aswokei

Enough. I count seven members, including two Mods, who thought your comments on feminine docility were too general to be considered acceptable. The rest of the argument has been you trying to unsuccessfully defend those statements. You chose not to provide any studies to back up your claims. You have no supporters and you've now turned this into a scuffle over Mod abuse. You're acting like a little kid who keeps annoying a bigger kid and then cries "bully" when he gets swatted.

 

No one has any more time for this. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt when someone objected provocatively to your provocative statements. If you can't take the heat....

 

If there is no more interest in the thread subject then we don't need this thread open anymore.

If my arguments are bad, why has nobody rebutted them? Sure, many people may disagree. But nobody has been able to explain why. It's just emotive nonsense. And honestly, I'm not offended. I just want rectification. It's only right. I never attacked anyone on these forums ever. I only attack arguments. I wish the same were only true of Mokele.

And by the way, you never answered my question. Even if what I said was bullshit--which, by the way, I don't believe is true for a second--is that still excuse for moderators to abuse members?

But you didn't "kick the intellectual crap" out of me. In fact, as I remember it as you being the one who forfeited the argument. You not only lost the intellectual battle, but you also abused a member of the forum. You think you "made your point," but I clearly rebutted it on all counts. Maybe you could give me a small example of you "kicking the intellectual crap out of me"? I should surely get some amusement from this. I'm actually really interested in how you think you won that argument as it's clear you're the one who quit.

Furthermore, even if you personally think I was making bullshit claims, is that an excuse to abuse members?

So he was right to call me "maladjusted asshole" and a woman-hater and a wife-beater, etc.? That stuff is permitted here? Is that what you're telling me?

I suppose I'm not getting an answer. Abuse from moderators who should be models for all other posters is acceptable apparently.

The worst I can be accused of is perceived boorishness. However, I never attacked anyone. I don't have any enemies on these forums. I don't have any problems with anyone. However, I have to say that the way I have been treated here is plain wrong. I am sorry if I am perceived by you guys as being boorish, or rude, or whatever. I still don't think that is reason or justification for me being abused.

So he was right to call me "maladjusted asshole" and a woman-hater and a wife-beater, etc.? That stuff is permitted here? Is that what you're telling me?

 

I think you're both headstrong and unrelenting. I think you're both passionate in your views. I think you're belaboring the point and you're lucky Mokele hasn't shown up in Georgetown to knock over all your buildings. I think Mokele feels that stomping hard on a fire keeps it from spreading. And I think he has big feet.

I take it that you think there's nothing wrong with moderators who do not listen to the arguments of others and base their decisions on emotions. As long as it comes from well-meaning emotionality, it's perfectly acceptable for moderators to name-call, to flame and abuse members. You know. Kind of reminds me of those extreme Christians who bomb abortion clinics. They attack and murder doctors with families. And they're convinced that they are fighting on the right side. But are they right? Is Mokele right?

All I want is an apology. For Mokele to admit he is wrong for abusing me. And also for my infraction to be reversed. Thanks for listening.

In retrospect, I should have specified it, yes. But I mean, how hard is it to figure out that I didn't mean all women? Indeed, is there anything I could say that would be true about all women?

I could say "Women have clitorises." But I would be wrong... Because not all women have clitorises.

I could say "Women have two X chromosomes." But I would be wrong. There is a weird genetic abnormality in which some women (perfectly normal women, mind you) have an XY chromosomal configuration. It's rare, but I'd still have people like Mokele saying, "You shouldn't make blanket statements! Not all women have two X chromosomes!" And he'd technically be right... Not all women have two X chromosomes.

But you see what I'm saying? Explication is really not needed. But in retrospect, if I had known some people would be so rigid and literal in their interpretations, I should have specified. Whoops. But I mean, honestly, it's ridiculous. Thing is, he probably really thinks I hate women and think they're inferior and I also beat women. It's ridiculous.

Does anybody here besides me think Mokele is the teensiest bit out of line when he first gave me an infraction, then implied that I beat women, and then called me a woman-hater, as well as an "emotionally maladjusted asshole"? ... just because I implied that women are a bit more docile than men? Does anyone besides me think that's a bit much?

Wrong, it's like saying "Bill told a lie, therefore he is a liar". You didn't just present a trait that *correlates* with a category, you presented a trait that *defines* a category.

