Philosophy Now Forum

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:57 am Gender Philosophy
Now, someone paired those two words, however, as Plato noted the simples sentence is comprised of a noun and a verb like, Socrates sits, Socrates walks, etc., However, Gender is a noun, Philosophy is a Noun, so it is not even close to being anything resembling anything grammatical.

Like quite a few of your sentences, here, in this forum, also are resembling any thing so-called 'grammatical'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:57 am So, maybe the person who wrote it could write something intelligible, because I know my crotch can neither read nor write. Nor does Philosophy have a gender. Secondly, A mind does not have a gender, as it has the very same function as any other mind, information processing exactly like any other mind, and the Grammar used to process information does not have a gender either.

There is also no 'any other mind', neither, but this does not stop you writing and claiming False things, here, as well.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:57 am So, what is up pasting two words together which leaves me scratching myself.

1. "myself" is 'grammatically incorrect'. Because who and/or what is the 'my' in relation to, exactly, and how could 'that one' have, or own, or be apart from 'self'.

2. 'other mind' is also 'grammatically incorrect'. Because there are not two minds anywhere. But, if absolutely any one would like to state and/or claim that there are 'other minds', then what are these 'mind' things, exactly? Where do they exist, and, how are they separated, exactly?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:57 am And, if you are wondering that I reference Plato and you shrink at the reference, try almost any grammar book today, of which I have a virtual collection of, they will tell you the same thing.

And, once again, you allude, but do not explain. What is the, supposed, exact, 'same thing', which almost any grammar book, 'today', (whenever that is), will 'tell us'?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 10:59 am Real is what is independence of subjective perspectives - Kant's noumenon.

Ideal are subjective projections of interpretations of noumena, i.e., phenomena....often they are projections of what ought to be, or what a man prefers to be so.

Most men live in their heads, seeking inter-subjective supports groups, for their preferences.

Do 'women' and children not do 'this', as well?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 10:59 am Best way to evaluate the accuracy of your perceptions is to apply them, measuring the consequences against your expectations.

But, this has obviously not been working for you adult human beings.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 10:59 am If the gap is great, then you must adjust your subjective views, because the objective world will not yield to your preferences.

It appears that you did not understand my question, 'So, what IS, ACTUALLY, 'real', FROM what IS, JUST, 'the ideal', here, EXACTLY?' once again.

For example what is real from what is ideal in the claims. 'We need money to live', and, 'We have minds'?

Are these statements and claims 'real', or, 'ideals'?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:18 pm Do 'women' and children not do 'this', as well?

Who has excluded women and children form this?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 10:59 am But, this has obviously not been working for you adult human beings.

Your definition of "adulthood" is conventional.
Based on biological time.

A man can mature faster than his biology, when he is confronted by adversity...or stagnate when placed within a state of unearned comfort.

It appears that you did not understand my question, 'So, what IS, ACTUALLY, 'real', FROM what IS, JUST, 'the ideal', here, EXACTLY?' once again.

For example what is real from what is ideal in the claims. 'We need money to live', and, 'We have minds'?

You confuse 'truth' for reality.

The real is what is independent from all subjectivity.
Kant's noumenon.
'Truth' is a word we use to refer to a subjective perspective's approach towards this independently existing reality.
It refers to the quality of a perspective.

The misconception is yours.
You have yet to udnerstand what words are.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 12:38 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 11, 2025 2:57 am Gender Philosophy
Now, someone paired those two words, however, as Plato noted the simples sentence is comprised of a noun and a verb like, Socrates sits, Socrates walks, etc., However, Gender is a noun, Philosophy is a Noun, so it is not even close to being anything resembling anything grammatical.
So, maybe the person who wrote it could write something intelligible, because I know my crotch can neither read nor write. Nor does Philosophy have a gender. Secondly, A mind does not have a gender, as it has the very same function as any other mind, information processing exactly like any other mind, and the Grammar used to process information does not have a gender either.

So, what is up pasting two words together which leaves me scratching myself.

This is the type of argument one makes when they don't have any arguments left to make against the insanity of transgenderism. But there are much better arguments to make, namely that they can't even define what a woman or man is and when they do they use all the sexist tropes available to define what a woman and man is, not to mention the distinction between sex and gender that is tried but then they go and show that there is no distinction by their own actions in describing modifying your biology as "gender affirming".

There are so many contradictions being made by trans-activists that it invokes Orwell's 1984 in the mind with the Party's core slogans, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength," that are used to control the population through propaganda and the manipulation of truth, showcasing the Party's ability to hold contradictory beliefs as truths. The state states that men are women and women are men and we are suppose to accept it without question or be "canceled".

Words are a tool, they are used for memory management so that we can control our own behavior. Gender is defined biologically, it is just one facet, one part of a person's body they either use correctly or not. It no more a part of the mind than your foot its.

So, well to 'this one' anyway, sex organs and feet are just a 'part of' 'the mind'.

Which, obviously, is extremely inconsistent and contradictory to 'this one's' previously claims about 'the mind'.

But, 'this' is not the first time for this kind of apparent confusion from 'this one'. I will not, however, seek out to gain clarification from 'this one', here, now, as the last few times were just a complete waste of 'time'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm Words a part of a tool by which we regulate our own behavior.

What other parts of a 'tool' do you use to regulate your own behavior "phil8659"?

And, what even is 'that tool', exactly?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm That is why you teach people the correct use of names.

What is the so-called 'correct use' of the name, 'philosophy', which you 'teach', for example?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm Not to paste words together as you do, imagining that words, in of themselves have any power at all.

So, do words 'regulate your own behavior' or do they not?

Because if they do, as you just claimed they do, then they do have power.

