Jump to content


The difference between male and female?


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

Mikosah #101 Posted May 05 2014 - 05:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,451
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View Postmattwong, on May 04 2014 - 21:42, said:

 

Exactly.  That guy has said some really strange (and offensive) things in the past, and anyone who says "traditional values do justify themselves" cannot be taken seriously.

 

Don't be so quick to judge. Could this subject matter possibly be any more ambiguous or subjective? Are all 'traditional' values objectively harmful under all possible circumstances? Are all 'progressive' values objectively beneficent under all possible circumstances? There's so many exceptions to both rules that it would be utter insanity to ever make such a broad generalization that one is always good and one is always bad.



mattwong #102 Posted May 05 2014 - 07:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostMikosah, on May 05 2014 - 00:31, said:

Don't be so quick to judge. Could this subject matter possibly be any more ambiguous or subjective? Are all 'traditional' values objectively harmful under all possible circumstances? Are all 'progressive' values objectively beneficent under all possible circumstances? There's so many exceptions to both rules that it would be utter insanity to ever make such a broad generalization that one is always good and one is always bad.

 

I don't think you understand the point I was making: nothing justifies itself.  To say that something justifies itself is the epitome of circular logic.  I was not saying that all traditional values are wrong; I was saying that it is wrong to try to justify something simply by pointing out that it's traditional.  Do you see the difference?


Edited by mattwong, May 05 2014 - 07:51.


Mikosah #103 Posted May 06 2014 - 04:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,451
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View Postmattwong, on May 05 2014 - 01:48, said:

 

I don't think you understand the point I was making: nothing justifies itself.  To say that something justifies itself is the epitome of circular logic.  I was not saying that all traditional values are wrong; I was saying that it is wrong to try to justify something simply by pointing out that it's traditional.  Do you see the difference?

 

I agree with the basic premise, but keep in mind that 'justification' can be subjective as well. For instance, just about everyone agrees that happiness is a good thing. People do what makes themselves happy, they pursue happiness for the sake of pursuing happiness. Couldn't it therefore be said that happiness is 'justified' by happiness itself? What's more, you ask someone why they're doing something and they answer with "its traditional". As you may have suggested, that's just semantics. There's more to it than that. What they're really trying to say is probably something to the effect of "I'm trying to fit in with a certain group of people" or "I'm proud of my cultural heritage". You ask "why" and they answer "because it makes me happy". Now, with that said I will issue the caveat that sometimes people do horrible things simply because that's what they enjoy doing. From their own perspective, these actions are justified. From the perspective of others, they're not. That's what makes this topic so subjective.



Luissen #104 Posted May 06 2014 - 04:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22601 battles
  • 1,407
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011
my clan's commander is a woman, and she's scary when she's not being nice.

mattwong #105 Posted May 06 2014 - 06:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostMikosah, on May 05 2014 - 23:39, said:

I agree with the basic premise, but keep in mind that 'justification' can be subjective as well. For instance, just about everyone agrees that happiness is a good thing. People do what makes themselves happy, they pursue happiness for the sake of pursuing happiness. Couldn't it therefore be said that happiness is 'justified' by happiness itself?

 

Happiness doesn't need to be justified, because no one is trying to force it upon others against their will.  So-called "traditional values" on the other hand, are continually being shoved down peoples' throats and written into laws.  Don't kid yourself; when people say "traditional values", they are not referring to enjoying a family tradition of turkey on Thanksgiving.  They are talking about the so-called "culture wars" in western society between social conservatives and social liberals, in which "traditional values" means "the laws should force modern people to obey old-fashioned customs".



Blitzkonig_Hawkish #106 Posted May 08 2014 - 10:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23391 battles
  • 1,094
  • [GRIMY] GRIMY
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

View PostJagermech, on May 04 2014 - 11:52, said:

 

I'ma take this sentence by sentence, I got nothing to do today.

 

1st line:  You are correct in saying traditional values were the solution humanity has used before.  Thats the definition of traditional.  The disconnect is where you think traditional values are homogenous.  Slavery has be used by humanity for thousands of years.  It is a "traditional value" according to you're definition, but I suspect that you're not advocating we conquer and enslave weaker nations, despite this being tradition.  Dunno what you are going on about with the evolution quip, considering the science behind evolutionary theory is a relatively new concept.

