Justincblount

For me, that's too much altitude loss as well. Yes, a smaller slider affects opening speed, but if you are unclear on the equipment specs, I hope you relied on a rigger for ordering the slider. It's not always the slider. I jumped some student canopies in Z-hillls that a few of us complained about, they all went in for re-lines. But that depends how hard it has been jumped. There are definitely things you can do in packing... like, if people taught you to do anything to the nose when you wrap the tail around, that encourages sniveling. But talk to a good instructor, there are also things you can do under a sniveling canopy to encourage it to open.

I've done late flares before, you can't really PLF them. You just crash in with your ass and a foot or something. My foot took some massive impact from one, and then from an early flare on the next jump, had me limping the rest of the day. I think it's better to flare early than late if you have a good PLF. I was never able to get good at gauging when to flare by looking ahead at the horizon, I am usually glancing sideways when I start the flare, looking at nearby flags or whatever in relation to the sideways horizon. Looking forward at the horizon gives me a pretty good idea when it's time to glance sideways, but isn't enough to tell me when to actually start the flare. Using the glance cheat, I am usually starting the flare at the perfect height, then I just have to judge how quickly to finish punching it out. This is for two stage flares, which they didn't teach student jumpers for some reason. But I expect the glance would still work for a one stage flare. I've noticed certain times looking ahead can help determine when to start the flare, but only when I was looking directly at where I was going to land, "the point that doesn't move", etc, and it takes a while to train your eye for that. The advice "look towards the horizon" didn't help for me, and I think the advice "look ahead 20 feet or so" might be missing the reason for why it works, such as the landing spot being roughly 20 feet ahead. Then again, that much information is hard to apply if they have untrained eyes. I also have never tried consistently looking 20 feet ahead while landing, so that's interesting.

I can see it as a problem if you are practically head down in the track, but it seems to me that a normal track isn't enough horizontal speed for the canopy to really come out sideways to the relative wind. So if your slider is controlled, it should open normally. It will open further behind you, and that will contribute to the shock you feel, but not necessarily more opening force. Although, there are scenarios where the slider is not controlled, or various other mistakes in packing. For this reason, pitching from a track is a bad habit to have!! Skydiving mistakes can add up and cause chain reactions, so the goal should always be to control the slider AND pull stable, etc.

That's a good point, it might be highly dependent on packing inaccuracy whether it makes a difference. It's hard to imagine a scenario where the wind blows the slider downwards because of a late track. I suppose you would have to test subterminal openings and awkward body positions with awful pack jobs, that's where the REAL magic happens.

I've put together two massive playlists... police gunning down family pets, and child rape accusations against pastors. Are they edited selectively... well, I didn't post videos of them giving heart transplants! I guess it would be irrelevant to the social commentary I was making about the phenomenon. I do understand how bias, prejudice and subjectivity works, and that playlists are rarely intended as statistical analysis. What follows is that my "data" was objectively subjective. You have correctly identified this. The compilation of video evidence only demonstrates the phenomenon, not the information. I was indeed unable to back up my claims or conclusions, and thus had no justification to hold them as true, which also proves the importance of public scrutiny on a claim. I thought I was going back to the fundamentals, but I'm not sure what the fundamentals of masculine or feminine energy would even refer to in physical reality, and could more accurately be called aggressive or passive impulses. Maybe it would be good to evolve to a point where aggressive impulses are no longer necessary, and are bred out of existence.

When did I say they don't count? We add them into the massive pile of other videos. The playlist I posted even has such examples. PLAYLIST... not one video. And you are still pushing the absurd argument that I'm saying NO woman has ever handled a spider. It's stupid.

How is it we're arguing about this? I could easily pull up hundreds of videos with no malfunctions to debunk any retard making this claim.

I never just showed one video, and I never based my opinions off of one piece of video evidence. The problem you are talking about only exists in a hypothetical case separate from anything I've ever espoused.

If your only interest in someone is to bang them, even if that's their only interest as well, it's still exploitative.

Yes, my opinion would be swayed if there were dozens of men on Youtube advocating for rape, and virtually none condemning it.

I don't. That's basically the male version of feminism. It's victim mentality. If someone showed me "a video" with dozens of examples of men supporting rape, and only a few examples could be found condemning it, I would take pause.

I guess when I reverse it, and I say a man who doesn't do X and Y(creating order and leading others to necessity) isn't functioning as a man, it does become a slight against them. I guess they could still function in a supplemental role and be just as valuable, but I don't consider them men, they are soy boys. So if my views are misogynistic, it would seem they are also misandric. Equality Ftw. Actually, I think feminine men are a lot less respectable than masculine women. By about 300%. In my case, there is absolutely no benefit to being a soy boy, it goes against my priorities and principles. I have always been attracted to feminine women, and always fallen short of meeting their needs. I am simply poorly trained, I could use a good leader myself. There is nothing wrong with responsible authority. It's what I needed growing up, but I was raised by a single mother with a personality disorder. You could say I'm incel in the widest interpretation, I realized it's not practical for me to pursue women at my level of competency, but I would like to be in a harmonious relationship if it were feasible. If I wanted to abandon my principles and just go out to get laid, it would be fairly straight forward. I would probably creep most women out in the process of finding someone willing, but I would definitely get laid. I find masturbation to be a more efficient use of my time, so I exploit my hand instead of other people.