And, as you human beings will soon start to come-to-realize 'words', themselves, have far, far more 'power' 'over you' human beings had ever actually realized, previously.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm Psychology is commensurate with the principles of language functionally resident in the mind as our Grammar Matrix.

'This one' has provided 'us' with another example of 'incorrect grammar', here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm In short, a Universal binary expressed in four distinct ways of utilizing binary recursion in order to know every possible consequence of any behavior.

Again, 'this sentence' is 'grammatically incorrect' as it is nonsensical, as it does not even relate to itself, let alone anything else, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm You newer practiced geometry.

In and of itself this statement and sentence is as 'grammatically incorrect' as the statement and sentence, 'gender philosophy', is. And, even if it was spelled correctly, then it would still be completely 'grammatically incorrect', in and of itself.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm Philosophy is learning how to be literate.

But, 'philosophy', itself, is not some thing that could learn how to do any thing, let alone to be literate.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm There is no difference between binary and binary, all of these differences you speak of only indicate a state of illiterate delusion.

Again, whoever this 'you' is is continually doing what "phil8659" does not like.

And, is 'this one' really sure that the people, here, needed to be informed that there is no difference between, the words, 'binary', and, 'binary'?

Who even has been the 'you' in the last few sentences, here, anyway?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm So, you probably did not either read, or understand Confucius's Rectification of names, so let me reword it.

Okay, 'I' will let 'you' reword the 'it' word, here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm If a person cannot use words correctly, they cannot possibly regulate their own behavior correctly, if people cannot regulate their own behavior correctly, they are a danger not only to themselves, but their entire environment, animate and inanimate.

Can 'you', the one known, here, as "phil8659", even inform absolutely any one what is the actual so-called 'correct usage' 'of words', exactly?

If you can not, then 'you' are a danger not only 'you', but also to 'us', and to the whole entire environment, animate and inanimate, correct?

Also, and just out of curiosity, are you under some sort of illusion and/or belief that 'words', themselves, have only one 'correct' definition?

For, if 'words' have different definitions, and/or even opposing definitions, then who in the whole entire world would know which definition is the so-called 'correct one', which would then be 'the only one' from which to then 'use words correctly'?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm A mind is a life support system, potentially the most powerful possible, it is used to predict the results of behaviors before hand, predictive behavior, prophecy, philosophy, reasoning, and has many names.

But, which also, and let 'us' not forget, 'parts of' these 'mind' things, have sex organs and feet, remember?

Or, so 'we' were told was true above by "phil8659", here.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm So if a mind cannot do its job, it is because of 2 and only 2 reasons. 1 they were born too stupid to learn,

So, 'minds' are in and of themselves, which were born, just like you human beings were 'born'.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm or 2 they could find no one smart enough to help them learn.

Are 'you', "phil8659", able to help 'us', here, to learn what 'minds' are, exactly?

If no, why not?

But, if yes, then great, 'we' wait for 'you' to inform and teach 'us' what 'minds', themselves, are, exactly?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 07, 2025 2:17 pm What is the only thing a mind can do? It is called virtual model making so that we can choose the best way to behave.

If 'this' is the 'only thing' a mind can do, then why do 'minds' have sex organs and feet for, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:18 pm Do 'women' and children not do 'this', as well?

Who has excluded women and children form this?

you said only 'men' do this.

Did you mean something else, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:24 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 10:59 am But, this has obviously not been working for you adult human beings.

Your definition of "adulthood" is conventional.
Based on biological time.

A man can mature faster than his biology, when he is confronted by adversity...or stagnate when placed within a state of unearned comfort.

So, what is 'it', exactly, which you are 'trying to' say, and mean, here?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:24 pm

It appears that you did not understand my question, 'So, what IS, ACTUALLY, 'real', FROM what IS, JUST, 'the ideal', here, EXACTLY?' once again.

For example what is real from what is ideal in the claims. 'We need money to live', and, 'We have minds'?

You confuse 'truth' for reality.

Do 'I', to 'you'?

If yes, then what led 'you' to assume and believe 'this'?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:24 pm The real is what is independent from all subjectivity.
Kant's noumenon.
'Truth' is a word we use to refer to a subjective perspective's approach towards this independently existing reality.
It refers to the quality of a perspective.

So, why do 'you' not just answer and clarify 'the question' that 'I' just asked 'you' above, here?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:24 pm The misconception is yours.

The supposed and alleged 'misconception' of 'what', exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:24 pm You have yet to udnerstand what words are.

And, 'you' are basing 'this assumption' and 'absolutely belief', of 'yours', on 'what', exactly?

Is the sentence and claim, 'We need money to live', 'real' or 'ideal'?

In fact, are 'you' even able to answer and clarify 'this' at all, here?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:49 pm you said only 'men' do this.

Mostly males....but 'men' as in humans....

Mankind....
Words....learn how to use words.
Mostly males...
Women and children are not made for philosophy.

So, what is 'it', exactly, which you are 'trying to' say, and mean, here?

I will not go further.
If you don't udnerstand, then you don't udnerstand.

Language can be used to exclude those that should not understand.

Do 'I', to 'you'?

If yes, then what led 'you' to assume and believe 'this'?

Your words, exposing the way you think.....and your motives.

So, why do 'you' not just answer and clarify 'the question' that 'I' just asked 'you' above, here?

I answered.

And, 'you' are basing 'this assumption' and 'absolutely belief', of 'yours', on 'what', exactly?

Based on observation...and precedent.

Is the sentence and claim, 'We need money to live', 'real' or 'ideal'?

In fact, are 'you' even able to answer and clarify 'this' at all, here?

