Negatory, Nagi Part 2

Relativity and Relevance

Nagi Said:

You have WAY too much free time on your hands firstly.

Answer:

Yes.  This is the expected ad hominem deflection.

The amount of time it takes to post a rebuttal should not deter one from doing so.  Besides, you needn’t worry about the effort, as it really doesn’t take that much.  Even if it were a lot of effort (which is wasn’t) the reward of demonstrating the fallacy of the typical denigrator to the audience at large is actually quite worthy.  But, thanks for your concerned (feigned as it is.)

Cheating Art

Nagi Said:

Secondly you are misreading into a lot that I said. For one, the only reason I brought up anything to do with cheating was because I was certain you were going to take my comment out of context, which you did. Thank you very much for proving me right on that.

Answer:

Merely accusing your opposition of “misreading” your criticism is hardly adequate, especially when one considers the detail that was used to support the interpretation (remember “WAY to much free time? Lol).

The truth is that there was no such transgression.  Your faulty arguments were carefully dissected and dismantled.  You can maintain whatever “opinion”, but it is unlikely you will find agreement amongst the audience at large.

Take your comment out of context?  Wrong again. You weren’t proven right on anything of the sort. Our rebuttal focuses on the how feminists conveniently overlook the clear differences between what each gender has advantages in.  Your faulty interpretation attempts to paint the desire for a woman to maintain more feminine qualities as a yearning for the artificial world of 1950’s American television family portrayals.

There was nothing “misread” into your comments.

Ratification Gratification

Nagi Said:

I’m not going to further “fight” with you. We can agree to disagree.

Answer:

You can choose to capitulate with grace, or hold that position regardless of how it has been dismantled.  There is no “agreement” with faulty constructs such as you have presented.  Of course, we do agree that your position is incorrect.

Offensive Defense

Nagi Said:

But this article was offensive to me on many levels, and I have a right to point that out.

Answer:

Everyone has the freedom to voice their opinion that they found something offensive.  No one is denying you that.

Some may find a fluffy white cloud in an otherwise clear blue sky “offensive”.  That is the nature of free will. However, do not mistake this “freedom” to be offended as the privilege to use any reason as support to why one is offended, and, expect others to merely sit quietly and not point such poor excuse out.

As far as “the right” to post, the owner of that article’s site maintains the right to allow you, I or anyone else to do so.  That right is not yours or mines to grant.  It is solely that of the blog owner.  You may put that to the test if you wish.

Coy Meets Girl

Nagi Said:

I never really said anything that was not true, and I didn’t ever make it a personal attack against you. Unfortunately, you took it too far. All I can do is roll my eyes in disgust. Take down your stupid post on another site and grow the heck up for crying out loud -_-;;;

Answer:
Nice try.

It’s usually not the clear statement of falsehood that constitutes misguided campaigns.  Rather, it is the employment of innuendo or implied foundations based on faulty concepts.  A few of these have already been explicitly pointed out in the previous response.

“Didn’t ever make it a personal attack”?

Firstly, it doesn’t have to be ad hominem for it to be rebutted.  Secondly, you began with lightly veiled condescending advice, and rapidly descended into purely ad hominem as you continued in attempts to counter (as in “take down that stupid post” or ”grow the heck up”).  It is doubtful your intent is to avoid this.

You can exercise your ocular muscles all you want, but it is just more of the haughty attitude you use as a defensive mechanism.  The fact is that your biased opinion was exposed to be exactly what it was and you need to penalize those that have done so by attempting to personally injure them with claims they need to “grow up”.

You now demand others to take down a post because you think it stupid?  Now who is trying to be controlling?

[+_+]

Advertisements

Negatory, Nagi Part I

Con Troll

Nagi Said:

Well being that as it may. In my experiences people who only want things like this are generally very controlling and not someone you want to be around. It has nothing to do with it being “about me”

Answer:

The attributes and behaviours noted in the list are about attitudes and events that occurred before you first meet them.  No one can “control” the past of someone they meet.  Even if a person who wanted someone who conducted themselves with respect for others was actually “controlling”, your assertion is based on this faulty assumption.  Hence it is illogical.

The concept of being “about oneself” is valid in that the conduct that is admonished (as in hedonistic pursuits without consideration for others or future repercussions) is WHOLLY about only seeing oneself in the equation.  Hence you are incorrect again.

This Cherry and not that one.

Nagi Said:

I’m not impressed because of the chavanistic things in this article like “she follows” and “she doesn’t have kids” since that kind of mentality IS 1950’s oriented…Where a girl should just be quiet and take care of the house while the man goes off and does what he wants, pining away for his return because he is the only one she has ever known (but no…Don’t take this as I think cheating is okay. Cheating is NEVER okay). Looking at this, most women would likely say “nu-uh”

Answer:

You are merely cherry-picking colour commentary in order to support a faulty view of the bigger picture. Even so, feminists love to ignore the clear physiological and biological differences between the sexes to promote a pseudo-equality that is really a seriously pro-female environment.

Essentially they want all the benefits and advantages of being a woman. For example, most women can get laid for just being a woman, while few men have that ability.  On top of it, they want a level playing field where men generally have the advantage.  Equal pay for unequal ability to do physical labour is ridiculous (but ever so politically correct).  Just wearing a uniform doesn’t make one a super-hero.  One has to actually possess the powers.

The 1950’s western world ideals really speak to accepting and appreciating the differences between the genders.  Feminists only see specific things (such as the woman being quiet) and think that everything “Leave it to Beaver” has to be replicated.

Women were less prone to “cheating”, not because of any enforcement of the 1950’s ideal, but more so because of accessibility to birth control that was effective without immediate prior application (aka the birth control pill).  The 1960’s changed all of that.  The experience in itself should be clear indication of how rapidly the abuse of power occurs once those without the maturity to handle that power suddenly gain it.

Most people would love to profit without cost.  That is human nature and is not specific to gender.  Looking at this article, most reasonable people would see that the “you go girl” advocates are foolish in thinking that actions come without consequences.  It should be clear that if one wants people to appreciate them once their “I’m young and sexy and I know it” phase is history, they better demonstrate some humility and respect for others.

Certainly some “Pink is my heroine” types will actually think that they can continue that charade into their 30’s.  A whole new generation of angry left-over feminists will be spawned.

The Fashion of Passion

Nagi Said:

I can only speak for myself but I would rather a PARTNERSHIP where we are equal and both be able to tell things to the other, not this sense of the woman has to be this perfect little submissive person and the man exerts his “superiority” over the woman. That is very old fashioned.

Answer:

One of the biggest fallacies that feminism promotes is that equality is necessarily uniformly reciprocal.  In terms of the genders, it really isn’t.

As was mentioned above, women have advantages in some things, and men have them in others.  Women take the lead over men in some endeavours and vice-versa.  This misinterpretation that the women is submissive at all times and in all events is purely the disambiguation of critics who are unable to accept the difference between the sexes.

Superiority is something that is contested in conflict.  How feminists see relationship dynamics as some kind of power struggle is telling of their “chip on the shoulder” attitude in general.  When the article talks about the woman being loyal to her man, it is implied that the man is just as loyal to her (hence the part about “she’s a keeper”).  How feminists love to ignore that “she’s a keeper” to promote this misconception that the author is talking about the man demanding all the power is actually quite sad.

The idea of two people complimenting each other to form a strong relationship has been around a very long time.  So, yes, it is “old fashioned”.  Some things shouldn’t change just because some people think that “girl power” is anything more than misguided feminism.

The Attack of the Crones

Nagi Said:

It is not an attack. I am being very truthful. This article is one sided and slightly frightening. I agree with some of them such as not being materialistic but that’s only if he too is not, and judging by this article it’s quite all right for a man to be a gold digger (comes from a good family.) If this article was reversed and instead of it being signs SHE’S a keeper it was HE’s….I’m sure you would be offended too.

Answer:

It really is an attack when one considers that the premise for the criticism is based on purposeful misinterpretation.  It is doubtful that you cannot see the fallacies that you employed.

Being truthful?

There is a notable difference in presenting the whole truth versus snippets of it to suit one’s argument.  A couple of these transgressions have already been pointed out.  So while one attempts to appear non-judgmental, it is easily seen that the protest is fuelled by a prejudice.

While the article can be couched as “one-sided” since it presents a list of attributes that one gender should look for in a mate, it isn’t intended to comprehensively cover both gender’s selection process.  To suggest that it was is a surreptitious attempt to taint the article as biased (which it is not).

It indicates that it is quite all right for a man to be a gold digger?

No.  Your interpretation and logic is flawed.

If the woman is from a good family (or perhaps a good and well-financially established family), it doesn’t mean that the man is “after the wealth” in the same way that true gold-diggers are.  The whole point of the woman coming from a good family is that the odds of being emotionally well-adjusted and mature are better than that of one coming from a situation where there are many dysfunctional issues.  Again, it’s about a GOOD family structure (not necessarily a WEALTHY family structure).

As far as who has more accumulated wealth upon entering the relationship, you may want to reread the article.  Your interpretation is clearly NOT what was said.

As far as the reversal of roles, it has already been pointed out that the significant attributes of men are wholly different from those of women.  One cannot simply replace one gender and quote the same criteria.  It should be clear that it doesn’t work that way.  Equality is necessarily based on how the individual components fit into the equation.  You cannot assume homogeneity in the constituents.

Miss Conception

Nagi Said:

Hope this cleared up any misconceptions you have. I honestly hope this article is a joke btw.

Answer:

Even if this was not intended as some veiled condescending advice, it is rather moot since I have not presented any misconception.

On the other hand, your entire argument is based on the premise that the article was intended to be comprehensive for both genders (which it was not).  Your criticisms are founded on top of disambiguation and they are constructed with some dubious logic.  As was just noted, you have not even interpreted the “good family” concept correctly, and, wholly ignored the articles comments on the wealth of the man versus the woman.

You will have to try harder than this in order to find any fault with the article.

Wishing that the blog entry was purely whimsy, that from even a cursory review of your comments shows that it is premature and likely denigration wrought from a pre-existing bias.

Please try again.

Wrong “for real” Part 1

Summary

“For Real” Said:

This blog is deceptive.

Answer:

You are essentially contradicting your original précis that this article is one of the stupidest things you have encountered.  At this point, any argument you have is already moot as contradiction in something critical to a position weakens your case to the point of immediate dismissal.  However, being a particularly generous individual your notions will be entertained…

“For Real” Said:

BUT the bad stuff in this blog is more difficult to see. A perfect example is this line: “Turn her into YOUR own personal porn star.”

 Answer:

The curious thing here is that while people should see a reverence in any title of “star”, one sees a moniker depicting servitude.

Certainly some will now argue that it’s the particular celebrity of “porn star” that suggests a subservient role.  This isn’t the case in that the acts depicted in the typical porn production are ones where the male and the female take turns at giving and taking

That this article promotes the respect for oneself and for others; it shouldn’t bother anyone that it exists.

“For Real” Said:

And lastly, you say the fact that most comments from women are negative is ‘telling.’ But maybe what it’s ‘telling’ is that women don’t like to be talked about this way.

Answer:

No.  Unfortunately, the more some try to excuse the personal attacks and generally abusive dismissals as reasonable reaction to an affront, the more telling it is of the denial.

Firstly, it wasn’t suggested that the comments were merely negative.  It was that the comments from women are nearly all just personal attacks and insulting dismissal.  Let’s not misrepresent the notion one attempts to forgive.

Secondly, the blog itself is not an affront.

Think about it.  Everyone, man or woman, has the choice to address the topic alone, or come out with pointed editorial, or purely pejorative assault in lieu of a proper response.  The fact that most women here choose the third option gives pause to how they would handle themselves in a real world situation should they perceive they had the power to attack without immediate penalty.

If most can’t even handle being civilized in a discussion, what makes you think that they could handle the advantages that men have in the real world?

Details:

The Science of Deception

For Real Said:

This blog is deceptive. It’s deceptive because it isn’t wrong to look for certain qualities in a person and choose not to be with people who don’t have those qualities. And the qualities listed in this blog aren’t all bad either. I want to marry someone who has a good relationship with their family and isn’t overly materialistic.

Answer:

First, an important observation…

You are essentially contradicting your original précis that this article is one of the stupidest things you have encountered.  By stupid it is understood that it is nonsense, poorly supported, or a mixture of both.  Being a frontrunner for stupidity in your literary encounters, and that it is implied that you have a normal experience in such encounters, it is reasonable that this article would be, in your opinion, a particularly vapid essay.

However, you now take the 180 degree tack that this blog is deceptive.  As it is quite intricately constructed, it stands to reason that it is not accidentally deceptive either.  To be that deceptive, the object is unlikely (well, essentially “not”) to be stupid at all.  It would be, by this ability to be deceptive, actually rather crafty.

At this point, any argument you have is already moot as contradiction in something critical to a position weakens your case to the point of immediate dismissal.  However, being a particularly generous individual your notions will be entertained…

Fifty shades of Black and White

For Real Said:

BUT the bad stuff in this blog is more difficult to see. A perfect example is this line: “Turn her into YOUR own personal porn star.” In this sentence, the woman is an object, not someone who has any input in her sexual life. I’m sure that everyone who reads this blog understands that sex, especially good sex, is something that both people contribute to. But by reading and endorsing these kinds of statements, you endorse a mindset that women do not deserve to be on equal footing with men, in sex and in the relationship as a whole. This might not bother you, but I think it should.

Answer:

The curious thing here is that while people should see a reverence in any title of “star”, one sees a moniker depicting servitude.

Certainly some will now argue that it’s the particular celebrity of “porn star” that suggests a subservient role.  This isn’t the case in that the acts depicted in the typical porn production are ones where the male and the female take turns at giving and taking (niche market subjects not included as they will focus on particular fantasies that really do not reflect mainstream attitudes).  Hence the portrayals are of encounters were both people contributed a good deal to the other.