That's just plain bad logic, altogether. "Bill told a lie, therefore he's a liar"? I've lied before. But I don't think of myself as a liar. Certainly you've lied before. Do you consider yourself a liar?

Furthermore, who decided that docility defines women? I only said that women are more docile than men. Not all women are more docile than all men. It's just a tendency.

Really, you didn't say, and I quote: "women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men"? Funny, because it's right up there at the top of the page. You didn't even attempt to qualify the statement with "some women" or "women *tend to be*", no, you just flat-out stated that women are docile, especially when men are around.

Do you want to know why I didn't explicitly qualify it? It's because it's implied. Let me elucidate how absurd your qualms with this are. Say some person makes the declaration "Women are physically weaker than men." Assuming we're talking to a sane individual, he means "Women are generally weaker than men." But let's say he used the first instance. Do you think simply because he didn't explicitly qualify it, it means that he thinks the weakest man on this planet is stronger than the strongest woman on the planet? Do you think he means that a man in an ICU with an IV plugged in, who is dying of cancer is stronger than strongest female body building champion? Do you think he believes that when he says "Men are physically stronger than women."? He doesn't qualify it because it's assumed.

I don't think you're stupid and I think you're fully capable of figuring these things out on your own. So what the deuce?

As for whether it's a bad trait or not, that doesn't matter. Saying all blacks are good at basketball is still racist, even though it's a positive trait. What makes it racist is lumping an entire group of people under a single rubric, period

The thing is, I didn't do that. I made a generalization. I could also generalize that women have clitorises and men have penises. Those are hardly sexist comments.

Yeah, I'm sure you say you love your wife right after you beat her.

Yes, release your anger, Luke! Also don't forget non-sequiturs.

Oh, isn't that a lovely view of women! "Hi dear, don't get upitty or express yourself, just be nice and docile in this box we've made for you."

Now you're imposing your own personal prejudices on me once again, imagining how I must treat women, given that I think they're a bit more conformist/docile than men.

Let me fill you in: whether on not you *think* you hate women, your assertions about them reveals your deeper feelings. Whether or not you consciously realize it, you harbor a number of misogynist feelings and delusions.

Thanks, Dr. Phil. I can now finally see how much I bitterly despise women.

No, you're just laying the groundwork so that those assertions are more easily accepted.

Slippery slope?

Except you never said "conformist". You said "docile", which is *not* the same thing, and you only started trotting out the word 'conformist' when we called you on your misogynist bullshit.

How are docile and conformable intrinsically different? Maybe you could expound on that for me. If the words are so different as you say, I should find it curious to learn that docile is a synonym for conformable.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/conformable

You want proof, fine: You claim is, and I quote, "women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men." Since you are including *all* women, like a good little misogynist, I can disprove it by pointing to a single exception, such as my fiancee or my friend Em.

Once again, I wasn't including all women. Do you really think I mean that the most docile and conformist man is less docile/conformist than the least docile/conformist woman? So...

Care to contest? Sorry, no dice. You *never* specified that you meant only in general or on average or for some women. Your quote said "Women are very docile...". That's an all inclusive statement, and if you don't think so, you need to learn to read.

Already went over this. I didn't qualify it because it should be obvious enough that I didn't mean it as all-inclusive. Think about it.

Funny, but when you label an entire group as "docile, especially when in the presence of Group B", you are saying that group is the 'weaker' one, the more subservient and 'docile'. I didn't choose anything; you said it in a very unambiguous manner.

Once again, it should be obvious it wasn't meant as an all-inclusive statement. And second, I still think you're wrong for associating conformity with weakness. Sure, in some instances, docility is not desirable, but in many instances it is highly desirable. Without conformity, there certainly could not be groups and organizations. And certainly we could not have strong and powerful organizations and groups if conformity is not demanded of its participants.

As for internal labels, I already had you labeled as "emotionally maladjusted asshole" from your prior intelligence thread. This has merely confirmed that and added "misogynist" as an adjective.

Yikes! Quite a compassionate liberal you are. I'm just a pathetic "emotionally maladjusted asshole." Is that how you treat people who are in dire emotional need? Do you pick on bums hanging out outside of 711s? "Get a job! You're pathetic!"

Strawman.

I really don't see it as such. You made it plain that double standards don't bother you. It only bothered you that I made a generalization about women--even though I did the same with men. I think we ought to do away with double standards because there is always that arbitrariness factor. Who decides what kind of discrimination is acceptable and what is not? I don't like double standards and I don't like it when people condone them.

