Why do people hate?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Recidivist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Recidivist »

ForgedinHell wrote:We do know about behavioral differences between the sexes. We also know about differences in how they think. There is not sufficient evidence, however, to justify any discrimination as the range of abilities of women is quite broad, as is that for men, so there is a great deal of overlap, despite the differences. Men are more likely to excel at system analysis, which is great for math and engineering. Women are more socialable than men, which is great for trial law. However, a Lisa Randall is more likely to have a "male brain" than most men, and Gerry Spence is more likely to have a "female brain" than most women. We just don't know how any specific person will do.
Men are physically stronger than women, with very few exceptions. They are faster, can jump higher and have more stamina. As in the cases above it is the exceptions that prove the rule.
To deny human nature is tantamount to denying almost 4 billion years of evolution.
Human is a term originating in Western Europe. It has no universal validity and changes according to the needs of the age.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by chaz wyman »

Recidivist wrote: Men are physically stronger than women, with very few exceptions. They are faster, can jump higher and have more stamina. As in the cases above it is the exceptions that prove the rule.
The exceptions are fewer than you think.
The trouble with this sort of statement is that it can be used to justify prejudice.
The fact is that given any single example, for most men you cannot tell if the next women will be weaker or stronger. Thus it is wrong to discriminate due to sex even when strength is a factor.
Advertising a job for a man, because strength is a factor is often, and ought to be, illegal.
The fact is that most women are stronger, fitter, can jump higher and have more stamina that you, even-though on average men are stronger.
User avatar
Recidivist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Recidivist »

chaz wyman wrote:
Recidivist wrote: Men are physically stronger than women, with very few exceptions. They are faster, can jump higher and have more stamina. As in the cases above it is the exceptions that prove the rule.
The exceptions are fewer than you think.
The trouble with this sort of statement is that it can be used to justify prejudice.
The fact is that given any single example, for most men you cannot tell if the next women will be weaker or stronger. Thus it is wrong to discriminate due to sex even when strength is a factor.
Advertising a job for a man, because strength is a factor is often, and ought to be, illegal.
The fact is that most women are stronger, fitter, can jump higher and have more stamina that you, even-though on average men are stronger.
The immediate move to personalize suggests a weakness in your reasoning.

Women don't compete against men in sport simply because they'd always be beaten. Ergo women are not the best choice in jobs that require physical strength and exertion. They are also poorer at thinking than men, they equivocate too much and struggle to make decisions. Look at intellectual history if you want proof. Again, providing exceptions is only going to prove the rule.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Recidivist wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
Recidivist wrote: Men are physically stronger than women, with very few exceptions. They are faster, can jump higher and have more stamina. As in the cases above it is the exceptions that prove the rule.
The exceptions are fewer than you think.
The trouble with this sort of statement is that it can be used to justify prejudice.
The fact is that given any single example, for most men you cannot tell if the next women will be weaker or stronger. Thus it is wrong to discriminate due to sex even when strength is a factor.
Advertising a job for a man, because strength is a factor is often, and ought to be, illegal.
The fact is that most women are stronger, fitter, can jump higher and have more stamina that you, even-though on average men are stronger.
The immediate move to personalize suggests a weakness in your reasoning.

Women don't compete against men in sport simply because they'd always be beaten. Ergo women are not the best choice in jobs that require physical strength and exertion. They are also poorer at thinking than men, they equivocate too much and struggle to make decisions. Look at intellectual history if you want proof. Again, providing exceptions is only going to prove the rule.
Intellectual history? Now, I'll assume you are a man, given your sexist comments against women. As a result, since your statements are irrational, you provide some evidence that men are not intellectually superior to women. It's hard to imagine any woman writing anything dumber than you have. Let's just take one of your many idiotic statements, and use it to show your irrational thought process. You made the statement that intellectual history shows men are superior to women. Science teaches us, however, that correlation is not causation. In a world where women were denied education, job opportunities, and were discriminated against, one would expect that there would be fewer women intellectuals than men. At the same time, one would expect two other findings: 1. Those women who are educated, that they will perform as well as men. 2. As women are allowed increasing access to education and employment opportunities, they would perform as well as men. That is exactly what we find. Therefore, when you merely comment that women had fewer successes in the past than men, you failed to logically look at the evidence.

There is no evidence that men are superior to women intellectually. There is evidence that men and women think differently about some subjects, with some advantages going to women, others to men, and also the evidence shows that there are many exceptions to this rule.