Some would say that even then, the acts are common where the woman is doing far more of the giving than receiving, or that the roles are geared more towards the man being dominant.  However, the evidence shows that the general populace at large, when given free reign of choice, are happy with the ratio of give and take depicted in the typical porn scene.

Don’t think so?

Let’s draw our attention to the franchise of “Fifty Shades of Grey”.  This literary fantasy clearly portrays a desire for a male dominant role in the bedroom.  Who reads this book?  Who has, as a purchasing group made this book a best seller?  It certainly isn’t men.  Women as a whole have spoken loudly about what role they really want to play.  The numbers do not lie.  No one was forced to make those purchases (or are you going to argue that men forced women to do so?)

So by choosing what they want to read, women are choosing the way they wan their sexual relationships to play out, and in effect endorsing it.  That is the footing they want in sex (as equal or unequal as some may wish to see it).  It is agnostic to whether people deserve the role or not, it is about what is desired (apparently by both sexes).

As far as equal footing in other aspects of a relationship, one cannot forget the different roles men and women play with respects to the environment (that includes society).  One also cannot immediately assume that the relationship between two people is automatically a merger of equals.  As is mentioned in various places in this blog, the union is ideally one of complimentary parts.  Those parts need not be symmetric or even equal.  They only have to complete the whole.

One “deserves” the respect they earn.  It is not given as a default for merely being one gender or the other.  Perhaps this is the misconception that a lot of those who only see red, when others see a red blooded heart.

That this article promotes the respect for oneself and for others; it shouldn’t bother anyone that it exists.

The cloud in every silver lining

For Real Said:

And lastly, you say the fact that most comments from women are negative is ‘telling.’ But maybe what it’s ‘telling’ is that women don’t like to be talked about this way.

Answer:

No.  Unfortunately, the more some try to excuse the personal attacks and generally abusive dismissals as reasonable reaction to an affront, the more telling it is of the denial.

Firstly, it wasn’t suggested that the comments were merely negative.  It was that the comments from women are nearly all just personal attacks and insulting dismissal.  Let’s not misrepresent the notion one attempts to forgive.

Secondly, the blog itself is not an affront.

The guideline speaks to the behaviours that point towards irreverent or immature behaviour.  It does not ascribe these actions to all, most or even a greater share of women at large.  Only looking at the good and ignoring the bad cannot solve most problems in life.  However, there seems to be an increase in this belief that all women are essentially well meaning to others, and if they are seen as not, woe to those that point it out.

Thirdly, there are lots ways to limit your options.  Most of them are within your control.

A parallel would be to have people act in pure hostility to a guideline on the hallmarks of career criminals under the guise that people don’t like to be spoken to that way.  Can you not see that it is a cop-out?  One can certainly choose to disagree with the details of what constitutes a bad candidate for a role, but to suggest that all persons, on either side of the criteria “don’t like to be talked to that way” is quite the stretch.

The real reason is that a notably vocal and self-absorbed group of individuals believe they are owed all the advantages of being a man while retaining all the advantages of being a woman.

Think about it.  Everyone, man or woman, has the choice to address the topic alone, or come out with pointed editorial, or purely pejorative assault in lieu of a proper response.  The fact that most women here choose the third option gives pause to how they would handle themselves in a real world situation should they perceive they had the power to attack without immediate penalty.  In real life, you’d be hard pressed to do this without the protection afforded to you by a society that acknowledges the protection of the weaker party regardless of who initiates the physical altercation.

If most can’t even handle being civilized in a discussion, what makes you think that they could handle the advantages that men have in the real world?

More Lies (Sickle or Bella) Part 2

Summary

In practically every attempt at a rebuttal you have either misrepresented the criticism, or, have chosen to purposely go on a tangent (deflective argument) in attempt to detract from the original point.  The departure into mechanism of how certain structures end up different between the sexes was one attempt (this was moot since the end product is still different AND mainly because the manufacturing process diverges between the sexes).

You challenged anyone to present cases where the genders differed in physiological construction.  This was answered.  You then attempt to refute that by claiming that the examples given were invalid due to variation within a gender being greater than between the genders.  Examples of traits where this was clearly not the case were summarily ignored.  Relatively rare anomalies do not negate trends.

You completely, yes COMPLETELY, lose your credibility the moment you claim that logic cannot successfully argue a case.  Science is wholly built on logic.  To deny this is to deny any truth based on deduction.

Note that NO ONE has denied that need for more clarity or model refinement is effective. HOWEVER, this would matter only if the original conclusion was based on incorrect or incomplete relevant information.  In the case of differences of physiology, the research clearly SHOWS the difference.  You can deny it or deflect from it all you wish, but those are the observations.

Don’t even try to claim that this is being “closed minded”.  People who don’t want to believe the observations always try to look for data that supports their desired view.  Failing that, they will claim that the current science is “incomplete” and therefore the answer it yields is wrong, or isn’t relevant to the final analysis.

Furthermore, while you asked for cases where men and women differ in physiological construction (beyond that of genital organs) your agenda is clearly one of trying to say, “men are not better than women”.  If you really want to demonstrate that, it would be better to stick to the topic rather than take everything as an affront and attempt to injure your opposition by personal attack.

A detailed deconstruction of every one of your “refutations” has, as always, been provided in a link.  It is doubtful that you have even read any of it before trying to retaliate rather than reassess your position.  You can claim that you don’t read it because “you know it isn’t correct”.

However, considering your incorrect conclusion about WM vs. Total Brain Volume in yet another hasty effort to dismiss your opposition (you can read the detailed link to find out why you are wrong), there is serious doubt that you are applying any real acumen on the topic.

However, by all means, continue.  No one needs to prove that you are wrong to YOU.  We only have to prove you are wrong to the AUDIENCE AT LARGE (apparently, they read the detailed explanations.)

Details:

In the Beginning…

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Dear lord. Where do I begin.

Answer:

You could begin with actually admitting to error when it has been clearly pointed out.  That would be a good start.

Soil and Water

It was stated:

“The mud slinging (as in the verbal insults) is attributed to emotional vulnerability and not the other way around.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

Thats a convenient interpretation of the situation. Wether its true or not, you would come to the same conclusion.

Answer:

Nice try.  The subject there was that verbal insults are an outcome of emotional vulnerability.  You had the cause and effect reversed.  It is not merely a “convenient interpretation”.  When carts pull horses, you might have a point (no taking the “cart” out-of-context and making it a motorized cart now).

Convenience Store

It was stated:

“More testosterone does not make men more “emotionally vulnerable”.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

Another convenient interpretation.

Answer:

That’s even weaker.  IN CONTEXT, you had suggested that testosterone made men emotionally vulnerable.  It was explained that increased testosterone intensified response, but that it is self-esteem (and the perceived compromise of it) that triggers response (hence emotional vulnerability).

You can deflect this by curtly dismissing it as a “convenient interpretation”, but there’s confidence that few will align with that reasoning.

Polly, want a cracker?

It was stated:

“As was said above, when someone’s self-esteem is fragile, and that esteem is tied to one’s argument, they will feel personally slighted when the argument is dismantled.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

When someones self-esteem is fragile… A man with low self esteem is easily spotted when he finds it necessary to “hide” behind the success of other men, attributing good qualities based on his sex, and not on his actual character.

Being born male doesent mean you are born superior to anyone else in any way.

Answer:

Not sure what you are referring to here.  I have not brought any of my own scores into this discussion.  Is there something you are seeing that isn’t there?

It is clear you have some sort of “chip on the shoulder” about being seen as inferior to men.  This discussion is about how men and women differ in physiology beyond merely the genital organs.  You have seen fit to treat this thread as some sort of personal platform to promote this odd agenda.  If this is the case, please take find the correct forum for it. ONLY YOU are harping on this.

Probability…not

It was stated:

“As it was mentioned before, this is just another attempt to dismiss trends by claiming the existence of natural variation automatically negates predictive modeling. When someone cannot safely guess the gender of an individual 99 times out of 100 when they have a beard… you still wouldn’t be correct.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

I’m not sure if you’re intentionally not understanding what I’m typing, or if you actually don’t.

Existence of normal variation only means one thing. There is no guarantee that someone is equal or inequal due to sex. Sex does not guarantee any set of cognitive characteristics. Far from it. Also, 99/100 is no where near the actual number.

But even if it was, it still wouldn’t mean the claim “all men are better than all women at X” is true. Because even at 99/100, when it comes to 7 billion people, that ends up being quite a few females with the exact traits you value differently.

Answer:

This is really along the lines of a “plea to ignorance” fallacy.  Basically, because outliers can occur, and that in possibility (not probability, but POSSIBILITY) some odd case can occur, a definite trend is cast aside.

Normal variation in the entire population does not automatically mean two mutually exclusive groups do not have differing curves.  The variation of each and the overlap are of equal importance.  Whether you admit to this or not, you cannot simplify the mathematics to fit your reasoning.  That’s one of clues that you really don’t understand these things.  This is the crux of the matter.  You may feel that any given individual from one group can exceed a random individual in the other, but the odds are not in that favour.

Specifically, while there is no guarantee of a result, the probability is that the innate propensity in a sample of one sex is greater than sample of the other is not trivial.  Certainly one can argue that the upper body strength of a randomly selected female can be stronger than that of an equally randomly selected male, but how often that happens is the matter.

Again, no one is stating “all men are better than all women at X”.  It is only you placing that false statement onto others.  The question was whether or not there are differences in the innate structure of the genders.  There are and you are pretending that ANY variable distribution means that no reasonable prediction of ranking can be made.  This is fallacy.

Not the exact rate of hirsutism to the point of a full-on beard?  That’s just another numerical permutation of a semantics argument. The point is made.  Feel free to enlighten all of us on what the rate is and how that detracts from the principle noted.

So, according to your theory, we should rename the World’s Strongest Man competition to World’s strongest Human just in case some female ranks up there.  Do you think that ANY of the top rank will be a woman?  Since, you feel any normal distribution allows for this possibility.  We are waiting… (Do you really think that even a single woman will crack the top 1,000?, 10,000?)

If it isn’t true, change the rules…

It was stated:

“So, when one can prove something logically, and, explain that logic with precision and detail, it falls short of the task? This is odd coming from someone who is relies on the efficacy of modern neurology.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Yes. Because you cannot always “Prove” something with logic alone. Logic is important when it comes to proving something, but it needs a set of factors and observations to give sensible proof.

Answer:

If there was any credibility left in your position, you have completely removed it with this statement.  This is not denigration although, it’s pretty certain you will take it personally and see it that way and attempt to retaliate, nonetheless the explanation will be offered.

Firstly, logic is used to prove or refute YOUR ASSERTION.  We have seen numerous attempts by you to hide behind the science (as in “go question Nelson”) but neurology was not what was faulty.

Secondly, the ENTIRE field of science is based on logic.  (That includes “fuzzy” logic, quantum probabilities, etc.  It is all LOGIC based.) Either something is true or something is false.  If there is insufficient data, or if the question has insufficient clarity, that is a matter of gathering information or defining the question.  However, the principles of logic apply universally.

Thirdly, what you are confusing as the limitation of logic is the limitation of technology in acquiring unequivocal proof.  In regards to traits that are divergent between the sexes examples have been provided.  You can’t bring up the 100 or so reported cases of bearded women in history (and we are not talking about a little bit of facial hair, but full-on beards) and claim that the trait isn’t divergent enough as proof.  You can’t take single cases and cherry pick a comparison to refute a trend.  THAT is not science.  That is selective cognition.

Hence, yes.  Logic does not fail. Not millennia ago. Not today. Not tomorrow.

It’s Greek to you

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

I’m having a hard time how you managed to completely ignore the clear cut point I made when I said that Aristotle, a man gifted when it came to logic, was completely wrong when it came to the elements. This because Aristotle lived at a time where there was a limited amount of knowledge about chemical elements. As such, logic alone did not bring him to the right answer. If that was the case, we wouldn’t need chemistry, biology or anything of the sort. LOGIC ALONE would be sufficient to come to the right answer. And it ISNT. Logic is an ancient art, and while it did help us find answers, it ALONE could not give us the answers.

Answer:

The biggest reason you are having a hard time is probably because you have not read the details in the links provided (remember that part about how the detailed explanations are important if you wished to entertain a refutation?) In those details it was explained that when the model (say, a 4-element system) doesn’t fit the real world, then the model needs refinement or re-construction.

As much as you wished your opposition had a faulty model, this had not occurred.  The whole literary journey into the prenatal role of testosterone for instance was a deflection.  Regardless of HOW the differing structure came about, the eventuality was that the final structure is significantly different between the sexes.  That aspect of the science is only critical if it refutes the assertion (that the final structures are different).  It doesn’t and more importantly it is really moot to the point being made.

If someone had said, the structural differences occur because women’s are made from “sugar and spice” you might have a point.  But this wasn’t the case.  Seriously, Sickle (formerly Bella), it would be like someone going into the minute details of the biochemistry.  It’s a showcase of knowledge that doesn’t remove the observation that the structure differs.

Balance of Error

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

You cannot do neurobiology with logic alone. You need consistent observations and evidence. Without the chemical elements, its absolutely impossible to do anything related to neurobiology. You wouldn’t even be able to explain something as simple as an action potential, because you don’t know what a charged ion is.

Answer:

OK.  We will try one more time.

All the subtle and intricate knowledge of two differing articles of fruit (say an apple and an orange) is irrelevant if someone postulated that, in the case at hand, one weighs 10% more than the other.  One can stand on the soapbox and expand on their deep knowledge of the chemical composition, the genetics, the structure of the sugar molecules, the variation within the species, the role of the apple in the Spanish Civil War, etc… all may or may not contribute to the answer, but all is over-complication to the matter at hand.

One only needs to weigh them.

What you are attempting to do is to literally “hide behind the science”.  The request was for physiological differences between men and women aside from genital organs.  That was answered.  The structure of the mentioned components is notably different between the sexes.

To err is taught wholly

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

So yes, I’ll say it again: Logic alone, without knowledge, will not always bring you to the right answer. As demonstrated by both Aristotle and yourself.

