Okie-dokie. Off you go then.
A World Without Men?
Re: A World Without Men?
You wrote, "picure."
Pi cure
Pie cure
Jack got fat. Jack took the pie cure.
Get it? "same height, face, etc..."
Hee haw!
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: A World Without Men?
If anyone is interested in a grown-up's view of the hypothetical question of either men or women living in a world without the other, find and read, Philip Wylie's, 1951 novel, The Disappearance.
Re: A World Without Men?
Or, 'sex', is just a behavior.
It all depends on how one is LOOKING AT 'it'.
Walker wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:19 am The New Zealand weight lifter smashing all the female records seems to be skating by on hormone levels.
Changing definitions helps. For example, in the US, infrastructure now means everything.
Boudicca! was a gal all the tribes agreed on.
* sub-forum relevance
Re: A World Without Men?
But that is NOT "the belief" of ANY one.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:50 amSuch is the belief of the "human" who calls himself age
And the rest of what 'you' wrote here is just completely False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
Re: A World Without Men?
Re: A World Without Men?
But it is NOT a matter of "which one is it", because in what context I said and wrote them EACH INDIVIDUALLY in, and, in what way are you LOOKING AT EACH of them in, HAS TO BE taken into CONSIDERATION, otherwise the WHOLE MEANING and INTENTION can be TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:55 amSo which is it?Age to Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:19 am i do NOT provide NOR show the proof. i am just learning how to find the right words to explain to you HOW you can and will FIND and SEE the PROOF "your self".
In other words, what I MEANT and INTENDED when I wrote those things may be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what 'you' are THINKING what was MEANT and INTENDED.
Is this UNDERSTOOD?
BEFORE you JUMP to ANY CONCLUSIONS I SUGGEST you CLARIFY FIRST.
For example, like asking CLARIFYING QUESTIONS LIKE:
WHAT story are you referring to? And,
WHY do you PRESUME I can NOT keep my story straight?
THEN, I would ACTUALLY KNOW what 'it' (your story) is that you are talking about and referring to here. Otherwise, UNTIL THEN I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you are GOING ON ABOUT.
Which, this NOT KNOWING what I am GOING ON ABOUT, is the EXACT SAME THING you are portraying here, correct?
Now, to CLEAR things up for you here, at least somewhat, HOPEFULLY, in the last one of my quoted sayings above:
COULD I have NOT been showing NOR providing the 'proof', in the context of ' it is ONLY 'you' who can SEE 'proofs', for "yourselves"? ' Or, in other words, I can NOT show NOR provide you ANY proofs because it is ONLY 'you' DECIDES what are ACTUAL 'proofs' or are 'NOT proofs'.
I did, AFTER ALL, CLEARLY STATE;
i am just learning how to find the right words to explain to you HOW you can and will FIND and SEE the PROOF "your self".
So, in that CONTEXT and with that MEANING could I have just MEANT that ANY ACTUAL 'proof', which is ALREADY PRESENTED BEFORE you ANYWAY, can ONLY ever be accepted as 'proof', BY 'you', and BY 'you' ALONE?
(Which does NOT mean that "others" can NOT do it, but that ONLY 'you' ALONE can and WILL ONLY accept 'proofs', for "your self", as 'you' SEE things.)
For example, I can NOT show NOR provide to 'proof' of some 'thing' to ANY one while they are BELIEVING otherwise. This is for the VERY FACT that they, OBVIOUSLY, ALREADY HAVE the 'proof' they NEED and NEEDED for the BELIEF, which they are CURRENTLY holding onto and BELIEVING IS TRUE.
'Proofs' can NOT be shown NOR provided to those who BELIEVE OTHERWISE. For example, have you EVER 'tried to' show OR provide ACTUAL 'proof' of some 'thing', to some one who BELIEVED OTHERWISE? If yes, then could they SEE thee ACTUAL 'proof' you PRESENTED for them?
But as for the first two of my quoted sayings above, I have ACTUALLY ALREADY PROVIDED SOME PROOF and SOME EVIDENCE for SOME of my CLAIMS.
WHEN "others" will this 'evidence' and/or 'proof', is ANOTHER MATTER. And, even IF what I have ALREADY PROVIDED is ACTUAL 'evidence' and/or 'proof' is STILL in CONTENTION, with some of 'you'.
IF, and WHEN, what I have ALREADY PROVIDED is SHOWN to be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, then VIEWS and PERCEPTIONS will CHANGE.
But, as I was saying, and ACTUALLY MEANT, I do NOT provide NOR show proof, TO YOU. I just PROVIDE proof, as I SEE 'it', for my CLAIMS, and then it is up TO YOU to DECIDE to SEE 'it' as PROOF, or NOT PROOF.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 8815
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: A World Without Men?
It is your belief that it is false.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:44 pmBut that is NOT "the belief" of ANY one.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 1:50 amSuch is the belief of the "human" who calls himself age
And the rest of what 'you' wrote here is just completely False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
Apparently it is some seperate belief that is also wrong.
Then, for some reason you need a third belief that it is also incorrect, besides being wrong and false.
Three seperate identical beliefs all in one. You must be a character from a Lewis Carroll book.
Re: A World Without Men?
The context is provided in the link -- you can click on the up-arrows to see it.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:32 pmBut it is NOT a matter of "which one is it", because in what context I said and wrote themLacewing wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:55 amSo which is it?Age to Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:19 am i do NOT provide NOR show the proof. i am just learning how to find the right words to explain to you HOW you can and will FIND and SEE the PROOF "your self".
That makes no sense. Rather, it is a lame excuse for your inability to provide proof. Obviously people may believe all kinds of things until such things are proven otherwise -- it is the new proof that helps them change their minds.
Look at how you've constructed this entire line of baloney to explain/justify your inability to offer proof of what you claim. You put the responsibility and lack onto other people, when it belongs to you.
What kind of proof do you think you've provided for anything?
-
Gloominary
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm
Re: A World Without Men?
If women refused to have sex with capitalist warlords, there'd be no capitalism or war.
The truth is most women love warfare, if not intrinsically than extrinsically, it makes them wet, they just don't want to break a nail, which sort of makes them chickenhawks.
Last I checked, most capitalist warlords aren't incels, the healthiest and most beautiful women are lining up by the thousands to have their babies.
The truth is most women love warfare, if not intrinsically than extrinsically, it makes them wet, they just don't want to break a nail, which sort of makes them chickenhawks.
Last I checked, most capitalist warlords aren't incels, the healthiest and most beautiful women are lining up by the thousands to have their babies.
-
Gloominary
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm
Re: A World Without Men?
Women have a lot of power in our society.
The state favors mothers over fathers.
Mothers get to brainwash girls, and boys into adopting a gynocentric worldview.
And the vast majority of teachers are women.
The state favors mothers over fathers.
Mothers get to brainwash girls, and boys into adopting a gynocentric worldview.
And the vast majority of teachers are women.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Gloominary
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:10 pm
Re: A World Without Men?
And it's not like we're living in medieval times where women couldn't choose whom they married or to remain single.