We do not need money to live, ...except where money has been adopted as an abstraction representing resources.
Money is a form of intercourse.

For some it is a representation of salvation.
An earthly messiah liberating them from their insecurities and inferiority, viz., nature's injustices.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 4:10 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 3:49 pm you said only 'men' do this.

Mostly males....but 'men' as in humans....

Mankind....
Words....learn how to use words.
Mostly males...
Women and children are not made for philosophy.

So, what is 'it', exactly, which you are 'trying to' say, and mean, here?

I will not go further.
If you don't udnerstand, then you don't udnerstand.

Language can be used to exclude those that should not understand.

Do 'I', to 'you'?

If yes, then what led 'you' to assume and believe 'this'?

Your words, exposing the way you think.....and your motives.

So, why do 'you' not just answer and clarify 'the question' that 'I' just asked 'you' above, here?

I answered.

And, 'you' are basing 'this assumption' and 'absolutely belief', of 'yours', on 'what', exactly?

Based on observation...and precedent.

Is the sentence and claim, 'We need money to live', 'real' or 'ideal'?

In fact, are 'you' even able to answer and clarify 'this' at all, here?

We do not need money to live, ...except where money has been adopted as an abstraction representing resources.
Money is a form of intercourse.

For some it is a representation of salvation.
An earthly messiah liberating them from their insecurities and inferiority, viz., nature's injustices.

So,

When 'you' say 'men' and/or 'man' sometimes 'you'.mean one thing and at other times 'you' mean something else,

To you,

Only 'men' are made 'for philosophy' as, to you, 'women' and children are not made 'for philosophy'.

Which, based on past experiences, I will not ask 'you' to elaborate on nor explain further.

To you,

We do not need money, except for when we need money.

And, as any one can very clear see and observe, here, 'this one's' blatant contradictions and inconsistencies continue.

Also, why do you not provide any actual examples and/or actual proof, which could and would back up your beliefs and claims, here?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 9:50 pm
So,

When 'you' say 'men' and/or 'man' sometimes 'you'.mean one thing and at other times 'you' mean something else,

Not "for me"....most people use 'man' interchangeably.
Sometimes they use it to refer to a male and sometimes to man, as in mankind, including both sexes.

English is not your first language, is it?

To you,

Only 'men' are made 'for philosophy' as, to you, 'women' and children are not made 'for philosophy'.

Which, based on past experiences, I will not ask 'you' to elaborate on nor explain further.

Not only for I....but many have said so...inducing Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

The reason is obvious....
Males are the expendable sex. Their sexual role is to challenge authority, that is to challenge other males.....and the establishment
Women's sexual roles makes them dependent, and so their psychology is towards establishing and maintaining relationships, and the status quo.
They need safety and stability to carry out their reproductive role.

So, the male is the disruptor of status quo....the challenger...and this is why males dominate in the sciences, and in philosophy...anything which requires 'thinking outside the box' or challenging established truths.
Men innovate and push the limits....women do not...they preserve and nurture.

You will never find a female philosopher that revolutionized human thinking....ever.
It's not in their nature.

To you,

We do not need money, except for when we need money.

No, I said money is a representation of resources, so the only environment in which we NEED money is within manmade environments that use money as representations of resources.

And, as any one can very clear see and observe, here, 'this one's' blatant contradictions and inconsistencies continue.

If you are incapable of following then this is a waste of my time, isn't it?
Your psychosis is that of a gadfly...allusion to Socrates.....and you don't even have the brains for it.

Also, why do you not provide any actual examples and/or actual proof, which could and would back up your beliefs and claims, here?

You want evidence for how 'man' has a dual use, or that money represents resources or that women do not have a philosophical acumen?
Regally?


So, on top of it all, you are also simple.

Bad combo....simpleton with a chip on your shoulder.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 9:50 pm
So,

When 'you' say 'men' and/or 'man' sometimes 'you'.mean one thing and at other times 'you' mean something else,

Not "for me"

So, when "pistolero" uses the 'men' or the 'man' word it means one thing only.

Whereas, to "pistolero", instead,

....most people use 'man' interchangeably.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm Sometimes they use it to refer to a male and sometimes to man, as in mankind, including both sexes.

Why when 'I' asked 'you' about what 'you' mean, 'you' decide to talk about what, supposedly, 'most people' do, instead?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm English is not your first language, is it?

What, exactly, led 'you' to start making up 'this assumption', and to then believe 'your assumption' to be absolutely true?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm

To you,

Only 'men' are made 'for philosophy' as, to you, 'women' and children are not made 'for philosophy'.

Which, based on past experiences, I will not ask 'you' to elaborate on nor explain further.

Not only for I....but many have said so...inducing Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.

Are 'you' absolutely sure so-called 'many' have said that 'women' and children not made 'for philosophy'?

And, even if 'many' had said such a thing as 'this', does 'many' saying some thing then mean, to you, that 'that thing' is true, and/or right?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm The reason is obvious....
Males are the expendable sex.

So, well to "pistolero" anyway, the reason why, supposedly and allegedly, 'many' have said, ' 'women and children are not made 'for philosophy' ', is because 'males' are, now, supposedly the 'expendable ones'.

What do you believe 'males' are expendable in relation to, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm Their sexual role is to challenge authority, that is to challenge other males.....and the establishment

To me the 'sexual role' of 'male human beings' is to get 'female human beings' pregnant.

What, exactly, is the 'authority' and the 'establishment', which you believe and claim the so-called 'sexual role of male human beings' is 'to challenge', exactly?

And, how, exactly, can 'male human bodies'' 'having sex' with 'female human bodies' 'challenge' 'other males', exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm Women's sexual roles makes them dependent,

But, to me' the 'sexual role' of the 'female human body' is to 'get pregnant'.