 

2nd line:  You are correct that most christian sects believe in Social Justice, which is considered a liberal ideal these days, but I'm not sure why you think progressives don't believe in God.  I mean, I do, and I'm a liberal because I do, so yeah, wrong there.

3rd line:  Your so-called "Slave Morality" is what Jesus preached.  Deal with it.:glasses:  I think the problem you're having is the whole "liberals cant belive in God" bit, while the folks I know belive in quite a few things, from the Abrahamic religions to Paganism to Humanism. (And, naturally, everything I haven't mentioned as well)

 

4th line:  That is literally the most insane reading of "God is Dead" I have ever heard.  I know this is the Internet, but try harder.  *Starts drinking*

 

5th line: *continues drinking*

 

6th line and Beyond!:  If you extrapolate the law of the Jungle, we shouldn't live in cities, arguing on the Internet.  All of Human progress has been made by banding together in our own self interest.  The parade of technology and reasoning has happened against the backdrop of "Thats not how we did it before!"  Giordano Bruno was tried for herasy for saying our Sun was but one star of many, and that other stars may support worlds of life.  The "Rule of the Jungle" would've proclaimed that the Church was right in burning him at the stake because the Church was stronger.

 

Your vaunted "Traditional Values" proclaim everyone's intrinsic worth.  We have beaten evolution.  Where do we go from here?

 

Traditional means it was the solution at one time, probably the best one available.

 

Slavery is a human institution of humanity, it was thought moral at times and others not, just like every other institution and there is tons of modern day slavery and parallels.

 

I'm not saying slave morality is bad but it is what it is. And saying you are going into a religious/idealogical argument there is no ground to argue because its a religion/ideology. The point Nietzsche was spec trying to make was that why keep the Christian ideals if you don't believe in God anymore, which basically makes anyong who claims to be "objective" and support liberal ideas are hypocrites.

 

The idea of "God is dead" by Nietzsche was exactly what I said it was. Why keep the Christians morals if you no longer have reason. Essentially the enlightenment was just more good willed superstition that we have rights and all the liberal ideas.

 

I wasn't arguing FOR traditional values I was arguing against the common dismissal of them as being antiquated and obsolete without any thought being given to them.

 

Might also does make right. Most of the things you talk about don't even make sense or are just simple arguments you don't understand and aren't worth my time to respond to.

 

View PostTankette, on May 04 2014 - 12:23, said:

You know you are just feeding this troll, right? :/

Sigh. Based on his past posts, he would advocate slavery in a heartbeat. 

 

Whats wrong with slavery? Are there any modern institutions that resemble slavery? Such as illegal immigrants, low wage workers, literal slaves, wage slaves, tax slaves, what about prisons and restricting freedom? Its not just "lol slavery are bad k guys", thats simple thinking for simple people. All life seeks to make others form to their will. Even a plant's fruit is to get you to help it reproduce. Everything is trying to reproduce and subvert all other life's "will to power" as it were. Or if you listen to Tool, life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life...

 

View PostComrade_Catastrophe, on May 04 2014 - 12:36, said:

"Do you believe in Equality?"

 

Thats the great thing about human rights. It doesn't matter if you believe in them or not - they're still human rights.

 

Wrong. They don't exist not even by agreement by 100% of all sentient beings. They are just constructs that we tend to agree to when it suits us, and not to when it suits us.

 

 

View PostTankette, on May 04 2014 - 12:46, said:

I believe in them.

For example, even though we may not agree on some things (ponies, for example), I would still treat you like a human being.

You don't want to treat others as your equal? Fine, I won't treat you as an equal.

And for my response to the OP, I don't know about you, but I believe that other than different sexual organs, a slight difference in hormones, and one different chromosome, we really are the same, mentally and emotionally. Many people put us in the same species for a reason.

 

No one treats others as equals because no one is equal. There are social dominance hierarchies even in humans. I don't want people to treat me as equals, I want to force them to treat me as a superior because of my power. The only way you can protect yourself and rights is through your force or group of force (such as the state or family or w/e else).

