Women on top

[Forty Two]

That's enough now you two.

Why? Why should we just have to accept his repeated lying and misrepresentation? I'm sure you'll claim it's not "playing nice", that great ratskep-esque catchall rule that can be pulled out when you can't find anything specific to ping someone with, but I'd say to you that it's hardly fucking playing nice when someone repeatedly lies and misrepresents.

Indeed, in just the last page, two lies from you have been identified:

1. You lied by saying that Cunt made an argument he did not make.

STOP LYING! I never said he made that argument. I clearly stated I was speculating. What is wrong with you??

You said he advanced a strawman argument. You only later explained you were speculating. For him to make a strawman argument he has to actually present an opposing party's position incorrectly. He did not. And, he did not present the argument about what lefties believe which you attributed to him. You're being completely dishonest about this. Everyone can see it.

Also, what were you saying about not getting emotional, Mr. Allcaps, exclamation poiont, and multiple question marks, LOL. Take pill, dude.

2. You lied by misrepresenting my statement, by quoting only one clause of a sentence, and ignoring the part where I wrote "except..."

That's two, so, so we have to accept your repeated lying and misrepresentation?

As I've explained to you now twice, the bit after the comma is logically irrelevant.

It isn't logically irrelevant, because it identifies an exception to the point made in the first clause. You decided to ignore it as if it did not exist. That's dishonest of you.

It makes absolutely no difference to the fact that you have a problem with people's posts that are "mean" and "uncivil".

Another blatant lie. I do not have a problem with "mean" and "uncivil" posts, EXCEPT to the extent that they violate the rules by being personal attacks, insults and namecalling. I never complained about people being "mean" or "uncivil," except as I explained that namecalling, insults and personal attacks are mean and uncivil. Not everything mean and uncivil is against the rules - not all mean and uncivil things are personal attacks -- but personal attacks are uncivil things.

Unless you are going to equate "mean" and "uncivil" with breaking the rules, which I don't think even you could do even with your misrepresentation skills.

I haven't equated them. I've noted that personal attacks, insults and namecalling are mean and uncivil, yes, of course they are. However, I also have not said that being mean or uncivil in general is always against the rules, and I've not even used those words to complain about people's behavior. I'm very consistent and clear that what you are doing which is contrary to the rules is taking it upon yourself to personally attack, insult and namecall people who raise topics you don't like, and rather than address those topics you derail them and personally attack.

You have "repeatedly lied" just here in the last page on this thread. So, fuck off.

There really is something very very wrong with you. You are utterly incapable of admitting when you are wrong (and not lying in the first place).

The amount of projection from you is ridiculous. Get the fuck out of here, you can't be serious. You lied multiple times, obviously. You've not identified a single lie I've made on this thread, but you claim that I've been dishonest here. Quote me. I dare you.

[pErvinalia]

That doesn't say why he cares. That's just telling us what he thinks flows on from a conclusion that men are better performers in sport. How's your comprehension?

You can't accept any answers that don't fit your imagined image of me.

What answers?!! You've given one random collection of words as an "answer", but it made absolutely no sense. You've had ages to clarify that, but have chosen not to. I wonder why that is?

For instance, I'll tell my daughters that the only sport women can excel in beyond men (that I can find) is ultra-distance swimming. That will be one use of this info.

Why would you or your daughters care about excelling against men? Is life a giant competition for you?

Yet another is seeing how triggered you are by the mere asking of this question.

I'm not triggered in the slightest. Many of us have told you how it's irrelevant. You haven't chosen to tell us why it is relevant to you.

So why can't he just say that?

edit: and do you really believe that, given his ordinary opinions on women (and anyone different from him in general - particularly fat people)?

Yes, I do believe it, and I say that as a fat fuck who has followed former fat fuck Cunt's input here for many years. I like his challenges to orthodoxy, his dogged questioning of things we often just accept as given. It's refreshing, sometimes upsetting, often infuriating, but sometimes kernels of truth pop up.

