Women on top

[Forty Two]

So what? Lots of people creat lots of threads that other people think are shitty. There is nothing wrong with discussing shitty topics, making shitty jokes, pushing the line of political correctness, or discussing controversial topics while harboring improper motivations.

I don't give a shit 42. Just don't get all I'm trying to have a rational discussion after you've been a dick, unless you admit you were a dick. :

The difference is that this entire forum is set up under a basic premise that discussion of "shitty topics" is fair game, but being shitty to other members here is not. That's why the rules are set up as they are.

Those who intentionally harass other members, openly or via private correspondence, will be subject to our reminder/warning/suspension policy.

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid.").

So, if you do not agree with Cunt, or another member, debate their argument, behavior or beliefs, but do not attack their person. Running around calling someone names, and declaring them to be a bigot, or otherwise being shitty to them because they've raised an argument or belief that you don't agree with is, quite obviously agains\t the rules. Thus, those who are doing that to Cunt are wrong, and Cut, even though he may have created at topic that some members think is shitty, or sexist or bigoted, are wrong.

This one isn't even close.

[rainbow]

If you're going by ranked players, then John McEnroe is probably not far off the mark when he says that the best female tennis player in the world would be ranked about 700 among the males. He said that when answering a question from a reporter why Serena williams would be called the best "female" tennis player, and not just unqualifiedly the best tennis player in the world. I mean, even people taking the rank of 700 as seeming too low (and I think McEnroe is a better judge than a blogger or reporter, since McEnroe has been steeped in professional tennis for 40-50 years), have to admit that Serena would be ranked in the hundreds. So, the 100th ranked female tennis player, where would she be ranked among male tennis players?

She would be far better than the average male player.
Those males that couldn't beat her would be inferior.

Does that make them less male than the very small percentage of males that can?

[Forty Two]

Well let's here him say why he's interested in this.

If it can be established that men are unequivocally superior to women in all physically competitive arenas then the stage is set for the next question: is it purely physicality or is there a degree of masculine mental prowess that also exists?

Roger Federer at the top of his game would thrash Serena Williams, but what if Serena's mental prowess could be transferred to a body as physically strong as Roger Federer's? Would the match be more even, would he win, would she win?

Moreover, if the minds of the top 1000 male and top 1000 female tennis players could be implanted in identical gender neutral bodies, I wonder which would win in match offs?

I don't see a way that we could find out. The real issue is - why is it important for Cunt to apparently cement the notion that men are competitively superior to woman? Does he think that would equate to some sort of natural law that should be accepted across most/all areas of society? It seems to me that he's arguing against strawmen.

He hasn't argued against anyone's position - he's advanced his own. A strawman is when a person misstates the argument of one's opponent, and then defeats the misstated argument.

You asked the question, why is it important for Cunt to cement the notion that men are competitively superior? You could just ask him: "Hey, Cunt - is it important to you to cement the notion that men are competitively superior? If so, why?

He, being ideologically simplistic like Seth, thinks that because most of us here are lefties, we therefore agree with the views of all feminists and all social justice warriors, and therefore must automatically think that women are the equal to men in all spheres.

I don't know about the others, but I have absolutely no problem with accepting that on average men are stronger and more aggressive than women. The point is, it doesn't really matter (other than the aggression being a problem). Most employment uses machines, tools and techniques that increasingly level out the differences in strength. And it's far from agreed that being ultra-competitive/aggressive is the best approach to employment, social and international relations. So what's left to generate such a question? I and others strongly suspect it's bigotry.

Do you accept his premise that in most competitive sports, men on average outperform women?

What's left to generate such a question? Many things. He doesn't know what you claim to know, could be the case, so discussion about the merits of his position would educate him. Or, he's pisstaking, and wants to see what kind of a rise he can get out of people he would expect to get their panties in a bunch over this kind of topic. Or, he is of the position, albeit "far from agreed" that competitive/aggressive is the best approach to employment, social and international relations, and he wants to discuss the matter (since there is no agreement, there must be those on different sides of that issue). Maybe he's not arguing about aggression here at all, or "ultra-competitiveness" - and instead is focusing on the physical and physiological issues.