 

Wrong. Men and women are extremely different, learn more about sexual dimorphism. Right now it is not socially acceptable or PC to talk about gender differences but they do exist. A woman's entire physical body is designed to produce children. She is weaker, she has breasts ALL the time (unlike any other mammal iirc), she has wide hips for child birth that are not efficient at running, she is small and unable to harm the average male. All of these characteristics are to benefit the species. To deny this is to be blind. To think that these types of things do not extend to the brain is also blind, but it is taboo so there isn't as much information on it. There are many proven differences in male and female brains, take a look at any number of scientific journals about it.

 

View Postmattwong, on May 04 2014 - 19:33, said:

 

Actually, human rights are an idea that we created because we hoped that they would lead a positive outcome.  They do not have any sort of innate existence, and indeed, mankind struggled along for thousands of years with no concept of "rights" until philosophers came up with the idea during the Enlightenment Era.

 

Human rights are justified by the fact that societies which respect them tend to be happier and more prosperous than societies which don't.  They can be thought of as a social engineering idea, which was tested under real-world conditions and found to be fairly effective.

 

Wrong, philosophers didnt invent them, they were innate in us long before philosophy. How could civilization come about and have thousands of years to develop language and writing and ideas without social contract ideas and division of labor. Even animals can understand basic social contract rules, like chimps, apes, and a few others.

 

View Postmattwong, on May 04 2014 - 19:42, said:

 

Exactly.  That guy has said some really strange (and offensive) things in the past, and anyone who says "traditional values do justify themselves" cannot be taken seriously.

 

Why does it matter if they are offensive? I said traditional values have worked in the past, therefore they justify their utility. Progressive ideas are experiments based on idealogy driven emotions.

 

View Postmattwong, on May 05 2014 - 22:28, said:

 

Happiness doesn't need to be justified, because no one is trying to force it upon others against their will.  So-called "traditional values" on the other hand, are continually being shoved down peoples' throats and written into laws.  Don't kid yourself; when people say "traditional values", they are not referring to enjoying a family tradition of turkey on Thanksgiving.  They are talking about the so-called "culture wars" in western society between social conservatives and social liberals, in which "traditional values" means "the laws should force modern people to obey old-fashioned customs".

 

What about progressive values being shoved down people's throats? Aren't the liberals trying to write into law their beliefs and force others to accept whatever it is they believe, and steal money (aka taxes) to support their causes as well? isn't the whole PC movement along with all the other things liberals believe being forced into law? Why do you only see one side of the argument? You are supposed to be the rational atheist type and claim to love star trek but you put forth emotional ideas you are attached to without examining the evidence or contradictions. If anything atheist/skeptical type people should be libertarian because they don't want to force their views on people and realize they are ignorant and don't know better what will work or have a "prime directive" in not interfering with others lives.

 

Heres a good video, even though this guy is overly dramatic and throwing the "pots ok" lines.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=CsXxUKjklt8

 

This last video MIGHT have swearing but I doubt it. Still gonna just link it like this. Basically why all atheists have to be libertarian if they are honest.


Edited by Blitzkonig_Hawkish, May 08 2014 - 10:52.


mattwong #107 Posted May 08 2014 - 14:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostBlitzkonig_Hawkish, on May 08 2014 - 05:47, said:

tWrong, philosophers didnt invent them, they were innate in us long before philosophy. How could civilization come about and have thousands of years to develop language and writing and ideas without social contract ideas and division of labor. Even animals can understand basic social contract rules, like chimps, apes, and a few others.

 

You are clearly a troll.  How the hell can rights be "innate in us" without philosophers coming up with the idea?  Have you found evidence of a "rights gene?"



BitterClinger #108 Posted May 08 2014 - 14:43

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21098 battles
  • 198
  • [SPYDA] SPYDA
  • Member since:
    03-19-2013

Female: When a woman has a REALLY good day, she can't wait to tell all her friends about it and talk about it fondly at gatherings for the rest of her life.

 

Male: When a man has a REALLY good day, it's never to be spoken of again!



Darkbee2Bee #109 Posted May 08 2014 - 14:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 36279 battles
  • 3,552
  • [-FG-] -FG-
  • Member since:
    06-23-2013

View PostJennaBugLovesYou, on Apr 24 2014 - 03:18, said:

 

 

 

What big eyes you have!

