Obviously, there are places that are dangerous for both men and women to travel to, but this poll is strictly about travel for females. Even more specifically: single, white, English-speaking, female travelers.
Also, I realized that there are other countries that are safer, but I want you to pick one from this list. (If you would like to see other countries on the list, make your own poll).
Also, I realized that there are other countries that are safer, but I want you to pick one from this list. (If you would like to see other countries on the list, make your own poll).
I can just see all the men gorking at her in the street and where ever you go. Seriously they always stare at white girls, they don't even cover up their emotions at all.
OMG a white girl walking down the main street of India, quickly everyone (meaning free men only of course) stop and stare at her, with a real stupid look on our face.
Oh those India men, every girls dream!!!
I completely agree with you there Dad. I really don't know why they do it, and I would never go to India, haha! It's not just the men, but have you ever seen An Idiot Abroad with Karl Pilkinton when he goes to India? This is off topic entirely, but it's hilarious and I highly reccomend it. :)
I'd also like a hot beverage, it's Chile today. Perhaps tea? Sweden-d? =D
I hate being interrupted when I cook, so don't Dutch anything till I'm done, okay?
*Kenya nazi
There have been a few cases of police randomly pulling women drivers over and sexually harassing them. Obviously nothing gets done because of the corruption in the police force.
But yea, rape is extremely high here. Women don't drive alone at night neither can they walk down the road without having to wonder who's watching them. Anyway it's a part of life here and we adapt.....
People really gawk, even if you're ethnically Indian (I am), but it's just one of those things you need to deal with. Is it fair, no?
I spent a summer in India, and while it was amazing fun, I felt a lot better with other people and going out alone was completely out of the question.
But don't worry about it too much. Be smart and travel with someone else.
I agree, that's not fair just because you're a girl. However, we don't make the rules, really. So unless you travel with Saudi Arabia and decided to parade with a mini-skirt, having a companion or a group might really make things simple and safe for you.
India is awesome if you like hiking, I mean -the nature is breathtaking. I haven't been there, but my friends went.
It is rated as either the worst or second worst country for females to live, next to Pakistan. I would imagine that it is because they treat females like shit.
Most likely South Africa, the rest of the countries (most of them) are countries in which is it culturally stressed that women are nothing but property. I would not travel alone, let alone travel alone to a country in which most women are still considered property. That's crazy.
The whole world is a dangerous place, you can be victimized anywhere, anytime, any gender.
When we're talking about a country in which women can be persecuted just for speaking their opinion loudly in public? Hell yeah it's more dangerous for women. A foreign man is just a nuisance. A foreign female is an opportunity. I wouldn't dare travel alone, let alone travel alone to a country in which I could be sent to prison indefinitely because another man saw my leg, a problem that a male traveler would more than likely not have for most of these countries.
You are implying me a sexist when you are saying a foreign female is an oppurtunity and a foreign man is a nuisance? Erm, excuse me? You are implying I'm sexist? I could sit there and say the same about women, since they "need" inventions made by men to do even half the work they do today, but that would be sexist, right?
A man is an oppurtunity, a woman is a nusiance...Oh, it's only sexist when men get seen in the better light?
Also, you entirely misunderstood her nuisance/opportunity comment. She was saying that in other parts of the world, a female tourist is seen by criminals as an opportunity to sexually harass, whereas men are often seen as impediments to that. She was not saying that men are inherently nuisances or that women are full of opportunities. I realize English isn't your first language, but try not to jump to conclusions.
Furthermore, your original comment is off topic. OP is asking as a woman, which countries may be harshest on women. You cannot seriously argue that South Africa is just as dangerous for men as it is for women. It has one of the highest male-on-female rape statistics in the world. So no, this isn't another story you can turn into a gender flame war.
"How do you feel about peanut butter"
ItDuz: Men are not given enough peanut butter in society. Peanut butter is an invention made by men which others tend to overlook as they let their emotions dictate their logic. When I wrote a poll about peanut butter, most women disagreed that chunky peanut butter was better, therefore proving my theory that women are too afraid to admit their wrongs, when logically chunky peanut butter is better.
If you don't see someone as thinking the other gender is property or superior to the other, then I am amazed.
I never denied that it is worse for women in some areas, I was simply stating that it is bad for males in those areas aswell, not worse.
If that is what she meant, then I was wrong, and I apologize to you NeuroNeptunian for not understanding that.
English is my first language, both conclusions were not clear. She didn't mention what she meant, she didn't mention what the woman is an oppurtunity for, so wouldn't I be jumping to conclusions anyway if I was to jump to what you said she meant without her stating that it is what she meant?
I "was" trying to say that the world was dangerous for everybody, implying that we should look out for eachother, but hey, fuck you ItDuz, fuck you for thinking we should all help eachother out, this was a woman matter, when it happens to women, it only happens to women, only when men are victims of something to we change the lable "male" to "humans".
So no, this wasn't me trying to make this a gender flame war.
But as for the rest:
"I never denied that it is worse for women in some areas, I was simply stating that it is bad for males in those areas aswell, not worse."
And I'm saying that's completely irrelevant. OP is asking because she is a woman who is presumably weighing these choices for herself. That's why it's absolutely unnecessary to bring this debate in here when OP is basically just asking for travel advice. For herself, who is a woman. I can't see how you don't understand this. So yes, this is you trying to make this a gender flame war. Just like every other time the word "female" or "male" is mentioned anywhere.
I see what you mean, but there is a comment from Parrish that doesn't give any travel advice, yet has the most thumbs up.
A female in a foreign country is an opportunity, because that's what all females in said countries are, opportunities. They are property, they are an opportunity to get laid or being a punching bag for assholes, and foreign females are that same opportunity. Males traveling abroad are a nuisance, they are simply there and they are unwelcome but ignored, assuming average travel and political conditions in said country. Yes, these countries can be dangerous for men, but they are more dangerous for women, on average, statistically and otherwise.
Because of the virtue of your thought, that men are superior to women, I would be going to a country that would see me as property, something to be owned, an opportunity for a fuck. I have a successful job in a field dominated by men, everything I own was purchased by my money, the inventions I use, I bought and they were not invented by the male gender, they were invented by a male or group of people, don't tell me not to take credit for the achievement and oppression of females and then turn around and give the entire male gender credit for the achievements of a few males. That's bullshit. I work as hard as the men in my company, I am delaying child-bearing so that I may earn my OWN living, and if you want to talk statistics here, most men in EVERY country are my intellectual inferior, so how am I inferior to the male gender because I am a female?
If you're going to sit here and bitch about how all women are nothing but trashy, disrespectful whores, go right ahead and be my guest. If you're going to sit here and speak of us as if we sit on our asses all day long and contribute nothing to society, go right ahead! And please, do continue speaking of men as if they are weak-willed pussies that are victims of the horrible female agenda, roll tide, buddy! But don't sit here and tell me that you are not sexist in the least bit and don't sit here and tell me that the female gender can not take credit for the oppression and evils committed to us by the male gender and give *your* "superior" gender credit for all of the achievements of males! Don't piss in my face and tell me it is raining outside, pal. I know how you feel about women and so do you. The least I would think I could expect is a little honesty but if you're going to piss in my face about it then there is nothing left for you to talk about. We both know the score, here.
When I speak on my subjects I don't mean every single woman, and I've never called women whores.
Yes, I misunderstood that part, so I apologize.
I said as a group males are better, I never said every individual male is better than every individual woman.
I never said all males should get credit for it, I am saying that men are more likely to create more complex things in technology, etc.
I have to dissagree with you there, you are saying you are one of the smartest in the world, or implying that most men aren't as smart as women. Most men in every country is not your intellectual inferior.
I have never said all women are, you took the emotional response and assumed I said all women are like that. I have never said women don't contribute to society, I have said that men progress society more with their inventions, etc.
What? Are you serious? So men that are victims of women are weak-willed pussies? Go fuck yourself. WHo do you think you are insulting all those men that are getting victimized by women because if they defended themselves they would have a strong chance of being charged? It's people like you that make me have these views.
No, we both don't. Females are still, even to thi day, the majority of my friends. If I hated women, why would I keep female friends?
