forums

Off-Topic Mass killings

JeddTheFisch said:
In my field, there are many women who start out fresh out of grad school, but fewer and fewer once you get to my age (36). They do not continue to put in the same level of intensity and the long hours that men do. The ones who do so are very exceptional, and not the rule.

I think you are generalizing what @NC_Canes_11 is saying, and being deliberately argumentative. No, I don't think women should blanket "return to their role 90 years ago," as you characterize it. I also don't think they should try to emulate men in education and career choices, and then cry about it when they are unhappy.
Click to expand...
He isn’t generalizing anything. He took the factual stance I stated and twisted it into a narrative about women should be homemakers and have no rights.
 
Advertisement
NC_Canes_11 said:
He isn’t generalizing anything. He took the factual stance I stated and twisted it into a narrative about women should be homemakers and have no rights.
Click to expand...
I poorly expressed that with "generalizing." More akin to moving the goalposts into normative judgments.
 
R.A. Fisher was a pioneer is statistics and genetics and his work was used to justify eugenics.

The question is whether the studying of differences is problematics or is it the intent and use of those findings.
 
Advertisement
ben said:
Men upon reading this:
Canadian Agree GIF by CBC


Women upon reading this:
rose wtf GIF by The Bachelor Australia
Click to expand...
So, I gather no Nikki Haley takers here. She'd be, by all accounts and biological studies cited, paralyzed in having to make decisions in the Oval Office.
 
JD08 said:
R.A. Fisher was a pioneer is statistics and genetics and his work was used to justify eugenics.

The question is whether the studying of differences is problematics or is it the intent and use of those findings.
Click to expand...
Nobody in here is saying chain women to the bed until they’re pregnant and then chain them to the stove after. I just made a factual statement that our society tries to deny.

A big topic in this thread is societal decay and unhappy people. Would it not make sense to incentivize women doing what makes them happy, having a family? Everything starts at home. So wouldn’t a strong family, raised by that family, not strangers, help being down the number of lunatics?

All I hear is “do something!” But when I provide a blueprint, backed by facts, I get nothing but pushback.
 
Advertisement
Someone tried to straight up kill police offers and medical workers in an emergency in Germany.

He build a bomb, called police and the first responders and when they arrived, he detonated the bomb.

No one got killed, but thats just un****ingbelievable...
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
Nobody in here is saying chain women to the bed until they’re pregnant and then chain them to the stove after. I just made a factual statement that our society tries to deny.

A big topic in this thread is societal decay and unhappy people. Would it not make sense to incentivize women doing what makes them happy, having a family? Everything starts at home. So wouldn’t a strong family, raised by that family, not strangers, help being down the number of lunatics?

All I hear is “do something!” But when I provide a blueprint, backed by facts, I get nothing but pushback.
Click to expand...
For me, you keep digging a deeper hole. Pretty condescending to tell any human being what "makes them happy," and cap that statement off by suggesting we'd all be better off if we "incentivized" women to stay home. (What form, btw, would your proposed "incentive" take?)

Yeah, I know, it's not you, it's the science (biology) telling us all this, which is sorta rich and ironic given the respect that "science" usually gets from many in this forum.
 
hotshot said:
For me, you keep digging a deeper hole. Pretty condescending to tell any human being what "makes them happy," and cap that statement off by suggesting we'd all be better off if we "incentivized" women to stay home. (What form, btw, would your proposed "incentive" take?)

Yeah, I know, it's not you, it's the science (biology) telling us all this, which is sorta rich and ironic given the respect that "science" usually gets from many in this forum.
Click to expand...
It’s not made up science, it’s actually real. Feel free to disprove it.

Massive tax breaks for families that have a stay at home mom. Dismantle the welfare state to pay for it.

I don’t care about your opinion. My statement is based off of thousands of years of proof, yours is based off of the last decade of a rotting culture.

You like twisting my words to fit your narrative and when I ask about it, you can’t even answer basic questions.
 
Advertisement
Ashley Schaeffer said:
Someone tried to straight up kill police offers and medical workers in an emergency in Germany.

He build a bomb, called police and the first responders and when they arrived, he detonated the bomb.

No one got killed, but thats just un****ingbelievable...
Click to expand...
This is the point that gets lost in the gun debate. That guy is dangerous and was always intent on killing someone. He wasn't going to suddenly become a well adjusted person because it was more difficult to achieve his goal.
 
Advertisement
stormsurge said:
idiot leftists soon to claim that you can hate white people and still be a white supremacist
Click to expand...

nypost.com

‘View’ host says being black or Hispanic ‘does not make you immune’ from being a white supremacist

While discussing the recent Dallas mall shooting, Ana Navarro told her “View” co-hosts that being Hispanic or Black doesn’t make a person “immune” from supporting White supr…
nypost.com nypost.com
www.thenation.com

White Supremacists Don’t Have to Be White

That the alleged Allen, Tex., shooter is a white supremacist named “Garcia” confused a lot of right-wingers. It shouldn’t have.
www.thenation.com www.thenation.com
1683898792726.gif
 
Advertisement
Back
Top