[iamzack]

"Black" is not a genetic grouping.

It is absolutely a gross generalization. You're talking about evolutionary psychology, which is 90% bull****.

[BloodEagle]

"Black" is not a genetic grouping.

It is absolutely a gross generalization. You're talking about evolutionary psychology, which is 90% bull****. [citation needed]

[Turambar]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[High Max]

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.

[General Battuta]

I'm not going to pile on you because you've clearly got something special going on, and I respect that.

[iamzack]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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.

[Knight Templar]

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.

[Knight Templar]

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!

[High Max]

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.

[iamzack]

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?

[Unknown Target]

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.