So sick of the "you are beautiful" message...

[Justincblount 4]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

With that level of proof, I could quite easily prove all men are incompetent, nearly homicidal drivers.

I mean, I would never dispute that most people are horrible drivers, but any time you say "all", you have a very high chance of being factually incorrect.

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Skydivers jump out of airplanes and hurl themselves suicidally at the Earth.  Would you call that dysfunctional?

For me it's leading in a functional direction, but I guess it varies. If I somehow got brain damaged skydiving, and spent the rest of my life as a vegetable, I wouldn't say it turned out to be functional.

 

22 minutes ago, billvon said:

Is an alcoholic who is 100% sober "dysfunctional?"

Ehhhh... the addiction is dysfunctional, and the psychological burden is dysfunctional. This seems like a case where it's impossible to remove dysfunction.

Oh, and...

37 minutes ago, billvon said:

do you use a cellphone, and do you live in the US?

Not usually, and yes.

[billvon 2,379]

37 minutes ago, Justincblount said:

For me it's leading in a functional direction, but I guess it varies.

Jumping out of airplanes and hurling yourself suicidally at the Earth is functional?  By those standards, you don't really have any standing to claim that what other people do is dysfunctional.

Quote

Ehhhh... the addiction is dysfunctional, and the psychological burden is dysfunctional. This seems like a case where it's impossible to remove dysfunction.

?? The dysfunction is removed by not behaving dysfunctionally.

We all carry around a bundle of instincts that make it difficult to live in a civilization.  The desire to have sex - the desire to eat - the desire to take what we want.   We oppose those instincts with our will to achieve the results we want.  (i.e. we don't steal because we don't want people to steal from us, so supporting laws on theft helps ensure that.) To follow your logic here, that means all of us are completely dysfunctional.

But that's a pretty bad definition.  I'd say most of us are pretty functional, because we are evolved enough (there's that word again) to use our intellect to suppress our antisocial instincts.

Quote

Not usually, and yes. (cellphone use in the US)

In that case you are benefiting from the work of Hedy Lamarr, an actress and pinup girl in the 1930's.  She was also brilliant, and she invented spread-spectrum communication as a way to prevent jamming of Allied torpedoes during World War II.  So if you use a cellphone, use wi-fi or use Bluetooth you are benefiting from her inventions.  Interestingly, up until the 1980's or so she was never acknowledged as the inventor of that technology; everyone assumed that a man had done the work and just put her name on the patent.  She wasn't even inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame until 2014, long after her death.

That's one of the problems inherent in assuming things like "99% of inventors are men" - you miss things like that.  Indeed, there are probably dozens of Hedy Lamarr's out there today being ignored because they are beautiful (and therefore not very smart) or people think they are meant to have children and not invent, or people think that's man's work.  Here in the US we are getting past that - but as we see here, we aren't quite there yet.

[yoink 321]

This thread started off utterly ridiculous with the original post and has devolved into full on crazy.

 

[gowlerk 1,901]

On 11/13/2018 at 7:12 PM, Nataly said:

Why in this day and age are we still continuing to equate "beauty" with "value"??? Yuk! So sick of it.

If you don't understand the value of beauty, either male of female beauty, you are just not paying attention. It has always been valued and it always will be. You likely possess a fair amount of it yourself. That undermines your ability to understand what it is like to live without it. It goes hand in hand with youth many times, especially for women.  But I don't blame you for being sick of the way we worship beauty. It is truly a subjective thing and is only of value in a narrow sense.

[jakee 1,254]

6 hours ago, Justincblount said:

Well reasoned, but how is video evidence nothing to refute? It's basically a first-hand witness. If people want to deny their lying eyes, I can't help that. 

The video evidence is not evidence that supports the claim you actually made, that MOST women are terrible at killing spiders, not just the one woman in the video.

 

Quote

I also haven't witnessed MOST women confronted with potentially threatening bugs, so it's pointless to argue about what we CAN'T know.

So you CAN'T know that MOST women are terrible at killing spiders? Then you have a choice, are you going to continue to stand by your claim that MOST women are terrible at killing spiders, and prove the brazen and laughable dishonesty of your claim to be driven by data and reason, or are you going to admit that you're just making unsubstantiated claims that result purely from your own pre-existing bias?

 

Quote

"I think women are better than men at growing babies inside of them." Is this an opinion-based belief?

I'm happy to stipulate that it's fairly well established by medical, scientific and historical research that this is the case. But that's the same as making sweeping generalisations about gender based behaviour that you can't back up, is it? You know what mate, I think at some point you're going to have to recognise that you're not quite as clever as you think you are, because these are fairly basic concepts you're struggling with.