And dear God do something about your interpretation of the English language. I did not say that I am smarter than all males. While I'm fucking myself, why don't you reread the statement. Statistically speaking, I am of higher intelligence by most males in every country, hell, more so than most people in every country. I states males in general to poke at the irony that they see me as inferior in such countries. If I thought you'd get so pissy and blame me for your anger at society id have clarified.
Apologies in advance for spelling error, this phone is ridiculous for touch screen controls.
I have not said all men suffer from feminism, I am saying that the men that have and could have very little defense against it, especially when society will defend their arrogance.
"Go fuck yourself" was me implying that I strongly dissagree with you due to reason and logic, not emotion and sadness. Go fuck yourself are words, not emotions. Respond however you like, you just give me more reason to have the opinions I do. How you said how men that are victims of women are weak-willed pussies? However, if I was to say that about women being victims of men, you'd sit there and shout out "sexism, inequality, wah!". Yet you and many others think "I" have to change? Please.
Where did I say "Males are superior to feImales but not all males are superior to females"? I said "as a group males are better than females", and they are. Every society and civilization was man made. Don't play pick and mix with my points, it just means it needs explained again to explain to you what you already knew before deciding to try alter what I said.
What? You're saying that you are smarter than most people in every country, but saying you didn't say that? What are you on about? Make sense.
So you're saying that a racist that "hates" blacks would like black people? That's what you're saying? Because by your logic here, you said I hate women, how or why would I like a large groups of females, yet hate females? Why would I choose to befriend women, and actually like them, if I hated women? How could I hate and like them at the same time? Your logic there is just wrong there.
That would be like saying "You're a nazi, you hate jews, but you like jews".
Have you seen a fully blown racist be friends with a black person?
Have you seen an extremely homophobic person friends with a homosexual?
Ofcourse you haven't, it would make no sense. Why would someone befriend someone that they hate due to their opinions? Like you said "that's the best you can give me?"
If I don't like something, I don't want it. If I hated women, I wouldn't want them as friends. That's what I was explaining.
"What? You're saying that you are smarter than most people in every country, but saying you didn't say that? What are you on about? Make sense."
Did you even recognize the word "statistically"? According to statistical, observable data, I am more intelligent than most people. It's called the bell curve and I am nearer towards the tip than most of your precious "male gender".
Yeah, society was created by males. Females didn't have shit to do with it. Yeah, males are the superior gender, depending on how you define superiority.
If superiority is constantly having to progress out of one's own destruction of the world, if superiority is killing, raping and torturing millions of men, women and children for the sake of your precious, precious progress, if superiority is depriving minorities and women of their rights, if superiority is working children at all hours to create your precious technology, all of which amounts to little but convenience needed only because of this male driven world, destruction of natural habitats, toxic waste dumped in your oceans and smog filling the air, causing disease and sickness for the sake of your precious progress, the same one that worked millions for 40+ years and stripped their retirements and then telling them that their social security is an entitlement benefit that they don't deserve, the same one that believes "The Male Gender is Superior" and forces their cocks into innocent women and children because they are nothing but objects, property, inferior.
If superiority amounts to the insatiable need to destroy, conquer and own every tree, rock, squirrel and square foot under neath your own feet then males truly are superior. "The Male Gender" as you say, did not build society. The conqueror did. The same one that could not draw the distinction between hunting animals for food and hunting their own brothers for wealth. Don't credit the entire male gender with this character flaw, that is destroying the society that it thought it was helping. That is unfair to the millions of men that your precious "Male Gender" slayed in an effort to conquer, while those men were content to hunt, live and be free.
If you're talking about the society where child obesity runs rampant, the rich ride their private jet planes while the poor starve, where computers have become Gods and convenience is the only word that matters, where selfishness runs free, where no matter how hard a woman works she will never be paid as much as her male counterparts and society of the old world where "Progress" means little to the women that are raped and sold like mill-bred puppies every day, then thanks, "male gender". Thanks for your precious progress that makes life more convenient as society destroys itself in it's own greed.
Yeah, the male gender is superior, if that is the society and progress that you are talking about. Because that's "The Male Gender", dominate, be superior, and nothing else matters. You speak of the damage done to society because women, who were only historically recently given their rights now find it fit to complain, yet you say that we need to all "work together" while spouting that the female gender is inferior?
"I have always said, as a gender males are superior"
Yeah, you've always said that. While you are unlikely to respect me in this debate because you perceive that I am attacking males and ignore my explanation, most women will be unlikely to work with your debates so long as you continue the archaic mentality that the female gender is inferior to the male gender, why? Because you were able to fuck up the world the hardest? Because you were able to invent conveniences? Because you are the superior killers? Because you are physically stronger than us and have the right to kill female children so that you may outpopulate and outnumber women in countries such as China and the Phillipines making your domination over what was historically a gentle gender, bent on nothing more than nurturing young, caring for men, and proven to be ready and willing to pull their own weight when their lives are threatened?
Yeah, you're superior. And look at all of the good your "superiority" has gotten us. Look around you. Look at society, this is the society that the male gender created. If you're going to give credit to the male gender for it's creation of society, give credit to the male gender for society's problems, in other words, you men created this problem, like every other problem (climate change, high crime rates, the military/prison industrial complex) and now you men need to solve it, preferably without us.
But that's not how it's going to work, because as usual, us ladies will be willing to help our men no matter how badly we are beaten down. That's just the amount of loyalty we have to our society. That's the spirit of cooperation. That's what makes a woman a woman.
"males are the superior gender" mentality. Good going.
In no way, do men have it "just as hard" in said countries, than women. Men may have it hard, but not "just as hard". There is no way, theoretically, statistically or realistically, that a man would have it "just as hard" in a country that feels the way you do (that the male gender is superior) and treats women as property by virtue of their gender. The male risk factors are there, but due to this violation of rights that don't exist in this country, the risk factors for women are automatically doubled, because now, not only are we foreigners, but we are property the second we step across that border. Unclaimed. Property. No matter which situation you speak of, unless the man has his face and a price for it plastered all over every wall, he only need assume the usual amount of caution anyone would have to assume in your average ghetto. Whilst I would be unclaimed property and an opportunity should I travel alone. All thanks to your
Funny, how you are trying to imply that men's negatives are only what progressed humanity, yet you have no problem using such things that may have required such things? I don't see any of those things happening legally in our society nowadays, do you? I have never dissagreed that males are the leading cause of the negatives of the world, but I also believe they are the ones that have made the positives in the world.
You've complained about all those things, yet you are happy to use such things; progress of the human species.
Oh, so nearly every building you see today was not built by men? Jeez, a lot of concuerers in the construction industry nowadays, eh? Killing their brothers and all. Typical builders, right?
You are linking the negatives with the positives of what men have done. Yes, men have donw many evil things, just like they have done good things. Tell me, do you benefit more than you don't benefit from male contributions? Exactly.
The rich are rich because they earn it, the poor are poor because they never strived as much, unless they are countries in which pverty and famine are natural, in which I agree, we should help them more.
Is your idea here that since they are poor, the rich should be ppor, and that the ones that worked to get rich shouldn't be paid the amount they work for because the ones that aren't working as hard aren't getting the same amount of payment? The pay gap is a myth. There is just as much evidence that suggests that the majority of times women get paid less, is because males work longer, work harder conditions, and/or work in areas of more risk. If you think women deserve to be paid equal when they aren't doing as much as listed as the men, then that's your problem.
Where does this happen to women? Where the hell do you get this impression that this happens "legally", in which is connected with our society?
If our progress has caused so much harm and disaster, then why be a part of it? You like to sit there and say how evil men's progress is, yet like to sit and reap the benefits of such evil?
Incase you haven't noticed, the world is divided, we are focused on our own little areas of the world, and as much as I dislike it, it's how it is. Technology is humanity's greatest achievement, it makes us do what we originally thought impossible. Yes, casualties happen, but that is life, and nobody is forced to work to death unless they signed up for it in out legal system.
