FlamingPie
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2015
Once again, says the guy who supports the people that do.
I think the Average Joe and Jane knows more about human nature than you.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Once again, says the guy who supports the people that do.
I think the Average Joe and Jane knows more about human nature than you.
DrChristianTroy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Heh, the guy who used photoshop to try and get our approval wants to talk about masculinity.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2015
He mentioned that the tranny pic he posted wasn't on image search, thus making the butt pic he posted fake and the new one either taken from elsewhere. That "girl" certainly had wide shoulders and a square butt like on those chatroulette catfishing pranks. 
Doesn't matter, Blaz likes twinks and so does @SlayerOfTyranny. They also post a single emoticon in response to something they think they have a leg up in.
Doesn't matter, Blaz likes twinks and so does @SlayerOfTyranny. They also post a single emoticon in response to something they think they have a leg up in.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
Well, I'm incredibly bored and I have to wait for my food, so lemme go get my shotgun and indulge you since you think that I'm somehow agreeing with you.
Here's what's important. All of us belong to the race Homo sapiens sapiens, which has no scientifically proven differences between the male and female genders. The closest you have is that males are, on average, physically superior to females, which can be greatly influenced by the background and upbringing of the individual in question, but that's beside the point. Just because the culture has affected how gender roles are defined does not affect the supposed superiority or inferiority of the genders in question.
This is like claiming that Europeans are better than the other races because of their accomplishments and lasting impacts in the world, despite the fact that most of the foundation of European science and mathematics was derived from other cultures such as the Arabs and the Chinese and they prospered specifically because of a coincidental moment in history where the Europeans were expanding to find more trade routes and advance economically while simultaneously the other huge empires in history were becoming more isolationist and rejecting exploration and travel, letting the Europeans discovery the Old World first and capitalize on Imperialism. Saying it was just because they were European dismisses literally every other factor that contributed to this, just like how saying that 99%+ of significant historical accomplishment is male is dismissing literally every other factor that led to males having, on average, a higher education and far more opportunities throughout history. This is why, when trying to prove things like intellectual superiority or things like that, you have to use dedicated scientific experimentation in a controlled environment where both are entirely equal and without favoritism. History is unable to duplicate these specific circumstances, therefore in trying to prove that men are better than women trying to use history as evidence is unreliable and will be dismissed by any serious academic.
I have already told you what is and isn't relevant to this debate. The fact that men are historically better than women does not prove, in a scientific sense, that men are better than women, because history is not a controlled environment and you are dismissing several variables that have led to men being "the source of 99% of human accomplishment."
You can claim anything is "self-evident" because it seems obvious but there are several things that are "obvious" that are not inherently true. If we believed everything based on base perception without ever going into further detail on them, we would believe that the world is flat and that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. What you are using is "intuition," and "intuition" is a death knell to any actual scientific study. Intuition tells you that things are obvious because you perceive them as such, although science can often operate on levels that are not immediately perceptible by the human eye and, thus, would be considered "unintuitive." People used to believe that "humors" were in the body that dictated health and that an inbalance in these humors would cause illness. If you told them that microscopic organisms were the cause of illness, they would call you stupid because you cannot see these creatures. It is not intuitive to believe something like this. We know better, however, because we have fucking studied it.
You bring nothing that has been verified by scientific study and peer review. Your intuition is meaningless and, again, no academic would ever take it seriously. I'm not trying to disprove you because there is nothing to disprove and, by all accounts, you are right. Males are the source of "99%+ of human accomplishment." Great. This means nothing.
And yes, I'm about 19 and I know what is and isn't acceptable in these kinds of fucking arguments, unlike you. Either you're younger than me and are haplessly trying to flail around in an argument that is far beyond your maturity or intelligence or you are far older than me and are a very sad and pathetic human being who is trying to sound smart with the most fallible of arguments. Honestly, I'm really only doing this because I find it amusing and because I have nothing better to do with my time while waiting for my food to cook. Any serious academic would either laugh his ass off or be completely fucking insulted having his time wasted with such a childish position.
You have no argument.
What you have presented is the dumbest thing that we have seen in our lives.
In no point in your rambling, idiotic diatribe is anything that would be considered a rational thought.
Everyone on this forum is dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points.
And may Lady Yasaka have mercy on your soul.
No, I'm not. You take the most superficial differences and claim that they somehow imply superiority or inferiority, avoiding the bigger picture or the more relevant facts because they don't suit your narrative.
