they only want a rich guy to screw). My fault on that one, I should have known. Upon further interrogating (at least it seems like interrogation, since they have nothing to say about anything that matters outside of their microcosm of existence), they tell me that they like music, "all kinds" of music, of course. This is all torture to me. Why the hell should I waste my time with someone so damn boring?

I am not anti-woman. I hate mankind.

But women are horrid gossiping creatures. They never shut-up!

1) That's offensive
2) You're generalizing.
3) You're wrong. Shut up.

To Brutanion:

Yeah, I saw it, but I really didn't know how to reply, or if it needed a reply.

Yeah, I am a pretty decent person. I wouldn't do something to a boy just because they can't or won't do anything back, I think that's wrong. Unless it's a friend and I'm teasing.

I'm actually kinda nice, non-violent, democratic. (lol, and after my reply to Mr. Bonner = Pervert up there. ^_^ )

I quote the guy, yeah, I like to have fun. :p

she's right you know, women are conditioned to keep out of the phsyical sciences, so much so that i'm one of three girls in my entire class. so much so that i'm considered a visible minority for being a woman in physics by some schools around here.

i don't see too many more female math majors either...
that's funny, because my program (biomedical sciences PhD program at a pretty tough university) is 8 men and 15 women. the class before us was 14 women and 6 men, and the one before that was a 19 women and 3 men. since i don't tend to get along with women, i am very bummed about this situation...where the boys at?!

Not that this has anything to do with the topic.. But I think this is funny.
http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL627/2482533/4915525/62414816.jpg
Haha. Faggot.

Oh man, that hurts :rolleyes:

Seriously, is that all you've got? Sad. Pitiful really.

Here's a hint: if I didn't like the picture, do you really think I'd post it on the internet?

So where's your picture?

that's funny, because my program (biomedical sciences PhD program at a pretty tough university) is 8 men and 15 women. the class before us was 14 women and 6 men, and the one before that was a 19 women and 3 men. since i don't tend to get along with women, i am very bummed about this situation...where the boys at?!

Are those real numbers? Like, actual class sizes? 'Cause that's incredibly tiny! And I mean that in a good way. Do you go to a private college or anything?

Color of Crime Report


www.amren.com

www.amren.com/color.pdf

www.amren.com/colrcrim.html

I guess the only reason you can't find a non-partisan source is because there are none. Probably because of the liberal conspiracy right? ;)

that's funny, because my program (biomedical sciences PhD program at a pretty tough university) is 8 men and 15 women. the class before us was 14 women and 6 men, and the one before that was a 19 women and 3 men. since i don't tend to get along with women, i am very bummed about this situation...where the boys at?!

well, the guys are all in the physical sciences...

i didn't say that women were discouraged from life sciences... we are from physical sciences though. hell, even my parents are trying to get me to take bio... although that could be because my dad's got a phd in biochem...

i do know a bunch of female biology majors, and it's quite possible that there are more of them than male ones, as my school as a 2:1 ratio of women to men for some odd reason... or 3:2, i forget.

well, the guys are all in the physical sciences...

i didn't say that women were discouraged from life sciences... we are from physical sciences though. hell, even my parents are trying to get me to take bio... although that could be because my dad's got a phd in biochem...
but that's just it; we have a major bioinformatics and biophysics racket going on around here, and (at least to me) those look pretty damn math- and physics-intensive. maybe i just keep going to chick universities, because my undergrad program was full of estrogen as well...i think i manage to find exceptions to the rule even when i happen to prefer the rule :P.

1) That's offensive
2) You're generalizing.
3) You're wrong. Shut up.

To Brutanion:

Yeah, I saw it, but I really didn't know how to reply, or if it needed a reply.

Yeah, I am a pretty decent person. I wouldn't do something to a boy just because they can't or won't do anything back, I think that's wrong. Unless it's a friend and I'm teasing.

I'm actually kinda nice, non-violent, democratic. (lol, and after my reply to Mr. Bonner = Pervert up there. ^_^ )

I quote the guy, yeah, I like to have fun. :p

I think those girls just enjoy the novelty at first and then it becomes a general relationship of female dominance in the school.
Then the boys just keep on with it because they don't know what else to do and many feel scared of the girls.

It's funny that she and I were friendlier after I showed that I was not like them (not violently, I used speed more than strength) as if it was a case of 'finally, someone who isn't a total pushover'.
Anyway, that's me done rattling, but that's what happens when I'm bored.

but that's just it; we have a major bioinformatics and biophysics racket going on around here, and (at least to me) those look pretty damn math- and physics-intensive. maybe i just keep going to chick universities, because my undergrad program was full of estrogen as well...i think i manage to find exceptions to the rule even when i happen to prefer the rule :P.

i have no clue then.

i do know that in astrophysics, 10% of the people with jobs in the field are women and only 1% of the people with highly paid jobs are women.

i also know that the university of toronto considers me a visible minority for being a woman pursuing a degree in physics. (i don't go there, but i might for teacher's college or maybe my masters and all that)

I think those girls just enjoy the novelty at first and then it becomes a general relationship of female dominance in the school.
Then the boys just keep on with it because they don't know what else to do and many feel scared of the girls.

It's funny that she and I were friendlier after I showed that I was not like them (not violently, I used speed more than strength) as if it was a case of 'finally, someone who isn't a total pushover'.
Anyway, that's me done rattling, but that's what happens when I'm bored.

'S cool. I think that makes sense, though. I used to have a boy afraid of me in the neighborhood when I was younger, and it was a kind of novel amusement. Boys are probably the same way. Which, I suppose, would explain bullying...? lol. I dunno.

'S cool. I think that makes sense, though. I used to have a boy afraid of me in the neighborhood when I was younger, and it was a kind of novel amusement. Boys are probably the same way. Which, I suppose, would explain bullying...? lol. I dunno.

I don't know.
I tended to avoid bullying by beating the crap out of anyone who tried it on me.
Then I became the school librarian in 6th form and the first one known to ever install a police state in a library.
Strange but true.
I had a Prog Ruler for when the students annoyed me by being terminally stupid.

I don't know.
I tended to avoid bullying by beating the crap out of anyone who tried it on me.
Then I became the school librarian in 6th form and the first one known to ever install a police state in a library.
Strange but true.
I had a Prog Ruler for when the students annoyed me by being terminally stupid.

lol. That's so hilarious. I was a "library lion" at my elementary school. (Well, one of them.) But all I did was arrange books and put them on the shelves an' stuff. lol. Police state in a library. That's awsome.

excuse me?

what would you consider a traditional female role?

'cause i know i can cook and i know i can keep house wonderfully. i know that i can listen and i know how to confort people when they need it, i can be quite nurturing and warm...

except of course to people who are idiots... they get their asses handed to them, right kelthoptopia?

Save your breath, he will never admit it.

Apart from keeping house, so can I. No offence was intended. It should have been obvious that I was merely using you as a known female example in terms of the point that "traditional gender roles", while they may be accurate to the majority of the billions of humans on this planet, are by no means absolute.

And you obviously know what the "traditional female roles" are. ;)

You are excused.

why is it that so many people here have such a negative attitude towards women?


it's quite disgusting, frankly.

if she gets pregnant outside marriage, it's because she's a stupid whore.
highschool girls are dirty whores.

if ever a woman enjoys sex or does it with more than one person in her whole life, she's a whore.

What do you tell a women with two black eyes?

Nothing you haven't already told her twice! :headbang:

the term nymphomaniac is reserved for women with an "excessive" desire or enjoyment of sex. so basically, women who take sex as men do... i've yet to hear a male term for the word, if anyone knows of one, feel free to share.

"Satyr", one who suffers from satyriasis.

i have no clue then.

i do know that in astrophysics, 10% of the people with jobs in the field are women and only 1% of the people with highly paid jobs are women.There was a discussion in my university about this. Appearently women are decidedly underrepresented in physics specifically (which matches what I saw), but noone seemed to know why. And, IIRC biophysics is better. Yes, girls are discouraged from studying physics in school (grrr), but is it really worse than in the other sciences? (I wouldn't know from personal experience, but the attendees didn't seem to think so). (And before KELHPTOPIA chimes in, it's not a lack of math skills. There were plenty of women in the math faculty.)

Not that this has anything to do with the topic.. But I think this is funny.
http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL627/2482533/4915525/62414816.jpg
Haha. Faggot.You say that like being a gay is a bad thing.

What do you tell a women with two black eyes?

Nothing you haven't already told her twice! :headbang:
Q: why do brides wear white?

A: because it's nice if the dishwasher matches the fridge.


Q: what's six inches long, two inches wide, and drives women wild?

A: money.


Q: why is a laundromat a bad place for a guy to pick up women?

A:because a woman who can't even afford a washing machine will never be able to support you.


and just so that nobody starts yelling about how much of an oppressive jerk i am, let me just clue in anybody who doesn't already know: I AM A WOMAN.

umm... you might want to check your source... i'm not so sure i'd trust something with an agenda for info like that.

Well ya did say "anything". It coulda been a sight written by Hitler.

I said men are better at math than women, I stand by my statement. Just because some broad asked me a physics problem about matrices (in which i didnt feel like breaking out my notes from 8th grade) doesn't mean I'm not better than her at math. I asked her to try me on a quesiton that involved calculus or anything within the Actuarial Sciences field.-- She would not comply. Such arrogance.

Whose arrogance? Yours. Prove you can solve the problem. We have no doubt that she can, but nobody here imagines that you can, not even you I would bet. Can you do it? Just prove it. Or else shut the fuck up, because every post you make whining about her obviously superior intelligence just makes you look stupider and stupider.

and just so that nobody starts yelling about how much of an oppressive jerk i am, let me just clue in anybody who doesn't already know: I AM A WOMAN.

IGNORANT BIGOTED. . . FEMALE! :sniper: ;)

What do you do if a bird shits on your car?

Slap the bitch!

I fuckin' love women. I call them ladiez. If you call them bitchez, that's not nice, and if you really wanna get laid, you won't. Because ladies don't like assholes.

For those of you who think guys are better at math than girls, generally that is true, and I'll tell you why.

THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. Guys can do one thing: follow directions without thinking for themselves. And what's math?

By the way, if you ever want a guy to respect you, kick him in the balls. Believe me, it works. ;)

I fuckin' love women. I call them ladiez. If you call them bitchez, that's not nice, and if you really wanna get laid, you won't. Because ladies don't like assholes.

Yeah, they want something more romantic. Like Poo Poo Kitty Fuck.

I fuckin' love women. I call them ladiez. If you call them bitchez, that's not nice, and if you really wanna get laid, you won't. Because ladies don't like assholes.

Sorry, but far too many women do like assholes.

i have no clue then.

i do know that in astrophysics, 10% of the people with jobs in the field are women and only 1% of the people with highly paid jobs are women.

i also know that the university of toronto considers me a visible minority for being a woman pursuing a degree in physics. (i don't go there, but i might for teacher's college or maybe my masters and all that)

Hah, no wonder all the recent scientific break-throughs.
One of the few fields, like actuarial sciences, where you actually need some kind of brain-power to get the job.. no commie union to fall back on.
It's still funny tho.. to see the global trend. Walmart, the largest company in terms of revenue in the world has over 60% female employees, while only 28% in management. And you people wonder why walmart is the most successfull company in the world.. hah.

