Dear Rich

>mfw the tl;dr of this is "always remember memes"
>mfw that in itself is a meme
>mfw

>mfw literally every element of your response was a meme

 

>mfw literally every element of your response was a meme

approve my ui plz it was handmade by felix123

 

This is certainly not to say women are worthless, just that their "economic contribution" is frankly a poor use of human potential.

True, but their contribution to peoples existence is a far more better use of human potential.

Either way men and women are superior in their own ways. I don't think anyone can really claim one is superior then the other. They're just superior then the other in different ways. You don't see men hold a child in their womb for give or take nine months, go through childbirth for give or take 30-50 hours, raise, feed, teach their child to walk, talk, live for majority of their child-lives, up into teens and even sometimes into adult hood.

Women naturally are better at maternal instincts, if we had to we would fight to save a child's life, even if it wasn't our child. Does that mean we're not strong because we're not using all our effort to protect, fight etc constantly? Or does it make us more intelligent to not always use it. Men tend to be naturally better at hard-work labour etc, building, construction etc so naturally they go for those type of jobs, which also tends to decrease their life-span.

The male human race are further advanced in life then women have, because history dictates women as home-wives, naturally it lingers on and men are just further advanced then the female counterparts in terms of work. The societies we live in have always allowed men to be further in a lot of fields. Yeah physically majority of men tend to be stronger. Women tend to live longer.

There is loads of ifs and buts and whys and whats, at the end of the day I don't believe either is superior then the other, but in different circumstances they are superior/inferior. There are loads of scientific evidence to prove one or the other, it just is dependent on what you believe is right. Whether it be that women have double XX chromosomes so our bodies are better at fighting off illnesses, or whether men tend to focus more on actually getting somewhere in life in terms of work.

On top of that there is 66M more men in the world so it differentiates the statistics a little. World population 2016 | World population clock ..contrast that vs different countries. India, they're known for wanting to kill girl babies. China have laws to prevent babies being born (more men in china/india)Western countries have had mainly men go to war/fight in wars (usa/uk/russia have more women). Heritages, cultures, religions, traditions, politics/laws, wars. It's dependent on where anyone lives in the world, the type of countries they live in etc, economic abilities, social constructs, political agendas, west/east etc to really define whether men/women are superior.

 

True, but their contribution to peoples existence is a far more better use of human potential.

Either way men and women are superior in their own ways. I don't think anyone can really claim one is superior then the other. They're just superior then the other in different ways. You don't see men hold a child in their womb for give or take nine months, go through childbirth for give or take 30-50 hours, raise, feed, teach their child to walk, talk, live for majority of their child-lives, up into teens and even sometimes into adult hood.

Women naturally are better at maternal instincts, if we had to we would fight to save a child's life, even if it wasn't our child. Does that mean we're not strong because we're not using all our effort to protect, fight etc constantly? Or does it make us more intelligent to not always use it. Men tend to be naturally better at hard-work labour etc, building, construction etc so naturally they go for those type of jobs, which also tends to decrease their life-span.

The male human race are further advanced in life then women have, because history dictates women as home-wives, naturally it lingers on and men are just further advanced then the female counterparts in terms of work. The societies we live in have always allowed men to be further in a lot of fields. Yeah physically majority of men tend to be stronger. Women tend to live longer.

There is loads of ifs and buts and whys and whats, at the end of the day I don't believe either is superior then the other, but in different circumstances they are superior/inferior. There are loads of scientific evidence to prove one or the other, it just is dependent on what you believe is right. Whether it be that women have double XX chromosomes so our bodies are better at fighting off illnesses, or whether men tend to focus more on actually getting somewhere in life in terms of work.

On top of that there is 66M more men in the world so it differentiates the statistics a little. World population 2016 | World population clock ..contrast that vs different countries. India, they're known for wanting to kill girl babies. China have laws to prevent babies being born (more men in china/india)Western countries have had mainly men go to war/fight in wars (usa/uk/russia have more women). Heritages, cultures, religions, traditions, politics/laws, wars. It's dependent on where anyone lives in the world, the type of countries they live in etc, economic abilities, social constructs, political agendas, west/east etc to really define whether men/women are superior.

