Women on top

[pErvinalia]

Look, this is how assholes act. They say something shitty, and then when you get shitty back they try to go all hyper-rational --best as they can manage anyway-- and ask, why you mad bro? You must be getting shitty cause you're not on my level regarding rational discourse.

Well, Cunt raised a topic, he didn't get shitty with anyone. Then people got shitty TO HIM. That's different. Controversial topics are allowed here. That doesn't mean you have to discuss them or participate. But, "getting shitty back" at a person whose only shitty move was to post a topic that certain people find objectionable, is childish, stupid and against the rules. Cunt did not violate the rules, but calling him names and insulting him is against the rules.

And if someone wants to make a thread about the question of whether white people are humans or if people should be imprisoned for being women, men or other -- that's o.k.,

It's really not OK (i.e. it's shitty), because it's essentially hateful for no good reason.

The most disturbing aspect of all this, to me, is how hypersensitive discussion boards - not just Rationalia - became. During the rise of the New Atheist movement in the early 2000s and when youtube started, etc., we had a spirit of open discussion, and an overall view among atheists, freethinkers and rationalists, that offense to people was not relevant part of discussion forums, science, and freethough. Somehow, over the past 5 years, mainly, it seems that an orthodoxy has set in and discussion has become more about power and politics than intellectual discourse.

There's a cultural* and class war being waged (from both sides of a divide). The divide is so great (between conservatism and progressivism) that there really is little common ground to talk about. It's really only the useless centre (i.e. liberals) that think you can talk out issues of life and death. It's a spectacularly naive position to hold, and it's why liberals are largely irrelevant (other than in the US where they are obsessed with freedum!).

* - By cultural I don't mean SJW or secret Marxists vs the world. I mean progressives vs conservatives and vice versa.

[pErvinalia]

When given a few examples of women performing better than men in their field this was the response:

So they somehow outperformed men?

Are you saying that women are better at physics, chemistry and medicine? Is that by published works? Or pounds of output? Crowd acclaim?

Or is this just your virtue signalling to your peers?

I'm just trying to have a rational discussion with you baby!

It's pretty clear that Cunt thinks women are inferior to men in just about every area of life. No evidence of biological or inherent traits has been presented to back this view up. And that's because it's a laughably naive understanding of the social inertia that societies possess thanks to historical (and sometimes continued) disadvantage/oppression of women, and the individual inertia of social learning.

[Sean Hayden]

It's easy to forget men, even super rational men, have feelings. So I want to take a moment to acknowledge Cunt's feelings and recognize their contribution to this thread. Your anger is as real as ours Cunt.

[pErvinalia]

Absolutely. I'd also like to acknowledge Cunt's admiration of one or two females in the world. I suspect, similarly to myself, that he isn't a misogynistracist because some of my best friends are womenblack.

[Forty Two]

Look, this is how assholes act. They say something shitty, and then when you get shitty back they try to go all hyper-rational --best as they can manage anyway-- and ask, why you mad bro? You must be getting shitty cause you're not on my level regarding rational discourse.

Well, Cunt raised a topic, he didn't get shitty with anyone. Then people got shitty TO HIM. That's different. Controversial topics are allowed here. That doesn't mean you have to discuss them or participate. But, "getting shitty back" at a person whose only shitty move was to post a topic that certain people find objectionable, is childish, stupid and against the rules. Cunt did not violate the rules, but calling him names and insulting him is against the rules.

And if someone wants to make a thread about the question of whether white people are humans or if people should be imprisoned for being women, men or other -- that's o.k.,

It's really not OK (i.e. it's shitty), because it's essentially hateful for no good reason.

It's o.k. as in within the rules. If you think it's shitty, then don't post in such a thread. It's not for you to police the topics. You aren't the Rationalia cops, and if the administrators of the site want to limit topis to those that are hateful for good reasons, or non-hateful altogether, then so be it. But right now, topics are rather broadly allowed, hateful or otherwise.

For example - a topic about the holocaust never happening is fine. A topic about whether Israel has a right to exist is fine. Some people consider that hateful for no good reason. Tough.

The most disturbing aspect of all this, to me, is how hypersensitive discussion boards - not just Rationalia - became. During the rise of the New Atheist movement in the early 2000s and when youtube started, etc., we had a spirit of open discussion, and an overall view among atheists, freethinkers and rationalists, that offense to people was not relevant part of discussion forums, science, and freethough. Somehow, over the past 5 years, mainly, it seems that an orthodoxy has set in and discussion has become more about power and politics than intellectual discourse.