[rainbow]

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid.").

Yes, but you have a smelly bum, and your mother dresses you funny.

[Scot Dutchy]

[pErvinalia]

You act like I'm the only one asking for him to explain his position. Brian, Jim, Sean (I think), 42 and I have all asked for him to explain why this matters to him. I'm happy for you that you are satisfied with a wishy washy answer and bucketload of trolling as a response. But we aren't. Are you going to be ok with that? And there's no tantrum involved. 42 is the one who is having a tantrum because the rest of us aren't acting "civilly" towards poor old Cunty balls. The rest of us can see what's likely driving his questions and views, and opposing bigotry isn't have a "tantrum".

Not "the rest of us." You and a couple others. And you personally attacked him again here.

Opposing bigotry is not NECESSARILY having a tantrum, but you are opposing what you claim to be bigotry through the use of a tantrum. You could do it without a tantrum, and without namecalling and personal attacks, but you have opted to namecall and personally attack him. That's against the rules.

I think it's hilarious that you describe my opposition to your behavior as a tantrum, but then you try to claim that your behavior in personally attacking Cunt in the name of opposing his alleged bigotry to be not a tantrum. It's just so ... you.

Yes, I asked him to explain his position, after I clearly and directly answered his question and gave him the info he asked for on sports women seem to excel over men at. He hasn't directly addressed that, and I'd appreciate it if he did.

Having a tantrum is getting emotional. I'm not emotional at all. In fact that's why it's so easy for me to abuse people. There's no emotion involved at all. I'm abusing ideas as represented by letters on a screen. You on the other hand can't handle that people don't reply the way you think is appropriate. And it's definitely emotional as you call us out for being "mean". "MEAN"! You really are a delicate little snowflake.

[Forty Two]

If you're going by ranked players, then John McEnroe is probably not far off the mark when he says that the best female tennis player in the world would be ranked about 700 among the males. He said that when answering a question from a reporter why Serena williams would be called the best "female" tennis player, and not just unqualifiedly the best tennis player in the world. I mean, even people taking the rank of 700 as seeming too low (and I think McEnroe is a better judge than a blogger or reporter, since McEnroe has been steeped in professional tennis for 40-50 years), have to admit that Serena would be ranked in the hundreds. So, the 100th ranked female tennis player, where would she be ranked among male tennis players?

She would be far better than the average male player.
Those males that couldn't beat her would be inferior.

Does that make them less male than the very small percentage of males that can?

No, and there are lots of males that would lose to Serena Williams. However, the 700th male in the world is well above average.

The 700th ranked man as of yesterday was Jakob Sude of Germany and 699 is Gibril Diarra of Austria. These guys serve faster and play the men's version of tennis. If they played Serena Williams, they'd probably beat her. It's not likely that 5' 2" tall, 132lb Simona Halep would beat them either, and she's the number one ranked woman's singles tennis player.

700 sounds like a big number, but, really. McEnroe was right.

[Forty Two]

No personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, debate their argument, behaviour or beliefs, do not attack their person. Attacks may be direct ("You are a cunt.") or indirect ("Somebody with that view is stupid.").

Yes, but you have a smelly bum, and your mother dresses you funny.

[Forty Two]

Having a tantrum is getting emotional. I'm not emotional at all. In fact that's why it's so easy for me to abuse people. There's no emotion involved at all. I'm abusing ideas as represented by letters on a screen. You on the other hand can't handle that people don't reply the way you think is appropriate. And it's definitely emotional as you call us out for being "mean". "MEAN"! You really are a delicate little snowflake.

You're not abusing ideas, you're abusing people. You namecall, and engage in personal attacks. You troll, and you badger, etc.

I have no problem with how people reply, except that I think that people should obey the very simple rules here - the main one is, don't do what you do: personal attack, namecall and insult people, rather than discuss their ideas.

