Tiaexz does a girly job and why Kadagar prefers to be grappled by burly fireMEN

How on earth it should matter that the Lynn-citation comes from a work written by someone else boggles my mind.

You have demonstrated zero knowledge and capability, so I don't really care what you make of the link I posted. I offered it mostly to the people in this thread with a higher intellectual capability than you.

Richard Lynn, by the way, is a qualified and debunked crank. His work on intelligence has zero weight. It's riddled with methodological errors, statistical cherrypicking and outright cheating.

Only white supremacists still cling to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Now that is bordering on a personal attack. And for the record, I have a feeling that Montmorency's intellectual abilities are excellent.
But hey, you probably rate me even lower by now, so what do I know...

---

I would have to be extremely impressed with someone's intellectual ability to have them dictate what I read, especially without them even summarizing or explaining why it would be valid.

I have the same view on your as I've had the last years... Seem like a nice guy, but at times rather German, for good or bad ;)

Ok, so let me summarize...

A) I have shown loads of examples that men in the real world do comperatively better than women. Be it curling, cooking, interior design, hairstyling, sharp shooting, chess, mathematics, physics...

B) I guess we all can agree that men are physically stronger.

C) I have shown that our brains are wired and constructed differently...

D) I have claimed that this all combined might very well explain the 10-15% gap of income between men and women.



The OTHER side, you guys, have contributed with:

A) Nuh uh!!




Damn it, if women are so damn good, it should be rather EASY to give loads of examples of fields they do great in, and beat their male peers. I already acknowledged "everything concerning children".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

A) I have shown loads of examples that men in the real world do comperatively better than women. Be it curling, cooking, interior design, hairstyling, sharp shooting, chess, mathematics, physics...

B) I guess we all can agree that men are physically stronger.

C) I have shown that our brains are wired and constructed differently...

D) I have claimed that this all combined might very well explain the 10-15% gap of income between men and women.

---

Sigh...

A) No, you have not, you have shown the symptoms and claimed the causes fit your stereotypes, you have not proven any of that.

B) Horses are also physically stronger, doesn't mean that they were well-paid in the real world.

C) And ignored that that does not inherently make the wiring of men superior. Wikipedia having some vague reference to a bogus scientist doesn't count.

D) So you have claimed that a bunch of unsubstantiated hogwash and prejudices leads to more prejudices and unfair disadvantages. Congratulations!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

The OTHER side, you guys, have contributed with:

A) Nuh uh!!

---

"Nuh uh" is a strange word to describe a bunch of links to interesting studies that disprove your claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Damn it, if women are so damn good, it should be rather EASY to give loads of examples of fields they do great in, and beat their male peers. I already acknowledged "everything concerning children".

---

Does that mean not paying slaves was also okay since they didn't really contribute anything anyway going by how much they were paid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

wrote stuff

---

I'll answer you in full when I have time... But... Still no example of women doing better than their male peers, then? :rolleyes:

So, Kad, sorry to break it to you but we have given examples of fields in which women outnumber men, such as optometry, geriatrics, internal medicine, and gynaecology. These fields were all majority-male a generation ago. Obviously the reasonable explanation would be to posit a difference in social standards, but according to your hypothesis either women are somehow just better-suited to these specialties in some unspecified ephemeral way - in which case, why optometry and not ophthalmology? - or became so very suddenly over a handful of years. Either way, that's drivel. Furthermore, you have bizarrely misinterpreted the Wiki summary - or meretriciously, probably - in a way that takes tentative and value-neutral low-level differences and systematically attaches negative value to female differences and positive value to male differences, in addition to going on to posit further differences not supported by the data (and of course giving them skewed valuations along the way). You literally could not beg the question harder here.


You want a summary of my documents? OK, here: you're so wrong it's not even funny. What's worse, though, is that you're not even trying to find ways to support your core points besides the degenerate babblings you persist in posting. I'm done here speaking with someone who likely has impaired learning ability and very low-functioning communicative skills compared to the normal range of adults (including most of the Negroes and women you so demean).

@HoreTore: Let's just say there are ways to take advantage of university database permissions.

Can't you download those files, "a" and "c"? I download them fine.

Try here:

Attachment 14735
Attachment 14734
Attachment 14736

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So, Kad, sorry to break it to you but we have given examples of fields in which women outnumber men, such as optometry, geriatrics, internal medicine, and gynaecology. These fields were all majority-male a generation ago. Obviously the reasonable explanation would be to posit a difference in social standards, but according to your hypothesis either women are somehow just better-suited to these specialties in some unspecified ephemeral way - in which case, why optometry and not ophthalmology? - or became so very suddenly over a handful of years. Either way, that's drivel. Furthermore, you have bizarrely misinterpreted the Wiki summary - or meretriciously, probably - in a way that takes tentative and value-neutral low-level differences and systematically attaches negative value to female differences and positive value to male differences, in addition to going on to posit further differences not supported by the data (and of course giving them skewed valuations along the way). You literally could not beg the question harder here.


You want a summary of my documents? OK, here: you're so wrong it's not even funny. What's worse, though, is that you're not even trying to find ways to support your core points besides the degenerate babblings you persist in posting. I'm done here speaking with someone who likely has impaired learning ability and very low-functioning communicative skills compared to the normal range of adults (including most of the Negroes and women you so demean).

---

That women outnumber men does not mean they out-do men.

You STILL don't get it.

Guess what, eventhough women outnumber men in gyneacology, guess what a top 10 list of the worlds best shows.

Quote:

---

gyneacology...top 10 list

---

I'll just leave this here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I'll just leave this here.

---

Good, as I find you arrogant and incapable of having a civil conversation. Especially in a forum, not a university setting where nerds fling kneejerk reports at each other.

That women are majority might be because men are less interested in the field.

At the higher levels, though, men seem to outperform women even in fields where women are majority. Am I wrong?

Heck, look at horse jumping in Sweden... 95% of young practitioners are women, in the national team 6 out of 7 are men. Tell me again how women compare equally with their male peers?

You can look into pretty much whatever field, and in the top ranks men still outperform women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Good, as I find you arrogant and incapable of having a civil conversation. Especially in a forum, not a university setting where nerds fling kneejerk reports at each other.

That women are majority might be because men are less interested in the field.

At the higher levels, though, men seem to outperform women even in fields where women are majority. Am I wrong?

Heck, look at horse jumping in Sweden... 95% of young practitioners are women, in the national team 6 out of 7 are men. Tell me again how women compare equally with their male peers?

You can look into pretty much whatever field, and in the top ranks men still outperform women.

---

And 7, as we all know, is a most representative sample size to make a scientific point...

In the german team it's apparently 2 out of 4, not counting the two trainers and the veterinarian, does that scientifically prove that our women are superior to swedish women now?

And that top 10 list was hilarious, as Monty already noted. :2thumbsup:

Are you people still feeding the troll?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And 7, as we all know, is a most representative sample size to make a scientific point...

In the german team it's apparently 2 out of 4, not counting the two trainers and the veterinarian, does that scientifically prove that our women are superior to swedish women now?

And that top 10 list was hilarious, as Monty already noted. :2thumbsup:

---

How does it look among young participants in horse jumping? Still 50/50?

If not, it's yet another example of the trend I try to show here, no?

That top 10 list shows that 6 out of 10 who got people to vote for them, were men. I never said it showed anything else.

However, show me the damn lists where women do well?

I 100% agree that none of my examples individually PROVE anything. However, the sheer MASS of experience that men seem to come out on top makes a combined evidence.

Again, if women are equal to men, it should be damn easy to show it.

Yet all the people who declare equality actually DO, is throwing feces at anything showing men do better. Without being very good at showing that women can in fact do equally good or better.

And that reeks of political correctness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Ok, so let me summarize...

A) I have shown loads of examples that men in the real world do comperatively better than women. Be it curling, cooking, interior design, hairstyling, sharp shooting, chess, mathematics, physics...

B) I guess we all can agree that men are physically stronger.

C) I have shown that our brains are wired and constructed differently...

D) I have claimed that this all combined might very well explain the 10-15% gap of income between men and women.



The OTHER side, you guys, have contributed with:

A) Nuh uh!!




Damn it, if women are so damn good, it should be rather EASY to give loads of examples of fields they do great in, and beat their male peers. I already acknowledged "everything concerning children".

---

Actually, you've given examples of fields where (I presume) males take more top positions. Nothing about men being comparatively better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Actually, you've given examples of fields where (I presume) males take more top positions. Nothing about men being comparatively better.

---

So, why do men make more top positions?

Even in equal or female dominated fields?

