Sex bias

[Greta]

Good grief.

That's not much of an answer.

Sounds more like snot.

What is it with woman, anyway.

If you have some question about something I’ve written, then out with it like an adult, instead of whiny, passive-aggressive innuendo.

Sorry to be churlish but, when it comes to politics you are infuriatingly unreasonable. It was a mistake to engage here, just that I wanted to point out that Trump's behaviour is just as odious when portrayed by a woman as it is by him. I didn't think you'd play such brazen bait-and-switch with my post.

I don't think anything productive can come from us conversing about politics.

Ah. Hi dudgeon.

Just kidding. The solution to your dilemma is quite simple. Here’s the progression.

A: Makes a statement, or assertion, premise, hypothesis, belief, reasoning, and perhaps some implications.
B: Offers feedback by restating A’s statement, to confirm understanding, so that both are on the same page.
A: Confirms the restatement, or further clarifies until both are satisfied that both are discussing the same topic.
B: Voices any specific disagreement.
A: Offers feedback by restating B’s disagreement, honestly, to confirm understanding, so that both are on the same page.
B: Confirms.
A: Rubutal of the disagreement.

And so on. Civilized.

That’s the principle that exists out there, somewhere, over the rainbow. Must the world conform to such expectations? Seems rather rigid.

Your opinion is acknowledged. So, what’s the beef?

Shouting down a debating opponent and not letting them finish what they are trying to say is the beef. The Trump role was railroading the other and I found the selfish tactic just as problematic coming from the actress as coming from Trump.

[Harbal]

A: Makes a statement, or assertion, premise, hypothesis, belief, reasoning, and perhaps some implications.
B: Offers feedback by restating A’s statement, to confirm understanding, so that both are on the same page.
A: Confirms the restatement, or further clarifies until both are satisfied that both are discussing the same topic.
B: Voices any specific disagreement.
A: Offers feedback by restating B’s disagreement, honestly, to confirm understanding, so that both are on the same page.
B: Confirms.
A: Rubutal of the disagreement.

A: Makes a statement.
B: Calls A an idiot.
A: Calls B a moron.
C: Enters the thread and attempts to stick to the subject.
A: Along wth B, both ignore C and carry on hurling abuse at each other.
C: Becomes exasperated and throws a mini tantrum, claiming he is the only one here who's interested in philosophy.
A: Along wth B, suspend their mutual hostility and turn it towards C.
C: Gets all high and mighty and announces his departure to a place where he can have productive discourse with like minded people.

Epilogue: Everyone agrees it's better without C around and harmony is restored.

[Walker]

Shouting down a debating opponent and not letting them finish what they are trying to say is the beef. The Trump role was railroading the other and I found the selfish tactic just as problematic coming from the actress as coming from Trump.

On an even playing field, you are correct. The question is, did Trump shout, or was he merely assertive and women interpret confident assertion from a man as shouting?

The playing field was not even. This is documented. Clinton was playing with a stacked deck.

Imagine how men of power would have dominated Clinton if she was elected president. No need to speculate details. Trump was a political novice, totally green to political debate, and he dominated. He was not a victim of the situation. She couldn't effectively deal with a greenhorn because reality refused to conform to abstractions.

Just look at the shifty stuff pulled on Trump. Shameful.

Did you actually listen to the content of her words? Snoring boilerplate. The clip of the man speaking Clinton’s words highlighted that.

So, what’s a man’s man?

Ahem. I’ll link this summary for discretion.

[Walker]

A: Makes a statement, or assertion, premise, hypothesis, belief, reasoning, and perhaps some implications.
B: Offers feedback by restating A’s statement, to confirm understanding, so that both are on the same page.
A: Confirms the restatement, or further clarifies until both are satisfied that both are discussing the same topic.
B: Voices any specific disagreement.
A: Offers feedback by restating B’s disagreement, honestly, to confirm understanding, so that both are on the same page.
B: Confirms.
A: Rubutal of the disagreement.

A: Makes a statement.
B: Calls A an idiot.
A: Calls B a moron.
C: Enters the thread and attempts to stick to the subject.
A: Along wth B, both ignore C and carry on hurling abuse at each other.
C: Becomes exasperated and throws a mini tantrum, claiming he is the only one here who's interested in philosophy.
A: Along wth B, suspend their mutual hostility and turn it towards C.
C: Gets all high and mighty and announces his departure to a place where he can have productive discourse with like minded people.

Epilogue: Everyone agrees it's better without C around and harmony is restored.

Good point. In many ways indignant C's are typical of each other.

[Harbal]

Good point. In many ways indignant C's are typical of each other.

Yes, and ironically, they're much more fun than the As and Bs.

[Hobbes' Choice]

And so on. Civilized.

That’s the principle that exists out there, somewhere, over the rainbow. Must the world conform to such expectations? Seems rather rigid.

Your opinion is acknowledged. So, what’s the beef?

The beef is that you make unfounded assumptions, then do not engage with the objections.
It's almost like you are incapable of understanding your own simple faults.