 

Quote

'Cus by your inept logic, we can never make a general statement grounded in fact.

 

 

I said you are making statements that are not grounded in fact. That you have somehow twisted your way around to  the exact opposite is truly inept logic. If you disagree, well, we're right back to square one. Show us the data which says most women are terrible at killing spiders.

[Justincblount 4]

18 minutes ago, jakee said:

So you CAN'T know that MOST women are terrible at killing spiders? Then you have a choice, are you going to continue to stand by your claim that MOST women are terrible at killing spiders, and prove the brazen and laughable dishonesty of your claim to be driven by data and reason, or are you going to admit that you're just making unsubstantiated claims that result purely from your own pre-existing bias?

The last one. I have a pre-existing bias that there is a biological component, but there is no evidence for this, it might be learned behavior and added exposure from subtle gender roles encouraged in early childhood. I still think more women freak out over it than men, but the underlying cause isn't certain. So I will back down from my claim that women are naturally bad at pest control.

[jakee 1,254]

7 hours ago, Justincblount said:

The last one. I have a pre-existing bias that there is a biological component, but there is no evidence for this, it might be learned behavior and added exposure from subtle gender roles encouraged in early childhood. I still think more women freak out over it than men, but the underlying cause isn't certain. So I will back down from my claim that women are naturally bad at pest control.

Kinda sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it there, but OK, it's still progress.

 

Now, would you like to follow up with a retraction of your claim that 99% of notable techy people are currently men, or do we have to unpick your logic step-by-step all over again?

[Divalent 89]

7 hours ago, Justincblount said:

The last one. I have a pre-existing bias that there is a biological component, but there is no evidence for this, it might be learned behavior and added exposure from subtle gender roles encouraged in early childhood. I still think more women freak out over it than men, but the underlying cause isn't certain. So I will back down from my claim that women are naturally bad at pest control.

Sex differences in fear of spiders " In the presence of a live spider, women reported more subjective unpleasantness and tension than men and had higher heart rates. Women also displayed greater reluctance to be close to the spider. "

Gender and age differences in the prevalence of specific fears and phobias. "Animal phobia had a prevalence of 12.1% in women and 3.3% in men."

Arachnophobia researchers want to know why women are more likely to be terrified of spiders

Girls are primed to fear spiders
"... women are four times more likely to take fright than men..."

WHY ARE WE SO AFRAID OF SPIDERS?
"About 75% of the people sampled were either mildly or severely afraid of spiders. Of those most were female. (This gender bias in arachnophobia has been supported subsequent research.)"

Plenty more if you want to explore

 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Divalent

[Justincblount 4]

Wow, you seem to have great research skills. Honestly, I would rather back down from most claims than be put in a position to have to defend them with that amount of data. I admit I didn't read everything, it's not really a question that keeps me up at night, but well done! With studies done at 11 months old, it's hard to imagine that there is no biological difference. I wonder if we're still gonna keep arguing about it now. I, for one, am ready to rest my case.

8 hours ago, jakee said:

Now, would you like to follow up with a retraction of your claim that 99% of notable techy people are currently men, or do we have to unpick your logic step-by-step all over again? 

Either one. I don't stand by 99% being an accurate number, and never did. To me, the phrase "something like 99%" speaks for itself. It's hyperbole. But please nitpick my logic.

[Justincblount 4]

I think a big problem with this conversation was my use of the word "functional". I seem to have redefined it without telling anyone, so we are stuck talking about two different concepts. A better word might be "healthy".

The idea that something is functional and leads to an unhealthy outcome doesn't really compute with me. The alcoholic example seemed weird to me for this reason. You could also replace "biologically functional" with "biologically healthy". Always referring to physical and psychological well-being. The only other thing in consideration is hard truth and responsibility. Various degrees of responsibility require various degrees of psychologically damaging hard truth.

By my definition, a functional leader will always lead you in a healthy direction. A tyrannical leader will lead you to their own wants. A moral agent will say morality is about well-being. A moral prescript will say it's because of what a tyrannical god says his opinion is, or something to that effect.

[jakee 1,254]

7 hours ago, Justincblount said:

Wow, you seem to have great research skills. Honestly, I would rather back down from most claims than be put in a position to have to defend them with that amount of data.

How is it you've gone from claiming that your opinions are based on data, to being amazed that someone has looked up some data, because you can never be bothered?

 

Quote

I admit I didn't read everything, it's not really a question that keeps me up at night, but well done! With studies done at 11 months old, it's hard to imagine that there is no biological difference. I wonder if we're still gonna keep arguing about it now. I, for one, am ready to rest my case.

Which article is it that you think supports the claim that you actually made?