For those of you who think guys are better at math than girls, generally that is true, and I'll tell you why.

THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. Guys can do one thing: follow directions without thinking for themselves. And what's math?

Haha. Nice irony, when talking about the generic or derogatory comments against women.

I can think for myself. . . honest :D!

By the way, if you ever want a guy to respect you, kick him in the balls. Believe me, it works. ;)

The same way as kicking a women in the c**t works?

Or stabbing her in the face and sticking your penis in her flesh wound? :rolleyes:

Hah, no wonder all the recent scientific break-throughs.
One of the few fields, like actuarial sciences, where you actually need some kind of brain-power to get the job.. no commie union to fall back on.
It's still funny tho.. to see the global trend. Walmart, the largest company in terms of revenue in the world has over 60% female employees, while only 28% in management. And you people wonder why walmart is the most successfull company in the world.. hah.

I have no fucking clue what you were even TRYING to say there.

ENGLISH motherfucker-DO YOU SPEAK IT?!

Haha. Nice irony, when talking about the generic or derogatory comments against women.

I can think for myself. . . honest :D!



The same way as kicking a women in the c**t works?

Or stabbing her in the face and sticking your penis in her flesh wound? :rolleyes:

I didn't take the first thing seriously, it was a joke and there is no need to get pornishly gruesome here.

Hah, no wonder all the recent scientific break-throughs.
One of the few fields, like actuarial sciences, where you actually need some kind of brain-power to get the job.. no commie union to fall back on.
It's still funny tho.. to see the global trend. Walmart, the largest company in terms of revenue in the world has over 60% female employees, while only 28% in management. And you people wonder why walmart is the most successfull company in the world.. hah.

Oh so now physics is a manly challenge? I thought you said it was wimpy. Have you solved that problem yet, genius?

Oh so now physics is a manly challenge? I thought you said it was wimpy. Have you solved that problem yet, genius?

Hah, i'm not a physics major, nor ever bothered to go past the introductory college level. It's a dying field (waste of time) with low job demand. The broad I was arguing with had taken it for 3 years... I would hope she had better subject knowledge. What i'm saying is.. a man has the more natural capability to comprehend the material.. and accel at it.
As "daiki" or whatever her name is has pointed out.. only 1% of the high paying jobs are female.. and it's for obvious reasons.

Hah, i'm not a physics major, nor ever bothered to go past the introductory college level. It's a dying field (waste of time) with low job demand. The broad I was arguing with had taken it for 3 years... I would hope she had better subject knowledge. What i'm saying is.. a man has the more natural capability to comprehend the material.. and accel at it.
As "daiki" or whatever her name is has pointed out.. only 1% of the high paying jobs are female.. and it's for obvious reasons.

Oh please. Fuck off and pray to god to burn gays and women or something.

Because ladies don't like assholes.

Well, some 'ladies' like assholes - the whole trick you seem to have missed here is remembering that all 'ladies' are not the same, just as all men are not the same.

Hah, i'm not a physics major, nor ever bothered to go past the introductory college level. It's a dying field (waste of time) with low job demand. The broad I was arguing with had taken it for 3 years... I would hope she had better subject knowledge. What i'm saying is.. a man has the more natural capability to comprehend the material.. and accel at it.
As "daiki" or whatever her name is has pointed out.. only 1% of the high paying jobs are female.. and it's for obvious reasons.

Yes, and that reason is dickheads like you.

So you can't be bothered to remember your HS algebra, because she has three years of physics? What are you, female?

Hah, i'm not a physics major, nor ever bothered to go past the introductory college level. It's a dying field (waste of time) with low job demand. The broad I was arguing with had taken it for 3 years... I would hope she had better subject knowledge. What i'm saying is.. a man has the more natural capability to comprehend the material.. and accel at it.
As "daiki" or whatever her name is has pointed out.. only 1% of the high paying jobs are female.. and it's for obvious reasons.

Because of idiots like you?

You never answered the problem.

I didn't take the first thing seriously, it was a joke and there is no need to get pornishly gruesome here.

I didn't mean to sound as if I took your first thing seriously. . .

And sorry about the other thing, it's just an odd fetish I have for wanting to cut a women and heal her wounds with my semen. Man-made pleasure!

I didn't mean to sound as if I took your first thing seriously. . .

And sorry about the other thing, it's just an odd fetish I have for wanting to cut a women and heal her wounds with my semen. Man-made pleasure!

O_o

Because of idiots like you?

You never answered the problem.

I could ask her the Barcode of a Hoss Avocado (4025).. but unless she worked Cashier at a grocery store I doubt she would know the answer. There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence.. as Pepe stated earlier.

I could ask her the Barcode of a Hoss Avocado (4025).. but unless she worked Cashier at a grocery store I doubt she would know the answer. There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence.. as Pepe stated earlier.

That's not doing math, that's knowing a man-made constant.

O_o

:p :p :p

I could ask her the Barcode of a Hoss Avocado (4025).. but unless she worked Cashier at a grocery store I doubt she would know the answer. There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence.. as Pepe stated earlier.

Just admit you can't do the problem

Or couldn't-some other female poster ended up doing it.

Just admit you were wrong.

Go on, say it.

so
going back to the original question

why the disrespect?

id have to say that it has NOTHING to do with women and everything to do with the sort of boy who needs to build him self up by talking badly about other people. the more provocative the better, it gets him all the attention that he never gets in real life.

rather pathetic isnt it.

And sorry about the other thing, it's just an odd fetish I have for wanting to cut a women and heal her wounds with my semen. Man-made pleasure!

Now that is the weirdest thing I've ever heard! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

That's not doing math, that's knowing a man-made constant.

It's the same idea, really. I said I was better at math than her, which I am. She asked me a physics problem that involved math and knowledge of physics (which I have no interest in)
Her question was moot.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)




because it's in the bible

It's the same idea, really. I said I was better at math than her, which I am. She asked me a physics problem that involved math and knowledge of physics (which I have no interest in)
Her question was moot.

actually, this question had nothing to do with knowledge of physics.

that's what i don't like about this class, it's all math that can be applied to physics problems, but it's not physics. it's just math.

and answer the question, you're running out of excuses.

It's the same idea, really. I said I was better at math than her, which I am. She asked me a physics problem that involved math and knowledge of physics (which I have no interest in)
Her question was moot.

Repeat after me.

"I don't know the answer, and you do."

Say it.

You know it's true.

actually, this question had nothing to do with knowledge of physics.

that's what i don't like about this class, it's all math that can be applied to physics problems, but it's not physics. it's just math.

and answer the question, you're running out of excuses.

Do I get to ask you a question too?

Do I get to ask you a question too?

Answer the question first

edited for bad timing.

There was a discussion in my university about this. Appearently women are decidedly underrepresented in physics specifically (which matches what I saw), but noone seemed to know why. And, IIRC biophysics is better. Yes, girls are discouraged from studying physics in school (grrr), but is it really worse than in the other sciences? (I wouldn't know from personal experience, but the attendees didn't seem to think so). (And before KELHPTOPIA chimes in, it's not a lack of math skills. There were plenty of women in the math faculty.)

i have no clue what it is either. maybe because it's the basis of all other sciences and thus superior so people want to keep women out of it? j/k.

i dunno, i've never felt any more discouragement to study than i have felt enthusaism for the subject matter, so i really don't know what it is either. i think it's portrayed as a masculine area of study though. i'm not sure what it is about it... they should start a study into it.

Do I get to ask you a question too?

have you answered my question?

and make sure to show and explain your steps.

i have no clue what it is either. maybe because it's the basis of all other sciences and thus superior so people want to keep women out of it? j/k.

i dunno, i've never felt any more discouragement to study than i have felt enthusaism for the subject matter, so i really don't know what it is either. i think it's portrayed as a masculine area of study though. i'm not sure what it is about it... they should start a study into it.

Bah, you're the reason why all these damn therapists are racking it in.
Dumb broads and always having to know 'why'.
I think it's time you admit to the room that you are pissed at God for making you uncoordinated, dim-witted, and spend half your life bleeding.
Besides that you are probably an ugly gothic broad.
Go get another problem out of the back page of your physics book tho.. that should prove your point..

Translation: Send all the women to marxist universities where marxism is forced on them by the masonic cabal and the powers that be. Women aren't really free unless they're doing what I want them to do, and that means going to marxist universities, freedom is slavery.


So-called "higher education" is nothing really more than a disguise for the marxist indoctrination of the young adults of America, often paid for by their parents. Parents are paying to have their children brainwashed by politicized science, politicized literature, politicized everything. The marxists want to spread their filth and lies.

Ahhhh, now I understand Druthulhu's comment about you. :rolleyes:

have you answered my question?

and make sure to show and explain your steps.

The answer is 5.

Hah, no wonder all the recent scientific break-throughs.
One of the few fields, like actuarial sciences, where you actually need some kind of brain-power to get the job.. no commie union to fall back on.
It's still funny tho.. to see the global trend. Walmart, the largest company in terms of revenue in the world has over 60% female employees, while only 28% in management. And you people wonder why walmart is the most successfull company in the world.. hah.

because it exploits cheap overseas labour so it can undercut local stores, dirving them out of business and then jack up its prices?

and i would hardly call what you're doing science. you're a statistician right? hahahaha...

and from what we've seen, i'm quite certian you're the one lacking brain power here... and i doubt i'm the only person to have picked up on this.

The answer is 5.

no it isn't. and didn't i ask you nicely to show your steps?

didn't i ask you about 30 times...?

Bah, you're the reason why all these damn therapists are racking it in.
Dumb broads and always having to know 'why'.
I think it's time you admit to the room that you are pissed at God for making you uncoordinated, dim-witted, and spend half your life bleeding.
Besides that you are probably an ugly gothic broad.
Go get another problem out of the back page of your physics book tho.. that should prove your point..

Blah blah blah, you can't answer the question.

Poor guy, hating women and all...must have a devil of self esteem :p

no it isn't. and didn't i ask you nicely to show your steps?

didn't i ask you about 30 times...?

How about a new thread for math trivia? I believe the topic at hand is differing views on the proper role of women, and how strictly social controls should be enforced... i'll go and look for the last post that actually addressed the issue... back in a few.. ;)

Bah, you're the reason why all these damn therapists are racking it in.
Dumb broads and always having to know 'why'.
I think it's time you admit to the room that you are pissed at God for making you uncoordinated, dim-witted, and spend half your life bleeding.
Besides that you are probably an ugly gothic broad.
Go get another problem out of the back page of your physics book tho.. that should prove your point..You lose. I could explain why, but it would obviously go over your head.

Hah, i'm not a physics major, nor ever bothered to go past the introductory college level. It's a dying field (waste of time) with low job demand.

hahaha... right... and actuarial sciences are so useful...