What do you believe is just 'getting pregnant' make 'women' dependent, and 'dependent upon' 'what', exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm and so their psychology is towards establishing and maintaining relationships, and the status quo.

How did the so-called 'sexual role' of 'female human bodies' lead 'you' to then 'conclude' that 'the psychology' of 'females' is 'towards establishing and maintain relationships', exactly?

And, how long has this, supposed, 'existing state of affairs' been around for, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm They need safety and stability to carry out their reproductive role.

But, the 'female human body' only needs sperm injected into 'the body' in order to carry out 'the reproductive roles' of the 'female body'. So, why are you assuming and believing that those bodies need anything else?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm So, the male is the disruptor of status quo....the challenger...and this is why males dominate in the sciences, and in philosophy...anything which requires 'thinking outside the box' or challenging established truths.

Do 'you' ever wonder why only 'males' say and claim things like 'this', here?

Also, and by the way, none of this 'logically follows', anyway.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm
Men innovate and push the limits....women do not...they preserve and nurture.

you really do have a very narrowed, and even very closed, way of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things, here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm You will never find a female philosopher that revolutionized human thinking....ever.

If 'this' is what you want to believe is absolutely true, then okay.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm It's not in their nature.

So, "pistolero" believes, absolutely, that 'the thinking' within 'female human bodies' is 'naturally' very, very different from 'the thinking' within 'male human bodies'.

Now, 'I', for One, would love to 'see' "pistolero" back up and support its beliefs and claims, here.

But, and obviously 'this' will never ever happen. Unless, of course, 'you' would like to begin to try to explain how, exactly, your belief and claim could be actually True, and Right, here, and thus prove 'me' absolutely Wrong, here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm

To you,

We do not need money, except for when we need money.

No, I said money is a representation of resources, so the only environment in which we NEED money is within manmade environments that use money as representations of resources.

So, to you, 'we NEED money', BUT, 'we do NOT NEED money', right?

Now, once again, which one is 'real' and which one is 'ideal'?

Or, are they both 'real' and/or 'ideal', to you, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm

And, as any one can very clear see and observe, here, 'this one's' blatant contradictions and inconsistencies continue.

If you are incapable of following then this is a waste of my time, isn't it?

Once more you are absolutely free to choose to believe whatever you want to and/or like to, here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm Your psychosis is that of a gadfly...allusion to Socrates.....and you don't even have the brains for it.

Again, if this is what 'you' believe is absolutely true, then this is perfectly fine and okay with 'me'. 'you' are just proving, for 'me', my claims about how the human brain actually works.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm

Also, why do you not provide any actual examples and/or actual proof, which could and would back up your beliefs and claims, here?

You want evidence for how 'man' has a dual use, or that money represents resources or that women do not have a philosophical acumen?
Regally?

Once again, 'this one', like 'many', here, in this forum, can not see the 'actual words' used and written, by 'me', although 'the words' are written very clearly, here, for all to 'look at', and 'see'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 10:16 pm So, on top of it all, you are also simple.

Bad combo....simpleton with a chip on your shoulder.

What do you believe is the so-called 'chip on my shoulder', exactly?

Let 'us' see if you are able to, at least, just clarify and answer 'this one question'.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 11:31 pm So, when "pistolero" uses the 'men' or the 'man' word it means one thing only.

Whereas, to "pistolero", instead,

....most people use 'man' interchangeably.

If this confuses you, I can't help you.
Your English is poor, and your IQ is too low.

The context of a sentence tells you how the other uses a term.
So, when people say "man is alone in the universe" they do not mean males only.

Why when 'I' asked 'you' about what 'you' mean, 'you' decide to talk about what, supposedly, 'most people' do, instead?

No, I told you I am not the only one who claims that women and children are not meant for philosophy...and I gave you two philosophers.
Coward.

What, exactly, led 'you' to start making up 'this assumption', and to then believe 'your assumption' to be absolutely true?

I never said it was absolutely true, did I, hypocrite....I said it is most probably so.
In fact, hypocrite, I claim absolutes do not exist...
And the evidence is your ignorance about the dual use of the term 'man,' as is your inability to understand what money represents...exactly.

Are 'you' absolutely sure so-called 'many' have said that 'women' and children not made 'for philosophy'?

No coward, nobody can ever be absolutely certain.....but they can believe they are most probably correct.
Absolute certainty, hypocrite, is not a prerequisite for expressing an opinion....otherwise you would not be such a hypocrite and coward.

And, even if 'many' had said such a thing as 'this', does 'many' saying some thing then mean, to you, that 'that thing' is true, and/or right?

No hypocrite...but we compare what is said with our experiences....
Can you name one female philosopher that revolutionized human thinking?
One....will do.

But even if you had the mind to find some obscure female philosopher and claim that she did just that...this still would not disprove the thesis, hypocrite...because an exception to a rule validates the rule.

Do you need "exact evidence" or is this comprehensible to a low IQ liar, like yourself?

Males sell; females buy.

What do you believe 'males' are expendable in relation to, exactly?

In relation to women.

Because, moron...and here do not select a portion of what follows...
Males produce millions of sperm. daily, and can impregnate multiple females, whereas females are born with a fixed amount of ova.

To me the 'sexual role' of 'male human beings' is to get 'female human beings' pregnant.

What, exactly, is the 'authority' and the 'establishment', which you believe and claim the so-called 'sexual role of male human beings' is 'to challenge', exactly?

I know "exactly this" and "exactly that" but then you understand nothing, and you cannot even comprehend basic ideas.

My exact 'basis,' hypocrite, is experience with both sexes....and historical precedent.