[Walker]

And so on. Civilized.

That’s the principle that exists out there, somewhere, over the rainbow. Must the world conform to such expectations? Seems rather rigid.

Your opinion is acknowledged. So, what’s the beef?

The beef is that you make unfounded assumptions, then do not engage with the objections.
It's almost like you are incapable of understanding your own simple faults.

All objections are reactionary, and most are loaded with agenda-driven riders loaded up for the special interests, like pork that gets tagged onto legislation in the quid pro quo of politics.

When objections are belief-based projections based on ideals that fail to situationally relate to options on planet earth at any particular time and place in question, then they get the attention they deserve, should attention wander down that particular primrose path.

Any relativist worth his salt knows that holding onto an absolute as the standard of accountability in the dualistic mileau anchored on the shifting sands of the singularity that encroaches for all, is a clinging that foists a logical error in denouncing reality for failing to fit the mold of preconception, therefore it is usually foisted as a rider upon the objection.

Which gives causes to wonder why atheistic relativists always jump to basing their objections on a failure to adhere to an absolute. For example, in objection to assertions that God is good, the atheist says that by his reckoning, God does evil things. Ergo, premise proved, God is not good. The atheist is attempting to hold God to the atheist’s own standard that God must be good all the time to qualify as both good and absolute, and with mental ambidexterity, the atheist does this without even believing in God.

Could this that is so obvious
be invisible caused by bias?


But you know what I’ve learned over the last few decades? When energy moves to thoughts, full moon is on the loose. And I suspect I know the why of this irrefutable causation, and soon will come the dark side too, so says gracias for indulgence and patience.

You may ask yourself, who could possibly find fault in this but a neiner?

[Greta]

So, what’s a man’s man?

The singer of my last band was the biggest man's man I have ever known. That's why his boyfriend loves him.

[Hobbes' Choice]

And so on. Civilized.

That’s the principle that exists out there, somewhere, over the rainbow. Must the world conform to such expectations? Seems rather rigid.

Your opinion is acknowledged. So, what’s the beef?

The beef is that you make unfounded assumptions, then do not engage with the objections.
It's almost like you are incapable of understanding your own simple faults.

All objections are reactionary, and most are loaded with agenda-driven riders loaded up for the special interests, like pork that gets tagged onto legislation in the quid pro quo of politics.

When objections are belief-based projections based on ideals that fail to situationally relate to options on planet earth at any particular time and place in question, then they get the attention they deserve, should attention wander down that particular primrose path.

Any relativist worth his salt knows that holding onto an absolute as the standard of accountability in the dualistic mileau anchored on the shifting sands of the singularity that encroaches for all, is a clinging that foists a logical error in denouncing reality for failing to fit the mold of preconception, therefore it is usually foisted as a rider upon the objection.

Which gives causes to wonder why atheistic relativists always jump to basing their objections on a failure to adhere to an absolute. For example, in objection to assertions that God is good, the atheist says that by his reckoning, God does evil things. Ergo, premise proved, God is not good. The atheist is attempting to hold God to the atheist’s own standard that God must be good all the time to qualify as both good and absolute, and with mental ambidexterity, the atheist does this without even believing in God.

Could this that is so obvious
be invisible caused by bias?


But you know what I’ve learned over the last few decades? When energy moves to thoughts, full moon is on the loose. And I suspect I know the why of this irrefutable causation, and soon will come the dark side too, so says gracias for indulgence and patience.

You may ask yourself, who could possibly find fault in this but a neiner?

Spoken like a true relativist, except that a relativist tends to reflect on his own preconceptions and takes some steps to justify them to himself.
You just need to take that step so that you are able to defend your position.

[Walker]

Spoken like a true relativist, except that a relativist tends to reflect on his own preconceptions and takes some steps to justify them to himself.
You just need to take that step so that you are able to defend your position.

Spake as one who understands relativists far better than Progressives understand Trump.

[Walker]

So, what’s a man’s man?

The singer of my last band was the biggest man's man I have ever known. That's why his boyfriend loves him.

Do women often confuse philosophy with gossip?

What would you say are the characteristics, or principles, that define a man's man.

[Greta]

So, what’s a man’s man?

The singer of my last band was the biggest man's man I have ever known. That's why his boyfriend loves him.

Do women often confuse philosophy with gossip?

What would you say are the characteristics, or principles, that define a man's man.

A man who prefers men to women.

[Walker]

Fact: you see deeper than that.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Spoken like a true relativist, except that a relativist tends to reflect on his own preconceptions and takes some steps to justify them to himself.
You just need to take that step so that you are able to defend your position.

Spake as one who understands relativists far better than Progressives understand Trump.

I'm sure that makes sense in what you like to call a brain, but it just hammers home how confused you are.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So, what’s a man’s man?

The singer of my last band was the biggest man's man I have ever known. That's why his boyfriend loves him.

Do women often confuse philosophy with gossip?

What would you say are the characteristics, or principles, that define a man's man.

Here are a few women who would never confuse your gibber-jabber with philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ilosophers