If a thread is created about a topic that you disapprove of, you attack the people you don't like, you namecall, and you otherwise disrupt and derail the thread. It's what you do.

[pErvinalia]

Well let's here him say why he's interested in this.

If it can be established that men are unequivocally superior to women in all physically competitive arenas then the stage is set for the next question: is it purely physicality or is there a degree of masculine mental prowess that also exists?

Roger Federer at the top of his game would thrash Serena Williams, but what if Serena's mental prowess could be transferred to a body as physically strong as Roger Federer's? Would the match be more even, would he win, would she win?

Moreover, if the minds of the top 1000 male and top 1000 female tennis players could be implanted in identical gender neutral bodies, I wonder which would win in match offs?

I don't see a way that we could find out. The real issue is - why is it important for Cunt to apparently cement the notion that men are competitively superior to woman? Does he think that would equate to some sort of natural law that should be accepted across most/all areas of society? It seems to me that he's arguing against strawmen.

He hasn't argued against anyone's position - he's advanced his own. A strawman is when a person misstates the argument of one's opponent, and then defeats the misstated argument.

I really don't know why you keep doing this. You constantly misinterpret what's written. The strawman that I speculate he is arguing against is described in the next fucking sentence. Perhaps I should have had a paragraph break after the preceding sentences, but it really shouldn't be necessary. The sentences before clearly aren't related at all to the concept of a strawman, while the sentence after is. Yet you somehow miss that.

You asked the question, why is it important for Cunt to cement the notion that men are competitively superior? You could just ask him: "Hey, Cunt - is it important to you to cement the notion that men are competitively superior? If so, why?

I, and three or four others including you, have asked him that (in less words). It seems pretty clear that he's not interested in answering the question from anyone, let alone me who he almost exclusively trolls.

He, being ideologically simplistic like Seth, thinks that because most of us here are lefties, we therefore agree with the views of all feminists and all social justice warriors, and therefore must automatically think that women are the equal to men in all spheres.

I don't know about the others, but I have absolutely no problem with accepting that on average men are stronger and more aggressive than women. The point is, it doesn't really matter (other than the aggression being a problem). Most employment uses machines, tools and techniques that increasingly level out the differences in strength. And it's far from agreed that being ultra-competitive/aggressive is the best approach to employment, social and international relations. So what's left to generate such a question? I and others strongly suspect it's bigotry.

Do you accept his premise that in most competitive sports, men on average outperform women?

Sure. But the question is, what is the relevance of this?

What's left to generate such a question? Many things. He doesn't know what you claim to know, could be the case, so discussion about the merits of his position would educate him. Or, he's pisstaking, and wants to see what kind of a rise he can get out of people he would expect to get their panties in a bunch over this kind of topic. Or, he is of the position, albeit "far from agreed" that competitive/aggressive is the best approach to employment, social and international relations, and he wants to discuss the matter (since there is no agreement, there must be those on different sides of that issue). Maybe he's not arguing about aggression here at all, or "ultra-competitiveness" - and instead is focusing on the physical and physiological issues.

Maybe this, maybe that. Not sure why you are directing this at me. Only Cunt can tell us what he's thinking. I wonder if he can stop trolling for a second and actually address this point.

[pErvinalia]

I have no problem with how people reply,

Absolutely unmitigated bullshit! You demonstrably complain about people being "uncivil" and "mean". You just pile lie upon fucking lie. Is there ever a point where you reach awareness of just how dishonest you are?

[Forty Two]

Regarding strawman argument -- the "next sentence" that you said was his strawman is this: "He, being ideologically simplistic like Seth, thinks that because most of us here are lefties, we therefore agree with the views of all feminists and all social justice warriors, and therefore must automatically think that women are the equal to men in all spheres."

You say this is his strawman. However, this is an argument he has not made. This is an argument that you attributed to him. He hasn't said that most of us here are lefties and we "therefore" agree with the views of all feminists and all social justice warriors, and "therefore" must automatically think that women are the equal to men in all spheres." You imagine or surmise that he believes that.

