Female minds

[Satyr]

Dear....dear Bimbo,
I love how you fall back on semantics, your opening volley, to construct a stupidity.
I particularly luve your artificial differentiation of meanings between the words “assume”, and “hypothesize”.

Here’s what my dictionary writes:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

Read through the definition, real carefully you dumb Bimbo.
Science assumes reality based on lower or higher degrees of probability established through observations and experiences.

Darling Satyr, I know it's necessary for you to invent meanings of expressions of your own to keep your argument from falling. But you're not a smart enough person for that. Remember, you're effeminate either way you twist it; at least according to the first post of this thread.

Well I am channeling my more feminine side these days.
I bought myself a nice flowery g-string yesterday.

Assumption is not the same as hypothesis or any sort of a guess.

Notice the words “assume” in the definition of hypothesis you dumb, fucking bitch, in this other on-line dictionary:
http://www.answers.com/topic/hypothesis

Are you stupid or just fucked up?
Maybe you can try to build a counterargument on the nuanced differentiation between “I think” and “I believe”.

Pick up a dictionary and start hitting yourself in the head with it like the monks did with the boards in that educational movie.

Okay let me “pick up a dictionary…..wait a minute…
From the Gage Canadian Dictionary:
Hypothesize 1.I make a hypothesis 2. Assume, suppose.
Hypothesis 1. Something assumed because it seems likely to be a true explanation.

All humans have breasts, and so do monkeys. Is that news? Did we need to examine every human and every monkey? Well, no, because the breasts are rather obvious. Why, have you ever met a human or a monkey without a pair of breasts? Am I being precise here?

You dumb cunt, are you generalizing the existence of breasts on monkeys from the few monkeys that you’ve personally witnessed?
How self-evident some generalizations are to you.

No, you ain’t dumb……:crazy:

One specimen is not enough for studying a thoroughly unfamiliar species. However, if one specimen is all that is available, then we have no choice. The Universe is observed from afar and we have hypotheses and questionable theories about it because only a tiny part of the Universe can be observed up close and we don't know enough about what we have right in front of us.

Thanks for that epistemological lesson.

Have you ever even watched the Discovery channel? You know, instead of looking at the Mexican boxers (who are lousy anyway; is that a generalization?), you could have at least turned on the Discovery channel.

Has all your faked intellect been a derivative of the Discovery Channel, you dumb bitch?

Tell me again about how science doesn’t generalize….that was a funny one.
Tell me again about how unique you are, while displaying your conformity and mediocrity and proving the essence of the feminine mind I’ve described.

I never said that all specimens of a species are absolutely different. Where did you pick that up? Did you assume? I think I'm the one who is claiming that there isn't that much difference between males and females of a species.

Now the bimbo is using the strategy of injecting a new word to hide her earlier blunder into her responses.
Notice how she now slips in the “much” in there to disguise her error in judgment and make it seem like she knew what she was saying all along.
Also notice her usage of the term “absolute”, insinuating that there are differences but that they do not constitute an absolute differentiation.

Nicely done stupid.

Can anyone pick out the numerous generalizations this Bimbo used to construct an argument against generalization?
Her problem is against particular assumptions and hypothetical truths.
She picks and chooses which probabilities conform to her cultural and social upbringing – typical as I’ve described the feminine mind as totally disciplined and adherent to whatever group morality and belief systems she is born into, becoming a genetic and mimetic filter – and she picks and chooses which generalizations make her feel good or help her be assimilated into the herd more efficiently and harmoniously

Will you now conveniently claim to be a woman?

Okay Bimbo…if it will make you feel better, I am a girl. :wtf:

Women are also curious, unyielding after a point, domineering whenever they see it necessary. Men are also cooperative wherever necessary (because, otherwise, how could people function as a society if all the representatives that are allowed to hold public office and businesses for thousands of years couldn't cooperate with each other). Men are also nurturing as fathers, husbands, sons, companions, pet owners and gardeners.

And you agree with what I said above because you yourself say that both males and females have both "feminine" and "masculine" (according to your definition) attributes to varying degrees. To what kind of degrees and how far in "femininity" (because we still haven't defined femininity or masculinity, they're pretty much the same according to your definition as I demonstrate in the previous paragraph) can a male go?

All the way to pussyhood.

There's no way of telling because individuals are too different.

I know they are so different that marketing strategies and politics do not really work and psychology is baffled by human behavior.

