|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
why do girls do it?
Posted on: January 23, 2011 - 12:33am
  Offline
why do girls do it?
why they just use sex to get what they want?
i hate it it make us object only for men not for us
watch this
they just parade around to please men and get money
i not drunk i just have a few drinks but i see it everywhere and hate it
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
I can't really criticise your position because it's mine in reverse. I think most guys are generally pretty honorable and most women are self serving, opportunistic scavengers.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
... and, what's the real deal with the Pineapple???
I just read her blog...either she is really, really, really shit-faced drunk when she posts these threads or someone else is writting her blogs...
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
How many of those women you know are postmenopausal?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Arguably the older girls - late 30s and 40s are a different cup of tea. Arguably. I've never got close enough to the oven door to find out tho' they are now my target market, so to speak. Being single and celibate is just so much easier. And at least now I can entertain myself in my own damn bed.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I concur.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Of course, Sandy, we are obliged to undertake such delights while carefully avoiding images of virile human bodies in paper or electronic forms, as well as their projections in our traitorous imaginations. I'm always careful to visual an ageless, figureless nun wearing a hessian habit and walking slowly away from me towards a small, stone chapel under a sombre sky, while a high bell is tolling, tolling, tolling...
Such austere imaginings tend drag out the proceedings somewhat but at least I feel I'm not taking advantage of the mental image of some unwitting and innocent young human being.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I agree with many of your statements about men being equally capable of being driven by rationality, and not their dicks; just as women can be driven by hormones (in a positive, sexual way NOT the moody PMS Stereotype) as well as being driven by career goals, competition, and self-motivation.
However, sweeping generalizations about men contributing more to society is not a valid argument. It is well established that the first computer programmer was a woman.
There are in fact, countless examples of women throughout history who invented many a thing that makes YOUR life comfortable. (I will not enumerate them here, as it would be a good exercise for you to discover some of them for yourself).
The main reason we have not learned of all of them, and there also remains countless unknown female inventors and scientists, is assumptions like this: only men are capable of innovating technology, ever have been, or ever will be. Also the reason their numbers are still actually quite low: women for a long time in history were not even aware of scientific thought, it was kept for the men. It's hard to be an inventor in an environment that shelters you from any rational thought and ENCOURAGES moody airs and bossiness as distinctly feminine and the only POSSIBLE mode of operation.
Which, as you'll agree with me, still occurs today. Girls and women are trained to think it feminine (though not necessarily attractive) to act this way.
But please, next time, don't assume because you are ignorant to any facts to the contrary, that women are incapable of contributing to the propelling of society and technology.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
It's not my place to speak for redneF, but I don't think that was the point he was hoping the man-haters would walk away with. I suspect he was just venting his frustration at seeing so much anti-male backhanded attacking. It looked to me that he was pointing out that all of this talk about how dumb and ape-like men are is not only infantile but it is also, obviously, just plain uneducated. Men have been easily as much of a driving force in the progress of the human species as women so all of this man-hating vitriol is just baggage.
Obviously women have been contributors (good and bad) to the success of our species like men have. We could go back and forth all day naming which gender invented what but that really isn't the point. There was just a lot of the same old hateful bile being tossed around by Sandycane (per usual) and it is only a matter of time before someone lashes out about it.
Maybe we can try to rise above all of that childish nonsense and actually have the conversation at hand?
No?
That's what I figured... *waits for more man-hating childish backhanded bile to be spewed*
[EDIT: Spellcheck FTW]
Except when you perceive the women as looking, dressing or acting slutty. All while maintaining a detached air of not caring if they are really slutty. Then the gloves come off and it is all about whether it is reasonable to be a practical, successful woman while failing to wear a burkha on stage.
So do you prefer 9 lives or fancy feast for breakfast Sandy?
=
Moving on, or, backwards I should say, remember when Cpt was talking about being Sailor Moon for Halloween?
If you think this is Cpt/Moon,
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Yea...man, where did they get the energy?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'm pretty sure that whooshing sound was his point going over your head. If you read what he wrote in the context of the discussion it is pretty clear he was responding to a series of posts insulting men on the basis that they are all hard-dicked monsters who can't think with anything but their penises. He was simply pointing out that such a blanket categorization is clearly without merit based on all historical fact.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
And if Sandy is cheering Bravo because she agrees, she missed the point too.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Sandycane, be honest, have you laid down a trail of comments which could lead someone to interpret your intentions in this way? If I were to go through and pull out a dozen or so of your man-hating posts and put them one after the other do you honestly believe that it would be completely unreasonable for someone to say that you were painting men out as what mellestad implied?
Is the mere fact that you might not have used the exact word "monster" enough to completely negate his entire assertion about your general impression?
Is it possible that you are just dodging responsibility for your expression of anger? Is it possible that you have expressed MORE than enough for someone to get the impression that you think these horrible things about the human male?
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
And once again, you ignore the point. This is becoming an art form.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
So Sandy, a full text search of the thread reveals that this much is true but only by a technicality.