The broad I was arguing with had taken it for 3 years... I would hope she had better subject knowledge. What i'm saying is.. a man has the more natural capability to comprehend the material.. and accel at it.
As "daiki" or whatever her name is has pointed out.. only 1% of the high paying jobs are female.. and it's for obvious reasons.

excel*
dakini*

and actually, it's probably because in astrophysics, people tend to get promotions when someone else dies. so the people with the high paying jobs are ancient by now, and thus obtained those jobs before women were starting to look into the sciences...

because it exploits cheap overseas labour so it can undercut local stores, dirving them out of business and then jack up its prices?

and i would hardly call what you're doing science. you're a statistician right? hahahaha...

and from what we've seen, i'm quite certian you're the one lacking brain power here... and i doubt i'm the only person to have picked up on this.

Oh God, now we have to listen to more lou-dobbs commie exporting america hogwash...
Wal-mart isnt a manufacturer.. idiot.. how are they banking off cheap overseas labor?
Idiot, take an economics course, or two.

hahaha... right... and actuarial sciences are so useful...



excel*
dakini*

and actually, it's probably because in astrophysics, people tend to get promotions when someone else dies. so the people with the high paying jobs are ancient by now, and thus obtained those jobs before women were starting to look into the sciences...

Your crack-pot theories are cute... but statistics are statistics.
In the fields of math and science, Man reigns supreme.

Oh God, now we have to listen to more lou-dobbs commie exporting america hogwash...
Wal-mart isnt a manufacturer.. idiot.. how are they banking off cheap overseas labor?
Idiot, take an economics course, or two.

Bet she's taken more than you. And is idiot the only insult you know? It's certainly hypocritical.

Your crack-pot theories are cute... but statistics are statistics.
In the fields of math and science, Man reigns supreme.

Show these statistics.

Cite your sources. They must be from an intellectual and unbiased website.

Wal-mart isnt a manufacturer.. idiot.. how are they banking off cheap overseas labor?By buying the cheapest goods possible, i.e., those made overseas. The "Made in America" campaign Wal-Mart ran was a farce.

They've also been shown, in court no less, to low-ball local businesses until the locals are driven out of business. Following which Wal-Mart jacks up prices. They've specifically done it in their pharmacy division.

I could ask her the Barcode of a Hoss Avocado (4025).. but unless she worked Cashier at a grocery store I doubt she would know the answer. There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence.. as Pepe stated earlier.

there's also a difference between admitting when you're wrong and being a jackass who won't.

if you simply admitted that some women are better at math than some men, then i'd let it slide and wouldn't keep asking you to answer the question, however, you're not. instead you're still insulting me, my chosen field of study, my gender, my intelligence, the question, putting everything else down to make yourself feel better about your inabilities? is this a common trend for you?

it's only by admitting that you're wrong that you learn. perhaps you're too proud to admit it here publicly, but if you only admit it to yourself, then that's what counts.

and yes, you have been pwnd. and to think, you want to throw first year calc at me and you don't think i'll be able to do it when i can do math that you obviously can't.

By buying the cheapest goods possible, i.e., those made overseas. The "Made in America" campaign Wal-Mart ran was a farce.

They've also been shown, in court no less, to low-ball local businesses until the locals are driven out of business. Following which Wal-Mart jacks up prices. They've specifically done it in their pharmacy division.

Eugh, just because the manufacturers that Wal-Mart buys from now how to utilize a production possiblities frontier... it doesnt make them criminal.
Last month the jobs created from consumer savings exceeded that by almost double of what was lost in 'exporting' jobs.
Communist nut.. besides that the government is allowing businesses to exercise basic freedoms.

Communist nut.

Ah, so stating facts which you yourself agree with makes someone a communist?

Well, it's not really disrespect since whores don't deserve any respect in the first place. If some broad can't keep her legs shut and craps out some loser kid it's not my problem.. seriously. And the liberal filth in DC wants my tax dollars for it?
Hey, let's face it people. Women, by nature, are physically and emotionally weaker, narrow-minded, and irrational. Lots of which cannot partake in reasonable and rational debate>> Even on this forum.
No, we are not being 'Sexist' or anything by that when we degrade these whores.. obviously Man created woman (as says in the bible) to serve by his side as a companion. As long as a woman serves the role in which Man and God ideologically planned for her, nothing but respect from me.
Amen and God Bless.
Haha. You're a funny retarded chimpboy. I bet your dogs really loved you while you were putting sticks up their asses. Or is that the Midwestern preacher in you. Eh?

the term nymphomaniac is reserved for women with an "excessive" desire or enjoyment of sex. so basically, women who take sex as men do... i've yet to hear a male term for the word, if anyone knows of one, feel free to share.

Perhaps I am sad to know such things...

The male analogue of Nymphomania is Satyriasis.

why the disrespect?

id have to say that it has NOTHING to do with women and everything to do with the sort of boy who needs to build him self up by talking badly about other people. the more provocative the better, it gets him all the attention that he never gets in real life.

rather pathetic isnt it.

i wholeheartedly agree.

Ah, so stating facts which you yourself agree with makes someone a communist?

Nah, when Idiots like Dakini dub walmart a Manufacturer.. and take advantage of cheap overseas labor..
I mean seriously.. does walmart fly their mid-night cleanup crew in from pakistan everyday?

When brainless idiots like Dakini stop making idiotic statements i'll shut up.

Eugh, just because the manufacturers that Wal-Mart buys from now how to utilize a production possiblities frontier... it doesnt make them criminal.
Last month the jobs created from consumer savings exceeded that by almost double of what was lost in 'exporting' jobs.
Communist nut.. besides that the government is allowing businesses to exercise basic freedoms.You asked the question. I simply provided the answer. Wal-Mart exploits cheap overseas labor by continuing to buy those goods and market them as "Made in America." No one, except you, said anything about criminal behavior.
That Wal-Mart Corp. has no interest in the health of any local economy, or for that matter the long-term welfare of the business environment, goes without saying. Hmmm, maybe it's that overabundence of male executives and their whiz-bang (not) thinking capacity.

Perhaps I am sad to know such things...

The male analogue of Nymphomania is Satyriasis.

you learn something new everyday. :)

thanks.

*adds to random factoids*

I said men are better at math than women, I stand by my statement. Just because some broad asked me a physics problem about matrices (in which i didnt feel like breaking out my notes from 8th grade) doesn't mean I'm not better than her at math. I asked her to try me on a quesiton that involved calculus or anything within the Actuarial Sciences field.-- She would not comply. Such arrogance.

Whereas, to the casual observer, it looked a lot like you made a foolish and unsupportable claim about gender stereotyping... and then got taken to the cleaners, when it turned out that the 'victim' of your stereotyping was by far superior.

But then again, maybe that's just how I see it.

How are you on Number Theory?

I mean seriously.. does walmart fly their mid-night cleanup crew in from pakistan everyday?Well... just about good as. Wal-Mart's in trouble with INS for hiring illegal Mexicans for their late night shifts.

Anything else you want to demonstrate your lack of knowledge about?

Nah, when Idiots like Dakini dub walmart a Manufacturer.. and take advantage of cheap overseas labor..
I mean seriously.. does walmart fly their mid-night cleanup crew in from pakistan everyday?

When brainless idiots like Dakini stop making idiotic statements i'll shut up.

i never said that wal-mart was a manufacturer. perhaps if you learned to read you would relize that people aren't as stupid as you think they are.


how is it that you fix this shit so you don't see a certain poster's posts? i think a brick wall listens better than this jackass.

I said men are better at math than women, I stand by my statement. Just because some broad asked me a physics problem about matrices (in which i didnt feel like breaking out my notes from 8th grade) doesn't mean I'm not better than her at math. I asked her to try me on a quesiton that involved calculus or anything within the Actuarial Sciences field.-- She would not comply. Such arrogance.

Bull. You can't do it, and you won't admit it. Talk about arrogance. :rolleyes:

Nah, when Idiots like Dakini dub walmart a Manufacturer.. and take advantage of cheap overseas labor..
I mean seriously.. does walmart fly their mid-night cleanup crew in from pakistan everyday?

When brainless idiots like Dakini stop making idiotic statements i'll shut up.

Flame: "Brainless idiot"? Just because you don't agree over an issue, and just because she demonstrated greater mathematical aptitudes than you expected?

Ever been to Georgia? Ever seen the illegal immigranty workforce stacking shelves overnight? I have, with my very own eyes... (and pretty miffed I was too, because I was looking for work at the time, and they weren't hiring...)

You don't have to export to Pakistan to utilise cheap foreign labour.

I'm in higher education right now... I will stop here because my desire to flame your butt is simply overwhelming and if I continue, I'll get into trouble. But I love how the marxist left degrades any on the right as simply "ignorant" or "stupid"... Was Dr. Stoddard stupid or ignorant?

One would wonder why you would attend an institute of higher education if you hold them in such disrespect... does this mean you are a 'brainwashed marxist'? (Or whatever that comment was...)

I find it interesting that you will spout all kinds of politcal and mysoginistic rhetoric, but when someone points out your own failing, you feel the need to flame. If that were me, I would look at my own self before I started in again on other people and their inadequacies.

What is your deal with Marx, anyway? I'm not sure if you've managed to make a post where you didn't use the name, and you always spit it with such venom... personally, I quite liked Groucho.

Ah. And coming to Dr Stoddard.... which one? You can't just flip out a name like that...

Do you mean Dr James M Stoddard (Clinical Assistant Professor, UMKC School of Medicine), Dr Alexandra Stoddard (hostess of Homes Across America), Dr Hannis Stoddard (who founded the Animal Intensive Care Unit), Dr Mike Stoddard (Author of The Civics Lesson from Hell), Dr Douglas Stoddard (inventor of Eload)...

Give me a "Dr Stoddard" to work with here...

Or did you just pick a common name, and assume nobody would be able to question it?

I motion we all ignore KELHPTOPIA, as he is only trolling and not actually participating in any kind of debate. He continually refuses to provide proof to back up his statements, and keeps insulting anyone who tries to show him the error of his ways. I propose we ignore him and get back to what we were talking about.




I agree that there are women and girls who do seem to embody the negative traits we so despise, but the sad thing is that society tends to notice the negative and make it stand out more. Why else is our timeline marked by wars instead of periods of great peace?

Bah, you're the reason why all these damn therapists are racking it in.

never been to therapy so i fail to see how they're making any money on me.

Dumb broads and always having to know 'why'.

asking questions is a bad thing? so by your logic, ignorance is a good thing then... i see...

I think it's time you admit to the room that you are pissed at God for making you uncoordinated, dim-witted, and spend half your life bleeding.

wow, i was unaware that a month was only eight days long...
and what god?

Besides that you are probably an ugly gothic broad.

yeah... which is exactly why guys don't leave me the hell alone...
and last i checked, i'm not wearing any black...

Go get another problem out of the back page of your physics book tho.. that should prove your point..

1. the text is called mathmatical methods for physicists and engineers... that's not a physics book.
2. the point was that you're not as good at math as me, when you said that all men were better than all women at math.

ah, beautiful...


KELHPTOPIA
This message is hidden because KELHPTOPIA is on your ignore list.

Hah, no wonder all the recent scientific break-throughs.
One of the few fields, like actuarial sciences, where you actually need some kind of brain-power to get the job.. no commie union to fall back on.
It's still funny tho.. to see the global trend. Walmart, the largest company in terms of revenue in the world has over 60% female employees, while only 28% in management. And you people wonder why walmart is the most successfull company in the world.. hah.