Hatred often stems from ignorance, and you are a brilliant example of this.
Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Outsider »

ForgedinHell wrote:Intellectual history? Now, I'll assume you are a man, given your sexist comments against women. As a result, since your statements are irrational, you provide some evidence that men are not intellectually superior to women. It's hard to imagine any woman writing anything dumber than you have. Let's just take one of your many idiotic statements, and use it to show your irrational thought process. You made the statement that intellectual history shows men are superior to women. Science teaches us, however, that correlation is not causation. In a world where women were denied education, job opportunities, and were discriminated against, one would expect that there would be fewer women intellectuals than men. At the same time, one would expect two other findings: 1. Those women who are educated, that they will perform as well as men. 2. As women are allowed increasing access to education and employment opportunities, they would perform as well as men. That is exactly what we find. Therefore, when you merely comment that women had fewer successes in the past than men, you failed to logically look at the evidence.

There is no evidence that men are superior to women intellectually. There is evidence that men and women think differently about some subjects, with some advantages going to women, others to men, and also the evidence shows that there are many exceptions to this rule.

Hatred often stems from ignorance, and you are a brilliant example of this.
What nonsense... what bla...

There's that famous equation again; 'whoever disagrees with my ignorance = ignorant = haters'. How convenient.

I'm posting an excerpt from an 'anti-semite'/nazi, since that is what You Tend to Call Everyone Anyway!

"If one alludes to history as the chief witness for the absence of strength, type forming, in women, then they complain about the violent repression which has hindered them, without noticing that this concession alone is decisive. The greatest male geniuses have often been children of poverty and oppression, but nevertheless they have grown to become rulers and shapers of men. There is more falsehood than truth in the assertion that, historically, women have been oppressed. Even in the gloomy middle ages, noble women enjoyed a better education than the knights who rode out to battle and adventure. They also had leisure enough to study anatomy and astronomy at the household hearth. But never from the midst of these women has there emerged a Walther von der Vogelweide or aWolfram. There was no Roger Bacon who was hunted through all of Europe by the church. No woman became one of the founders of our science. Woman could not create because she lacked the conceptualisation which is native only to man. There is no magic or power that permits creativity. It is simply a gift given only to man, never women.
Greece gave intellectual freedom to the hetairai, if not to the wife. Nevertheless, apart from the lyrically sexual Sappho, nothing noteworthy happened. This freedom of women was far more a clear sign of Hellenic decline. The Renaissance also gave women equalopportunities with men. Women such as Vittoria Colonna, Lucrezia Borgia, are known only to us, not because of their own deeds, butbecause of the way they were immortalised by men such as Michael Angelo. Woman has simply failed to produce or create lasting values of genius.The intrusion of the woman’s movement into the collapsing world of the 19th century has taken place on a broad front. This female liberation program has, by natural necessity, entered into a mutually reinforcing alliance with all other forces of disintegration—withworld trade, democracy, Marxism and Parliamentarianism. The enormous industry of woman in all domains has been given only amodest display when deeds and victories were counted. There are only a few significant women: Sonya Kowalewsky; Madame Curie, whose genius suddenly vanished when her husband was run over in a street accident; and a legendary inventress of the sewing machine. Otherwise, although there has been a succession of competent women physicians, art and crafts women, female secretaries, scholars andnatural scientists, none has produced synthesis.The science of emancipation declares that the so called female qualities have been merely called forth due to the thousand year oldrule by men. When woman ruled, as had occurred at times, female qualities were formed in the man. Therefore only sex could be evaluated. This logic is just as typical as it is widespread. Essentially, it springs from the dusty milieu theory, according to which man is nothing other than a product of his environment." [Rosenberg, Myth of the 20th Century]
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by thedoc »

Any difference in the historical record for a difference in accomplishment of men over women can be accounted for by oportunity. Historically women have had to struggle for any oportunity for intellictual development. Put women in one room and say here you may cook and clean and have children. Put men in another room and give them all the education they can absorb, and men will achieve more intellictually than women. lack of opportunity cannot be construed as lack of ability.
User avatar
Recidivist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Recidivist »