What you said is the following (emphasis mine):
And where did this idea on monsters come from? Well, Mellestad:
So, while an overly technical read can come up with the idea that you did not use the word “monster”, it is simply a fact that you were very clear on the matter that you believe that men think with their dicks.
Basically, you are not responding to what Mellestad said. You have created a parody of what she said and the responded to the parody and not the actual post. Granted, if you did respond to the post properly, you would have been backed into a corner as far as what you really did say. Thus the parody.
In formal debate, we call that a straw man argument. AFAIK, there is no way to use a straw man to salvage a loosing proposition. However, since you seem to be all full of logical fallacies, let me give you a clue on how to avoid them:
If you think that you have found the “killer argument” that will decimate your interlocutor, odds are you are about to be full of shit.
=
Huh. That makes a lot of sense.
I'm going to try and remember that as I communicate in the future because I'll bet you are dead on. The argument ending arguments are probably loaded with emotion which is why they "feel" like they are the winning approach. Most likely though, I just said what I had said a moment ago - only louder.
Thanks for that nugget AiGS.
That's how Answers in Gene Simmons wishes her to appear. Nothing more.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Lol, you might be giving redneF a little too much credit.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was just hinting at bad generalizations in the opposite direction.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
That could be I guess. If so, obviously (I hope obviously anyway) that would be wrong. I just assumed he was using hyperbole to make a point, probably because that is one way I commonly communicate.
I should probably use less hyperbolic language when I make my points anyway. I always have a problem with that though; I'm not Bob. I get too much satisfaction from putting a little extra zing in. Honestly though, what ends up on the board, especially in this case, isn't usually what my first draft is, but rather a much milder version. That doesn't excuse it though. I get pretty riled up. W.W.B.D.?
The only real passions I have in regards to this whole exercise (The RSS) are anti-fundamentalism and pro-skepticism/rationality. The rest is academic (although sometimes I get anxious out of pure frustration). This thread obviously pushed one of those buttons.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yah, no prob.
Actually, I got into internet debates early on (like 1998 or so) and I learned from a guy who has four PhD's. One of the things that I know he did was some work for (well, he would not say whom but I get the impression that in twenty years, we will find out that the govt. has had them for fifteen years) someone.
Basically, he was given the chance to reinvent the microprocessor from the ground up. The little bit that I know is that his processors do not use electricity or binary logic. They use optical switching and fuzzy logic. What that means, well I have no real clue. Still, he did that work.
Want another tip?
Never try to win an internet debate. Which does not mean that you will never force an interlocutor into a corner. Just that the debate format (of the internet) lacks much in the way of rules and any possible scoring. So, pretty much, trying to win is a losing move. Address the arguments which are presented and move on from there. Take each point as it is presented and do what you can.
=
What would butterbattle do!
Ugh, don't remind me of the time I'm wasting in the "Are babies atheists?" thread. *shudder*
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I must say, I admire some of you for the patience you exhibit towards me.
Some of you may not have noticed but, I'm not always easy to get along with.
In my own defense though, I have to say I think I keep up fairly well with the arguments - especially since I've never had any formal lessons on the art of debating.
I learn by watching you.
I really am sorry if I offended anyone at a personal level, I didn't mean to. I get carried away when I feel passionate about a subject.
Btw, Hambydammit IS good! I read some of his blog today.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Yah Sandy,
Stop trying to feel stuff and get on with the debates. Put your best case out there and see where it goes.
Honestly, I don't really care if you think that some specific band seems to be slutty to you. Nor do I care if the individual members are slutty is action.
Really, you don't care for how some people dress, I get that. As noted above, I wish that some fathers would not let their teenage daughters dress like the only goal in life was to get bred. It really bugs me but there must come a point where the fathers are out of the picture. I think that you may have agreed with me on that much.
=
Did you read the post Butter specifically linked to? I know Hamby is long winded, but he eventually got to the point I was trying to make. I don't have the kind of clarity or focus to write things like that on an Internet forum.
His blog is often neat. Pineapple and Hamby actually interact on his blog quite often (and she's usually sober too!).
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
OK Sandy, Whore or not?:
=
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
The little I've read on debating techniques, it's hard for me to comprehend arguing for (or against) something I didn't feel passionate about.
But, I suppose that is the quality that a good attorney must possess in order to represent a mass murderer.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Try and finish it sometime, it is worth it to get to the end where we wraps everything all up.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
OK, so stripping on national television is not whoreish. But not stripping on cable television is a problem?
Don't get me wrong here, the PCD's don't have much on some groups who are out there. However, you are still trying to engage in the deal where you do not really know who each of them may be doing it with.
So do you feel that it is whore like to do less on cable that to do more on network TV?
=
I think the important thing is to be able to separate your passion from your reasoning process when you need to.
You can feel passionate about something and be totally wrong, you can be passionate about something and be totally right and you can be everything in between. The point is your passion doesn't actually make any difference about whether or not you're right or wrong. If you let your passion be in charge of how you act you're just flipping a coin, or worse, you are letting your environment/culture/background tell you want to do. You don't want something else controlling what you do, right?
This goes doubly so for most atheists in America because our culture is often based on puritanical theism. If we follow the root of our emotions on an issue we might find out we're offended by something because some up-tight Bible-thumper 200 years ago thought God would send everyone to hell if that thing happened, and no other reason.
Either way, being able to step back and analyze an issue, external or internal, in an objective and methodical way is critically important because it is the only way to actually figure out if we're right or wrong and then use that to inform your choices, regardless of how we might feel. You can't trust emotion.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
My Harley looks a whole lot better than that car. Think she'd be willing to come over and take a look at it ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I suppose, maybe, it had to do with 'attitude'.
I don't know
No, I don't know who they are doing it with...which is why I didn't call any of them whores. The stripper was cute and classy. The PCD looked like trash. Don't know any better way to explain it.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Mom... is that you?
HAHAHAHA no.
If Hamby found out I got hammered and posted half naked women he would flip
A complete fucking tramp.
If that didn't fill your tramp meter:
Perhaps that would be the best route for me.
Nope, I still think she's cute and her act is classy...and I think the difference IS attitude and style.
It's the difference between raunchy porn and a Renoir nude.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Are you sure that's not you in the Sailor costume?
I think she did great, she owned it, enjoyed it, she did well. Notice how the women reacted to her, notice all the boo's and "nooo's" from the girls in the crowd when it was voting time. But then if she became a famous singer it would be girls that buy her concert tickets, strange.
I agree, strippers can be classy. Whores can be classy too. If you don't believe me, go spend $1500 for one and tell her you want classy. And that is why you shouldn't use the term as a slur against bad dancers.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Not so... and I think the problem we are having with communicating here is, in part, terminology.
If you pay a girl $1500 for sex, she is not a 'whore' she is a call girl, and escort or, a prostitute. A whore gives it away for free. Is it possible to be a classy whore? I suppose but, none come to mind.
You guys are the ones using the term 'whore' when referring to the dancers, not I.
I said they LOOKED LIKE sluts... or, whores, if you prefer. By looking like sluts or, whores, they appear to have no 'class' or, style. They look like they would give it away free to anyone who wanted it.
Btw, you are placing judgmental connotations on the words 'whore' and slut', not me. All I'm saying is that a certain attitude, activity and attire defines how others will define you. If you fit the criteria for 'slut', you will be labeled one. Likewise if you present yourself with class and style, you most likely won't be called a slut.
Yes, I thought the reaction of the audience members was interesting...and the woman judge was embarrassing.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I think I understand why Sandy takes such a hardline on feminine expression of Libertine sexuality... and frankly, if there were someone with my name running around who was this much of a train wreck, I probably would be too
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/profile.php?id=100001299775749
OK Sandy... I fully expect retribution...
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I don't know what you would call That but, that should have been in The Twilight Zone movie when Aykroyd asked, 'Want to see something REALLY scary?'
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
I wasn't expecting that, ouch! I don't think I'll get that mug out of my head all day. mmmmmm
At the risk of helping this conversation devolve deeper into a semantic discussion, I thought it might be good to go ahead and give these words a definition.
These were quickly found on Dictionary.com and they seem in line with how they are generally used.
whore
1. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.
slut
1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.
In the end, these words are used as a derogatory description of a female who engages or who we assume engages in sexual conduct which is not commonly socially approved of. Years ago I seem to recall having these semantic debates so that we could hide from the fact that we were being mean and judgmental about a woman we wanted to break down. We found rationalization to be cruel, so we reveled in our cruelty.
This is the point of these words, to break people down for being different or at least appearing to be different from us. It is what people do; in order for us to affirm our own position we must attack the opposing position and make them as small as possible. It is a sad and hateful tactic but unfortunately one that is the old standby. We all do it or at least have done it and it is something I assert we should not be proud of.
This idea of class and style, and sluts or whore, is determined entirely by what general society accepts. Society at large is made up of lazy, fat, dishonest, irrational, and theistic baboons. I, for one, do not think we should wave flags stating that we proudly agree with the dictates passed down to us by white haired old men and sexually repressed feminists. It seems to me that we should aim higher than that - much higher.
Conversations like these exist to challenge these norms and to air out why exactly there is so much hatred for how a girl dresses or flaunts herself. Is there some inherent "wrong" in how she presents herself? Should we use violent and degrading language toward these women because we don't personally like their clothes and manner?
For the dogmatic minded, the answer is probably "Yes, they dress like sluts so they deserve it"
For skeptics and rationalists the answer might be "No. Currently I see no defense for being cruel about these women's style choices"
Splitting hairs.
If a guy walks around wearing a trench coat and nothing underneath, he would look like a flasher. The social or, moral connotations of what a flasher is, is irrelevant to the fact that he LOOKS like a flasher.
The same is true for a girl who wears skimpy clothes and flaunts her sexuality in a trashy way...people will say she LOOKS like a slut or, tramp. Whether or, not she actually sleeps around is irrelevant to the fact that she LOOKS like she does.
You are the ones with the moral problems associated with common words, not I.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein