Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on April 27, 2009, 05:50:07 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8
Well...huh.
-
That was just beautiful. No wonder they're so motivated!
-
I kinda liked the speech :) I could see where he was coming from.
-
I stopped watching about the third time he used "woman" as an insult.
-
So you've never yelled "WOMAN!" at a chick who was being/saying something stupid?
-
Eh, depends; was she the kind of woman with boobs and a vagina, or the kind with a penis and testicles? 'Cause I think it's that second type in the video, and it turns out we actually call those kinds of women "men."
-
It's not up for me. Recap?
-
So you've never yelled "WOMAN!" at a chick who was being/saying something stupid?
So you're saying "woman" means a person who is stupid?
-
I kinda liked the speech :) I could see where he was coming from.
Or maybe he was just venting his frustration at perfectly innocent and hardworking policemen who's morale isn't exactly helped by his acting like a 16 year-old douchebag. I don't think there's a chapter in West Point textbooks titled "Making it clear to your men that you despise them and that you're an immature, vindictive asshole" last I checked.
-
Well their loyalty was obviously under question. He was trying to motivate them by means of negative reinforcement of ineffective behavior (being loyal to something rather than your country). Straight out of B.F. Skinner's handbook, something which is the core of combat training in most modern armies.
-
Well their loyalty was obviously under question. He was trying to motivate them by means of negative reinforcement of ineffective behavior (being loyal to something rather than your country). Straight out of B.F. Skinner's handbook, something which is the core of combat training in most modern armies.
Or maybe he's just being delusional and lashing out.
-
We don't know the whole story
-
He's still a misogynist douchebag.
-
No. He is not. He's a soldier, and he's doing what he's being payed to do, which is take orders from the chain of command. Which is what he's doing, he's been ordered to train these police officers, and he has doubts about their loyalty, so he "motivates" them to be loyal to their country. He maintains distinction with him being the leader and the officers being his "class" by forcing compliance upon them, just as he was most likely taught. He probably isn't generally a misogynist, but he has to force these soldiers to comply somehow, and in their society men ARE above women, so what better way to do it?
-
You're severely overestimating the intelligence of army soldiers.
-
I was breaking it down into various influences, you're right, none of that probably went through his mind at the time.
-
You're severely overestimating the intelligence of army soldiers.
You're severely underestimating the intelligence of his CO, who would have given him the training assignment.
While it is likely none of what Dilmah G said actually conciously went through his mind at that point, it was mostly like a preconsidered tactic. A DI has to know how to push his recruits' buttons.
-
So the CO is the misogynist douchebag?
-
So the CO is the misogynist douchebag?
As I said: A DI has to know how to push a recruit's buttons, not in the least because part of the training process is to get them to stop responding readily to any they may have. Misogyny has nothing to do with it. This was a preconsidered tactic chosen based on its cultural effectiveness.
-
So the Iraqis are the misogynist douchebags.
-
So the Iraqis are the misogynist douchebags.
It's part of their religion, they don't despise women, they respect them to some extent, but by our standards they MAY appear misogynist. Douschebags I'd doubt, I know a few Iraqis who are fine people to be around, but some of them seem to stick in their own "communities"... lifting weights, drinking, and smoking weed, but that's beside the point.
-
They use "woman" as an insult, but they respect women?
-
They take it as an insult, I'm sure not many Iraqis use the term as an insult in every-day conversation. They show women the respect the Koran tells them to, which is A-Okay by their standards.
-
Taking as an insult is the same thing.
But really, "woman" is an insult in western culture too.
-
...:wtf:... at this argument.
-
In before the lock....
-
But really, "woman" is an insult in western culture too.
You should do stand-up. :lol:
-
I love how the only thing anyone cares about is that he was using woman as an insult.
-
Um I'm sorry, but that is just not how you motivate people.
-
I stopped watching about the third time he used "woman" as an insult.
Are you some sort of feminist?:rolleyes: Figures after reading that disturbing topic called preggies. I'll be honest; I read that topic and I really felt disturbed and felt sad. That isn't sarcasm. But enough on that. I don't want to go off-topic.
On topic: I do think that many military people are think they are so smart and the best but they are blinded by patriotism and believe whatever the government feeds them. I'm against the whole invading war games anyways. I don't like real war.
-
I stopped watching about the third time he used "woman" as an insult.
Are you some sort of feminist?:rolleyes: Figures after reading that disturbing topic called preggies. I'll be honest; I read that topic and I really felt disturbed and felt sad. That isn't sarcasm. But enough on that. I don't want to go off-topic.
The preggers thread was a joke from the the #hard-light IRC.
On the same topic, is there something wrong with feminism?
-
On the same topic, is there something wrong with feminism?