You then go on to "refute" this attributed argument by explaining that you don't know about the others here, but you have no problem admitting that men are on average physically stronger and more aggressive than women, etc. Thus, showing that you are a lefty that does not conform to the "therefores" in the argument you attributed to him.

Now, what is it called when someone attributes to someone else an argument that they did not make, and then refute it?

As correctly stated on wikipedia - "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man.""

Cunt did not present the argument you said (about the lefties and "therefores" noted above), and you then set about refuting it.

You're as wrong as the Scarecrow....

[pErvinalia]

Regarding strawman argument -- the "next sentence" that you said was his strawman is this: "He, being ideologically simplistic like Seth, thinks that because most of us here are lefties, we therefore agree with the views of all feminists and all social justice warriors, and therefore must automatically think that women are the equal to men in all spheres."

You say this is his strawman. However, this is an argument he has not made.

Yes, I know that. That's because he hasn't made any argument at all of any complexity that would answer WHY he wants to see this evidence. So we are left to speculate what he is actually trying to convey here. And I have offered my speculation of what he is saying, and if it is correct it is a strawman. And going by what he's said in other threads conflating "left" with "social justice warriors" and/or "feminists", I suspect strongly that it is his argument. He could of course clarify all this at any point, but he's studiously avoided doing that.

[Forty Two]

I have no problem with how people reply,

Absolutely unmitigated bullshit! You demonstrably complain about people being "uncivil" and "mean". You just pile lie upon fucking lie. Is there ever a point where you reach awareness of just how dishonest you are?

What I wrote was, "I have no problem with how people reply, except that I think that people should obey the very simple rules here - the main one is, don't do what you do: personal attack, namecall and insult people, rather than discuss their ideas."

You see, the little squiggle after the word reply is called a "comma" which means the sentence continues after that with a dependent clause. The word "except" means that there is an exception to what what came before. Thus, while I did say in the first clause that I have no problem with how people reply, I continued with an "exception" to that (that I think people should obey the simple rules here.

You quoted the first part of the sentence, without noting the exception, and then declared that your misrepresentation of my argument was "absolute bullshit." You then explain your basis for that, saying that I demonstrably complain about people being uncivil and mean. Personal attacks, namecalling and insulting people are uncivil and mean. That's what I've complained about, and that's what is against the rules.

You never cease to amaze me. You lie through your teeth and then try to portray me as dishonest?

Come on, man. At least admit that on this one you got it wrong.

[pErvinalia]

I have no problem with how people reply,

Absolutely unmitigated bullshit! You demonstrably complain about people being "uncivil" and "mean". You just pile lie upon fucking lie. Is there ever a point where you reach awareness of just how dishonest you are?

What I wrote was, "I have no problem with how people reply, except that I think that people should obey the very simple rules here - the main one is, don't do what you do: personal attack, namecall and insult people, rather than discuss their ideas."

You see, the little squiggle after the word reply is called a "comma" which means the sentence continues after that with a dependent clause. The word "except" means that there is an exception to what what came before. Thus, while I did say in the first clause that I have no problem with how people reply, I continued with an "exception" to that (that I think people should obey the simple rules here.

You quoted the first part of the sentence, without noting the exception, and then declared that your misrepresentation of my argument was "absolute bullshit." You then explain your basis for that, saying that I demonstrably complain about people being uncivil and mean. Personal attacks, namecalling and insulting people are uncivil and mean. That's what I've complained about, and that's what is against the rules.

You never cease to amaze me. You lie through your teeth and then try to portray me as dishonest?

Come on, man. At least admit that on this one you got it wrong.

WTF?!? You demonstrably DO have a problem with how people reply, INCLUDING replies that don't break the rules - i.e. those that are "uncivil" and "mean". There really is something very very wrong inside your head. I can't fathom how someone can so continually deny even their own fucking words, let alone all the other people's words that you misinterpret/misunderstand.