There's a cultural* and class war being waged (from both sides of a divide). The divide is so great (between conservatism and progressivism) that there really is little common ground to talk about. It's really only the useless centre (i.e. liberals) that think you can talk out issues of life and death. It's a spectacularly naive position to hold, and it's why liberals are largely irrelevant (other than in the US where they are obsessed with freedum!).

* - By cultural I don't mean SJW or secret Marxists vs the world. I mean progressives vs conservatives and vice versa.

The notion that there is little common ground to talk about is silly, and naive. Even more naive and silly is the idea that the only way to have a discussion is if people have common ground. People who have no common ground on an issue can still discuss the issue, find out about the other side's view, learn from it, learn about it, etc. But, the progressive view today is as you have described, which is what creates a lot of the problems we have today, as progressives so often think that discussion is futile or patriarchal in and of itself, and choose then to shut down discussion.

Also, the only way to find common ground is through discussion. It's naive and ignorant to approach discussion by looking for common ground first, and then discussing topics with those with whom you already agree. The point of discussion is to try to find common ground as a result of discussion, not to discuss common ground.

[Scot Dutchy]

Women have a lot to make up. Only since the 60's were they acknowledged as being equal. Cunt and co expect them to make good the damage of thousands of years that has been inflicted on them in 50 years?

[pErvinalia]

Look, this is how assholes act. They say something shitty, and then when you get shitty back they try to go all hyper-rational --best as they can manage anyway-- and ask, why you mad bro? You must be getting shitty cause you're not on my level regarding rational discourse.

Well, Cunt raised a topic, he didn't get shitty with anyone. Then people got shitty TO HIM. That's different. Controversial topics are allowed here. That doesn't mean you have to discuss them or participate. But, "getting shitty back" at a person whose only shitty move was to post a topic that certain people find objectionable, is childish, stupid and against the rules. Cunt did not violate the rules, but calling him names and insulting him is against the rules.

And if someone wants to make a thread about the question of whether white people are humans or if people should be imprisoned for being women, men or other -- that's o.k.,

It's really not OK (i.e. it's shitty), because it's essentially hateful for no good reason.

It's o.k. as in within the rules. If you think it's shitty, then don't post in such a thread. It's not for you to police the topics.

It's not for you to police what threads I post in and how I respond.

You aren't the Rationalia cops, and if the administrators of the site want to limit topis to those that are hateful for good reasons, or non-hateful altogether, then so be it. But right now, topics are rather broadly allowed, hateful or otherwise.

The issue wasn't whether it is allowed or not. It's whether it's "shitty". Any chance you could actually follow the debate properly?

The most disturbing aspect of all this, to me, is how hypersensitive discussion boards - not just Rationalia - became. During the rise of the New Atheist movement in the early 2000s and when youtube started, etc., we had a spirit of open discussion, and an overall view among atheists, freethinkers and rationalists, that offense to people was not relevant part of discussion forums, science, and freethough. Somehow, over the past 5 years, mainly, it seems that an orthodoxy has set in and discussion has become more about power and politics than intellectual discourse.

There's a cultural* and class war being waged (from both sides of a divide). The divide is so great (between conservatism and progressivism) that there really is little common ground to talk about. It's really only the useless centre (i.e. liberals) that think you can talk out issues of life and death. It's a spectacularly naive position to hold, and it's why liberals are largely irrelevant (other than in the US where they are obsessed with freedum!).

* - By cultural I don't mean SJW or secret Marxists vs the world. I mean progressives vs conservatives and vice versa.

The notion that there is little common ground to talk about is silly, and naive. Even more naive and silly is the idea that the only way to have a discussion is if people have common ground. People who have no common ground on an issue can still discuss the issue, find out about the other side's view, learn from it, learn about it, etc. But, the progressive view today is as you have described, which is what creates a lot of the problems we have today, as progressives so often think that discussion is futile or patriarchal in and of itself, and choose then to shut down discussion.

Also, the only way to find common ground is through discussion. It's naive and ignorant to approach discussion by looking for common ground first, and then discussing topics with those with whom you already agree. The point of discussion is to try to find common ground as a result of discussion, not to discuss common ground.

Conservatives don't want to discuss anything from that standpoint of "learning". They want to preach and moralise.

Oh, and your repeated tactic of mirroring back my accusations directed at you is transparent and juvenile.

[Brian Peacock]

Look, this is how assholes act. They say something shitty, and then when you get shitty back they try to go all hyper-rational --best as they can manage anyway-- and ask, why you mad bro? You must be getting shitty cause you're not on my level regarding rational discourse.

Steady on there Tiger - no need to get all emotional about it.

[Forty Two]

Look, this is how assholes act. They say something shitty, and then when you get shitty back they try to go all hyper-rational --best as they can manage anyway-- and ask, why you mad bro? You must be getting shitty cause you're not on my level regarding rational discourse.