It's also why Walmart faces so many lawsuits. Their success as a business has nothing to do with Walmart being run by mostly guys, it has to do with their underpaying of their employees, especially women, and providing shitty health insurance.
As to brain power and your oh-so-wonderful actuarial science, you haven't demonstrated anything other than you are an arrogant jerk.

why is it that so many people here have such a negative attitude towards women?


it's quite disgusting, frankly.

if she gets pregnant outside marriage, it's because she's a stupid whore.
highschool girls are dirty whores.

if ever a woman enjoys sex or does it with more than one person in her whole life, she's a whore.


I just think you watch to much T.V.
:)

and from what we've seen, i'm quite certian you're the one lacking brain power here... and i doubt i'm the only person to have picked up on this.
You are of course correct Dakini, you certainly are not the only person to have picked up on that one...

How about a new thread for math trivia? I believe the topic at hand is differing views on the proper role of women, and how strictly social controls should be enforced... i'll go and look for the last post that actually addressed the issue... back in a few
Well Pepe, the thread is actually about why there appears to be a certain level of disrespect towards woman in the tone of some posts on this message board. You may have decided that somehow your view on gender roles was relevent to why some people display an attitude of disrespect towards females (whether they adhere to your notion of their 'proper role' or not), although personally since the thread was discussing arbitary disrespect (ie aimed at all females as a group, including those who do adhere to your notions regarding their 'proper role'), I dont see how your comments in this respect are even relevent.

Your crack-pot theories are cute... but statistics are statistics.
In the fields of math and science, Man reigns supreme.
You must be joking KELHPTOPIA, are really that clueless with regards to statistics and reality?

Ah, so stating facts which you yourself agree with makes someone a communist?
Aha and all statistics can be taken at face value and interpreted without regard to relevent facts. ;)

Nah, when Idiots like Dakida dub walmart a Manufacturer.. and take advantage of cheap overseas labor..
I mean seriously.. does walmart fly their mid-night cleanup crew in from pakistan everyday?

When brainless idiots like Dakida stop making idiotic statements i'll shut up.
Perhaps you should try reading a bit slower, you are calling someone an idiot and getting your panties in a knot over something that was actually posted by you. No one but you has even implied much less suggested that Walmart might be conceived as being a manufacturer.

Whereas, to the casual observer, it looked a lot like you made a foolish and unsupportable claim about gender stereotyping... and then got taken to the cleaners, when it turned out that the 'victim' of your stereotyping was by far superior.

But then again, maybe that's just how I see it.
All correct until the last sentence, you are definately not the only one who views it as you describe...in fact I'd be surprised if any reasonable person viewed it otherwise...

asking questions is a bad thing? so by your logic, ignorance is a good thing then.
Which is a lucky thing for him really, after all people need to feel good about themselves.

never been to therapy so i fail to see how they're making any money on me.



asking questions is a bad thing? so by your logic, ignorance is a good thing then... i see...



wow, i was unaware that a month was only eight days long...
and what god?



yeah... which is exactly why guys don't leave me the hell alone...
and last i checked, i'm not wearing any black...



1. the text is called mathmatical methods for physicists and engineers... that's not a physics book.
2. the point was that you're not as good at math as me, when you said that all men were better than all women at math.

Hah, i think this broad nut-job is obsessed with me... She can't handle a rational debate so she posts a useless physics problem... and because I am not motivated enough to solve the pointless problem.. she thinks she achieved something.
Dumb broad... go crap out a few kids and shut your face.

Hah, i think this broad nut-job is obsessed with me... She can't handle a rational debate so she posts a useless physics problem... and because I am not motivated enough to solve the pointless problem.. she thinks she achieved something.
Dumb broad... go crap out a few kids and shut your face.

Actually, now she's got you on ignore and can't see anything you post. Which is what I'm doing once I'm done with this post and reporting you to the mods. G'night. ^.^

Actually, now she's got you on ignore and can't see anything you post. Which is what I'm doing once I'm done with this post and reporting you to the mods. G'night. ^.^

Hah, what a whiner. Go cry to your moderators, i've done nothing but exercise the first ammendment

Hah, what a whiner. Go cry to your moderators, i've done nothing but exercise the first ammendment

YOu are more than free to exercise your first amendment rights: On your own property. THis is private property and you'll follow the rules, or you'll be forcibly evicted. But the news isn't all bad: At least you give all creatures with testicles a bad name. :D

It's the same idea, really. I said I was better at math than her, which I am. She asked me a physics problem that involved math and knowledge of physics (which I have no interest in)
Her question was moot.

Her question involved physics? How was that? Looked like a question asking you to use algebra to solve a geometry problem to me. Where was this physics? Do you even know the difference between physics, algebra and geometry? :rolleyes:

That's ok. :) I didn't think you did.

Hah, what a whiner. Go cry to your moderators, i've done nothing but exercise the first ammendment

What makes you think your first amendment has any relevance whatsoever on a website owned by an Australian and operated from servers in the UK?

Her question involved physics? How was that? Looked like a question asking you to use algebra to solve a geometry problem to me. Where was this physics? Do you even know the difference between physics, algebra and geometry? :rolleyes:

That's ok. :) I didn't think you did.

People are still harping on about the damn physics problem...
Let's try to change the topic yet again..

What makes you think your first amendment has any relevance whatsoever on a website owned by an Australian and operated from servers in the UK?

Uh, well, we kinda own those guys, remember? :D ;) :cool:

Ahhhh, now I understand Druthulhu's comment about you. :rolleyes:

And just how old are you? Because I'd hate to be understood in my own generation. ;)

People are still harping on about the damn physics problem...
Let's try to change the topic yet again..

WHAT physics problem?

Do you man the algebraic geometry problem? Prove you can do it, then we'll move on.

Uh, well, we kinda own those guys, remember? :D ;) :cool:

Note taken of the smileys.. but exactly what possible relevance does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" have to this website?

Hah, i think this broad nut-job is obsessed with me... She can't handle a rational debate so she posts a useless physics problem... and because I am not motivated enough to solve the pointless problem.. she thinks she achieved something.
Dumb broad... go crap out a few kids and shut your face.
Another jem KELHPTOPIA, how do you do that? I love the part about "handle a rational debate" posted in amongst "go crap out a few kids and shut your face", truely classic. I hope you can silly how amusing you are, I'd hate for you to miss all the fun, after all it is at your expense. :p

i hope you die a virgin. and that someone castrates you...

It's female personalities such as that cause me to have extreme prejudice against all females. Inconsiderate of anyone except themselves....

And tell me this, why does _anyone_ need more than three shoes:
Work shoes
Dress shoes
Running shoes

Women on average have more shoes than a whore has STD's, this among the many other factors cause me to disrespect women every chance I get.

Oh here's one, I will be greatful for anyone who can help me with this, without regard for gender or for political position:

Take a cylinder of known dimensions, and extend it by adding circular curves of known radii along there right-angled outer edge circumfrances, thus making a "cheese-wheel" shape, with flat top and bottom and circular side and with curved upper and lower edges, of known dimensions. How do you find the formula or graph of formulae for an ellipsoidal shape of known volume that meets but does not intersect the original shape at tangential circles at its top and bottom circumfrances?

If someone HAS started a mathematical trivia thread, please direct me to there. :) Thanks.

It's female personalities such as that cause me to have extreme prejudice against all females. Inconsiderate of anyone except themselves....

And tell me this, why does _anyone_ need more than three shoes:
Work shoes
Dress shoes
Running shoes

Women on average have more shoes than a whore has STD's, this among the many other factors cause me to disrespect women every chance I get.You spend a lot of nights alone, don't you Don.

Well, some 'ladies' like assholes - the whole trick you seem to have missed here is remembering that all 'ladies' are not the same, just as all men are not the same.

Pssh, I know. I meant that usually the ladies that I'm into, arn't into assholes.

What makes you think your first amendment has any relevance whatsoever on a website owned by an Australian and operated from servers in the UK?

Haha.. no wonder all the whining communists..
And here I thought, little old me, that the world was falling apart.
Thank God I live in sweet lady America.

It's female personalities such as that cause me to have extreme prejudice against all females.
Is there some reason why you think it is sensible to base your opinion of more than half the planets population on what is provably a logical fallacy? You do understand that because some A's are B's it is a logical fallacy to assert that all A's are B's?

And tell me this, why does _anyone_ need more than three shoes:
Work shoes
Dress shoes
Running shoes

Women on average have more shoes than a whore has STD's, this among the many other factors cause me to disrespect women every chance I get.
You base your opinion about people on how many pairs of shoes you believe that a member of a group they can be catergorised as belonging to owns on average? Honestly when your reasoning is this fundamentally flawed, it's best not to advertise the fact... :rolleyes:

You spend a lot of nights alone, don't you Don.

Thats okay - he has much to think about on those cold and lonely nights:

So here's the master plan... We make a bunch of realistic, chick-robots. To pleasure men whenever the need is there. The majority of men would be all for this. Then we have a bunch of women, doing what women do. And then like, the women that actually have sexual desire? They just go switch themselves for a robot and boom, both the man and the woman are happy. The majority of women though have no sexual desire, so they would just do stuff that doesn't involve intimacy. Now, you say, are you on crack, most chicks want kids! I say to ye of little faith, give the chicks kids, drain the robots of the semen that men give to them and then inseminate the women. Both parties are happy. Men get what they want, when they want. Women get it if they want it, and if they don't, then they have no responsibility. And breeder-women they get all the kids they want. With or without sex, it's their preference. Now, you may think, wow, what a sick puppy this guy is, but all I can do is refer you to Eugenics. Nuff said, I'm out.

http://www.xprt.net/~chitaree/blog.html

Nah, when Idiots like Dakini dub walmart a Manufacturer.. and take advantage of cheap overseas labor..
I mean seriously.. does walmart fly their mid-night cleanup crew in from pakistan everyday?

When brainless idiots like Dakini stop making idiotic statements i'll shut up.

That will be impossible, because as long as you do not shut up, there will be at least one truly brainless idiot still talking. Catch 22, old boy. ;)

Walmart does not have to ship them in. Walmart lets them creep in through the USA's southern border on their own dime, or at least they did until they were caught. And who here has called Walmart a manufacturer? Despite their signature brands made overseas by their partners and subsidiaries?

Thats okay - he has much to think about on those cold and lonely nights:



http://www.xprt.net/~chitaree/blog.html :eek: Ok so maybe Don's not totally alone, he has his computer and all those nifty websites ;) and from the sound of it, maybe some mechanical company.

Now I feel the need to wash my hands.

i never said that wal-mart was a manufacturer. perhaps if you learned to read you would relize that people aren't as stupid as you think they are.


how is it that you fix this shit so you don't see a certain poster's posts? i think a brick wall listens better than this jackass.

Oh please don't! :eek: We're all having so much fun watching him get repeatedly pwned by you. :D

Oh please don't! :eek: We're all having so much fun watching him get repeatedly pwned by you. :D

Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. I believe he has been perished. *nod*

That will be impossible, because as long as you do not shut up, there will be at least one truly brainless idiot still talking. Catch 22, old boy. ;)

Walmart does not have to ship them in. Walmart lets them creep in through the USA's southern border on their own dime, or at least they did until they were caught. And who here has called Walmart a manufacturer? Despite their signature brands made overseas by their partners and subsidiaries?