Answer:

Whether Aristotle demonstrated this or not is irrelevant.  However, being that there was not a request to EXPLAIN how the difference occurred, there has been no demonstration on my part.  You asked for differences, and those were given to you.

Please stop making these false accusations.  Perhaps there is a need to feel that your opposition is uneducated or relatively simple.  Heck, say it as many times as you want.  You may think as you wish, but it would be fantasy.  There has been no such transgression.

Bored of Examination

It was stated:

“Do you really think that you are the ONLY person that has delved into the science behind all of this (merely because others do not attempt to lord their knowledge over others)?”

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

I’m pretty sure you haven’t, as you at a number of times have said things that are downright wrong, over-simplified, or misunderstood.

Ironically: “One is mistaking the acumen of applying knowledge with the act of merely demonstrating the breadth of one’s ingested information.”

Answer:

ROFL.  Considering that every single “downright wrong, over-simplified, or misunderstood” concept has been a misrepresentation or fabrication on your part (and I am not saying this merely to be contrary, you really HAVE done this, read the detailed links if you think I’m making this up), your evaluation of other people’s breadth of knowledge does not carry a lot of weight.

Seriously.  We have carefully pointed out that in every instance where you claim your opposition has erred, you have either provided a deliberate misrepresentation, deflected into details that weren’t even part of the original question, or completely invented a false position in order to provide a refutation.

It is likely done to defend your “knowledge” of neuroscience.  Ironically?  Not on this end.

The Best for (almost) Last (as you say):

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Now I find it quite ironic that you should mention that, when you did that exact thing while mentioning the white/gray-matter ratio. You mention this ratio because you’ve *seen* studies pointing this out, but because you lack knowledge about what white/gray matter actually is, and several basic concepts about it, you are unable to apply that vital piece of knowledge in to what you read about the different ratios, resulting in you just repeating what you read about white/gray matter without understanding it at all.

Answer:

Too incredible!

You realize that this is what happens when people shoot from the hip, right?  It wasn’t expected that you would let your contempt for your opposition to obscure your judgment to this level.

As it was mentioned in the earlier rebuttal, the relationship between GM composition and body mass was not noted because it’s been quite some years since observations have shown that the difference between genders is above and beyond that.  It was expected that, as an admitted expert (and certainly admitted to a belief of more expertise than your less erudite opposition) you would be aware of that research.  Instead you chose to assume that people weren’t aware or up-to-date on the subject (and you are being given the benefit of the doubt that you are).

So, yet ANOTHER incorrect assessment based on bias.  This is getting to be a trend.  Perhaps a theory can be coalesced.

Theory of a relative obscurity

It was stated:

“Your theories fail because they are based on fallacy.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

My theories are not “my” theories. Its based on consensus within the field of neuroscience.

Answer:

No.  Your assertions here are YOUR assertions.

They may be based on consensus within the field of neuroscience, but that consortium agreement does not include:

  1. Ignoring the importance of the breadth of overlap and concentrating only on the existence of it to assume statistical insignificance.
  2. Ignoring the clear observation of sexual dimorphism demonstrated in humans and other species to claim that variation within a gender renders distinct variation between genders insignificant as a prediction.
  3. Attempting to transform a discussion on the physiological differences between genders into a confrontation on which gender is superior.
  4. Employing misrepresentation of criticism in order to refute it.

The challenge to show that men and women differ structurally beyond the genital organs has been answered.  Is there something else that you are disputing?

New Name, Same old Lies (Sickle or Bella) Part 1

Summary

You have repeatedly employed the deliberate misrepresentation of criticism in order to refute them.  This is a classic retreat to straw man arguments.  The careful description of each one of these transgressions has been pointed out in detail in the supplied links.

It is clear that you intentionally avoid reading these explanations as to why your concept and arguments are faulty, and merely continue to deflect from the salient points in order to obfuscate your errors.

Fortunately, your participation in this dialogue is crucial in demonstrating the tactics used by those with the agenda to promote fallacy, and bully those who point them out via attempts to injure by personal insult.  Furthermore, you falsely accuse your critics of promoting some concept of “men are better”.  This betrays a seriously prejudiced mindset with the clear intent to force your ideas on others.

Nonetheless, here is a synopsis of the latest refutation.

No, I didn’t. That entire sentence is semi-incoherent balderdash.

Lol.  That’s pretty weak.  The old “no I am not!” tactic.  Your employment of straw man arguments was clearly demonstrated in that instance and in many others.  You proceed to draw on this fallacy several times in this response alone.

You opinion of the coherency of what you attempt to refute is, well, left up to all to judge on their own.  There is complete confidence that few will see it your way.

No, I have not once denied evidence of sexual dimorphism.

Nice try, again.  No one said you directly “denied the evidence” in and of itself.  It was said that you were “denying the evidence of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom IN ORDER to support your fallacious claim”. You are merely mincing words again and not admitting to a clearly demonstrated tort.

Visual spatial skills are traits consistently associated with prenatal levels of testosterone. Look it up.

One would think that at the striking amount you misrepresent the opposing view in order to refute it, that perhaps you really don’t see what is actually written. (Yes, people can read these posts independently and determine who has said what).

Just where is Nelson being disagreed with?  Please.  Show us where anyone, much less I, has claimed, or implied that it is not related to pre-natal testosterone levels.  This one is critical.  Tell us where this was said.  If you cannot, this is clear proof that you are misrepresenting others in order to refute them.

They’re just on average more likely to have it than women. At an INDIVIDUAL level, it in no way means that any given man at all times has better spatial reasoning than any given woman. You will find women with better spatial skills than men, and men who have worse spatial skills than women.

Yes.  The average is higher.  At the individual level, tell us how the probability of the male having a higher score is not significant between men and women.  No one has claimed that overlap cannot happen.

What is also consistently seen, which is also pointed out in “Behavioral endocrinology”, is that statistically, theres a bigger variance WITHIN the sexes than between them. If you’ve got a problem with that, read the book yourself and give me a reasonable explanation to why you mean its wrong. Because if it is, I would like to know.

Overlap is the critical factor, and varies depending on the trait.  You were given differences in traits.  If we chose a physically observable trait such as facial hair, it should be clear that REGARDLESS of variation within a gender, the OVERLAP between genders is miniscule. Upper body muscularity is another.  Does this really need to be explained… again?

The question was ARE there traits that exhibit remarkable divergence.  Yes. There are.

I never once dismissed dismorphism or anything of the sort. I said its stupid as hell to say “All men are X and all women are Y in all cases”.

No one has claimed you directly “dismissed dimorphism” on it’s own. But “anything of the sort”?  Why yes.  You effectively dismiss it when you ignore it in order to support your claims.  You are taking the term OUT OF CONTEXT again in order to refute the criticism.  This is mentioned above in the first section of this response.

Your EXACT words were:

 “Theres actually a bigger variation within sexes than between them. Not only in humans, but in other species as well.”

To which the examples of peahen versus peacock (no great variation in the tail of a peahen will give it the tail of a peacock), and other examples were given as a proof of the contrary (in the detailed discussion link).  You have no defence of this and are only resorting to denying that you said “anything of the sort”.

This applies to almost every single person who wrote a comment here.

 The record unequivocally shows that you take far greater effort in attempts to injure your opposition via passionately crafted insults and personal attacks.  There is a post from you to JC that begins with:

“This extreme view on the significance of genders is almost certainly due to the fact that you feel inadequate…”

That is clearly laced with pejorative commentary, pure conjecture based in personal bias, designed to inflame, and was clearly an intentional personal attack.  In contrast, the audience at large will be hard pressed to find anything of the sort directed at you (save the short remarks in response to your equal provocation).  The next section of your response here contains the same ad hominem.

And my views haven’t been “challenged” in any way. I would love for you to come with an argument which actually did, but so far you’ve been incorrect.

You views have not been challenged?  That is more of the DENIAL that was already proven by your repeated straw-man arguments, deflections and attempts to derail the discussion into a flame war.  You may not acknowledge the challenges, but they are evidently there.

No, no, and NO. You couldn’t do a better job at demonstrating why people with absolutely NO understanding of basic neurobiology COMPLETELY misunderstand a lot of these dismorphism studies.

Lol.  That is so out-dated.  It was hoped that you would go beyond the rudimentary and understand that there are others who have looked at the science in detail.  So. No.  The only miscalculation here is the underestimation of how your contempt for any who oppose you completely clouds your ability to understand what is being discussed.

Even neophytes to this science understand that total brain volume is directly related to the GM volume.  The results of past research did not preclude a gender related correlation as well as the size factor.  Recent research has been done that shows clear evidence of gender differences beyond what differing size can account for.  Someone familiar with this branch of knowledge would be aware of these findings.  It is possible that you are, and is why you would so fervently try to deflect away from it with this deflection into an unnecessary lesson on grey matter and neural load.

The rest of the dismantling of your “refutation” can be found in the detailed link.

This means you are merely repeating things you read, without actually understanding what it means or what implications it may or may not have. You’ve just arbitrarily decided it means “Men are better”, oblivious to the fact that you may very well NOT be good at the cognitive traits commonly associated with men. A lot of men aren’t. In fact, a lot of people aren’t all that good at any of the cognitive skills.

Please show exactly where I have said, “men are better” (not “physiology of a structure promotes better innate skills”, but, ipso facto “men are better”… not “men are better equipped” or “men are functionally better”, but “men are better”).  Where have I even suggested, or implied, “men are better”?  Really?  Where?

You asked for evidence that men and women are different in construction, and this has been provided.  You asked for situations were men or women are seeded with equipment that differ (beyond the genital organs) and this was provided.  You asked for examples where the structural differences are separated such that prediction of difference based on gender is not merely random.  This was provided.

Your constant false allegations are clear proof that you have the proverbial “chip on the shoulder” and this is seriously affecting your judgment on this topic.

Women are on average better at other cognitive tasks, but that sure as hell doesen’t mean ALL women are good at said tasks. Not all women are linguists, just because women on average score better at linguistics than men.

Again, just where have I said or implied that a better aggregate score automatically means the entire gender will score high, or higher than the other gender?  Really.  Where?  One really needs to stop this constant reliance on straw-man arguments.

Until you show all of us how bearded women exist in the percentage that one cannot reasonably predict that a goateed individual is male, you are blowing proverbial smoke.

It’s just not as simple as what you’re trying to portray it as. Cognitive function is extremely complicated and variable, and more than associated with sex, its associated with genes NOT associated with sex….  …Gender just makes one set of abilities much more likely to occur. It does not guarantee it in any way. Once again: It is MUCH more complicated than that, and simplifying it the way you do is incredibly silly and ignorant.

No.  It is not as “simple” as you falsely represent your opposition of portraying.

Firstly, this discussion encompasses ALL the difference between the genders, and not just the overall resultant cognitive skills.  It is you who isolates this aspect and infers that this aspect alone is the yardstick (that random distribution in overall cognitive skills means exact prediction based on gender can determine who is “better” than the other).

You conveniently gloss over the dynamic that this discussion is about IF and HOW the sexes differ (hence they are not equals), and focus on this “I’m not inferior because I’m a woman” agenda.  Please. Yet another straw man argument?  Please stop misrepresenting the opposition, use that misrepresentation to accuse them of simplifying the problem, and then criticize that for being “incredibly sill and ignorant”.

I have NEVER disputed sexual dismorphisms, I am pointing out its not as relevant as you’re making it out to be, and there are several factors which influences said dismorphisms. Prenatal testosterone is a widely accepted fact in regard to the importance of many of these factors, for example.

Again, do not misrepresent a criticism in order to refute it.  The remark wasn’t that you “disputed” it.  It was that you CLEARLY STATED that there are bigger variations within sexes than between them.  It was then pointed out that this IGNORES sexual dimorphic traits that have little to no overlap (such as the manes found on lions).  Your EXACT WORDS once again:

“Theres actually a bigger variation within sexes than between them. Not only in humans, but in other species as well.”

IN CONTEXT, you were not referring only to certain traits.  You were referring to the difference between sexes. There are numerous examples of traits that do not exhibit the overlap your theory relies on.  That is why your theory is fallacious.

Prenatal testosterone’s role is just a deflection.  NO ONE was saying this wasn’t the case (you just brought it up and ran with it in an attempt to showboat your “superior” knowledge.

I’m not repeating it again.

ROFL.  We will all believe that when we see it.  Chances are you will just take snippets of comments out-of-context and refute them again.

Details

Straw men defending straw men

It was said:

“Nice try. You are merely taking the word “belief” out of the context of what was asserted, placing it in isolation, and refuting this false representation.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

No, I didn’t. That entire sentence is semi-incoherent balderdash.

Answer:

Lol.  That’s pretty weak.  The old “no I am not!” tactic.  Your employment of straw man arguments was clearly demonstrated in that instance and in many others.  You proceed to draw on this fallacy several times in this response alone.  Deny it if you wish, but most of the audience here can see what was written, and how you chose to take a single word (“belief”) out of context and proceed to refute that false representation.

You opinion of the coherency of what you attempt to refute is, well, left up to all to judge on their own.  There is complete confidence that few will see it your way.

Misrepresentation Nation

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

No, I have not once denied evidence of sexual dimorphism. I’m well aware of what these dimorphisms are, why they occur, and why it varies. In other words, I wouldn’t say something as completely stupid as “All men are X and all women are Y”. It is not the case, and any neurobiologist would laugh at such a claim. Its much more complex.

Answer:

Nice try, again.

Taking things out of context is a common defence when people cannot argue their case.  No one said you directly “denied the evidence” in and of itself.  It was said that you were “denying the evidence of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom IN ORDER to support your fallacious claim”. You are merely mincing words again and not admitting to a clearly demonstrated tort.

A detailed explanation as to how you did this was supplied in the link.  It is apparent that you have refused to acknowledge this (and probably have not taken the time to read the detailed explanation though others have).  You seem to think that if 99% of a gender does not exhibit the trait that 99% of the other gender does, somehow no case of reasonable prediction based on sex can be made (that IS the correct representation of claiming that “anomalies refute a trend”).