ForgedinHell wrote:Intellectual history? Now, I'll assume you are a man, given your sexist comments against women. As a result, since your statements are irrational, you provide some evidence that men are not intellectually superior to women.
I guess that makes you a woman.
It's hard to imagine any woman writing anything dumber than you have.
I'm sure you can give it a shot.
Let's just take one of your many idiotic statements, and use it to show your irrational thought process. You made the statement that intellectual history shows men are superior to women. Science teaches us, however, that correlation is not causation.
The cause is biology. The effect is the natural hierarchy we observe.
In a world where women were denied education, job opportunities, and were discriminated against, one would expect that there would be fewer women intellectuals than men. At the same time, one would expect two other findings: 1. Those women who are educated, that they will perform as well as men. 2. As women are allowed increasing access to education and employment opportunities, they would perform as well as men. That is exactly what we find. Therefore, when you merely comment that women had fewer successes in the past than men, you failed to logically look at the evidence.
Giving women and minorties access to education has meant lowering the bar. Subsequently standards have fallen and so have the yardsticks used to measure them.

"In a world where men are denied the right to give birth"

Why is nature so cruel? Surely this prejudice must be overcome!
There is no evidence that men are superior to women intellectually. There is evidence that men and women think differently about some subjects, with some advantages going to women, others to men, and also the evidence shows that there are many exceptions to this rule.
History provides all the evidence we need. Even matriarchal societies have not produced any great thinkers.
Hatred often stems from ignorance, and you are a brilliant example of this.
Why so much anger?
What are you a woman, black or gay?

Perhaps you're not sure?
Last edited by Recidivist on Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Recidivist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Recidivist »

Outsider wrote:I'm posting an excerpt from an 'anti-semite'/nazi, since that is what You Tend to Call Everyone Anyway!

"If one alludes to history as the chief witness for the absence of strength, type forming, in women, then they complain about the violent repression which has hindered them, without noticing that this concession alone is decisive. The greatest male geniuses have often been children of poverty and oppression, but nevertheless they have grown to become rulers and shapers of men. There is more falsehood than truth in the assertion that, historically, women have been oppressed. Even in the gloomy middle ages, noble women enjoyed a better education than the knights who rode out to battle and adventure. They also had leisure enough to study anatomy and astronomy at the household hearth. But never from the midst of these women has there emerged a Walther von der Vogelweide or aWolfram. There was no Roger Bacon who was hunted through all of Europe by the church. No woman became one of the founders of our science. Woman could not create because she lacked the conceptualisation which is native only to man. There is no magic or power that permits creativity. It is simply a gift given only to man, never women.
Greece gave intellectual freedom to the hetairai, if not to the wife. Nevertheless, apart from the lyrically sexual Sappho, nothing noteworthy happened. This freedom of women was far more a clear sign of Hellenic decline. The Renaissance also gave women equalopportunities with men. Women such as Vittoria Colonna, Lucrezia Borgia, are known only to us, not because of their own deeds, butbecause of the way they were immortalised by men such as Michael Angelo. Woman has simply failed to produce or create lasting values of genius.The intrusion of the woman’s movement into the collapsing world of the 19th century has taken place on a broad front. This female liberation program has, by natural necessity, entered into a mutually reinforcing alliance with all other forces of disintegration—withworld trade, democracy, Marxism and Parliamentarianism. The enormous industry of woman in all domains has been given only amodest display when deeds and victories were counted. There are only a few significant women: Sonya Kowalewsky; Madame Curie, whose genius suddenly vanished when her husband was run over in a street accident; and a legendary inventress of the sewing machine. Otherwise, although there has been a succession of competent women physicians, art and crafts women, female secretaries, scholars andnatural scientists, none has produced synthesis.The science of emancipation declares that the so called female qualities have been merely called forth due to the thousand year oldrule by men. When woman ruled, as had occurred at times, female qualities were formed in the man. Therefore only sex could be evaluated. This logic is just as typical as it is widespread. Essentially, it springs from the dusty milieu theory, according to which man is nothing other than a product of his environment." [Rosenberg, Myth of the 20th Century]
Excellent quote.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by chaz wyman »

Recidivist wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:
Recidivist wrote: Men are physically stronger than women, with very few exceptions. They are faster, can jump higher and have more stamina. As in the cases above it is the exceptions that prove the rule.
The exceptions are fewer than you think.
The trouble with this sort of statement is that it can be used to justify prejudice.
The fact is that given any single example, for most men you cannot tell if the next women will be weaker or stronger. Thus it is wrong to discriminate due to sex even when strength is a factor.
Advertising a job for a man, because strength is a factor is often, and ought to be, illegal.
The fact is that most women are stronger, fitter, can jump higher and have more stamina that you, even-though on average men are stronger.
The immediate move to personalize suggests a weakness in your reasoning.