I don't believe there is a gender gap when it comes to skydivers. Skydiving is for (virtually)all walks of life and levels of ability or disability. Even morbidly obese people can skydive. Sure, they might not be able to stand up the landings, but they always PLF. Although, as I'm saying this, there is clearly a gap in who typically become skydivers. It's a male majority activity and identity, and among them mostly masculine personalities and competencies. The lifestyle can be dysfunctional in many cases, but that's in no way unique to skydiving. I can't really relate to peoples' idea that I'm insulting all women. I'm not even insulting the most hardline feminine women, I'm saying they are natural and harmonious. I carefully noted that my statements don't apply to all, yet I'm smeared as telling women on this forum to go back to vacuuming or something, or belittling things you impressively achieved as clearly non-prototypical women, throughout your long lives. Seems like a stretch of an interpretation. Or is it that you feel attacked because I'm holding women who fit stereotypical gender roles to be of the highest worth as women?

Yeah, I would think people are getting pretty impatient with this now. I just like to debate. Lots of people made good points.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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... Not usually, and yes.

Thank you for your well reasoned, data-rich, informative response. You brought many things to my attention that I was unaware of, and I will look into it further.

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. I also haven't witnessed MOST women confronted with potentially threatening bugs, so it's pointless to argue about what we CAN'T know. That's why more info is needed for a productive exchange of ideas. I've definitely provided more data than those in disagreement, so I've met my burden. There are a lot of assumptions being made about me as well. Apparently I'm antiquated, unevolved, etc, and yet I continue on my journey. "I think women are better than men at growing babies inside of them." Is this an opinion-based belief? 'Cus by your inept logic, we can never make a general statement grounded in fact. If you disagree with something I've said, show me how your data conflicts, show me how my data is faulty. Show me anything that suggests you have integrity, and aren't just asserting that you are already correct by default. It's not a single source, I'm not sure what you're asking me. Anyone can look up scientists, inventors, etc, and see that it's mostly men. If you're talking about my 99% figure, I couldn't possibly defend that, because I'd have to list 99 for each one you could mention, which isn't a productive use of my time, but it may actually be possible to do. I'm not convinced it is definitely possible though, which means this is devolving into an argument over something that isn't even a real disagreement, but rather a stylistic choice. No one should be expecting "99%" to be an accurate statistic in simple conversation. Why are you almost literally repeating what I just said, as if you're contradicting me? You call that functional? I call it going against your own instincts and denying who you naturally are. It sounds like a huge psychological burden, which is dysfunctional. If the kids did ok, then that's good, but the fact they are EX-wives should tell you something about whether it was a functional relationship. Men have to be one thing and women another because of genetic and hormonal differences. Doesn't mean these genetic and hormonal differences are the same in all men or women. Now that we've gotten that out of the way for the 5th time or so, why can't we not be judged for what we look like, wear, or do? Because humans have good pattern recognition, for example we know that this is a mime. http://spice4life.co.za/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/Sibo Masondo (2).jpg?itok=Sqz0avE2 Is it possible that this is not a mime, and is actually a goth? Possible. Very unlikely. Most of us know what a mime looks like, and what a goth looks like. We also know it is statistically more likely to be a goth mime than a non-mime goth. We can make assumptions based on what people wear, and especially what they DO. If this person is communicating with only their hands, are we seriously gonna keep saying they might be something other than a mime? Maybe they identify as a basketball player! ::sigh::

The problem I have with that is you haven't really confronted any of my claims. You can disagree with the methodology, you can provide conflicting data... even reasoning would suffice for a response, but you have provided neither reasoning nor data, nor information. It's lazy, it's vague, it doesn't get to why you believe what you believe. For purposes of communication, it's useless. I want my views to reflect reality as much as possible, not my own subjective emotions, or the subjective opinions of another person or group.

Are we still not done with the spiders? Fine. It's an entirely trivial, tongue-in-cheek example, but you asked for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cnwAVfW2GI&t=0s&list=PLv5HnNA7SQui9Y-5l8zg0I7_cPz6LYAJ2&index=8

Most women self-report as wanting the man to lead. Most women are utterly terrible at killing spiders. Note that this ONLY applies to MOST women. Nowhere did I say they CAN'T do the opposite.

"In the 21st century we no longer have to hunt our food or fight off animal predators so the fact that men are generally physically stronger than women really doesn't matter anymore." What about something like 99% of notable inventors, scientists, philosophers, engineers, architects, etc... in the 21st century... being men? Does that factor into the idea that our functional differences have disappeared? Or are those men just not evolved? "We can lead. We can kill spiders. We can support ourselves and our families. Even if we aren't lesbians." Thank you for your correct information, I was able to look on Youtube and find video evidence of many females killing spiders. I know you CAN do certain things. A gay man CAN hook up with a lesbian, but that is different from being biologically suited to do it, and having the will or desire to, and it leading in a functional direction. I'm speaking very generally when I say "women are this, men are that". Some women are suited to more masculine things, but those exceptions don't disprove the general rule. "...in most non-biological ways women are the same as men." They are also different in purely superficial ways. Maybe "most", maybe not. Motivations for superficial choices are often instinctive rather than intuitive, so that depends where you draw the line between biology and superficiality. "An evolved male is considerate of others." I consider the basic needs of all sentient life, to the extent I am able to discern. "An evolved man doesn't assume that a woman with short hair wearing comfortable jeans and a tshirt is a lesbian." I might use certain terms as a shorthand comparison for easy reference, but I would never assume such a thing from style alone. Genetics also play a role, but you can't always pin down genetics from appearance either. "An evolved male doesn't spout misogynistic bullshit." You got me there. I have views about gender that you find offensive, so by your definition I am not evolved. "The first rule of hole digging is knowing when to stop. Pretty sure you've already hit the bottom of this one." I will always test my views against public scrutiny to identify flawed reasoning, which has already occurred in this discussion. I'm not sensitive to how people react, that's up to you. I only care about identifying the best principles and following them. It's not enough for me to simply accept opinion-based beliefs, I feel a duty to back them up with reason and data, and I have the ability to discard a belief once it has been reasonably discredited.