 

[Syed]

lol mfw people actually believe women aren't superior to men

im a fucking cuck my wife beats the shit out of me daily i worship her feet

 

women aren't superior

 

There IS no correlation, that's what I'm saying. The lack of correlation IMPLIES there is no causation. I.e. if women contributed substantially to the economy then GDP growth would go up when they joined the economy. It is a fantastical notion that some other economic force came in to exactly counter balance the number of women joining the work force each year such that GDP growth never increased as a result. Occam's razor my friend.

Your argument primarily relies on both anecdotal and appeal to ignorance fallacies. Just because there is no proof for one side does not mean that lack of evidence is proof for the other.

I will give you one example:

Midwifery is a cultural practice involving women helping other women through labour and giving birth. A set of standard practices had been built up around it over thousands of years, which include cleaning very carefully the hands of the midwives before delivering the child.

When western medicine began to make strides in the 1800s physicians began to take over the practice of delivering babies. Except they did not wash their hands. It was not customary to, indeed doctors believed their hands were very clean and they did not know of the germ theory of disease. Well this behaviour lead to an epidemic of "perpetual fever" in new mothers ( Postpartum infections - Wikipedia ) which in turn lead to an epidemic of all sorts of diseases. Essentially the orphans of these women (as high as 1 in 3 children at the time) who were never or were poorly breastfed ended up in poor houses. The lack of breast feeding and parents to earn and look after them in turn lead to poor immune systems, which in turn served as a vector for the spread of diseases.

This lead to the major spikes in all the famous diseases we now consider to have been eliminated by vaccines. When in fact their rise and fall had a lot more to do with physicians at the time not washing their hands.

If doctors had respected tradition none of that needed to happen. Amazingly we still suffer the echos of it today wherein people legitimately believe these diseases were eliminated by vaccines, when they in fact were not.

This would be a false cause. I'd love to hear some of your arguments as I do admit you're a smart man, but I'd expect you to know that you cannot fill your evidence with logical fallacies and think you're actually correct with your evidence.

 

[ShipTheFlip]

you're a smart man

You're half right

 

Your argument primarily relies on both anecdotal and appeal to ignorance fallacies. Just because there is no proof for one side does not mean that lack of evidence is proof for the other.

Kek how is this an appeal to ignorance. An example of an appeal to ignorance is "co2 causes global warming because what else could it be?" (which is literally the argument for AGW btw)

In this case we have a very clear proposition: women are economically valuable. Therefore if they join the workforce GDP growth will increase. Then they joined the work force. GDP growth did not increase.

This is called proof by contradiction.

This would be a false cause. I'd love to hear some of your arguments as I do admit you're a smart man, but I'd expect you to know that you cannot fill your evidence with logical fallacies and think you're actually correct with your evidence.

Saying "false cause" does not make it so. It is well established in the literature that both: physicians not washing their hands was the main cause of childbed deaths in the 1700-1900 period and that malnutrition and a lack of breastfeeding causes poor immunity and disease.

I present a simple explaination which fits the facts and provides an obvious mechanism and causal chain for the events in question.

By contrast the vaccine theory runs something like: "diseases are caused by a lack of vaccines" "when vaccines were invented people stopped getting diseases" both statements are provably false.

 

[Felix]

lol mfw people actually believe women aren't superior to men

im a fucking cuck my wife beats the shit out of me daily i worship her feet

you're actually a piece of shit lol i thought we were cool

 

True, but their contribution to peoples existence is a far more better use of human potential.

Either way men and women are superior in their own ways. I don't think anyone can really claim one is superior then the other. They're just superior then the other in different ways. You don't see men hold a child in their womb for give or take nine months, go through childbirth for give or take 30-50 hours, raise, feed, teach their child to walk, talk, live for majority of their child-lives, up into teens and even sometimes into adult hood.

And we don't see women on a cherry picker connecting 5 million volt fuses on a high tension distribution line or jumping into a containment pool to open a release valve. Men account for 97% of work place fatalities. Men have much harder and objectively shorter lives on average. Child birth on the other hand is a completely natural process which is generally only difficult for women if they leave it too late in their lives.

Women naturally are better at maternal instincts, if we had to we would fight to save a child's life, even if it wasn't our child. Does that mean we're not strong because we're not using all our effort to protect, fight etc constantly? Or does it make us more intelligent to not always use it. Men tend to be naturally better at hard-work labour etc, building, construction etc so naturally they go for those type of jobs, which also tends to decrease their life-span.

I agree except women's compassion is not based in voluntary action / intelligence. It's biologically driven. The same reason women will fawn over tiny dogs.

