Since Women Are Equal, Then Why Can't They Get Their ? Whooped?
Options
Comments
-
Black_Samson wrote: »Dude just go swing on a chick and stop seeking validation from us. You won't find it.
After this many threads on the topic it's obvious you have a deep burning desire to brutaly beat a woman's ass.
Just go do it already.
-
desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The idea of a 'level playing field' is in itself a logidesertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
What?
e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1.
being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
? feminists
Lol
Smh
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
Your fallacy is in promoting the belief that we are all equal or possess the same value on some metaphysical level. There is no evidence for this. Any value you recognized is assigned not inherent, meaning it's arbitrary and subjective.
Your attempt to establish a difference between "same" and "equal" is hilarity. If they are not the same they are not equal. There's a word for that, difference. Things that are different can be and are naturally analyzed to determine value.
You are trying to conflate equal or equal treatment with accommodations. Accommodations are what allow the blind deaf or otherwise disabled to enjoy life on a level to some degree of similarity to their non disabled counterparts.
However physically these two groups of people are not equal not even to each other. Their value to society is not even the same. Their duties and obligations are inverted. People without disabilities are expected to contribute to their society while society is expected to serve perpetually those with maladies.
So again even the position is not the same.
As i stated before men and women have widely different expectations and obligations to society which means even on a citizen level we're not equals.
Your philosophy is trash. Basura.
Bruh
The term 'equal' can mean 'same'..... BUT 'equal' can describe having "equivalent value", despite not being "exactly the same"
Think two dollars are equal to 8 quarters, yet they are different in appearance, feel, utility, etc
And the practice of treating ppl equally does not require they be treated the same, just that you don't give only one party special treatment. As I was alluding to it can mean you treat them as equally valued beings (i.e., workers, students, etc). Reasonable accommodations DOES NOT confer special treatment. If you are in charge of teaching a blind child and deaf child a lesson and you want to give them equal access to the lesson that means accommodating both children with the necessary tools they need to learn. You give the blind child braille reading materials, for instance. And/Or the lesson may require you to use sign language for the deaf child. Not just providing both children with only braille reading materials and expecting the deaf child to succeed
And really there is no such thing as absolute value. Value is the importance that we attach to things no? So in this sense, all values are subjective
You believe a man is superior to a woman or "man's work" is more valuable to the advancement of mankind, that is their opinion.... Considering women and only women can bear children, and then are generally are the care taker of said children, a case could be made women are more valuable, superior. Both cases have their merits but there's no right or wrong answer really. Not to mention our obligations and what's expected of both men and women has changed over time and changes from culture to culture
Even money is only worth what people believe it is worth. It depends on the judgment and agreement of majority. We want to make inequality less of a reality it's possible and we have the freedom to do so. It is the next step to human progress. Besides what that means for women, I believe that requires taking into consideration the differences between boys and girls and how they can best absorb and retain information in our schools. Boys are currently falling way behind. I'm also an advocate of giving men the right to sign away their financial obligations to a child they fathered under certain circumstances.....
Jesus Christ Barbie can you walk and chew bubble gum at the same time?
Your example of dollars to quarters does not blow up my last post. In fact it further elucidates MY point. You're not doing a 1:1 ratio of a dollar to a quarter. In fact you admit in your example that it is a 1:4 ratio hence, funnily that particular coin being labeled a quarter. You've stretched your brain and reached for a concrete example.
The practice of valuation is largely based on taking the product or service they provide and converting it into a value based on that society.
Now suffice to say blind and deaf people are not as valuable to a society as someone who is not. Firstly to accommodate them you have to spend more resources to get them to do the same thing as able bodied children. Which makes them a bigger liability. So much bigger in fact. With able bodied children they are expected to grow up and eventually take jobs or careers where they give back or contribute to the society. Blind deaf and otherwise malaffected people never get to a point where they contribute more than they take. They are often the recipients of government subsidies and society is altered in fashions to accommodate their needs.
So it doesn't matter that you give out hearing aids or Braille lessons or put a bunch of ramps on buildings people in that category will always take more from society than they contribute.
Now in your opinion that women can be viewed as more valuable or superior than men based on the fact they are the only ones to facilitate birth...you might've had a point 100 200 300 years ago. Problem with this perspective is two fold. Firstly, we live on a finite planet with finite resources. The more people there are the less resources are to go around. Currently we sit at 7+ billion people. The value of a woman reproducing is not as high and in fact moreso a liability than an asset. It is highly probable that whatever she farts out her ? is not going to contribute anything great to that society and more likely be average their existence is irrelevant. So while at one point in time a woman giving birth is a plus in this era it is a big giant liability with our shrinking resources.
Secondly, without men to build society and provide for the general climate of safety and resource full, a woman's child bearing potential is diminished. The liklihood of her offspring reaching adulthood and reproducing thus creating positive birth rates is close to nil. Without the work of the man to establish the foundation of security and resources a woman being able to give birth means as much as a rabbit giving birth in a den of wolves.