Women don't compete against men in sport simply because they'd always be beaten. Ergo women are not the best choice in jobs that require physical strength and exertion.

No. What you have here is a non sequitur. Jobs that require some physical strength, do not require the ability to win in sporting events.
Ergo is not made. Your logic is faulty.
Fact: Some women are stronger than some men.
Ergo, some women are better suited to jobs that require strength than some men.




They are also poorer at thinking than men, they equivocate too much and struggle to make decisions.

That is false.
Some women are smarter than you. I know plenty that would not have made that ridiculous breech of logic above.


Look at intellectual history if you want proof. Again, providing exceptions is only going to prove the rule.

I have a Master's degree in Intellectual History.
History is a thing of the past.
Once women such as Mary Woolstonecraft, and Emily Pankhurst had the opportunity they were able to succeed where men failed to stop them.
You might like to consult John S Mill on this matter.

3:0 to me
User avatar
Recidivist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Recidivist »

chaz wyman wrote:No. What you have here is a non sequitur. Jobs that require some physical strength, do not require the ability to win in sporting events.
Ergo is not made. Your logic is faulty.
Fact: Some women are stronger than some men.
Ergo, some women are better suited to jobs that require strength than some men.

That is false.
Some women are smarter than you. I know plenty that would not have made that ridiculous breech of logic above.
Moron. Didn't I already spell it out to you?

The exception only proves the rule.

The exception only proves the rule.
I have a Master's degree in Intellectual History.
A degree these days isn't worth the paper it's written on. You have provided all the evidence of that so far.
History is a thing of the past.
If I was you I'd hope so too. That load you're carrying is embarrassing.
Once women such as Mary Woolstonecraft, and Emily Pankhurst had the opportunity they were able to succeed where men failed to stop them.
Wow. What did they do exactly?

Two drops in a very big ocean.
You might like to consult John S Mill on this matter.
Appealing to male authorities in a debate like this... interesting.
3:0 to me
Then you win again.
But you always do in that tiny mind.

Don't you?
mickthinks
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by mickthinks »

The exception only proves the rule.

You said this twice, Reci, so I'm guessing you think it is important—but I do not think it means what you think it means. What do you think it means?
User avatar
Recidivist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Recidivist »

mickthinks wrote:The exception only proves the rule.

You said this twice, Reci, so I'm guessing you think it is important—but I do not think it means what you think it means. What do you think it means?
Mick, that the rule here can be generalized as, for example, 'men are stronger than women'. Evidence of isolated cases of women stronger than men do not invalidate the initial rule.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Recidivist wrote:
mickthinks wrote:The exception only proves the rule.

You said this twice, Reci, so I'm guessing you think it is important—but I do not think it means what you think it means. What do you think it means?
Mick, that the rule here can be generalized as, for example, 'men are stronger than women'. Evidence of isolated cases of women stronger than men do not invalidate the initial rule.
I have a feeling most women can kick your ass. If you and Kayla got into a fight, the smart money would be on Kayla.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Arising_uk »

Recidivist wrote:Excellent quote.
Its pretty much biased nonsense deliberately designed to foster a myth about the male. All that this history shows is that the bulk of males are uncreative and that there are very rare exceptions. To infer that this also applies to the female when the female has been pretty much excluded from education and science for the bulk of historical records is unsupportable. It may well turn out to be true but until they've had the chance to prove themselves as stupid as the bulk of males with almost no 'creative' geniuses in existence stuff like the quote says more about the author than any reality about gender abilities. You could look at it that given the women who have made a mark and how few had the chance they appear to have an excess of capability compared to the male.
User avatar
Recidivist
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:29 am

Re: Why do people hate?

Post by Recidivist »

FaggotinHell wrote:
Recidivist wrote:
mickthinks wrote:The exception only proves the rule.

You said this twice, Reci, so I'm guessing you think it is important—but I do not think it means what you think it means. What do you think it means?
Mick, that the rule here can be generalized as, for example, 'men are stronger than women'. Evidence of isolated cases of women stronger than men do not invalidate the initial rule.
I have a feeling most women can kick your ass. If you and Kayla got into a fight, the smart money would be on Kayla.
Brilliant response.
Post Reply