If you like being treated badly and unfairly and like a slave, then I guess not. Since you said that, I have been wanting to say something for awhile but haven't since it isn't part of any topic currently:
Funny thing is that western society talks about how it wants women and men to be treated equally, but if you think about it, if women were treated 100% equally like the west wants, it wouldn't be taboo for a man to hit back and defend himself, but it is ok for the woman to hit a man in many western countries but not vice-versa, so the woman isn't being treated equally like the men but in fact is being treated better than the men in the west. That is one example of what I meant when I said the law sides more with women here in another thread when I talked about certain things. Oh yeah, and in many non-western countries, the women are not slaves, just have different roles. The men work hard too and give their share. I'm not talking about Arab countries either but other non-western countries where there is more balance and women can show their face and dress the way they want.
But this is off-topic. I should watch that video that the topic is about.
-
Um I'm sorry, but that is just not how you motivate people.
Have you ever served or had a military influence? Everything's allowed as long as you don't hit them in short, and there's little to be racist about, in the USMC, everyone's Green :P
-
Darn, it says that to see the video, I must sign in or sign up and that isn't happening.
-
If you like being treated badly and unfairly and like a slave, then I guess not.
That's just overreaction. If you're really feeling like you're a slave under the women's rights movement, then you just need to buck up and deal with it. I agree, Gloria Allred goes too far in a lot of cases, but
Funny thing is that western society talks about how it wants women and men to be treated equally, but if you think about it, if women were treated 100% equally like the west wants, it wouldn't be taboo for a man to hit back and defend himself, but it is ok for the woman to hit a man in many western countries but not vice-versa, so the woman isn't being treated equally like the men but in fact is being treated better than the men in the west.
Wait, so you're saying if a woman physically abuses a man, she is held less liable than vice versa?
-
So you've never yelled "WOMAN!" at a chick who was being/saying something stupid?
So you're saying "woman" means a person who is stupid?
Yes.
Seriously, these are Arabs. I know you're a teenager in high school, but if you study Arab culture for... 30 seconds? Yeah, that's fair, 30 seconds\and you'll realise that not only is it an insult, but it's also quite descriptive. SURPRISE. American political correctness actually isn't always forced on people across the world, even if American bombs are.
I stopped watching about the third time he used "woman" as an insult.
On topic: I do think that many military people are think they are so smart and the best but they are blinded by patriotism and believe whatever the government feeds them. I'm against the whole invading war games anyways. I don't like real war.
I kinda liked the speech :) I could see where he was coming from.
Or maybe he was just venting his frustration at perfectly innocent and hardworking policemen who's morale isn't exactly helped by his acting like a 16 year-old douchebag. I don't think there's a chapter in West Point textbooks titled "Making it clear to your men that you despise them and that you're an immature, vindictive asshole" last I checked.
Uhh... what?
You guys assume there's like, some big conspiracy to make Iraqis feel like ****, or to that because the CO in this case is giving a lecture, he thinks he knows better because he's American. No ****. The dude is a soldier. It's his job to 1) be good at war and 2) teach others how to be good at war. These policemen are failing, so he's doing the latter. He sounds a lot like any officer giving a lecture to a subordinate who's ****ed up big time. You got fools playing cop by day, running around in the Sadr City Militia by night over and over, Capt. Go Army isn't going to just ask them nicely once to stop and call it a day.
-
Funny thing is that western society talks about how it wants women and men to be treated equally, but if you think about it, if women were treated 100% equally like the west wants, it wouldn't be taboo for a man to hit back and defend himself, but it is ok for the woman to hit a man in many western countries but not vice-versa, so the woman isn't being treated equally like the men but in fact is being treated better than the men in the west.
Wait, so you're saying if a woman physically abuses a man, she is held less liable than vice versa?
No, he means like if a woman slapped a man because he had just insulted or criticised (or something like that) her, people wouldn't really care, whereas if the opposite happened, people would say the man's a 'woman beater' or something. This is especially evident in television.
It's something that bothers me, too. I think it should be averaged for both sexes (Don't applaud the woman or something like that if she slaps the man, but don't say the man is evil if he slaps the woman). But I think that most men (in that I mean men who aren't the evil type) wouldn't hit a woman, anyway, for fear of hurting her, since we usually see men as stronger than women. But that isn't necessarily true, either, as I've witnessed a girl giving a boy a bloody nose at school before.
But this has nothing to do with the topic. :p
-
You guys assume there's like, some big conspiracy to make Iraqis feel like ****, or to that because the CO in this case is giving a lecture, he thinks he knows better because he's American. No ****. The dude is a soldier. It's his job to 1) be good at war and 2) teach others how to be good at war. These policemen are failing, so he's doing the latter. He sounds a lot like any officer giving a lecture to a subordinate who's ****ed up big time. You got fools playing cop by day, running around in the Sadr City Militia by night over and over, Capt. Go Army isn't going to just ask them nicely once to stop and call it a day.