 

Quote

Either one. I don't stand by 99% being an accurate number, and never did. To me, the phrase "something like 99%" speaks for itself. It's hyperbole. But please nitpick my logic.

So what did you mean, aside from being deliberately offensive to the women you were talking to?

[Justincblount 4]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

How is it you've gone from claiming that your opinions are based on data, to being amazed that someone has looked up some data, because you can never be bothered?

You don't consider video evidence as data, so we are talking past each other. My standards of evidence are different than yours, you want statistics and studies, whereas I want to see it with my own eyes. I can't do my own studies to confirm their findings, and even if I did, I would have to put a spider in front of MOST women to prove my original claim. I have since backed down from that claim, however true it might literally be.

1 hour ago, jakee said:

So what did you mean, aside from being deliberately offensive to the women you were talking to?

I did intend to provoke, no question about it. I think what I meant is that women are not only physically and emotionally weaker than men, on average, but also intellectually weaker. Of course, this is again putting me in a position where I make all the claims, and you make none, other than to point out that my claim hasn't met its burden of proof.

In this case, my belief comes from vast amounts of historical records and logical deduction as to why the opposite didn't occur, with women building the majority of civilization and men reaping the benefits while bitching about the matriarchy. As an example, men invented weapons to level the playing field with stronger animals, women didn't level the playing field with men, anywhere in the world, and my deduction is that they were either unequipped to do so, or simply had no desire to, because we are different. I'm open to hearing other theories that are sufficient to explain this reality.

[Phil1111 903]

1 hour ago, Justincblount said:

You don't consider video evidence as data, so we are talking past each other. My standards of evidence are different than yours, you want statistics and studies, whereas I want to see it with my own eyes. ...

I did intend to provoke, no question about it. I think what I meant is that women are not only physically and emotionally weaker than men, on average, but also intellectually weaker. Of course, this is again putting me in a position where I make all the claims, and you make none, other than to point out that my claim hasn't met its burden of proof.

...As an example, men invented weapons to level the playing field with stronger animals, women didn't level the playing field with men, anywhere in the world, and my deduction is that they were either unequipped to do so, or simply had no desire to, because we are different. I'm open to hearing other theories that are sufficient to explain this reality.

"Video evidence" is not necessary evidence. Its merely a narrative that appeals to a superficial understanding because the images are impactful upon the brain. Divalent makes a case and supplies independent supporting data from credible sources. Just like a lawyer would do at trail. I'd guess that she is a lawyer or scientist, possibly social scientist. In order to understand your bias try this to start.  Now you may think that persuasion isn't relevant to the debate at hand. But your style of argument attempts to set ideas forward as if it were truth. So watch this.

I was reluctant to post something here because its difficult to judge if you're a troll, knucke-dragger, both, or something in between. The prior suggestions to quit while your ahead were also my first thoughts. In the same week that a woman was first ever to win a scholarship. You continue to beat the dead horse while standing downwind of it.

You need to think beyond the superficial ideals that mix with small bits of evidence that support your conclusions. Think about the two videos that you've hopefully watched. Then go back and read the links in Divalent's post.

Since you're unlikely to do it. Continue digging.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Phil1111

[skybytch 259]

31 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Since you're unlikely to do it. Continue digging. 

Seriously.  This pot is so deep now my spoon isn't long enough.

[skybytch 259]

1 hour ago, Justincblount said:

I think what I meant is that women are not only physically and emotionally weaker than men, on average, but also intellectually weaker.

Nothing like a good belly laugh on a Monday morning! 

I dare you to say that to your mother. Post video so we have data.

[gowlerk 1,901]

5 minutes ago, skybytch said:

Seriously.  This pot is so deep now my spoon isn't long enough.

In the spirit of the thread. Maybe you should look for a man with a long spoon to help you with that.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Justincblount said:

You don't consider video evidence as data,

Is this another example of you redefining words and not telling anyone you've done it? As it relates to a claim regarding most women, a youtube video of one woman is not data, it is an anecdote. Hell, fun fact for ya, even the word 'data' itself is plural.

 

Quote

My standards of evidence are different than yours, you want statistics and studies, whereas I want to see it with my own eyes. I can't do my own studies to confirm their findings, and even if I did, I would have to put a spider in front of MOST women to prove my original claim.

Right, so you've gone from claiming 'It's not enough for me to simply accept opinion-based beliefs, I feel a duty to back them up with reason and data,' to admitting that you have no interest in reason and data, and no idea how scientific studies work or how conclusions regarding a population can be drawn from representative sample sets. Tell me again how it is that you're not full of shit?

 

Quote

I have since backed down from that claim, however true it might literally be.

Since you have admitted you have no idea how literally true it might be, why did you make it in the first place?

 

Quote

I did intend to provoke, no question about it.