And, how, exactly, can 'male human bodies'' 'having sex' with 'female human bodies' 'challenge' 'other males', exactly?

What?

What EXACTLY?
HA!!!
Are you for real?

Have you never seen a documentary or experienced males?

But, to me' the 'sexual role' of the 'female human body' is to 'get pregnant'.

Wow...deep....What "exactly" is your source?

What do you believe is just 'getting pregnant' make 'women' dependent, and 'dependent upon' 'what', exactly?

Exactly...I believe that exactly.
Is not a female, exactly, dependent during her pregnancy and during the weening of her offspring?
Do you need evidence?
Exact evidence....
HA!!

How did the so-called 'sexual role' of 'female human bodies' lead 'you' to then 'conclude' that 'the psychology' of 'females' is 'towards establishing and maintain relationships', exactly?

Man oh man...
Exactly?

Because, hypocrite, a female is dependent on the group during her pregnancy - exactly - and during the weening of her infant...exactly.

So, not exactly, but generally, female promiscuity has a 6-8 year cycle.

And, how long has this, supposed, 'existing state of affairs' been around for, exactly?

Ummmmm since there have been mammals....exactly.
We see this EXACT, behavior in all primates...and many mammals.

But, the 'female human body' only needs sperm injected into 'the body' in order to carry out 'the reproductive roles' of the 'female body'. So, why are you assuming and believing that those bodies need anything else?

EXACTLY....bodies need no food, nor water, nor oxygen....all they need is sperm to give birth....exactly.

Do 'you' ever wonder why only 'males' say and claim things like 'this', here?

Because only males challenge the status quo....which you do not.
You are not a masculine man.....probably a man-child.
You are a defender of conventionality....exactly.

Also, and by the way, none of this 'logically follows', anyway.

Of course not...not exactly per your criteria.
I know...exactly.
Your logic is impeccable, and exact.

you really do have a very narrowed, and even very closed, way of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things, here.

Ha...
As expected...exactly.

I look forward to your broad-minded, exact, positions, man-child.

If 'this' is what you want to believe is absolutely true, then okay.

Yes...exactly....absolutely so.
This is what I am saying. you understood....EXACTLY.

So, "pistolero" believes, absolutely, that 'the thinking' within 'female human bodies' is 'naturally' very, very different from 'the thinking' within 'male human bodies'.

Exactly....you udnerstand it exactly.
And absolutely.
If that is what you think I am saying, or is it what you want me to be saying...exactly.

Now, 'I', for One, would love to 'see' "pistolero" back up and support its beliefs and claims, here.

Exactly.
You should move on.
You saw through my absolutist thinking, exactly.
You understood me...exactly.

But, and obviously 'this' will never ever happen. Unless, of course, 'you' would like to begin to try to explain how, exactly, your belief and claim could be actually True, and Right, here, and thus prove 'me' absolutely Wrong, here.

Never, ever happen....exactly.
Never-mind the arguments presented...those you've, exactly, rejected and dismissed, because you saw through their contradictions...
HA!!

So, to you, 'we NEED money', BUT, 'we do NOT NEED money', right?

If that's what you understood, then that is "exactly" what I said.

Now, once again, which one is 'real' and which one is 'ideal'?

Exactly.

Or, are they both 'real' and/or 'ideal', to you, exactly?

Who knows what you are talking about, exactly....so whatever.

Once more you are absolutely free to choose to believe whatever you want to and/or like to, here.

Thank you, moron....EXACTLY the same at ya.
Stay as you are.
A mild nuisance....

Again, if this is what 'you' believe is absolutely true, then this is perfectly fine and okay with 'me'. 'you' are just proving, for 'me', my claims about how the human brain actually works.

Exactly!

Once again, 'this one', like 'many', here, in this forum, can not see the 'actual words' used and written, by 'me', although 'the words' are written very clearly, here, for all to 'look at', and 'see'.

It is obvious what you are...exactly.

What do you believe is the so-called 'chip on my shoulder', exactly?

Some kind of insecurity concerning your IQ...exactly.

Let 'us' see if you are able to, at least, just clarify and answer 'this one question'.

Just this one...exactly.

A gadfly without the IQ....
An insecure little boy, with a giant chip on his shoulders....desperately wanting to prove he's smart enough and good enough...and gosh darn it people like him.

Exactly!


Man-child...your English and IQ are not up to par. Not exactly up to par.
I will not waste my time on you....exactly.

I will enjoy your antics, exactly, when you annoy the shit out of others.

And with that...
Ta, Ta,

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 11:31 pm So, when "pistolero" uses the 'men' or the 'man' word it means one thing only.

Whereas, to "pistolero", instead,

....most people use 'man' interchangeably.

If this confuses you, I can't help you.
Your English is poor, and your IQ is too low.

The context of a sentence tells you how the other uses a term.
So, when people say "man is alone in the universe" they do not mean males only.

So, once again, 'this one' 'tries' its hardest to 'justify' saying things, which are not actually even meant to begin with.

After all of these thousands upon thousands of years these human beings would have, by 'now', learned to just 'say what they mean', and/or, to just 'mean what they say'.

But, no, they will keep on 'trying to' 'justify' their obviously 'Wrong and/or mistaken ways'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Why when 'I' asked 'you' about what 'you' mean, 'you' decide to talk about what, supposedly, 'most people' do, instead?

No, I told you I am not the only one who claims that women and children are not meant for philosophy...and I gave you two philosophers.
Coward.

'This one' has completely and utterly missed the point, once again.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

What, exactly, led 'you' to start making up 'this assumption', and to then believe 'your assumption' to be absolutely true?