I'm not gonna touch the money thing anymore because your grasp of finances is tenuous at best, far too shaky to produce a firm analogy.
But ok hold on. Money works the way it works because over the past 200 years the old banks have been converting people from yoemen and prouducers to consumers and tenets. The dollar value is established and manipulated it doesn't matter what you believe it matters that you can convert so many hours of labor into x fiat dollars and convert those into real goods and services.
Thanks for playing Barbie. -
desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »
The idea of a 'level playing field' is in itself a logidesertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
What?
e·qual
ˈēkwəl/Submit
adjective
1.
being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
"add equal amounts of water and flour"
? feminists
Lol
Smh
Equal is qualified by quantity, size, /or and value NOT sameness
Your fallacy is in promoting the belief that we are all equal or possess the same value on some metaphysical level. There is no evidence for this. Any value you recognized is assigned not inherent, meaning it's arbitrary and subjective.
Your attempt to establish a difference between "same" and "equal" is hilarity. If they are not the same they are not equal. There's a word for that, difference. Things that are different can be and are naturally analyzed to determine value.
You are trying to conflate equal or equal treatment with accommodations. Accommodations are what allow the blind deaf or otherwise disabled to enjoy life on a level to some degree of similarity to their non disabled counterparts.
However physically these two groups of people are not equal not even to each other. Their value to society is not even the same. Their duties and obligations are inverted. People without disabilities are expected to contribute to their society while society is expected to serve perpetually those with maladies.
So again even the position is not the same.
As i stated before men and women have widely different expectations and obligations to society which means even on a citizen level we're not equals.
Your philosophy is trash. Basura.
Bruh
The term 'equal' can mean 'same'..... BUT 'equal' can describe having "equivalent value", despite not being "exactly the same"
Think two dollars are equal to 8 quarters, yet they are different in appearance, feel, utility, etc
And the practice of treating ppl equally does not require they be treated the same, just that you don't give only one party special treatment. As I was alluding to it can mean you treat them as equally valued beings (i.e., workers, students, etc). Reasonable accommodations DOES NOT confer special treatment. If you are in charge of teaching a blind child and deaf child a lesson and you want to give them equal access to the lesson that means accommodating both children with the necessary tools they need to learn. You give the blind child braille reading materials, for instance. And/Or the lesson may require you to use sign language for the deaf child. Not just providing both children with only braille reading materials and expecting the deaf child to succeed
And really there is no such thing as absolute value. Value is the importance that we attach to things no? So in this sense, all values are subjective
You believe a man is superior to a woman or "man's work" is more valuable to the advancement of mankind, that is their opinion.... Considering women and only women can bear children, and then are generally are the care taker of said children, a case could be made women are more valuable, superior. Both cases have their merits but there's no right or wrong answer really. Not to mention our obligations and what's expected of both men and women has changed over time and changes from culture to culture
Even money is only worth what people believe it is worth. It depends on the judgment and agreement of majority. We want to make inequality less of a reality it's possible and we have the freedom to do so. It is the next step to human progress. Besides what that means for women, I believe that requires taking into consideration the differences between boys and girls and how they can best absorb and retain information in our schools. Boys are currently falling way behind. I'm also an advocate of giving men the right to sign away their financial obligations to a child they fathered under certain circumstances.....
Jesus Christ Barbie can you walk and chew bubble gum at the same time?
Your example of dollars to quarters does not blow up my last post. In fact it further elucidates MY point. You're not doing a 1:1 ratio of a dollar to a quarter. In fact you admit in your example that it is a 1:4 ratio hence, funnily that particular coin being labeled a quarter. You've stretched your brain and reached for a concrete example.
barbie?
if you are going to insult me, please be clever
that said, i only spoke of 8 quarters being equal to 2 dollars to further illustrate my point the term 'equal' can be used to describe two things having "equivalent value", despite being "different ". maybe i should have said 1 stack of 8 quarters vs a stack of 40 nickels
but regardless whether it was a bad analogy, the fact remains "same" and "equal", or rather "equivalent", are not congruent terms....that has always been my position and you have yet to prove me wrong ...
