Quote from: Isaac on October 25, 2015, 05:52:43 AM

The Princess is the seventh.

I don't understand. Spoil me on whatever the hell you're talking about.

Rokka no Yuusha aired last season, it's basically a detective story in a fantasy setting, shit was pretty good.

And in the West girls face immense social pressure to wear make-up. Honor killings are family specific, not inherent to Muslims.

I would in no way consider makeup to be an integral part of Western culture or religion, it's disgusting seeing girls being taught and encouraged to lie to themselves and everyone they know.

Close friends that you can rely on are a godsend, you can't live without them so once you find them don't you dare turn your back on them OP.

I'll start off myself with a simple truth at the core of who I am, that men and women are fundamentally, biologically, different from one another. We are both complimentary to one another and both mean and women need eachother, we cannot exist independently of one another so the idea that one sex is simply better than the other does not make sense. How can a circle be better than the number 7? that doesn't make any sense.

Of course there ARE areas of expertise at which men and women naturally have different levels of competency at; I was at a military experience day a while back and it was amazing how every girl was able to quickly and easily interact with every other girl as though they had always been friends, while it took us men considerably longer to get to the acquaintance level of interaction.

Likewise, I fucking love maths, I've gone over it's several thousand year history and found amongst hundreds of noteworthy men, only two women - Meanwhile in my personal life, the best mathematician I've ever met was the female embodiment of Clint Eastwood,  but she is the only exception amongst all the men.

Again, men and women are different kinds of people so of course they will have different skills set - it's quite obvious that man's technical skillset is more useful for advancing technology and society, but it is all completely useless without women to hold it together.
So with this all in mind:

has an inherently negative opinion of femininity as a trait on average, and things associated with said trait are continued to be negatives at face value.

This is simply wrong- Western society simply acknowledges men and women as different; it certainly places obvious value on man's ability to keep us alive with technology and hard work, but it still has the subtle appreciation for good and honest women who keep society alive and families together. Any instance of society where this is not the case is broken.

You can argue all you want about "pussy pass" bullshit and other ways that people like to argue that women have more privilege in society than men, but the fact is that for a VAST amount of history, women have been INCREDIBLY disadvantaged in comparison to men. Disproportionate advantages and prejudices still exist in today's society as well, of course, but the massive ravine has closed over the years into a pretty damn small gap, so that's not the sort of thing I'll be focusing on today - gender stereotypes and societal discrimination against women may be related to the topic I'm discussing, but it's a whole different can of fuckin' worms, it is.

Whichever one caused the other, women were usually held to generally be worse than men in pretty much all facets of life (save for childcare and cleaning, I guess) until very recently, and there also exists a very negative view on femininity. This negative view may not be as prevalent, since most people don't usually think of women as the "lesser sex" in the modern day, but the sentiment is still very much there despite it being mostly subconscious.

I suppose my response to this section is already typed out above.

To start off with the type that most on this board will relate to, let's look first at cis, straight people. Clothing, to be more exact. Whatever the crazies on the far corners of Tumblr might like saying, clothing is gendered - it may have been defined as such by society, sure, but you can't deny that a full tuxedo suit is much more masculine while a billowy ball gown is much more feminine due to how we define those things as a society. Why, then are women dressing in men's clothes so much more well-respected? A woman dressing in her boyfriend's boxers, or wearing his loose t-shirt, or wearing pants, or wearing a suit - none of these things are looked at negatively. Hell, a few are looked at as playful or sexy. But the response to a fully straight man wearing a dress, panties, bra, blouse, or any other of a number of feminine articles of clothing? Usually it's either defined as a very odd and private fetish or as homosexual urges.

Clothing is of course an extension of the differences between men and women, nothing complicated there. you admit yourself that the first two examples are just fetishes, not really much point in bringing them up. I myself would argue that women in pants is also a bit of a fetish provided the pants are tight enough and the girl has a good figure. As for women wearing suits, I can't help but feel that they're trying to hard to be a man, that doesn't make me respect them, but at the same time if we're talking suits we must be talking about important business, so anyone qualified to wear a suit is automatically worthy of respect regardless of sex - and that's the key point here, there is no situation in which a man or woman gains respect by walking around in their underwear, an professional business is by and large a male invention so of course the de facto style is male.