Kadagar's turn on this topic would best be separated into its own thread -- id cards as racism is only tangentially connected to current focus issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Kadagar's turn on this topic would best be separated into its own thread -- id cards as racism is only tangentially connected to current focus issue.

---

I welcome the proposition for the only reason that it would let the mods go bananas with the title.

They work for free, they deserve some fun :2thumbsup:

Give me some bets on "misogynic" being part, all odds are in... :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

How does it look among young participants in horse jumping? Still 50/50?

If not, it's yet another example of the trend I try to show here, no?

---

Again, you think 4 people are a valid sample size...
In other horse riding disciplines 4/4 are women.
And you also keep ignoring that you cannot take current placements as evidence for why current placements are the way they are, especially if current placements were caused by the very bias we are discussing here. That's circular reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I welcome the proposition for the only reason that it would let the mods go bananas with the title.

They work for free, they deserve some fun :2thumbsup:

---

Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What absolute rubbish.

With the introduction of feminism, western countries have seen the largest growth in human history. As Papewaio notes, the larger the franchise, the better the country does. Not just in purely economic terms, but also when it comes to human rights, lack of unrest etc.

The reason might be that the votes from people like you doesn't count as much. That's a definite benefit to a country.

---

Piffle - The British Empire's moral and subsequent territorial decline is inextricable linked to the broadening and deepening of the franchise.

Which is to say - if you can do strawman, I can do better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

So, why do men make more top positions?

Even in equal or female dominated fields?

---

The funny fact is you are the best example of why... you are looking at the top positions, seeing they are Men and thus concluding Men have to be better - which is exactly what said Men are doing when they "Promote from the Ranks" - its mostly a case of not questioning the Status Quo.

Our respective cultures have rammed the "Men are better than Women" line down our throats for thousands of years - cultural shifts like this take time and we are in the "shift" phase right now - hence Feminism is more about fighting the culture of Male dominance these days rather than Institutional abuse.

Feminism isn't about equal treatment but about special treatment, ever heard women shriek about equal rights on a garbage truck. They want top positions equally distributed with no other reason that they are female and they feel they have the right on it, despite getting a hormonal overload every month and want a pregnant leave when hormones won. Women have their qualities, being much more ruthless and cruel being one of them. But alas, why hire someone who is mentally unstable once a month just because she is female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Feminism isn't about equal treatment but about special treatment, ever heard women shriek about equal rights on a garbage truck.

---

And why would they if they dominate the field of wiping old or sick peoples' behinds? But neither position wields much power, while top positions in companies and politics are far more likely to give them some power to change policies and politics. The argument that "women can have the slave positions, they should just leave us with the master positions" makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The argument that "women can have the slave positions, they should just leave us with the master positions" makes no sense whatsoever.

---

No that really doesn't make any sense. Femininists want high positions because they are in some twisted way entitled to it in their opinion. They are not not, having a vagina is a big plus imho as I like vagina's, but that doesn't necesarily mean they are the best person for the job just because they have a fleshwound between their legs. Some are very capable on their own merits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No that really doesn't make any sense. Femininists want high positions because they are in some twisted way entitled to it in their opinion. They are not not, having a vagina is a big plus imho as I like vagina's, but that doesn't necesarily mean they are the best person for the job just because they have a fleshwound between their legs. Some are very capable on their own merits.

---

What they do not want is to be unfairly excluded from these positions, and they shouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Piffle - The British Empire's moral and subsequent territorial decline is inextricable linked to the broadening and deepening of the franchise.

Which is to say - if you can do strawman, I can do better.

---

And life in Great Britain is better with feminism as well, and the economic growth you have seen in the last 50 years is stronger than any of what you saw during your "empire".

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

---

That sounds so gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That sounds so gay.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlLG4NKrE1A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And life in Great Britain is better with feminism as well, and the economic growth you have seen in the last 50 years is stronger than any of what you saw during your "empire".

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

---

If by economic growth you mean City of London - sure.

If you mean the mines, the factories, the shipyards.

Try visiting the poor parts of the country - there are lots to choose from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If by economic growth you mean City of London - sure.

If you mean the mines, the factories, the shipyards.

Try visiting the poor parts of the country - there are lots to choose from.

---

Maggie says 'ullo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Maggie says 'ullo.

---

All she did was shoot a terminally ill patient - I blame Labour protectionism. Labour only won an election after women first got the vote you know, and Maggie was a woman.

Clearly, women are evil and want to grind good working men into the ground