I believe it was 'Dakini' who said that Walmart was taking advantage of cheap-overseas labor.. which would only make sense if it was a manufacturer.. not a marketer.
I mean, I think Kelhptopia might be a little out-spoken.. but on Economics and Outsourcing I don't think theres much to argue.

Hah, i think this broad nut-job is obsessed with me... She can't handle a rational debate so she posts a useless physics problem... and because I am not motivated enough to solve the pointless problem.. she thinks she achieved something.
Dumb broad... go crap out a few kids and shut your face.

Any particular reason you are not motivated enough to prove any of the assertions you have made here? :)

I believe it was 'Dakini' who said that Walmart was taking advantage of cheap-overseas labor.. which would only make sense if it was a manufacturer.. not a marketer.
I mean, I think Kelhptopia might be a little out-spoken.. but on Economics and Outsourcing I don't think theres much to argue.

Selling signature-brand products made by cheap overseas labour does indeed qualify as taking advantage of cheap overseas labour. KELHPTOPIA doesn't really seem to have much of a clue about anything.

Selling signature-brand products made by cheap overseas labour does indeed qualify as taking advantage of cheap overseas labour.

As indeed does buying them rather than a more 'ethical' alternative.

I believe it was 'Dakini' who said that Walmart was taking advantage of cheap-overseas labor.. which would only make sense if it was a manufacturer.. not a marketer.
I dont know why you think that it is necessary to be a manufacturer in order to derive some benefit from cheap overseas labour. In fact it makes no sense to suggest that only a manufacturer can derive benefit from cheap overseas labour. If a shoe manufacturer sells shoes 10% cheaper to a marketer as a result of utilising cheap overseas labout, the marketer has benefited by getting a 10% reduction on the cost of purchassing shoes. To suggest that being able to purchass products cheaper is not an advantage to a marketer is nonsenical, and equally if the products are only cheaper as a result of cheap overseas labour, it is nonsensical to suggest that the advantage is not the result of cheap overseas labour.

Not that this has anything to do with the topic.. But I think this is funny.

Haha. Faggot.

Isn't trawling around in the member photo's until you find a piccy, then calling that person a 'faggot' some kind of rule infringement?

I assume that was where you found the picture... otherwise it's just too weird a tangent for the topic to take...

I hate that word: slut

I really hope that the attitude that comes from that word will be eliminated in the First World, and soon.

I went to a french highschool in Montreal, and our english classes were held in a large, circular desk pattern, so that debate could be facilitated between the students and teacher. In one class, we were discussing social issues and one girl in the class raised the issue that fictional characters in TV dramas were setting bad examples for highschool girls because they were sluts.

I got very mad at her for using such a term and having such an attitude. I explained to her that such an old-fashionned word had no place in modern society, and was completely antithetical to the feminist movement that attained it's height just a few decades earlier. Women were fighting for social change so that their sexuality could be accepted in society, instead of stereotyped by hollywood movies and macho male expectations.

To vilify women who were sexually active was unacceptable. It still is unacceptable to me. And I know that I had an impact on my highschool class when I (rather forcefully, in retrospect) explained it to that girl who used the term "slut".

So you know what, Dakini, I really hope that people will take your grievances to heart and begin to accept women in a more positive light (sexually active or not). I would hate to think that the feminist movement was just a passing phase in the history of the western world.

But if it helps, know that I, a man from Montreal, will never, under any circumstance that I can imagine, use the term "slut" as a pejorative. And if I can help it, neither will my friends or coleagues.

I totally agree Alexithagoras, I fail to see why sex is always seen as such a bad thing anyway. When I decide to have sex, I don't really see why its anyone elses business apart from mine and the person I have sex with. I do intend to have sex with more than one person in my lifetime and I do intend to enjoy it and I can't see why anyone should have a problem with that.
and as to the intelegence thing yes there may be more men at the top of some things for what ever reason but I remember reading somewhere that there were fewer women doing really well but there were also few women doing really badly so it balanced out and that the lack of women at the very top of science was due to that fact that they had other commitments so could not work on what ever scienticific project they were working on and nothing else.
@ Pepe Dominguez I think the fact that I thought you were joking in your first post will give you an idea of how I feel about what you said
@ KELHPTOPIA stop insulting Dakini and do the problem or just admit she is better at that than you.

Hah, no wonder all the recent scientific break-throughs.
One of the few fields, like actuarial sciences, where you actually need some kind of brain-power to get the job.. no commie union to fall back on.Uh, the sciences in general are pretty close to being meritocracies. Most with plenty of women.

Oh so now physics is a manly challenge? I thought you said it was wimpy.:giggle:

(More flameage by KELHPTOPIA. Can't think of witty responses.)

Take a cylinder of known dimensions, and extend it by adding circular curves of known radii along there right-angled outer edge circumfrances, thus making a "cheese-wheel" shape, with flat top and bottom and circular side and with curved upper and lower edges, of known dimensions. How do you find the formula or graph of formulae for an ellipsoidal shape of known volume that meets but does not intersect the original shape at tangential circles at its top and bottom circumfrances?I am assuming this is not for homework...
And I haven't done the problem myself.

You have spherical symmetry, so go down a dimension. Once you get the right ellipses, the ellipsoids will just be surfaces of revolution (as the cylinder is). And for convenience center everything around the origin.
Now the ellipses must pass through the corners of the rectangle. So plug the coordinates for a corner into an equation for an ellipse, and solve for the constants. You will find you can express one constant in terms of the others. So you get a family of ellipses described by the width and height of the rectange, and by one other constant (which the eccentricity depends on). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by tangent. If you mean the ellipsoid is tangent to the curved surface of the "cheese wheel", then what you do is set the slope of the ellipse at the intersection point equal to the slope of the arc. To do this, express the top halves of the ellipse and the arc as functions. (The entire ellipse can't be expressed as a function because it's double-valued). Then take the derivatives at the corner of the rectanges and set them equal. You'll get something really nasty for the derivatives involving square roots. The equation for the arc will be non-trivial in itself. To find it's centre, draw a right triangle with a vertex on the x-axis, a vertex at the corner of the rectange, and a vetex on the side of the rectange. You can solve for the distance from the side using the pythagorean theorem, and from tha figure out where the center is.
Ok, now you'll have an equation from an ellipse expressed in various constants describing the "cheese wheel". Duplicate the x² term as a z² term (or y² depending on your coordinate system) to get the equation for the ellipseoid. Volume of the ellipseoid you'll probably just want to look up the equation for. Depending on eccentricity, this ellipsoid may or may not cut into the cheese wheel.

I'm not entirely sure I understood the question correctly. Hope this helps.

I hate that word: slut

I really hope that the attitude that comes from that word will be eliminated in the First World, and soon.

I went to a french highschool in Montreal, and our english classes were held in a large, circular desk pattern, so that debate could be facilitated between the students and teacher. In one class, we were discussing social issues and one girl in the class raised the issue that fictional characters in TV dramas were setting bad examples for highschool girls because they were sluts.

I got very mad at her for using such a term and having such an attitude. I explained to her that such an old-fashionned word had no place in modern society, and was completely antithetical to the feminist movement that attained it's height just a few decades earlier. Women were fighting for social change so that their sexuality could be accepted in society, instead of stereotyped by hollywood movies and macho male expectations.

To vilify women who were sexually active was unacceptable. It still is unacceptable to me. And I know that I had an impact on my highschool class when I (rather forcefully, in retrospect) explained it to that girl who used the term "slut".

So you know what, Dakini, I really hope that people will take your grievances to heart and begin to accept women in a more positive light (sexually active or not). I would hate to think that the feminist movement was just a passing phase in the history of the western world.

But if it helps, know that I, a man from Montreal, will never, under any circumstance that I can imagine, use the term "slut" as a pejorative. And if I can help it, neither will my friends or coleagues.

i agree with you. that whole "slut" "dirty whore" business is utterly inappropriate in the modern world.

to judge a person by what you think you know of her sexual habits denies the rest of her humanity. if a girl is more free with her affections than you think is proper does that mean she cant be a good friend? does it nullify everything else she might do in her life?

i agree with you. that whole "slut" "dirty whore" business is utterly inappropriate in the modern world.

to judge a person by what you think you know of her sexual habits denies the rest of her humanity. if a girl is more free with her affections than you think is proper does that mean she cant be a good friend? does it nullify everything else she might do in her life?

A girl acting like a slut is not natural...
It's natures way for humans to deny her of 'friendship'

Selling signature-brand products made by cheap overseas labour does indeed qualify as taking advantage of cheap overseas labour. KELHPTOPIA doesn't really seem to have much of a clue about anything.

Not only does 'Cheap Overseas' labor help shift production possiblilties, between both countries, it also allows us better capablity to exercise 'comparative' advantages..
Besides... why drag down our workforce by demanding jobs in manufacturing plants when we can be doing other work..
The jobs created last month from consumer savings says it alone.

The different between a slut and a bitch?

A slut will sleep with anyone - a bitch will sleep with anyone but YOU!

A girl acting like a slut is not natural...
It's natures way for humans to deny her of 'friendship'

Exactly. Women without loyalty just won't be trusted by decent people. It's just the way of the world.

A girl acting like a slut is not natural...
It's natures way for humans to deny her of 'friendship'
interesting point of view

personally i make friends with people that i like, get along with well, have common interests with and who treat me well. their sex lives arent usually any of my business.

judge not lest ye be judged, eh?

interesting point of view

personally i make friends with people that i like, get along with well, have common interests with and who treat me well. their sex lives arent usually any of my business.

judge not lest ye be judged, eh?

Sure... I'm not really judging..
I just don't want to be friends with a skank.
I'm sorry.. but it just doesn't appeal to me.

Why the disrespect?

Pretty simple.

We're looking at a bunch of boys who spend all their time on the Net, resent women they can't have, people that probably look down on them in RL, and folks who don't salve their senses of 'entitlement,' and thus like to posture like they can or should control others, when they really have no clue about the outside world.

Why the disrespect?

Pretty simple.

We're looking at a bunch of boys who spend all their time on the Net, resent women they can't have, people that probably look down on them in RL, and folks who don't salve their senses of 'entitlement,' and thus like to posture like they can or should control others, when they really have no clue about the outside world.
BINGO

Sure... I'm not really judging..
I just don't want to be friends with a skank.
I'm sorry.. but it just doesn't appeal to me.
Fine then...and I'm sure you don't hang around promiscuous guys either. Of course not.

A girl acting like a slut is not natural...
It's natures way for humans to deny her of 'friendship'
actually, a girl acting like a "slut" is doing exactly what nature designed her to do. a primate female who has multiple sexual partners is more likely to bear a stronger and more successful child than a female who restricts her sexual activity to one male. the only reason why feminine loyalty is selected for is when care for the young is important, but i think American society has proven that females don't need males for successful care of young (nor do males need females) and the loyalty of a biological father to the biological mother is totally unnecessary.

therefore, speaking from a strictly naturalist position, a slut is more natural than a female who abstains or is monogamous.

but hey, you tell yourself whatever you need in order to feel good about your personal prejudices.