QFT.
There's no hidden agenda, there. It's just a group of people getting chewed out by a superior. Nothing new.
-
Exactly, I fail to see how this is anything new.
-
If you're really feeling like you're a slave under the women's rights movement, then you just need to buck up and deal with it.
Sorry for the off-topic comment but:
I don't have to deal with it if I get a girl from east or south east Asia who follows her more moral culture more and truly loves me instead of being polluted by western immorality and choices like so many are these days. I don't mean her having to stay at home and all that when I say culture. I don't mind her going out and working if I know she is good and trustworthy and I am careful who I choose (of course I don't want anyone now or at least for now). I'm talking about train of thought and values. I will treat her very well if she was like that to me since women like that know true love and actually consider it very special like I do. I have more in common with the way they think anyways when it comes to balance, health, not smoking, certain interests, being thrifty with their money, being more into education and things that matter instead of soaps, and not caring so much about materialism and not wanting to be rich, and certain values of being faithful, soft spoken and tidy just like I am, and I admire that their food is very fresh and their other good qualities like being feminine and very cute both in looks and personality. Also having a good attitude and stronger emotionally. That's almost impossible to find that around here :( and I feel bad for them that the USA killed many of their civilians. There had to have been a better way. I think about the women and children in those countries who lost their lives in bombings and I feel anger and sadness towards the country I live in. I guess I haven't completely lost my heart like I think I have sometimes.
What's strange and upsetting though is here in American, they make it their business to invade and control other societies and pollute their cultures where as if other countries did that to this country and came over here, people here would hate it. America never likes a taste of its own medicine and likes to go overboard. When Japan attacked Pearl harbor and killed only military personal, as far as I know, America not only killed 100's of times more and civilians too, but was actually trying to take over Japan and put American flags in sections of Japan and renaming them and trying to put permanent US bases in Japan like some invading parasite, but Japan never tried to do that to American. Maybe they should imagine how these other countries feel and feel bad. I just feel much anger when I think about it. Then USA thinks it is high and mighty and always right when it wrong in so many ways and has the right to go over to Arab countries and force their beliefs and training on others there. Does that sound right. Not to me since I'm not blinded by patriotism.
-
True love, everywhere and in every culture is rare and precious. Treat it as such
-
I don't have to deal with it if I get a girl from east or south east Asia who follows her more moral culture more and truly loves me instead of being polluted by western immorality and choices like so many are these days.
Value judgement. Back it up.
I don't mean her having to stay at home and all that when I say culture. I don't mind her going out and working if I know she is good and trustworthy and I am careful who I choose (of course I don't want anyone now or at least for now). I'm talking about train of thought and values. I will treat her very well if she was like that to me since women like that know true love and actually consider it very special like I do. I have more in common with the way they think anyways when it comes to balance, health, not smoking,
Tokenism. You seem to be trying to reject your values without rejecting your values.
Also, the smoking comment is friggin' hilarous. Nothing quite so reveals the depth of your ignorance as things like this.
certain interests, being thrifty with their money, being more into education and things that matter instead of soaps, and not caring so much about materialism and not wanting to be rich, and certain values of being faithful, soft spoken and tidy just like I am, and I admire that their food is very fresh and their other good qualities like being feminine and very cute both in looks and personality. Also having a good attitude and stronger emotionally. That's almost impossible to find that around here :( and I feel bad for them that the USA killed many of their civilians. There had to have been a better way. I think about the women and children in those countries who lost their lives in bombings and I feel anger and sadness towards the country I live in. I guess I haven't completely lost my heart like I think I have sometimes.
You want submission, because you are afraid to be challenged. But you lack the force of will or personality to evoke it, as evidenced by your wandering digressions and your inability to produce a truly cutting or damning remark. It worries me I can assess you at a glance.
It also worries me you're spouting some pseudo-sociopathic bull**** like I used to, considering once upon a time I was made of the same mold as school gunmen and pyschotics, probably saved from it only by the fact that I treated it as a switch to be flipped on and off, and I was always afraid to call on the Void because, to paraphrase a wise man from RPG.net, looking too deeply results in it sucking out your eyeballs, hopping inside, and driving you around like a car.
What's strange and upsetting though is here in American, they make it their business to invade and control other societies and pollute their cultures where as if other countries did that to this country and came over here, people here would hate it. America never likes a taste of its own medicine and likes to go overboard. When Japan attacked Pearl harbor and killed only military personal, as far as I know, America not only killed 100's of times more and civilians too, but was actually trying to take over Japan and put American flags in sections of Japan and renaming them and trying to put permanent US bases in Japan like some invading parasite, but Japan never tried to do that to American. Maybe they should imagine how these other countries feel and feel bad. I just feel much anger when I think about it. Then USA thinks it is high and mighty and always right when it wrong in so many ways and has the right to go over to Arab countries and force their beliefs and training on others there. Does that sound right. Not to me since I'm not blinded by patriotism.
This is foolish, and ignores the historical significance of what Japan was and what it was trying to do. Pearl Harbor was their doom, but the orders for the occupation of Japan came after China, after the Rape of Nanking, after Singapore, after Malyasia, after the Phillipines. The occupation was the sins come to ruin, not out of the blue. It was not unprecedented, it was hardly unjust. This wasn't even a flash in the pan compared to what the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was. The occupation was also a necessary step to ensure the removal of the Japanese military from the governmental power structure. The goals of the military and the goals of the state must be seperate for a stable country. When all you have is a hammer, as the saying goes.
And whatever else you may think of the US, recognize this: as far as the military arts go, only one country produces better doctrine (the Russians, and we've stolen all their good ideas anyways), and no one manages better practice. (There are some exceptions; I don't think anyone will say to SAS' face that Delta is the better group, for example, but they are small exceptions.) In this context, the Iraqi military its and paramilitary adjuncts is vastly better off to be trained by US soldiers than by others. They'll get the best, from the best.
-
You want submission, because you are afraid to be challenged. But you lack the force of will or personality to evoke it, as evidenced by your wandering digressions and your inability to produce a truly cutting or damning remark. It worries me I can assess you at a glance.
And you're assesment of High Max has exactly what value? You got psychological diplomas?
You got anything to convince people that an assesment you make out of 3 sentances he made is worth anything at all? Cause I could read a dozen different things from what he wrote if I wanted to. I can read a dozen different things from what you wrote...want me to pick a few bad ones?
So, unless you can somehow prove that your written diagnosis can be used for anything other than wiping your ass, I'd suggest you keep such remarks to yourself.
-
On the same topic, is there something wrong with feminism?
If you like being treated badly and unfairly and like a slave, then I guess not. Since you said that, I have been wanting to say something for awhile but haven't since it isn't part of any topic currently:
Funny thing is that western society talks about how it wants women and men to be treated equally, but if you think about it, if women were treated 100% equally like the west wants, it wouldn't be taboo for a man to hit back and defend himself, but it is ok for the woman to hit a man in many western countries but not vice-versa, so the woman isn't being treated equally like the men but in fact is being treated better than the men in the west. That is one example of what I meant when I said the law sides more with women here in another thread when I talked about certain things. Oh yeah, and in many non-western countries, the women are not slaves, just have different roles. The men work hard too and give their share. I'm not talking about Arab countries either but other non-western countries where there is more balance and women can show their face and dress the way they want.
OH my god. Are you really so ignorant that you don't realize that the taboo against hitting women is because of the patriarchal view that women are weak and fragile? Guys who claim that they "would never hit a girl" are automatically douchebags.
I have a feeling you are either foreign or very conservative. The whole "equal but different roles (aka separate)" bull**** is nothing but more misogyny.
I can't believe you just implied that feminism means to make men slaves. Are you that threatened by the loss of your male privilege?
-
I can't believe you just implied that feminism means to make men slaves. Are you that threatened by the loss of your male privilege?
Maybe he's referring to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism) (I assume fringe) subset of feminism.
-
Yeah, but morons like those exist in every group.
-
I can't believe you just implied that feminism means to make men slaves. Are you that threatened by the loss of your male privilege?
Maybe he's referring to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism) (I assume fringe) subset of feminism.
I think that's what clicks when someone says feminism, it did for me at least, and we had a discussion similar to this not too long ago and people made out feminism to be something like this.
-
That's like believing that Obama s trying to turn America into a socialist state. Seriously.
-
I find it ironic that High Max is posting such comments after taking the time out several times to rant against people characterising all Christians as fundamentalists.
Perhaps he should spend less time explaining things to us and more time trying to actually listen to his own advice.
-
That's like believing that Obama s trying to turn America into a socialist state. Seriously.
Well it doesn't help that the Fundamentalists' are the ones always on the news/tv/headlines/somethingblackpeopleread
-
OH my god. Are you really so ignorant that you don't realize that the taboo against hitting women is because of the patriarchal view that women are weak and fragile? Guys who claim that they "would never hit a girl" are automatically douchebags.
See, this is why I avoid women like you like plague.
If I don't hit a women I'm a douchebag that considers women frail.
If I do hit a women I'm an abusive douchebag that wants control.
You can never do right no matter what you do.
The whole "equal but different roles (aka separate)" bull**** is nothing but more misogyny.
I'm sure that to you, everything is.
