|
Post by 13thGeneral on Jul 30, 2014 13:46:41 GMT
My post about "bygones" was an attempt to derail. Essentially, I was simply implying that there is a time and place for the particular observations and dissertations you were presenting; whether or not they are supported by factual evidence or biased opinion is irrelivant. At some point you must recognise that your statements and musings are not being well received, and not favored as constructive to the conversation by the company of this forum, wherein it wouldn't be condusively prudent to continue. I get what you're saying from a scientific standard, despite the obvious self-biased slanting you proclaim to be immune from, and respect your attempt to inform others unto this enlightenment of knowledge - but at some point it became an arrogant and pompous display of intellectual superiority and you need to recognise when it is prudent to simply concede that you just have differing viewpoints and move onto more appropriate discussion. For the sanity and sanctity of this great forum and community, I just suggest we forget this whole debate, and try to focus on more productive discussion with a less heated topic... like politics or religion.
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Jul 30, 2014 13:56:39 GMT
Well, understanding that mood has much greater influence on a woman than actual thinking does help a lot. Have you shared your thoughts with any of your female buddies? If so, what was their reaction? This depends on their mood at the moment, their own stereotypes they learned in childhood and which I have no hope to correct, and most of all, the degree of their relationship with me. It's somehow humiliating that the most important reason for them to believe me is the degree of sexual attraction rather than understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Jul 30, 2014 13:58:54 GMT
This depends on their mood at the moment, their own stereotypes they learned in childhood and which I have no hope to correct, and most of all, the degree of their relationship with me. That's a cop out answer, IMHO. I was looking for reactions, not a set of criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Jul 30, 2014 14:01:21 GMT
It's somehow humiliating that the most important reason for them to believe me is the degree of sexual attraction rather than understanding. What leads you to say that?
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Jul 30, 2014 14:10:43 GMT
But I like to analyze anything I encounter and then try to synthesize the cause. Because I don't want to activate my emotions about those criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Jul 30, 2014 14:16:40 GMT
But I like to analyze anything I encounter and then try to synthesize the cause. Because I don't want to activate my emotions about those criteria. You're also avoiding my question. I'm interested in instances of reactions from your female friends (as opposed to women in general) when you've discussed this line of thought with them, with a view to seeing if/how that affects your thinking and the reasons behind a change in your thoughts, or lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Jul 30, 2014 14:29:04 GMT
But I like to analyze anything I encounter and then try to synthesize the cause. Because I don't want to activate my emotions about those criteria. In otherwords, it's just who he is and how he decides to conduct his life. I get that, and respect and understand it to a fair degree. Personally, although part of me begs to be more like morsealworth, I try to strike a balance. I am (generally) less judgemental and more accepting of people's views and opinions (especially the older I get), while being very curious and analytical examining and questioning everything about the world and the people within it - and I also attempt not to reflect my own self upon others unfairly (often unsuccessfully, because... human). Balancing logic and reason with emotion and instinct is a very curious juxtaposing experience. I like this ship, it's exciting!
|
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Jul 30, 2014 14:32:19 GMT
But I like to analyze anything I encounter and then try to synthesize the cause. Because I don't want to activate my emotions about those criteria. In otherwords, it's just who he is and how he decides to conduct his life. I get that, and respect and understand it to a fair degree. I strive to be less judgemental and accepting, while also being very curious and analytical, examining and questioning everything about the world and the people within it - but I also attempt not to reflect my own self upon others unfairly (often unsuccessfully, because... human). Balancing logic and reason with emotion and instinct is a very curious juxtaposing experience. I like this ship, it's exciting! Judgement is a wonderful thing. How else would one know who is going to hell and who isn't? (See how I'm attempting to take your advice and steer the ship towards a more theological trajectory. Hopefully it works, then we can bring in abortion, sexual orientation, race and Nazis and we'll have the whole gang in one big thread.)