The point is that women do not have equality in our society yet, nor do minority races, and there are segments of our society actively and prominently working to keep them from equality. When you spread propaganda about a group that's still struggling to reach equality, you make their efforts harder, while insults to a dominant group don't really do anything other than maybe make someone feel bad for a moment or two.

How do we decide what discrimination is okay and what is not? Who gets to make that judgment call? Wouldn't it be better to just do away with discrimination and double standards altogether?

In an ideal world, when everyone has true equality and no force is trying to take that away, yes, discrimination will be equal too. But that world is a long way away. And people like you make it farther.

 

Mokele

I'm against discrimination. You're the one condoning double standards--not me. You think it's permissible to discriminate against men, but not against women. I think neither is permissible.

And people like you make it farther.

Let's briefly recap why I am a woman hater, according to you.

1. I said women are generally more docile/conformist than men. (Even though explication of qualification isn't necessary, when you think about it.)

2. Some men who think women are inferior also think think they are docile.

3. Therefore, I hate women, very bitterly. I am also an asshole and I beat women, apparently.

Because it's precisely the sort of characterization misogynists use as a justification for why women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Because that myth (yes, myth) has been around for centuries, and has always been used to denigrate, trivialize and discriminate against women.

Perhaps some misogynists do do that. Doesn't give you the right to lump me into their category. That's like using this logic: KKK members are typically white. Aswokei is white, and therefore he must be a KKK member. Outstanding work, detective.

Your statement is as much misogynist as saying "all blacks are criminals" is racist.

No. No, it's not. First off, I never said all women are docile. Second, is criminality ever considered by people as whole as desirable? No. Criminals are bad. Conformity rather, is quite different. People, as a whole, very highly value conformity. Therefore, your comparison is, well, I'm afraid to say, dumb. What?! It's true.

See above. You use the same tactics used by men for centuries to legitimacize making women second-class citizens, and wonder why we see that as misogynist?

What "tactics"? Once again, I do not hate women, nor do I think they are weaker than men (Obviously they're weaker physically, but you know what I mean.) I do not think of women as untrustworthy. Actually, I love women and I think they're great. I just happen to think they're a bit more conformist than men. And they tend to thrive better in man-made artificial systems than men. That doesn't make me woman-hating. It's really not that complicated. I don't understand your problem. Just because men in the past may have said "Women are meek, and are therefore useless!" doesn't mean that's what I'm doing.

You trot out a discriminatory idea that's known to be false, and don't expect to be called a misogynist?

Really? It's absolutely known to be false? I'd like to read some scientific literature about that. Do you know where I can start read some studies that prove that women absolutely are not more conformist than men?

The 'weaker sex' crap is misogynist, period.

Strictly speaking, that's not true. Even if it were true, however, I never implied that I think of women as the "weaker sex." You chose to see it as such. It's less complicated for some people to just lump others who see things differently into a category they already have internal labels for.

Because all discrimination is not equal. Men are not, and have never been, an oppressed group, as women have.

So therefore, we should allow and encourage double-standards? Just because whites have enslaved blacks in the past, does that mean we should give them extra rights? Personally I think they should have the same rights as whites. No more, no less. I think it should be the same for women. Same rights. No more, no less. Do you think women should have more rights than men because they have been mistreated and exploited in the past?

This coming from the guy who makes a baseless, discriminatory statement without investing the trivial amount of thought needed to see how it's obviously false.

How is it obviously false?... oh. I guess I would know if I got out and went socializing, huh.

Seriously, turn off the computer, and go socialize. You'll find out just how wrong you are in short order.

 

Mokele

Okay, fine.

Calling all women docile compared to all men, especially in the presence of all men, comes off as hostile and discriminatory, thus an example of misogyny. In addition to being a rather laughable generalization.

 

Watch some C-Span, the WWF or the audience for Oprah. Or in the real world working for companies like mine.

 

Actually I'm having a hard time thinking of any woman I know as "docile".

Misogyny--hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

I see a non-sequitur here. I characterize women in general as docile and hence I hate, dislike, or mistrust women? Wow... such cutting, incisive use of logic! I am in awe.

How other people's prejudices cause them to react is really not my problem. People could, if they chose to, perceive conformity as a virtue--in fact, I do. We all do. Without conformity nothing could be accomplished. But for some reason I am given an infraction and stigmatized as a woman hater because I suggest that women are more conformist than men. Interesting.

Didn't I say men are more aggressive and savage than women by nature? Why didn't anyone accuse me of misandry? You guys ought to open your minds and stop thinking with your hearts. Yes, that noodle exists for a reason. It's not consuming 25% of your body's metabolic energy for shits and giggles.

How does my characterization of women as docile qualify judging me as misogynist? Now that's a bit hasty.

So women are docile now? When did that happen?

Yes, women are very docile compared to men, especially in the presence of men.

No, there's nothing wrong with believing in God as long as you keep it to yourself and don't impose your beliefs and consequent actions on others. For example, if you think human embryos are humans because God created them and decided to condemn stem cell research as a consequence, that would be wrong. Similarly, killing people because your god told you to would be wrong. Imposing your beliefs on others is wrong.

But as long as you keep it to yourself, there's no problem. But that's the thing--not many people keep their beliefs to themselves.

You can't prove God doesn't exist. Therefore he does!

It would be a sad, desolate, cold world if there were no god. Therefore he exists!

If God doesn't exist then all these people on this planet who are praying to him are praying for nothing. That is a sad thought. Therefore God exists!

I find the notion of a loving creator comforting. Therefore he exists!

Irrelevant for my argument to your premise.

 

Civilized humans let their brains override biological imperatives all the time. It doesn't matter how long humans have been doing it; if you've been raised all your life to equate wrongdoing with incarceration or execution you think several times before committing such an act.

I agree. Humans are very good at overriding instincts. Those huge frontal lobes sure do come in handy. However, it doesn't make our instincts irrelevant as you seem to think. Take racism, for example. In many places people who look very different from each other can get along fine--even though a small part inside of them may whisper "Don't trust him!--he's black, or has slanty eyes--he's your competition!"

Many of us are able to override our natural predisposition to not trust people who look different from us. However, many aren't. It's that instinct that says, "Don't trust him!" that causes things like racism. It's instinct. Just because many people can override these instincts most of the time doesn't make these instincts irrelevant.

Appeal to Tradition? Come on, in times of war a different set of rules comes in to play. And I would venture to guess that rape during war in modern times is not condoned as much as it used to be. Spoils of war is not an acceptable excuse, at least not in major countries.

I'm just saying war, in particular, is a time when rape is rampant. I'm also willing to bet that wartime rape and pillaging shapes us and our genes a great deal. Even during times of peace, in normal polite society, rape is pretty common. By the way, you know I'm not in any way condoning rape, don't you?

This is a nature vs. nurture argument now. I'm a 6' 3" blond Viking and you don't see me going out and sacking the neighborhood with a woman over each shoulder (at least not on weeknights).

I wouldn't doubt that rape has crossed your mind at some point in your life, whether you're willing to admit it or not. I know I've thought about it--I'm not ashamed of it, either. I'm a human. However, also like a human, I am able to exhibit strong self-control. However, just because, perhaps you and I are able to control our urges does not mean everyone else can.

Reminds me of a joke: Brodar the Viking king is addressing his assembled men before they leave the boats to sack the sleepy English fishing village.

 

Brodar: "Men, tonight we will sack the village!"

Men: "Yay!"

Brodar: "We will kill all the men..."

Men: "Yay!

Brodar: "... and rape all the women!"

Men: "YAAAAAY!!!"

Brodar: "And men... try to get it right this time!"

haha

Phi... you're thinking too civilized. Humans haven't been civilized for a terribly long time. You know that, right?

Not to mention, do you think that many rapists really get caught? I'm betting that a very high number of women are raped. A very high percentage. I'm guessing that more than half of mid-aged women have been raped at least at once. I don't think there are nearly enough men identified and incarcerated as rapists for the number of women who have been raped. Do you?

Also think about all the conquerers sacking countries... all of the bloody times we've gone through. Can you even conceive how much rape there must have been during the history of humanity? Can you imagine? That shit shapes us. That kind of stuff really makes us who we are. That's probably why women are so naturally docile animals. Even though they loved their men, once their country has been sacked, they're going to be raped and screwed. The more easy going women are going to be better off.

Similar with the men. The men who were the most competent and busy rapists were going to create the most progeny when sacking communities. It's ruthles, and that's how I bet it was. We are the descendants of brutal rapist males and easy-going-take-anything-you-want women. Why? Because they were successful.