Not deliberately provocative, deliberately insulting. There's a difference.

 

Quote

I did intend to provoke, no question about it. I think what I meant is that women are not only physically and emotionally weaker than men, on average, but also intellectually weaker. Of course, this is again putting me in a position where I make all the claims, and you make none, other than to point out that my claim hasn't met its burden of proof.

See, there you go again. That's not just provocative, it's deeply offensive and misogynistic. It's not something you say to generate a discussion, it's something you say because you're either a small minded bigot, you want to outrage the people you're talking to, or a combination of both.

 

Quote

In this case, my belief comes from vast amounts of historical records and logical deduction as to why the opposite didn't occur, with women building the majority of civilization and men reaping the benefits while bitching about the matriarchy. As an example, men invented weapons to level the playing field with stronger animals, women didn't level the playing field with men, anywhere in the world, and my deduction is that they were either unequipped to do so, or simply had no desire to, because we are different.

Do you really need me to go through all the reasons why that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, or are you just trolling for a reaction and you know it's nonsense? Just as a first example - it's quite clear you're intellectually inferior to most women I know, but put you in a room with any random one of them and a selection of pre-gunpowder weapons and you would most probably still win that fight. Capisce?

[skybytch 259]

10 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

In the spirit of the thread. Maybe you should look for a man with a long spoon to help you with that.

Hubby probably has one here somewhere but I am not intellectually strong enough to find it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

59 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Since you're unlikely to do it. Continue digging.

 

26 minutes ago, skybytch said:

Seriously.  This pot is so deep now my spoon isn't long enough.

Toldja. 

20 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

In the spirit of the thread. Maybe you should look for a man with a long spoon to help you with that.

 

8 minutes ago, skybytch said:

Hubby probably has one here somewhere but I am not intellectually strong enough to find it.

Maybe try the 'Glory' thread?

[billvon 2,379]

3 hours ago, Justincblount said:

You don't consider video evidence as data, so we are talking past each other. My standards of evidence are different than yours, you want statistics and studies, whereas I want to see it with my own eyes.

So you don't believe that the Earth is round, that vaccines work, or that special relativity is valid?  (It's a very safe bet that you have not seen any of those with your own eyes.)

Quote

As an example, men invented weapons to level the playing field with stronger animals, women didn't level the playing field with men, anywhere in the world, and my deduction is that they were either unequipped to do so, or simply had no desire to, because we are different.

You just said your standard is that you need to see something with your own eyes to believe it.  Did you see a man invent the first spear?  The first blade?  The first bow and arrow?  Or do you just _want_ to believe that?

I think you've decided what you want to believe, and are now just manufacturing reasons to go on believing them.  It is pretty popular nowadays.  For example, flat-eartherism is becoming more common; people use the "I only believe what I see with my own eyes" rationale quite a lot in that belief system.

[skybytch 259]

32 minutes ago, jakee said:

Quote

I did intend to provoke, no question about it. I think what I meant is that women are not only physically and emotionally weaker than men, on average, but also intellectually weaker. Of course, this is again putting me in a position where I make all the claims, and you make none, other than to point out that my claim hasn't met its burden of proof.

See, there you go again. That's not just provocative, it's deeply offensive and misogynistic. It's not something you say to generate a discussion, it's something you say because you're either a small minded bigot, you want to outrage the people you're talking to, or a combination of both.

I'm really curious why some guy would think it's a good idea to barge into the women's forum (where this thread started before he barged in) on a skydiving website (where very few women who will put up with attitudes like his hang out), to insult women. 
I wonder who turned him down for a date.

Smart girl.

</ad hominen attack>
 

[jakee 1,254]

13 minutes ago, skybytch said:

I wonder who turned him down for a date.

Everyone?

[Phil1111 903]

42 minutes ago, jakee said:

Everyone?

Just a cavewoman.

 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Phil1111

[yoink 321]

2 hours ago, skybytch said:

Nothing like a good belly laugh on a Monday morning! 

I dare you to say that to your mother. Post video so we have data.

I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s a shut-in and has never met more than one or two women in his life. Nothing else explains this level of absurdity except trolling.

 

[SkyDekker 1,119]

4 hours ago, Justincblount said:

I did intend to provoke, no question about it. I think what I meant is that women are not only physically and emotionally weaker than men, on average, but also intellectually weaker

There is more and more evidence that would put this into question. One area to look at is the ultra endurance world. Women are starting to beat men relatively frequently in these events. Indicating that they are better suited to deal with long periods of pain.

 

The 2019 Spine race was won by a woman, beating the fastest man to complete it by over 12 hours. The Spine race is a 268 mile non-stop running race. She won in just over 83 hours. The best male needed over 95 hours....