Yes, the male gender's superiority that you benefit from. If males haden't done what they done to progress humanity, we would most likely still be in an un-civilized world, and murder, rape, theft, brutality would all be increased incredibly, and the women would want this to happen, because just like most female animals in the animal kingdom, they want partners that show strength and dominance. Just like how women, as you imply, hated our ways of progression and dominance, your gender shunned males that didn't want to be part of it. During the wars, if a male wouldn't sign up for wars, females, it could be any female, would give them a white feather to symbolize being a coward. So don't act like your gender wasn't for this progression, because the majority of women were, not to mention you are aswell, otherwise you wouldn't like using so much of the inventions made by men today.
The male gender is superior due to their contributions, due to their sacrifice, and due to their intelligence and willingness to progress involving risk. This is why I can't respect you here. You are saying we have done nothing but fuck up the world...Then why are you here? You aren't forced to become part of civilization and society, there are many areas in which escape civilization, yet you choose to stay in civilization, why? If the male gender has fucked up the world so bad, why are you still here when you can go elsewhere and live in a way that would be the same as if men haven't progressed anything? Why are you still here? You have never been forced to stay in civilization, yet you are saaying it is so terrible, then leave. Nobody is stopping you, just leave this, in your opinion, evil, negative, hate filled society and live a more primal life, go right ahead. But you won't, and you know why, because you benefit far more by being part of a world men have made than the one untouched by males.
It wasn't our violence, evil, and negativity that built the progression of humanity, it was the strength to build, the intelligence to invent tools, the instinct to hunt for food, and so on. Do you really think women would have it better off if we hadn't evolved humanity? Do you really think the primal state of humanity respects women nearly to the amount we do today?
Like I have said many times, I accept that the male gender has done the worst, just like I say the male gender has also done the best for humanity. Secondly, do you honestly think that what we class as "crime" more evil and brutal than what our species done in primal times, really? Do you think that the crimes today are far worse than the exact same actions we call crime in our primal state? If so, I am amazed. Our idea of "crime" happened far worse and far more frequently in our primal stage than it does now, so yes, thanks to the male gender we have decreased the amount of "crime" done by our species.
These problems can't be stopped at this time, and or can't at all. You are trying to tell me males have to try and stop crime from happening at all? It's impossible, crime is already illegal, a lot of it is due to enviromental upbringing and/or mental problems. If you think crime is something that can be fixed, you are asking too much of anyone. The only way crime can be stopped or greately reduced is if our rights were on a very short leesh, and you strike me as the person now that would complain about how men put society in a short leesh after solving the problem you originally said needs to be stopped.
Yes, I will look around me. Do you know what I see? Greatness. I see myself communicating with someone on the other end of the world by the touch of a key buttons and a few clicks. I see four walls built around me. I feel heat without a naked flame, I see light in the darkness. I see a bed that will keep me warm during my sleep. I see vehicles that can make the human travel than they originally thought impossible. I hear music in my ears played out by a few clicks of a button. I see information right at my finger tips due to the access to the internet. I see food and water easily accessed, I feel the clothing on my back and the shoes on my feet. I know that if I get injured, I can be healed. I see intelligence, I see images that can give me entertainment, we can now fly, and I see, feel, hear, smell, taste so much more than could make a book load of things. I see everything our primal species thought impossible mainly due to the male gender.
Yes, that's what makes you a woman, willing to help, but not as willing to die. Your idea of willing to help is far different from the male version. The male gender have sacrificed their lives far more than your gender has for their countries. No matter how many of our friends we see killed in war, we continue fighting, for our countries, yet you complain about being beaten down.
Your spirit of cooperation is limited compared to the male version, it is our cooperation and sacrifice that made it even possible for you to live happily, but yeah, you females do just as much, regardless of deaths in the military and in wars showing a clear difference in sacrifice. Good going.
The spirit of cooperation is the male, because without their cooperation, society would never have come this far.
Don't, just don't. You do not get to decide what logical is unless you have proven me wrong, which you haven't. So far "your" argument has been nothing but "You destroyed us, boohoo, hey, is that heat coming to me, is that a light I can just switch on?" speech.
This is why I can't respect you on here, once again. I have done nothing but say I want 100%, unconditional, cold equality. I want equality, I want it so bad. I want it because women don't want it, I want it so they can see that while they expect to get positives of being male, they wouldn't be able to handle the negatives. I knew certain areas of the world are worse for women, I never dissagreed to that. Where have I said women should be treated like property? You sit there and insult my argument, yet you are putting words in my mouth saying that I believe things I don't believe. Don't sit there and say I have no logic here when your logic is built up on your opinion on my opinions.
Yeah, "fuck men". Let's go by your logic, shall we? You have female friends, therefore you don't hold negativity against women. Well, my husband is a male. I fuck him, cook him dinner, work more hours than him (he is dyslexic and needs to focus more on school than I do. I have an IQ of 130, I don't study and I do fine. He can't do that. By the way, the IQ measurement was invented by men and administered by a man, and a man has admitted, by disclosure to me of said test results, that by virtue of my IQ, I am intellectually superior to most people. I only pointed out that I am intellectually superior to most men in said third-world countries as a focal point of irony, in that they feel that I am inferior but the numbers say otherwise. Or maybe it is because I am physically inferior. Because, you know, that's all progress requires.), and my job is tougher than his. I love him and I respect him, just like I love my "father", just like I love my friends, the majority of which are males.
Let me make this perfectly clear to you. Women in developed countries such as ours have our rights. And no one will preach harder than me that women need to step up and take the independence they love spouting off about. No one will preach harder than me that for a woman to claim that she is strong and deserves her rights and is for equality yet clings to the old notion that men are supposed to take care of women are downright fools and make us all look bad. I pay half the rent, he pays the other half. I clean the living room and bathroom, he does the laundry. I cook dinner, he does the dishes. I pay for the water, he pays for the electricity. Equality means that I give what I expect in return.
You want equality, yet you give me "Men are superior to women", and try to throw me down because I don't believe that women are inferior to men? You want equality, but you're going to call women inferior? If you can't see, how stupid "I want equality/The female gender is the inferior gender" is as a form of logic, than I can't help you.
I think people. Should respect all people. Regardless of race. Gender. Creed. Nationality. It's not an issue of gender, it is an issue of assholes, the women that I deal with every day that dress like prostitutes and wonder why they only date pimps. And yeah, society accepts it. No, that's not a good thing, but neither is being told that I am inferior because I am a female. You want us to act like equals, but proclaim that we are not? Once again, make up your goddam mind.
And yes, I know about the "pay myth" and I agree with you, I know the reasons and statistics and explanations etc. etc. Yes, when people look at this statistic, they sorely neglect to do their research.
But maybe, maybe, you should read the part where I said "When women who work just as hard as men". We're not talking about the fact that women lose productivity time because they choose to have children and must take maternity leave, or that women require more expensive health coverage, or that women require more days off, or that women are honestly convinced that they can focus their full attention on parenting and work at the same time (most of the time, with younger children, they can't), I am talking about a women who works as hard as a man and does as much as a man and still gets paid less. Not all women have children so early in their careers, I'm sorry to say.
I usually agree with you, because I do believe that my definition of equality is correct, that women should not expect from men without giving them something in return, because they have vaginas. I truly don't believe that "men are all bad" because women like to dupe themselves into thinking that jackasses will cease to be jackasses because they squeezed their spawn out of their vaginas, or that a man that won't commit to them financially, emotionally or legally, will commit to raising a child with them. Women were given freedoms and with freedom comes responsibility and there will be no such thing as equality until women, all women, have that freedom and use that freedom to direct their own fate, and not expect to be coddled based on their gender or physical weakness. Because physical weakness is abundant in men too.
Yeah, I'm tired of the bullshit. Yeah, I'm tired of women screaming for equality when they treat men as if they are not equal, but most of all, I don't not enjoy YOU screaming for equality and then telling me that we are not equals. And no matter what you say, I never will.
Not to mention, that you stated that men have it just as hard as women in said third world countries. This was a statement of pure ignorance. Your mentality is the mentality held by men in these countries that do treat those women as property, I figured you'd appreciate that, seeing as how you truly love generalization.
Yeah, I'M the one putting words in YOUR mouth. I would like to see direct quotes in which I stated this, please. Copy paste, if you will.