Did you wear a new outfit today, dear, to show how unique you are?
How nice.

You see, you simply can't pull the same cap over everyone and say that men are more likely to be aggressive than women. A great deal of women can be just as cruel and heartless as an army of men.

Wow, you both missed the point and displayed your stupidity and mediocrity, while trying to argue the reverse.
Congratulations.

Why argue with a morn that fails to grasp an argument and constantly constructs responses using his/her misunderstanding?

Let me tell you this: humans don't behave in some ideal ways; they behave in the way that is demanded by their environment. Nobody falls back or forth into any sort of behavior on a whim. Both men and women display whichever personality trait you pick whenever it is necessary, although many men and women alike fall short of fulfilling that necessity for perfectly natural reasons (not because some outside society tells them so). The modern environment is such that both men and women must assume the same roles in society. There's no going back because economy won't allow it.

Thank you for proving my point for me.
There is no better argument than an empirically self-proving one.
You are a perfect specimen, along with IceAgeCivilizations and many others, of this dumbing down and domestication of man.

And this isn't a generalization or assumption but an observation half of which you have already made yourself. Just make one more step and you'll safely be on the sane side. Stop with that teen angst, it's unbecoming of you.

Ah, so now this is an “observation”: You are a fucking dumb bitch.
Never stop posting, darling.

Tell us more about the differences between assuming and hypothesizing and about how science doesn’t generalize but “observes” and then constructs specifics.

No, you don't have a vagina. But you have an anus and I used a broom to make it much, much wider. You get an orgasm from having your ass hole caressed and that's close enough to having a vagina as far as I'm concerned.

Mmmmmm, baby, I never knew you had suck kinky fantasies.:spank:

P.S. Gendanken says hi and she also mentions you're the dumbest clown she's ever encountered.

Did she?!
Wow, I’m honored that her Highness still thinks of me enough to use me as her crutch.

Well… if she said it, it must be true.
We all know how brilliantly average our long lost Queen was, and how viciously tantalizing her verbosity was.

Tell her hi and to be careful crossing the barbed-wired parts when she visits home.
Maybe she can forward my greetings to her backdoor footman, that blue-collared genius of hers.
You must be precious to have her as your friend, dear imbecile.

Oh well, I’ll await your remarkably cutting commentaries and attempts to insult me.


heliocentric

This for me is the real problem, men conforming to an ideal that women hold about masculinity to get some action.
The problem is by conforming to someone else's ideal youre really losing sight of your own, and rendering yourself a hollow cipher in the process.

And?
Follow through with your reasoning.

Self-assumed stereotypes are the real problem, theres nothing wrong with men being feminine per se because what people mean by that is men being less aggressive, and more considered and gentle.
Which are all fine attributes which as well as being nothing that women have a monopoly on atall, are attributes that have been championed for millenia, nothing really that new.

And aren’t these “championed attributes” directly related to social behavior?

All social interactions demand a suppression of self.
All social behavior is a compromise made possible due to each individual’s weakness or limitations and growing dependence is the consequence once the initial compromise has been made.
This is why it is a form of hypocrisy to be civilized and why so many neurosis stem from this suppression and why so many outlets, cultural pressure releases, are necessary.

The argument is that aggression isn’t being eradicated by monopolized by institutional powers – that represent the equivalent of the alpha-male in modern human groupings.
The institution takes over the traditional male roles, making all other males subordinated effeminate males, taking on feminine behaviors and adjusting to the environment.

 

[nietzschefan]

MMmmmmm May I interest you two in some ~Homme contre La Femme Spatlese~ ?

See below(posted in another (gaming) forum, ommited non-relevant whines...)


As community members, we all enjoy trading ideas and swapping opinions about our favorite game. However, every now and then we all feel the need to serve a fine whine. So we head down to the intimate cellar of our cerebellum. Liberating the bottled libation of lament from the 'whine rack', we hastily jimmy the jeremiad. In doing so, any remote feelings of content we had left are vanquished by the vapors of vexation.


A well written post
Is a sight to behold
But there is nothing quite like
The great whines of old.

A Vintage Gripe squeezed, cannot be ignored
For some stupid reason
It’s repeatedly poured.
From repressed minds onto hapless keyboards.

What more can there be said?
Once your fears are public, and the trolls are fed
Ignorance beckons “Bring out your dead!”
Thus is born another whine thread




Below is a Whine List from your favorite forum vineyards. Squeezed from only the finest 'gripes'.


