A World Without Men?

[Atla]

Yet the actual one who I have been disputing with here continually states:
The Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING.

Also, you advice and instruct:
Read this whole comment before you reply, like a normal person would:

But yet you do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you INSTRUCT "others" to do. So, make of this as you will.



Okay. But AGAIN we will have to WAIT and SEE.

Well you can wait alone heh.

If you say so.

But this is only more detractor tactics, which just continually takes us away from the FACT that thee Universe, Itself, IS, and can ONLY BE, infinite and eternal.

The idea and notion that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING is OBVIOUSLY just RIDICULOUS and ABSURD.

Basing an idea, and BELIEVING it, on absolutely NOTHING substantial AT ALL is ABSURDITY in its PUREST FORM.

If you could process irony, you'd find these comments where you state your certain belief and then utterly condemn certain beliefs, to be rather ironic.

[Age]

Well you can wait alone heh.

If you say so.

But this is only more detractor tactics, which just continually takes us away from the FACT that thee Universe, Itself, IS, and can ONLY BE, infinite and eternal.

The idea and notion that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING is OBVIOUSLY just RIDICULOUS and ABSURD.

Basing an idea, and BELIEVING it, on absolutely NOTHING substantial AT ALL is ABSURDITY in its PUREST FORM.

If you could process irony, you'd find these comments where you state your certain belief and then utterly condemn certain beliefs, to be rather ironic.

As ALREADY EXPLAINED, but which you OBVIOUSLY would NOT YET KNOW, BECAUSE you do NOT read what I write, I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing here. I ONLY repeated the CLAIM that thee Universe IS infinite and eternal BECAUSE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF for this ALREADY EXISTS.

So, ONCE AGAIN, ANY, so called, "irony" you see here is ALL in your OWN made up ASSUMPTIONS and IMAGININGS.

I have NO beliefs. Therefore there is NO irony, NOR could there ever be, as you SEE there is.

[Atla]

As ALREADY EXPLAINED, but which you OBVIOUSLY would NOT YET KNOW, BECAUSE you do NOT read what I write, I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing here. I ONLY repeated the CLAIM that thee Universe IS infinite and eternal BECAUSE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF for this ALREADY EXISTS.

So you believe

So, ONCE AGAIN, ANY, so called, "irony" you see here is ALL in your OWN made up ASSUMPTIONS and IMAGININGS.

I have NO beliefs. Therefore there is NO irony, NOR could there ever be, as you SEE there is.

So you believe

[uwot]

ONCE AGAIN, diversionary tactics do NOT refute what has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True.

Well, again, saying you have proven something true is not the same as proving it.

WHY do you repeat what is so OBVIOUS that it did NOT need saying the FIRST TIME?

Because Age, by the end of this post, you have already forgotten:

LOL As I said, SHOWING how 'you' JUMP to making ASSUMPTIONS, VERY QUICKLY, and JUMP to BELIEVING your own MADE UP ASSUMPTION, even though YOUR ASSUMPTIONS are completely and utterly Wrong, was VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to PROVE.

Age, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you have developed coping strategies that help you deal with the fact that you are a moron. The bad news is you are a moron.

[Age]

As ALREADY EXPLAINED, but which you OBVIOUSLY would NOT YET KNOW, BECAUSE you do NOT read what I write, I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing here. I ONLY repeated the CLAIM that thee Universe IS infinite and eternal BECAUSE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF for this ALREADY EXISTS.

So you believe

So, ONCE AGAIN, ANY, so called, "irony" you see here is ALL in your OWN made up ASSUMPTIONS and IMAGININGS.

I have NO beliefs. Therefore there is NO irony, NOR could there ever be, as you SEE there is.

So you believe

LOL

And

LOL

[Age]

Well, again, saying you have proven something true is not the same as proving it.

WHY do you repeat what is so OBVIOUS that it did NOT need saying the FIRST TIME?

Because Age, by the end of this post, you have already forgotten:

LOL As I said, SHOWING how 'you' JUMP to making ASSUMPTIONS, VERY QUICKLY, and JUMP to BELIEVING your own MADE UP ASSUMPTION, even though YOUR ASSUMPTIONS are completely and utterly Wrong, was VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to PROVE.

Age, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that you have developed coping strategies that help you deal with the fact that you are a moron. The bad news is you are a moron.

If you say and BELIEVE so, then it MUST BE SO, to you.

[FrankGSterleJr]

I sometimes wonder whether general male violence, philandering, sexism and controlling behavior toward girls/women is related to the same constraining societal idealization of the ‘real man’ (albeit perhaps more subtly than in the past)?: He is stiff-upper-lip physically and emotionally strong, financially successful, confidently fights and wins, assertively solves problems, and exemplifies sexual prowess.

Perhaps we need to be careful what we wish for. After all, I recall that, shortly after Donald Trump was sworn-in as president, a 2016 survey of American women — conducted not long after his abundant misogyny was exposed to the world — revealed that a majority of the respondents nonetheless found attractive his alpha-male great financial success and confidence. ...