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Jul 30, 2014 14:37:40 GMT
In otherwords, it's just who he is and how he decides to conduct his life. I get that, and respect and understand it to a fair degree. I strive to be less judgemental and accepting, while also being very curious and analytical, examining and questioning everything about the world and the people within it - but I also attempt not to reflect my own self upon others unfairly (often unsuccessfully, because... human). Balancing logic and reason with emotion and instinct is a very curious juxtaposing experience. I like this ship, it's exciting! Judgement is a wonderful thing. How else would one know who is going to hell and who isn't? (See how I'm attempting to take your advice and steer the ship towards a more theological trajectory. Hopefully it works, then we can bring in abortion, sexual orientation, race and Nazis and we'll have the whole gang in one big thread.) Hehehehe. I think that's a wonderful idea; cover all the bases. I would give this a 'like' but for some reason it doesn't work on my tablet. :/
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Jul 30, 2014 14:38:30 GMT
There are three general types. 1. Stress and denial. Reaction mostly aggressive. Comes depending on their day of period. Also always comes if I describe them their way of manipulations. Also comes when we are not in a relationship and they want to make an impression and fail. 2. If I explain them that I do what I do because I use general ways of thinking by science they either don't believe me and laugh or laugh and show signs of surprise. In fact, that rises their opinion of me, others find me manipulative. This distinction depends on my non-verbal activity. The more I am distant from them, the more likely is the latter. 3. The most common response though is "Yes, so?" (in Russia women feel the difference between men and women as we have no ideology on this and our laws are highly egalitarian). I am blessed to be attractive enough to get that answer.
Seriously, their reaction doesn't depend on what I say, but on how I say it. And it isn't even the wording, it's the voice and gestures.
|
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Jul 30, 2014 14:44:16 GMT
I am blessed to be attractive enough to get that answer. Unfortunately my view of what you look like, until I actually see a picture, will be forever blurred by the avatar you use (this is not me fishing for a picture, just voicing my thoughts) Which in fact reminds me of Wagatsuma-Sama wa ore no Yome. Always wondered if it was actually from that.
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Jul 30, 2014 14:59:16 GMT
I am blessed to be attractive enough to get that answer. Unfortunately my view of what you look like, until I actually see a picture, will be forever blurred by the avatar you use (this is not me fishing for a picture, just voicing my thoughts) Which in fact reminds me of Wagatsuma-Sama wa ore no Yome. Always wondered if it was actually from that. Nah, it was from a manga (forgot the name) where protagonist falls in love with a boxer girl kicked out after refusing to fix a fight. Anyway, I myself have no idea what in my face may be as attractive as it is to women. I can only observe the result.
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Jul 30, 2014 15:05:13 GMT
Morsealworth, I'm in two minds about even attempting to engage in this debate. I can completely understand why Qetesh opted out, and FYI, it has absolutely nothing to do with you being right and 'winning' the argument. I find these biotruths-type arguments deeply disturbing and uncomfortable and it feels a bit dirty to get involved. But I think you maybe need help understanding why you're being offensive and why everyone is reacting to you like this.
Firstly, 'biotruths' are how predators justify paedophilia, homophobes justify gay-bashing, and basically how awful people justify any number of morally reprehensible ideas. So we're not getting off on a great foot here.
Yes, men and women are different. The average man and the average woman are different height and weight and have different fat-muscle ratios. They have different chemical balances in their blood and brain. These factors affect behaviour and phyiscal capability, yes. Obviously these are very quickly over-ridden by individual differences, and more importantly social and cultural differences.
Here's one thing you said:
Firstly, what do you mean by 'intelligent'? There are a lot of kinds of intelligence. Good at maths and complex equations? Good at articulating an argument? Good at adapting to social situations? How do you determine which of these types of intelligence has the most value, and how do you measure these types of intelligence in such a way that you can definitively say one is 'better' than the other (to the point of being able to make sweeping statements (like "women are less intelligent than men"). Secondly, who do you mean by "most women"? Most women you've met in your obviously extensive experience of dealing with women ("women are unique creatures" LOL) or is this based on some peer-reviewed, credible study?