Well, Cunt raised a topic, he didn't get shitty with anyone. Then people got shitty TO HIM. That's different. Controversial topics are allowed here. That doesn't mean you have to discuss them or participate. But, "getting shitty back" at a person whose only shitty move was to post a topic that certain people find objectionable, is childish, stupid and against the rules. Cunt did not violate the rules, but calling him names and insulting him is against the rules.

And if someone wants to make a thread about the question of whether white people are humans or if people should be imprisoned for being women, men or other -- that's o.k.,

It's really not OK (i.e. it's shitty), because it's essentially hateful for no good reason.

It's o.k. as in within the rules. If you think it's shitty, then don't post in such a thread. It's not for you to police the topics.

It's not for you to police what threads I post in and how I respond.

Respond however you like, which is, more often than not, to try to stop discussions, rather than engage in them. And, it's really rather silly to claim you aren't interested in a thread, but then endlessly post in it. Plainly you are interested.

You aren't the Rationalia cops, and if the administrators of the site want to limit topis to those that are hateful for good reasons, or non-hateful altogether, then so be it. But right now, topics are rather broadly allowed, hateful or otherwise.

The issue wasn't whether it is allowed or not. It's whether it's "shitty". Any chance you could actually follow the debate properly?

LOL, that isn't the debate, that's the derail. The suggestion that Cunt's posting of this topic was "shitty" which resulted in people getting "shitty back" was the derail debate that was raised. The debate in this thread - the discussion - that Cunt raised in the OP was what sports or endeavors women generally excelled over men in. That's the debate, if you are following it properly. The issue of getting "shitty" with people was raised in relation to why people who think that a discussion is irrelevant and serves no purpose, or is "intended" to be an argument for the superiority of men or inferiority of women.

However, as I mentioned, and as you should be able to follow - it is not the same thing to (a) post a topic for discussion that some people think is "shitty" versus (b) to be shitty TOWARD a person who is a member of this forum. The administrators and moderators have been very clear on this many times. Broad ranging topics, offensive topics, topics like the one Cunt raised -- these are well-within the rules, and are allowed as part of this discussion forum. Namecalling and insults - indirect ones included - which are attacks on the person are improper personal attacks and are not within the rules. And, not "playing nice" -- meaning getting shitty directly with a member - is also not within the rules, although will generally at most get a verbal reminder or something, etc. The principle has been for years and hears - overall - that people can talk about whatever they want -- but attacking or targetting members personally is not appropriate here.

The most disturbing aspect of all this, to me, is how hypersensitive discussion boards - not just Rationalia - became. During the rise of the New Atheist movement in the early 2000s and when youtube started, etc., we had a spirit of open discussion, and an overall view among atheists, freethinkers and rationalists, that offense to people was not relevant part of discussion forums, science, and freethough. Somehow, over the past 5 years, mainly, it seems that an orthodoxy has set in and discussion has become more about power and politics than intellectual discourse.

There's a cultural* and class war being waged (from both sides of a divide). The divide is so great (between conservatism and progressivism) that there really is little common ground to talk about. It's really only the useless centre (i.e. liberals) that think you can talk out issues of life and death. It's a spectacularly naive position to hold, and it's why liberals are largely irrelevant (other than in the US where they are obsessed with freedum!).

* - By cultural I don't mean SJW or secret Marxists vs the world. I mean progressives vs conservatives and vice versa.

The notion that there is little common ground to talk about is silly, and naive. Even more naive and silly is the idea that the only way to have a discussion is if people have common ground. People who have no common ground on an issue can still discuss the issue, find out about the other side's view, learn from it, learn about it, etc. But, the progressive view today is as you have described, which is what creates a lot of the problems we have today, as progressives so often think that discussion is futile or patriarchal in and of itself, and choose then to shut down discussion.

Also, the only way to find common ground is through discussion. It's naive and ignorant to approach discussion by looking for common ground first, and then discussing topics with those with whom you already agree. The point of discussion is to try to find common ground as a result of discussion, not to discuss common ground.

Conservatives don't want to discuss anything from that standpoint of "learning". They want to preach and moralise.

Oh, and your repeated tactic of mirroring back my accusations directed at you is transparent and juvenile.

I don't care what you think conservatives want. Some conservatives I've met do, in fact, want to discuss from a stand point of learning. In my experience, you, Pervin, do not want to discuss anything from the standpoint of learning. You want to preach and moralize. That's what you do.

And, I don't care what you think is transparent and juvenile. Your avowed practice of trolling, and badgering people until they are driven off the site - that's juvenile and transparent. Your view that you should have common ground first, and discussion later, and that you should not have discussions with people with whom you don't already see common ground - that's juvenile and transparent. Your habit of going into threads that you don't like, and derailing them and disrupting them, while claiming to have no interest in the thread - well, that's ridiculous, juvenile and transparent.