As a teen, I knew two of the toughest, testosterone-laden and, like myself, straight guys around (whom I always tried to emulate), who also cherished their pet cats, though privately. Given the tough-guy environment of that place and time, however, no male would have dared openly express his cat enthusiasm to his large peer group, lest he seriously risk having his reputation permanently besmirched as ‘a wuss’. Even today, three and a half decades later, that ‘real man’ masculinity mentality may not have diminished much. Perhaps revelatory is the June 24, 2020, Toronto Now article headlined “Keep Cats Out of Your Dating Profile, Ridiculous Study Suggests” and sub-headlined “Men were deemed less masculine and less attractive when they held up cats in their dating pics, according to researchers”. A bit too sensitive for the ladies?

The author of The Highly Sensitive Man writes in Chapter 1 (2019, Tom Falkenstein, pgs.11-13): “You only have to open a magazine or newspaper, turn on your TV, or open your browser to discover an ever-growing interest in stories about being a father, being a man, or how to balance a career with a family. Many of these articles have started talking about an apparent ‘crisis of masculinity.’

The headlines for these articles attempt to address male identity, but often fall into the trap of sounding ironic and sometimes even sarcastic and critical: ‘Men in Crisis: Time to Pull Yourselves Together,’ ‘The Weaker Sex,’ ‘Crisis in Masculinity: Who is the Stronger Sex?’ and ‘Search for Identity: Super-Dads or Vain Peacocks’ are just a few examples. They all seem to agree to some extent that there is a crisis. But reading these articles one gets the impression that no one really knows how to even start dealing with the problem, let alone what a solution to it might look like. One also gets the impression from these articles that we need to keep any genuine sympathy for these ‘poor men’ in check: the patriarchy is still just too dominant to allow ourselves that luxury … ”

[SpheresOfBalance]

The actual fact' is that gravity does imply the universe will shrink. The only reason it doesn't imply it to you is that you don't understand. Nor do you understand that one hundred local galaxies that display blue shift are perfectly compatible with the overall expansion of the universe implied by the red shift displayed by one trillion other galaxies. It is only to you that one hundred and one trillion are equivalent. Any fool can create a coherent narrative if they ignore 'the actual facts'. You are one such fool.

Hey uwot. I've never believed that any human on planet earth with our relatively short lifespan can detect either red or blue shift as it pertains to stars. I know all about Doppler shift as I worked with it, as it pertains to sound. The reason it can be sensed here on earth is because the distances are relatively short such that one can easily experience (hear) the frequency shift, as it's compressed, during CPA and as it's expanded. To know Doppler shift we've experienced the shift with our ears.

I know that stars come in all colors. There are red and blue giants, white dwarfs, and yellow like our sun, etc.

I see that stars are at such an extreme distance that in one lifetime it's impossible to experience the shift of any one star, as it shifts from compression, to CPA, to expansion. The shift has to be experienced to know that it's shifted, else the color we see, we can only conclude, is simply the color of the star unshifted. There has to be differentiation for us to say we know, while actually knowing that the color has shifted from it's natural unshifted color.

I think I stated that clearly. If you find anything unclear don't hesitate to ask. If you care to, let me know how you've been taught that it's possible to know a star is shifted without witnessing it.

Never heard of absorption lines?

Electromagnetic energy can either be reflected, scattered or absorbed. And actually it's trajectory can be bent by gravity. So what role does both scattering and bending play with fingerprints, colors or even frequencies for that matter? And I can even think of other things closer to home like the constituents of optics or other types of sensors.

[Atla]

Hey uwot. I've never believed that any human on planet earth with our relatively short lifespan can detect either red or blue shift as it pertains to stars. I know all about Doppler shift as I worked with it, as it pertains to sound. The reason it can be sensed here on earth is because the distances are relatively short such that one can easily experience (hear) the frequency shift, as it's compressed, during CPA and as it's expanded. To know Doppler shift we've experienced the shift with our ears.

I know that stars come in all colors. There are red and blue giants, white dwarfs, and yellow like our sun, etc.

I see that stars are at such an extreme distance that in one lifetime it's impossible to experience the shift of any one star, as it shifts from compression, to CPA, to expansion. The shift has to be experienced to know that it's shifted, else the color we see, we can only conclude, is simply the color of the star unshifted. There has to be differentiation for us to say we know, while actually knowing that the color has shifted from it's natural unshifted color.

I think I stated that clearly. If you find anything unclear don't hesitate to ask. If you care to, let me know how you've been taught that it's possible to know a star is shifted without witnessing it.

Never heard of absorption lines?

Electromagnetic energy can either be reflected, scattered or absorbed. And actually it's trajectory can be bent by gravity. So what role does both scattering and bending play with fingerprints, colors or even frequencies for that matter? And I can even think of other things closer to home like the constituents of optics or other types of sensors.

Baseless speculation while ignoring the currently available evidence

[Lacewing]

I sometimes wonder whether general male violence, philandering, sexism and controlling behavior toward girls/women is related to the same constraining societal idealization of the ‘real man’ (albeit perhaps more subtly than in the past)?: He is stiff-upper-lip physically and emotionally strong, financially successful, confidently fights and wins, assertively solves problems, and exemplifies sexual prowess.