Specifically, you state here that unless something accurate to 100%, any suggestion of a rule is “completely stupid”.

Many things are successfully designed and built on systems of probability.  In reality, phenomena do not have to be absolutes to be practically predicted.  The amount of lightly veiled insults laced into your response reveals that you are likely aware of this, but cannot admit it in order to defend your theories, and instead attempt to punish any who publicly point this out.

Spatially Speaking…

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Visual spatial skills are traits consistently associated with prenatal levels of testosterone. Look it up.  If you mess about with levels of testosterone in animals, you will also consistently see changes demonstrating this.

If you have some sort of ground breaking evidence suggesting that its NOT related to pre-natal testosterone levels, I would love to see it. “Behavioral endocrinology” by Nelson contains a whole bunch of studies that disagrees with you.

Answer:

One would think that at the striking amount you misrepresent the opposing view in order to refute it, that perhaps you really don’t see what is actually written. (Yes, people can read these posts independently and determine who has said what).

The point isn’t how the spatial skill capacity is imbued during development, but that, it is, and that it is differentiated by what gender is being manufactured.  You are just deflecting from the focus that the difference between the genders exists and is clearly measurable.

You proceed to IMPLY that opposing your view (that spatial reasoning skills have enough overlap to make the prediction that a male representative will excel over a female representative to be statistically insignificant) is denying or ignoring the process of how the skill capacity is enabled.  That is wholly non sequitur, and really about as weak an attempt at surreptitiously placing words in someone else’s mouth in order to claim they are wrong, as it gets.

Just where is Nelson being disagreed with?  Please.  Show us where anyone, much less I, has claimed, or implied that it is not related to prenatal testosterone levels.  This is critical.  Tell us where this was said.  If you cannot, this is clear proof that you are misrepresenting others in order to refute them.

Statistically Speaking:

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

They’re just on average more likely to have it than women. At an INDIVIDUAL level, it in no way means that any given man at all times has better spatial reasoning than any given woman. You will find women with better spatial skills than men, and men who have worse spatial skills than women.

Answer:

Yes.  The average is higher.  At the individual level, tell us how the probability of the male having a higher score is not significant between men and women.  No one has claimed that overlap cannot happen.  However, demonstrate how this overlap is significant enough to negate any reasonable prediction of initial capacity.

Personally Speaking:

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

For all you know, I might have better spatial skills than you do.

Answer:

Making this rather personal are we not?  Innately?  Not likely. Based on all that has been demonstrated in this dialogue?  Well, we’ll let each member of the audience decide that one on their own.  However, I’m sure your “opinion” overrides everyone else’s in your mind.

Trick or Trait:

Sickle (formerly Bella) Said:

What is also consistently seen, which is also pointed out in “Behavioral endocrinology”, is that statistically, theres a bigger variance WITHIN the sexes than between them. If you’ve got a problem with that, read the book yourself and give me a reasonable explanation to why you mean its wrong. Because if it is, I would like to know.

Answer:

Actually, if you wanted to support your point, it’s not the variance, but the overlap that should be mentioned.  All the variance in the world doesn’t amount to anything unless the clusters actually show significant overlap. That’s pretty basic probability and statistics (ever for us simple men). (What?  Like I have to argue your side for you too???).

This is mentioned because, again, the correct application of knowledge is far more important than the pure acquisition of it.  This dialogue has been quite the demonstration of this adage.

Anyways, this overlap is the critical factor, and varies depending on the trait.  You asked for differences in traits.  You were given differences in traits.  If we chose a physically observable trait such as facial hair, it should be clear that REGARDLESS of variation within a gender, the OVERLAP between genders is miniscule. Upper body muscularity is another.  Does this really need to be explained… again?

I’m certain you can cherry pick traits that show enough overlap in measurement to be statistically insignificant.  The question was ARE there traits that exhibit remarkable divergence.  Yes. There are.

Note too, even with a great deal of overlap, that still doesn’t mean the summation of any individual is “equal” to an individual with a different design even if they apparently achieve the same skill level.  Inherently, there are costs involved in compensating methods to achieve the same result.  For example, a forced induction power plant has longevity constraints that are not the same for a normally aspirated one.  Both can achieve the same output, but the duty cycle, the energy costs are different.  Seriously, Sickle (formerly Bella), achieving the same end result is not at the same expenditure for differing systems.

Deflective Material

It was said:

“you are ignoring the disparate nature of certain traits by claiming the mere existence of variation negates distinct clustering demonstrative of an underlying attribute (gender).”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

I never once dismissed dismorphism or anything of the sort. I said its stupid as hell to say “All men are X and all women are Y in all cases”. I also added that there is a larger variance within sexes than between them when it comes to several mental traits. If you’re going to argue against that, argue against the authors of my books.

Answer:

No one has claimed you directly “dismissed dimorphism” on it’s own. But “anything of the sort”?  Why yes.  You effectively dismiss it when you ignore it in order to support your claims.  You are taking the term OUT OF CONTEXT again in order to refute the criticism.  This is mentioned above in the first section of this response.

Your EXACT words were:

“Theres actually a bigger variation within sexes than between them. Not only in humans, but in other species as well.”

To which the examples of peahen versus peacock (no great variation in the tail of a peahen will give it the tail of a peacock), and other examples were given as a proof of the contrary (in the detailed discussion link).  You have no defence of this and are only resorting to denying that you said “anything of the sort”.

No one needs to say “ALL men are X while all women are Y in all cases” in order to claim that a paucity of overlap allows for reasonable prediction of directional difference.  You are simply creating an extreme statement and using it to misrepresent your opposition in order to refute it.

Mental traits?  Firstly, just where it is stated that difference between the genders is restricted to mental traits only? You asked for differences.  You were given differences (including differences in the physical and biochemical structure of critical components.  Typically, that which you cannot refute, you pretend does not matter, or ignore altogether.

In that there is CLEAR PROOF that you are now deliberately misrepresenting what you actually said, your credibility is essentially forfeit.

Clone of the Attacks

It was stated:

” and they noticeably showed that you were quick to initiate protracted personal attacks when your views were challenged.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) replied:

This applies to almost every single person who wrote a comment here.

And my views haven’t been “challenged” in any way. I would love for you to come with an argument which actually did, but so far you’ve been incorrect.

Answer:

The record unequivocally shows that you take far greater effort in attempts to injure your opposition via passionately crafted insults and personal attacks.  There is a post from you to JC that begins with:

“This extreme view on the significance of genders is almost certainly due to the fact that you feel inadequate…”

That is clearly laced with pejorative commentary, pure conjecture based in personal bias, designed to inflame, and was clearly an intentional personal attack.  In contrast, the audience at large will be hard pressed to find anything of the sort directed at you (save the short remarks in response to your equal provocation).  The next section of your response here contains the same ad hominem.

You may maintain whatever opinion you wish, but it is really doubtful that there will be a consensus in your favour.

You views have not been challenged?  That is more of the denial that was already proven by your repeated straw-man arguments, deflections and attempts to derail the discussion into a flame war.  You may not acknowledge the challenges, but they are evidently there.

Last, and vying for the Least:

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

It was said:

“Please have another look at the discoveries made by neurological scientists as to how the ratio of grey to white matter is sexually dimorphic, and how this ratio relates to how the brain is used to solve problems. As a key component to visual spatial processing, explain how the clear difference in hippocampus physical build and neurochemical composition is somehow “absolutely not true”.”

To which Sickle (formerly Bella) responded:

No, no, and NO. You couldn’t do a better job at demonstrating why people with absolutely NO understanding of basic neurobiology COMPLETELY misunderstand a lot of these dismorphism studies.

Answer:

Lol.  That is so behind the current state of the science.  It was hoped that you would go beyond the rudimentary and understand that there are others who have looked at the science in detail.  So. No.  The only miscalculation here is the underestimation of how your contempt for any who oppose you completely clouds your ability to understand what is being discussed.  This will be explained…

Absolutely Grey

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

YES, men on average have a larger amount of grey matter. The problem is, you seem to be COMPLETELY oblivious as to why. Which brings me to the question: Do you have any idea what grey matter IS?

Grey matter consists of cell bodies. White matter consists of axons. In other words, connections between cell bodies…

Answer:

Ah yes, the ubiquitous deflective argument.  The point was in how the sexes exhibit different ratios of grey and white usage in processing information.  It was not about what the material was made of specifically.  Going into a lecture about how grey and white matter differ, etc. is just an attempt to ridicule.  It’s a form of beating one’s chest in domain knowledge and, in this case, is really moot when one considers what was being examined.  There seems to be this constant need to demonstrate a belief that you are “superior” to any who challenge you.

As far as the size of body…

Even neophytes to this science understand that total brain volume is directly related to the GM volume.  The results of past research did not preclude of a gender related correlation as well as the size factor.  Recent research has been done that shows clear evidence of gender differences beyond what differing size can account for.  Someone familiar with this branch of knowledge would be aware of these findings.  It is possible that you are, and is why you would so fervently try to deflect away from it with this deflection into an unnecessary lesson on grey matter and neural load.

Lol.  Now who is being oblivious?

Hold your sea horses

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Also, YES, there are observable differences in the hippocampus, on average, and this is also true to other animals. Male rats, for example, navigate more efficiently in mazes than female rats. You do however fail to realize what causees these dismorphisms, and as such also fail to realize why it can occur differently in both sexes. You also seem to have a very poor understanding of what these structures are, how they function, and what effects follow (re: white/gray matter).

Answer:

This particular deflection didn’t work in the past, and it isn’t working now.

How that structure arrived in its launch state is inconsequential when you consider (no taking this out of context now) the outcome at the launch state.  The point is that it is significantly different and that difference is related to gender.  The different exposure rates are wholly tied to the manufacturing process.  This process varies by gender.  Variations within a gender will not pre-empt prediction based on gender if there isn’t significant overlap.

Incidentally, you seem to be unable to separate the person from the position.  There is this constant need to suggest that your opposition has “poor understanding”.  This can and has proven to be quite detrimental to your cognition in this discussion.  It is probably evidence that women do differ from men in how the apply a solution to a problem (then again, it’s a test population of 2… lol).

Lexicon carne

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

This means you are merely repeating things you read, without actually understanding what it means or what implications it may or may not have. You’ve just arbitrarily decided it means “Men are better”, oblivious to the fact that you may very well NOT be good at the cognitive traits commonly associated with men. A lot of men aren’t. In fact, a lot of people aren’t all that good at any of the cognitive skills.

Answer:

Please show exactly where I have said, “men are better” (not “physiology of a structure promotes better innate skills”, but, ipso facto “men are better”… not “men are better equipped” or “men are functionally better”, but “men are better”).  Where have I even suggested, or implied, “men are better”?  Really?  Where?

You asked for evidence that men and women are different in construction, and this has been provided.  You asked for situations were men or women are seeded with equipment that differ (beyond the genital organs) and this was provided.  You asked for examples where the structural differences are separated such that prediction of difference based on gender is not merely random.  This was provided.

Your constant false allegations are clear proof that you have the proverbial “chip on the shoulder” and this is seriously affecting your judgment on this topic.

As far as personal cognitive abilities, they are not directly material to this discussion.  You may assume that I am a certified imbecile if that makes you feel more “superior”.

Curves

Sickle (formerly Bella) said:

Women are on average better at other cognitive tasks, but that sure as hell doesen’t mean ALL women are good at said tasks. Not all women are linguists, just because women on average score better at linguistics than men.

Answer:

Again, just where have I said or implied that a better aggregate score automatically means the entire gender will score high, or higher than the other gender?  Really.  Where?  One really needs to stop this constant reliance on straw-man arguments.

The point (AGAIN) is that if a trait scores do not have enough overlap, there will be a trend that can be predictable.  Outliers do not negate the existence of a notably divergent distribution.  Men and women have notable differences in physiology.  The overlap on many aspects of this physiology is minor REGARDLESS of the variation within each group.  Until you show all of us how bearded women exist in the percentage that one cannot reasonably predict that a goateed individual is male, you are blowing proverbial smoke.

Tunnel Vision

Sickel (formerly Bella) said:

It’s just not as simple as what you’re trying to portray it as. Cognitive function is extremely complicated and variable, and more than associated with sex, its associated with genes NOT associated with sex. It is not a coincidence that intelligent parents more often spawn intelligent offspring. Intelligence is extremely inheritable (regardless of environment). And while its not entirely “mapped” out yet (it’s one of the things I work with), specific cognitive traits are also likely to be extremely inheritable. Which is also most likely why children do similar professions to their parents, and also why separated identical twins have been found to have quite similar natured jobs. We tend to choose profession based on skill.

And these vary *A LOT*, completely regardless of gender.

Gender just makes one set of abilities much more likely to occur. It does not guarantee it in any way. Once again: It is MUCH more complicated than that, and simplifying it the way you do is incredibly silly and ignorant.

Answer:

No.  It is not as “simple” as you falsely represent your opposition of portraying.

Firstly, this discussion encompasses ALL the difference between the genders, and not just the overall resultant cognitive skills.  It is you who isolates this aspect and infers that this aspect alone is the yardstick (that random distribution in overall cognitive skills means exact prediction based on gender can determine who is “better” than the other).

You conveniently gloss over the dynamic that this discussion is about IF and HOW the sexes differ (hence they are not equals), and focus on this “I’m not inferior because I’m a woman” agenda.  As a by-product, the constant retreat to fallacies like straw man arguments, and deflective commentary, does indeed bias readers to believe that women are indeed inferior when it comes to civilized discussion (of course, it’s a sample size of 2, a single topic, and no control values are set, etc…)

Waffle, Anyone?

Sickle (formerly Bella) Said:

I have NEVER disputed sexual dismorphisms, I am pointing out its not as relevant as you’re making it out to be, and there are several factors which influences said dismorphisms. Prenatal testosterone is a widely accepted fact in regard to the importance of many of these factors, for example.