I never said it was absolutely true, did I, hypocrite....I said it is most probably so.

When did you ever use the words, 'most probably so', here, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am In fact, hypocrite, I claim absolutes do not exist...

So, 'we' have 'another one' who 'tries to' claim that, absolutely, 'absolutes' do not exist.

When will these human beings ever learn that every time any one of you 'tries to' claims things like, 'There are no absolutes', or, 'There is no absolute truth', then they are, in fact, providing 'self-contradictory' claims will being 'hypocritical' at the exact same 'time'?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am And the evidence is your ignorance about the dual use of the term 'man,' as is your inability to understand what money represents...exactly.

Again, more assumptions, made up by 'this one', which 'this one' believes are absolutely true, once more.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Are 'you' absolutely sure so-called 'many' have said that 'women' and children not made 'for philosophy'?

No coward, nobody can ever be absolutely certain.....but they can believe they are most probably correct.

So, as it appears, 'this one', still, believes that 'many' human beings have said, and claimed, that ' 'women' and children are not made 'for philosophy' '.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am Absolute certainty, hypocrite, is not a prerequisite for expressing an opinion....otherwise you would not be such a hypocrite and coward.

Once more, 'this one' has managed to completely miss and/or misunderstand what is being shown, and presented, here, exactly.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

And, even if 'many' had said such a thing as 'this', does 'many' saying some thing then mean, to you, that 'that thing' is true, and/or right?

No hypocrite...but we compare what is said with our experiences....

And, in 'your experience', in Life, 'many human beings' have said, and thus claimed, that, ' 'women' and children were not 'made', 'for philosophy' ', correct?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am Can you name one female philosopher that revolutionized human thinking?

'I', certainly, do not use the 'same definition' for the 'philosopher' word as 'you' do.

'This' is some thing that 'I' thought 'you' would have already known, or at least been somewhat aware of.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am One....will do.

If 'you' ever stopped to just 'think' or 'imagine' that 'your own personal definition' for the 'philosopher' word is not the same one as others use, here, then 'you' might start actually 'looking' and 'observing' and 'taking notice' of what has actually been happening and occurring, here, exactly.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am But even if you had the mind to find some obscure female philosopher and claim that she did just that...this still would not disprove the thesis, hypocrite...because an exception to a rule validates the rule.

Do you need "exact evidence" or is this comprehensible to a low IQ liar, like yourself?

Males sell; females buy.

What do so-called 'males' 'sell', exactly, and, what do so-called 'females' 'buy', exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

What do you believe 'males' are expendable in relation to, exactly?

In relation to women.

To 'me' 'this' does not make sense. But, then again, quite a fair bit of what 'you' have been saying, and claiming, here, does not make sense. Well to 'me' anyway.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am Because, moron...and here do not select a portion of what follows...
Males produce millions of sperm. daily, and can impregnate multiple females, whereas females are born with a fixed amount of ova.

So, 'this' means, to 'you', that 'males are expendable in relation to women', right?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

To me the 'sexual role' of 'male human beings' is to get 'female human beings' pregnant.

What, exactly, is the 'authority' and the 'establishment', which you believe and claim the so-called 'sexual role of male human beings' is 'to challenge', exactly?

I know "exactly this" and "exactly that" but then you understand nothing, and you cannot even comprehend basic ideas.

So, once more, when 'you' are questioned and challenged over 'your claims', 'you' do not provide absolutely any thing, which could even remotely begin to back up and support 'your claim'. But, instead, you then go on to say, and claim, 'you know exactly this and that', only.

If 'this' is all you have got, here, then so be it and okay.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am My exact 'basis,' hypocrite, is experience with both sexes....and historical precedent.

So, what, exactly, is 'the authority', and, 'the establishment', is, supposedly, 'known, exactly', by "pistolero", but "pistolero" is certainly not going to inform 'us' of any thing, here.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

And, how, exactly, can 'male human bodies'' 'having sex' with 'female human bodies' 'challenge' 'other males', exactly?

What?

What EXACTLY?
HA!!!
Are you for real?

Have you never seen a documentary or experienced males?

I have never even heard the term nor phrase 'experienced males' before, but I have seen a documentary, before.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

But, to me' the 'sexual role' of the 'female human body' is to 'get pregnant'.

Wow...deep....What "exactly" is your source?

The very 'role' of the actual different 'sexual and/or reproductive organs' on, and/or within, human bodies.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

What do you believe is just 'getting pregnant' make 'women' dependent, and 'dependent upon' 'what', exactly?

Exactly...I believe that exactly.

So, 'getting pregnant' is dependent upon 'getting pregnant', to you, correct?

I thought 'getting pregnant' would be dependent upon a few other things, instead.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am Is not a female, exactly, dependent during her pregnancy and during the weening of her offspring?

Again, is not a 'female', exactly, dependent upon 'what', exactly, (during its pregnancy and during the nourishing of its offspring)?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am Do you need evidence?

Do 'I' need evidence for 'what', exactly?

And, once more, 'I' do not do 'evidence'. 'I' do 'proof', instead.

As, and obviously, one can be refuted, while the other can not.

Are 'you' aware of which one is which?

If yes, then why would 'you' talk about 'evidence', only, here?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am Exact evidence....
HA!!

Why do 'you' say things, and then laugh at what only 'you' have thought and/or said, here?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

How did the so-called 'sexual role' of 'female human bodies' lead 'you' to then 'conclude' that 'the psychology' of 'females' is 'towards establishing and maintain relationships', exactly?

Man oh man...
Exactly?

Because, hypocrite,

How can just 'asking questions', for clarification, lead 'you' to believe and make 'the claim' that 'the one' who is just 'asking questions' is a "hypocrite", exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am a female is dependent on the group during her pregnancy - exactly - and during the weening of her infant...exactly.