~ The Whine List ~



~Pinot vs. Pinot Brut~


Sheer arrogance in a bottle. It’s good. And wants to prove it. To everyone, everywhere, every time. (The flavor is very similar to E-Peen Epenots) Goes down smooth with that chip on your shoulder.



~Lore Monger Merlot~


Vacuum sealed self proclaimed protector of protohistory. Its pungent smell grabs you by the nostril hairs and won’t let go. Until you explain every historical relevance in minutia. And if you can’t? God be with you.


~Homme contre La Femme Spatlese~


It is thousands of years of gender wars captured in a blue and pink bottle. Peculiar buzz, like you were witness to a (he vs. her) spitball fight. The walls of your inner-being spackled with useless wet facts on masticated paper. Contains no alcohol. Often used in place of birth control pills.


~E-Peen Epenots~


(Similar in taste to Pinot vs. Pinot FFA) Has a beefy aftertaste of ‘jerk’. This bottle is shaped liked……Well; it is opened by stroking the neck till the cork pops off. Doesn’t care what hell you think. It’s done and needs a nap.



~Rant des Feministes Champagne~


This bottle will vehemently blow open by itself, once it realizes its voluptuous hour-glass shape is barely covered by a skimpy two piece label... (Best served on ice for perky nipple action) teehee XD




~Am Not!! Montagny~


Mainly used as a mouthwash. Rarely swallowed. It is a needless rebuttal liquor. Very weak. So swoosh* swoosh* swoosh* and spit!


~Grammar Nazi Mazis~


Brimming with pretentious color, this beverage has never won any awards. It tries to justify its anemic flavor with clever observation akin to an elementary school grading system. “No gold star for you!”


~Myopia Marsala~


The sweetest whine known to man. It has a beautiful perspective on any subject. Your own.

------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Satyr]

I love whining.
It gives me something to do while I’m dining.

What type of whine was your mentor Nietzsche and why are you whining about our whining?

An overall clever post.

I enjoyed its subtle fruitiness with a hint of bitter dullness to underscore the aftertaste of pretentious idealism reminiscent of old European nostalgia.

 

[nietzschefan]

If he HAD to pick one i guess: ~Myopia Marsala~

Oh I enjoyed your banter - sorry to interrupt...

 

[Satyr]

If he HAD to pick one i guess: ~Myopia Marsala~

Oh I enjoyed your banter - sorry to interrupt...

Well if you enjoyed my banter then here’s something to bear in mind:

Isn’t it interesting that we associate prejudice thinking or we use words that have acquired a culturally negative connotation to describe opinions which hurt us or insult us or that do not adhere to a prejudged norm, and that we use “positive” wording to describe our preferred or socially acceptable beliefs?

How interesting that we perceive a negative simplification behind “sexist” or “racist”, let us say, positions but we are completely blind to the prejudices and simplifications behind beliefs we wish are fact or prefer to believe are “superior”.

Using the specimen of feminine thinking, we firstly perceive ignorance, no different than any other, which uses semantics and word-play to construct an edifice it prefers or is taught to be “better”.

The specimen has differentiated between the word “assume” and “hypothesize” a chasm of required prejudices and ignorance.
The word “hypothesis” becomes a holy word, owing to its Greek origins that give it an air of dignity and civility and seriousness. This is where imbeciles, wanting to sound smart and being affected by the connection of Greek with anything scientific or intellectual are driven to pretentious error.

But the word is one the Greeks used to express the idea of “assumption”.
In fact in Greek the word ypotheto, from which the English hypothesis comes from, means to assume.

It is a compound word made up of the words υπο and θετο: υπο – beneath, θετο – position, place. To place beneath one’s position, one’s seat or one’s place. Like in the Greek word for basement: υπο- beneath, γης- earth, ground.

It means to place a foundation upon which one constructs a position or a belief or an opinion.

But back to the subject….

Isn’t it interesting that we differentiate between our desired generalizations and our undesired generalizations not by constructing arguments against them but by using particular words associated, wrongly, with negative concepts?

The word “generalize”, for example, is often used in place of argument to express a position that is over-simplified to achieve a desired goal, which is exactly what those that use it are doing….ironically.
In fact the word generalize, means to apply a rule universally, to take a few samples or instances or observations and toe extrapolate the unknown or the common or the norm, keeping in mind that there are always exceptions to every rule that proves the rule.