Here's what's important. All of us belong to the race Homo sapiens sapiens, which has no scientifically proven differences between the male and female genders. The closest you have is that males are, on average, physically superior to females, which can be greatly influenced by the background and upbringing of the individual in question, but that's beside the point. Just because the culture has affected how gender roles are defined does not affect the supposed superiority or inferiority of the genders in question.
And this proves what? There's no focus testing, no controlled experiment, no analytical data that shows conclusively that, when placed in the same environment with the same opportunities, men will accomplish more than women. Women have, historically, been denied education and have been relegated to supportive and submissive roles for most of civilization. If anything, the fact that there are still prominent women in this type of male-dominated environment shows exactly how wrong your statement is, as it shows that women are able to rise above this adversity and accomplish something in the world despite having most of the odds stacked against them.
This is like claiming that Europeans are better than the other races because of their accomplishments and lasting impacts in the world, despite the fact that most of the foundation of European science and mathematics was derived from other cultures such as the Arabs and the Chinese and they prospered specifically because of a coincidental moment in history where the Europeans were expanding to find more trade routes and advance economically while simultaneously the other huge empires in history were becoming more isolationist and rejecting exploration and travel, letting the Europeans discovery the Old World first and capitalize on Imperialism. Saying it was just because they were European dismisses literally every other factor that contributed to this, just like how saying that 99%+ of significant historical accomplishment is male is dismissing literally every other factor that led to males having, on average, a higher education and far more opportunities throughout history. This is why, when trying to prove things like intellectual superiority or things like that, you have to use dedicated scientific experimentation in a controlled environment where both are entirely equal and without favoritism. History is unable to duplicate these specific circumstances, therefore in trying to prove that men are better than women trying to use history as evidence is unreliable and will be dismissed by any serious academic.
Says the man that has posted pictures of scantily clad women on the Farms and taunted us with it.
See: Both are under the same species.
Loveshies are not Loveshies because Feminism. Even if we were perpetually stuck in 1800's where women were subjugated to an inferior gender role because of the society in place, Loveshies would still exist because, naturally, women would be married off to men of the highest status. As Loveshies do not excel academically, intellectually, economically, or physically, they're fucked in literally all categories. Instead of bitching about women, you would be bitching about all the Chads that stole all of the women while toiling away on the fucking railroads.
You imply that just because there is equality then that means that it is impossible for there to be subjugation. While this is the idealistic expectation, the fact of the matter is that we are a social species and we, by nature, will attempt to establish a hierarchy where there are people above the other. Apes fucking do this and I don't think they even comprehend "gender" beyond "females give babies."
[Citation needed]
Roles that are antiquated. Roles that are a product of an ancient culture that is no longer relevant. Welcome to the 21st century, where we consider genders rather irrelevant. We are mostly a meritocracy, so for the most part people don't give a fuck what's between your legs (despite what Tumblr keeps fucking saying).
You have said nothing that can even be considered remotely defendable.
The fact that you want "women to be women" and "men to be men" is insanely sexist. There are different mannerisms, physiques, and overall biology. That's literally it. Please point to a study showing that men are smarter than women and then we'll talk.
You have no arguments.
I have already told you what is and isn't relevant to this debate. The fact that men are historically better than women does not prove, in a scientific sense, that men are better than women, because history is not a controlled environment and you are dismissing several variables that have led to men being "the source of 99% of human accomplishment."
You can claim anything is "self-evident" because it seems obvious but there are several things that are "obvious" that are not inherently true. If we believed everything based on base perception without ever going into further detail on them, we would believe that the world is flat and that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. What you are using is "intuition," and "intuition" is a death knell to any actual scientific study. Intuition tells you that things are obvious because you perceive them as such, although science can often operate on levels that are not immediately perceptible by the human eye and, thus, would be considered "unintuitive." People used to believe that "humors" were in the body that dictated health and that an inbalance in these humors would cause illness. If you told them that microscopic organisms were the cause of illness, they would call you stupid because you cannot see these creatures. It is not intuitive to believe something like this. We know better, however, because we have fucking studied it.
You bring nothing that has been verified by scientific study and peer review. Your intuition is meaningless and, again, no academic would ever take it seriously. I'm not trying to disprove you because there is nothing to disprove and, by all accounts, you are right. Males are the source of "99%+ of human accomplishment." Great. This means nothing.