"If it wasn't for date rape, I would never get laid"

You ought to be ashamed! Well, unless she really deserved it.

Why do men rape? I think probably not for the same reasons liberals tend to think. Liberals tend to think men rape women because rapists are motivated by humiliating and they get off on hurting women.

Maybe that's true to some extent. However, rape is entirely natural. It happens in many areas of the natural kingdom. Male birds rape female birds. They even have gang bangs. A cluster of male birds will all gang up on one female bird and start pecking her until she opens her receptacle. If she doesn't open up, the cluster of males will literally peck her to death. Also, many monkeys are known for brutal rape--particularly the Chimpanzee. I've heard that that female mink will not even ovulate unless she's made to bleed by the male. It's all about the rape genes. Rape genes are beneficial to everyone who possesses them (even females). Now I should explicate what I mean by "beneficial." I don't mean it doesn't hurt the females--only that it helps the animals who possess that gene to continue propagating their DNA sequences.

The reason men rape women is to propagate DNA. It's just one of several alternative reproductive strategies. Strictly speaking, it's a natural and human thing to do.

 

The answers to your questions are scattered in your thread, hense the position of Ecoli, there is not much more to say, I am sure he generally wants to help, but your repeated questioning is leaving everyone at an impasse.

The answers are scattered through this thread? Not really. Just a bunch of different and vague uninformed opinions. A lot of "the potential for intelligence is inherited, but mostly it's how you are brought up." The question I was asking that I want answered is how to interpret what it means that identical twins score the same on IQ tests. If you pay close attention, you'll see I'm not asking the same questions over and over again. And the questions that I repeating I am only doing so because they have either a. not been answered, or b. not answered to my satisfaction.

All I'm asking for is a little guidance. How can it be interpreted (what can be inferred) from the fact that MZ twins have the same IQs?

Damn it, man. That question has been answered in almost every post in this thread.

 

Why can't a genius like you figure that out? oh yeah...

The question as been answered in every post in this thread? Are you sure we're talking about the same question?

Whoa dude, I don't remember asking for you to cop a 'tude. Take a valium or something.

But if scientists and researchers are right that identical twins score more or less the same on IQ tests, what does that mean? I mean, don't get me wrong. I scored pretty damn high on an IQ test once and I'm pretty sure I'm a genius--it's just that I'm not really well-trained in these matters.

What does it mean? If what they are saying is true, does that mean IQ is almost completely determined by genes? What a horrifying thought!

But what does that mean for you guys?

If identical twins score more or less identically on IQ tests (identical twins are nature's clones) like the stupid scientists say, what would that mean? How do you guys interpret that?

It doesn't really make sense to me, which is saying a lot because I am very intelligent--probably a genius--at least in my opinion.

I just want to say, thanks to everybody for your well-thought out and reasoned contributions.

I did a little wikipedia research on IQ and got a little angry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq#Influences_of_genetics_and_environment

Now don't get me wrong. I am a pretty damn smart guy. I once took an online IQ test (I think it was called Tickle) and got a score of 133. While technically that's not genius, it does put me up near the 98th percentile. And honestly, I think the test was a little pessimistic with the results. After all, I'm pretty sure I'm a genius.

However, I'm not really trained and educated in this IQ stuff. So I was looking at the wikipedia link and was looking at the data that researchers and experts culled together on tables. It says that the scores of people who take IQ tests twice tend to correlate by about .87, on average, whereas the scores of identical twins tend to correlate by .86. Since identical twins have the same genes (they are nature's clones) couldn't that be understood as genes determining about 86% of the IQ?

That can't be! The idea that intelligence is genetically determined offends me. Those scientists... psychometricians? Should all be shot for blasphemy. What do you think? Am I right?

I would like to have a discussion about whether or not intelligence is significantly influenced by genes. This is something I'm doing for a school project and I haven't really done any research on it yet.

Some people have told me that intelligence is in the genes. However, I think it's quite a silly notion. I mean, both of my parents are pretty dumb--my dad can hardly figure out how to turn his computer on! And yet, I'm very intelligent. Children get their genes from their parents. So if intelligence is in the genes like my dumb friend says, why/how could I be so much smarter than my parents?

I told her to answer that for me and she paused and got visibly upset. Haha... got her pretty good. What a dumb girl.

are you using SWING?