Answer:

Again, do not misrepresent a criticism in order to refute it.  The remark wasn’t that you “disputed” it.  It was that you CLEARLY STATED that there are bigger variations within sexes than between them.  It was then pointed out that this IGNORES sexual dimorphic traits that have little to no overlap (such as the manes found on lions).  Your EXACT WORDS once again:

“Theres actually a bigger variation within sexes than between them. Not only in humans, but in other species as well.”

IN CONTEXT, you were not referring only to certain traits.  You were referring to the difference between sexes. There are numerous examples of traits that do not exhibit the overlap your theory relies on.  That is why your theory is fallacious.

Prenatal testosterone’s role is just a deflection.  NO ONE was saying this wasn’t the case (you just brought it up and ran with it in an attempt to showboat your “superior” knowledge.  The point still is that the end result of differing structures between sexes occurs, and, that a notable number of these structures are distinct enough to be predictive.

Rinse and Repeat

Sickle (formerly Bella) Said:

I’m not repeating it again.

Answer:

ROFL.  We will all believe that when we see it.  Chances are you will just take snippets of comments out-of-context and refute them again.

That’s a lot of Bella-aching Part 3

Summary

In addition, you speak of emotional vulnerability, which you seem to attribute to my “mud slinging”

The mud slinging (as in the verbal insults) is attributed to emotional vulnerability and not the other way around.

Mud slinging and violence is actually a trait more commonly associated with high levels of testosterone. Meaning men are more prone to loss of emotional control due to aggitation. On average. Does this mean men in general are more emotionally vulnerable?

You are confusing volatility with vulnerability.  Testosterone may intensify escalation once provoked, but the “tipping point” is still a function of how fragile or strong their ego is.  More testosterone does not make men more “emotionally vulnerable”.

…Emotional vulnerability occurs in both sexes, in a variety of ways, where one type of emotional vulnerability is more probable to occur on one side of the sex

There is ONE kind of “emotional vulnerability” being addressed here.  As was said above, when someone’s self-esteem is fragile, and that esteem is tied to one’s argument, they will feel personally slighted when the argument is dismantled.

We are seven billion people on this planet, and not the only species around, and its consistently observed that these variations occur all the time. We also know why they occur.

As it was mentioned before, this is just another attempt to dismiss trends by claiming the existence of natural variation automatically negates predictive modeling.  When someone cannot safely guess the gender of an individual 99 times out of 100 when they have a beard… you still wouldn’t be correct.

Logics and semantics will only get you so far. I can tell you’re used to “being right” because you use these two attributes in the way you do, and you’re probably well aware of the fact that Aristotle was an insightful man with ideas that still apply today for this very reason.

Seriously? ROFL.

So, when one can prove something logically, and, explain that logic with precision and detail, it falls short of the task?  This is odd coming from someone who is relies on the efficacy of modern neurology.  Should one be inventing new words or expanding on Boolean here?

The difference between you and Aristotle, however, is that he lived in an age where such knowledge did not exist. You live in an age where this knowledge not only exists, but is publically available for all. And you can’t be bothered to read up on it before you discuss any given topic.

One is mistaking the acumen of applying knowledge with the act of merely demonstrating the breadth of one’s ingested information. People often attempt to intimidate others with credentials and domain familiarity. Do you really think that you are the ONLY person that has delved into the science behind all of this (merely because others do not attempt to lord their knowledge over others)?

You talk of observations in nature, seemingly oblivious to the fact that these observations in fact do not support your idea, but are consistent with what I’m trying to explain. And if I were to guess your reaction on that, I’d say you are likely to ignore the evidence, and not reanimate your ideas based on newly obtained information. This makes your ideas about the sexes your own personal religion. It’s based on belief, not evidence. And no amount of semantics is going to change that.

The ways in which your theory has clearly not been demonstrated in reality have been explained in detail.  I have gone to a reasonable amount of effort to explain how you misconstrue probability and statistics to fit your case.  You may claim that those who don’t follow your beliefs to be following a “personal religion”.  However, being that it is really just you that creates these theories and justifies them with selective cognition of science, I have confidence that the audience at large will not be in agreement with you.  Your theories fail because they are based on fallacy.

Details

…I, in your Mud

Bella Said:

In addition, you speak of emotional vulnerability, which you seem to attribute to my “mud slinging”.

Answer:
Interestingly you have the cause and effect reversed.  The mud slinging (as in the verbal insults) is attributed to emotional vulnerability and not the other way around.  This seems trivial, but it is not.

…Skipping a “Beating”

Bella Said:

Mud slinging and violence is actually a trait more commonly associated with high levels of testosterone. Meaning men are more prone to loss of emotional control due to aggitation. On average. Does this mean men in general are more emotionally vulnerable?

Answer:

You are confusing volatility with vulnerability.

While an elevated amount of testosterone can increase aggression, the activation of the desire to intentionally injure others (whether it be via words online, or via fists in real life) is a function of one’s self-image (as in self-esteem) and how easily that is shattered.

Testosterone may intensify escalation once provoked, but the “tipping point” is still a function of how fragile or strong their ego is.  If an adversary’s action is not perceived as a threat to one’s self-esteem, then the retaliatory action is not taken. The predilection to violence is not the issue.  It’s whether or not one feels “hurt”.

Hence no.  More testosterone does not make men more “emotionally vulnerable”.

The emotional vulnerability referenced here is all about how personally attached one becomes to a discussion.  When one cannot distinguish between one’s argument and one’s self-image it betrays some emotional vulnerability.  We see this when people personally attack others once their arguments are dismantled before their peers.

Vulnera-disability

…Bella Said:

And this should be needless to say: Emotional vulnerability occurs in both sexes, in a variety of ways, where one type of emotional vulnerability is more probable to occur on one side of the sex than the other. But again, these are only probabilities, and does in no way mean that all men are equal, or inequal to all women.

Answer:
Please.  Even simple men like myself are aware of deflective tactics.  It is needless to say because it is really irrelevant.

There is ONE kind of “emotional vulnerability” being addressed here.  As was said above, when someone’s self-esteem is fragile, and that esteem is tied to one’s argument, they will feel personally slighted when the argument is dismantled.

We witness this when people attempt to hide this from themselves, by falliciously claiming universal variation implies essentially gender agnostic results (which it apparently isn’t).

…Probability ad nauseam

Bella Said:

We are seven billion people on this planet, and not the only species around, and its consistently observed that these variations occur all the time. We also know why they occur.

Answer:
As it was mentioned before, this is just another attempt to dismiss trends by claiming the existence of natural variation automatically negates predictive modeling.  When someone cannot safely guess the gender of an individual 99 times out of 100 when they have a beard… you still wouldn’t be correct.

…Logic is Dead, Long live Randomness

Bella Said:

Logics and semantics will only get you so far. I can tell you’re used to “being right” because you use these two attributes in the way you do, and you’re probably well aware of the fact that Aristotle was an insightful man with ideas that still apply today for this very reason.

However. Logics and semantics alone, without knowledge for the topic you’re discussing, especially if its a complex scientific topic, will bring you to a dead end. This is also true of aristotle, who believed the world consisted of four elements. Which of course is not true at all, but he lacked the knowledge we have today of the chemical elements, and as such his conclusions were wrong.

Answer:
Seriously? ROFL.

So, when one can prove something logically, and, explain that logic with precision and detail, it falls short of the task?  This is odd coming from someone who is relies on the efficacy of modern neurology.  Should one be inventing new words or expanding on Boolean here?

Whether I am used to being right is moot and beyond the scope of this discussion.  Whether or not the argument presented is comprehensively correct is the goal. Being objective and supporting what holds water is the best way to “being right”.  It shouldn’t be too hard to get used to.

Aristotle’s view of the world?  If the model of the physical world doesn’t explain a phenomenon, that doesn’t mean the phenomenon isn’t happening.  It just means that the model is inadequate.  His observations were likely still correct.  Applying selective cognition, or relying on a plea to ignorance (“there’s too much variation to know for sure”) is more in line with “wrong” conclusions.

In any case, you are merely trying to cast dispersions by suggesting that your opposition is mired in archaic thinking.  Remember that part about attempting to “injure those who disagree with you”?

…Following the Reader

Bella said:

The difference between you and Aristotle, however, is that he lived in an age where such knowledge did not exist. You live in an age where this knowledge not only exists, but is publically available for all. And you can’t be bothered to read up on it before you discuss any given topic.

Answer:

One is mistaking the acumen of applying knowledge with the act of merely demonstrating the breadth of one’s ingested information.

People often attempt to intimidate others with credentials and domain familiarity (the best description I could think of for having read a lot on a topic, so forgive the choice of words).  This is usually done when their theories aren’t really valid (as in the your theory’s case).  The concept of Occam’s Razor applies here.  Your ideas fall short with the simplest tests.  No foray into the science will counter that failure.

Do you really think that you are the ONLY person that has delved into the science behind all of this (merely because others do not attempt to lord their knowledge over others)?

…Hitting denial on the head

Bella said:

You talk of observations in nature, seemingly oblivious to the fact that these observations in fact do not support your idea, but are consistent with what I’m trying to explain. And if I were to guess your reaction on that, I’d say you are likely to ignore the evidence, and not reanimate your ideas based on newly obtained information. This makes your ideas about the sexes your own personal religion. It’s based on belief, not evidence. And no amount of semantics is going to change that.

 

Answer:
LOL.  This is just too rich!

The ways in which your theory has clearly not been demonstrated in reality have been explained in detail.  I have gone to a reasonable amount of effort to explain how you misconstrue probability and statistics to fit your case.  The record shows that you have summarily ignored these exhibits and now you are projecting this behaviour onto your opposition!

It is common for zealots to do this.  You may claim that those who don’t follow your beliefs to be following a “personal religion”.  However, being that it is really just you that creates these theories and justifies them with selective cognition of science, I have confidence that the audience at large will not be in agreement with you.

Semantics?

You are merely trying to dismiss the dismantling of your biased view as only a result of clever literature.  This isn’t the case.  The theories fail because they are based on fallacy.

That’s a lot of Bella-aching Part 2

Summary

This is not a matter of belief

Nice try.  You are merely taking the word “belief” out of the context of what was asserted, placing it in isolation, and refuting this false representation.

That is absolutely not true from a neurobiological standpoint

Please have another look at the discoveries made by neurological scientists as to how the ratio of grey to white matter is sexually dimorphic, and how this ratio relates to how the brain is used to solve problems.  As a key component to visual spatial processing, explain how the clear difference in hippocampus physical build and neurochemical composition is somehow “absolutely not true”.

Theres actually a bigger variation within sexes than between them. Not only in humans, but in other species as well.

You are now denying the clear evidence of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom in order to support your fallacious view.

Traits you might consider “typical female” is extremely likely to occur in a number of men, and the other way around

When we see a person with a beard, most of the time, you would be right to predict it was male.  When we come across another with d-cups and a slim waist, the forecast that you have encountered a female is pretty reliable.

…on average, men are exposed to higher levels and therefore on average have better spatial reasoning. But a fair amount do NOT, in fact, and at the same time theres a fair amount of females who ARE.

Visual spatial skills are one of the traits that men definitely as a whole, excel in over women as a whole.  As individuals, it is an ability that men score consistently higher than in that most women.  The average for men is higher, and, the probability (yes, statistics again) that any given man will score higher than most women is notable.

You’re just bringing up examples of traits that occur in both sexes, theres just slight statistical variation in likelihood.Meaning you still haven’t understood what I was trying to bring up. Statistics and probabilities of traits.

It was not understood what you were trying to use to obfuscate a flawed assertion?  No, as it has been repeatedly noted, you are ignoring the disparate nature of certain traits by claiming the mere existence of variation negates distinct clustering demonstrative of an underlying attribute (gender).

Actually, no. They are built on decades of consistently observable neuroendocrinologic phaenomena.

Lol.  Please.  The criticism wasn’t WHAT material was used.  It was HOW the material was used.

One can acquire the strongest and most resilient steel for their superstructure.  However, poor construction techniques combined with contempt for structural axiom will surely result in a pile of crumpled beams and columns.

I suggest you read the other posts on this thread, because most men have done the exact same thing. Mud slinging.c

On the contrary to the implied condition for your advice, the exchanges in which you engaged in were carefully examined, and they noticeably showed that you were quick to initiate protracted personal attacks when your views were challenged.

I most definitely am not equal to the men here. There is also a huge variation in equality and worth between the men themselves here.

No matter how many times you mention that there is a wide distribution of worth amongst men here, it’s footprint is still essentially independent to your comparative sum.

I asked for specific traits all men have which no female has, which makes no man or woman equal in any way. You have spent way too much time scribbling a long post which doesent answer that question in any way.

You actually didn’t ask that specifically, but, you already have you request fulfilled and we have refuted your theory.  Pretending that hasn’t happened doesn’t negate that fact (Well, maybe to you, but not to any reasonable person reading this).

Details

…Mince and Misrepresent

Bella Wrote:

This is not a matter of belief, its a matter of statistics. Ignoring said statistics to have a strong belief in either direction, is extremism.

Answer:

Nice try.  You are merely taking the word “belief” out of the context of what was asserted, placing it in isolation, and refuting this false representation.  That is an expected straw-man argument tactic when one cannot find fault.

This is what was presented to you (note how belief is used IN CONTEXT):

“A more appropriate description of the dichotomy of opinion is those who believe it has no significance, and those that do.”

The contention at hand was that you exaggerated the polarity between those believed the observed differences are significant enough to be notable, and those that didn’t, to be indicative of extremism.

As far as the “statistics”, to think that such distinctions between the gender groups do not exist is fantasy.  The notion is not supported by any science (including that of neurology).  If you believe that to be false, please explain why the difference between the sexes as far as hippocampus structure is somehow “not statistically true”. (Yes, that would be something in your touted area of expertise).