Your the one in the wrong here. Cunt - whatever he may have done somewhere else - on this thread, has done nothing wrong, and you and others are simply unhappy with the topic he raised, and so you're attacking his motive and attacking his person. You, who love to throw out logical fallacies (normally misusing them, and not really understanding what they mean) should still be able to puzzle out what logical fallacies are being thrown at Cunt here. Do try.

[pErvinalia]

God you are a bore. How do you not bore yourself to death listening to your internal dialogue all day?

[Brian Peacock]

When given a few examples of women performing better than men in their field this was the response:

So they somehow outperformed men?

Are you saying that women are better at physics, chemistry and medicine? Is that by published works? Or pounds of output? Crowd acclaim?

Or is this just your virtue signalling to your peers?

I'm just trying to have a rational discussion with you baby!

It's pretty clear that Cunt thinks women are inferior to men in just about every area of life. No evidence of biological or inherent traits has been presented to back this view up. And that's because it's a laughably naive understanding of the social inertia that societies possess thanks to historical (and sometimes continued) disadvantage/oppression of women, and the individual inertia of social learning.

O come on. You don't need scientific papers when you have commonsense on your side. Look, women just aren't as fast or as strong as men and that's the end of it. This so-called 'equality' leftists bang on about can't legislate away that simple fact. Women will never be stronger or faster than men, and the exceptions only prove the rule - women and men aren't equal, men are stronger and faster and more competitive and take more risks and no amount of Lefty crybullying will change that.

/thread

[pErvinalia]

@42... Surely you are pretending that you can't understand the difference between "shitty" and "falling foul of the forum rules". You have to be. I can't understand how someone could think they are equivalent.

And likewise, surely you don't really fail to see the difference between calling Cunt's question irrelevant etc and being "not interested in a thread". Surely?

[Forty Two]

@42... Surely you are pretending that you can't understand the difference between "shitty" and "falling foul of the forum rules". You have to be. I can't understand how someone could think they are equivalent.

Look, obviously I understand the difference between "shitty" and "falling afoul of the rules." What you're ignoring is the fact that (a) your or anyone else's determination of what is a shitty topic, does not (b) give you or anyone else the license to be shitty to that person by violating the rules.

It's irrelevant if you or someone else thinks this topic is shitty, and therefore Cunt should expect have shitty treatment in retaliation.

And likewise, surely you don't really fail to see the difference between calling Cunt's question irrelevant etc and being "not interested in a thread". Surely?

Of course, but I didn't equate the two. I addressed both separately.

[Forty Two]

Look, this is how assholes act. They say something shitty, and then when you get shitty back they try to go all hyper-rational --best as they can manage anyway-- and ask, why you mad bro? You must be getting shitty cause you're not on my level regarding rational discourse.

Steady on there Tiger - no need to get all emotional about it.

Indeed, if this kind of topic sets people off, I'd hate to think how people would react if a really controversial and inflammatory topic was raised, like: "The Merits and Benefits of North Korean Style Prison Camps and Soviet Gulags in Modern Western Democracies." Or, "Slavery, Why It Should be Legalized." Or, perhaps, "The Roman Practice of Decimation and How it Would Benefit the Modern Military." How about "Toward A Legal Regime of Mandatory Abortion." Or, "The Benefits of Colonialism."

The Oxford Union debated whether the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College at Oxford should be removed. That means that one side had to take the side of keeping the statue. What a "shitty" argument to make.... lol.

When did arguing controversial topics - even taking a position one may not precisely old -- become "shitty?" LOL Oh, when progressives took over, and decided that the only good debate to have, as has been pointed out, are where there is already common ground known between the two sides....

[Sean Hayden]

You're full of shit 42. Why even pretend that what we have here is an attempt at a debate over controversial topics in the same vein as Oxford Union's debate? Anyone can go to Youtube to look that up btw.

The OP was shitty. Responding to it with sarcasm and ridicule is fine. Unfortunately, assholes of a certain bent nearly always fall back to "but I'm just trying to have a rational discussion!" despite their original comments suggesting otherwise. Hell, sometimes the asshole even acknowledges or hints at their knowingly being shitty in their opening comments. But then, as if they've lost all sense, they try to convince everyone else that they're just being emotional. How can anything difficult be discussed when everyone's so emotional? We're missing so much important rational debate by being such irrational progressives!

Look, forget what I said, or rather how I said it. I'm trying to have a rational discussion here. So yeah, I said that. Yeah, I knew it would piss you off. But let's focus on what I meant to say, what this discussion could lead to.