I miss you more than most. I wish I could share my running with you...the improvements I have felt...

Lol. This is classic you. Slag out fat people for months on end, and then try and pull the old "I'm not fattist. Some of your best friends are fat slobs". It's the same shit you appear to be pulling regarding women.

BTW, I read up on dressage and you're completely right. Women own that sport.

If you go a bit further, you will see that it doesn't seem as clear as the swimming one. With so many more young women in the sport than men, it seems it could skew the numbers.

A bit like chess, as was mentioned to you by a few people earlier. A point you didn't bother responding to. I wonder why that is?

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.

Are you saying this to report yourself?

I don't get it...are you bragging that you abuse people?

You clearly don't know me very well. Which isn't surprising, given your propensity to pigeonhole people before knowing anything about their actual views.

Do you expect that I might have my mind changed about you by this kind of posting?

Oh man, the narcissism. I love how you think this is about you. I couldn't give a flying fuck what people like you think about me. That's why you and 42 get abused. Because you deserve next to zero respect.

[Forty Two]

Fuck no. I'll continue to call out lying and dishonesty. You'll have to play the lame "not playing nice" card to stop me.

LOL - just look at that ridiculous post where you took 1/3 of a sentence of mine, cut it off at the comma, and ignored the "except..." language, to pretend I said something I didn't say. I mean, pErvinalia, you're a piece of work, man. Call out lying and dishonesty? Physician, heal thyself.

Oh ffs, you have really lost it. Do you really not understand how excluding the bit after the comma makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE??

This:
"I have no problem with how people reply."

Is materially different from this:

"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."

Your suggestion that the part after the comma makes absolutely no difference is absurd. It makes all the difference in the world. It changes the meaning from "not having any issue about how people respond" (or words to that effect), to "Other than that people should obey the rules - the main one being not personally attacking, namecalling and insulting people as opposed to discussing ideas, I don't have an issue about how people respond" (or words to that effect).

I mean, man, you are really reaching on this one. Really. Everyone can see that the first quote has a radically different meaning than the second quote.

There would be no reason for you to take the effort to cut the rest of the sentence off if you didn't realize there was a difference. Why did you cut it off? Why wouldn't you accurately represent what I said? Obviously, it's because you saw an opportunity to misattribute a position to me that I don't hold. You haven't gotten away with it, of course. Everyone reading this can see that you're being really dishonest, and now you're trying to dig yourself out of it.

If I had time to draw it I would, but you should be able to draw it in your head. Imagine a pie chart. The chart is the full set of posts that you read. Draw a small wedge to represent the posts that you have a problem with because they are arguably against the rules. NOW, draw another wedge for the posts that aren't people breaking the rules, but are where people are being "mean" and/or "uncivil". Can you see how the two wedges aren't the same?

I've only ever said that I am opposed to you and others engaging in namecalling, insults and personal attacks. You will not find a post where I said that I have a problem with people being mean and uncivil except to the extent that personal attacks, namecalling and insults are among the universe of things that are mean and uncivil.

Please - link to the post where I said I had a problem with people being mean and uncivil in general, as opposed to saying that I had a problem with people violating the rules through personal attacks, insults and namecalling? Go head. Quote me, or link. Or, shut your face, liar.

Please tell me you can, as I don't want to have to actually draw it out to make this exceedingly simple logical point to you. You demonstrably have a problem with people replying in a "mean" and "uncivil" fashion, regardless of whether the rules were broken or not. THAT is why the bit after the comma is irrelevant. FFS.

You're out of your mind. I did not make the argumet you attribute to me again.

You say I "demonstrably" have a problem with people replying in a mean or uncivil fashion, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RULES WERE BROKEN OR NOT?" That's your idiotic position? Well, demonstrate it. Link to my post which demonstrates that, or quote me.

