Any basis for that false number you made up at the top of your head. I’d honestly think it’s closer to 9%. Anytime a relationship fails, blame definitely has to fall more on the woman, logically. At the very least it was more her fault 100% of the time.
The way I see it, most men are good guys while only a few, and I mean a few, go on a rampage and kill their family.
Any basis for that false number you made up at the top of your head. I’d honestly think it’s closer to 9%. Anytime a relationship fails, blame definitely has to fall more on the woman, logically. At the very least it was more her fault 100% of the time.
this is true because men have the ability to do it and women do not.
and to put it in better context, lena means that out of all family murders, 91% of time its the man doing it, which makes sense, since a woman probably cant.
if they want equality, they need to start killing more families. we are dominating them in this regard. same with suicide, women have to step up their game and kill themselves more, they try more than men do, but fail.
and to put it in better context, lena means that out of all family murders, 91% of time its the man doing it, which makes sense, since a woman probably cant.
Knives exist.
Any basis for that false number you made up at the top of your head. I’d honestly think it’s closer to 9%. Anytime a relationship fails, blame definitely has to fall more on the woman, logically. At the very least it was more her fault 100% of the time.
this is true because men have the ability to do it and women do not.
and to put it in better context, lena means that out of all family murders, 91% of time its the man doing it, which makes sense, since a woman probably cant.
if they want equality, they need to start killing more families. we are dominating them in this regard. same with suicide, women have to step up their game and kill themselves more, they try more than men do, but fail.
Oh I didn’t read everything sorry. Didn’t realize this was about murder, my bad. Thought it was about ruining families in general. Pretty rarely do women resort to murdering their family compared to men, but it’s probably because they don’t have a woman to deal with.
Why I'm Indifferent to Men and Women: A Manifesto
Both have an immense capacity for retardation and genius.
Both have an immense capacity for insidiousness and sincerity.
Both have an immense capacity for ugliness and beauty.
Essentialist Philosophy and Ideology that serve Men and damn Women, or serve Women and damn Men are equally faulty in their fragile epistemic and ontic foundations.
Do you account for the statistical effects of the worst of male behavior versus that of female behavior? You can specify your thoughts on the taking and evaluating of these statistics, to clarify.
The statements I have made in this manifesto are general enough that all I need to confirm the set of hypothesis are single instances, n = 1, of a man or woman exhibiting these things. They are inherently easy to confirm in this sense.
However, each of these claims are built on ambiguous categories. Its not completely clear as to what someone being 'beuatiful' or 'ugly' means, let alone what variables I would use to construct a dependence between a gender and one of these categories.
Accounting for statistics in this case isn't all that fruitful, hence I wouldn't. This begs the question of weather the statement themselves are valid or meaningful, someone who follows a very strict statistical epistemology of propositions would say no. If we instead accept a more logical framework that is not statistical then not only are all the propositions valid, they are true given a these propositions logically only require singular examples for verification. What weakens the logical treatment is the inclusion of 'immense', adjectives in general add ambiguity to propositions. If we could come to an agreement as to what qualifies as making something immense,the propositions will be less ambiguous. I don't think that is a difficult task.
Your manifesto certainly has more bearing on a 1v1 basis, but can we aggregate and discover any dichotomy worth making a bias for?
I believe we can form valid biases under a Statistical Epistemology. For instance some of these have been stated in this thread.
natasha87 said:tf r u talking about, men are responsible for most murders, rapes, child molestation etc lmao, any violent crime.
We have pretty good evidence to support the validity of these hypothesis, the question is what dichotomy between the sexes/genders depending on your accepted definitions) do these hypothesis support.
Fundamentally, in the strictest mathematical sense, what the hypothesis aim to establish in the first place.
If my hypothesis is that men commit more violent crimes than women and I verify that hypothesis, then I have verified exactly that dichotomy.
I could use the verification of this dichotomy as evidence for another, for instance the hypothesis men are more dangerous than women. But, it should not be the only variable in the verification of this hypothesis given its reasonable to define none-crimes/violence as dangerous.
natasha87 said:if anything women are the nurturing and compassionate sex, the ones with empathy, the more caring and understanding ones.
