Total Members Voted: 20
Quote from: SecondClass on March 02, 2017, 08:34:40 PMThe fact that you have to exclude anything BUT physical strength (weapons, tactics, subterfuge, etc) from being a factor in this war shows how one-sided an actual gender war would be.I'm only going on what the OP presented. If we're going into weapons and tactics and all that stuff, that's about as muddled as you can get. Women are smart, they've invented a lot of smart shit, and they know how to shoot guns and form tactics. Just because they're not present on the battlefield or in leadership roles due to the cultural bit I was trying to avoid, doesn't mean they're not mentally capable of such things. Women have led some of the most powerful nations in history at a time.But that's an entirely different can of worms and will get as murky and subjective as you could possibly think.
The fact that you have to exclude anything BUT physical strength (weapons, tactics, subterfuge, etc) from being a factor in this war shows how one-sided an actual gender war would be.
Quote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:33:50 PMAlso sorry, but physical strength is not a weakness if you consider how our species came to be and not from a cultural stance. I wouldn't want an entire race being weak ass bitches who can't stand up to predators. Hell in that regard, even women are capable.Power is meaningless. Look at my jesus on the cross example from the other thread.A society that's completely pure and moral, and is so innocent that it has no army isn't "lesser" than the society that pillages and destroys it. It's still better than the warmongering society, even after its destruction.
Also sorry, but physical strength is not a weakness if you consider how our species came to be and not from a cultural stance. I wouldn't want an entire race being weak ass bitches who can't stand up to predators. Hell in that regard, even women are capable.
Quote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:37:04 PMQuote from: SecondClass on March 02, 2017, 08:34:40 PMThe fact that you have to exclude anything BUT physical strength (weapons, tactics, subterfuge, etc) from being a factor in this war shows how one-sided an actual gender war would be.I'm only going on what the OP presented. If we're going into weapons and tactics and all that stuff, that's about as muddled as you can get. Women are smart, they've invented a lot of smart shit, and they know how to shoot guns and form tactics. Just because they're not present on the battlefield or in leadership roles due to the cultural bit I was trying to avoid, doesn't mean they're not mentally capable of such things. Women have led some of the most powerful nations in history at a time.But that's an entirely different can of worms and will get as murky and subjective as you could possibly think.I was talking to OP with the "you" comment
Quote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:33:50 PMAlso sorry, but physical strength is not a weakness if you consider how our species came to be and not from a cultural stance. I wouldn't want an entire race being weak ass bitches who can't stand up to predators. Hell in that regard, even women are capable."Negative thing" does not mean weakness.You could just as easily argue that the necessity for physical strength in the first place is also a negative thing, and that the physical strength that men typically possess is symbolic of the shit we probably wouldn't need if the world were a fairer, better place. It's more nuanced than you think.
I'm staying basic
Quote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:40:22 PMI'm staying basicyou sure are
Should we augment women to make the same as men?
Quote from: Verbatim on March 02, 2017, 08:37:15 PMQuote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:33:50 PMAlso sorry, but physical strength is not a weakness if you consider how our species came to be and not from a cultural stance. I wouldn't want an entire race being weak ass bitches who can't stand up to predators. Hell in that regard, even women are capable."Negative thing" does not mean weakness.You could just as easily argue that the necessity for physical strength in the first place is also a negative thing, and that the physical strength that men typically possess is symbolic of the shit we probably wouldn't need if the world were a fairer, better place. It's more nuanced than you think.That's nice. Well get back to me when animals killing each other and survival of the fittest stops existing. You won't find it on this planet.Read my other post if you want my opinion on that. I'm staying basic and to the definition for a reason. Otherwise we could be here all night. Having those kinds of conversations with you, while interesting, is most certainly an effort.
Quote from: Batch on March 02, 2017, 08:30:21 PMQuote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:28:49 PMConsidering one side is quite literally stronger than the other on a physical level, and have larger skeleton size and bone mass? Men easily.What Class try and refute thisHe won't. He realizes that men are stronger; he just considers physical strength to be a negative thing.And he has a point. The fact that women generally can't defend themselves against men is probably a bad thing.
Quote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:28:49 PMConsidering one side is quite literally stronger than the other on a physical level, and have larger skeleton size and bone mass? Men easily.What Class try and refute this
Considering one side is quite literally stronger than the other on a physical level, and have larger skeleton size and bone mass? Men easily.
Quote from: Verbatim on March 02, 2017, 08:31:54 PMQuote from: Batch on March 02, 2017, 08:30:21 PMQuote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:28:49 PMConsidering one side is quite literally stronger than the other on a physical level, and have larger skeleton size and bone mass? Men easily.What Class try and refute thisHe won't. He realizes that men are stronger; he just considers physical strength to be a negative thing.And he has a point. The fact that women generally can't defend themselves against men is probably a bad thing.That used to be the case, then Samuel Colt came along and leveled the playing field for all.
Quote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:43:36 PMQuote from: challengerX on March 02, 2017, 08:43:01 PMShould we augment women to make the same as men?And have women lose what makes them unique? No. Everyone being the same is boring.What makes them unique?
Quote from: challengerX on March 02, 2017, 08:43:01 PMShould we augment women to make the same as men?And have women lose what makes them unique? No. Everyone being the same is boring.