Here in the UK, girls repeatedly out-perform boys in GCSE exams. The gap is actually increasing each year. Does this mean girls are more intelligent that boys in the UK? Probably not. Probably it has more to do with the social attitudes towards academia in teenagers. Possibly it is related to teenage boys finding it more difficult than girls to concentrate for the duration of an exam. We aren't exactly evolved to sit exams, as a species. But then, we do lots of things we didn't evolve to do. We use computers, we fly planes, we walk on the moon, we dive to the bottom of the ocean.
Whether you mean to or not, you look like you're dismissing all woman as emotional and stupid. Dismissing all arguments from women because they're coming from women. Describing women as manipulative and as taking advantage of the superior sex, because taking advantage of men is the only way women can get ahead in this world (GENETICS!). Do you really not see how horribly broken and disturbing this attitude is? Do you really believe that this is a healthy and accurate way of regarding half the population of the world? Seriously, are you trolling? If so please stop. If not, I don't know.. please stay away from women, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Jul 30, 2014 15:30:42 GMT
I can't decide if he's more like a Romulan or a Vulcan.
|
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Jul 30, 2014 15:35:47 GMT
Firstly, what do you mean by 'intelligent'? There are a lot of kinds of intelligence. If not, I don't know.. please stay away from women, I guess. He gave his definition of intelligence (accurate or not, I don't particularly care) earlier in the conversation. Also, "please stay away from women" is about as insulting to women as anything else said here and comes off as quite "white knight"y, I have made that adjective up and am not ashamed of it. Moresealworth is not a deadly disease and women are not cattle to be guarded. He has already said that women react differently to his presumptions so there are obviously women out there that either don't particularly care about his opinions or agree with him (unless he's just lying, of course). I do think he's been having a bit of fun with his latest comments and he's been messing around with the main players of the conversation a bit, though. Anyway, as an apathetic bystander (I don't particularly care for the subject and don't really care about the outcome, so why I even bothered replying here I don't know) I found your comment to be ignorant of things previously said the conversation, biased for a thread that started as a way of explaining past statistics and indirectly offensive.
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Jul 30, 2014 16:03:48 GMT
Possibly it is related to teenage boys finding it more difficult than girls to concentrate for the duration of an exam. We aren't exactly evolved to sit exams, as a species. But then, we do lots of things we didn't evolve to do. We use computers, we fly planes, we walk on the moon, we dive to the bottom of the ocean. Whether you mean to or not, you look like you're dismissing all woman as emotional and stupid. Dismissing all arguments from women because they're coming from women. Describing women as manipulative and as taking advantage of the superior sex, because taking advantage of men is the only way women can get ahead in this world (GENETICS!). Do you really not see how horribly broken and disturbing this attitude is? Do you really believe that this is a healthy and accurate way of regarding half the population of the world? Seriously, are you trolling? If so please stop. If not, I don't know.. please stay away from women, I guess. As all said here is inherent ad hominem, I will talk about myself. 1. I already answered to first bold part. Seriously, did you even read what I wrote? 2. I do not dismiss all women. I am talking about general tendencies and biological mechanisms here. 3. I never dismissed an argument because it came from a woman. I only dismiss fallacies, most common of which is arguments from personal incredulity. 4. I never described any sex as superior, especially seeing as women are generally better off than men, which would deem them superior in terms of survival. The only thing that makes me to refrain from declaring that is dependence on another. Anyway, there is no superior sex as both are vital for each other. 5. All horrible and disturbing things you imagine have nothing to do with my position. You are just trying to put me into a group you hate to shift your hatred and disdain towards them to me. It's not too far from Reductio ad Hitler. 6. I am not trolling. 7. Women I know personally like me so much that me staying away from them would hurt their feelings much more than my views at psychophysiology. Frome here own read minding my picture to avoid your "disturbance" from facts widely known: P.S. Real pedophiles and their media image are as different as an average Wehrmacht soldier is different from a Nazi described by media. It's a perfect example of both faulty generalization ("paedophiles, therefore, child molesters") and slippery slope ("all paedophiles must not be left to existence else they will rape a child"). Of course, both are formal fallacies. P.P.S. Just FYI, love has evolved by shifting "parent-child" model to "man-woman" model. Guess who were the only ones to adopt the shift and survive (assuming that they were the only ones as we have no descendants which do not adopt the mechanism)? P.P.P.S. Friendship has evolved from love. Guess what kind of love. P.P.P.P.S. Society exist due to friendship and love. Who we have to thank for our ability to speak to each other right now? (unless he's just lying, of course) Oh, I always lie.