 

OP is a little vague but.. at the most basic level men are expendable hunter/gatherers that nobody will miss if mauled by a sabertooth tiger.  Women are the nurturers and care-givers who prevent children from going off into the wilderness and being mauled by sabertooth tigers.  The only problem is... there aren't any sabertooth tigers any more.



mattwong #110 Posted May 08 2014 - 15:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostBlitzkonig_Hawkish, on May 08 2014 - 05:47, said:

What about progressive values being shoved down people's throats? Aren't the liberals trying to write into law their beliefs and force others to accept whatever it is they believe, and steal money (aka taxes) to support their causes as well?

 

You clearly have serious reading comprehension difficulties.  I never said that nothing should ever be "shoved down peoples' throats"; if we can't ever shove values down peoples' throats as a blanket rule, we can't even tell them not to molest children.  What I said was that people need to provide some kind of justification before they get to shove something down peoples' throats, and there's no such thing as self-justification: a value does not automatically justify itself with no evidence required.

 

In short, learn to read.  You obviously didn't understand the point at all.



mattwong #111 Posted May 08 2014 - 15:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostDarkbee2Bee, on May 08 2014 - 09:46, said:

OP is a little vague but.. at the most basic level men are expendable hunter/gatherers that nobody will miss if mauled by a sabertooth tiger.  Women are the nurturers and care-givers who prevent children from going off into the wilderness and being mauled by sabertooth tigers.  The only problem is... there aren't any sabertooth tigers any more.

 

At an even more basic level, species evolved genders so that they could have a wider range of characteristics than one gender would permit.  In other words, gender allows one species to have two variants, for "work force specialization" and "division of labour", to use economics terms.  In our case, the men are the hunters and the women are the gatherers/nurturers, which (I suspect) is why women are better at finding items that have been lost in the house.



Comrade_Catastrophe #112 Posted May 08 2014 - 18:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 1204 battles
  • 792
  • Member since:
    12-18-2013

View PostDarkbee2Bee, on May 08 2014 - 08:46, said:

OP is a little vague but.. at the most basic level men are expendable hunter/gatherers that nobody will miss if mauled by a sabertooth tiger.  Women are the nurturers and care-givers who prevent children from going off into the wilderness and being mauled by sabertooth tigers.  The only problem is... there aren't any sabertooth tigers any more.
 

Your first mistake is comparing early humans to modern humans as if we function and think the same as we did back then. That's like saying a 16 year old is unfit to search for a job because he was too immature when he was 5.



Darkbee2Bee #113 Posted May 08 2014 - 20:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 36279 battles
  • 3,552
  • [-FG-] -FG-
  • Member since:
    06-23-2013

View PostComrade_Catastrophe, on May 08 2014 - 13:30, said:

Your first mistake is comparing early humans to modern humans as if we function and think the same as we did back then. That's like saying a 16 year old is unfit to search for a job because he was too immature when he was 5.

 

I don't actually believe we're as evolved as we'd like to think we are.  We still have a lot of base instincts which direct our behavior.  That's why trolls exist to give but one instance off the top of my head.



BOT_ROCKET #114 Posted May 09 2014 - 23:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 36570 battles
  • 2,434
  • [ALERT] ALERT
  • Member since:
    06-17-2012
How is this thread not locked? I made a thread inquiring about why people pose as the opposite gender, and it was promtly locked and I got an RO for promoting unrest or some garbage like that. Then again, I got a warning for the dumbest crap for a couple weeks, so im pretty sure I hurt one of the mods' butts in a debate so they decided to do the mature thing and scavenge my posts to get me back. Wargaming mods would never do that, though.... right?

Blitzkonig_Hawkish #115 Posted May 10 2014 - 08:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23391 battles
  • 1,094
  • [GRIMY] GRIMY
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

View Postmattwong, on May 08 2014 - 06:33, said:

 

You are clearly a troll.  How the hell can rights be "innate in us" without philosophers coming up with the idea?  Have you found evidence of a "rights gene?"

 

Thats not what I said. The ideas of the rights exist within us, aka a sense of justice, aka a sense of transgressing the rules of a community. For example there is a study which shows that when an alpha male chimp (basically higher status) beats up a lower status male there are different responses depending if he deserved it or not by the other chimps. Basically if some lower status male was hassling a higher status one and he gets smacked for it he will receive no help from friends. But when a higher status male smacks a lower status male for no reason the others in the group increase their grooming of the lower status male to console them essentially. Its basically a form of justice and unfairness and the other chimps recognize it.