i used the blind child and deaf child analogy not to make the argument regarding their worth in general ... it was to demonstrate the practice of treating ppl equally does not require they be treated the same, but rather be used to describe treating them as equally valued beings (i.e. workers, students, etc). reasonable accommodations DOES NOT confer special treatment
lastly, money has worth because men came together to give it worth.......you go back in time at point there was no banks or universally recognized forms of currency.... and at other times we were just bartering ? , still do... even today money has no value to some ppl
so as far as who is more valuable , you're so busy trying to make me look dumb ur missing the point that all I'm arguing is value is subjective....i don't think men are superior to women or that women are superior to men... or that one has more value to society because it differs depending on the era, who you ask.... assigning either gender superior is counterproductive imho
not that you made a great case anyways regarding a woman's ability to bear children as being some liability lol. we have limited resources, but we need ppl to step in as the population ages ...and in today's world its not as if man's superior strength or speed actually means much. besides being exceptionally good at dunking a basketball, really what act you consider of great value the average man can do that the average woman can't today if given a proper chance ???? nothing bruh lol
-
Too many females these days are emboldened to act out. Men shouldn't put their hands on women, but women need to stop acting like they can do the same ? men can.....because they can't. Women are weaker, period. Nothing wrong with that either because they're more sensitive and caring which is needed. But they need to stop acting like all is equal.
-
"Men and women are equal."
"Men and women deserve equal rights."
These are two very different statements, but TS knew that already. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
You asked me to prove that men have more desirable traits and while every trait can have a situational downside it is my contention that the traits found in men at greater proportions create more benefits than they do disadvantages. REMEMBER i said that men are better at the things that actually count so in other words we excel at more important ? ... the things women excel at are important but they are not more important than the things that men excel at.
In modern capitalistic society if you don't take risk and are not intelligently aggressive then you won't gather more wealth than the next person and the whole goal is to be richer than the next guy. This lack of risk taking and aggressiveness is why women are less likely to ask for a rise or fight for that promotion.... therefore they get out competed by men and then feminist cry about sexism.
http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/high_potentials_in_tech-intensive_industries_the_gender_divide_in_business_roles_2.pdf
Men/boys also excel at stem fields and obviously in the age we live in that's an advantage, most women/girls don't even want to go into stem even when the opportunity is made easy for them and when they do get into it they don't stay in it
quite frankly studies suggest that men are also more willing to suffer and live under hierarchy so of course we will do better in a highly structured society.
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, and I can see why it would feed your beliefs. I just don't agree with much of it. You are right that modern capitalistic society probably awards more men oriented traits than woman oriented traits, but that should be expected given that men have developed the current society. Had it been more of a joint venture, society probably would have been a lot different. Would it have been better or worse? No one can really answer that question.
At best, your argument supports the idea that men are better suited to succeed in today's world. That is true, but that's not the same as saying that men are better than women as you seemed to be implying before.
The is impossible tho because men and women are intrinsically different and before the establishment of our scientific and technological age the traits of men also put us on top and made women necessarily and naturally take the inferior position.
the question that is bold is a ridiculous question because the only way things could have been is how it was..... 500 years ago women had to fall into an inferior position because they were unable to take care of or defend themselves.
women being physically weaker needed their men to lead and take charge otherwise they would have fallen prey to other men and we see examples of what i am talking about today in places like iraq and the Congo..... look what happens to the women when the men cannot defend them.
as for your last statement i don't no where you are coming from with that i said from the start that men are better than women at the ? that in more important. -
CashmoneyDux wrote: »mryounggun wrote: »oh great... another why can't i beat up women thread.
Word. The strange thing to me is that some ? seem obsessed with beating the ? out of women. Like it's not just that they think that it should be socially-acceptable, it seems like the fact that is ISN'T socially excepted is offensive to them.
? is bizarre.
This narrative yall keep pushing has zero basis at least on the board. I haven't seen anyone here(except maybe zombie) say they are eager to beat up women, but simply say how is it fair if someone puts their hands on you, you cannot defend yourself because of their gender, but we are pushing for equality.
Yall must be feminists masquerading as black people bec yall stay saying diminishing arguments with jokes that have no basis
please don't mischaracterize me i did not say that i am eager to beat women i simply said that i would have no problem doing so if i had to -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »"Men and women are equal."
"Men and women deserve equal rights."
These are two very different statements, but TS knew that already.
The fundamental problem of today, is that society has merged the two. Equal Rights now seem to require that we act like men and women are equal in all respects. That means women on the frontlines, women forced on the police beat, and so on. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
You asked me to prove that men have more desirable traits and while every trait can have a situational downside it is my contention that the traits found in men at greater proportions create more benefits than they do disadvantages. REMEMBER i said that men are better at the things that actually count so in other words we excel at more important ? ... the things women excel at are important but they are not more important than the things that men excel at.
In modern capitalistic society if you don't take risk and are not intelligently aggressive then you won't gather more wealth than the next person and the whole goal is to be richer than the next guy. This lack of risk taking and aggressiveness is why women are less likely to ask for a rise or fight for that promotion.... therefore they get out competed by men and then feminist cry about sexism.
http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/high_potentials_in_tech-intensive_industries_the_gender_divide_in_business_roles_2.pdf
Men/boys also excel at stem fields and obviously in the age we live in that's an advantage, most women/girls don't even want to go into stem even when the opportunity is made easy for them and when they do get into it they don't stay in it
quite frankly studies suggest that men are also more willing to suffer and live under hierarchy so of course we will do better in a highly structured society.