-
I just think that if you find the toilet seat in the wrong position, you should just move it to where you want it, regardless of gender.
-
Trashman, you have nothing to contribute to any discussion, do you?
I just think that if you find the toilet seat in the wrong position, you should just move it to where you want it, regardless of gender.
Agreed on that. But many guys need to just sit the **** down. (Like my little brother, who can't seem to NOT pee on the damned toilet itself.)
-
See, this is why I avoid women like you like plague.
If I don't hit a women I'm a douchebag that considers women frail.
If I do hit a women I'm an abusive douchebag that wants control.
You can never do right no matter what you do.
How about simply not hitting anyone? :rolleyes:
Iamzack's point is "Why are you singling out women for not being hit"?
-
Actually that's not my point at all. Not even close.
It's taboo to hit women like it's taboo to hit children. Basically, the view is that women are the same as children. Weak, fragile, in need of direction and protection, etc.
-
Agreed on that. But many guys need to just sit the **** down. (Like my little brother, who can't seem to NOT pee on the damned toilet itself.)
why do you think so many ppl are killed by freindly fire ......... guys cant aim straight
-
Perhaps he should spend less time explaining things to us and more time trying to actually listen to his own advice.
If people actually listened to their own advice, the world would be a better place.
It's taboo to hit women like it's taboo to hit children. Basically, the view is that women are the same as children. Weak, fragile, in need of direction and protection, etc.
And you know exactly what I'm thinking when I decide not to hit a women? You KNOW it's because I consider her frail and weak right?
It couldn't possibly be for some other reason?
But that said, women are physicly weaker than men. That is a proven fact, and shockigly, some social norms are what they are cause they work well.
Do women really NEED protection? In this day and age, I'd say not very much, no. Still, is it wrong to want and protect someone? Not at all.
-
Some women are weaker than some men. Size, age, lifestyle, etc come into play much more than sex.
-
Actually that's not my point at all. Not even close.
It's taboo to hit women like it's taboo to hit children. Basically, the view is that women are the same as children. Weak, fragile, in need of direction and protection, etc.
That's kinda what I meant. Why is single out women as someone you can't hit unless it's to put them in the same group.
That said you have to remember that often when people say that they are talking in the context of someone abusing their spouse. So "I would never hit a woman" is basically "I would never hit my wife\gf\significant other" which isn't the same thing you're on about.
Besides instead of trying to get men to stop saying "I would never hit a woman" you should probably respond with "I'd never hit a man either"
1) That's the sort of thinking people should have in the first place. i.e don't hit anyone
2) It helps point out that spousal abuse can go in both directions
3) The real douchbags will promptly reveal themselves to everyone without need for an explanation by making some stupid sexist comment in reply. :)
-
I always hear "I don't hit girls" in the context of girls in general. It makes me want to abuse those guys until they fight back.
-
Actually that's not my point at all. Not even close.
It's taboo to hit women like it's taboo to hit children. Basically, the view is that women are the same as children. Weak, fragile, in need of direction and protection, etc.
Thank you for this lesson on gender equality.
From now on, whenever a woman is being a twat waffle, I'm going to give her the left hook just I would any child or guy. Not because I'm a woman beater, but the exact opposite: because of my respect for all women, and a few children. If you want equality, that **** needs to be earned, *****.
-
That sounds like equality to me.
But, a side note: equality needs to be earned by women? Really? Is that how that works?
-
That sounds like equality to me.
But, a side note: equality needs to be earned by women? Really? Is that how that works?
Just because you got titties don't mean you're getting nothing handed to you on a silver plate. Stop being weak. You want equality, get in line, start a revolution like everyone else. Be ready to get clocked in the face.
-
How about because I'm HUMAN I get to be equal to all other HUMANS.
You know, rather than being a subset of human, where people=men.
-
How about because I'm HUMAN I get to be equal to all other HUMANS.
You know, rather than being a subset of human, where people=men.
lol wouldn't that be nice?
No, you get to prove it. You wanted to be treated "like men" you have to prove you can hang with them. Just like children have to prove they've grown up, just like every other oppressed minority in this country and every other has had to step up and prove themselves. Do it how you will, cite what sources are in your favor, but you still have to prove you can step up. Remember, chivalry is dead, you killed it. You get to live like men now, or at least, the wannabes.
-
But straight (I assume by your direction) white men are automatically exempt from this "earning equality?"
I could understand if you meant each person has to prove themself, but no. You're saying that white men are automatically better than other races of men and women.
-
But that's just the point. Men and women aren't the same. They are different.
Both are humans yes, both have same rights. But treating them EXACTLY the same in every situation? Makes no sense. That would be denying the obvious and trying to force some artificial equality.
-
Men and women are more similar than different. MOST differences are due to social factors.