…Re: Lying on Science

It was said:

“Observation of other species, as well as humans, tells us that the genders are diversified to fulfill different roles in the social structure. With that in mind, the sexes are not “equals”. They are complimentary, and depending on the species may vary a great deal in many aspects of function.”

To which Bella responded:

That is absolutely not true from a neurobiological standpoint

Answer:

That is too precious.  From a “neurobiological standpoint” you espouse?

Please have another look at the discoveries made by neurological scientists as to how the ratio of grey to white matter is sexually dimorphic, and how this ratio relates to how the brain is used to solve problems.  As a key component to visual spatial processing, explain how the clear difference in hippocampus physical build and neurochemical composition is somehow “absolutely not true”.

…Mane-ly the Truth

Bella Wrote:

Theres actually a bigger variation within sexes than between them. Not only in humans, but in other species as well.

Answer:

Seriously?  OK, let’s look at another species.  Please let us know how the variation of manes on adult male lions overlaps with the variation of manes on adult female lions.  Wait… female lions exhibit little to no manes at all, while male rarely (well, really never) do not have a big shaggy one.  How about another species then?  Sea Lions? Pheasants? Vesper bats?  Can you demonstrate how a mature female of those species exhibit enough variation to even appear as a mature male?

You are now denying the clear evidence of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom in order to support your fallacious view.

…Guaranteed to be Wrong

Bella Wrote:

While there is a tendency for the average person within the sex to have a given trait, these are merely probabilities. Not guarantees of anything.

Traits you might consider “typical female” is extremely likely to occur in a number of men, and the other way around”

Answer:

Your logic here intentionally ignores that the norm of each gender on many traits are quite separated and distinct.  It also seeks to play up the magnitude of variation.  You’ve already been called out for applying this fallacy and are merely repeating it.

When we see a person with a beard, most of the time, you would be right to predict it was male.  When we come across another with d-cups and a slim waist, the forecast that you have encountered a female is pretty reliable.

The ability to give birth to a human fetus is “typically female”.  Please, feel at liberty to explain how this trait is “extremely likely” to occur in a number of men.  Since some of us here are so cognizant of “probabilities”, indicate around what percentage this “number of men” represents in the population (no exact numbers are required) to get some perspective on what significance this subset represents.

As was mentioned before, some traits exhibit overlapping scores, while others are clearly divergent by sex.  It stands to reason that behaviours that are largely controlled by the amygdala, or the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (I always forget the name of this for some reason…) will be different and quite divergent between the genders.

…Grey Matters

It was said:

“It also seeks to discount traits that are difficult to precisely quantify (yet exhibit differentiation in observation) such as spatial skills, and situational awareness.”

To which Bella responded:

Spatial skills are related to prenatal hormonal levels of testosterone. This might come as a surprise to you, but both sexes may be subject to different levels of testosterone during the fetal stages. In other words, on average, men are exposed to higher levels and therefore on average have better spatial reasoning. But a fair amount do NOT, in fact, and at the same time theres a fair amount of females who ARE.

Answer:

Visual spatial skills are one of the traits that men definitely as a whole, excel in over women as a whole.  As individuals, it is an ability that men score consistently higher than in that most women.  The average for men is higher, and, the probability (yes, statistics again) that any given man will score higher than most women is notable.

The “fair amount of women who have better spatial reasoning” (and it is implied that “better” means better than most men) you claim is not supported by the evidence.

As far as mentioning the exposure to Testosterone during development, you are just mentioning part of the process.  The final outcome of a hippocampus structure and “software” configuration designed for spatial reasoning adeptness is still the fact of import.  The genders differ in this neurological aspect.  The skill is relevant to human interaction with the natural environment.  This alone, refutes your claims that there are no neurological differences (and the resulting differences in performance) that bifurcate the genders.

…Probably… NOT

Bella Said:

You’re just bringing up examples of traits that occur in both sexes, theres just slight statistical variation in likelihood.

Meaning you still haven’t understood what I was trying to bring up. Statistics and probabilities of traits.

Answer:

The examples of traits that occur in both sexes were exactly what you challenged your opposition to bring up.  It was in answer to your postulate:

“However, its hard to quite figure out which traits you relevantly ascribe to being “not equal to”.”

To be sure, both traits that exhibited in both genders, and the traits that are only exhibited in only one (gestational capability), were used as testimonial to the error of your claims.

The notable difference in visual spatial skills between males and females has been well researched and document.  There is no “slight statistical variation” in that at all.

It was not understood what you were trying to use to obfuscate a flawed assertion?  No, as it has been repeatedly noted, you are ignoring the disparate nature of certain traits by claiming the mere existence of variation negates distinct clustering demonstrative of an underlying attribute (gender).

The variation in upper body strength within a gender will not mask the evidence that men are generally far more endowed than women in that regard.  Natural variation?  Even very strong women are unlikely to possess the same shoulder strength as the typical man.  The overlap in this attribute does not in anyway remove the statistically supported prediction that any given woman will, in all likelihood, be weaker in upper body strength, than any given man.

You cannot use “rare cases” to negate a clearly demonstrated trend.

…Woman of Steel

It was said:

“Since the arguments you have presented are either poorly constructed, or altogether a fantasy built on wishful thinking, the result is far more illusion than allusion.”

To which Bella responded:

Actually, no. They are built on decades of consistently observable neuroendocrinologic phaenomena.

There is a great book on the subject you should have a look at. It’s called “Behavioral endocrinology”, written by Nelson. It brings up quite a few interesting studies in which they affect hormonal levels on different animals during different stages of life, as well as natural variations within groups.

Answer:

Lol.  Please.  The criticism wasn’t WHAT material was used.  It was HOW the material was used.

One can acquire the strongest and most resilient steel for their superstructure.  However, poor construction techniques combined with contempt for structural axiom will surely result in a pile of crumpled beams and columns.

This is the classic problem with fitting the evidence to suit a desired result.  All the training and familiarity with a subject becomes moot once one biases results.  Firstly, the neurobiological observations already refute your assertion that there is NO statistically significant indication that structural and dynamic differences exist between genders.  They clearly do.  Secondly, these differences amount to measurable performance differences between the genders.  In the case of spatial reasoning skills it is far more significant than you pretend it isn’t.

All the “natural variation” observed does not make a peahen appear as a peacock.

…What the Muck?

It was said:

“Furthermore, the quick retreat to mud slinging in clear effort to injure your opposition rather than defend your assertions illustrates a weaker resolve than one pretends to have.”

To which Bella responded:

I suggest you read the other posts on this thread, because most men have done the exact same thing. Mud slinging.

Answer:

Really?

On the contrary to the implied condition for your advice, the exchanges in which you engaged in were carefully examined, and they noticeably showed that you were quick to initiate protracted personal attacks when your views were challenged.  The very pointed and detailed invectives employed definitely betray a desire to injure those who do not agree with you.  You may claim that they are provoked, but the level at which you have stabbed at posters like JC is far beyond what can be considered “self defence”.

So, No: the frequency and depth of personal attacks hurled your way is far below what you resort to.  As such record supports the assertion of an over-estimation of one’s constitution.

…“Post” Mortem

It was said:

“If you alone were representative of the female gender, we would have sufficient evidence of a woman’s emotional vulnerability that many indicate as a separation between the sexes.”

“Since all those you contest are likely imbued with a penis, the correlation that the inequality in maturity is related to having said penis is strongly supported.”

To which Bella responded:

I suggest you read the other posts.

Answer:

Ibid.

…The Dynamics of Statistics

It was said:

“Indeed. You are truly NOT the equal of the men here.”

To which Bella responded:

I most definitely am not equal to the men here. There is also a huge variation in equality and worth between the men themselves here.

Answer:

No matter how many times you mention that there is a wide distribution of worth amongst men here, it’s footprint is still essentially independent to your comparative sum.

Insofar as how your sum compares to the men here, the determination that you are not equal is based on several things including, but not exclusive to:

  1. The reliance on misrepresenting criticism in order to refute them.
  2. The reluctance to acknowledge the clearly evidenced consistent physiological differences in brain structure and application of structures between the genders.
  3. The deliberate and crafted attempts to injure your opposition with insults and name-calling (far beyond what is provoked).
  4. Conveniently ignoring the clear differences in muscular development to repeat the fallacy that no traits exhibit sexual dimorphism to a “statistically significant” rate.
  5. The false allegation that sexual dimorphism is not exhibited in the animal kingdom at large.
  6. The repeated but ineffective attempts to intimidate others by introducing scientific details that, in reality, do not support your case.

That few of your direct opposition have resorted to any of these tactics (save responding in kind to your attacks) is how one arrives at the conclusion that you are not the equal of the brethren here.

You may well be the world leading resource in neuroscience, and have no peer here in that regard.  However that remains to be seen.

On this topic, it is your argument that is being tested and easily shown to be fallacious.  The constant mantra of “natural variation within each gender creates enough overlap between curves based on gender to make predictions of ranking between random samples of each group statistically insignificant” isn’t supported by what is seen with traits such as spatial skills.  It is also false for upper body muscular development.

…See no Evil-ution

Bella said:

I asked for specific traits all men have which no female has, which makes no man or woman equal in any way. You have spent way too much time scribbling a long post which doesent answer that question in any way.

Answer:

Nice try, again.  Your request wasn’t specifically that.  It was exactly:

“You say women are defnitely not your equal, but I’m curious as to which aspects you’re referring to, and if you believe these aspects applies to all men and all women.”

None of that implies that the specific trait exists in all men, and, that no female has it.  You’ll have to try harder to catch your opposition on gaffs like that.

At any rate, a trait that is mutually exclusive was presented in the form of one gender being naturally able to bear children while the other is not.  Following that is the trait of the physical proportions of the brain components (as well as the actual biochemical composition within them).  The Grey-to-white matter ratio, the amygdala, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and the hippocampus, all exist in different forms that are distinctly related to the sexes.  What statistically significant percentage of women have to shave their face… compared to the percentage of adult men that do?

You already have you request fulfilled and we have refuted your theory.  Pretending that hasn’t happened doesn’t negate that fact (Well, maybe to you, but not to any reasonable person reading this).

As far as your concern for the time others spend tapping out a reply.  It’s appreciated, but it really doesn’t take that long.

That’s a lot of Bella-aching Part 1

Summary

Gender is not a social construct, it is however often subject to extremist ideas in either direction.

…A more appropriate description of the dichotomy of opinion is those who believe it has no significance, and those that do.  It is really an exaggeration (and in that sense, done for effect) to couch it as “extremist” to think of it either way.

However, its hard to quite figure out which traits you relevantly ascribe to being “not equal to’

….Observation of other species, as well as humans, tells us that the genders are diversified to fulfill different roles in the social structure.  With that in mind, the sexes are not “equals”.  They are complimentary, and depending on the species may vary a great deal in many aspects of function.

You say women are defnitely not your equal, but I’m curious as to which aspects you’re referring to, and if you believe these aspects applies to all men and all women. From a biological point of view, there is no such thing as absolutes in that sense.

Firstly of all, let’s be clear about one thing.  While there are outliers that demonstrate the continuous function that physical gender is, the bulk of the sexes are clearly distinct and divergent from one another.  It is not sensible to think that the few exceptions can negate a trend.

Different traits of different people varies quite a bit. So in a sense, most people aren’t equal.

… People don’t have to be equal for the genders to have clearly different values in a given attribute.  Even without looking at the topic, there is a logical fallacy being employed here.

Firstly, two populations having distinctly different mean values can still accommodate individuals within the groups having significant variation.  As well, for any given trait, variation does not imply a great deal of overlap.

Thats why I have a hard time believing you are able to come with a sound list of relevant traits you ascribe to each gender, assinging them ‘not equal in any way’.

…The crux of your argument is that the trait has to be “relevant”.

This attempts to sidestep traits such as the ability to gestate a human embryo (without surgical, hormonal, or other medical procedure), or, muscular development in adulthood.  It also seeks to discount traits that are difficult to precisely quantify (yet exhibit differentiation in observation) such as spatial skills, and situational awareness.

Mind you, I don’t consider you my equal in any way wither. But I can safely say its regardless of your cock

….Since the arguments you have presented are either poorly constructed, or altogether a fantasy built on wishful thinking, the result is far more illusion than allusion.  Furthermore, the quick retreat to mud slinging in clear effort to injure your opposition rather than defend your assertions illustrates a weaker resolve than one pretends to have.

If you alone were representative of the female gender, we have evidence of a woman’s emotional vulnerability that many indicate as a separation between the sexes.  Since all those you contest are likely imbued with a penis, the correlation that the inequality in maturity is related to having said penis is strongly supported.

Indeed.  You are truly NOT the equal of the men here.

 

 

IN DETAIL…

A Gender Agenda

Bella Wrote:

Gender is not a social construct, it is however often subject to extremist ideas in either direction. Either people say it doesent matter at all, or that it matters more than it actually does.

Answer:

A more appropriate description of the dichotomy of opinion is more of those who believe it has no significance, and those that do.  It is really an exaggeration (and in that sense, done for effect) to couch it as “extremist” to think of it either way.  Of course, believing in something, and coming to a conclusion based on reasoning is what is being tested (more on that in a moment).

Trick or Trait

Bella Wrote:

However, its hard to quite figure out which traits you relevantly ascribe to being “not equal to”.

Answer:

Observation of other species, as well as humans, tells us that the genders are diversified to fulfill different roles in the social structure.  With that in mind, the sexes are not “equals”.  They are complimentary, and depending on the species may vary a great deal in many aspects of function.

While there is likely no difference in the physical brains between genders, any reliance on equality based on a native system (such as a neurological one) needs to address the importance of installation considerations.

That means, what the system is attached to, the basic “software load” at launch, and how that software is adapted to the organism is critical.  Merely having the exact same physical system at the date of delivery does not translate to the same overall performance envelope.  We are not speaking of environmental or service profile differences here (aka “nurture”, or “girls are brought up differently”), we are talking about how the system has to deal with the organism regardless of external input.

