Women on top

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45070
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:04 am

You really need a safe space, don't you?

And by the way, nearly everyone on this site is a troll. We all troll Galaxian (and you, for that matter). You troll Dutchy and Hermit (and probably Galaxian too). So off your high horse, eh?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45070
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:11 am

Forty Two wrote: So, it's not hypocrisy.
So saying that uncivil to question Cunt's motives but it's ok to question mine isn't hypocrisy? Riiiiight... :fp:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11682
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:28 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote: So, it's not hypocrisy.
So saying that uncivil to question Cunt's motives but it's ok to question mine isn't hypocrisy? Riiiiight... :fp:
Duh - that's not what I said. I said that if it's fair for you to question Cunt's motives, then it should be fair to question yours. And, so I did. It's illustrating the point, in case you can't grasp it, that it's ridiculous and stupid to worry about forum member motivations and intent. I.e., in case you still don't get it, your asking Cunt to justify his motives/intent is ridiculous and stupid, as would be seriously asking you to justify yours.

Maybe you can let that sink in, and stop being such an insufferable killjoy, trolling every thread for the unrighteous to, as you say, abuse...
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11682
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:31 pm

pErvinalia wrote:You really need a safe space, don't you?
Safe from your stupidity? Yes.
pErvinalia wrote: And by the way, nearly everyone on this site is a troll. We all troll Galaxian (and you, for that matter). You troll Dutchy and Hermit (and probably Galaxian too). So off your high horse, eh?
LOL, my high horse? You're a self-righteous paladin, here to troll the evildoers, drive them off the forum, and virtue signal through your unending abuse of the infidel. You are in no position to speak of the height of horses.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45070
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:34 pm

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote: So, it's not hypocrisy.
So saying that uncivil to question Cunt's motives but it's ok to question mine isn't hypocrisy? Riiiiight... :fp:
Duh - that's not what I said. I said that if it's fair for you to question Cunt's motives, then it should be fair to question yours. And, so I did. It's illustrating the point, in case you can't grasp it, that it's ridiculous and stupid to worry about forum member motivations and intent. I.e., in case you still don't get it, your asking Cunt to justify his motives/intent is ridiculous and stupid, as would be seriously asking you to justify yours.
Oh riiiiight, so you weren't seriously asking for my motives? Sure thing.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45070
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:35 pm

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: And by the way, nearly everyone on this site is a troll. We all troll Galaxian (and you, for that matter). You troll Dutchy and Hermit (and probably Galaxian too). So off your high horse, eh?
LOL, my high horse? You're a self-righteous paladin, here to troll the evildoers, drive them off the forum, and virtue signal through your unending abuse of the infidel. You are in no position to speak of the height of horses.
So do you engage in trolling or not? No tu quoques, 'kay?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11682
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:48 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote: So, it's not hypocrisy.
So saying that uncivil to question Cunt's motives but it's ok to question mine isn't hypocrisy? Riiiiight... :fp:
Duh - that's not what I said. I said that if it's fair for you to question Cunt's motives, then it should be fair to question yours. And, so I did. It's illustrating the point, in case you can't grasp it, that it's ridiculous and stupid to worry about forum member motivations and intent. I.e., in case you still don't get it, your asking Cunt to justify his motives/intent is ridiculous and stupid, as would be seriously asking you to justify yours.
Oh riiiiight, so you weren't seriously asking for my motives? Sure thing.
Dude, no, of course I wasn't. I was asking you as a demonstration of how such requests are irrelevant, off topic, nonsense, just like when you asked Cunt his motive and intend. I had just got done arguing with you for days to try to make that very point - that your constant harping about his motive and intent was stupid. I did not then proceed here to seriously inquire after your intent because I thought it made some difference in the substance of the discussion. It was to show that it it's a bullshit inquiry.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45070
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:51 pm

It seems to me (and probably rainbow by the sounds of it) that you were intending to show that my intent was "trolling Cunt". Indeed that's exactly what you surmised in this post as your justification for querying my intent.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11682
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:55 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: And by the way, nearly everyone on this site is a troll. We all troll Galaxian (and you, for that matter). You troll Dutchy and Hermit (and probably Galaxian too). So off your high horse, eh?
LOL, my high horse? You're a self-righteous paladin, here to troll the evildoers, drive them off the forum, and virtue signal through your unending abuse of the infidel. You are in no position to speak of the height of horses.
So do you engage in trolling or not? No tu quoques, 'kay?
No, I generally don't troll. I've posted humorous posts and poked fun and used sarcasm. But, I don't generally troll.

No "tu quoques"? First off, tu quoque is not trolling. Tu quoque is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). Normally, where you accuse me of asserting a tu quoque fallacy you are misapplying the fallacy, and it's not what I've done. You are almost always incorrect in your application of logical fallacies.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45070
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:20 pm

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: And by the way, nearly everyone on this site is a troll. We all troll Galaxian (and you, for that matter). You troll Dutchy and Hermit (and probably Galaxian too). So off your high horse, eh?
LOL, my high horse? You're a self-righteous paladin, here to troll the evildoers, drive them off the forum, and virtue signal through your unending abuse of the infidel. You are in no position to speak of the height of horses.
So do you engage in trolling or not? No tu quoques, 'kay?
No, I generally don't troll. I've posted humorous posts and poked fun and used sarcasm. But, I don't generally troll.
But you do troll sometimes? Give yourself an uppercut, son!
No "tu quoques"? First off, tu quoque is not trolling. Tu quoque is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). Normally, where you accuse me of asserting a tu quoque fallacy you are misapplying the fallacy, and it's not what I've done. You are almost always incorrect in your application of logical fallacies.
What in the fuck?! I'm not saying a tu quoque is trolling. :fp: I was asking you not to perform a tu quoque by saying it's ok for you to troll because I troll sometimes.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11682
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:56 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote: And by the way, nearly everyone on this site is a troll. We all troll Galaxian (and you, for that matter). You troll Dutchy and Hermit (and probably Galaxian too). So off your high horse, eh?
LOL, my high horse? You're a self-righteous paladin, here to troll the evildoers, drive them off the forum, and virtue signal through your unending abuse of the infidel. You are in no position to speak of the height of horses.
So do you engage in trolling or not? No tu quoques, 'kay?
No, I generally don't troll. I've posted humorous posts and poked fun and used sarcasm. But, I don't generally troll.
But you do troll sometimes? Give yourself an uppercut, son!
Not really. It depends on one's definition. You seem to be using it very broadly, so I didn't want to commit to never doing some nonsense you might consider trolling. I joke around, and I've been sarcastic and poked fun. But, I don't do anything I consider trolling - which is to just badger or bother people for the mere purpose of getting a rise out of them. So, I used the term "generally" to avoid getting into another worthless go-round with you about whether I trolled or didn't troll in a given post.

pErvinalia wrote:
No "tu quoques"? First off, tu quoque is not trolling. Tu quoque is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). Normally, where you accuse me of asserting a tu quoque fallacy you are misapplying the fallacy, and it's not what I've done. You are almost always incorrect in your application of logical fallacies.
What in the fuck?! I'm not saying a tu quoque is trolling. :fp: I was asking you not to perform a tu quoque by saying it's ok for you to troll because I troll sometimes.
Well, use complete sentences, then.

It's o.k. to troll, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you do not personally attack people and such. I'm not going to advance the argument that it's o.k. to troll because you do it. You do it all the time, and you admit it. Own that. You also personally attack people, insult them, and namecall with wild abandon. Not all trolling is that, and not all that is trolling, but some trolling can be that.

I don't care if you troll within the rules. There is no rule here against trolling, as far as I know. Mods! Mods! Can you clarify? Is there a rule against trolling here? Like If Pervin makes some post deliberately to get under someone's skin and get a rise out of them, is it against the rules? Or, if pErvin, like, posts some inflammatory post to piss people off, is that against the rules?
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45070
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:59 am