 

They have even taught chimps prostitution by giving them coins which can be redeemed for food, male chimps started giving them to female chimps for sexual favors.

 

Our sense of justice is an emotion, when we interpret things as unfair we react to it. This is how social contracts/law/golden rule etc developed.

 

View Postmattwong, on May 08 2014 - 07:29, said:

 

You clearly have serious reading comprehension difficulties.  I never said that nothing should ever be "shoved down peoples' throats"; if we can't ever shove values down peoples' throats as a blanket rule, we can't even tell them not to molest children.  What I said was that people need to provide some kind of justification before they get to shove something down peoples' throats, and there's no such thing as self-justification: a value does not automatically justify itself with no evidence required.

 

In short, learn to read.  You obviously didn't understand the point at all.

 

Non aggression principle, max freedom for most people. Children are too young and unable to defend themselves as well. But you can't really say anything is wrong, but the most freedom comes from the non aggression principle. Molesting children would be a harm and therefore wrong in this view of morality.

 

Traditional values work and were the solution that evolved. Whether there are better solutions remained to be seen, but the reason we have these systems is because they work. Its basically a proven method that works. Progressive ideas are at best optimistic experiments with little to no scientific rigor around them (basically ideology is religion not science). While the traditional values may not have scientific rigor they are as valid as the theory of evolution that they do work and did happen for thousands of years.

 

 



mattwong #116 Posted May 10 2014 - 08:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostBlitzkonig_Hawkish, on May 10 2014 - 03:25, said:

Thats not what I said. The ideas of the rights exist within us, aka a sense of justice, aka a sense of transgressing the rules of a community.

 

You are confusing rights with morality.  Morality is an evolved trait, but "rights" are a recent development in moral philosophy.

 

View PostBlitzkonig_Hawkish, on May 10 2014 - 03:25, said:

Traditional values work and were the solution that evolved.

 

Utter nonsense.  Traditional values include slavery, racism, sexism, and homophobia.  How exactly do you determine that they "worked"?  What makes them better than modern values?



F_Society #117 Posted May 10 2014 - 10:59

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 42553 battles
  • 1,396
  • Member since:
    08-09-2010

 



Alesia_Aisela #118 Posted May 10 2014 - 15:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18622 battles
  • 1,332
  • [BUNS] BUNS
  • Member since:
    08-05-2011

View PostDeadBambi, on May 10 2014 - 02:59, said:

 

 

 

 

 

Im going to go out on a limb and claim that at least the male chart is overly simplified in which case the female chart is probably also wrong by extension.   Nothing but comedic value (just like this post)


Honestly though I dont treat men and women any differently aside from choosing my words more carefully around women, more out of respect and avoiding saying anything that could be taken as offensive.  That said I have little interest in relationships or friendships. My introvert nature simply does not allow me to waste time with the needless banter needed to form such things.

Doesnt mean I dont want a family though,  I just dont have a want to strike up 1000 shallow/short lived relationships in order to find that 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Scootalove #119 Posted May 11 2014 - 04:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 15781 battles
  • 873
  • [ERAD] ERAD
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

Edit:  Skip it.  Espirit d'escalier.


Edited by Jagermech, May 11 2014 - 18:12.


Blitzkonig_Hawkish #120 Posted May 13 2014 - 08:11

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23391 battles
  • 1,094
  • [GRIMY] GRIMY
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013

View Postmattwong, on May 10 2014 - 00:39, said:

 

You are confusing rights with morality.  Morality is an evolved trait, but "rights" are a recent development in moral philosophy.

 

 

Utter nonsense.  Traditional values include slavery, racism, sexism, and homophobia.  How exactly do you determine that they "worked"?  What makes them better than modern values?

 

I wrote a long post but... 11:50 on, explains why liberal ideas are nonsense. The whole video is good but, you don't have to watch it all.

 

Why do you assume that sexism, racism, etc is bad? They are just actions and they were beneficial at one time so human societies used them. Saying you don't think slavery will ever happen again is like saying if people are starving they won't eat each other. I don't condone these values per say, I think non aggression principle is best (including specifically the state), but I realize they are just arbitrary.

 

Basically democrat or republican is wrong if you don't believe in God or a diety/nature (like Stoics) that grants you rights.

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users