Moving a bit further, let's move on to homosexuality. Up until recently, homosexuality was not widely accepted, and still remains hated in many smaller communities. However it is often joked about that the "LGBT" acronym is ordered from least to most accepted, and I'll be using those first two letters for this example. Lesbians were typically (and still are, really) heavily fetishized and talked up, and many people who would speak out against homosexual behavior in men would still find two girls going at it to be lovely. Now, all assertions of which one a straight man might be attracted to aside - as true as those statements may be - we're talking about society's attitudes towards an action, not which one you wanna bust a nut to on a lonely friday afternoon. Gay men are often stereotyped as flamboyant, sassy, stuck-up, obsessed with fashion, or a number of other traits that all boil down to that same notion of feminine traits - likely due to the fact that if anybody wants to fuck another dude, they've got to be like a girl, right?

I would argue that the greater of acceptance of lesbians over gays is because AIDS and HIV are very real, very disgusting things - and the general idea of ejaculating into a shit filled hole is not appealing to most people. I would also argue that gay pride parades only solidify those stereotypes, if that's the identity they want people to recognize them then they have to live with people recognizing it as weird. Also I wouldn't class those stereotypes as acting like a girl, no respectable girl acts like that.

I'll just speak my mind here. I don't hate you LGBT people and have no intention of harassing you but your entire existence is something that bugs me on a fundamental level, I don't like this hypocritical push to make you all considered normal while your entire identity as a group is based on being NOT normal. There's a MtF pre hormones at my school and they are a brilliant chemist, easily the best I know; I don't have a problem with them because they don't go out of their way to make everything about their condition, though I don't spend any considerable amount of time talking to them.

I'm getting really rambly now but I think I'd enjoy getting to talk about this more, no hatred or malice just curiosity about a different way of life.

That doesn't sound healthy at all you know, take a giant nap after all that.

Also I'm busy not studying.

It's easier to convey my love of mathematics than it is otherwise, but I'm not at the point where I can concisely teach people everything needed to appreciate it, and I'm well aware of how little I know about maths.

I came across pic related this morning, I think it's goddamn amazing that in trying to find the kinetic energy of any object at any arbitrary velocity, you just need to compute a simple integral - integrate force with respect to distance - but to do so you instead rearrange the it into integrating inertia with respect to velocity; and the reason why you can do that has something to do with how algebra itself is capable of generating answers to questions by virtue of setting one thing equal to another, and also how you can shuffle around infinitesimal quantities like fractions, but at the same time treat them like an operation applied to a function. And all of that is just rudimentary calculus.

Even just integrals in general are fantastic, you add up an infinite amount of infinitely small things, and at the end you get some meaningful result. So for instance you can start with an infinitely small point (zero dimensions), and if you add up an infinity of them across a line, you get a line (1 dimensions). Then if you add up an infinity of those lines in a direction perpendicular to the line, you get an infinitely flat plane (2 dimensions)- then if you sum up an infinity of planes in a direction perpendicular to the plane itself, you get a cube (3 dimensions)- AND THEN, you can say that the cube is infinitesimally small in the fourth dimension, and begin summing up an infinity of them to get some fourth dimensional hyper cube...and then you can keep going some more.

If only people could be aware of these kinds of things so they could enjoy it as much as I do.

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on October 28, 2015, 06:25:13 PM

If the girl was white I'm sure he would have kept his job.

It wouldn't have made it to the news either.

I'd wager that I wouldn't have heard about it from the other side of the world if he wasn't white either.

Pics, or didn't happen.

He's old so he has a really sad look in his eyes.

The first part of the article is just the author restating the original definition of a meme, a self replicating idea that can mutate and evolve like a living organism, but requires a mind or physical invention to be it's host. It's fascinating on it's own and for me at least very helpful in understanding ideas, but it's not a new idea, which is rather ironic given the discussion on parallel invention.

The second part is definitely worth reading though.

I find it terribly sad that the author of that article thinks it's a bad thing that they have to define their opinions and what the hell they're talking about, if they didn't then we have to rely on assumptions and the whole discussion ceases to make sense.

But honestly, I'm privileged to be alive; My grandparents grew up completely impoverished in Ireland, almost perpetually starving and freezing along with everyone they knew in Belfast; It was really fortunate that the British empire had colonized New Zealand and given them a better life.

I'm proud and grateful of my privileges because that's what my ancestors passed down to me.

I want to have several, and I want to show them that all the great things that I've discovered about life, I want to create my own family of people that love being alive and trying their hardest at improving themselves and the world.

130 or so people are alive today just because of my Grandad and Grandma, I can't let him beat me.

Doesn't it get penetrated in reverse every time you poop though?

I swear my memory of you from b.net was a completely different person; why not just change yourself again?

They must put some serious left wing weighting on the environment despite it being a bipartisan issue, I don't consider myself left wing at all.

My cat snores, I don't know how something so cute can be so annoying