And yes, I'm about 19 and I know what is and isn't acceptable in these kinds of fucking arguments, unlike you. Either you're younger than me and are haplessly trying to flail around in an argument that is far beyond your maturity or intelligence or you are far older than me and are a very sad and pathetic human being who is trying to sound smart with the most fallible of arguments. Honestly, I'm really only doing this because I find it amusing and because I have nothing better to do with my time while waiting for my food to cook. Any serious academic would either laugh his ass off or be completely fucking insulted having his time wasted with such a childish position.
You have made no point.
You have no argument.
What you have presented is the dumbest thing that we have seen in our lives.
In no point in your rambling, idiotic diatribe is anything that would be considered a rational thought.
Everyone on this forum is dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points.
And may Lady Yasaka have mercy on your soul.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2015
@Sanae Kochiya, why respond to him with logic? It's not what he wants, he just wants you to reply so he can giggle and jerk it to animu. He's that transparent.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
Because I'm bored and I needed something to do while I was cooking.
Let me be autistic. :3
Let me be autistic. :3
Frank Rizzo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2014
This is why I dislike us engaging these twonks in actual debates.
We provide all of the factual info we can, and all they do is just go "LOL, nope, we're right, you're wrong!"
It's useless.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
So it's basically your typical political thread on IGN. Considering his performance so far, he'd fit right in.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
Electronic music has gone south since people call it "techno", "electronica" or "EDM". It all sounds like dental drill to me.
Blaz also hates muslims. Coincidence?
Last edited:
J
JU 199
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Why is slayeroftranny still shitposting? I thought he was drowning in pussy. 
Frank Rizzo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2014
Why is slayeroftranny still shitposting? I thought he was drowning in pussy.
Well, we're talking about a guy who had a girl in his actual room who apparently wanted his dick, and he instead decided to stay on here for almost two hours to pat himself on the back about how he had a girl in his room and we didn't.
We're not dealing with the most intelligent troll here...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
Why is slayeroftranny still shitposting? I thought he was drowning in pussy.
He's too busy being cucked repeatedly by @Sanae Kochiya
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
So what's cooking?
Also, my current position on women vs men is more or less summed up as "different, yet equal." People can have different mannerisms, behaviors, and ways of enjoying sexuality (and sexy is not inherently sexist) -- yet still be equal.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
It might expose the true evils of feminism.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2015
Actually, no. How can you even prove such an assertion? Just saying "it's obvious" doesn't cut the mustard in an argument.
Please provide a source that demonstrates that gender roles are derived from nature and not culture.
Just an FYI, your statement above is known as an assertion. That means you are saying something is true without providing reason to believe it's true.
You can say that until you're blue in the face, but your points indicate otherwise.
Your assertion doesn't hold up. Please provide an argument ... you know, several premises and your conclusion that follows from those premises. Otherwise there is no reason to accept anything you say. To this point, how do you arrive at the conclusion that if women and men are equal, then women couldn't be oppressed? How do you explain the oppression of Africans? Native Americans? Homesexuals? Are you saying they are not equal because they were oppressed? Are you even sure you understand what equality means in this context?
I'll repeat it. This is again, just an assertion. Please provide a source for these stereotypes and assertions.
I personally believe what you are describing are gender behaviors prescribed by culture and society, not by nature. We know of several societies where the gender roles are not the same as you describe (see Chambri People etc) . That indicates societal pressures determine gender roles. This happens to also be the view of mainstream anthropology and sociology.
And you would be dead wrong. My wife and I are very progressive when it comes to gender roles, we don't follow what society and culture tells us we should be doing in our relationship. We are equals and operate with cooperation. There is no dominance or submission required or even desired, we work on rationality and the prime motive is allowing each other the space and freedom to achieve our dreams and goals.
If there's anything you could learn it's that just because you think and say something is true, doesn't mean it is. It's not necessarily true that gender roles prescribed by society are necessary. We know this when examining the structures of different human societies throughout history. i.e. gender roles are not always the same in all societies.
Ah-ha! I figured it out. You don't understand what "equality" means in the context of human rights and society. You are using the wrong definition! You seem to think equality means people are literally the same instead of the correct definition that all humans are equal in the sense that they are full members of society with access to the same opportunities without regard to gender, race or disability.
Intellectual pursuits should never be generalized. That's how unfair stereotypes and sloppy thinking emerge. The fact you can't get into the details is a demonstration of your ignorance.
I agree. But he made some errors in his thinking that are too stupid to not point out.
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Such as "posting"?
J
JU 199
Guest
kiwifarms.net
it's not normal for lovershy to be this retarded
Frank Rizzo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2014
Considering the really, really, really retarded SH'ers/lookism users who have passed through here, sadly, this *is* the norm...