Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

khalid · Jul 18, 2014

So you just directly said that only non-gender specific traits are ignored.

Well, now its clear for anyone that wasn't convince, that you will ignore any evidence that contradicts your "theory". Looks like you need to examine your own R-values.

Cad · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
Okay, fine, show that male chimps like writing computer code more than female chimps.

And then, assuming you had a big sample of chimps, even if you found that the male chimps like writing computer code 10% more than the female chimps do, you'd still have a bunch of outlier female chimps that like writing computer code more than most of the boys, and you'd have a bunch of outlier male chimps that hate writing computer code.

That's my actual point. Is that even when you can find small biological differences when looking at across-the-board averages, the amount and degree of the outliers in the data make those differences insignificant. Human beings vary too much from one individual to the next to make those statistical conclusions we find across a population meaningful to any individual subject.

What you're missing is that the biological tendency towards certain types of activities causes those activities to be either male or female dominated and then the societal factors snowball that into programming or nursing where it's 99% one gender. But without the biological tendency to prefer building/designing/breaking/testing things in males vs. the arranging, nesting, nurturing and caring instincts in females, those things would never have become majority male or female in the first place and then the societal factors wouldn't have snowballed them. You're choosing to ignore the biology because you want to be able to say "society needs to change because things are unequal for females or group X" when really, the societal factors just extend and embrace what we tend to do anyway.

Arbitrary · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
My point is that all the NEW behaviors, all the higher level intellectual functions we've invented, are not connected to instincts at all.

You are out of your goddamned mind.

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Cad_sl said:
What you're missing is that the biological tendency towards certain types of activities causes those activities to be either male or female dominated and then the societal factors snowball that into programming or nursing where it's 99% one gender.

No, that's EXACTLY what I said from the start. Small biological forces are multiplied (you said snowballed) by massive societal forces to create the outcomes we see in society.

And I specifically said that (western) society DOESN'T need to change and that gender roles have proven to be a positive social adaptation so long as they're not rigidly applied and enough freedom and opportunity exists for outlier individuals to succeed in different-than-intended roles. The argument was not about changing society, as society seems to be getting along pretty well, it was specifically about the magnitude of the two forces at work, aka a small force being multiplied by a large force to create extremely divergent set of outcomes.

So thank you for fucking agreeing with me, I win.

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
They're not oddly specific. They're examples of high level intellectual functions not found in nature, skills we invented after the development of the new parts of our brain.

specific skills we've recently developed that use a non specific skill set as a framework that was not recently developed. Nobody is arguing that men are biologically programmed to build highrises. It's the underlying framework that makes men more prone to such activities

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Keep in mind kids that Mist also wants to control people's actions and tell them what they can and can't do "until they're mature enough to make good decisions". Good decisions being decisions she agrees with, of course. From that perspective, OF COURSE everything we do is caused by societal factors, and OF COURSE changes in society are needed "for our own good and to make things equal". How can you guys not see it? It's so obvious.

I actually just want colleges to enforce the drinking laws that we as a society have already agreed upon.

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
So thank you for fucking agreeing with me, I win.

If your argument, which is currently sitting in shambles, is what you consider winning, I'd hate to see a debate you concede losing

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
You are out of your goddamned mind.

So you think the primitive part of our brain that gives us little more than the desire to shit, eat and fuck has a huge influence on our desire to write recursively linked lists in Java? Which of us is out of their mind exactly?

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
If your argument, which is currently sitting in shambles, is what you consider winning, I'd hate to see a debate you concede losing

How is it in shambles when Cad just agreed with my original argument?

Cad · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
No, that's EXACTLY what I said from the start. Small biological forces are multiplied (you said snowballed) by massive societal forces to create the outcomes we see in society.

And I specifically said that (western) society DOESN'T need to change and that gender roles have proven to be a positive social adaptation so long as they're not rigidly applied and enough freedom and opportunity exists for outlier individuals to succeed in different-than-intended roles. The argument was not about changing society, as society seems to be getting along pretty well, it was specifically about the magnitude of the two forces at work, aka a small force being multiplied by a large force to create extremely divergent set of outcomes.

So thank you for fucking agreeing with me, I win.

If thats what you've been saying all along you fucking suck at expressing yourself.

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
How is it in shambles when Cad just agreed with my original argument?

I'm really not surprised you jumped on a cheap one like that to claim victory. I'm starting to figure you out. I honestly gave you the benefit of the doubt at first, but everyone is right about you

Arbitrary · Jul 18, 2014

Cad_sl said:
If thats what you've been saying all along you fucking suck at expressing yourself.

It's not her position. Her position is that societal normal are what dictate our behavior. Your position is that our biological forces dictate what eventually become societal normals.

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
I'm really not surprised you jumped on a cheap one like that to claim victory. I'm starting to figure you out. I honestly gave you the benefit of the doubt at first, but everyone is right about you

Are you saying Cad is a softball thrower now? Cad has been the pillar that everyone else used for support while attacking me for the past 191 pages.

Arbitrary · Jul 18, 2014

Yes, the last 191 pages have been all about you.

khalid · Jul 18, 2014

We were using Cad for support to attack you? Your silly contradictions are what support our attacks.

Cad · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
Are you saying Cad is a softball thrower now? Cad has been the pillar that everyone else used for support while attacking me for the past 191 pages.

I wouldn't start sucking your own dick just yet. Arbitrary has a point. I'm busy writing a brief but it seems to me you've been saying biology is kaput and society dictates everything. But you agree with me that biology started the gender roles going and societal factors snowballed it?

That seems like pretty different statements to me. Can you even succinctly state your position in 2-3 sentences so we know what you're trying to say?

Arbitrary · Jul 18, 2014

See Tanoomba, this is why you are the wrong side. At the first opportunity Mist threw you under the bus and claimed the entire thread was about her when you put in tons and tons of work on her behalf. Cad and Tanoomba arguing for literally two fucking weeks about the law? THREAD IS ALL ABOUT ME

Your help is not wanted nor appreciated.

khalid · Jul 18, 2014

Well yeah, Mist has attacked Tanoomba all over the early parts of this thread. However, for whatever reason, he seems think she agrees with him.

Tanoomba · Jul 18, 2014

khalid_sl said:
Well yeah, Mist has attacked Tanoomba all over the early parts of this thread. However, for whatever reason, he seems think she agrees with him.

I honestly don't care whether she thinks she agrees with me or not. I certainly agree with her.

Opposition repeatedly and dishonestly putting words into her mouth: Check.
Opposition creating stacks upon stacks of strawmen: Check.
Opposition unironically displaying the same disdain for science they accuse her of: Check.
Oppositionslowlycoming around and acknowledging her original point has merit: Check.
Opposition once again embarrassing themselves into defending an arbitrary stance based entirely on "feels" for pages and pages: Double check.

Holy shit, maybe she is my alt. Am... am I Tyler Durden?

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
See Tanoomba, this is why you are the wrong side. At the first opportunity Mist threw you under the bus and claimed the entire thread was about her when you put in tons and tons of work on her behalf. Cad and Tanoomba arguing for literally two fucking weeks about the law? THREAD IS ALL ABOUT ME

Your help is not wanted nor appreciated.

I have Tanoomba's posts on ignore. They're awful.

Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Unelected Mod

scientia potentia est

Tranny Chaser

REEEEeyore

Karen

REEEEeyore

Karen

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

scientia potentia est

Karen

Tranny Chaser

REEEEeyore

Tranny Chaser

Unelected Mod

scientia potentia est

Tranny Chaser

Unelected Mod

ジョーディーすれいやー

REEEEeyore