So, an imbecile, being brought up in an environment where certain ideas are considered politically-incorrect uses the words it has been taught to have a negative connotation against ideas they can neither comprehend nor construct a counter-argument against.
In the process they exhibit no less ignorance or prejudiced, over-simplified thinking as those they attack.

The specimen if feminine thinking, here, has convinced itself that science “hypothesizes”, or “observes” but does not “generalize” because this is a word reserved to describe the ideas that insult and hurt it.
In fact all that science does is to generalize the universal from a small pool of evidence or observations.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

In which case one might hypothesize that your essays are more scientific in nature than literary.

Now where has Whitewolf gone?

 

[Satyr]

Now where has Whitewolf gone?

What do imbeciles do when their stupidity becomes apparent and they are exposed as the morons that they are?
They run…far…far away, hoping that the incident will soon be forgoten.

 

[whitewolf]

Satyr, I love how you try to go around what I say. But, darling, you do it at the expense of seeming not to comprehend what I say.

For instance, I am perfectly sure you understand the difference between a guess that is tried out and assuming something as fact and moving on. You read the definitions but you pretend they went over your head. Ok, you’re a woman. It’s good that you try to be a dumb woman and thus fit your own stereotypes. For your information, I am a man.

I am not injecting new words, I am simply going along with what I’ve been saying all along in this thread, still trying to be as precise as I can. Is English language too big for you or do you feel thrown off because you assumed (!) more than I said?

"Are you generalizing the existence of breasts on monkeys from the few monkeys that you’ve personally witnessed? " - What are you trying to say here, dear? Do you mean that I am precise or imprecise regarding the male and female monkeys?

"All the way to pussyhood." - I ask yet again, for the second week in a row: What is femininity? Twinkletoes, do us a favor! Try to stop spitting and gather your thoughts.

Politics? Okay, I’ll give you a lesson in U.S. history (like all comme il faut women, you didn’t go to college). During the first elections that followed the enfranchisement of women, politicians guessed that with women’s votes the result of the elections would be different as opposed to an election without their votes; that is because they assumed that women’s opinions are different from men’s, that women think differently (well, they assumed all the things you assumed). And their guess was wrong. If men were so different from women, and if the “female mind” was so incapable of the “male logic,” there would’ve been no women in politics.

Psychology baffled by human behavior? Why, yes, psychology is baffled! You never picked up a book, never set foot outside your house…. But then, that’s the women’s proper place, isn’t it?

It is the American mentality of separating men and women into two different (and opposing) camps that is the source of the degeneration of the American society. Well, rather, Americans are never allowed to grow up. At schools, there’s barely any communication allowed and children fail to get to know one another; so once they see that boys look so radically different from girls they assume that boys truly are radically different. It’s sad. From here stems the failure of marriages, the falling apart of families in U.S.

 

[whitewolf]

If he HAD to pick one i guess: ~Myopia Marsala~

Oh I enjoyed your banter - sorry to interrupt...

Oh no don't be sorry. Do you like Sartre? Sartre + Nietzsche make a good cocktail. But these aren't whines, they're liquors.

 

[nietzschefan]

Sartre? Hehe that explains your die-hard dogfight style with Satyr. Hell is most certainly other people.

Yes I agree, they are Liquors and I prefer not to sip my Liquor. They are to be drained entirely.

 

[Satyr]

whitewolf
Biatch!!!

Satyr, I love how you try to go around what I say. But, darling, you do it at the expense of seeming not to comprehend what I say.

Let's see how you do it first...
I like how you prepare us for your strategies by actually projecting them upon the other.
It’s very …typical, in a unique kind of way.

For instance, I am perfectly sure you understand the difference between a guess that is tried out and assuming something as fact and moving on. You read the definitions but you pretend they went over your head. Ok, you’re a woman. It’s good that you try to be a dumb woman and thus fit your own stereotypes. For your information, I am a man.

By today’s standards, yes you are a ….man.
And what a man you are.

How typical to “assume” that the other gains from his own opinions.
It says something about how you and those like you construct beliefs.
I’m always entertained by imbeciles trying to find my “angle”.

Retard, the world is what it is.
It doesn’t give a shit about you or me or how we react to it.

I am not injecting new words, I am simply going along with what I’ve been saying all along in this thread, still trying to be as precise as I can. Is English language too big for you or do you feel thrown off because you assumed (!) more than I said?