Since you seem hell bent on misinterpreting everything that I say, I'll make my points clear right now. If you are going to give credit to males for building society, then give them the credit for the problems that society is experiencing, including the ones that you are mentioning. Oh, now the male gender suddenly wants the equality that females and minorities have been fighting for for thousands of years? Well what do ya know?
Let's use your allusion of the building, for example, if an architect designs a beautiful building that is inherently flawed by design, who is to blame? The architect, or the tenants? Speaking of construction, yes, the building that I am looking at was built by men. Men are the physically stronger gender. Hence, the strength that built this building. Because that is what makes men superior, physical strength. There you go again, except this time, men are not victims of the female agenda, they are superior due to their strength. Because strength is what makes males great. As a woman who admires men of science, I'd like you to argue that with men such as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking (especially Hawking), Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Benjamin Franklin, and other said men who are not famous for their physical abilities but for what their intelligence has to offer. See how a society does with all of the scientists killed due to your physical strength. See how far we progress. And yes, there is a price to progress.
I agree with you, the rich to earn their money, but maybe you have not picked up a newspaper. The reason why millions have lost their jobs, and millions of homes have been foreclosed is BECAUSE of those rich, powerful men letting their power get the best of them and their concern for good people. But I guess in your eyes, dominance is always necessary. I'm sure every woman on Earth would be thrilled and happy to sleep with Ben Bernanke, you know, the woman that probably caused their husband to lose his job and retirement account. Yeah, the wealthy and powerful are not responsible for the way our economy has turned. Take another Economics class and get back to me.
And speaking of your quest for dominance, yes, said building was made possible by the slaying of said innocents. Rarely is land ever begotten of anything but pure conquest. Ask the Native Americans, many of whom were males that would not have done the same. Hence why I say, modern society was formed by the conquerors. And speaking of conquest, I don't see it fit for you to tell me that my gender is inferior because I, like most men and women in this country, am not willing to go out and fight and die in some bullshit political war. In fact, most people in general do not want to fight and wage war. This makes us lesser people how? Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake, men fighting and killing each other to solve their problems rather than using their superior intellect to sit down and negotiate makes them superior. War is only necessary when both sides refuse to cooperate. Sending your own citizens to die does not make said uncooperative leader superior. Stubborn and superior are two different words. Hence, why they have two different meanings. I know, right? I'd happily join the military and fight for my country, but male dominated society states that a thyroid disorder (and subsequent health problems) is worth concern when it comes to enlistment. No, no, look it up, my genitalia and thyroid are two separate organs. Yes, yes, I do plan on going to my doctor and getting another blood test and improving my physical health so I will pass the MEPS physical. Now go look at the millions of other men that refuse to fight senseless wars.
Men are superior because they "gave" women rights, huh? So who the hell decided that they should have rights over us in the first place? Probably them, by virtue of their own physical strength, because, like you alluded to, physical strength is all men have to offer. Despite the mass of intellectuals that do not posses such great strength. Need to impress women with displays of power? That sounds like a personal problem between the both of you.
And you're going to sit here and tell me that you want equality while saying things like "The male gender is superior", which is a sexist statement. Let me explain it to you, one who obviously has not heard of a dictionary. Men created society and by virtue of that, men made these rules. Here goes!
When you believe that a race is inferior to yours, you're racist, and discriminating against the other race by determining their inferiority by virtue of the color of their skin, you are a racist.
When you believe that one is inferior to you because of their eye color, height, weight, creed, country of origin, religion, shoe size, color preference, hair color etc. you are prejudiced.
And to believe that I am inferior to you because of my gender is sexist. Don't like it? Take it up with the boys who wrote the Oxford Dictionary. Determining my value to society based on my genitalia and XX chromosomes is discrimination.
Yes, you said that, did you not read my reply at all? I just said I know males are responsible for most of the negatives in the world. Did you expect me to dissagree so you have a point, then when I agreed you couldn't accept that or something? Read this: I know the male gender has caused the most pain and negatives with the world, I have never dissagreed with that.
So then you imply that men wanting the protection of being a female is something that is suprising? If women didn't want the positives men want, men wouldn't ask for the positives women get, and if women want male positives, men deserve female positives.
Yes, and most architects are males and the ones that have designed the best buildings were male. So saying that strength is the only thing that helped us progress with building is just a bad point to make, because women could do their part in the construction business by being architects, that would contribute to the construction industry greatly, and physical strength wouldn't be a part of it.
I don't get the tenant part. Why would a tenant, someone that occupies the building be to blame there? They didn't plan or build the building...
Technology has advanced, there are many ways to contribute to the construction industry that wouldn't require nearly as much physical effort as we used to need to build, not to mention, yes women are weaker, that doesn't mean they are weak.
The reason why males are not a victim of that area is because it is a well known fact due to history, and if we were to be seen as equally strong as women, women would need to be part of the construction industry more...So in actual fact, that may not make victims of males, but it does protect females from having to physical work.
What are you on about? How can I take you seriously here, really? Where have I at all said that strength is the only thing we need to progress? Where did I say that? Because what you imply is that I think scientists that can't do hard labour and are men should be killed? What in the hell gave you that idea from me? Really? Why are you making up things that suggests I think such things just to prove a point that needs something I said to work, in which I never said the thing that your whole point is built on? Stick to things I have said, not things you think I have said or wish I did say.
The male brain is just as much, maybe more so what is responsible for our progression, our strength is just something that made it happen. An idea can't happen without the tools needed to make it a reality.
Every society has its problems, this is part of ours. Just as there are men messing up the economy, there are men trying to fix it. This goes back to one of my points; men are the worst and the best thing for society. The only difference is, would people even have this amount of security even with the economy so messed up if there was no society with an economy to start off with? Ofcourse not, what they have now would be considered that of riches if we hadn't made a society with economy, etc.
So your gender is so strong because they will support their men in...Average every day situations. Men are not better regardless of the male gender fighting in wars that they sacrificed their lives in? If there were no men to defend you in the previous wars, do you think you would have great life? Would you even be born? Most likely not. See, you are like many people when you say this, that's how you come across to me here, because we're not facing wars at this time, but if we were ever to go to full blown war again, you would think men are pathetic for not fighting to try save their country and everyone in it, regardless if women are barely on the front lines.
Yeah, and a lot of people didn't want to fight in the previous wars, and look what women done to those men; they called them cowards. When women didn't have as much right back then to do what they do today, yet even then they called them cowards for not going off to sacrifice themselves.
Like I said before, don't sit there and think men were the only ones thinking fighting was a good idea, women called men cowards when they thought similar things, so don't sit and think women were being intelligent on the matter and thinking "why don't we just work it all out?", because they were routing for males going out fighting for every war.
Something tells me the whole "crack some eggs to make an omlette" idea doesn't come clear to you. Sacrifice is needed in war, it is "needed". If you think we wouldn't be taken over, by say the nazis, if we didn't sacrifice, then there are no words to explain my disapointment in your logic there.
Go and join the military...Go ahead. It is much easier for women to get in to the military than for the men you know? All the tests are far easier, and less are expected of women to get in to the military. You will most likely not get put in the danger zones like the male soldiers do, but you will get paid just as much regardless of not being in as much danger. Say, I have an idea. How about you give some of your earnings to the male soldiers that do more work than you in the military instead of accepting the same pay for the least risk taken compared to others? But something tells me you wouldn't do that.
Oh my God. Read this. I will put it in capitals for you to read. "WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT MEN ONLY HAVE THEIR PHYSICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFFER?" Where? Stop trying to make points out of things you wish I said to make a point, then when I haven't said it you just go along as if I have said it anyway.
It isn't sexist, it's the truth. Men have done more, men progress society more, men invent more, men invent more complex things, and so on, ergo the male gender is better. The majority of subjects have a "man" that is the best at the subject, therfor males are the superior gender. It is not sexist at all. Your whole logic there is that it's descrimination to say that the chairmaker is more superior at making the chair than the person asked to sit on it to test it, that is your whole logic on that matter. Men have done more, without male contribution society could not run, without males you wouldn't be in civilization, without males inventing so much technology you wouldn't be able to work anywhere near to the level the male gender does.
Better yet, explain to me. What makes something better in your eyes? Obviously it isn't achievement, in your opinion, so tell me, what makes something better than something else?
