Women on top

[Brian Peacock]

That's enough now you two.

[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?)

[pErvinalia]

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.

[Brian Peacock]

Blah blah blah.... you're arguing like a old married couple. Stop it, you're upsetting the children.

[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.

[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.

Yes, I know that.

So, you know he did not make a strawman argument. You're wrong again. You can't attribute to him an argument he did not make and then criticize him for advancing a strawman. As I noted, you're strawmanning him by doing 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.

True, but he also did not make the argument you attributed to him.

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.

Since it's not something he's advanced, then it's a strawman of his argument.

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.

Suspect all you want. But, it's not his argument, until he makes it. He's not under an obligation to clarify anything to you. Is your failure to clarify a position you've taken (and you fail to clarify quite often) to be construed as license to attribute to you arguments you did not make and then conclude that you've advanced a strawman argument?

You've misused the logical fallacy, which is something you often do.

[pErvinalia]

I didn't attribute an argument to him. I speculated, as he won't clearly present his own argument. But please, keep equivocating.

[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.

[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.
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?

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

[Cunt]

Physical condition for a handful of jobs, sure, but only up to a point. Just being moderately strong, and moderately fit would do in virtually all jobs that require some physical activity; there is no requirement to be an elite athlete. Plenty of women would be able to demonstrate the physical condition required; you can see them in building sites all over Melbourne, these days...

Being more (on average) strong, smart or cooperative as a group doesn't make any claims about an individual.
Being more (on average) strong, smart or cooperative as a group seems to make a significant difference in any athletic competition.

As to how many jobs it might apply to, we may disagree. Stamina shows its value in unexpected ways.

I think you got a sufficient answer to your original question.

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

Yeah, a shame it's just the one, but it IS an answer.

I honestly thought there should be a lot more physical competitive areas where women held an advantage.

Having them come up so far behind, so often is a bit discouraging.

Now I'm truly done with your derail. I fully expect you to equivocate your little heart out explaining how your clear tone policing isn't tone policing, but I'm over you. There really is something very wrong with you.

If Forty Two addressed me about my tone, I would try to understand, and make some sense of it.

If you did, I would again congratulate you for managing to type things and find the 'Post Bollocks' button.

Great job, pErvinalia!

The fucking topic? What was that again?

I'm not sure why you are posting the half-naked, tattooed lady, but thanks. She's pretty hot for a teen/tween.

WTF?! She's about 40!

All you sub-40 folk look young to me...I'm getting on in years I guess.

Tell us why this matters to you and we might make more effort in taking you seriously.

Your group can apply as a group, and with you as their leader, I know just how seriously to take them.

By the way, thanks for posting the hot young chick again. I'll use that.

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.

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. Another will be to help me remember how valuable your contributions are.

Yet another is seeing how triggered you are by the mere asking of this question. You really are beside yourself lol

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...

What anybody seeking to defend Cunt's position must realise is that it does not just involve the asking of a simple question about male vs female prowess, largely in sport. If you go back to many of his posts, you can see the links he consistently makes to the ability of women to succeed in the work place. He also is constantly emphasising winning, and the whole competitive thing of being superior to someone else. His OP and all his posts are ridden with ulterior motives; he is not, as he seems to want to be, the observant little boy pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

Comparisons by gender of the extremes of physical prowess, typically demonstrated in sport, have absolutely nothing to say about gender issues in the workplace.

I haven't made a case that work is going to be the same kind of field. It's a shit one, where human excellence seldom plays in, instead it is like an exploitation olympics. If you could, for example, find a way to exploit a group that others have not had success exploiting (say, severely intellectually disabled people) you could have yourself a free labour force. (and a terrible 'sheltered workshop' if you luck out just wrong)

The workplace isn't important enough to bother with. Areas where competitive excellence matters will be much more significant.

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.

And when you add more horse skills (like in steeplechase) it seems the women are no longer able to compete across the gender divide.

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.

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.

I'll be talking about this with the young people in my family (one of whom is competitive in dressage, and an oil-field worker) and maybe I'll find more. Maybe they'll hate me for asking. Knowing my daughters, they will find a couple more to prove their Dad is wrong.

Is that acceptable use of this info? Should I also tell them to watch how feminists react to this question, and how quickly many will insist that those areas of performance mean NOTHING in the work world?

I honestly thought that women fall far behind in all clear physical competitions. Now I know not only that there are at least two areas where it isn't as clear (dressage and ultra-swim) but that everyone gets fucking hilarious when simply asking the question.

Would it have helped to have a better phrasing? Or would it take a different poster before all the snowflakes weren't triggered?

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?

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

[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?? 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? 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.

[Cunt]

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?? 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? 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.

I know this would be a very complicated, tough job for you, but I'll ask anyway. I think I know how you'll answer.

Can you link to the posts you made in this thread, which were in response to the original question? All of them?

I was planning do figure out the ratio of signal to noise generated from your account...but I can't find any signal.

[pErvinalia]

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??

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

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).

[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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

[Cunt]

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.

As to what would look 'respectful of the issue', I would say that if one wanted to choose sides, based on ballot, then have a moderated argument, that would show their respect for the issue. If, alternately, they simply wanted to do the cheering for their side, they have only earned themselves respect as a spectator.