Go ahead. It should be easy, if you're right. Demonstrate it. Show that you're not lying here, by presenting one post on this thread which demonstrates that I have a problem with people replying in a mean or uncivil fashion regardless of whether the rules were broken or not.

[Cunt]

That doesn't say why he cares. That's just telling us what he thinks flows on from a conclusion that men are better performers in sport. How's your comprehension?

You can't accept any answers that don't fit your imagined image of me.

What answers?!! You've given one random collection of words as an "answer", but it made absolutely no sense. You've had ages to clarify that, but have chosen not to. I wonder why that is?

For instance, I'll tell my daughters that the only sport women can excel in beyond men (that I can find) is ultra-distance swimming. That will be one use of this info.

Why would you or your daughters care about excelling against men? Is life a giant competition for you?

You are all winners!!!

And we talk about lots of things. I tell them lots of things.

I understand you disapprove of my talking to my children about competition, but you are going to have to accept that, even though YOU are always a winner, some folks in the world see competition as worthwhile and interesting.

Yet another is seeing how triggered you are by the mere asking of this question.

I'm not triggered in the slightest. Many of us have told you how it's irrelevant. You haven't chosen to tell us why it is relevant to you.

Well, I have, but you believe things I didn't write, and refuse to believe things I do write, so it's hard to know just what is going on with you.

For example, it looks like you have extremely strong interest in this thread, but I can't find much of your contributions to the topic at hand.

It's almost like you are here to show how unimportant this subject is to you.

I miss you more than most. I wish I could share my running with you...the improvements I have felt...

Lol. This is classic you. Slag out fat people for months on end, and then try and pull the old "I'm not fattist. Some of your best friends are fat slobs". It's the same shit you appear to be pulling regarding women.

I'm still a fat fuck. You just outed yourself as not understanding it at all.

I have repaired my ability to do regular exercise, but not yet fixed my eating. I would share my win with anyone trying. I have, at length, and have a collection of loved friends who now have better hearts. 2 are runners now, who were not before. Maybe more.

Honestly, devogue, if you were here I would go walk with you daily, just to improve your heart while I try to talk you into other fitness improvements. Skinny or fat, the strength I have built feels fucking tremendous.

You clearly don't know me very well.

That's why you and 42 get abused. Because you deserve next to zero respect.

I think I know you well enough.

devogue, seriously, I would give a huge effort just because you asked. You have already paid in full back in the foggy past. It would make me inappropriately 'happy' if you reached out. Can I talk to you about penetration depth and the FUPA? Or is that off-topic?

[Forty Two]

Cunt, you said this - What have I not answered? Why I'm interested? Because I'm interested. Because I want an area to find athletes that regularly outperform their male competition.

Well, I identified the ultra endurance swimming competition, and figure skating and certain gymnastics competitions as being areas where women regularly outperform men. So, what does that information mean or say regarding your OP? http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 6#p1758964

You have examples. What's that tell you?

[Forty Two]

That's why you and 42 get abused. Because you deserve next to zero respect.

Oh, pErvinalia....

[pErvinalia]

To put it in simple words that even you should be able to understand:

If you didn't have a problem with how people replied when they weren't breaking the rules, you wouldn't constantly complain about people being "mean" and "uncivil". "Mean" and "uncivil" aren't synonyms for "breaking the rules". Surely you can't argue this point? (who am I kidding?)

I haven't constantly complained about people being "mean" or "uncivil." That's your lie number 3. You used the word mean, not me. I don't think I've said anyone here was being "mean." Not even once, let alone "constantly." Here is the post where you declare that I've called you out for being "mean" -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1760696 However, I never called you mean. That was your word, not mine. You're lying again.

Unbelievable:

There have been some really mean threads created too, by some of the people in the group who are attacking Cunt here,

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1760406

And your reputation is that of a mean-spirited, lying scumbag. But, so what?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#p1745399

If anyone is held in low regard, it’s you, because you are stupid and conceited, and mean spirited and dishonest.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8#p1741488

Seriously, go fuck yourself. I don't give a flying fuck what you think "beggars belief" and your rude insults which are part and parcel of your thoroughly disagreeable, mean spirited and unpleasant personality.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 5#p1708916

2. I'd love to see your social side posts. I've not done any study of your posts to parse out social vs semi-serious, but the posts I've seen don't seem very social. They seem hostile. Very commonly hostile and mean-spirited.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1681480

And that's just after going through the first two of 40 something pages of you saying "mean".

Oh, by the way, impressive collection of personal attacks there. For someone who claims they have a problem with posts that personally attack others, you sure make a lot of posts that personally attack others...

I also did not use the word "uncivil" except to say that the only ones who were being uncivil were persons other than Cunt. And, that's accurate. However, I did not constantly complain about that. Another lie on your part.

The point you are trying so hard to avoid is that you are a tone policeman who gets upset if people post in a tone that you don't like (i.e. uncivilly and/or mean), IN ADDITION to posts that arguably break the rules.

Also, I was quite clear in my post where I wrote -

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.

So you are going to equivocate and equate "uncivil and mean" with breaking the rules. Wow. I didn't think even you'd be that brash. You do realise there's a bunch of quotes up there showing this to be a lie?

So, I have been quite clear that when I note that your personal attacks, namecalling and insults are against the rules, I certainly acknowledge that they are ALSO uncivil and mean. They are. However, it's you that have attempted to miscast my argument into something suggesting that I'm crying like a snowflake about people being "mean" to me, when in reality, as is abundantly clear, I have been pointing out that you and some others are violating the rules when you personally attack others, rather than address their arguments, and that is not merely a tone or manner of replying to an argument.

Nup, that's actually you shifting the goal posts. You never equated them before now, when you find that even you can't wiggle out of the clear demonstrable evidence that you have a problem with people posting in a mean and uncivil fashion (despite lying a while ago by saying that you didn't have a problem with it).

Your personal attacks, insults and namecalling are violations of the rules, and that much is abundantly clear. You're bleating on about me being dishonest and lying, but I've identified two absolutely inarguable examples just in the last page or so if this thread where you flat out misrepresented Cunt's argument and called it a strawman (when it wasn't), and you flat out misquoted me and alleged that I said something I did not by deleting the "except" clause of a sentence.

I've addressed this. Not even you with your torturing of the English language can interpret that as lying. The first one I clearly said I was speculating, and the second one I've presented evidence here and before showing how you have a problem with people being mean and uncivil independent of any alleged rule violations.

You're wrong.

By definition I'd have to be wrong, given you are never wrong.

[Cunt]

It told me that there are fewer places than I would like where women outperform men. In sport, it seems like it's hopelessly one-sided.

The two examples which popped up are nearly outside of my experience. I have a family member in dressage, so will be interested to get their take on what skills or strengths are making that difference (or IF there is a difference, in their opinion)

The ultra-swim is weird because among my personal athletic heroes, one friend tried to swim across the North Arm of Great Slave Lake. I spoke with a man who took a shift piloting the canoe along side her during a windy bit. He was terrified.

Another personal athletic hero earned her spot on that list because of an observation I had when out running with her. We did a hill repeat, and when we got to the top, we all stopped to break a bit, and she recovered INSTANTLY. It was amazing to see, and impossible to keep up with. I beat her up the hill the first time, and never caught her again. Watching her doing other events (she is a tri athlete) really hammered home how quick her recovery was. In a triathlon transition, she was composed, quick and certain when few others were - she was up and away on her bike like shit through a goose. She knows a life of athletics, while I have come to it recently. Next time I'm out running with her, I'll definitely be asking.

So this stuff 'tells me' that I will have my motives questioned if I ask this kind of question. It's like I'm only allowed the answers if I'm going to 'use them properly'. I'm going to use them to hunt down more heroes for myself to worship. Kind of a happy coincidence that an endurance sport makes the list, since I have been leaning that way anyway. I've been following endurance freaks like Nikki Kimball (AWESOME netflix movie) Rhonda-Marie Parke (holy fucking tough Canadian) Garry Robbins (just as tough, but with added hills and beard) David Proctor, Kilian Jornet.