Wow, really? You are telling me that "that" is ther definition of sexism and racism? So by your logic, me saying that humans are better than, say, crows, is me discriminating against crows in a wrong manner? Your whole logic here is that if you say someone is better than the other, regardless of them doing more intellectually and physically, then expressing that such a person is better than the other is descrimination? Hey, I am smarter than Hawking...Dissagree? DISCRIMINATION!...See how flawed that logic is?
Sexism and racism is tied with discrimination here, so let me give you a little lesson from the dictionary:
dis·crim·i·na·tion/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/
Noun:
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
The "unjust". I believe it is just to say the male gender is superior, why? Because they have done more and continue to do more and do the more complex things to progress humanity.
Where have I said "you" are inferior to "me"? Where have I said that? I haven't. I will never say I am superior to a woman unless I absolutly am, just like I will happily admit that there are millions of women better than me.
Like I just showed, the words within the dictionary lead to other definitions needing explained, and just like sexism is linked to descrimination to the dictionary, you look up the definition of that linked word, then you read that's definition, then you can come to words such as it saying that it is sexism if the descrimination is "unjust", where as it does not explain that sexism can't be just. See? Don't like it? Take it up with the boy who wrote the Oxford dictionary.
I love how you stupidly don't see sarcasm in a serious tone, you could say...Yet you couldn't even understand the statement mistaken as a serios statement. You thought I meant as in sexual "fuck men"...
There is a difference between respecting something as a group and respecting an individual. I have never expected woman to respect every single male just for being male, I have said that they should respect the male gender due to it being the male gender that brought them from the primal stage of humanity.
Not even answering the part on the car bit. I am getting too tired of having to answer things that I do not believe, yet somehow you think I do.
...So your "statistic" proof of you being smarter than most men is by an individual man...Ah. That's all I can say to that. "Ah".
Actually no, you didn't just say in third world countries, you said "every country".
Why are you mentioning that you have a better carreer and mor eintelligent than your partner? Is that you implying a point to a point I didn't make, that a woman can't be smarter than a man? Never said that, nor will it ever be said by me, so what was your point there?
Like I have said, those parts I do respect you for due to you keeping hold of equality in that sense, so why are you telling me that again?
The male "gender" is superior, not every individual male. I don't know how many times I can say that to you. I have never said to a woman, nor will that she will always be inferior to every man.
I don't respect is earned, not entitled.
Ugh. Like I said, I never said "you" were inferior to every male.
You don't realize, but the male gender is throwing the female gender a bone. They have not done as much, and to this day they still do not progress our species as much as the male gender does, they only help maintain society at the stage males leave the species at until we progress as a species to the next level. That is needed, but it isn't vetter than progression itself. Yes, women deserve rights, but the gender that has brought us to this level of intelligence and superiority as a species is giving the gender that hasn't done nearly as much to progress us a chance to be seen equal to the gender doing such things. If we were to be really equal, the female gender wouldn't be given the exact same rights as males until they have done more as a gender to the same amount males have, with the same level of needs and wants.
I have never said that all cases that women rightfully get paid less. I know women get paid less in some areas, but they are definetly the minority of times when they are given unjust less pay.
I didn't stae men have it just as bad, I stated that males also have problems in third world countries aswell, not just women, I never said they have it just as bad.
And yes, by statistical and repeated testing, invented by males, I am intellectually superior to most males in every country. I misquoted myself, and the original statement was a touch of irony. If you can't wrap your mind about what that means, and if you are going to keep using that as a focal point of your argument rather than addressing the issue I was addressing itself, then maybe I'll say something much more outrageous for you to focus on the next time around to distract you from the real argument, like "My reading comprehension skills are better than that of most men", that will make up have your argument against me, easily. You'll be all over that like flies over horseshit.
I will reiterate my point: Males built society, females helped, but the male gender as a whole did not do shit. You change your words and say "women did not contribute as much to society what if we only granted contributors rights" and then say that not all males are superior to females and then say that the male gender is superior to the female gender because of intellectual prowess of a few (nothing to do with physical strength, don't worry!) and you do no justice to the rest that did not invent or build. Don't sit here and tell me this bullshit, because it *is* illogical so say
The male gender is superior to the female gender, yet all men are not superior to all women. That's a statement of logical fallacy. Look up "logic", or better yet, stay in school if you honestly can't see how your argument is that illogical. If you're going to credit the male gender with the achievements of a few males, then your argument is bound to be illogical. How is it anymore disrespectful to say that men suck when using an invention made by Alexander Graham Bell, but it is not insulting to Patricia Billings that you say that women are inferior yet sit in a building that is probably insulated with GeoBond. Or maybe you prefer asbestos... hm...
Either way, to generalize men and say they suck and to generalize women and say they suck, or that they are inferior, is an insult to any one of that that contributed to society, or contributed period.
Now if you're going to continue to give me arguments while using twisted words and sarcasm and thinking that sarcasm and jokes are a valid form of argument and then call out every serious argument that I give you with sarcasm, then, once again, you may go fuck yourself, because I can't help you if you are going to resort to childishness. Debate is a sport, debate online is a passtime, but debating with someone who resorts to childishness (and is probably going to shit his pants with the speed he will be typing how "OMG you said "go fuck yourself" too, and I am going to brood on your serious arguments and twist them but hey, don't brood on my insults and sarcasm" Buddy, I'm not using sarcasm and insults as main point in my argument) is a waste of time. Learn to conduct a civilized debate, quit dragging animals, sarcasm and random insults into it and mentioning your "respect" for me like it AT ALL matters to this argument, and debate. I like your debate style, but when you feel the need to drop insults, sarcasm and pointless red herrings in, it gets stupid and I am tired of addressing the same "OMG u said ur smrter than most men" argument. I explained it already. I'm not going to explain it anymore. If you can't go do your own research on something that I figured was common knowledge, more power to you I guess.
"The "unjust". I believe it is just to say the male gender is superior, why? Because they have done more and continue to do more and do the more complex things to progress humanity."
Yeah, just like white people have done more to advance society than black people? You're disguising your sexism with pretty rhetoric which is what most attempt to do, and you are questioning male definitions of sexism and intelligence. Don't question me, question the source.
I'm not going to write a book here, because if you don't understand that the male gender itself did not create shit, then you never will. "The Male Gender", did not build society. Males did. Yeah, males have contributed more in terms of building and technology, but the entire male gender? If you absolutely fail to see how idiotic it sounds when you say "The Male Gender" built society and "The Male Gender is the superior Gender" "but I am not saying that males are superior to females" then I would also advice you to take a logic class.
Simply because, your sheer discrimination and accreditation to a group of people based on gender, is complete and utter bogus. Males built society, the male gender did not.
You did not build society, other males built society, so why should you get credit for building society based upon your gender? And what goes to the men that didn't contribute to society? You honestly think they all of them built skyscrapers and roads? So should the rights that we give be only handed out on a "whether or not you built/invented" basis? Because if that is the case, than the majority of your "Male Gender" would have no rights as well.
Don't mistake the intellectual achievements of a few males as the intellectual achievements of the male gender. When intellect is taken out of the question, you run to physical strength, decrying the role of males in construction but failing to mention the fact that females played their roles in society as well, albeit different roles as the fact of the matter is that females are physically disadvantaged in terms of strength, in fact, many males are as well, so to state that strength should even be considered is an offense to your "Male Gender".
And yes, the tests to get into the military are easier for females (less laps and pushups in boot camp). Am I to blame for that, and please tell me how? I took the same entrance exams, I go to the same MEPs, it was determined for me, *it was determined for me* that I am to go into law enforcement, which is off the battlefield. In fact, most women will never be allowed to see the battlefield, not for many years. That's a rule set by "The Male Gender", mainly due to purposes of hygiene. And yes, more than likely I will be payed more, but you sit here and say that "the rich earn their money" but that I should give my money to troops in combat? I already give a percentage of my paycheck to those in need (one that I won't disclose), and if I am earning my money, I am entitled to keep it. Your generalization is not fair to many of my male friends who have been put into logistics and medical positions in the military that will also never see combat. Oh, wait, are their contributions not as important? Maybe we should tell the troops down below that since the doctors are not important, their children will not be treated and given vaccinations. I'm a military kid. My Dad never saw combat but he contributed as much to his country as any sniper or marine did. Oh, so is my father a coward for never seeing combat? You, sir, may go fuck YOURSELF.