Why don’t you tell us, again, about the difference between 'assuming' and 'hypothesizing' and 'observing'?
That was….interesting.
Funny how the definition of “hypothesis”, somehow, contained the word “assume” in it.
That was way over my head; mainly because I was bent over laughing hysterically….or was I crying at the state of the average human mind?

Then tell us how science doesn’t 'generalize'.
That was precious.

Keep talking little bitch.
I'm listening.

"Are you generalizing the existence of breasts on monkeys from the few monkeys that you’ve personally witnessed? " - What are you trying to say here, dear? Do you mean that I am precise or imprecise regarding the male and female monkeys?

Are you generalizing the existence of breasts on female monkeys by your observations of a few specimens or by reading a few books or did you actually hunt down and observe every single female monkey that has ever existed or that will ever exist in the world?
You know what?
You ARE unique….and special.
I see it now.

What sexism you display in “assuming” that all males have testicles and all females have breasts.
I’m appalled.
Or is your discomfort only in relation to any generalization concerning the mind?
I thought so…a self-serving, delusional emotional dualist.
The mind/body separation to avoid the implications.
An emotional thinker...a retard.

"All the way to pussyhood." - I ask yet again, for the second week in a row: What is femininity? Twinkletoes, do us a favor! Try to stop spitting and gather your thoughts.

Little bitch, I’ve given you the definition.
Here, you pathetic moron, is another version of it:

Female: a sexual category with specific procreative functions resulting in genetic physical and mental characteristics.
In the human species, or in any social species (especially those with large brains – you not included) this feminine procreative function includes the need for harmonizing and coexisting within large groups, necessitating a feminine disposition which is docile, tolerant, unchallenging, and an intellect dedicated and focused on belonging or harmonizing self (through repression) into a community of others - dependance.
This makes females more willing to accept whatever cultural or social norms they find, resulting in a fatalistic accepting demeanor which challenges nothing, including the forces of nature.
Why do you think, if you think at all, that it is males that provide radical revolutions in human politics, science, philosophy and art?

This unchallenging nature results in mental dullness where any sing of aptitude will be found in social interactions and social awareness - fitting in or remaining loyal to preexisting cultural and social (group) norms.

And my toes “twinkle, because I used a new shade of pink on them this week.
Don't hate me because I'm pretty, imbecile.

Did the Queen advise you to use this line of attack against me?
I love being a woman, sweaty…much more than she does.

Tell me more about your exchanges with her.
I need it for my field studies on human nature.

Politics? Okay, I’ll give you a lesson in U.S. history (like all comme il faut women, you didn’t go to college). During the first elections that followed the enfranchisement of women, politicians guessed that with women’s votes the result of the elections would be different as opposed to an election without their votes; that is because they assumed that women’s opinions are different from men’s, that women think differently (well, they assumed all the things you assumed). And their guess was wrong. If men were so different from women, and if the “female mind” was so incapable of the “male logic,” there would’ve been no women in politics.

You poor pathetic retard.
You just cannot follow through with the reasoning before you.

Moron, I specifically mentioned that socialization necessitates a feminine disposition because social groups can only tolerate one or two masculine entities within their midst.
This, stupid, makes men and women both similarly feminized thusly resulting in a smaller differentiation in thinking.
In wolf packs or lion prides the males are either expelled or they are subordinated into feminine roles.

Just like harmonization resulted in race mixing, making any racial differences diluted and therefore easily cast aside as superficial and irrelevant, so does social harmonization, domestication, feminization, level mankind into a paste of mediocrity where no great behavioral differentiations can be witnessed outwardly due to the enforcement of strict social and behavioral norms.
Call them moral or laws or civility or whatever.

See, imbecile, the feminization of man implies a less and less difference between men and women, resulting in homosexual acceptance or the trivialization of sex altogether, and in many other biological and social phenomena, which I will not get into with a moron like you are.

Also, retard, the fact that masculinity is now institutionalized makes it a position anyone can occupy, including females or emasculated males.
They, in fact, become but figureheads representing the group’s insitutional masculine monopoly.
This is how an imbecile like George W. can take power.
It’s not him in charge but the institution with established rules and check & balances.
He is just a figurehead, a symbol a personification of the real power.
In fact he ascends there by proving to the mediocre masses that he is no different than they are.

The institution, idiot, becomes the alpha-male and all others are subordinated to feminized roles – like an omega in a wolf pack which displays a decrease in testosterone.