And just how old are you? Because I'd hate to be understood in my own generation. ;)

41 :D

41 :D

Same here. :(

Actually the root is this:

You can often tell when a woman is a virgin, and if you keep her off of horses and such you can pretty much always tell. Plus, you always know who the kids' mother is. These things do not apply to the men.

I don't see how having multiple partners will make a woman's child stronger. Rediculous. Can you explain this? Of course it gives her a greater chance of having some of her litter who are stronger, but it won't make any of them individually stronger. If she chooses one strong mate, all her kids will be strong, so... ?

Actually the root is this:

You can often tell when a woman is a virgin, and if you keep her off of horses and such you can pretty much always tell. Plus, you always know who the kids' mother is. These things do not apply to the men.

I don't see how having multiple partners will make a woman's child stronger. Rediculous. Can you explain this? Of course it gives her a greater chance of having some of her litter who are stronger, but it won't make any of them individually stronger. If she chooses one strong mate, all her kids will be strong, so... ?

No matter how strong your partner, you are relying on the COMBINATION of genes to produce offspring. It is entirely possible for two persons to be 'strong' contributors of genetic material, and yet not be able to produce 'strong' offspring... due to the introduction of lethal gene combinations, or recessive accumulations.

The only way to actually ENSURE that you have strong offspring is to couple with a variety of donors of genetic material, in order to obtain a strong 'match' of genetic material.

Incidentally - and somewhat off-topic, I know - the best way to do it is actually to breed with someone of very different genetic stock - and yet most supposedly 'civilised' nations have deep-seated prejudice against 'pollination' that crosses 'racial' divides.

Oh - and your assertion about the hymen is, unfortunately, also flawed. Not all females have identical hymen structure - and in some females the hymen is almost absent. This can be due to a variety of factors (horse-riding IS one), including gymnastics, atheletics, genetic factors.

And there was me hoping we were beyond the days when people 'checked' for blood on marital bed-sheets.

On topic, what people do with their sex-lives is really none of anyone's business unless it directly affects you. I have friends who've done stuff that I personally wouldn't do, but it was their decision so I didn't bother to judge them.

Incidentally - and somewhat off-topic, I know - the best way to do it is actually to breed with someone of very different genetic stock - and yet most supposedly 'civilised' nations have deep-seated prejudice against 'pollination' that crosses 'racial' divides.
When I was reading the first part of your post I thought exactly this! You have a lower chance of both passing on the same "bad genes" to your kids. And my partner and I are "interracial" so hooray! Although it has highlighted society's ridiculous prejudices; how people stare at us and how my parents react. :rolleyes:

On topic, what people do with their sex-lives is really none of anyone's business unless it directly affects you. I have friends who've done stuff that I personally wouldn't do, but it was their decision so I didn't bother to judge them.

When I was reading the first part of your post I thought exactly this! You have a lower chance of both passing on the same "bad genes" to your kids. And my partner and I are "interracial" so hooray! Although it has highlighted society's ridiculous prejudices; how people stare at us and how my parents react. :rolleyes:

It is unfortunate that our societies seek so firmly to reject differences, when, of course, it is diversity that brings the greatest potential.

In my little dream world (as I have said frequently before), we are all citizens of The World, and who we choose for our love-lives is our own concern.

When I was reading the first part of your post I thought exactly this! You have a lower chance of both passing on the same "bad genes" to your kids. And my partner and I are "interracial" so hooray! Although it has highlighted society's ridiculous prejudices; how people stare at us and how my parents react. :rolleyes:

Vive la difference!

No matter how strong your partner, you are relying on the COMBINATION of genes to produce offspring. It is entirely possible for two persons to be 'strong' contributors of genetic material, and yet not be able to produce 'strong' offspring... due to the introduction of lethal gene combinations, or recessive accumulations.

The only way to actually ENSURE that you have strong offspring is to couple with a variety of donors of genetic material, in order to obtain a strong 'match' of genetic material.

Incidentally - and somewhat off-topic, I know - the best way to do it is actually to breed with someone of very different genetic stock - and yet most supposedly 'civilised' nations have deep-seated prejudice against 'pollination' that crosses 'racial' divides.

Oh - and your assertion about the hymen is, unfortunately, also flawed. Not all females have identical hymen structure - and in some females the hymen is almost absent. This can be due to a variety of factors (horse-riding IS one), including gymnastics, atheletics, genetic factors.

And there was me hoping we were beyond the days when people 'checked' for blood on marital bed-sheets.

OK, a semantic difference. A women with multiple partners is more likely to have some offspring who are stronger than average. She is also more likely to have some who are weaker than average.

Oh - and my assertion about the hymen is not at all flawed. My assertion is that the verifiablity of female virginity, no matter how imperfect, is at the root of the historical status of women as chattel and the ancient definitions of adultery as something that only applies when a married woman, not a married man, copulates with someone other than her spouse. Yes there are various conditions that can make a virginal female appear non-virginal, and those that are environmental have historically been controlled by forbidding women from participating in certain activities, as well as by forcing them into hindering situations, such as dresses, foot-binding, and sidesaddle riding.

And keep hoping, and I will be with you, but this does not change the roots of sexist history. And btw did you know that the jewish hoopa was originally a canopied bed in which the bride and groom consumated their marriage in the sight of two male witnesses?

You can often tell when a woman is a virgin, and if you keep her off of horses and such you can pretty much always tell.

Just a note to say that some women are born without a hymen at all. In societies were great importance is placed on virgnity and the visual sign of it there are certain medical procedures which can either repair broken hymens or create the illusion of one.

See, the thing is, most highschooler girls (at least from what I saw) WERE whores. That is, not to say that the had sex-that they had a lot of it, with a lot of people.


Whores get paid. Let's keep that clear.

Whores get paid. Let's keep that clear.

...and then get the crap knocked out of them by their pimp if they don't hand over the majority of their earnings, but that isn't really the central issue here.

OK, a semantic difference. A women with multiple partners is more likely to have some offspring who are stronger than average. She is also more likely to have some who are weaker than average.

Oh - and my assertion about the hymen is not at all flawed. My assertion is that the verifiablity of female virginity, no matter how imperfect, is at the root of the historical status of women as chattel and the ancient definitions of adultery as something that only applies when a married woman, not a married man, copulates with someone other than her spouse. Yes there are various conditions that can make a virginal female appear non-virginal, and those that are environmental have historically been controlled by forbidding women from participating in certain activities, as well as by forcing them into hindering situations, such as dresses, foot-binding, and sidesaddle riding.

And keep hoping, and I will be with you, but this does not change the roots of sexist history. And btw did you know that the jewish hoopa was originally a canopied bed in which the bride and groom consumated their marriage in the sight of two male witnesses?

Opinions differ on the marital bed thing... I have read sources that claim witnesses were present, and sources that claim the bed was examined AFTER the act of consumation. I wasn't there, so I have to rely on those sources, and there seems to be some uncertainty.

As far as I'm aware, whilst certainly instituted to maintain their chattel status, foot-binding was to prevent the woman being able to function over large distances unassisted, and was therefore designed to stop them 'straying', not to prevent them distorting the hymen... although that would probably be one of the logical outcomes.

Kind of bonus free-gift for the phallocentric culture.

Regarding you symantic difference comment. The woman is, statistically, perhaps more likely to have a weaker child if she has multiple partners, but this is solely because she is also likely to have more intercourse.

If she has multiple partners from a larger MIX of potential partners, the concept of 'hybrid-vigour' means that she is actually far more likely to have stronger offspring, increasing with the amount of divergence she allows in her selection.

...and then get the crap knocked out of them by their pimp if they don't hand over the majority of their earnings, but that isn't really the central issue here.

It certainly is a part of the central issue.

There are such a thing as independent prostitutes, and even such a thing as non-violent non-oppressive facilitators - pimps and madams - however few and far between they may be. Madams in fact are, however marginally, typically less oppressive, being female and having usually been prostitutes themselves.

"If you've EVER traded yo' body for something other than love and affection... you a ho'!"

- D.L. Hugly

Opinions differ on the marital bed thing... I have read sources that claim witnesses were present, and sources that claim the bed was examined AFTER the act of consumation. I wasn't there, so I have to rely on those sources, and there seems to be some uncertainty.

As far as I'm aware, whilst certainly instituted to maintain their chattel status, foot-binding was to prevent the woman being able to function over large distances unassisted, and was therefore designed to stop them 'straying', not to prevent them distorting the hymen... although that would probably be one of the logical outcomes.

Kind of bonus free-gift for the phallocentric culture.

Regarding you symantic difference comment. The woman is, statistically, perhaps more likely to have a weaker child if she has multiple partners, but this is solely because she is also likely to have more intercourse.

If she has multiple partners from a larger MIX of potential partners, the concept of 'hybrid-vigour' means that she is actually far more likely to have stronger offspring, increasing with the amount of divergence she allows in her selection.

Then I suppose I do not understand hybrid vigour, as I thought that it refered to racial interbreeding. It also seems to me that what you have said about weaker children being statistically more likely is just as pertinent as about having stronger children. If she has a larger mix of potential partners she also is more likely to have weeker offspring. The more kids she has, the more statistical chance of divergence either way, and even more so, either way, with more partners.



Anyway on the other point: back in the day when marriage was invented, it was impossible, barring witnesses to confirm that a man was or was not a virgin, or to confirm who the father of a child is. OTOH a woman's virginity could often be confirmed, or believed confirmed however inaccurately. This I believe led to a culture where a bride had to be proven a virgin and where the identity of the father of a child could be held in doubt. This led to wives and daughters being treated as chattel.

On a happier(?) note, I have heard that there is a culture in which matrons deflowered young girls with a stick as a universal rule to prevent anyone from knowing, or believing they could know, who was or was not a virgin.

well, let's see, of the girls i knew in highschool, only three of them had ever gotten laid.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :D
Yourself not included?

It certainly is a part of the central issue.

Yes, it is obscene, but the point I was making was in connection with your point about calling others 'whores' just on the basis of the amount of their sexual activity

There are such a thing as independent prostitutes, and even such a thing as non-violent non-oppressive facilitators - pimps and madams - however few and far between they may be.

Indeed, in the UK we have one of the unions (possibly the 'Mother's Union', but I could be wrong) which acts on the behalf of sexworkers, despite their legal status.

Yes, it is obscene, but the point I was making was in connection with your point about calling others 'whores' just on the basis of the amount of their sexual activity



Indeed, in the UK we have one of the unions (possibly the 'Mother's Union', but I could be wrong) which acts on the behalf of sexworkers, despite their legal status.

"MY" point??? :eek:

"MY" point??? :eek:

no it wasnt YOUR point
but you were foolish enough to seem to be throwing in your lot with the misogynistic boys who WERE making that point.

no it wasnt YOUR point
but you were foolish enough to seem to be throwing in your lot with the misogynistic boys who WERE making that point.

Foolish enough to "SEEM??? :rolleyes:

Then I suppose I do not understand hybrid vigour, as I thought that it refered to racial interbreeding. It also seems to me that what you have said about weaker children being statistically more likely is just as pertinent as about having stronger children. If she has a larger mix of potential partners she also is more likely to have weeker offspring. The more kids she has, the more statistical chance of divergence either way, and even more so, either way, with more partners.


I would guess you are correct. You do not understand hybrid vigour.


Anyway on the other point: back in the day when marriage was invented, it was impossible, barring witnesses to confirm that a man was or was not a virgin, or to confirm who the father of a child is. OTOH a woman's virginity could often be confirmed, or believed confirmed however inaccurately. This I believe led to a culture where a bride had to be proven a virgin and where the identity of the father of a child could be held in doubt. This led to wives and daughters being treated as chattel.

On a happier(?) note, I have heard that there is a culture in which matrons deflowered young girls with a stick as a universal rule to prevent anyone from knowing, or believing they could know, who was or was not a virgin.

Back in the day when marriage was invented? Invented by whom?

I would guess you are correct. You do not understand hybrid vigour.

Then e'splain me, Lucy!

Back in the day when marriage was invented? Invented by whom?

By whomever.

hybrid vigor, n.

Increased vigor or other superior qualities arising from the crossbreeding of genetically different plants or animals. Also called heterosis.

Sounds a lot like how I described it.

Multiple partners will not produce hybrid vigour unless they are of different races from the woman (or if you prefer, different groups of shared multiple hereditary phenotypic traits). In fact a single partner from outside the group will give a woman's children more hybrid vigour than multiple partners from her own native group.

If you disagree with this, please explain to me how.

That's how hybrid vigour was always explained to me in Biology. :)
Plants/animals of different strains have greater chance of producing healthy and strong offspring. It's to do with them having a lower likelihood of both carrying a copy of a bad gene. So by Mendelian genetics they will have a lower chance of having autosomal recessive traits.

(Tosses in two cents)

I figure men and women are equal.. hell, both genders have been equally unpleasant to me over the years.

I'd just like to ask - why do some on this thread claim that someone being 'different' automatically precludes them being 'equal'? Specifically in reference to different gender roles - how does it make one the inferior to the other? Surely both are equally important.

Also, if you believe in the concept of patriarchy in civilisation, I want to know if anyone has a theory (personal or academic) as to how it came about?


Heh... nothing like stirring the swamp, hmm? ;)

"MY" point??? :eek:

Yeah, sorry, 'bout that - Sinuhue's point.

Sounds a lot like how I described it.

Multiple partners will not produce hybrid vigour unless they are of different races from the woman (or if you prefer, different groups of shared multiple hereditary phenotypic traits). In fact a single partner from outside the group will give a woman's children more hybrid vigour than multiple partners from her own native group.

If you disagree with this, please explain to me how.

I'm not disagreeing with that... as I said, the greater the divergence, the better the result. The point was that multiple partners would be more likely to lead to greater diversity. Like you say, one partner from a very diverse background MIGHT do the same thing, but ONE partner is risking the same possibility of incompatibilities we discussed earlier... the lethal genes or recessives.

So, playing the odds.... one divergent partner is a better situation than one non-divergent partner.

Multiple non-divergent partners may outway the incompatibility risk of one divergent partner.

Multiple partners, in general, increase the chances of divergence, and, therefore, of strong offspring.

Multiple partners, ESPECIALLY when featuring diversity, gives rise to the GREATEST chance of strong offspring.

I'm not disagreeing with that... as I said, the greater the divergence, the better the result. The point was that multiple partners would be more likely to lead to greater diversity. Like you say, one partner from a very diverse background MIGHT do the same thing, but ONE partner is risking the same possibility of incompatibilities we discussed earlier... the lethal genes or recessives.

So, playing the odds.... one divergent partner is a better situation than one non-divergent partner.

Multiple non-divergent partners may outway the incompatibility risk of one divergent partner.

Multiple partners, in general, increase the chances of divergence, and, therefore, of strong offspring.

Multiple partners, ESPECIALLY when featuring diversity, gives rise to the GREATEST chance of strong offspring.

...as well as the greatest chance of weak offspring.

If I'm wrong, how?

Just 2 Cents.

First, do not girls now encourage such opinions?
Are shirts not more open than there were 25, 50, 100 years ago?
Are Skirts not Shorter?
Where kissing use to be after marriage, is now making out not common?

A guy cannot go and make out with him self No matter how hard he tries (Trust me on this one :p ). Guys don't wear (General rule again) tight slacks that cling to their arse, or words with text that brings attention to the chest.

Again, very few girls recieve any male attention wearing baggy clothing, ruffled hair, and a zitty face. So instead they go from that, to 'sex icon' and expect to be treated fairly?

Or as a friend once put it,
"Looking at a person's eyes is a sign of respect right? Well thats gotta be why guys have such a hard time respecting ladies -because their eye's aren't on their chest"

...as well as the greatest chance of weak offspring.

If I'm wrong, how?

Read Preebles response... #475, I think.

Then do the math of diversity + multiple partners + lowest risk of bad-genetic-stuff.

Just 2 Cents.

First, do not girls now encourage such opinions?
Are shirts not more open than there were 25, 50, 100 years ago?
Are Skirts not Shorter?
Where kissing use to be after marriage, is now making out not common?

A guy cannot go and make out with him self No matter how hard he tries (Trust me on this one :p ). Guys don't wear (General rule again) tight slacks that cling to their arse, or words with text that brings attention to the chest.

Again, very few girls recieve any male attention wearing baggy clothing, ruffled hair, and a zitty face. So instead they go from that, to 'sex icon' and expect to be treated fairly?

Or as a friend once put it,
"Looking at a person's eyes is a sign of respect right? Well thats gotta be why guys have such a hard time respecting ladies -because their eye's aren't on their chest"

So, your argument is that women don't deserve any respect because they try to look presentable?

You think it is OKAY for you to disrespect someone just because she is better looking than you?

Do you not realise that women didn't get any respect a hundred years ago, either?

Oh, and your general rules are general, alright... but certainly not rules. I have to admit that the ONLY reason I started wearing Levi 501's is because they made me look gorgeous.

It was a valiant attempt, but a history of men oppressing women argues against you.

And please don't perpetuate the idea that women 'ask' to be disrespected because of what they wear... that is the kind of arguments rapists have been using for years.. "She was asking for it... if she didn't want to be raped, she wouldn't have been wearing a short skirt". You are treading on dangerous ground, there.

Hey, new scott-land, back in Ye Olde Days you seem to be living in, people said the same thing about women who wore red dresses, or ones with low cut necklines although they showed exactly zero leg.

Stuff changes. Move with the times. There will always be a limit to how much you can show, it's just that it happens to have moved up a little.

Oh, and there are people in my school who sleep around, but... who cares? It's their business. They aren't doing anything to me.

Read Preebles response... #475, I think.

Then do the math of diversity + multiple partners + lowest risk of bad-genetic-stuff.

I have read his post. As I recall he concurred with my understanding of hybrid vigour.

Done the math:

genetic diversity = one or more partners of different hereditary stock = low risk of "bad-genetic-stuff"

(partner + offspring) multiplicity = greater chance of statistical divergence = greater chance of stonger offspring + greater chance of weaker offspring

Have you done the math?

. . .

Now, if you want to say that having multiple children with multiple partners increases a woman's chance of having at least one above average child, this is true, and what I meant about semantic differences as your meaning, if that was it, was not clear. Moreso with hybrid vigour, but what you have been saying is that this practice IS ITSELF what is meant by "hybrid vigour". It simply is not. Hybrid vigour is what arises from having partners, OR A SINGLE PARTNER, who is of a different hereditary stock. In addition, having multiple partners increases a woman's chance of having at least one below average child, less so with hybrid vigour. But having multiple partners in itself still does not provide hybrid vigour.

I have read his post. As I recall he concurred with my understanding of hybrid vigour.

Done the math:

genetic diversity = one or more partners of different hereditary stock = low risk of "bad-genetic-stuff"

(partner + offspring) multiplicity = greater chance of statistical divergence = greater chance of stonger offspring + greater chance of weaker offspring

Have you done the math?

. . .

Now, if you want to say that having multiple children with multiple partners increases a woman's chance of having at least one above average child, this is true, and what I meant about semantic differences as your meaning, if that was it, was not clear. Moreso with hybrid vigour, but what you have been saying is that this practice IS ITSELF what is meant by "hybrid vigour". It simply is not. Hybrid vigour is what arises from having partners, OR A SINGLE PARTNER, who is of a different hereditary stock. In addition, having multiple partners increases a woman's chance of having at least one below average child, less so with hybrid vigour. But having multiple partners in itself still does not provide hybrid vigour.

Regarding the math... iterested that you came up with a 'sum' to calculate. You made my series of factors into an equation.

I also don't recall actually saying that multiple partners = hybrid vigour... although I did point out that more partners implies more diversity, and that greater diversity = greater 'hybrid vigour' potential.

So... if you look at it.. multiple partners DOES suggest greater diversity of genes... add to this the increased potential for stonger children with greater divergence... then subtract the potential for weaker children. But, the potential for weaker children is LESS than that for stronger children, because the increased potential for divergence lessens the possibility of weakening combinations.

And the reason why the math requires multiple partners, even if the stock is different? Because 1 is not a good statistic. 1 divergent partner might still match lethal-gene combinations, which is less likely with two partners, and vanishingly small with increased numbers.

And tell me this, why does _anyone_ need more than three shoes:
Work shoes
Dress shoes
Running shoes

Women on average have more shoes than a whore has STD's, this among the many other factors cause me to disrespect women every chance I get.

my dad has more than three pairs of shoes.
he has two pairs running shoes, three pairs of dress shoes (one black, one brown, one for special occasions) and a couple pairs of boots...

I hate that word: slut

I really hope that the attitude that comes from that word will be eliminated in the First World, and soon.

I went to a french highschool in Montreal, and our english classes were held in a large, circular desk pattern, so that debate could be facilitated between the students and teacher. In one class, we were discussing social issues and one girl in the class raised the issue that fictional characters in TV dramas were setting bad examples for highschool girls because they were sluts.

I got very mad at her for using such a term and having such an attitude. I explained to her that such an old-fashionned word had no place in modern society, and was completely antithetical to the feminist movement that attained it's height just a few decades earlier. Women were fighting for social change so that their sexuality could be accepted in society, instead of stereotyped by hollywood movies and macho male expectations.

To vilify women who were sexually active was unacceptable. It still is unacceptable to me. And I know that I had an impact on my highschool class when I (rather forcefully, in retrospect) explained it to that girl who used the term "slut".

So you know what, Dakini, I really hope that people will take your grievances to heart and begin to accept women in a more positive light (sexually active or not). I would hate to think that the feminist movement was just a passing phase in the history of the western world.

But if it helps, know that I, a man from Montreal, will never, under any circumstance that I can imagine, use the term "slut" as a pejorative. And if I can help it, neither will my friends or coleagues.

*applauds*

A girl acting like a slut is not natural...
It's natures way for humans to deny her of 'friendship'

since when? the natural, chemical phenomena known as love lasts 18 months. long enough for people to get together, have a kid and move on (with some recovery time of course) it's highly doubtful that humans (of either gender) were meant to be strictly monogamous.

and also, using your reasoning... it's not natural for promoscious men to have friends then either, is it?

Exactly. Women without loyalty just won't be trusted by decent people. It's just the way of the world.

so having sex with multiple partners makes someone less loyal?

what if she's been betrayed by all her lovers? that shows poor judgment if anything, but not a lack of loyalty.

Just 2 Cents.

First, do not girls now encourage such opinions?
Are shirts not more open than there were 25, 50, 100 years ago?
Are Skirts not Shorter?
Where kissing use to be after marriage, is now making out not common?

A guy cannot go and make out with him self No matter how hard he tries (Trust me on this one :p ). Guys don't wear (General rule again) tight slacks that cling to their arse, or words with text that brings attention to the chest.

Again, very few girls recieve any male attention wearing baggy clothing, ruffled hair, and a zitty face. So instead they go from that, to 'sex icon' and expect to be treated fairly?

Or as a friend once put it,
"Looking at a person's eyes is a sign of respect right? Well thats gotta be why guys have such a hard time respecting ladies -because their eye's aren't on their chest"

so for a girl to say like her legs or not want to say, wear a floor length skirt in the middle of july and overheat... this means that she's asking to be viewed as a slut?

if a girl chooses to wear a shirt that she likes, that shows her figure a little, rather than wear a lot of excess fabric, she's asking to be called a slut?

if a girl indulges in a kiss with a boy, she's asking to be called a slut?

and lastly, you insinuate that if a guy stares at a woman's chest... she's the one who doesn't deserve respect?

This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read. Some of you were intending to be funny, right? Cause some of the opinions make it read like a sitcom script where all the characters are larger than life.
My favorite by far has got to be the time someone claimed God made man.

Ok, as for my opinion, (so ya'll can flame it because you feel insulted that I think your debate funny) I think that moderation is key. Men and women tend to do different things better. Yes, it's true. If you try to claim that women and men are exactly the same, you are being disrespectful to both. To say that relationships always have to look a certain way is disrespectful the the differences from person to person. In some relationships, the traditional thing works. If you want to be crazy "liberated" you go right ahead. As for me, I wish the feminists would shut up once in a while and focus on something that matters. Changing people's attitudes is a slow process, and the only thing you do by shooting your mouth off at every opportunity that presents itself is make those of us who don't feel it necessary to be continually offended roll our eyes, and reinforce others in their opinions. Lets be strong women who respect ourselves and respect our men, who know what we can and can't do and don't confuse our personal limitations and strengths with sweeping generalizations, who don't find it important to look for injustice when we have enough to do without in. In short, lets be women the men of the next generation have a reason to respect. That's how you can bring our sex out of the subjugation you're so fond of: stop screaming it. If they're assholes, let them be assholes. Just don't date them. Let them think what they want.

Lets be strong women who respect ourselves and respect our men, who know what we can and can't do and don't confuse our personal limitations and strengths with sweeping generalizations, who don't find it important to look for injustice when we have enough to do without in.


Would you be so kind as to give an example of one of these things which women can't do which doesn't involve the male genitalia?

Would you be so kind as to give an example of one of these things which women can't do which doesn't involve the male genitalia?

There are actually a fair number of things women can do that involve male genitalia. They may not have male genitalia, but they can do things involving male genitalia. :fluffle:

There are actually a fair number of things women can do that involve male genitalia. They may not have male genitalia, but they can do things involving male genitalia. :fluffle:

Indeed. If anything that just makes the challenge for Advantagia a more difficult one.

This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read. Some of you were intending to be funny, right? Cause some of the opinions make it read like a sitcom script where all the characters are larger than life.
My favorite by far has got to be the time someone claimed God made man.

Ok, as for my opinion, (so ya'll can flame it because you feel insulted that I think your debate funny) I think that moderation is key. Men and women tend to do different things better. Yes, it's true. If you try to claim that women and men are exactly the same, you are being disrespectful to both. To say that relationships always have to look a certain way is disrespectful the the differences from person to person. In some relationships, the traditional thing works. If you want to be crazy "liberated" you go right ahead. As for me, I wish the feminists would shut up once in a while and focus on something that matters. Changing people's attitudes is a slow process, and the only thing you do by shooting your mouth off at every opportunity that presents itself is make those of us who don't feel it necessary to be continually offended roll our eyes, and reinforce others in their opinions. Lets be strong women who respect ourselves and respect our men, who know what we can and can't do and don't confuse our personal limitations and strengths with sweeping generalizations, who don't find it important to look for injustice when we have enough to do without in. In short, lets be women the men of the next generation have a reason to respect. That's how you can bring our sex out of the subjugation you're so fond of: stop screaming it. If they're assholes, let them be assholes. Just don't date them. Let them think what they want.

Bravo, Advantagia. Bravo.

Bravo, Advantagia. Bravo.

Ah, maybe you'ld like to provide an example of something which women can't do then?

Ah, maybe you'ld like to provide an example of something which women can't do then?

Impregnate a woman, or slap you in the mug with their sexual organs. :)

... but they can impregnate another woman by utilizing medical technology and I don't see why they can't just do the vaginal equivalent of a headbutt.

Regarding the math... iterested that you came up with a 'sum' to calculate. You made my series of factors into an equation.

What "sum"? :p I made two identity statements.

OK...

single partner + single (successful) pregnency = one offspring displaying a range of benificial and detrimential trait manifestations

single partner + multiple pregnencies = multiple offspring within a range of benificial and detrimental trait manifestations ---(tends to)---> strong and weak offspring in equal numbers, at equal varience from the median

multiple partners + multiple pregnencies = multiple offspring within a broader range of beneficial and detrimental traits ---> strong and weak offspring in equal numbers, at equal varience from the median, but with a larger set of individual variences.

That's it. That's the math. Now, we bring in the variable of distance from the woman's own hereditary stock:

one partner of close (familially connected) hereditary relationship + single pregnency = one offspring displaying a range of benificial and detrimental trait manifestations that skews towards the detrimental

one partner of distant (differently racial) hereditary relationship + single pregnency = one offspring displaying a range of benificial and detrimental trait manifestations that skews towards the benificial

This describes both incestual deformity and hybrid vigour.

I also don't recall actually saying that multiple partners = hybrid vigour... although I did point out that more partners implies more diversity, and that greater diversity = greater 'hybrid vigour' potential.

...here...

The woman is, statistically, perhaps more likely to have a weaker child if she has multiple partners, but this is solely because she is also likely to have more intercourse.

If she has multiple partners from a larger MIX of potential partners, the concept of 'hybrid-vigour' means that she is actually far more likely to have stronger offspring, increasing with the amount of divergence she allows in her selection.

...as I said, semantic differences. I suppose that by "MIX" you mean a racial mix? That was not clear.

So... if you look at it.. multiple partners DOES suggest greater diversity of genes... add to this the increased potential for stonger children with greater divergence... then subtract the potential for weaker children. But, the potential for weaker children is LESS than that for stronger children, because the increased potential for divergence lessens the possibility of weakening combinations.

No. There is no subtracting the potential for weaker children, UNLESS you bring in hybrid vigour, in which case multiplicity only makes for a smoother curve (as you describe below), and there is still just as lessened a chance for one unique offspring.

What your logic seems to be neglecting is the fact that each child has only the patenal genetic material of its own father. Since each individual child has an equal chance, excluding hybrid vigor or incestual deformity, of having benificial or detrimental traits, none of them benefit or suffer individually from their mother's multiplicity of partners, and therefor the average of benificial and detrimental traits does not either, other than coelescing into a relatively consistent curve different from the individual's sample-of-one results . They may have DIFFERENT beneficial and detrimental traits from one another, but there is no statistical tendency for their having, indivually or as a group, a greater proponderence of benificial traits over detrimental traits, or vice versa.

And the reason why the math requires multiple partners, even if the stock is different? Because 1 is not a good statistic. 1 divergent partner might still match lethal-gene combinations, which is less likely with two partners, and vanishingly small with increased numbers.

No, they do not vanish, because, again, each child gets only the paternal genes of its own father. So as a group they have the same chances, although averaged out over the individual chances from each of their fathers, of having detrimental genes. Yeah, one is not a good sample, but while one might still match detrimental recessive gene combinations, one might also inherit a greater number of beneficial dominant genes. Multiplicity provides a better sample, but will still only result in an AVERAGE range of hybrid vigour affected traits, more beneficial that detrimental, but the possibility of detrimental ones does not approach zero with more fathers, it simply approaches a stable average.

. . . . . . . . .

Of course it could be pointed out that if a woman has multiple offspring by multiple partners, and those offspring themselves then interbreed with eachother, each of their subsequent offspring has, assuming they do not have the same grandfather, on average a roughly half the chance of manifesting detrimental traits that those with two common grandfathers would. For those with hybrid grandfathers and a common mother, hybrid vigour will indeed increase the likelihood of benefits and decrease the likelihood of detriments, moreso than with one generation, and even moreso if the original mother's partners were hereditarily diverse from eachother. Further, if they were not, there is still the possibility of hybrid vigour between two grandfathers of the same race of manifesting benificial recessive trait pairs unknown to the woman's own people, as well as a normal chance of detrimental ones common to the other race, and of course moreso of those if the grandfathers were related.OK, you never did say that multiple partnering in and of itself decreased chances of detrimental trait manifestation. I apologize for having misunderstood. However multiple hybrid vigour partnering does not do so either, beyond the average, better or worse than, that can be expected from a single hybrid partner of average genetic compatibility.

. . . . . . . . .

I expect that you might still disagree, so please, explain to me in sufficient detail for a newbee fucktard like myself to understand, how multiple hereditarily diverse partners cause a woman's offspring, jointly &/or severally, to have a greater/lesser chance of having benificial/detrimental traits than they would have with a single father hereditarily diverse from their mother? When there is no genetic interaction between them or between their fathers? When they are simply an average of individual samples with the same chances on average as average individuals as any individual hybrid child would have?

I may still be misreading your intents, and if so I apologize, but if you are saying that multiple hybrid paretnering increases the effects of hybrid vigour, increasing the chance of benifits and decreasing the chance of detriments over those of a single hybrid father, that's where we disagree: it doesn't. It only manifests a curve that displays average chances for such traits. A single hybrid child might be high on that curve or it might be low, but prior to the winning swimmer getting to the egg it has just the same chances as any other guy's sperm, who is also not of the mother's race and all else being equal.

That all else being equal, it really seems to me, is where your logic is stumbling. You seem to be saying that multiple hybrid partners increase the effects of hybrid vigour because having only one hybrid father might saddle a woman with a single father for all of her children who, despite hybrid vigor, is simply a below-the-curve sample of his own people's hereditary benifits and detriments. He might be, but he might not. He might be the paragon of his people's genetically dominant hereditary advantages who possesses relatively few recessive detrimental genes in common with the woman. My point is, all else being equal, we should treat him as if he were average. And when we do that, it should be clear that having multiple hybrid partners does not cause results to skew either towards the beneficial or away from the detrimental, when we look at it as an average.

I saw that I'd misunderstood you again, in one of my quotes of you, so I came here to apologize, and decided to encapsulate what appears to me to be the core of our differences. :) Enjoy.