And maybe you're not familiar with history, dude that obviously has no respect for the military, but males led the charge on that "disrespect", politicians, especially male ones, led the charge on that disrespect. Sadly, females followed. You honestly think a female signed over hundreds of thousands of troops to die for a cause they barely understood? Do you have any idea what war does to the infrastructure of a country, do you have any idea how much more valuable female domestics become when the men are absent? Or maybe we should send the females to, let the children take care of themselves? That doesn't seem to work out very well.
Ask my Dad about a country he visited called East Timor. Back in the 90's, a political party that lost power, as a final "Fuck you" to the country, combed the country for any adult old enough to work (male AND female) and slaughtered them. Just as many females as males. My Dad can tell you, he was "not contributing" by burying their dead bodies. Maybe he should be giving his pay to combat vets instead? I digress. The moral of the story is that the country did not do so fucking hot with the absent of all of the physically able males and females, and is still struggling to recover. Most soldiers will tell you, they need someone back home. If the same number of men lost their lives in such great wars as women, our economy would take a hit. Someone has to stay here and maintain. Don't debate it with me, debate it with anyone.
That example is not this subject at all. In that example, both males would be the ones that know those things; one knows machanics, the other the vaccine. If two males know those things, then the gender has two people that know those things, therefor the male gender isn't missing one person that knows how to make a vaccine and has someone that knows how to be a mechanic, we have both knowledge on those things.
You know more on computers than the majority of men you know? Maybe those people had no intention of studying or taking an interest in those things. But, take a look at computer science, the vast majority of them that know those things are males.
It doesn't matter if "you" know more about those things to the majority of males "you" have met, the fact is that as a whole, the majority of people in those lines and haver knowledge of those things are male. Like I said, I am stating as a gender males are superior, that doesn't mean an individual woman can't know just as much or more than an average man on subjects.
Well actually, no. Females are better at language and communication, so I won't be all over that like "flies on horseshit".
Ah, ok. Well surely you must have some sort of evidence to support such a claim that you are smarter than most males? And exactly what tests was this based on?
How is that hard for you to understand? As a gender, a group, males are superior because if you collect up all of their intelligence, their strength, their drive, their progression, then done the same for the female gender, you would see that it adds up that males are better in all of those things, "as a group". Where did I say that men are superior with no thanks to physical strength? This is why I find it hard to believe you are smarter than most men in most countries, because you are flip floping around. First you say that I'm saying men are superior due to their strength, then I reply telling you that it isn't "just" theit strength that makes them superior, then you now say that strength has nothing to do with why they are superior. You're taking bits of this debate out and filling in other bits that were never said.
How can you expect me to believe you are smarter than most men when you can't under stand simple things? "As a group" the male gender is superior. Does that mean that in that "group" all of the individual males are superior to all the individuals in the female gender as a group? No. How can you not understand that? Then you imply I need to go back to school for that? Please. It was a very simple thing to grasp, yet you couldn't grasp it, so take your own advice and go back to school.
You can't understand this, can you? A group is not filled with everyone of the same intelligence and strength, there are individuals better than the other individuals in that group. The individuals in the male gender group have done far more than the individuals in the female gender. These people are "male", and so they are linked with the male gender. This means that the "individuals" in the "group" that is the male gender have done more than the individual females in the group of the gender. Does that mean that every male in the gender is superior to every female in their gender? No, it just means that there are more "individuals" that have done more and more complex things for society and humanity than the "individuals" of females, and since they are male, they go in the male categoery. How can you not understand that?
I am not twisting words, and I used sarcasm once, in which you misunderstood the sarcasm completely, and it was a more so serious form of sarcasm that I hoped you would be able to grasp the point of the sarcasm, which you didn't.
If sarcasm is a form of stupidity, then you need to look more in to the word. Jokes? Never made a joke yet, so once again stop adding bits you would of liked for me to say so you could point them out.
All I could do was sit back here with the blank look on my face. Do you really think that you saying "go fuck yourself" would have nearly the effect on me as you think or wish it would? You clearly don't know me enough, which is shown by the amount of assumption of how I would react have been shown wrong so far.
You're saying speaking to someone that is insulting someone that has no revelance to the debate is a "waste of time", yet you were the one trying to insult me by saying I need to go back to school. So by your own logic, is debating with you a waste of time? So far you have been playing pick and mix with a lot of what I have said, is that not a waste of time to engage in when the opposing debater is doing that? And my dear God, if you say something along the lines of "it wasn't an insult it is the truth", then you just show yourself to be what you imply me to be; a child.
Not to mention, a debate is not a sport, here is the definition:
"A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."
If any of that is "sport" to you, then you need to look up what sport is.
Oh please, don't speak to me about common knowledge, I have to babystep easy to understand things to you, like having to explain that a superior group doesn't equal superior individuals in the group.
There is a difference between blacks and women. Black people's natural habitat did not have the resources we had to progress like white people did. Difference is, women had those resources like men did, blacks didn't in their original habitat. Again, don't imply I don't know the simple things when you are asking me questions people should already know.
The next bit has already been answered. If you think that I think that the entire gender of males' individuals have done more than every single woman, then you do need things explained to you in baby steps. To say that would to go against my opinion that not all individual males are better than individual females, it would contradict me, which needed explained to you why I never said what you are claiming I have said.
This is why I say the male gender "as a group" and not just "the male gender".
The difference between the male and female gender on the invent and build is that males can be trained to build due to their default strength, women can't. If we were to say that you only get rights if you contribute to the other males building to the same extent, if males wanted those rights, they could just start building like the rest if they have no intelligence to offer, females can't do that.
What? Where is your logic there? Strength is what made this civilization possible, same goes for the intelligence of inventing buildings, then you are trying to say that it is an offense?
If we are indeed equal in intelligence, then males are superior because they are equally intelligent and have superior strength.
I never said you were to blame for it happening, you are to blame for accepting it though.
Oh, so you, since you are entitled to the same amount of money that others are doing more work for, you deserve that money? Why should men say women deserve equal pay if that's what you go by? "I deserve this money because it was given to me, but if someone does more risk than me yet gets paid the same, unlucky him, I am entitled to the money I done less work for".
You do realize that not only in combat to men proceed better to do in the military, but in most, if not all, of the other parts of the military that aren't involving combat, right?
Your dad was in the military? Half of my family was in the military, two of them were very high up; grandfather and uncle. My uncle isn't in the military anymore because he got the offer to work in charge of a prison.
Where did I say he was a coward for that? Where did I say anyone was a coward for that? My God, this is why you can't be smarter than most men in most countries, because once again you are playing pick and mix with what is being said and making assumptions of what I believe regardless of every assumption have have made not being my belief. "This" is why I can't see you as smarter than most men in most countries. This is why I think that your "tests" were not legitimate.
Me having to explain this all to you would either mean two things. Once, I am smarter in these topics than you, or maybe in general which makes me smarter than most men in most countries aswell, or you are not smarter than most men in most countries like you claim or had the information given to you incorrectly. My best bet is the latter.
Oh my God. I am probably considered a chritian now due to the amount of times I've had to say "Oh my God" to your whole reply, and I am sure there will be more to follow that would make me sound like a devoted priest.
Women did not just "follow", they "cheered". You seem to avoided the whole part in which I mentioned that women gave males a white feather to symbolize being a coward if they didn't go to war. So yes, women did want men to go fight in a war and sacrifice themselves, because they called them cowards if they didn't, so stop playing pick and mix, forgetting the points already stated that prove your new points wrong before you even click "post reply".
Yes, and back in the wars if men were willing to stay back and not fight in the war to help "maintain society", they were called cowards, what's your point?
Why should they have? Because they shunned males that didn't. Nowadays it isn't done so much because we are not in a situation in which we need to fight or our countries get taken over and the majority of civilians killed, but if that was the case, you know you would be one of the people expecting males to fight to protect.
I haven't really been reading your posts, like a handful of sentences and a paragraph here and there, but since you said "respect is off the table", I just kind of quit reading because well... respect is off the table, right?