-
Men and women are more similar than different. MOST differences are due to social factors.
Somewhat true. Physical factors play a big role. Not to mention that men and women have a tendacy to think in different ways.
But the point is that those small differences have to be taken into account.
-
Yeah, occasionally. Maybe on a medical level.
But nothing really to warrant "women have different roles than men."
-
But straight (I assume by your direction) white men are automatically exempt from this "earning equality?"
I could understand if you meant each person has to prove themself, but no. You're saying that white men are automatically better than other races of men and women.
Let's not play the ideological card here, because that's fail. We both know if the world worked ideally, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Everyone (including people with vaginas) would be equal, granted said equality under not only the U.S. Constitution (written by men) but also by God / natural law.
Somehow, things don't work that way though.
But that's just the point. Men and women aren't the same. They are different.
Both are humans yes, both have same rights. But treating them EXACTLY the same in every situation? Makes no sense. That would be denying the obvious and trying to force some artificial equality.
qft
-
Wow, way to not say a single thing, Knight.
-
Men and women are similar? Research clearly shows more differences than the eyes could ever suggest. Women, for example, are physically weaker and feel more pain than men.
-
Wow, way to not say a single thing, Knight.
If you look closely, I haven't really said anything new in years.
Also, while I'm too busy and uninterested to do any kind of superficial research into the subject, I like where Mobius is taking this thread. :yes:
-
That's a gross generalization. That's like saying whites are physically weaker and feel more pain than blacks. (@Mobius)
-
Wow, way to not say a single thing, Knight.
If you look closely, I haven't really said anything new in years.
judging by your viewpoints, I'd say something around 150 years.
-
Wow, way to not say a single thing, Knight.
If you look closely, I haven't really said anything new in years.
judging by your viewpoints, I'd say something around 150 years.
Oh snap homie, I hope your GF didn't force you to post that by putting you into a headlock!
-
That's a gross generalization. That's like saying whites are physically weaker and feel more pain than blacks. (@Mobius)
Maybe they are.
Black people apparenlty have the genes to be amazing runners and their muscle mass is rather large in general.
-
That's a gross generalization. That's like saying whites are physically weaker and feel more pain than blacks. (@Mobius)
Maybe they are.
Black people apparenlty have the genes to be amazing runners and their muscle mass is rather large in general.
Good job, you don't realize that "black" isn't really a genetic grouping.
-
That's a gross generalization. That's like saying whites are physically weaker and feel more pain than blacks. (@Mobius)
No, it isn't a generalization. Females have proved to have inferior resistance to pain - keep in mind that I'm refering to the feeling of pain, not to physical resistance to pain.
You also need to take into account of scientists demonstrated that brains have certain differences that perfectly match the "Man goes hunting, woman stays at home" thing. Each of the two brains has its pros and cons.
About black people - who are you refering to, exactly? There's a pretty cruel way to explain why black people who live in the USA are physically stronger than the average. A few centuries ago, when the British moved thousands of Africans to the US, "forced travel" conditions severely tested the Africans' physical resistance. Many of them died. The ones who survived were physically stronger so, in theory, their heirs are keeping the same features. It's very sad to say this, though.
-
"Black" is not a genetic grouping.
It is absolutely a gross generalization. You're talking about evolutionary psychology, which is 90% bull****.
-
"Black" is not a genetic grouping.
It is absolutely a gross generalization. You're talking about evolutionary psychology, which is 90% bull****. [citation needed]
-
Wow, way to not say a single thing, Knight.
If you look closely, I haven't really said anything new in years.
judging by your viewpoints, I'd say something around 150 years.
Oh snap homie, I hope your GF didn't force you to post that by putting you into a headlock!
No, i hit her when she tries that. I actually believe that.
-
GENDISC HAS FINALLY DRIVEN BATTUTA CAPSLOCK MAAAAD
That's a gross generalization. That's like saying whites are physically weaker and feel more pain than blacks. (@Mobius)
No, it isn't a generalization. Females have proved to have inferior resistance to pain - keep in mind that I'm refering to the feeling of pain, not to physical resistance to pain.
You also need to take into account of scientists demonstrated that brains have certain differences that perfectly match the "Man goes hunting, woman stays at home" thing. Each of the two brains has its pros and cons.
About black people - who are you refering to, exactly? There's a pretty cruel way to explain why black people who live in the USA are physically stronger than the average. A few centuries ago, when the British moved thousands of Africans to the US, "forced travel" conditions severely tested the Africans' physical resistance. Many of them died. The ones who survived were physically stronger so, in theory, their heirs are keeping the same features. It's very sad to say this, though.
WTF WTF WTF why would you say that when it's not true.
