A World Without Men?

[Gloominary]

Women's violence tends to be by proxy.
If a man wants to beat someone up, he'll beat them up himself.
A woman will play the damsel, enlist a white knight or the state to do her bidding.

[Gloominary]

Every institution and nearly every major corporation takes women's side.
Men make more money, but who spends it?
Who does it get spent on?
Our safety net favors women.
The vast majority of homeless and incarcerated are men.
If men tend to occupy the highest echelons of society, they also tend to occupy the lowest.
Women outlive men by several years.
Men work more and take the most dangerous and difficult jobs.

[Gloominary]

If men are more likely to mug or murder you, they're also more likely to rescue you too.
Men are our first responders, firemen, paramedics, physicians, policemen and rescue workers.
If someone puts their life on the line to save you, even if it's not their profession to do so, chances are it'll be a man.

[Gloominary]

Who would adequately discipline children if it weren't for fathers?
Single moms wedded to the state tend to do a poor job raising children compared to mothers wedded to fathers.

[Gloominary]

Isn't it men who do most of the really important jobs?
They build and maintain the infrastructure of our civilization.
Without that we'd basically be naked savages.
Women aren't really needed economically.
But after appliances and things and having fewer children liberated them from much of their trad work, capitalists found stuff for them to do, but much of it isn't a must.

[Gloominary]

Lastly, men are our adventurers and explorers, not just physically but artistically, economically and scientifically.
If humanity ever manages to say colonize mars, millennia or centuries from now, it'll most likely be men leading the way.
Men take risks, both in destructive, and creative, productive ways.
Arguably the principle reason why men are more violent is not because they're more cruel and selfish, but because they're risk takers, and this manifests both negatively and positively.

Of course women can also be directly and extremely violent, when they find themselves in positions of power, but often their violence is more covert, by proxy.
They cry wolf, play the victim card.
More of them are borderlines and vulnerable narcissists.

Women are less likely to put themselves on the frontlines, physically and socially.
They're more religious, they seek approval and consensus.
They're less inclined to do anything that'd offend the group, even when it's right, and necessary to do so.
Consequently they receive less blame short term, but also less praise long term.

The good women do historically and to a lesser extent contemporaneously is often covert, behind the scenes, in whom and what they choose to support, withdraw or withhold support.

[Walker]

Nonsense.

You wrote, "picure."

Pi cure

Pie cure

Jack got fat. Jack took the pie cure.

Get it? "same height, face, etc..."

Hee haw!

Highly amusing.
Fuck off!

Nice contribution to a world without men.

This often happens when nonsense, such as a nonsense word (picure), organizes, but I don’t judge Jack’s cure that’s kept him a movin’.

[Age]

Such is the belief of the "human" who calls himself age

But that is NOT "the belief" of ANY one.

And the rest of what 'you' wrote here is just completely False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

It is your belief that it is false.

This is what you BELIEVE is true.
But which you can NOT prove True.
Because I do NOT have this BELIEF.
Therefore, you are just plain old Wrong, ONCE AGAIN.

Apparently it is some seperate belief that is also wrong.

You use the 'it' word quite frequently here.

I do NOT do BELIEF.

Then, for some reason you need a third belief that it is also incorrect, besides being wrong and false.

But this is just YOUR BELIEF, ONLY.

Three seperate identical beliefs all in one. You must be a character from a Lewis Carroll book.

You are FREE to ASSUME that this is true, AND, you are also FREE to BELIEVE whatever you ASSUME is true.

But just be forewarned that what you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE is true is NOT necessarily true AT ALL.

[Age]

My claim: The Universe NEVER began and is NOT expanding. Thus is eternal and infinite.

Your claim: The Universe began and is expanding. Thus is transient and limited.

If this is correct, then let us begin.

Okie-dokie. Off you go then.

You claim that red shift is evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe IS expanding, correct?

[uwot]

You claim that red shift is evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe IS expanding, correct?

Correct.

[Age]

So which is it?

But it is NOT a matter of "which one is it", because in what context I said and wrote them

The context is provided in the link -- you can click on the up-arrows to see it.

And, if you did, then what you will find is Truly AMAZING.

I can NOT show NOR provide to 'proof' of some 'thing' to ANY one while they are BELIEVING otherwise.

That makes no sense. Rather, it is a lame excuse for your inability to provide proof.

I have PROVIDED PROOF ALREADY, you are just NOT ABLE to SEE and RECOGNIZE IT, FULLY YET.

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.

But some things can ALREADY be ACTUALLY PROVEN, while there are still some people REMAINING TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE. And, NO MATTER what PROOF is SHOWN to these people, they will just continue TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.

Also, there is NO such thing as "their minds".

Proof does NOT necessarily change the way 'you', people, LOOK AT and SEE things. If 'proof' did, then 'you', people, would NOT BELIEVE things that did and do in the FIRST PLACE.

While one is BELIEVING some thing is true, then they are NOT OPEN to thee PROOF, NOR even thee ACTUAL Truth, of things.

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.

Look at how you've constructed this entire line of baloney to explain/justify your inability to offer proof of what you claim.

But I OBVIOUSLY do have the ABILITY to offer, as well as TO PROVIDE, proof of what I claim.

As evidenced and ALREADY PROVED above.

You put the responsibility and lack onto other people, when it belongs to you.

I have ALREADY DECLARED that the reason 'you', human beings, have NOT YET LEARNED how to SEE and RECOGNIZE thee ACTUAL Truth of things IS because I have YET LEARNED the RIGHT WORDS, which are NEEDED in order to EXPLAIN to 'you' HOW you can FIND and SEE and RECOGNIZE thee ACTUAL Truth of things, all by your OWN "selves".

Although thee ACTUAL Truth of things is HERE-NOW BEFORE 'you', which is ALSO OBVIOUSLY being OBSERVED, but because of your OWN ASSUMPTIONS AND BELIEFS, these things are PREVENTING and BLOCKING 'you' from SEEING and RECOGNIZING thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

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.

What kind of proof do you think you've provided for anything?

The ONLY 'actual proof' there is, that is; the one where the evidence or argument establishes the fact or the truth of a statement.

I just PROVIDE proof, as I SEE 'it', for my CLAIMS

Why are you laughing? Did you MISS 'it'?

[Age]

You claim that red shift is evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe IS expanding, correct?

Correct.

Do you have ANY other evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe IS expanding?

[uwot]

Do you have ANY other evidence for the HYPOTHESIS that the Universe IS expanding?

Yes I do, but one thing at a time Age: Do you have ANY other HYPOTHESIS for the evidence that the Universe IS expanding?

[FlashDangerpants]

I do NOT do BELIEF.

Your only evidence in support of that belief is that you believe that you don't do belief.

[Lacewing]

I just PROVIDE proof, as I SEE 'it', for my CLAIMS

Why are you laughing?

Because you are ridiculous.