Anyway, I still think this thread could generate more interesting discussion, or even more examples, so I'll allow pErvinalia to continue posting relevant content here, or shitting it up. I do hope he maintains his signal/noise ratio though...

And especially if you want to argue about the discussion, rather than engaging in the discussion itself.

[pErvinalia]

Your personal attacks, insults and namecalling are violations of the rules, and that much is abundantly clear. You're bleating on about me being dishonest and lying, but I've identified two absolutely inarguable examples just in the last page or so if this thread where you flat out misrepresented Cunt's argument and called it a strawman (when it wasn't), and you flat out misquoted me and alleged that I said something I did not by deleting the "except" clause of a sentence.

So, scream on all you want - you're wrong.

You know, it's kind of funny, but those arguments he is wishing and hoping I would make - I would absolutely make them, and discuss them with anyone who demonstrated that they were respectful of the issue.

So not him, clearly.

Jim, Brian, 42, and I think Sean, have all asked the same question. Are you saying that they too aren't respectful of the issue?

[pErvinalia]

Why? Why should we just have to accept his repeated lying and misrepresentation? I'm sure you'll claim it's not "playing nice", that great ratskep-esque catchall rule that can be pulled out when you can't find anything specific to ping someone with, but I'd say to you that it's hardly fucking playing nice when someone repeatedly lies and misrepresents.

Indeed, in just the last page, two lies from you have been identified:

1. You lied by saying that Cunt made an argument he did not make.

STOP LYING! I never said he made that argument. I clearly stated I was speculating. What is wrong with you??

You said he advanced a strawman argument. You only later explained you were speculating. For him to make a strawman argument he has to actually present an opposing party's position incorrectly. He did not. And, he did not present the argument about what lefties believe which you attributed to him. You're being completely dishonest about this. Everyone can see it.

Also, what were you saying about not getting emotional, Mr. Allcaps, exclamation poiont, and multiple question marks, LOL. Take pill, dude.

2. You lied by misrepresenting my statement, by quoting only one clause of a sentence, and ignoring the part where I wrote "except..."

That's two, so, so we have to accept your repeated lying and misrepresentation?

As I've explained to you now twice, the bit after the comma is logically irrelevant.

It isn't logically irrelevant, because it identifies an exception to the point made in the first clause. You decided to ignore it as if it did not exist. That's dishonest of you.

It makes absolutely no difference to the fact that you have a problem with people's posts that are "mean" and "uncivil".

Another blatant lie. I do not have a problem with "mean" and "uncivil" posts, EXCEPT to the extent that they violate the rules by being personal attacks, insults and namecalling. I never complained about people being "mean" or "uncivil," except as I explained that namecalling, insults and personal attacks are mean and uncivil. Not everything mean and uncivil is against the rules - not all mean and uncivil things are personal attacks -- but personal attacks are uncivil things.

Unless you are going to equate "mean" and "uncivil" with breaking the rules, which I don't think even you could do even with your misrepresentation skills.

I haven't equated them. I've noted that personal attacks, insults and namecalling are mean and uncivil, yes, of course they are. However, I also have not said that being mean or uncivil in general is always against the rules, and I've not even used those words to complain about people's behavior. I'm very consistent and clear that what you are doing which is contrary to the rules is taking it upon yourself to personally attack, insult and namecall people who raise topics you don't like, and rather than address those topics you derail them and personally attack.

You have "repeatedly lied" just here in the last page on this thread. So, fuck off.

There really is something very very wrong with you. You are utterly incapable of admitting when you are wrong (and not lying in the first place).

The amount of projection from you is ridiculous. Get the fuck out of here, you can't be serious. You lied multiple times, obviously. You've not identified a single lie I've made on this thread, but you claim that I've been dishonest here. Quote me. I dare you.