Anyway, if my argument confused you, that's probably why. I can't agree with the "Men are the Superior Gender because Men have accomplished more". That's a fallacy of composition, which is a logical fallacy. No, logic is not just some word that the users around here like to throw around like a hacky sack, it's an actual academic study. A fallacy of composition is the fallacy in which you attribute qualities of the parts to the entirety of the whole. Which is what "The Male Gender is the superior gender because males have accomplished more" is, males have accomplished more, but all males have not accomplished more than all females. You don't really have to be interested in logic to know this, you just kind of have to look it up. Please.
Anyway, good luck with your uhh... fuck, whatever you're doing.
My Dad was dick by the way. Military wasn't his first choice. His first choice was to rob a house. Then he got caught and court ordered into the military. He doesn't rob houses anymore. Nawh, he just robs my Mom and sister.
Respect was off the table, that doesn't mean disrespect was on it as the main course. Like most on here, you forget lack of respect isn't equal to disrespect. It isn't "respect" to me that you engage in a debate that you are not even reading, it's stupidity and pointless.
You can't agree with that, which is why I asked you what you think makes something more superior than the other, and it came to no suprise when you didn't answer that part, given that it was an important part of the debate.
Don't reply to me. Really. Unless you have read my side of the debate, don't reply to me, because most likely I have already said something that counters what you type next, like the point of why the male gender as a group is better. If you won't read my replies completely that would explain my reply to that part of what you stated, why state it at all? I have already replied in a way that explains and counters your point on the superior part. You want to be heard, you don't want to listen, so why would you at all engage in a debate if you're not willing to read why someone disapoints with your point? Atleast I read through all of your points and reply to each one, you barely answered half of mine and added what you thought I had said when I hadn't said anything like that.
What the last part has to do with anything in this topic is beyond me.
You have not only wasted my time, but you have wasted your own. If you had actually decided to be logical in this debate and read what the opposing debater had to say, it might of not been a total waste of time.
If you're going to reply on the topic we are talking about, read what I replied previously first, because I am repeating myself over and over just for you to continue asking the questions that I have already anwered. I even read the parts that have no place for this debate, the father thing at the end of your recent reply, yet you won't even read the ones that have everything to do with the debate, then decide not to answer the main points I make?
I want this question answered though, it has much relevance to the debate. How could something be better than the other in your opinion?
So that's pretty much the real question... Which qualities are important to you in a vehicle, or person, or plant? You can't expect to look for a vehicle and apply your standards to it and say that your standards are universal. Some people are looking for different cars to do different jobs. My T-Bird is a great little curve runner, far superior turning ratio to an F-150, but an F-150 could tow my car if I ever run it off a road. Another T-Bird could not. And then you have it's classification, "Sports Coupe". Well it's not very fast for a "Sports Coupe", and associating it with a group of what is traditionally considered to be fast cars, won't make it any more like them. Great for 1995. That's all many cars can truly be, great for their class. Great for the job they're built to do.
If THIS makes no sense, then rest assured, the only example of a "Perfect" or near superior human being that I can think of, is Jesus Christ. His existence is debatable.
But uh... since I only read a handful of sentences from your post, I'm not allowed to respond. Hey, you said it yourself, respect is off the table.
And I don't consider having fun a waste of time. But it's starting to get that way, however, I don't have work for another 8 hours so I fail to see what better I can do right now. Barona is closed and I can't afford slicks anyway.
By the way, if you're curious and you didn't notice before that your posts weren't being read, I was reading a few sentences and anticipating the rest of your responses. It was almost like having a conversation with yourself. I'm not actually a bleeding heart hippie.
But at this point I just can't think of any new shit to post so uh...
Your car example is a bad one. Cars are made, organics evolve.Cars are made to suit different types of people, just like clothes are. Organics, you are not made better than the other to fit with peoples needs, one is simply better than the other.
I liked how you avoided using an organic example to explain your point, though. We're talking about what is better, male or female. My question is directed to what makes something organic better than the other, you used technology as a scapegoat opinion. Perhaps my fault for not asking for an a "what makes an organic thing better", so I'll ask that question:
What makes a species better than the other?
Once again, difference between respect and disrespect. I don't need to respect you to read your replies, but it is disrespectful to engage in a debate in which you write just as much, asking so many questions, then won't bother reading them.
Well I suggest you don't "anticipate" what I would next say, so far what you have anticipated have all been wrong.
That's right, and you said so yourself. Respect is off the table.
"Organics, you are not made better than the other to fit with peoples needs, one is simply better than the other. "
You are obviously unaware of why different types of dog breeds exist, why plastic surgery is so popular, why genetic testing has become a science and why Eugenics was even popularized to begin with. You also seem to be unaware of Evolution as a whole, which states clearly that evolutionary traits are meant to fill certain environmental and reproductive needs. Whether it be intentional, as in with dog breeding, or through evolution, organic creatures are designed to suit the needs of their environment or, in controlled cases such as dog breeding, the needs of the breeder involved. I'd poke at your obvious ignorance of plant breeding and engineering and animal breeding within the area of agriculture and horticulture, but your ignorance of all of the above topics is kind of laughable for someone who says that he is more intelligent than me. There are also many species of animals, including ours, that breed with an built in evolutionary indicator determining for us which mates are more suitable for our survival than others. Your entire statement contradicts modern biological science and Evolution itself. So I'm not going to address it any further. Stay in school, kid.
Once again, I'm not going to agree with your use of a proven and text-book documented logical fallacy, now am I to agree with you when you say
1)The Male Gender is Superior
2) Some members of the female gender are superior to the male gender.
So long as one of those statements is true, the other statement can not be true.
If the male gender is superior that no member of the female gender can be superior to a member of the male gender. If there are members of the female gender that are superior to members of the male gender, than the male gender as a whole is not superior. If statement 1 is true, statement 2 can not be true.
1) The Bible is the longest book ever written.
2) Some books are equal to or longer in length than the bible.
If statement 1 is true, statement 2 can not be true. Do you see how this works?
You're arguing with opinion and standards set by yourself (in which you are committing the logical fallacy of Provincialism, but I won't go into that), but the fact of the matter is that to say that "The Male Gender is Superior" is truly a fallacy of composition and if you are going to base the entirety of your argument on a logical fallacy, then by default, your argument to support a logical fallacy will also be a fallible. No seriously, don't take my word for it, look it up.
And do me a favor and punch your logic Professor in the face. Good day.
I was talking about human intelligence and skill in today's world. I quickly read through that part, but I love how you are "once again" going to avoid the question being asked after I put you on the spot to say why something organic is better than the other.
My question again; what makes a species better than the other?
If you don't answer that, don't think I don't know why, it's because you know you can't answer without showing yourself wrong.
I should of known to make is specific that I was talking about human intelligence in today's world being fitted to specific things, not every organic. Yes, you showed me wrong on what I said by mistake. I do know much about that eugenics in animals, I wasn't specific in the species or timeline I was meaning.
But, ofcourse, you knew that I made a mistake and asked if you would ask for the main specific part of the point I was asking, so you quickly deflected the question by simply saying you won't answer it.
Really, read what I say before commenting back to me, you are just sounding like a moron that is constantly repeating the same things that I have already countered too many times.
The male gender "as a group". If you read how I discussed that previously you would of known that it does make sense, either that or you have read it and can't grasp the logic in it.
Oh my God, shut up. Once again, this is why I can't see you more intelligent than most men in most countries.
"If the male gender is superior that no member of the female gender can be superior to a member of the male gender. If there are members of the female gender that are superior to members of the male gender, than the male gender as a whole is not superior. If statement 1 is true, statement 2 can not be true."
Read my previous replies and that would have been answered. You're flip floping around trying to find points that I have already proven wrong.
Do me a favour and chop your hands off, that way I won't have to read your ridiculous replies that I have "already" proven the majority of your points wrong with my previous replies, then then the points that are new you simply imply "I'm not answering it, who cares if it would prove me wrong, that's why I'm not answering it".
Good day.
Find me the tool that can objectively measure, with science, not opinion, superiority in regards to a large group of people.