|
|
muir
Participator
Posts: 15
|
Post by muir on Jul 30, 2014 16:09:07 GMT
There are three general types. 1. Stress and denial. Reaction mostly aggressive. Comes depending on their day of period. Also always comes if I describe them their way of manipulations. Also comes when we are not in a relationship and they want to make an impression and fail. 2. If I explain them that I do what I do because I use general ways of thinking by science they either don't believe me and laugh or laugh and show signs of surprise. In fact, that rises their opinion of me, others find me manipulative. This distinction depends on my non-verbal activity. The more I am distant from them, the more likely is the latter. 3. The most common response though is "Yes, so?" (in Russia women feel the difference between men and women as we have no ideology on this and our laws are highly egalitarian). I am blessed to be attractive enough to get that answer. Seriously, their reaction doesn't depend on what I say, but on how I say it. And it isn't even the wording, it's the voice and gestures. I couldn't just stand by and watch this train wreck without adding in my experiences and some proper scientific findings. Not once have you given any scientific proof backing up any of your claims, Morsealworth. All you've done is use big words which don't really make much sense because you've used a lot of them in the wrong context. (Hint: using big words only makes you think that they make you look smarter. They don't, really.) 1. What does a woman's period have to do with how they react to you? Periods do not equal aggressiveness. In fact, there have been studies proving that there are no direct correlations between a woman's period, hormone levels, and mood swings (please read this article for proof of this io9.com/5954142/new-research-suggests-premenstrual-syndrome-is-a-myth). I'm not even going to get into the "Women get aggressive when I turn them down" comment, because that's just pure sexist ego on your part. 2. People in general don't believe you and laugh at you because you unnecessarily use big words, you don't back up anything that you claim with scientific proof, and quite frankly, your overt sexism is sadly very easy to laugh at. 3. Russian laws are not egalitarian by any means. The accepted definition of "egalitarian" is as follows: "believing that everyone should have the same freedom and opportunities". Russian law is highly patriarchal. The Russian government puts females, gay/lesbian/bisexual people, and transgender people below heterosexual men in terms of freedoms and rights. For example, there aren't any laws protecting people from discrimination based on their sex, sexuality, or gender identity. In fact, one only has to look at recent news in Russia to find that homosexual and transgender people are often physically assaulted just because they deign to be open about who they are, and violence towards women (as of 2007 - sorry, it's the newest data I could find online) is extremely high, with nearly 60% of women having experienced it first hand during their life. (http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/7821.html) Also, by your own "logic" (and I put that in irony quotes because your idea of logic is anything but), your own opinions are culturally contextual and would invariably differ had you been raised elsewhere. As such, there is no objective basis for your current opinions, even taking science into account, as it's all a matter of interpretation, which is contsrained by your upbringing. In other words, most people around the world in this day and age will accept a person for who they are and won't discriminate against them or otherwise put them down based on their physical sex, their sexuality, or their gender identity. However, you and others who share your world view do so on a daily basis and use "science" and cultural upbringing as reasons for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Jul 30, 2014 16:09:46 GMT
Who we have to thank for our ability to speak to each other right now? Alan Turing?
|
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Jul 30, 2014 16:14:11 GMT
(unless he's just lying, of course) Oh, I always lie.LIES!
|
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Jul 30, 2014 16:46:11 GMT
Hmmmm... I'm not particularly keeping up with this entire thread but I think so far I'm leaning to morsealworth's side.
|
|