There is no scientific consensus that men have better resistance to the feeling of pain. (What the heck is the difference between that and the physical resistance of pain?) While some studies (some!) suggest that women report more pain, this is probably due to cultural differences in gender roles AND NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF A BIOLOGICAL OR GENETIC DIFFERENCE.
And your hypothesis about why black people in America are strong is akin to ideas that Jews are smart because rabbis had kids but priests didn't: like 90% of evolutionary psychology it is a fable, made up to explain facts, without empirical grounding or testability.
NO JUNK SCIENCE HERE MMKAY.
Trashman and Mobius are all 'women are weaker than men'
ON AVERAGE.
BUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT OVERLAP. (i.e. there are many women who can do more pushups and lift more weight than your scrawny ass can)
SO ANY WOMEN WHO CAN PASS A PHYSICAL FITNESS EXAM TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THE MEN CAN.
IS THIS CLEAR.
(also go have a baby and don't die in the process and then come back and yammer a bit more about pain resistance)
That sounds like equality to me.
But, a side note: equality needs to be earned by women? Really? Is that how that works?
Just because you got titties don't mean you're getting nothing handed to you on a silver plate. Stop being weak. You want equality, get in line, start a revolution like everyone else. Be ready to get clocked in the face.
OH THIS IS A GREAT PLAN.
Here, let's play chess. But before we start, I'll spend six thousand years taking away your rooks, your knights, and your bishops.
Wait, you want them back? Okay, all you have to do is win the game with just your pawns! STOP *****IN' FOR YOUR PIECES BACK. YOU WIN THE GAME FIRST.
See, that's silly.
You can't ask an oppressed group facing every possibly prejudice and disadvantage - including the ignorance of people like you - to start a bloody revolution. Because you don't want that and there's no possible way you think it's just.
Think about it. The people in positions of power? White males. Who gets to foster a new generation of powerholders? White males. Who sets the social norms (often unconsciously) about how powerholders should behave, even what they should look like? White males.
You are a white male, and a result, you have no reason to empathize with oppressed groups. But you should.
somebody thinks black people are stronger and better runners
EVOPSYCH BULL**** FABLE TIME
Races don't exist as meaningful biological categories. They exist on the social level, sure. But there are no biological races, not even statistically distinct concentrations of traits, not even statistically distinct appearance or skin color groups.
NO SUCH THING AS RACE.
And now you're all, wait, aren't all the good athletes black? AND I BUST OUT THE DATA. Which suggests that variation in fitness between alleged racial groups is greater than variation within so they do not exist on an empirical level.
-
There was similar thread a while ago, where I linked a report by the US Combat Readiness Center about women in combat.
It clearly illustrated the biological differences and the problems they cause. Methinks it said 45% less upper body strength and 35% less endurance (or something like that), and that women had trouble completing the same trials men did.
The differences between men and women aren't exactly miniscule. Neither purely physical ones, nor mental ones.
-
There was similar thread a while ago, where I linked a report by the US Combat Readiness Center about women in combat.
It clearly illustrated the biological differences and the problems they cause. Methinks it said 45% less upper body strength and 35% less endurance (or something like that), and that women had trouble completing the same trials men did.
The differences between men and women aren't exactly miniscule. Neither purely physical ones, nor mental ones.
ON AVERAGE ON AVERAGE ON AVERAGE ON AVERAGE
Boy, Trashman, how about we think for a second? How could we fix this problem?
How about, instead of giving the women rigged fitness tests that require fewer pushups (as is done now), we give them the same test the men take? Sure, fewer women in the army, but this way they can do just as many things?
I bet even you can agree that's a good idea. And this way, instead of being misogynistic, you can just discriminate against the physically weak (more of which happen to be females, granted). Everyone's happy! EVEN ME.
And you can't say **** about mental differences because we have no good way of disentangling cultural effects from biological ones.
Saying 'women shouldn't be in the army because more of them are physically weak' is like saying 'black people shouldn't be in the army because more of them are criminals.' It totally misses a) the why of it and b) how to fix it.
And you can't make legislation or rules based on group averages because that destroys the options of those people who aren't average.
-
But that's just the point. Men and women aren't the same. They are different.
Both are humans yes, both have same rights. But treating them EXACTLY the same in every situation? Makes no sense. That would be denying the obvious and trying to force some artificial equality.
Exactly, even from a scientific naturalist point of view, pretty much every species in the animal kingdom has gender roles. For example, the lioness goes out and hunts and gives the lion food in exchange for protection. Neanderthals also went out and hunted while the women took care of the young and cooked and took care of the men when they returned. If men and women were meant to be exactly equal, there would be only one sex. Oh yeah, and the problem with everyone being too equal is we would all be robots.