Why, exactly?

Are 'you' absolutely sure that 'women' are not capable of looking after, and caring for, "their" own 'selves' while pregnant and/or for some time after giving birth?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am
So, not exactly, but generally, female promiscuity has a 6-8 year cycle.

Are 'males' promiscuous as well? Or, are only 'females' promiscuous, to 'you'?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

And, how long has this, supposed, 'existing state of affairs' been around for, exactly?

Ummmmm since there have been mammals....exactly.
We see this EXACT, behavior in all primates...and many mammals.

So, well to "pistolero" anyway, the 'female' only psychology, and 'female' only behavior, of being 'towards establishing and maintaining relationships', has been around since mammals have been around.

Why do you believe, absolutely, that 'males' are inclined, at all, 'towards establishing and maintaining relationships' and that 'this behavior' is in the 'female psychology', only?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

But, the 'female human body' only needs sperm injected into 'the body' in order to carry out 'the reproductive roles' of the 'female body'. So, why are you assuming and believing that those bodies need anything else?

EXACTLY....bodies need no food, nor water, nor oxygen....all they need is sperm to give birth....exactly.

So, if 'this' is why 'you' are assuming what 'you' are, here, then okay.

And, let 'us' not forget that 'you' have been wanting to talk 'about' the differences between 'males' and 'females' in regards to 'reproductive roles'. So, were 'you' assuming that the 'male human bodies' did not need the exact same things, here, as 'female human bodies' do?

Were 'you' aware that it would help 'you', tremendously, if 'you' could just keep up with, and on, the exact 'thing', which you have said and claimed, which 'my question', 'to you', is in relation to, exactly.

Now, 'you' made the claim that 'women need safety and stability to carry out their reproductive role'. So, let 'us' stay with 'this claim' of yours. Why do 'women' need 'safety and stability' to carry out 'their reproductive roles' for, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Do 'you' ever wonder why only 'males' say and claim things like 'this', here?

Because only males challenge the status quo....which you do not.

So, since human beings have been existing for, to you, never once has a 'women' challenged the status quo, and 'you' know 'this' for a fact, correct?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am You are not a masculine man.....probably a man-child.

Okay.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am You are a defender of conventionality....exactly.

Yet, here it is 'you' who is saying and claiming some thing exists, 'because 'many' have said so'. And, that what makes 'that' true is, again, 'because 'many' have said so'.

Which, by the way, and coincidentally, of 'that many' it is only 'males' who have said, 'that was so'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Also, and by the way, none of this 'logically follows', anyway.

Of course not...not exactly per your criteria.
I know...exactly.
Your logic is impeccable, and exact.

If 'you' know 'this', then why are 'you' going off on 'your own', here?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

you really do have a very narrowed, and even very closed, way of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things, here.

Ha...
As expected...exactly.

I look forward to your broad-minded, exact, positions, man-child.

But, 'you' obviously do not look forward to my views, nor positions, at all. As has been demonstrated, and proved, by your total lack of curiosity, and interest, in what my views, or positions, even are, exactly.

Obviously if one, really, does 'look forward' to some thing, then 'they' will do some thing to bring 'it' on or at least encourage 'it'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

If 'this' is what you want to believe is absolutely true, then okay.

Yes...exactly....absolutely so.
This is what I am saying. you understood....EXACTLY.

you are aware that you are absolutely free to believe whatever you so choose to do, but that what you choose to believe is true, is not necessarily true at all, right?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

So, "pistolero" believes, absolutely, that 'the thinking' within 'female human bodies' is 'naturally' very, very different from 'the thinking' within 'male human bodies'.

Exactly....you udnerstand it exactly.

Are you even aware that 'I' am just presenting 'your beliefs', here, only?

Which, as always, never means that what 'you believe' is true is actually true at all, nor even partly.

And, understanding what 'you believe' is true, never means that what 'you believe' is even understandable.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am And absolutely.
If that is what you think I am saying, or is it what you want me to be saying...exactly.

'I' just want 'you' to express 'your own views, beliefs, and assumptions, exactly, and as honestly and openly as you can, and as how 'you' have them and/or are holding onto them, exactly.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Now, 'I', for One, would love to 'see' "pistolero" back up and support its beliefs and claims, here.

Exactly.
You should move on.
You saw through my absolutist thinking, exactly.
You understood me...exactly.

If you can not just back up and support your beliefs and claims, here, then so be it, and okay.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

But, and obviously 'this' will never ever happen. Unless, of course, 'you' would like to begin to try to explain how, exactly, your belief and claim could be actually True, and Right, here, and thus prove 'me' absolutely Wrong, here.

Never, ever happen....exactly.
Never-mind the arguments presented...those you've, exactly, rejected and dismissed, because you saw through their contradictions...
HA!!

Once more, just presenting a so-called 'argument' never makes what is being believed nor claimed True, nor Right, at all.

That is; until you present an actual sound and valid argument, then there is not a human being who could counter, nor refute, it, at all.

Have you presented an actual sound and valid argument, here?

if yes, then where and when, exactly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

So, to you, 'we NEED money', BUT, 'we do NOT NEED money', right?

If that's what you understood, then that is "exactly" what I said.

Great, 'now' 'we' are getting somewhere.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Now, once again, which one is 'real' and which one is 'ideal'?

Exactly.

Once more 'this one', still, will not answer and clarify.

For obvious reasons, of course.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Or, are they both 'real' and/or 'ideal', to you, exactly?

Who knows what you are talking about, exactly....so whatever.