Seems so... and man is typically considered to be superior over all else, and he has fashioned a god in his image. It's challenging to get out from under all of that.

“Keep Cats Out of Your Dating Profile..." /... “Men were deemed less masculine and less attractive when they held up cats in their dating pics"

Well, I'll admit, there's some truth to that. It's hard to know what message that photo is sending. When I tried online dating, I looked for clues as to how the man thought and communicated. I wanted a balance... not macho or weak. And I was more interested in pictures of him (preferably not where a woman had been cut out and you could see just her arm or hair), and not photos of his pets or vehicles, and not of him scowling or in a weird costume, nor with stains down the front of his shirt, nor of him laying on a twin bed in his underwear in his parent's basement.

I think it's a challenge to understand all of the gender shifting going on. I would like to see all leadership represented by truly bright individuals, rather than archaic male domination mentality. I think such men should be seen as jokes of our past.

It would be best, I think, if all genders find a balance for themselves and with others, demonstrating strength and sensitivity... and honesty and acceptance. Bull-headed domination and manipulation throws everything out of balance and dumbs-down the potential for all. Enough with the divisive, war-like, god-crafting thinking. I think today's men, no matter what age, should be realizing this by now, if not before. Women have been evolving a lot too. Maybe it's easier for them in some regard because they aren't trying to protect a dominant position or power.

When we all get over being traumatized from navigating the distortions and extremes of the past, then maybe men can freely hold up cats in their profiles without it sending up flags for women.

[Advocate]

Getting rid of men is a nonsense concept just like getting rid of all people with a freckle on the left side of their face, and equally arbitrary for all intents and purposes.

[Ansiktsburk]

What’s womens part in the current mean lifetime for Homo sapiens and the low deathrate among children?

[Veganman]

What about reproduction, if you want reproduction that is. And what about sex for pleasure, there would be an assumption that in a world devoid of men most women would be lesbians?

[FrankGSterleJr]

During my own 1980s troubled-teen years, I noticed how, generally, by ‘swinging first’ a person potentially places himself (or herself) in an unanticipated psychological disadvantage — one favoring the combatant who chooses to patiently wait for his opponent to take the first swing, perhaps even without the fist necessarily connecting.

Just having the combatant swing at him before he’d even given his challenger a physical justification for doing so seemed to instantly create a combined psychological and physical imperative within to react to that swung fist with justified anger. In fact, such testosterone-prone behavior may be reflected in the typically male (perhaps unconsciously strategic) invitation for one’s foe to ‘go ahead and lay one on me,’ while tapping one’s own chin with his forefinger.

Yet, from my experience, it’s a theoretical advantage not widely recognized by both the regular scrapper mindset nor general society. Instead of the commonly expected advantage of an opponent-stunning first blow, the hit only triggers an infuriated response earning the instigator two-or-more-fold returned-payment hard hits. It brings to mind an analogous scenario in which a chess player recklessly plays white by rashly forcefully moving his pawn first in foolish anticipation that doing so will indeed stupefy his adversary.

I’ve theorized that it may be an evolutionary instinct ingrained upon the human male psyche—one preventing us from inadvertently killing off our own species by way of an essentially gratuitous instigation of deadly violence in bulk, which also results in a lack of semen providers to maintain our race. Therefore, in this sense, we can survive: If only a first strike typically results in physical violence, avoiding that first strike altogether significantly reduces the risk of this form of wanton self-annihilation. In other words, matters should remain peacefully peachy, or at least non-violent, when every party shows the others their proper, due respect. It’s like a proactively perfect solution. ...

It should also be noted, however, that on rare occasion (at least from my many years of observation) an anomalous initiator/aggressor will be sufficiently confident, daring and violently motivated, perhaps through internal and/or external anger, to outright breach the abovementioned convention by brazenly throwing the first punch(es).

Perhaps with the logical anticipation, or hope even, that his conventional foe will physically respond in kind by swinging at or hitting him, the unprovoked initiator/aggressor will feel confident and angered enough to willfully physically continue, finishing what he had essentially inexcusably started. It was as though he had anticipated that through both his boldness in daring to throw the first punch and then furthermore finish the physical job he himself had the gall to unjustifiably start in the first place, he will resultantly intimidate his (though now perhaps already quite intimidated) non-initiator/non-aggressor foe into a crippling inferior sense of physical-defense debilitation, itself capable of resulting in a more serious beating received by that diminished non-initiator/non-aggressor party.

Or, another possibility remains that the initiator/aggressor will be completely confident that when/if he strikes first and the non-initiator/non-aggressor responds with reactor’s fury, he, the initiator/aggressor will himself respond to that response with even greater fury thus physically/psychologically overwhelm the non-initiator/non-aggressor with a very unfortunate outcome for the latter party. Regardless, it has always both bewildered and sickened me how a person can throw a serious punch without any physical provocation.

[reasonvemotion]

“For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man”.