Oh, and I do agree that if a person wants more freedom and equality, they have to take the responsibility that goes with it, but women's train of thought in the west is they want all these rights without the responsibility. That doesn't sound right. I can say that if a women treats me badly and doesn't have much in common with me and is not good like the average oriental woman and doesn't show me love or importance, I will simply not be with her and she will get absolutely nothing from me.
And about the smoking bit: it is less common for an oriental woman to smoke than a girl from USA. I live here and I know. Nothing funny about it. It isn't about submissiveness and no challenge since if you knew, orientals don't obey all things and act mindlessly like many people in the west like to think; it is about my having more in common with their way of thinking and wanting to feel loved and like I mean something to the girl, like I already said, but I guess someone missed that part of the previous post. Also having an oriental woman and one that is more into her culture brings back the memories of the good qualities of a Japanese girl I had in 2005/2006 who was more traditional. She was very feminine and at the same time, kind, very intelligent and emotionally strong and I love that. I know all people have flaws but I just prefer orientals since then. Is that a problem? If so, too bad for all of you.
People are free to ridicule me on a forum and I'm not too afraid of a challenge, but it seems that the one being mouthy and going off on every other post and sociopathic is iamzack, not me, and keeps whining in every thread about anything that she views as not respectful towards women. Damn, talk about sensitive and can't stay calm. I agree with Trashman and any other who feels this way. That is one prime example of why I would not want a western woman and nothing will change my mind after the knowledge and certain experiences I have obtained. That reinforces exactly what I said earlier about one reason I definitely prefer "the average" oriental girl more than any western girl, since they are kinder, have a much better attitude, much less selfish, and not emotionally unstable like many western women seem to be (the ones who follow their culture more). They are much better at staying calm. I'm talking about my experiences and the average ones who follow their culture, not the ones who don't. Thank you iamzack for reinforcing what I said.
-
I'm not going to pile on you because you've clearly got something special going on, and I respect that.
-
How about you show me one post in this thread where I wasn't calm. I don't freak out about every instance of sexism on this forum, or I'd likely never sleep. I only respond and get irritated when it is absolutely blatant. Using "woman" as an insult directly insults me, as a woman.
But High Max, simply put, you're just a racist misogynist, like Trashman and Knight.
-
Neanderthals also went out an hunted while the women took care of the young and cooked and took care of the men when they returned.
Yeah, I just want to correct this tidbit. Homo Sapiens did a version of what you propose, with men going after large game and women going after small game and other food sources. Neanderthals didn't differentiate between men and women, both going after large game.
-
That sounds like equality to me.
But, a side note: equality needs to be earned by women? Really? Is that how that works?
Just because you got titties don't mean you're getting nothing handed to you on a silver plate. Stop being weak. You want equality, get in line, start a revolution like everyone else. Be ready to get clocked in the face.
OH THIS IS A GREAT PLAN.
Here, let's play chess. But before we start, I'll spend six thousand years taking away your rooks, your knights, and your bishops.
Wait, you want them back? Okay, all you have to do is win the game with just your pawns! STOP *****IN' FOR YOUR PIECES BACK. YOU WIN THE GAME FIRST.
See, that's silly.
You can't ask an oppressed group facing every possibly prejudice and disadvantage - including the ignorance of people like you - to start a bloody revolution. Because you don't want that and there's no possible way you think it's just.
Think about it. The people in positions of power? White males. Who gets to foster a new generation of powerholders? White males. Who sets the social norms (often unconsciously) about how powerholders should behave, even what they should look like? White males.
You are a white male, and a result, you have no reason to empathize with oppressed groups. But you should.
Dude, you were on such a roll until now.
1) Chess is dumb, but you probably still suck at it, so that's why you used it as an example. It's a bad example. Try like, Starcraft, where women have to play 1v1 against Protoss, while playing Zerg. Except they're not allowed to use Lurkers or Devourers. GFG.
Really though, I can ask whatever I want. Thanks.
2) You've got no idea what color my skin is.
3) 3 words for you - Black President, Bro. Black President.
-
But High Max, simply put, you're just a racist misogynist, like Trashman and Knight.
I totally resent this. I just told you a page or two ago, I was down to hit chicks. According to you, this means I'm progressive!
-
But High Max, simply put, you're just a racist misogynist, like Trashman and Knight.
There you go again. Can you grow up? Cry me a river. Not my problem. Just keep going since it is what you do best, apparently. I won't feed into your game and you can think whatever you wish, whether it be wrong or right.
-
I didn't call you "irrational" or "childish." (Which you have called me, in other terms.)
I called out your viewpoints for what they are.
You can't tell the difference, can you?
-
Has any other mod been in here? If they haven't, I'm going to set this straight right now; the flaming needs to stop, as does the borderline hate speech. Calm down or this thread is locked.
EDIT: Or it's locked already. Looks like another mod didn't deem you all worthy of getting a second chance - I don't blame them.