Even if the software at launch was absolutely identical (which remains to be proven), the physical structure (as well as default future “adult” configuration) to which the system is attached to is wholly different.  For example, take something as simple as two automobiles using the very same power plant (with the same engine management software).  However, one model is a two-seat coupe, while the other is an SUV.  Are the automobiles the same?  Are the performance envelopes the same?  Are even the variable values that the software encodes for optimal performance the same?  The answer is obvious, “no” to all of these.

Now that is for a very basic system when compared to a complex organism.  Can you really think that the very same neurological installation will be the same as installed in physiologically different models (let alone what the configuration will be once the divergence of puberty sets in)?  Even if the physical structure were identical, do you honestly think that the software images are anywhere near that parity?

Neither gender is intended to be the equal of the other, nor will they necessarily be in any given aspect.

Adam’s Apple and Eve’s Orange

Bella Wrote:

You say women are defnitely not your equal, but I’m curious as to which aspects you’re referring to, and if you believe these aspects applies to all men and all women. From a biological point of view, there is no such thing as absolutes in that sense.

Answer:

Firstly of all, let’s be clear about one thing.  While there are outliers that demonstrate the continuous function that physical gender is, the bulk of the sexes are clearly distinct and divergent from one another.

It is not sensible to think that the few exceptions can negate a trend.  Hence the challenge to find aspects that apply to the entire population is not valid.  The genders, as a whole are different enough that one cannot dismiss it because a handful of individuals excel at a particular trait that normally their gender is secondary in.

Seriously, if gender didn’t make a difference, perhaps we should have only one category for each Olympic sport (with six medals each).  The chances that any purely physical sport will have even a single female on the podium would be pretty remote (yes, even Tennis).  We will even be blind to any program of performance enhancing substances.

The same would apply for any contest on gestating a human (even with hormonal augmentation).  There would be no male finalists.

Please.  Don’t even try to promote such fallacious concepts.

Measure for Measure for Measure

Bella Wrote:

Different traits of different people varies quite a bit. So in a sense, most people aren’t equal. I don’t even believe people to be of equal worth (Then again, I’m a solid misanthropist). I however do not use gender as the determining factor, as its not entirely relevant. Gender itself doesent say much about what you are other than your sex organ. It will give you a statistical probability of certain traits, but these probabilities are not as big as people unfamiliar with neurobiology might think.

Answer:

People don’t have to be equal for the genders to have clearly different values in a given attribute.  Even without looking at the topic, there is a logical fallacy being employed here.

Firstly, two populations having distinctly different mean values can still accommodate individuals within the groups having significant variation.  As well, for any given trait, variation does not imply a great deal of overlap.

The most visible “trait” is that of upper body muscular development.  While there can be some exceptions, most women have significantly less upper body strength than the average man.  In that category the top decile of men will be far in excess of the strongest woman.  There is a clear differentiation that can be predicted by gender in this regard.

Not as big a probability?  That’s wishful thinking.  The probability of person A having greater upper body strength than person B is pretty high if A is male and B is female (all other things being equal, and both subjects being of adult, and not advanced in age).  The probability of a male giving birth versus a female…  well, you get the picture.

Secondly, the sex organ is a consequence of genetic gender programming.  It doesn’t “determine”. It is determined.  It is an outcome of the diversification.

Thirdly, the last time I checked, the “statistical probability” of a 190 lb male being a lot harder to handle than a 125 lb female pretty obvious.  No one needs to know a single thing about neuroscience to determine which person is likely to do you more harm (that includes the odds of the female being a Krav Maga instructor, just in case you think that “evens it out”.)

Rule of “Some”, Ruler of Many

Bella Wrote:

Thats why I have a hard time believing you are able to come with a sound list of relevant traits you ascribe to each gender, assinging them “not equal in any way”.

Answer:

The crux of your argument is that the trait has to be “relevant”.

This attempts to sidestep traits such as the ability to gestate a human embryo (without surgical, hormonal, or other medical procedure), or, muscular development in adulthood.  It also seeks to discount traits that are difficult to precisely quantify (yet exhibit differentiation in observation) such as spatial skills, and situational awareness.

These traits mentioned are absolutely relevant to both the maintenance of the species as well as how it performs within the natural environment.  The genders are notably bifurcated in these attributes.  They are not only logically bifurcated, they are functionally so too.

The ability to carry a child is still relevant.  So that alone already dismantles any attempt to apply such an argument.

Some may continue to argue that the significant difference in upper-body strength is moot in the “modern world”.  However, it should be realized that the modern world is the very social construct that feminist like to think is doing them this great injustice.  Society artificially reduces the need for physical strength.  In the primal environment, it really helps the survival of the tribal unit. Removing the need also removes the advantage of possessing greater upper body development.

However, there has not been an equal reduction of the advantages that females have.  For example, a woman only has to maintain a reasonable level of mental, physical and psychological health to be relatively attractive.  On the other hand, men are expected to be fit, wealthy, witty yet just a bit aloof, no less than average height, not balding to even be considered by the “modern” Western world princess.  Online, this gets exaggerated to must be a six foot, six pack, six figure income model to be a candidate.

Men and women are not equals: they are complimentary parts of a whole, but they are not necessarily equals in each every “relevant” aspect (or logically, even equal in terms of proportion to the whole).

If we were truly seeking practical “equality”, a system where neither sex loses their advantages would make a lot more sense than one where only men lose them and women keep all of theirs. It cannot be one where we simply and radically enable those who are not mature enough to handle a newfound ability. The experience we see online (where feminists act like precocious little children who stamp there feet, shout, cry and troll when they can’t have everything their way) tells us empowering those who cannot handle that power is counterproductive.

Thus, a Return of Kings is timely indeed.

He-Quality

Bella Wrote:

Mind you, I don’t consider you my equal in any way wither. But I can safely say its regardless of your cock.

Answer:

Since you bring yourself into the discussion, it’s fair to examine the efficacy of this assertion.

The intent is to claim some sort of superiority hinted by a superior argument.  However, since the arguments you have presented are either poorly constructed, or altogether a fantasy built on wishful thinking, the result is far more illusion than allusion.

Furthermore, the quick retreat to mud slinging in clear effort to injure your opposition rather than defend your assertions illustrates a weaker resolve than one pretends to have.  That’s right, all we see is the expected “Can’t win the argument, try insulting and name-calling”.  In contrast, those opposed to your views have shown far more respect and constraint than has been afforded to them.

If you alone were representative of the female gender, we have evidence of a woman’s emotional vulnerability that many indicate as a separation between the sexes.  Since all those you contest are likely imbued with a penis, the correlation that the inequality in maturity is related to having said penis is strongly supported.

Indeed.  You are truly NOT the equal of the men here.

No Dice “you’ve got to be kidding” Part 2

Summary

  1. “They are totally irrelevant requirements….” How one disingenuously claims that the history of personal conduct is irrelevant to ascertaining said person’s mindset is ridiculous (regardless of how many times one repeats it). Future behaviour is readily predicted by past behaviour. This is not news to anybody.
  2. “Not a single person in the world can be perfect…” It is to say that perfection isn’t achievable, so therefore, any amount of errant behaviour should be forgiven since it is all outside of one’s control to be absolutely perfect. Not only that, you are essentially removing personal responsibility from the equation. If we were to apply your rule, everyone is the same. The petty thief, the drug dealer, the vandal, the fraud artist, etc… they are no different than anyone who avoids criminal activity. Why? That is because nobody is perfect, and, various issues in the past are merely being human and all moot if one decides to live right today.
  3. “What breeds destructive behaviour in people…” Destructive behaviour isn’t bred by a perception or a reality of too much liberty or control. It may be given room to grow by such conditions, but the impetus is wholly the voluntary action of the individual.
  4. “The fact that you talk down self-empowerment…” You have now resorted to revising history in order to refute your opposition. It is clearly NOT a fact that self-empowerment was talked down in the post you are attempting to criticize.
  5. “The only reason why I say this mindset means he won’t always be there is because her breakdown might not fit what the author perceives as acceptable…“ No. That is really just a bit of back-pedaling. You used the term “broke down” in the same metaphoric sense the article did in the “ride or die” section. It was saying meant as something that life threw at her, and not the literal emotional “break down” or a loss of decorum. You can’t try to change your intentions now, as it was clearly not the case.

Model Citizen

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

They are totally irrelevant requirements. Not to mention, the guy expecting a keeper who’s had less than 10 c*cks and isn’t materialistic is the one who proudly states that he f*cks models, which is both materialistic and sounds like he’s had his c*ck in certainly more than 10 women. (Or, he could be exaggerating for a cover of assumed masculinity, which screams an insecurity.)

Answer:
How one disingenuously claims that the history of personal conduct is irrelevant to ascertaining said person’s mindset is ridiculous (regardless of how many times one repeats it). Future behaviour is readily predicted by past behaviour. This is not news to anybody.

The filters include things like:

  1. A good relationship with her dad: That speaks to the maturity of understanding that he who you perceived as “controlling” you in the past, was really providing guidance. This guidance, though sometimes at odds with your sense of “freedom”, was really through of the benefit of more experience and better judgement at the time. There will be times that you may think your “equal” is over-reaching their authority, a good relationship with a former authority figure, should temper that with the humility that perhaps they may know better in those circumstances. There will be mitigating circumstances, but each case is evaluated on it’s own. Incidentally, having to “change wording in order to falsely represent something you are at odds with in order to refute it” is more an indication of the inability to accept that one is at fault.
  2. She has not been relatively promiscuous: This refers to the reverence one has for their intimacy as well as the integrity to wield power with responsibility. Young women generally have the strength of sexual attractiveness. How she uses or abuses that power is a good indication how she will wield a position of advantage in the future. Look at how many critics here quickly abuse the power of freedom to post by merely casting insults and name-calling. Some will even resort to trolling and cyber-stalking when their need to be “right” is not met. The fact that practically all of these critics are women is noticeable. If one quickly draws their sword merely because they perceive they can with impunity, it is clear they abuse power. That is critical to any future relationship where one puts their heart at stake.
  3. She has no kids: While there are exceptions, one has to question why the father of these children is no longer in the picture. Having children is a long-term commitment that usually means both parents are present and involved. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is now a vacancy, there had to have been issues. If it was wholly the guy’s fault (as in “he was a total jerk”), then how did she get to the point of carrying his child? If it was wholly her fault… well, the answer to that should be obvious. Certainly if the reason is because the father was awarded a DSO posthumously, that would be a mitigating circumstance, but generally speaking, the scenario is usually trouble.
  4. She is not materialistic: This is an important one. It doesn’t mean that she isn’t appreciative of a finer home or the latest fashions. But it does mean that she puts those things in perspective. What it means is that she doesn’t measure her worth based on the how she is perceived by others (you know, like how adolescents think that only this fashion statement or that device makes you cool). It should be obvious that low self-esteem is closely linked to needing bling to feel special.

There are other things too, but there is no need to re-hash all the points that the article makes.

Whether a guy who beds models and loves expensive cars and wine is unattractive, or a keeper in his own right is not relevant. If you believe it is a double standard, then feel free to explain how women don’t fawn over the “bad boy” with the bucks (by the way, that isn’t the case).

To err is Human, to use that, as an excuse, is purposely irresponsible.

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

Errant behaviors now. Not a single person in this world, can be perfect or have a perfect past He or she might fit many of these ‘requirements,’ but may not fit all of them. And who knows: a partner ready to commit may have had various issues in his/her past, but with a true willingness to not let their baggage weigh down the person they choose to be with is what matters. A great person is measured by the behaviors, compulsions, and circumstances they choose to overcome. And if a person chooses to overcome those things in order to have the very best relationship they could have with another human being, then that is wonderful.

Answer:

This is resorting to the “perfect world” fallacy.

It is to say that perfection isn’t achievable, so therefore, any amount of errant behaviour should be forgiven since it is all outside of one’s control to be absolutely perfect. Not only that, you are essentially removing personal responsibility from the equation. If we were to apply your rule, everyone is the same. The petty thief, the drug dealer, the vandal, the fraud artist, etc… they are no different than anyone who avoids criminal activity. Why? That is because various issues in the past are merely being human and all moot if one decides to live right today.

Wrong.

Your next notion is equally as wrong. (Baggage is more about unresolved issues in one’s psyche. Let’s cover that off in a moment). You don’t eliminate past transgression by simply “overcoming them”. If that were the case, any thief can simply “forgive” him or herself and be done with it (and decide to steal again, when it is convenient).

Furthermore, people usually don’t “change their ways”. In fact, they generally choose not to avoid those things, and instead, hide them. Those choices are what is measured. You are responsible for past actions regardless of how you personally decide to forgive them, ignore them, or rationalize them as just part of the human condition.

Whether one wants to become a greater person because of the desire to be with someone is another thing altogether. You cannot ignore the importance of doing these things for yourself to begin with.

Baggage.

Psychological stress that has been laid down over a long period isn’t something that is easily removed. One may be willing to not weigh down their significant other with this burden, but in practice “wanting to” is rarely enough. Look at how so many hostile posts betray pent-up frustration and unresolved anger. This kind of “baggage” didn’t come onboard overnight. It will take a lot of effort to unload it.

Waffle Irony

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

What breeds destructive behavior in people is too much leeway OR too much control in an environment. To have a healthy mindset would mean this: You can do and be whoever you are at any time, but to remember that all choices come with a responsibility, and with an outcome you may or may not like. To choose the higher road and use the great power and freedom you have responsibly is the best way to be. To try to train yourself by simply replacing what someone perceives to be a destructive behavior with a newly perceived ‘good’ one is only going to limit you and create a new compulsion that is just as bad. In this case, the compulsion to let your man take the reins and take advantage of you constantly.

Answer:
Destructive behaviour isn’t bred by a perception or a reality of too much liberty or control. It may be given room to grow by such conditions, but the impetus is wholly the voluntary action of the individual.

Initially, your opposition introduced the notion of actions and their inherit consequences. You choose to deflect from this and instead surreptitiously lectured on about how the pursuit of life ambitions is not reckless or destructive (something your opposition did not state or imply). You now pronounce the reality how one’s actions have consequences, as if it were a new discovery in this conversation.

It is unlikely you are not aware that this was mentioned to you and ignored. Hence, it is clear that you are selectively acknowledging points to suit your argument as you see fit. This is the actions of someone who fully realizes they have no position and are choosing only to wage a campaign of being contrary.

Being harmonious in a relationship may mean acquiescing at times. That hardly means a need to defer leadership to the point of constantly being taken advantage of. This type of exaggeration is more evidence of an agenda to promote a biased point of view.

Retreat to Fiction

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

The fact that you talk down self-empowerment is exposing you and your motives clearly, unfortunately. Self-empowerment is not just about being independent, free and brave, but also using the greater power and freedom you have attained responsibly, consciously, and knowing what will happen in mind.

Answer:
Really. You have now resorted to revising history in order to refute your opposition.

It is clearly NOT a fact that self-empowerment was talked down in the post you are attempting to criticize. The exact phrase was:

“Incidentally, the credence on self-empowerment is likely why many who flock to feminist movements forget that the exercise is really more about finding balance, and not vengeance.”

This is absolutely not talking down self-empowerment. In fact, it is saying how misguided feminists pervert self-empowerment as a means to mete out retribution for perceived past transgression.

Let’s be clear here. Self-empowerment is a tool. It can be wielded responsibly or otherwise. It is no different than any other licence. Again, look at how some choose to abuse the freedom to post by resorting to name-calling and casting dispersions. It should be apparent to all that the consequence of such cavalier attitude is that of a complete loss of credibility. Speaking of which, the amount of misrepresentation you have used as a means to refutation is another vehicle of integrity assassination.

Balancing Act

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

I like your balance talk, but are you still defending this article? It’s clearly and absolutely not balanced.

Answer:
The article doesn’t need defending. Most of the things pointed out make sense. When one considers the amount of poor logic, obfuscation, deflection and bullying in lieu of any counter argument, the article is apparently quite unassailable.

Most of my posts have been to clearly outline how your reasoning is either unsupported or wholly ludicrous in construct. Though it is clearly to dismantle your “argument”, any continued attempt to defend those arguments via fallacy (straw man fallacy, perfect world fallacy, etc…) will take your personal integrity along with it.

As far as “balanced”, again, the conditions that make a man a keeper are not discussed here because it is not the focus of the article. This cannot be construed to mean that such conditions do not exist.

Rise of the Machines

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

Machines are about control for a specific expected result. Although you want a machine that says ‘I will love you indefinitely,’ you want it to be a magic machine that creates an indefinite love that transcends all the other bullshit. And what this is advocating is still serving one root cause – letting a man take the lead and the woman blindly follow him as he uses her. She is just as capable of leading as he is, and she deserves good things from him as well. These filters are totally not about self-conduct. Like I said: self-conduct is about rising above your complications and choosing to take the higher action, the higher road, where you act for the best and highest good – and it’s not defined by what you did in the past, what your daddy was like, if you married someone already, if your parents stayed together, how many c*cks you have had, or anything else. It’s accomplished only by doing what you know is right, remaining positively conscious and aware of yourself and each situation you are in day, doing that ‘best and highest good’ not out of guilt, but by the deeper yearning we all have for a good life.

Answer:
Again, this “machine” talk is the invention of your own mind. No one here is looking for the kind of master and slave relationship you are talking about.

“These filters are totally not about self-conduct”

What? Are you saying that a woman who has had a several dozen intimate relationships by the time she is 25 is not self-conducting in any way? Please. You are no longer making any sense.

“…not defined by what you did in the past”

What? What YOU DID is not a definition of what YOU DID? At this point, you have removed any doubt that you are merely trying to filibuster, as this is a pure contradiction.

The fall of the human

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

Nobody can complete anybody. That is something only you can do by exercising your own potential. It is soul sucking to be in a codependent situation. Do you still defend this article? Because you make more sense now.

Answer:
It is not clear what you are trying to get at here. You are just repeating what I said about relationships and how they can become dysfunctional in some cases. That was in the context of putting self-help section notions like “soul mate” in perspective.

As far as the article is concerned, it is agnostic to whether or not a relationship is a co-dependent one. It is merely a guideline on what types of behaviour represent red flags as far as “keeper” material is concerned.

As was mentioned above, the article needs no defence, nor have I had to provide much. Most of this post and previous ones were to dismantle the façades that you were creating.

The Price of Dating a Deity

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

The only reason why I say this mindset means he won’t always be there is because her breakdown might not fit what the author perceives as acceptable, in which case she becomes ‘crazy’ or ‘delusional.’ Especially if she breaks down because she’s tired of him treating her the way he does, and challenging his idea that he is god and deserves her is too much for him to handle.

Answer:
No. That is really just a bit of back-pedaling. You used the term “broke down” in the same metaphoric sense the article did in the “ride or die” section. It was saying meant as something that life threw at her, and not the literal emotional “break down” or a loss of decorum. You can’t try to change your intentions now, as it was clearly not the case.

This whole “idea that he is god” is your concept. You cannot expect your misconceptions to be defended.

No Dice “you’ve got to be kidding” Part 1

Summary

  1. It’s exactly as it was pointed out: “hyperbole based on a misinterpretation”. You are only trying to deflect from this.
  2. The counsel is in the right direction. Furthermore, the plethora of personal attacks and name-calling in lieu of counterpoint is a clear indication that few critics have any substance (and are really lashing out from pure emotional reaction).
  3. It was not stated that the desire for ‘nourishing” your soul is reckless or destructive. It was the means by which one pursues these goals that can be (reread the part about “recklessness and self-centredness in the pursuit of happiness). You know the difference and are rewording the comment in order to refute it.
  4. You are definitely confusing the act of committing with the conditions of an agreement. They are distinct.
  5. As far as giving “everything to someone”, that is the price of most committed personal relationships. Are we forgetting that the man will “give all of himself” to the woman too?
  6. As before, the filters are far from “irrelevant” no matter how many times one repeats it.
  7. If the article said, or even implied that a man doesn’t have to pass any requirements himself to be at the stage of making these decisions, then you may have a point. It doesn’t, so you don’t.
  8. We mentioned armchair “equality” activist as one who may not see the difference between _1_ complimentary and relative equality _2_ Homogeneous Parity. The point is not about the merits of crusading or the arenas in which one takes up such a cause. It was that you likely cannot or will not see the difference between the two concepts.

Minced Word with a side of Coyness

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

It’s not an exaggeration. Every human being strives to love and be loved purely. A woman in this kind of situation would not be loved purely, but a faithful servant – and nobody wants that. Instead of integrity, what he wants will be more like blind devotion, submission and faith to a man who has many arbitrary requirements for his definition of a keeper.

Answer:
Seriously. That segment of your post was an exaggeration. Reread the part, “she becomes his plaything in any way possible” (this is clearly an extreme embellishment on the spirit of concepts presented). It is aptly criticized as “hyperbole based on a misinterpretation” (which is what was said in context.)

After this deliberately false revelation (that your comment was not an exaggeration) and convenient sidestepping of the misinterpretation, you then proceed to employ the same tactic by expounding on the concept of “being loved purely”.

As you continue to employ this deflective scheme, it is clear you are aware of this misrepresentation and how it is the only way you can support this conjured argument.

Man Kind

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

When I speak of what kind of man, I speak of the kind of person who would write something like this, or who could actually think this is reasonable advice.

Answer:
Someone who recognizes how the character of a person can be ascertained by a history of their conduct in personal relationships as well as how much relative value that person places on material goods is practicing observational acumen.

Providing some advice on this publicly is, at the very least, being proactive.

If the judgement of the man’s character is based on the aptness of the advice, you have yet to demonstrate any case where the recommendations are incorrect, or even impractical. Even then, giving “bad advice” online, is on it own, not a definitive measure of a person’s demeanour.

Specifically, the counsel is in the right direction. Furthermore, the plethora of personal attacks and name-calling in lieu of counterpoint is a clear indication that few critics have any substance (and are really lashing out from pure emotional reaction).

Ruins amongst the Love

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

It’s not reckless or destructive to find what makes your soul feel nourished to do in this world and bravely accomplish it, including to purely love and be loved as you should. It’s the best accomplishment a human being could make: rising above perceived limitations and accomplishing what your soul has been driven to do, and as a result, making yourself and the world better for it.

Answer:
Sidestepping the point again are we?

It was not stated that the desire for ‘nourishing” your soul is reckless or destructive. It was the means by which one pursues these goals that can be (reread the part about “recklessness and self-centredness in the pursuit of happiness). You know the difference and are rewording the comment in order to refute it.

Specifically, when someone goes after personal fulfillment without consideration for the direct or collateral damage to others, it is, a self-centred endeavour. This includes trading intimacy under false pretence, not effectively evaluating future consequences against short-term gratification, and a host of things covered by the filters the author presented.

By your argument, such pursuits are unrestricted and certainly no consideration is given to others. Accomplishing what “your soul has been driven to do” is not a guarantee that the world is a better place for achieving it (so you cannot merely connect the events). Essentially every bank robber, every confidence man (or woman), every despot dictator is pursuing what their soul has been driven to do (No, that is not hyperbole). We know these pursuits rarely accommodate the well being of others or the overall betterment of the world.

What this touches upon is how an alarming number of feminists feel that the right to self-empowerment is an excuse to be irreverent to all but themselves (read that as entitlement to be self-centred). They want to have all the advantages that they perceive men to have, but retain all that they have inherently as women. Hence, it’s not balance, or even equality they seek. It is clearly a campaign to gain advantage under the guise of seeking parity.

Rulers of Engagement

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

Commitment is absolutely necessary between a couple. But commitment does NOT happen when it’s about submission instead of freedom to choose to give everything to someone (and receiving it in return) and meeting arbitrary points of requirements instead of simply being who you are (including making said choice freely.) It’s like a magic equation really, and very powerful if you can be free of all requirements and choose to create something in this world.

Answer:
You are definitely confusing the act of committing to the conditions of an agreement. They are distinct.

In the former, outside of cultures that support arranged marriages, few relationships are entered without the freedom of consent of both parties (and, no, we cannot include criminal cases as they are not in the scope of this discussion). In the latter, the conditions are general known to both parties. Should they not be and there are avenues one can take to remove oneself from the agreement.

In regards to a relationship where one party has more of a leadership role than the other (and the varying degrees of such), committal to such an arrangement is entirely possible. We don’t even have to go as deep as an intimate relationship to find a plethora of working examples. Practically every employment contract is one where one party has more of a leadership role than the other. With few exceptions, both parties enter the agreement consciously, are aware of the trade, and can sever the relationship on their own volition.

As far as giving “everything to someone”, that is the price of most committed personal relationships. Are we forgetting that the man will “give all of himself” to the woman too?

Free of all requirements? That is really a ridiculous notion. Do we have no thresholds in choosing anything in life (let alone a significant other)? If you are talking about the freedom to “be who you are”, you are confusing “freedom to choose” with “freedom to choose without consequence”.

You have ability to choose the lifestyle of your liking. However, no one has the privilege to choose a path while demanding that no one judge him or her for that choice. You are FREE to of all these “requirements”, but you are not free of how others will view your choices.

As far as “arbitrary”, it has already been noted that these filters are not based on random and irrelevant factors. They are clearly based on how a person respects others (be those others a significant individual, an associate, or fifth business) in their means to achieve life goals. That is hardly “arbitrary”.

Give and Goal

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

I’m not using something irrelevant as a gauge of equality here. Giving what you have to offer as equals in a situation where complimentary equality reigns sounds great, but it’s definitely not where this article is coming from. I hate to repeat myself, but it is absolutely inequal to have so many requirements for a woman and think of yourself as a gift to her while she ‘follows you’ as this article implies. It’s not just ‘feminist’ to think so. It’s humanist to believe that this idea in itself is wrong. It’s still about submission and control.

Answer:
As before, the filters are far from “irrelevant” no matter how many times one repeats it.

This article speaks to some of the attributes men need to be aware of when choosing a life partner. It doesn’t address the points that women need to look for just as it doesn’t address the requirements for a functional submersible nuclear weapons system. Neither of these are the scope of the article.

If the article said, or even implied that a man doesn’t have to pass any requirements himself to be at the stage of making these decisions, then you may have a point. It doesn’t, so you don’t.

At any rate, it is clear that every man has to be bringing something to the table in order to be faced with these decisions. The default isn’t “You are biologically male so of all these hot women fawning over you, choose the one that is most willing to be a slave”.

The only thing about “control” is the agenda that some have to retain all their advantages as a female while demanding “equality” to remove any advantage that men have for being men.

Hopeless Semantics: Here we go again…

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

You may call me an armchair activist, but fighting the fight does not have to be a physical act of marching down the street with a sign or talking to a legislator in person. It can and absolutely does take place hugely online. Writing blogs, educating yourself, talking about abuse and what it’s like to be in a controlling relationship, talking about experiences, asking questions, sparking debate, signing petitions, and sending emails to lawmakers are all things you can do online. It’s a wonderful forum where people can find many a comrade, effectively plan, organize, raise money, raise awareness, and reach out to others in need.

Answer:
LOL. It is likely not lost to most of the audience that you are choosing to avoid the issue that was pointed out.

We mentioned armchair “equality” activist as one who may not see the difference between:

1. Complimentary and relative equality
2. Homogeneous Parity

The point is not about the merits of crusading or the arenas in which one takes up such a cause. It was that you likely cannot or will not see the difference between the two concepts.

That you choose to avoid it by deflecting into a monologue about various avenues of activism, it is clear that you know there is a difference. Furthermore, you likely know that this difference renders your efforts moot based on a faulty premise.

Feel free to elaborate how, seeking point-for-point equality is an effective way to create parity between the genders, much less a practicable way to create harmony. While you are at it, explain how allowing people to act on “nourishing one’s soul” without regard for consequence and how it affects others is creating a better world.