Quote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:40:22 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 02, 2017, 08:37:15 PMQuote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:33:50 PMAlso sorry, but physical strength is not a weakness if you consider how our species came to be and not from a cultural stance. I wouldn't want an entire race being weak ass bitches who can't stand up to predators. Hell in that regard, even women are capable."Negative thing" does not mean weakness.You could just as easily argue that the necessity for physical strength in the first place is also a negative thing, and that the physical strength that men typically possess is symbolic of the shit we probably wouldn't need if the world were a fairer, better place. It's more nuanced than you think.That's nice. Well get back to me when animals killing each other and survival of the fittest stops existing. You won't find it on this planet.Read my other post if you want my opinion on that. I'm staying basic and to the definition for a reason. Otherwise we could be here all night. Having those kinds of conversations with you, while interesting, is most certainly an effort.Animals killing each other and survival of the fittest are both bad things.It's only that we as sapient organisms (animals don't know right and wrong) can recognize that.Going back to the man vs woman thing, sure - the average man could beat the shit out of the average woman. But that doesn't make him "better" and that's not how wars are fought in the first place. In short, this is a dumb thread.
Animals killing each other and survival of the fittest are both bad things.It's only that we as sapient organisms (animals don't know right and wrong) can recognize that.Going back to the man vs woman thing, sure - the average man could beat the shit out of the average woman. But that doesn't make him "better" and that's not how wars are fought in the first place. In short, this is a dumb thread.
That used to be the case, then Samuel Colt came along and leveled the playing field for all.
Quote from: SecondClass on March 02, 2017, 08:43:53 PMQuote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:40:22 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 02, 2017, 08:37:15 PMQuote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:33:50 PMAlso sorry, but physical strength is not a weakness if you consider how our species came to be and not from a cultural stance. I wouldn't want an entire race being weak ass bitches who can't stand up to predators. Hell in that regard, even women are capable."Negative thing" does not mean weakness.You could just as easily argue that the necessity for physical strength in the first place is also a negative thing, and that the physical strength that men typically possess is symbolic of the shit we probably wouldn't need if the world were a fairer, better place. It's more nuanced than you think.That's nice. Well get back to me when animals killing each other and survival of the fittest stops existing. You won't find it on this planet.Read my other post if you want my opinion on that. I'm staying basic and to the definition for a reason. Otherwise we could be here all night. Having those kinds of conversations with you, while interesting, is most certainly an effort.Animals killing each other and survival of the fittest are both bad things.It's only that we as sapient organisms (animals don't know right and wrong) can recognize that.Going back to the man vs woman thing, sure - the average man could beat the shit out of the average woman. But that doesn't make him "better" and that's not how wars are fought in the first place. In short, this is a dumb thread.But this particular war was between genders with fistsDumb thread, but technically males would win.... making them better.
Quote from: Batch on March 02, 2017, 08:46:33 PMQuote from: SecondClass on March 02, 2017, 08:43:53 PMQuote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:40:22 PMQuote from: Verbatim on March 02, 2017, 08:37:15 PMQuote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:33:50 PMAlso sorry, but physical strength is not a weakness if you consider how our species came to be and not from a cultural stance. I wouldn't want an entire race being weak ass bitches who can't stand up to predators. Hell in that regard, even women are capable."Negative thing" does not mean weakness.You could just as easily argue that the necessity for physical strength in the first place is also a negative thing, and that the physical strength that men typically possess is symbolic of the shit we probably wouldn't need if the world were a fairer, better place. It's more nuanced than you think.That's nice. Well get back to me when animals killing each other and survival of the fittest stops existing. You won't find it on this planet.Read my other post if you want my opinion on that. I'm staying basic and to the definition for a reason. Otherwise we could be here all night. Having those kinds of conversations with you, while interesting, is most certainly an effort.Animals killing each other and survival of the fittest are both bad things.It's only that we as sapient organisms (animals don't know right and wrong) can recognize that.Going back to the man vs woman thing, sure - the average man could beat the shit out of the average woman. But that doesn't make him "better" and that's not how wars are fought in the first place. In short, this is a dumb thread.But this particular war was between genders with fistsDumb thread, but technically males would win.... making them better.Women would be smart enough to break rules that are designed to give them a disadvantage.Men would cling to some "honor" bound notion of following the rules until it was too late.
Like sure, men would probably lose, or just break the rules too.But theyre proving the point that women can't win against men with fists, which was the point....
Women would be smart enough to break rules that are designed to give them a disadvantage.Men would cling to some "honor" bound notion of following the rules until it was too late.
Quote from: Batch on March 02, 2017, 08:52:25 PMLike sure, men would probably lose, or just break the rules too.But theyre proving the point that women can't win against men with fists, which was the point....No one ever said the average woman is stronger than the average male.If that was the point you were trying to make here, you're super insecure about your sex.
Quote from: SecondClass on March 02, 2017, 08:49:41 PMWomen would be smart enough to break rules that are designed to give them a disadvantage.Men would cling to some "honor" bound notion of following the rules until it was too late.It's amazing how we can all just cast all men and women into some same kinda mindset.women will always cling to wanting to be subjected to menand men will always want to be on top
Generally, men are more obsessed with their ego, and women care more about reality.Note my word "generally"
Quote from: SecondClass on March 02, 2017, 08:57:28 PMGenerally, men are more obsessed with their ego, and women care more about reality.Note my word "generally"Generally, I think you're full of it.Give me evidence before making such bold claims about 3.4 billion people
Quote from: Luciana on March 02, 2017, 08:59:35 PMQuote from: SecondClass on March 02, 2017, 08:57:28 PMGenerally, men are more obsessed with their ego, and women care more about reality.Note my word "generally"Generally, I think you're full of it.Give me evidence before making such bold claims about 3.4 billion peopleYou only need to know the effects of testosterone and estrogen to work it out for yourself, though.
Poll
Who would win a gender war?