Once again, 'another attempt' at 'deflection', 'diversion', and 'deception'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Once more you are absolutely free to choose to believe whatever you want to and/or like to, here.

Thank you, moron....EXACTLY the same at ya.
Stay as you are.
A mild nuisance....

Obviously 'this one' has not yet heard, and/nor yet learned.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Again, if this is what 'you' believe is absolutely true, then this is perfectly fine and okay with 'me'. 'you' are just proving, for 'me', my claims about how the human brain actually works.

Exactly!

Once again, 'this one', like 'many', here, in this forum, can not see the 'actual words' used and written, by 'me', although 'the words' are written very clearly, here, for all to 'look at', and 'see'.

It is obvious what you are...exactly.

And, what is 'that', exactly, and supposedly and allegedly?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

What do you believe is the so-called 'chip on my shoulder', exactly?

Some kind of insecurity concerning your IQ...exactly.

1. 'I' have no so-called 'insecurities', here, at all.

2. No one has 'their iq'.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am

Let 'us' see if you are able to, at least, just clarify and answer 'this one question'.

Just this one...exactly.

So, what my so-called 'chip on my shoulder' is, exactly, well to 'this one' anyway, is 'some kind' of insecurity.

Which is, obviously, not an 'exact', at all.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 12:19 am A gadfly without the IQ....
An insecure little boy, with a giant chip on his shoulders....desperately wanting to prove he's smart enough and good enough...and gosh darn it people like him.

Exactly!


Man-child...your English and IQ are not up to par. Not exactly up to par.
I will not waste my time on you....exactly.

I will enjoy your antics, exactly, when you annoy the shit out of others.

And with that...
Ta, Ta,

So, 'another one', here, 'runs away', and 'hides', when it is questioned, and challenged, here.

It is like 'these people' were not expecting to get questioned and/or challenged, here, within a philosophy forum, well not as much as 'I' do anyway.

When did you ever use the words, 'most probably so', here, exactly?

Once more, 'this one' has managed to completely miss and/or misunderstand what is being shown, and presented, here, exactly.

If 'you' ever stopped to just 'think' or 'imagine' that 'your own personal definition' for the 'philosopher' word is not the same one as others use, here, then 'you' might start actually 'looking' and 'observing' and 'taking notice' of what has actually been happening and occurring, here, exactly.

What do so-called 'males' 'sell', exactly, and, what do so-called 'females' 'buy', exactly?

So, what, exactly, is 'the authority', and, 'the establishment', is, supposedly, 'known, exactly', by "pistolero", but "pistolero" is certainly not going to inform 'us' of any thing, here.

Do 'I' need evidence for 'what', exactly?

How can just 'asking questions', for clarification, lead 'you' to believe and make 'the claim' that 'the one' who is just 'asking questions' is a "hypocrite", exactly?

Why, exactly?

Were 'you' aware that it would help 'you', tremendously, if 'you' could just keep up with, and on, the exact 'thing', which you have said and claimed, which 'my question', 'to you', is in relation to, exactly.

Now, 'you' made the claim that 'women need safety and stability to carry out their reproductive role'. So, let 'us' stay with 'this claim' of yours. Why do 'women' need 'safety and stability' to carry out 'their reproductive roles' for, exactly?

But, 'you' obviously do not look forward to my views, nor positions, at all. As has been demonstrated, and proved, by your total lack of curiosity, and interest, in what my views, or positions, even are, exactly.

'I' just want 'you' to express 'your own views, beliefs, and assumptions, exactly, and as honestly and openly as you can, and as how 'you' have them and/or are holding onto them, exactly.

if yes, then where and when, exactly?

And, what is 'that', exactly, and supposedly and allegedly?

Which is, obviously, not an 'exact', at all.

EXACTLY!!

Pistolero wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 10:58 am

When did you ever use the words, 'most probably so', here, exactly?

Once more, 'this one' has managed to completely miss and/or misunderstand what is being shown, and presented, here, exactly.

If 'you' ever stopped to just 'think' or 'imagine' that 'your own personal definition' for the 'philosopher' word is not the same one as others use, here, then 'you' might start actually 'looking' and 'observing' and 'taking notice' of what has actually been happening and occurring, here, exactly.

What do so-called 'males' 'sell', exactly, and, what do so-called 'females' 'buy', exactly?

So, what, exactly, is 'the authority', and, 'the establishment', is, supposedly, 'known, exactly', by "pistolero", but "pistolero" is certainly not going to inform 'us' of any thing, here.

Do 'I' need evidence for 'what', exactly?

How can just 'asking questions', for clarification, lead 'you' to believe and make 'the claim' that 'the one' who is just 'asking questions' is a "hypocrite", exactly?

Why, exactly?

Were 'you' aware that it would help 'you', tremendously, if 'you' could just keep up with, and on, the exact 'thing', which you have said and claimed, which 'my question', 'to you', is in relation to, exactly.

Now, 'you' made the claim that 'women need safety and stability to carry out their reproductive role'. So, let 'us' stay with 'this claim' of yours. Why do 'women' need 'safety and stability' to carry out 'their reproductive roles' for, exactly?

But, 'you' obviously do not look forward to my views, nor positions, at all. As has been demonstrated, and proved, by your total lack of curiosity, and interest, in what my views, or positions, even are, exactly.

'I' just want 'you' to express 'your own views, beliefs, and assumptions, exactly, and as honestly and openly as you can, and as how 'you' have them and/or are holding onto them, exactly.

if yes, then where and when, exactly?

And, what is 'that', exactly, and supposedly and allegedly?

Which is, obviously, not an 'exact', at all.

EXACTLY!!

So, again, 'this one' agrees.

Exactly!