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
LOL, my high horse? You're a self-righteous paladin, here to troll the evildoers, drive them off the forum, and virtue signal through your unending abuse of the infidel. You are in no position to speak of the height of horses.
So do you engage in trolling or not? No tu quoques, 'kay?
No, I generally don't troll. I've posted humorous posts and poked fun and used sarcasm. But, I don't generally troll.
But you do troll sometimes? Give yourself an uppercut, son!
Not really. It depends on one's definition. You seem to be using it very broadly, so I didn't want to commit to never doing some nonsense you might consider trolling. I joke around, and I've been sarcastic and poked fun. But, I don't do anything I consider trolling - which is to just badger or bother people for the mere purpose of getting a rise out of them. So, I used the term "generally" to avoid getting into another worthless go-round with you about whether I trolled or didn't troll in a given post.
Nice wriggling. You troll Dutchy mercilessly. And regarding my own trolling, I actually don't give a shit if I get no reply. My purpose isn't to badger someone into replying. It's to humiliate them for their ridiculous positions or beliefs. Which is exactly what you do with Dutchy.
pErvinalia wrote:
No "tu quoques"? First off, tu quoque is not trolling. Tu quoque is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). Normally, where you accuse me of asserting a tu quoque fallacy you are misapplying the fallacy, and it's not what I've done. You are almost always incorrect in your application of logical fallacies.
What in the fuck?! I'm not saying a tu quoque is trolling. :fp: I was asking you not to perform a tu quoque by saying it's ok for you to troll because I troll sometimes.
Well, use complete sentences, then.
It was a complete sentence. :fp:
I'm not going to advance the argument that it's o.k. to troll because you do it.
Well when confronted with the accusation that you troll Hermit and Dutchy, you didn't even refute it, and instead your whole reply was centred around me and what I supposedly do. And while that's not necessarily a tu quoque, it's definitely a red herring to avoid discussing what you demonstrably do.
It's o.k. to troll, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you do not personally attack people and such.
And here comes the subtle goalpost shift. "Trolling bad"! "No wait, what I really meant was that only the type of trolling that I don't do is bad"... :roll:

And attacking people personally is attacking people personally. It's irrelevant if it is trolling. It's against the rules as it is.
I don't care if you troll within the rules. There is no rule here against trolling, as far as I know. Mods! Mods! Can you clarify? Is there a rule against trolling here? Like If Pervin makes some post deliberately to get under someone's skin and get a rise out of them, is it against the rules? Or, if pErvin, like, posts some inflammatory post to piss people off, is that against the rules?
That's the beauty of the ridiculous "play nice" rule. They can mould it to fit any occasion when necessary.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Galaxian
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:11 pm
About me: Too old & too far away from the beloved...
Location: Koreye-koor
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Galaxian » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:33 pm

Cunt wrote:I've been wondering which fields of human endeavor are dominated by women.

All my life, everyone has been saying that women are equal to men, but in any measured way, it's tough to find that. Everywhere, men dominate with their bigger muscles, bones and cognitive power, so if women really are equal, there should be plenty of areas where they dominate the field.

I'm trying to think of clearly measurable traits here, by the way. Real, measurable and tangible things.

So far, all I have is that they live longer, and usually can get someone to lift heavy things, or reach the top shelf for them (maybe those things are connected...)

Of course, trolls are welcome, as always.
Seeing that Galaxian has been invoked in the above posts, thought I'd lend a hand:
One obvious field of human endeavor where women dominate is prostitution. They far outnumber boys & men as prostitutes and are also (generally) higher paid in that field. Of course, as usual, men dominate in the management; as pimps, merchants, brothel directors, etc. Brothel madams are in charge of controlling the 'girls'.

Other areas of female domination include nursing, primary school teaching, hospitality services, and so forth.

Those who claim that men & women are 'equal' are clearly wishful thinking, demented fools. In nearly every respect men & women have different natural biological potentials. You mentioned strength, height, and intellect. Females have longer lifespans, and better color vision. Each is predisposed to different diseases.

You can go so far as to regard the genders as distinct sub-species, forced together mainly to procreate :cheers:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad
There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian
To know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize _ Voltaire
If, in the street, a dog barks at you, never bark back! _Galaxian

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 19346
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:58 pm

Nice try, but arguing for equality does not entail a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities - that's a silly idea trotted out to avoid the issue.
.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11682
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: Women on top

Post by Forty Two » Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:25 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:Nice try, but arguing for equality does not entail a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities - that's a silly idea trotted out to avoid the issue.
Actually, sometimes it is a claim that men and women are equal in their attributes and capacities, like when we get to the faction of intersectional feminists who claim that there is no such thing as biological sex and that the differences between men and women physically are just social constructs too, which can be done away with, and which resulted from social distinctions created between men and women.

Also, when we look at the wage gap and more mainstream claims, and some factions compare overall earnings of men and women and show that on average women earn less, and this is presented as a sexist distinction that must be combatted, they are implicitly saying that the attributes and capacities of men and women are assumed to be equal. When they ignore that men work longer hours and take less time off, and do more demanding (and thus higher paying jobs) in greater nmbers than women, they ignore the physical differences between men and women which contribute to men doing that.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests