Rep. Bachmann's Far-Right Family Pledge Argues Black Kids Were Better Off In 1860 - Polidicks

My dislike of exceptions arises from people posting stupid bullshit like my example about what JohnnyMo1 said. If a man knows a few strong women, so what? Men are still generally stronger than women, because of testosterone. Even in a perfect society without gender roles, men and women will always have to have their times in marathons separated because men are naturally stronger.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31001811]My dislike of exceptions arises from people posting stupid bullshit like my example about what JohnnyMo1 said. If a man knows a few strong women, so what? Men are still generally stronger than women, because of testosterone. Even in a perfect society without gender roles, men and women will always have to have their times in marathons separated because men are naturally stronger.[/QUOTE] Generally, generally, generally. That word does not mean "always" which is the root of the problem with your ideas

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31001660]Again I won't make any claim on either side because I'm just not sure. May I do that?[/QUOTE] You may do whatever you want

[QUOTE=RBM11;31001821]Generally, generally, generally. That word does not mean "always" which is the root of the problem with your ideas[/QUOTE] If something is generally better than the alternative, then the benefits of this something occurring outweigh the downsides.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31001680]Why do people do this? They always point out the exceptions which do not invalidate the general rules. I remember when I said "Men are generally stronger than women" and JohnnyMo said he knew a few women who could beat the shit out of him. Great. Exceptions.[/QUOTE] Even the argument that single-parent [B]generally[/B] will have problems raising their child is complete bullshit.

Yeah that's a bullshit argument, good thing I didn't say it huh

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31001275]Well we already had a [I]discussion[/I] about biology influencing gender roles. Let's not do that again it was unpleasant.[/QUOTE] Some have an origin in biology, but they are obsolete in a modern society. If every day was a struggle just not to get eaten by a lion, then fuck yes there would be a legitimate reason for a man to be the one who goes out and hunts shit while the woman stays at home and takes care of the children. But it just doesn't work that way any more, and hormones and shit play a much smaller influence in modern society. [editline]8th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;31001391]Right now I'm just trying to avoid getting into it because from what I remember the last one was unpleasant. Can I enjoy my time on Facepunch or do I have to be sucked into a new massive argument every week, as seems to be the case.[/QUOTE] The entire purpose of a forum is to do exactly what you're trying to avoid so I have no idea why you're bringing shit up if you're just going to try to avoid talking about it.

sanius really, he's on your side, why are you rating him dumb

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002142]sanius really, he's on your side, why are you rating him dumb[/QUOTE] Because it's Sanius and me saying that in a time where mankind was struggling to make knives out of stone gender roles had a reason = too conservative

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002142]sanius really, he's on your side, why are you rating him dumb[/QUOTE] Sanius has an itchy dumb rating finger.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002020]Yeah that's a bullshit argument, good thing I didn't say it huh[/QUOTE] You implied it when you said that people who are born with single parents who successfully raised them are exceptions.

And before you say it Sanius I'm well aware that women in hunter-gatherer societies often gathered more food than men and had a more equal status. Keep in mind I said a valid reason to be a [B]hunter[/B] or to be considered the strong sex. Either that or you're going to say that something about gender and sex not being the same thing and that I'm dumb for trying to equate the two (even though I didn't)

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31002191]You implied it when you said that people who are born with single parents who successfully raised them are exceptions.[/QUOTE] The rule I said was that generally it is better for a child to have two parents than one, and that divorce was generally bad for children. You inflated that massively, to "single parents will generally have troubles raising their child."

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31001680]Why do people do this? They always point out the exceptions which do not invalidate the general rules. I remember when I said "Men are generally stronger than women" and JohnnyMo said he knew a few women who could beat the shit out of him. Great. Exceptions.[/QUOTE] Well because in this instance you don't have any support for it being a "general rule." You're making an irrational assumption based on your own preferences that what you prefer works best. I asked you why you haven't tried to substantiate the belief and you're just saying "aaaah no stop picking on it." As for the women vs. men thing you're actually wrong there too and Johnny was in a roundabout way probably trying to remind you that the three primary builds of person are distributed evenly across sexes (or as evenly as such a thing can be, it's not like we even keep the male:female ratio 1:1 for any period of time) and thus you really are just as likely to find a tank of a woman as a tank of a man if they're not trying to prevent themselves from going one way or another.

[QUOTE=RBM11;31002182]me saying that in a time where mankind was struggling to make knives out of stone gender roles had purpose = too conservative[/QUOTE] it's also not true most anthropologists say that gender roles did not exist at all in the beginning of human civilization. egalitarian societies were better for survival. most evidence points to gender roles evolving out of societies that began to make divisions in their structures.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;31002250]Well because in this instance you don't have any support for it being a "general rule." You're making an irrational assumption based on your own preferences that what you prefer works best. I asked you why you haven't tried to substantiate the belief and you're just saying "aaaah no stop picking on it." As for the women vs. men thing you're actually wrong there too and Johnny was in a roundabout way probably trying to remind you that the three primary builds of person are distributed evenly across sexes (or as evenly as such a thing can be, it's not like we even keep the male:female ratio 1:1 for any period of time) and thus you really are just as likely to find a tank of a woman as a tank of a man if they're not trying to prevent themselves from going one way or another.[/QUOTE] oh fuck really [quote]In men, testosterone plays a key role in the development of male reproductive tissues such as the testis and prostate as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics [b]such as increased muscle,[/b] bone mass and the growth of body-hair.[/quote] testosterone is massively more prevalent in males. THEREFORE I CONCLUDE that males are stronger, generally not only that, but estrogen REDUCES muscle mass [quote]Functions of Estrogen[list] [*]promote formation of female secondary sex characteristics [*]accelerate metabolism [*][b]reduce muscle mass[/b] [*]increase fat stores [*]stimulate endometrial growth [*]other shit too[/list][/quote] [editline]8th July 2011[/editline] question: Marathons, Olympics, etcetera, they all separate winners into two groups: men and women. This is because the men always have better scores. Is this reasonable? Or is it the misogynistic outcome of repressive binary gender roles

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002309]Or is it the misogynistic outcome of repressive binary gender roles[/QUOTE] yes

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002309] testosterone is massively more prevalent in males. THEREFORE I CONCLUDE that males are stronger not only that, but estrogen REDUCES muscle mass[/QUOTE] you don't really know what you are talking about, muscle mass relates to sexual dimorphism more muscle mass does not equate to more strength and for future reference i'm a student studying medicine and i'd be more than happy to get my physiology text books out

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002241]The rule I said was that generally it is better for a child to have two parents than one, and that divorce was generally bad for children. You inflated that massively, to "single parents will generally have troubles raising their child."[/QUOTE]If single parents won't have trouble raising their child then why is having two parents generally a better alternative?

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002241]The rule I said was that generally it is better for a child to have two parents than one, and that divorce was generally bad for children. You inflated that massively, to "single parents will generally have troubles raising their child."[/QUOTE] It's only "generally" better in society because many single parent homes are a result of divorce which can be a very stressful and tragic event that can affect both the child's and parent's well being. The model isn't inherently better at all, it's all about stability. The mere act of growing up in "two parent" household isn't the reason. With divorce hovering around 50%, it is probably a more common stressful event for children in western society than unstable two parent households which is why you see it as ideally superior. I can't see how a stable, one parent household from the get-go can statistically or ideally be any worse or better than a stereotypical "normal" two parent one.

Even Glaber would've backed down at this point.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31002356]If single parents won't have trouble raising their child then why is having two parents generally a better alternative?[/QUOTE] You don't understand, what YOU said was an inflation of what I said. I said "Two parents are generally better than one, and divorce is bad", but you inflated the stated problem to say that "single parents will generally have trouble raising a kid". I said a very [i]limited[/i] thing, and you inflated it. [editline]8th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RBM11;31002377]It's only "generally" better in society because many single parent homes are a result of divorce which can be a very stressful and tragic event that can affect both the child's and parent's well being. The model isn't inherently better at all, it's all about stability. The mere act of growing up in "two parent" household isn't the reason. With divorce hovering around 50%, it is probably a more common stressful event for children in western society than unstable two parent households which is why you see it as ideally superior. I can't see how a stable, one parent household from the get-go can statistically or ideally be any worse or better than a stereotypical "normal" two parent one.[/QUOTE] More money brought in, more time able to be spent with the kid.

If she gets elected I'm drowning myself in the gulf of mexico

[QUOTE=thisispain;31002260]it's also not true most anthropologists say that gender roles did not exist at all in the beginning of human civilization. egalitarian societies were better for survival. most evidence points to gender roles evolving out of societies that began to make divisions in their structures.[/QUOTE] I know, I'm not talking about civilization or the beginning of civilization, talking about pre-civilization. Read my second post. Probably even before homo sapiens as we know them [editline]9th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002410]More money brought in, more time able to be spent with the kid.[/QUOTE] So you would agree that polygamy is the best form?

[QUOTE=RBM11;31002433]I know, I'm not talking about civilization or the beginning of civilization, talking about pre-civilization and pre-society. Read my second post.[/QUOTE] yeah i'm talking about the same "pre-civilization and pre-society" era you're not right in any respect

[QUOTE=RBM11;31002433]So you would agree that polygamy is the best form?[/QUOTE] [img]http://bp0.blogger.com/_S3Fk1v4vsCQ/R_0gdps33KI/AAAAAAAACCw/svoY0Nqs5ik/s400/Augh.jpg[/img] Polygamy again? Fuck, I don't want to get into that. But fine. Let me say that my biggest concern with polygamy is the fact that it stands in complete opposition to monogamy, not really any effect on the child (except for the possibility of making him more likely to be polygamist himself).

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002309]oh fuck really testosterone is massively more prevalent in males. THEREFORE I CONCLUDE that males are stronger, generally not only that, but estrogen REDUCES muscle mass[/QUOTE] Two androgens are not the end-all be-all arbiter of muscle mass, nor does mass alone directly correlate with strength in any way. It sounds like you kinda don't understand the various genetic determinants for strength, difference between hypertrophy and actual output of a muscle in terms of force, lifestyle issues that affect a person's muscle development by sex, etc. Oh shit thisispain got it in before me. Damn you, I'm all busy making food and getting preempted.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31002446]yeah i'm talking about the same "pre-civilization and pre-society" era you're not right in any respect[/QUOTE] You're trying to expand what I'm saying as what my idea of that society actually was. I'm saying electric bullet's antiquated ideas would have more merit of being "true" solely for the reason of biology/hormones alone and that they would certainly have more merit than in modern society: From my first post [quote]If every day was a struggle just not to get eaten by a lion, then fuck yes there would be a legitimate reason for a man to be the one who goes out and hunts shit while the woman stays at home and takes care of the children.[/quote] Basically based on more strength and more testosterone alone that these ideas could be formed. I never said that's the way things were. I also said this: [quote]And before you say it Sanius I'm well aware that women in hunter-gatherer societies often gathered more food than men and had a more equal status. Keep in mind I said a valid reason to be a [B]hunter[/B] or to be considered the strong sex.[/quote] My apologies if I ever gave the indication that I actually thought early society worked that way. I'm saying in a hypothetical reality where survival of the species was very difficult, his ideas may have merit, but definitely more merit than they do today. [editline]9th July 2011[/editline] I'm not really sure if I'm making this clear

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;31002410]You don't understand, what YOU said was an inflation of what I said. I said "Two parents are generally better than one, and divorce is bad", but you inflated the stated problem to say that "single parents will generally have trouble raising a kid". I said a very [i]limited[/i] thing, and you inflated it.[/QUOTE]Yeah, there's a logical void here, why is having two parents generally better if the single parents generally don't have any problems raising their children. Your plain analysis on this issue is truly agonising to read. You are ignoring the factors to why divorces happen. The choices aren't two parents or one parent, but two parents with an unstable relationship or one parent whose possibility to take care of the child is far better than if the parent still was in the broken relationship. Divorces don't happen casually and randomly, they are serious decisions and you should treat them as such.

The things I'm saying are also giving insight as to why gender roles developed to begin with. People at that time would look at muscle mass and men being stronger and whatnot and begin to develop ideas that just because it's this way means that it works and then societies after them would build upon this and before you know it it's 2011 and they've still stuck around.