I said "It seems to me that he is making a strawman...", which given he hasn't presented any clear argument at all, implies absolutely that it is speculation. It doesn't matter that I said "speculation" later. That shouldn't have even been necessary, but it only was because you are misrepresenting as usual.

And you claiming that you explicitly only refer to "mean" and "uncivil", or analogues, in the context of 'breaking the rules' is absolute bullshit as the quotes I included in the previous post show. And stop making this just about me. You've referred to multiple people in this thread wronging Cunt in some way. It makes it easier for you to prosecute your false argument if you limit it to me, as I do have a propensity for personal attacks. But you've been getting offended on behalf of Cunt over more than just my posts.

[pErvinalia]

Fuck no. I'll continue to call out lying and dishonesty. You'll have to play the lame "not playing nice" card to stop me.

LOL - just look at that ridiculous post where you took 1/3 of a sentence of mine, cut it off at the comma, and ignored the "except..." language, to pretend I said something I didn't say. I mean, pErvinalia, you're a piece of work, man. Call out lying and dishonesty? Physician, heal thyself.

Oh ffs, you have really lost it. Do you really not understand how excluding the bit after the comma makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE??

This:
"I have no problem with how people reply."

Is materially different from this:

"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."

Your suggestion that the part after the comma makes absolutely no difference is absurd. It makes all the difference in the world. It changes the meaning from "not having any issue about how people respond" (or words to that effect), to "Other than that people should obey the rules - the main one being not personally attacking, namecalling and insulting people as opposed to discussing ideas, I don't have an issue about how people respond" (or words to that effect).

I mean, man, you are really reaching on this one. Really. Everyone can see that the first quote has a radically different meaning than the second quote.

There would be no reason for you to take the effort to cut the rest of the sentence off if you didn't realize there was a difference. Why did you cut it off? Why wouldn't you accurately represent what I said? Obviously, it's because you saw an opportunity to misattribute a position to me that I don't hold. You haven't gotten away with it, of course. Everyone reading this can see that you're being really dishonest, and now you're trying to dig yourself out of it.

Oh ffs. YOu've forced me to make a hokey diagram.

Green is all the posts you read. Blue is those posts arguably against the rules. Red is the posts that are mean and/or uncivil. See how they intersect, but AREN'T equal sets?? That is why the latter part is irrelevant. The bit after the comma refers to the intersecting bit. I'm referencing the non-intersected bit that I've highlighted, which is decidedly not part of the set "against the rules". That's why the intersecting set (i.e the bit after your comma, i.e. the bit referring to rule infractions) is irrelevant.

If I had time to draw it I would, but you should be able to draw it in your head. Imagine a pie chart. The chart is the full set of posts that you read. Draw a small wedge to represent the posts that you have a problem with because they are arguably against the rules. NOW, draw another wedge for the posts that aren't people breaking the rules, but are where people are being "mean" and/or "uncivil". Can you see how the two wedges aren't the same?

I've only ever said that I am opposed to you and others engaging in namecalling, insults and personal attacks. You will not find a post where I said that I have a problem with people being mean and uncivil except to the extent that personal attacks, namecalling and insults are among the universe of things that are mean and uncivil.

Please - link to the post where I said I had a problem with people being mean and uncivil in general, as opposed to saying that I had a problem with people violating the rules through personal attacks, insults and namecalling? Go head. Quote me, or link. Or, shut your face, liar.

I already have. I await your ridiculous equivocation.

Please tell me you can, as I don't want to have to actually draw it out to make this exceedingly simple logical point to you. You demonstrably have a problem with people replying in a "mean" and "uncivil" fashion, regardless of whether the rules were broken or not. THAT is why the bit after the comma is irrelevant. FFS.

You're out of your mind. I did not make the argumet you attribute to me again.

You say I "demonstrably" have a problem with people replying in a mean or uncivil fashion, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RULES WERE BROKEN OR NOT?" That's your idiotic position? Well, demonstrate it. Link to my post which demonstrates that, or quote me.

Go ahead. It should be easy, if you're right.

It was easy.

Demonstrate it. Show that you're not lying here, by presenting one post on this thread which demonstrates that I have a problem with people replying in a mean or uncivil fashion regardless of whether the rules were broken or not.

Ooh, nice. I like the subtle goalpost shift to "this thread". Impressive stuff. Not sure why it has to be in this thread for the accusation of you being a tone policeman to hold water. In any case, you yourself have already quoted the "uncivil" (or analogue) reference in this thread where you absolutely without question did not mention it was uncivil solely because they broke the rules (and before you equivocate, take note that you distinguished between questioning Cunt's motive posting the thread, and personally attacking him, in the context of being uncivil). I await further equivocation.

[pErvinalia]

@Cunt... If your alleged reason for posting this thread was simply to find out if there are any sports where women dominate, then why were you rubbishing people earlier in the thread for not coming up with enough examples of women dominating men? You seemed to revelling in the fact that so few examples were given. Why was that?

[Cunt]

@Cunt... If your alleged reason for posting this thread was simply to find out if there are any sports where women dominate, then why were you rubbishing people earlier in the thread for not coming up with enough examples of women dominating men? You seemed to revelling in the fact that so few examples were given. Why was that?

You seem to be expecting to be taken seriously. Why is that

[pErvinalia]

Still won't answer the question (properly). Impressive.

The two potential reasons you've given for this topic - 1. You are looking for female sports role models; and 2. You are just curious; - don't stack up. Reason 1 makes no sense, as to satisfy that you would need to ask about individual women sports stars, not sports where women on average dominate men. Reason 2 sounds like bullshit, because if it was real you wouldn't have rubbished people earlier in the thread for not providing enough examples for you.

I think the general consensus that this topic is coming from a place of bigotry is closer to the truth. In fact Hermit posted a quote of yours earlier which seemed to hint at exactly that. In fact the whole OP hints strongly at that.

[Forty Two]

To put it in simple words that even you should be able to understand:

If you didn't have a problem with how people replied when they weren't breaking the rules, you wouldn't constantly complain about people being "mean" and "uncivil". "Mean" and "uncivil" aren't synonyms for "breaking the rules". Surely you can't argue this point? (who am I kidding?)

I haven't constantly complained about people being "mean" or "uncivil." That's your lie number 3. You used the word mean, not me. I don't think I've said anyone here was being "mean." Not even once, let alone "constantly." Here is the post where you declare that I've called you out for being "mean" -- http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5#p1760696 However, I never called you mean. That was your word, not mine. You're lying again.

Unbelievable:

There have been some really mean threads created too, by some of the people in the group who are attacking Cunt here,

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1760406

the case around here that a few folks get constantly consumed by the issue of whether someone who said the "sky is blue" said so with the right motivation or intent. The reality is, what Cunt wrote to start the OP was perfectly fine. Even if he's a died-in-the-wool evil-doer, who thinks climate change is overblown, opposes affirmative action, and insists there are only two genders, that doesn't make his OP improper.

Here on these boards there have been some really controversial topics discussed. There have been some really mean threads created too, by some of the people in the group who are attacking Cunt here, some even focusing on being "shitty" to certain other members. The reality is that a few people here think they are above the rules, because they aren't shitty, and they seek to impose their own brand of forum justice on the shitty people.

This is what I said there - I did not complain that anyone was being mean or uncivil. I was explaining to Sean that posting shitty or mean threads is not a reason to be shitty to other people. People post controversial topics all the time, and mean threads have been created. Far from "complaining" about them, I'm pointing out that they are common and that they do not justify the kind of behavior you and others are doling out to Cunt (the personal attacks and such).

You want to portray this as an example of me complaining about other people being mean? You're absurd.