The male human race are further advanced in life then women have, because history dictates women as home-wives, naturally it lingers on and men are just further advanced then the female counterparts in terms of work. The societies we live in have always allowed men to be further in a lot of fields. Yeah physically majority of men tend to be stronger. Women tend to live longer.

Objectively false. For 50 years in the west the culture has demonised being a house wife. Women have been pushed and pushed and pushed into every branch of education and the economy and still they perform poorly.

There is loads of ifs and buts and whys and whats, at the end of the day I don't believe either is superior then the other, but in different circumstances they are superior/inferior. There are loads of scientific evidence to prove one or the other, it just is dependent on what you believe is right. Whether it be that women have double XX chromosomes so our bodies are better at fighting off illnesses, or whether men tend to focus more on actually getting somewhere in life in terms of work.

Questionable application of genetics. If anything having two similar copies of a single sex chromosome is troubling for your body. Women have random X inactivation in their cells from the time they are a foetus. Essentially each cell randomly switches off one of the X's and then proceeds to divide and multiply. As a result if you could see female tissues according to their genetic makeup they would be stripes of different genes, including the brain. Almost like two organisms spliced together. This seems like a last ditch effort by evolution to make a particular path (double X) work. But it does, so there you go.

On top of that there is 66M more men in the world so it differentiates the statistics a little. World population 2016 | World population clock ..contrast that vs different countries. India, they're known for wanting to kill girl babies. China have laws to prevent babies being born (more men in china/india)Western countries have had mainly men go to war/fight in wars (usa/uk/russia have more women). Heritages, cultures, religions, traditions, politics/laws, wars. It's dependent on where anyone lives in the world, the type of countries they live in etc, economic abilities, social constructs, political agendas, west/east etc to really define whether men/women are superior.

Statistically meaningless 66m/7b. What's your margin of error? +/- 100m?

We do know men die a lot more than women in every field and walk of life and country. It's possible although not likely that one child policy in china and elsewhere may have countered this statistically.

 

[ShipTheFlip]

Oh shit I thought he quoted sonias post and said you're a smart man, disregard my previous post I thought I saw an opportunity to call @Sonia a man which I could not pass up

 

[Alex_J_Leon]

Women have boobies and a warm penis-holder. We need to give them a chance.

 

warm penis-holder

we have foreskin lol

 

[Alex_J_Leon]

we have foreskin lol

The lucky ones do. Where is the foreskin thread, anyways?

 

[ShipTheFlip]

Women have boobies and a warm penis-holder. We need to give them a chance.

Sonia already tried the "women have vaginas" argument it didn't work out.

She also tried the "men make up 50.9% of earth's population so the statistics are invalid" argument

 

[Alex_J_Leon]

Sonia already tried the "women have vaginas" argument it didn't work out.

She also tried the "men make up 50.9% of earth's population so the statistics are invalid" argument

Hey, no arguments here... I'm just talking about things I like.

 

[ShipTheFlip]

Hey, no arguments here... I'm just talking about things I like.

You do however raise a good point about the boobs

 

[Lean]

She is more superior than @Sythe because her asshole has more hair on it than his. Living in the wild for too long will do that to a woman

 

Kek how is this an appeal to ignorance. An example of an appeal to ignorance is "co2 causes global warming because what else could it be?" (which is literally the argument for AGW btw)

In this case we have a very clear proposition: women are economically valuable. Therefore if they join the workforce GDP growth will increase. Then they joined the work force. GDP growth did not increase.

This is called proof by contradiction.

A lack of proof for one side does not function as proof for the other. Evidence for an argument and evidence against an argument are entirely different. You cannot say "these numbers don't prove your point therefore they prove mine," as that is a fallacious train of thought.

Saying "false cause" does not make it so. It is well established in the literature that both: physicians not washing their hands was the main cause of childbed deaths in the 1700-1900 period and that malnutrition and a lack of breastfeeding causes poor immunity and disease.

I present a simple explaination which fits the facts and provides an obvious mechanism and causal chain for the events in question.

By contrast the vaccine theory runs something like: "diseases are caused by a lack of vaccines" "when vaccines were invented people stopped getting diseases" both statements are provably false.

Similarly, saying "it fits the facts" does not make it so. You provide an explanation, not a fact. I ask you once again, provide arguments not filled with fallacies.