Imbecile, did you actually read my essay?
Why must I explain these things to you?

Psychology baffled by human behavior? Why, yes, psychology is baffled! You never picked up a book, never set foot outside your house…. But then, that’s the women’s proper place, isn’t it?

My, how unique you are.
You are baffling to me.

I cannot comprehend your stupidity nor grasp the special nature of your mental ineptness.

Last time I went outside, I noticed how predictable and unimpressive idiots, like you, really are.

Please tell me more about how psychology doesn’t ‘get you’; you being so complicated and all.

It is the American mentality of separating men and women into two different (and opposing) camps that is the source of the degeneration of the American society. Well, rather, Americans are never allowed to grow up. At schools, there’s barely any communication allowed and children fail to get to know one another; so once they see that boys look so radically different from girls they assume that boys truly are radically different. It’s sad. From here stems the failure of marriages, the falling apart of families in U.S.

Yes, it is a sign of maturity to not perceive differences in species or between the sexes.

Let us create a nation of stupid, equal, “uniquely obtuse” ignoramuses adhering to cultural norms and fucking anything that moves with equal passion.

Retard, tell me again about how hypothesis is unassuming.
Teach me about how dense you really are.
I want everyone, including those like you (the vast majority), to witness the depths of your retardation.

You are a truly modern mind.
The perfect specimen.

 

[Satyr]

Let us recap and marvel at our willing specimen’s twisting and turning to save its moral high grounds.

Watch this imbecile think…

You see, darlings, where there are generalizations and assumptions there can be no science. This is not a science thread, I'd shove it down into cesspool.

Really?!
Good thing science deals with absolute facts, then.

Watch the retard taunt…

p.s. for definitions of "generalization" and "assumption," go to dictionary.reference.com.

Ah…okay let us all open our dictionaries and see what the definition of hypothesis is.
Shall we?

I don't know, dear, scroll up. But no psychiatrist will ever tell you that all humans are the same. Sure, humans are similar; but not exactly the same. I'm glad we got to that point and you spit it out on your own.

See it slip that word in?
That’s its way of escaping the corner it’s placed itself in.

Humans are the same but not “exactly” the same, making this inexactness proof that they are sufficiently different to make them special or not adherent to general human behavioral patterns.
This is where this brain can pick and choose which human attributes apply to it and which do not.
The unflattering ones or the ones that do not correspond to its cultural ideals most certainly do not apply to it.
It is special.
This is called ‘selective reasoning’.

Watch this imbecile twist in the winds of its own stupidity…

P.S. Regarding other sciences that you keep shaking at my face: science isn't based on generalizations and assumptions. Science is based on observations, theories, and hypotheses. You shouldn't have skipped classes in 7th grade. I know, if you're to be a fruit girl at the market, you don't really need to know the dangers of generalizations and assumptions; but then, you also shouldn't fling around the word "science."

Theory

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Generalization
1. the act or process of generalizing.
2. a result of this process; a general statement, idea, or principle.
3. Logic.
a. a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class.
b. the process of obtaining such propositions.

Assumption
1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself.
4. the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power.
5. arrogance; presumption.
6. the taking over of another's debts or obligations.
7. Ecclesiastical.
a. (often initial capital letter ) the bodily taking up into heaven of the Virgin Mary.

b. (initial capital letter ) a feast commemorating this, celebrated on August 15.



[Origin: 1250–1300; ME assumpcioun, assompcioun, assumsion < L assūmptiōn- (s. of assūmptiō), equiv. to assūmpt(us) taken up (ptp. of assūmere; see ASSUME) + -iōn- -ION ]

—Synonyms 1, 2. presupposition. 1. hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory. 3. presumption. 5. effrontery, forwardness.

Semantics, you say?
No, simply stupidity.

Am I generalizing?
Am I taking a specific exchange, a finite amount of observation and experience with the specimen to create a hypothesis concerning this mind and the average human mind exhibiting similar behaviors and traits and outer manifestations?
Most definitely yes!

The difference between a generalization and a scientific theory is that a scientific theory aims at precision and a generalization aims to do merely that - cover as much as possible under one cap. A hypothesis is an educated guess which is afterwards tried out and verified or thrown out, while an assumption is taking something for a fact without adequate basis for doing so.

The imbecile, having realized its error, now tries to twist and turn out of its original proposition by assuming a motive.
One is “precise” – a generalization if I ever heard one – and the other aims at not being “precise”.
Funny when the words are synonymous.

