Why do people hate?

[Kayla]

[quote="Recidivist"]Again, providing exceptions is only going to prove the rule.[/quote

how exactly do exceptions prove the rule

[ForgedinHell]

Brilliant response.

It's as brilliant as the ravings you've posted here. I'm sure Vegas would give the odds at 10 to 1 against you. I could bet on you as a long shot, but, I'm pretty sure I would just be throwing my money away.

[Recidivist]

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.

The burden of proof is on you. History speaks for itself.

The fact that legislation must be put into place and the system dumbed down to accommodate women and minorities is evidence of how much social engineering is necessary to maintain this unnatural state of affairs.

[Recidivist]

It's as brilliant as the ravings you've posted here. I'm sure Vegas would give the odds at 10 to 1 against you. I could bet on you as a long shot, but, I'm pretty sure I would just be throwing my money away.

Again, bravo.

[thedoc]

I'm sure the number of men who have achieved intillectual greatness can be counted by someone who is sufficiently motivated and it would probably seem like a very large number till you compare it to the Billions of men who have lived and not achieved anything beyond how many beers they could drink at one setting. So the relative number would be so insignificant as to be non-existant, and then compaired to the claimed non-existant women who have achieved intellictual greatness we are left with nothing at all, as far as an intellictual history. So this whole debate is really about nothing, what a waste.

[Recidivist]

I'm sure the number of men who have achieved intillectual greatness can be counted by someone who is sufficiently motivated and it would probably seem like a very large number till you compare it to the Billions of men who have lived and not achieved anything beyond how many beers they could drink at one setting. So the relative number would be so insignificant as to be non-existant, and then compaired to the claimed non-existant women who have achieved intellictual greatness we are left with nothing at all, as far as an intellictual history. So this whole debate is really about nothing, what a waste.

How sad to be infected by such nihilism.

[ForgedinHell]

It's as brilliant as the ravings you've posted here. I'm sure Vegas would give the odds at 10 to 1 against you. I could bet on you as a long shot, but, I'm pretty sure I would just be throwing my money away.

Again, bravo.

I'm glad you think so. In fact, if you are a man, you make me wish I were born a woman instead.

[Recidivist]

It's as brilliant as the ravings you've posted here. I'm sure Vegas would give the odds at 10 to 1 against you. I could bet on you as a long shot, but, I'm pretty sure I would just be throwing my money away.

Again, bravo.

I'm glad you think so. In fact, if you are a man, you make me wish I were born a woman instead.

You were.

[mickthinks]

Evidence of isolated cases of women stronger than men do not invalidate the initial rule.

Okay, so you'll want to know that isn't what "the exception proves the rule" means.

And I think you are missing the point here. The cases of women being stronger than men are not 'isolated'. They are numbered in the hundreds of millions. http://sugarandslugs.wordpress.com/2011/02/

[chaz wyman]

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.

The only rule here is that you are wrong again.

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.

As you are a 'male', you are shooting yourself in the foot. You aren't very good at this are you. Ha ha.

3:0 to me

Then you win again.


Don't you?

Indeed
4:0

Try and use your brain.
Think.
Say it could be proved that ginger haired people were better at maths than others, or that Jews were better at being bankers.
Would that mean that you would not bother considering a non-ginger for a job in accountancy, or a non-jew for a bank job?
Maybe, whilst you are about it, you could also positively discriminate in favour of blacks whilst choosing the Olympic team next time, by excluding all non-blacks.
Obviously you would miss out opportunities for many people.

[chaz wyman]

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.

The burden of proof is on you. History speaks for itself.

The fact that legislation must be put into place and the system dumbed down to accommodate women and minorities is evidence of how much social engineering is necessary to maintain this unnatural state of affairs.

History records that the system was engineered to exclude women, and races from achievement. Now the brakes are off, women and minorities are starting to do much better than white middle-class men.

None of this has anything to do with 'nature', or a 'natural state'.
In h/g societies there are plenty of examples of equality of the sexes.

[Arising_uk]

The burden of proof is on you. History speaks for itself.

Does it? And there was me thinking it was written by whoever is in power. Still, lets say it does, it appears to show that women make an above average contribution given the numbers involved?

The fact that legislation must be put into place and the system dumbed down to accommodate women and minorities is evidence of how much social engineering is necessary to maintain this unnatural state of affairs.

Nah! That just goes to show your cultural blinkers and bias. But again, lets say it doesn't, it appears that this process fails as the men still aren't producing more of these 'creative geniuses'? And thats in a dumbed-down system!