I'm not saying any of that is wrong, and I can see why it would feed your beliefs. I just don't agree with much of it. You are right that modern capitalistic society probably awards more men oriented traits than woman oriented traits, but that should be expected given that men have developed the current society. Had it been more of a joint venture, society probably would have been a lot different. Would it have been better or worse? No one can really answer that question.
At best, your argument supports the idea that men are better suited to succeed in today's world. That is true, but that's not the same as saying that men are better than women as you seemed to be implying before.
The is impossible tho because men and women are intrinsically different and before the establishment of our scientific and technological age the traits of men also put us on top and made women necessarily and naturally take the inferior position.
the question that is bold is a ridiculous question because the only way things could have been is how it was..... 500 years ago women had to fall into an inferior position because they were unable to take care of or defend themselves.
women being physically weaker needed their men to lead and take charge otherwise they would have fallen prey to other men and we see examples of what i am talking about today in places like iraq and the Congo..... look what happens to the women when the men cannot defend them.
as for your last statement i don't no where you are coming from with that i said from the start that men are better than women at the ? that in more important.
Fair enough. I don't agree with you, but I can't say your line of reasoning is completely without merit. -
[/quote]
barbie?
if you are going to insult me, please be clever
that said, i only spoke of 8 quarters being equal to 2 dollars to further illustrate my point the term 'equal' can be used to describe two things having "equivalent value", despite being "different ". maybe i should have said 1 stack of 8 quarters vs a stack of 40 nickels
but regardless whether it was a bad analogy, the fact remains "same" and "equal", or rather "equivalent", are not congruent terms....that has always been my position and you have yet to prove me wrong ...
i used the blind child and deaf child analogy not to make the argument regarding their worth in general ... it was to demonstrate the practice of treating ppl equally does not require they be treated the same, but rather be used to describe treating them as equally valued beings (i.e. workers, students, etc). reasonable accommodations DOES NOT confer special treatment
lastly, money has worth because men came together to give it worth.......you go back in time at point there was no banks or universally recognized forms of currency.... and at other times we were just bartering ? , still do... even today money has no value to some ppl
so as far as who is more valuable , you're so busy trying to make me look dumb ur missing the point that all I'm arguing is value is subjective....i don't think men are superior to women or that women are superior to men... or that one has more value to society because it differs depending on the era, who you ask.... assigning either gender superior is counterproductive imho
not that you made a great case anyways regarding a woman's ability to bear children as being some liability lol. we have limited resources, but we need ppl to step in as the population ages ...and in today's world its not as if man's superior strength or speed actually means much. besides being exceptionally good at dunking a basketball, really what act you consider of great value the average man can do that the average woman can't today if given a proper chance ???? nothing bruh lol
[/quote]
Cheezus h krust. Barbie. My post pasting the definition of equal includes an example of finding equity between two different by scaling their value. In fact the word equivalent has the prefix equal. I didn't bring up because surely babs you can see how those two words are the same. Did you look up any of these words before you stuck them in a sentence, or are the meanings flipped in some bizarro sjw dictionary you have?
Here we are using math terms equal equivalent same congruent and value. You insist on leaning towards subjectivity you are incorrect. Let me introduce another math term, measure. When you measure the total production and contribution to society men do more from the bottom ? jobs to the top jobs. Men do more sacrifice more and enforce more. See math is also an abstract a concept but whose purpose it is to inevitably be made real, concrete manifest into something tangible that embodies its principles.
You keep sticking that term reasonable in front of accomodations as if that changes the latter word. Reasonable accomodations as subjective and relative as it is are still accomodations given to those who cannot keep up otherwise whether due to physical or mental constraints. Your phrase reasonable accomodations is relative because it sits upon the shoulders of men who build and maintain socities. These accomodations are services or products the recipients are unable to produce for themselves.
All money is is currency. Society has never been without some form of currency. You can call it seashells you can call it chickens or greenbacks or fiat or ? currency has always existed. Currency has value to everyone. So that statement money has no value is bs. Bet money you not poppin ? for a broke ? but you will bust it wide open for the plug.
Value is not subjective it is relative. Subjective is based on personal bias an inference based on nothing more than a personal opinion. relative is based on measured interpretations. It is based on data. So I can say that based on a relative climate person x is more valuable than person y because these are the attributes and skills of x and for y and based on what we need x has more value. Now y may have been valuable sometime and perhaps situations may arise to increase their value again but in this current era, no.
Lastly, women giving birth are a liability, it was always one but there was trade off. Now there is no benefit. We need a major population reduction and to be honest scientists are perfecting artificial wombs so that's another job. If you think a mans physical attributes have no place in the world you are grossly misinformed.