Here we see the taint of cultural indoctrination and how certain words acquire a cultural nuance used to defend against certain theories which confront the “common good”.

It’s like the words “cynical” or “racist” or “sexist” or “patriarchy” or “liberal” or “conservative” or “communist”.
It is now used in place of argument.

One simply labels a proposition which disturbs the harmonious social values using these terms and no added reasoning is required.

 

[nicholas1M7]

Whitewolf just agree with satyr and stop being a bitch. Fcuk.

 

[Satyr]

Yes master....

http://euroross.blogspot.com/Stewie Joke.jpg

 

[jeanne]

My dear Mexican fruit girl.... Or, my dear effeminate Mexican fruit man....

Where did that come from?

 

[Gently Passing]

The "female mind" is somewhat of a mystery...

Women have so recently crossed the boundaries between social roles in our society - from domestic servants and childcare workers to professionals, scientists and political leaders, that it is literally impossible to distinguish inculturation from any neurological or physiological (including chemical) differences.

If they are truly different on a physiological/genetic level, that is really something. A lot of species have quite a phenotypic difference between the sexes - insects for instance are often strikingly dissimilar.

But the power of culture is so strong that for now there is no really powerful way to dissociate cultural influences from any physical/genetic influence.

There is evidence to suggest that there is no physiologic difference, mainly the fact that women and men change roles with great success in different parts of the world. You have matriarchal societies, societies run by an empress or queen (a few centuries ago,) etc.

So it's likely just a product of their upbringing.

Here, Johnny, play with this hammer, and here's a toy truck to go dig in the yard with. Build a fort, go hunting in the woods...

Alright, Susy, here's your Barbie. Dress her up nice.

It's easy enough to see that women are not provided the same fundamental stimuli that we would expect to encourage synaptic connections to be made in such regions that would control logical thought, spacial reasoning, following directions, task orientation, and we see the results in research. Women do indeed lack in these areas while they excel in reading facial expressions, interpreting complex social behaviors, understanding primitive communications used by infants and children and so on. Men are good at bridge building, moving stuff around, figuring out math problems and so on.

I would guess there is virtually no difference in the structure of function. Given the right stimuli, girls and boys would be virtually indistinguishable in their various types of intelligence.

But then who would allow their child to be raised in a reasearch setting? We're going to make Billy play with dolls and Susy learn to dig holes in the yard and burn ants?

It's just not feasable. The best option is to study various cultures, and look at instances where a father died, see how females adapted, test their responses to certain questions compared to men, etc.

Separating the two fields is astonishingly complex. Chances are very high, though, that both sexes are sufficiently equipped to adapt to life without the other gender around.

 

[[a-5]]

What do imbeciles do when their stupidity becomes apparent and they are exposed as the morons that they are?
They run…far…far away, hoping that the incident will soon be forgoten.

I'm getting the feeling that Satyr's taking these forums a little too seriously.

 

[[a-5]]

Whitewolf just agree with satyr and stop being a bitch. Fcuk.

And you, shut the hell up. Nobody here has to agree with anyone else. Mind Your Own Beezwax.:m:

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Males of the world, especially the western world, have become wimps! Perhaps a better word is pussies? Wussies?

Now I don't know that it's caused by women's equality, but I'm sure that it's had an effect.

Baron Max

yes i agree plenty of pussies about,


peace.

 

[Gently Passing]

Well, the perception that males have become less aggressive is accurate. We have.

This is good and bad. The good part is that we have less muscle-flexing, bad-driving assholes around. The bad part is people are afraid to assert themselves when necessary.

I am quiet, reserved, polite to everyone, and usually the first to back down in an argument. I yield, I respect others, but when it's time to act, I act quickly, definitely and I don't hold back.

The "pussies" as you call them are halfway there - they have given up the quick anger and foolish machismo, but they haven't taken it to the next level.

The next level is being a real man, that is the quiet, respectful, reserved male human being who will fight and even die to protect his own. I engaged a local man in an argument because his house has rats living in the basement and I'm tired of it.

He could have fought me, he could have even shot me. But I'm the youngest, probably one of the strongest men around. Who else is going to speak up? Children live next door, etc.

But I don't just go starting fights because someone pissed me off at the bar. It's called righteous anger, and there is a time and a place. It's different than being an asshole. In a certain sense, that is being a pussy, too.