Ya know, that there DNA is some sneaky stuff–it might be you are overlooking places where it steps in real quick like, and makes you do something strange,that leaves you scratching your head, ya’ feel me?
for instance:
I’ll bet you encounter between one and two hundred panhandlers in a week, if you live in an urban area.
I don’t care what your baseline positive response is for male panhandlers, I’ll bet you have a higher positive response to female panhandlers.
(I always give at least a quarter to every panhandler, but I always give at least a dollar to female panhandlers)
I have no idea what you meant for this, especially the reference to the map. If you’re wondering why I didn’t respond to it, it’s because I don’t usually respond to what I regard as blatantly sexist remarks in GD and a Pit thread about you was already open.
If you doubt that I have courage and character equal to a man’s, sir, or that a woman is as capable of devotion to a cause as great as any man’s, then that is your loss. My condolences.
I’m still following this thread and I’d be interested in reading a comprehensible expectation.
CJ
A THOUSAND pardons–I was attempting (clumsily, albeit) to reference my dialog with you by way of rejoinder to Xtisme, who had taken my construction literally; what I meant in response to your perfectly rational remark was that I could appreciate in my attitude towards your assertion of equal opportunity sacrifice the admixture of a bias towards outcomes protective of prospective female suipyrotechnicides.
The origin of that bias I take to be non-rational, perhaps instinctive.
Not ,by that designation, to elevate it to any sort of priority. It is perfectly obvious that in any sort of struggle to the death a society will, and should, call on women equally to sacrifice for a common goal–That said, we all answer to a rich and varied set of stated goals, not all of them rationally supportable.
Pit thread about you was already open
I had no idea–I had always aspired, but, really, never had much hope…
I’ll trot right over.
It’s not entirely comprehensible, but I’m a former translator and it’s as good as can reasonably be expected.
I accept your apology.
CJ
There being no single nor any emphatically or otherwise detailed remark that can be extracted from our thread initialiser for direct commentation, and leaving instead only general nudgings towards certain ideas that are debatable–debate serving of course as the ostensible reason to rejoin ourselves to this forum and compare the greatness of our mental and verbal shlongs; it has been required that I entertain certain reasoned assumptions towards what questions are really intended for pontification and thereby a verbal redressing. Principally, from what evidence offers itself, the “question” would seem to be a multi-pronged one of varied and perhaps not-quite interesting assumptions on the world and must be factual of all society due to their absolute guarantee of being of the same species and sharing the same genetic evolution towards this our modern and reputedly not-so-enlightened form; “reputedly” as one of the theories positted does imply that it is this evolutionary process which has required us to not attain an enlightened stage and instead still bask as sexist pussies. Which is neither here nor there.
To properly address the various ideas offered for consideration, I shall hereby list them as well as I have been able to via a process of extraction, deduction, and careful consideration.
**Society is best thought of in terms of Alpha Males and their domination over women.
This is because we are descended from Apes. Amongst the Ape society, the Alpha Male keeps his women safe, as of course getting pussy is of the utmost concern in Ape society. Such a strong desire as “want to get pussy” is of course so powerful and so obviously a good thing, it is physically and logically impossible that evolution would ever have allowed us to abandon this–and similarly what man could ever override such an important and great thing as “wanting to get pussy?” No will could ever be so strong.
Now, sending or allowing women to venture off into danger is of course an unthinkable thing. And due to the domination of women by men, and of course the utmost importance of protecting ones supply of pussy, obviously no sane nor reasonable man would ever allow a woman, thus, to expose herself to danger–let alone send her.
However, this most recent bombing did occur–commited by women.
Since, as described, women are under the power of men, for them to have perpetuated this act, at some point there must have been a man who went above and beyond even the decision to die to protect his pussy supply, but even acceded to allowing…nay sending off his own pussy-holders to such a fate. This would be an act going against hundreds and thousands of years of evolution! Such an amazing thing, such dedication as to blow up your own pussy–such a man knows no fear. He is MAD and we must fear him.**
Now, to offer my response to the illustrious alaricthegoth: If your hypotheses are correct, I at least would prefer to continue on this war–if only for the hope that they should blow me up too and I would not have to continue living in a world where your hypotheses were correct.
Johanna, that’s a bit of a reach,don’t you think? It took me ten minutes to grasp yur meaning, wouldn’t ever thing to do that
I’m not endorsing my inner chimp–but I walk past the primate house and what I see worries me…
(you know, the 98% dna identical match thing…)
Well I’m one of the people in the 2% of the population who liked the movie G.I. Jane and given another generation or so, I have every belief we’re going to be in the majority in the US.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
There being no single nor any emphatically or otherwise detailed remark that can be extracted from our thread initialiser for direct commentation, and leaving instead only general nudgings towards certain ideas that are debatable–debate serving of course as the ostensible reason to rejoin ourselves to this forum and compare the greatness of our mental and verbal shlongs; it has been required that I entertain certain reasoned assumptions towards what questions are really intended for pontification and thereby a verbal redressing. Principally, from what evidence offers itself, the “question” would seem to be a multi-pronged one of varied and perhaps not-quite interesting assumptions on the world and must be factual of all society due to their absolute guarantee of being of the same species and sharing the same genetic evolution towards this our modern and reputedly not-so-enlightened form; “reputedly” as one of the theories positted does imply that it is this evolutionary process which has required us to not attain an enlightened stage and instead still bask as sexist pussies. Which is neither here nor there.
To properly address the various ideas offered for consideration, I shall hereby list them as well as I have been able to via a process of extraction, deduction, and careful consideration.
**Society is best thought of in terms of Alpha Males and their domination over women.
This is because we are descended from Apes. Amongst the Ape society, the Alpha Male keeps his women safe, as of course getting pussy is of the utmost concern in Ape society. Such a strong desire as “want to get pussy” is of course so powerful and so obviously a good thing, it is physically and logically impossible that evolution would ever have allowed us to abandon this–and similarly what man could ever override such an important and great thing as “wanting to get pussy?” No will could ever be so strong.
Now, sending or allowing women to venture off into danger is of course an unthinkable thing. And due to the domination of women by men, and of course the utmost importance of protecting ones supply of pussy, obviously no sane nor reasonable man would ever allow a woman, thus, to expose herself to danger–let alone send her.
However, this most recent bombing did occur–commited by women.
Since, as described, women are under the power of men, for them to have perpetuated this act, at some point there must have been a man who went above and beyond even the decision to die to protect his pussy supply, but even acceded to allowing…nay sending off his own pussy-holders to such a fate. This would be an act going against hundreds and thousands of years of evolution! Such an amazing thing, such dedication as to blow up your own pussy–such a man knows no fear. He is MAD and we must fear him.**
Now, to offer my response to the illustrious alaricthegoth: If your hypotheses are correct, I at least would prefer to continue on this war–if only for the hope that they should blow me up too and I would not have to continue living in a world where your hypotheses were correct.[/QUOTE
I’m going to have to write a macro for apolgies–by implicating alpha chimps I was trying to demonstrate a personal unease with the both the major and minor premises of the (otherwise) well developed elaboration of the meme I was invoking.
Obviously an analysis of variations in the manifestation of ferocity which took as its chief determinant the presence or absence of a dick would lead you quickly into fatal error.
And yet–in a society steeped in patriarchy, as is the tribal hejaz and mesopotamia, where the inner chimp is, shall we say, given an honored place at the table–when THAT society countenances womens behavior that (indeed) in its long term implications shakes some of the pillars of their sexual politics,
I think that’s a big deal.
And preview.
I am put in mind the the man who was killed by his sexism.
An elite decathlete was training for the upcoming olympics when a little old lady was relieved of her purse just outside the field he was running on.
The robbers were two teenage girls, who jumped into a convertible and peeled out.
Our hero, sprinted after the car and actuallyb caught up to it while the girls were making the next turn.
He confidently ordered them to turn over the purse, secure in the knowledge that he had a dick and they did not.
Whereupon one of the girls pulled out her heater and blew his fool ass away.
OK, sorry, my bad.
I am reminded of a story…
There was a guy who never changed his socks.
Seven years later, the socks fell off.
Stories are fine so long as you provide your own interpretation of what the story means and what that has to do with the topic at hand. Your only point so far in the thread has been “These macho-guys let their women blow up!!!”
What’s debatable? Why are you posting this in Greate Debates? Do you want us to debate whether or not Islamic guys are that macho that the thought-patterns you are describing are accurate? Do you want us to debate whether women killing themselves is worse then men killing themselves? Do you want us to debate whether you should feel okay with yourself for thinking women killing themselves in a war is that big an event?
There are lots of things you have thrown out there for us to debate, but you yourself have failed to make any arguments nor any real points.
Yes, chimps are evil buggers.
Yes, Islamic fundamentalist terrorist types are sexist.
Yes, 3rd world countries have been sending out girls and kids with bombs to blow themselves up for decades. If anything, to their mindset women and children aren’t worth as much since they can’t fight, so sending them on suicide missions to keep your real soldiers alive is SOP. …this could perhaps indicate that they are starting to amass troops for actual fighting; a topic that would be worth discussing, but doubtful that you were thinking of.
Yes, in a sex-equal world women might blow you up too.
No, I don’t.
And I have pretty much the same DNA that you do.
It’s a good try, but no, it’s wrong. I think I’m more sympathetic to women in general, but it’s not my DNA unconsciously making me do things. I know what I’m doing, and DNA doesn’t have a brain.
Yeah, but from your username I’m assuming you’ve already got your own pussy, so you don’t need the pussy of a female panhandler.
Or something.
Anyway, you’d give more to a female panhandler if a man told you to.
I’m sorry,but I don’t understand your answer.
do you or do you not give more./more often to women than men panhandlers?
I understand that you consider your behaviour to be unencumbered by the evolutionary process, but I was asking about the behaviour itself, without explanatiion or gloss.
Could I have responded any more clearly? “No, it’s wrong.” I do not give more money or more often to female panhandlers.