My God, you are idiotic. The only part I got remotly irritated by was that you constantly repeated the same thing over and over again, regardless of me already adressing that point in the first place which you chose to ignore. Your whole logic here is that if you haven't read it, it hasn't been said, and if it hasn't been said, it isn't point, the only thing is that I have said it and you "refused" to read it, therefor you haven't grasped the counter to what you said.
Thank God, really, I am glad you're walking away from this. The majority of what you have said is just repeat after repeat after repeat, regardless of me proving what you have repeated so much wrong, you just decided not to read it, and in your mind if it wasn't read, then there is no counterpoint, like stated above.
Why would I be irritated at you pointing out something I easily proved wrong? I am irritated that you are so moronic and illogical that you are sitting there thinking that I have not replied to your points when I have rpelied to them all, you just decided not to read them, again, above part.
You gave me bullshit, not logic. You stated something, I countered it with logic, then you repeated what it is I already countered the first time.
I didn't get "pissy", nor did I "rageflame", at the most I got irritated, and rightfully so. Wouldn't you get irritated if you were talking to someone whos whole idea of debate was as follows:
"Hey, I am going to make so many points for you to answer, but once you answer them, I'm not going to read them and assume you said something else, and regardless if you prove me wrong, I did not read it, therefor you have not said what it is that countered my arguement, therfor I am more intelligent than you because if I have not read your counterpoint, then my point wasn't countered, la de da". I am in awe over your intelligence, it really is such a great gift you have, that guy was right, you are smarter than most men in most countries!
That is basically all you done this whole conversation.
This is how I get irritated with you, because you sit there saying that I am not being logical, when you clearly stated that you were not even reading most of my points, then you based my intelligence off of the few points I made, then ignored the points I put you on the spot to answer.
My argument isn't illogical until it's shown to be illogical, I have countered all of your points, you just didn't read them, and when I put you on the spot to answer a direct question, you basically say "er, um, I don't want to answer that" simply because you know if you did, it would prove you wrong.
You're a moron when it comes to debating and common sense, simple as. If you're sitting here saying "my" eyes are bad because of my points that "you" didn't read, in which my points are based upon the other points "you" didn't read, then do mankind a favour, donate every organ you have, they clearly are wasted on you and could go to someone else.
I never thought you were this stupid, but I guess you have to be on the opposite side of them to see their level of logic, and I am suprised and dissapointed in you and myself; you for the obvious, and me for thinking you were one, if not my favourite user here.
So far you are saying that I am stupid because I made points that you don't agree with, you don't agree with them and think you have a counter for them because you "decided" not to read the main point that makes the newer point logical, and somehow that makes "me" the illogical one when you yourself said you are replying with assumptions.
You gave me logic. Ha. How can you give logic to counter something you haven't read, especially when the logic you haven't read, yet trying to counter already countered your counter point before you clicked send reply?
You are just plain illogical, simple as. You avoid the "main" points and don't read the answers to the things you sent. What is the point in debate if you only like to talk and not listen?
Your logic was based upon things I haven't said and things I already countered, and then not answering the main points that need answered, and as expected, when you get asked the main point that would prove you wrong, you decide to leave the discussion. Tell me again how that is logic?
For example, I think it's Iran, the place in which women have to cover themselves, men aren't allowed to wear anything that shows them to be powerful such as expensive clothing and jewelery unless they do have power. A man's image of power is like a woman's image of beauty.
Also, it isn't about limiting the image of beauty for women and the image of power for men. It's about limiting the power of men and women, just the women get limited much more. Basically, it's oppression, and women get the short end of the stick.
If you want to compare how male and female tourists are treated in Iran in terms of dress code using an easy and visual comparison, read this webpage about it. Men have 3 short lines of instructions, women must obey several paragraphs.
http://www.letsgoiran.com/iran-women-dress-code
I know I've spent far too much time dissecting your one example, and I'm sure you could have picked a better one that actually demonstrated your point well. In your example, yeah, men and women are both subject to a dress code. The difference is that the women's is oppressive, and the men's is hardly a blip.
Whether it's actually dangerous is another matter; if you follow the rules - which are easy to follow - it isn't. I'll give you that. But it could be enough to make your trip unenjoyable if you're a woman but enjoyable if you're a man. It isn't fair at all. Exercising what ought to be basic human rights is more dangerous as a woman in Iran than it is a man, because women are more restricted. They can do less than a man and get equal punishment.
Besides, those are not gender inequalities that men traveling in foreign countries suffer, it's discrimination, which I would agree is somewhat equal amongst men and women.
However, the actual gender inequality that you've written about is very real and huge problem for women only, in the majority of the countries I've listed (not men). Inequality exists when one (1) out weighs all others. It does not mean that both suffer descrimination so both are inequal compared when compared to each other. That is a logical fallacy.
Thanks for the travel advice. :|
I don't agree that we should help each other out the same amount when it comes to genders. Women are usually in more danger, so as a global society we should usually give women more help than men where they need it, and men more help when they need it. In this case, it is women who need more help, so they should be the ones to get it. In some other scenarios it's men, and if it is men should get more help to make it equal. But not in this one.
To make an ironically off-topic side-note, people really tend to dislike that you try to make the point that all genders face hardship when the link between that and the post is so tenuous that it might as well be off-topic. They presume, very understandably, that the only reason you'd make an off-topic comment would be to hijack the post and turn it into a gender war, especially as that is always the end result whenever you do make such a post, whether you want that result or not.
By the way, I hope it doesn't come across as if I'm outright attacking you. I'm not usually averse to that, but I'm not attacking you right now. I'm sure it wouldn't bother you too much if I was, but hey.
I personally am not going to try help the female gender until male inequalities and dangers are taken just as seriously and is recognized just as much.
I can see that point, but I don't want it to turn in to a war, I want it to turn in to a conversation in which we can both agree that males suffer a lot in our society, and when people attack me for stating such a thing, they reply to me in a way that would result in a gender flame war, where as I doubt it would happen if I was to say it for the opposite gender. Nearly all of the topics I have brought up, the majority disaprove, and attack due to it, regardless of me stating facts. This website, to me, likes to see things as "men only have trivial problems to deal with, women have all the problems under the sun to deal with, and if anyone states a problem men suffer from due to inequalities, then thumbs down you get, there's no time for males mentioning the hardships of their gender, only time to mention hardships for women."
DOn't worry, I didn't get the impression you were attacking me, you are actually being very reasonable and respectful, in which I thank you.
Not saying women are dogs, just that the situation is the same.
I've known women who've been attacked (beaten and robbed) in Mexico. It doesn't seem very safe to me.
:) Hope that helps clarify.
Primarily Islamic countries may be difficult to visit because of the major discrepancies in cultural gender roles. Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Pakistan, Afganistan, Somalia, Turkey, Tunsinia, and Egypt have very high Muslim populations. Just something to consider.
South Africa, Brazil, Russia, and Mexico are pretty high on Wikipedia's list of countries by homicide rate. But then again, those sorts of statistics tend to be fairly skewed, and several of your countries aren't listed.
Other obvious considerations are the state of Haiti after its earthquake (hint: not too great yet), and I'm pretty sure DR Congo is still fucked up by war and political upheaval. Afghanistan is still not quite stable either.
My recommendation would be Turkey. It's economically surprisingly stable compared to Europe and the rest of the world, and it's absolutely beautiful to boot. Crime isn't too bad (though I'd keep my wallet safe when you're walking through the street shops), and I think there were some incidents of terrorism in the last few years, but as far as I know it's calmed down.
I know, it's not fair, but we don't make the rules do we?
but above all... be mindful of your surroundings.
I've been to South Africa mabe if you go too the slums alone it's dangerus, but other than that it's like a not so rich Australia.
i've never been to Russia but it's UE, i think it depends where if you are in mosco, fine.
some where on the sothen border, not so.
But the thing here is that not only "gringos" get the violence it happens for whoever is here, not only for travelers but watch out wherever you go, because you can suffer anything in any country of the world... even in Europe and USA there have been cases why there wouldnt be in other countries?? You get me?
Everywhere you go there have been cases of any kind of violence, the thing you have to do is to go to crowded places thats a place really difficult of happning something.
Morocco
Russia
Pakistan
Haiti
Turkey
Egypt
South Africa
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Afganiastan
Congo