...Huh Kriekegaard? Sour cherry orchard? Interesting name.

Not as fancy as "Smuelissimo", though, that seems like the name for one of those stuck up italian jackasses who only get world famous by cutting up paintings and pasting them together willy nilly.

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

I think we all need a serious reality check.

Everybody spells the name wrong I swear...

But you're perfectly correct. I should be more extreme! Every single one of my posts should be littered with swear words and porn. Thank you all for showing me the path of righteousness!

_________________
Please note that, being a newbie here on the House of Lords, I shall take your massive flaming of everything I do both in stride and good humor.

This is what Stringy Pete does in his spare time.
Come on, you KNOW it is.
Additionally, give a big hand for the greeting party of the Vendigroth Wastes!

Let me rephrase the question: I am of the opinion that both immaturity and maturity coexist with all men; therefore, I would truly value a woman's understanding concerning the determination of one's mental age as woman tend not to obfuscate matters with impracticalities such as the philosophical (or psuedo-philosophical) viewpoints that dominate my perceptions of reality. (And men tend to acquire knowledge without understanding.)



Is not Truth (as I see it) another way of saying My Opinion? And does not Truth encompass all of reality? Therefore, Are not all forms of perception, including perceptions that are no more than guesses, on topic?

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

_________________

If it bothers you that much, all you have to do is persuade the admins to unban my original "Smuel" account, and I'll go back to posting with that. And then everyone will be happy.

Except the admins who will grumble about having to do work.

And the people who still think that "Smuel" was a big ol' jerk and were glad to see the back of him.

And I'll feel cheated because I'll be spreading my post count over several accounts and thus making it harder to reach the lofty heights of Lordship.

And all those who don't like the way I clog up their nice forum with tedious ramblings will still be annoyed that I haven't left yet.

But everyone ELSE will be happy.

No, I'm saying your name fits well on here, among the Zanza's and Yztk's. Much better then people with boring names, like "rodney dale".

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

Oh. Well in that case, it's back to business as usual...


Wow, Xyle, you manage to be patronizing to women while at the same time creepily insinuating that you "value" them very highly. How about being... I don't know... not sexist? It might get you more positive responses from everyone, including women.

You blasphemous bastard...

_________________

Oh, right, I forgot. The Bible teaches that women are extra special delicate flowers that we men have to protect with our manliness. Except when they are being slutty implements of Satan, in which case we should stone them to death.

I hereby apologise for criticizing Xyle's entirely reasonable wish to harness their strange alien thought processes.

Never met a woman I didn't stone.

_________________

That makes no sense. It is almost impossible to stone every woman you meet.

Think less "chucking rocks", and more "innuendo".

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

Woman are superior than men in all abilities. And that is the problem that is solved by men defending them. The female of every species is more violent than the male of the species and therefore better at war. By "protecting" them, we prevent woman from stirring up their violent emotions and instead allow them to focus on civilizing us "barbarian" males because civilization requires peace and not war to flourish.

Men and women both are tempted to do evil. And both were used by God to correct the Israelites. It is the sexist idiots who don't read the entirety of the Bible who think that only woman are evil. The Bible gives examples of the faults of all of its "heroes" because everyone is imperfect. To do otherwise is to misrepresent reality.

And pray-tell, how am I being sexist? Females are biochemically different than males. To believe otherwise is to deceive. The biochemical differences result in behavioral & psychological differences. These differences should be not ignored nor treated as problems. Instead they should be exalted because they give woman unique perceptives that can contribute and accomplish what males could not.

A woman who thinks less of herself because she is not male has been harmed by the notion than only men can succeed. The road of an individual's success is best when it conforms to the strengths of that individual. And an individuals strenghts tend to the results of what makes that individual Different. As a male who values the strengths of females, I am different from those "normal" men. But then, I have already admitted to not conforming to the normals of others when I admitted to being "crazy". Why then should my valuation of a women's understanding be viewed as if I was a patronizing male? When I say that I value women's understanding, I mean that I value women's understanding.

_________________
1 Corinthians 3:18


Truth. Love. Faith.

How is this true? At least for humans? Men perpetrate far more violent crimes than women do, there are very few documented female serial killers. Men also have a greater muscle mass than women, which in a primitive sense makes them better at fighting (hence old-school warfare). Are you trying to say that the only reason why women aren't raging savages is because society doesn't deem it appropriate for them to be? Because I find this very hard to believe, if women were violent by nature no amount of culture would prevent them from being so.

Also I think by dint of your supposed reverance for women people think you're sexist, if you were truly free from such notions then you would see women as your equal - nothing more, nothing less. People are people after all, man or woman it makes no difference. Obviously there are differences is biochemistry between the sexes, it's ludicrous to claim otherwise, but that doesn't mean that women are very different from men by any stretch.

This is a contradiction. If women were superior to men in all abilities then this would include defending themselves.


So... let me get this straight. Women are more violent than men, so men protect women from their own violence by being more violent than them, and this allows women to make men less violent?

I don't know what you think you mean by this, but whatever it is, you are wrong.


There it is! Right there! Sexism. Now, of course, you've phrased it in a way that you think is positive, but your wording shows that you think there is a "normal" perspective, and then there is a "unique" female perspective that is different from normal. Bzzt! Women are half the population. You could just as well argue that it is men who have the "unique" perspective, and it would make as much sense. Your whole argument is balls. And offensive balls at that. Your balls are offensive, sir.


The very fact that you think there is such a thing as "a woman's understanding" shows that you don't consider men's and women's cognitive abilities to be on equal terms. And that makes you sexist. There are at best some minor physiological differences between men's and women's brains. Certainly nothing that would give women intuitive super-powers or whatever it is you're ascribing to them.

He's just getting confused with his words again. The 'inferior' in 'inferior parietal lobule' is being used in an anatomical sense, not in the way you're used to.

(See what I did there?)


Since I love pointing out flaws: if women are superior to men in all abilities, and men only appear to be the more violent of the two because they 'protect' women, and that's necessary for peace, that means that men have taken over the role that women would have had if not for the fact that men have pacified them: war-making; and if this, as you say, is necessary for peace, then, for it to work, it must be the case that men are better at whatever it is you think we do to prevent the war and destruction that you seem to think is inevitable (or more likely) in a matriarchal society, in the usurped role of war-maker.



Logic time (my favourite!):

Females of a species are more violent than the males of that species.
(Those who are more violent are better at war.) [Suppressed premise]
Therefore, females are better at war.

Completely valid; well done. Unfortunately, whatever you may think about the first premise, equating the notion of violence with aptitude in waging war is erroneous, since it's not necessarily true that a more violent person is more capable in waging war than his/her less violent counterpart; therefore, the truth of your conclusion (that women are superior to men at war-making) does not follow from the fact that women are more violent than men, whether they are or not.



Lastly, I'm surprised that a learned Christian scholar such as yourself does not think that men are superior to women, and that you're asking a woman to give her opinion and, so, to teach, since, I would imagine, it is right and prudent for the superior of the two to rule, and I'm sure you're familiar with Corinthians, which says,

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

and,

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

as well as with the first book of Timothy, which says,

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14).

_________________

Dear Penthouse,

I never thought this would happen to me, but the other day I was posting on a web forum about how some asshole was a sexist jerk, and using my fancy debating skills to score points for womankind, when suddenly I noticed that someone had sent me a personal message. I don't normally get PMs on that forum, so I was a bit surprised, but when I checked my inbox there was one from a female member. It said "hi... thx 4 ur noble chivalry :) btw i think ur cute, lol"

Well, of course I replied, hesitantly at first, my fingers barely brushing over my keyboard. Then as my reply took shape, I started using a firmer touch, until I was steadily working the keys in a rhythmic fashion. After about 10 minutes I realised that the message was ready, so I positioned my mouse over the send button, and then thrust my finger down on the mouse, hard. It was like time stood still for a moment, my heart was racing, and the browser progress bar started creeping up to completion. I was so excited I couldn't hold back, and started clicking frantically on the mouse. Again and again I pressed the left button, stabbing at it like a man possessed, until finally the next page loaded, and I sent byte after byte of my reply streaming through the internet, landing deep inside her inbox.

I have a feeling this won't be the only time we exchange messages, if you know what I mean.

Yours,

Stillhard McThrobbin.

... have you even agreed upon a definition of violence and aggressiveness?

Anyway...

From a biological perspective, which at the end of the day is the only perspective that really counts, males are more expendable. Demonstrating this is quite easy. Put 100 women and a lucky (some would say terribly unfortunate, but I digress) dude on an isolated island and the next generation could, at least in theory, be just as big as it would have been had the sex ratio been equal. Put 100 men and one woman on an isolated island and the men would fight and likely kill each other over mating rights and the next generation would be limited to whatever offspring the poor woman could muster giving birth to before her body gives out.
Corollary to this is the fact that males have to compete with each other over women - successful men would have many, many babies (Genghis Khan appears to have had several hundreds, if not a thousand) whereas scores of unfortunate sods made the Darwin Awards without having to go through the hassle of dying prematurely. With regards to the number of babies had, women display a more pronounced bell curve (which seems to be the case in many other areas as well).

Point in case; two thirds of our ancestors were women.

Ipso facto, men went to war while women stayed home because societies that did otherwise went extinct. Men are more aggressive than women because those who weren't were weeded out.

_________________
Lacy: How did I fall in love with such a jerk like him? Why can't I ever meet a nice man?
Tom: You've met lots of nice men, Lacy. I'm a nice man. The biggest lie all of you women tell yourselves is that you like nice men, when, in fact, we bore you silly.
The trouble is, you tell this lie out loud and so damned often that some of us more gullible types hear it growing up and work hard to become nice men.
Well, from all the nice men in the world, Lacy, fuck you very much.

I'm very curious to see how Xyle digs his way out of this one after 4 very well argued posts about how wrong he is!

Dear Penthouse...

Seriously though, women seem to come out average at a much higher rate than men. Undedinably. there are more men in positions of power; the flip side of the coin being that men dominate the windscreen cleaning empires of the world as well. Now, biological determinism can be a very intellectually dishonest path to thread, but I'd like to think that the way reproduction works has something to do with this.

_________________
Lacy: How did I fall in love with such a jerk like him? Why can't I ever meet a nice man?
Tom: You've met lots of nice men, Lacy. I'm a nice man. The biggest lie all of you women tell yourselves is that you like nice men, when, in fact, we bore you silly.
The trouble is, you tell this lie out loud and so damned often that some of us more gullible types hear it growing up and work hard to become nice men.
Well, from all the nice men in the world, Lacy, fuck you very much.

Not to forget the fact that hunting while pregnant would probably be quite a chore. Even more so then hunting normally is, I mean. And the same also goes for fighting in wars, and other pursuits where a lot of weapon use is concerned.

_________________
Rabbi pirate: "Shalom, die, me hearties!"

Do you mean the theory that men are a kind of "modified woman"? i.e. women are the default model of the species, and men are an androgynised version with testosterone thrown into the mix, causing increased competitiveness and decreased empathy. That would go some way to explaining why women are better at being average, since men are more messed about with, so to speak.

Personally I think that it isn't nearly as clear-cut as that, if it's even true at all, but it's certainly a more useful starting point than the "woman was moulded from a man's rib" myth.

Don't be stupid; he's just going to do what he always has: select certain sentences from certain posts to reply to, say something breathtakingly moronic, and then mention something else that offends people and move on to that. Whatever about being close-minded; this guy has some sort of psychological problem.

_________________