This is also the case when arguing women are more compassionate than men. Given the set of stated hypothesis, we can not come to that conclusion unless we only use said hypothesis as our variables and that to me seems logically incorrect. There seem to be far more dependencies with compassion than just the rate of a sex/gender committing violent crime. So to confirm this hypothesis we need to determine the other dependencies and find a way to weight them, which is far from an easy task given the ambiguous nature of the notion of compassion.
If we are to argue by statistics we have to be very careful on how we establish inferences about new unverified hypothesis from old ones.
The initial post, a long with what's revealed to be Deloras feelings later on in the thread, seem to want to establish that Men are more loveable than Women. This is just not something we will be able to establish logically or statistically given the level of ambiguity inherent in the hypothesis. Its unclear how you would test this given its unclear what quantifiable variables you should include and exclude from such a test if it is to be rigorous and universally verifiable.
By the above if we are to appeal to something like logical nihilism, delora is completely justified in her feelings. At least in that sense. Though, I wouldn't take this route.
Why I'm Indifferent to Men and Women: A Manifesto
Both have an immense capacity for retardation and genius.
Both have an immense capacity for insidiousness and sincerity.
Both have an immense capacity for ugliness and beauty.
Essentialist Philosophy and Ideology that serve Men and damn Women, or serve Women and damn Men are equally faulty in their fragile epistemic and ontic foundations.
Do you account for the statistical effects of the worst of male behavior versus that of female behavior? You can specify your thoughts on the taking and evaluating of these statistics, to clarify.
The statements I have made in this manifesto are general enough that all I need to confirm the set of hypothesis are single instances, n = 1, of a man or woman exhibiting these things. They are inherently easy to confirm in this sense.
However, each of these claims are built on ambiguous categories. Its not completely clear as to what someone being 'beuatiful' or 'ugly' means, let alone what variables I would use to construct a dependence between a gender and one of these categories.Accounting for statistics in this case isn't all that fruitful, hence I wouldn't. This begs the question of weather the statement themselves are valid or meaningful, someone who follows a very strict statistical epistemology of propositions would say no. If we instead accept a more logical framework that is not statistical then not only are all the propositions valid, they are true given a these propositions logically only require singular examples for verification. What weakens the logical treatment is the inclusion of 'immense', adjectives in general add ambiguity to propositions. If we could come to an agreement as to what qualifies as making something immense,the propositions will be less ambiguous. I don't think that is a difficult task.
Your manifesto certainly has more bearing on a 1v1 basis, but can we aggregate and discover any dichotomy worth making a bias for?
I believe we can form valid biases under a Statistical Epistemology. For instance some of these have been stated in this thread.
natasha87 said:tf r u talking about, men are responsible for most murders, rapes, child molestation etc lmao, any violent crime.We have pretty good evidence to support the validity of these hypothesis, the question is what dichotomy between the sexes/genders depending on your accepted definitions) do these hypothesis support.
Fundamentally, in the strictest mathematical sense, what the hypothesis aim to establish in the first place.
If my hypothesis is that men commit more violent crimes than women and I verify that hypothesis, then I have verified exactly that dichotomy.
I could use the verification of this dichotomy as evidence for another, for instance the hypothesis men are more dangerous than women. But, it should not be the only variable in the verification of this hypothesis given its reasonable to define none-crimes/violence as dangerous.
natasha87 said:if anything women are the nurturing and compassionate sex, the ones with empathy, the more caring and understanding ones.This is also the case when arguing women are more compassionate than men. Given the set of stated hypothesis, we can not come to that conclusion unless we only use said hypothesis as our variables and that to me seems logically incorrect. There seem to be far more dependencies with compassion than just the rate of a sex/gender committing violent crime. So to confirm this hypothesis we need to determine the other dependencies and find a way to weight them, which is far from an easy task given the ambiguous nature of the notion of compassion.
If we are to argue by statistics we have to be very careful on how we establish inferences about new unverified hypothesis from old ones.
The initial post, a long with what's revealed to be Deloras feelings later on in the thread, seem to want to establish that Men are more loveable than Women. This is just not something we will be able to establish logically or statistically given the level of ambiguity inherent in the hypothesis. Its unclear how you would test this given its unclear what quantifiable variables you should include and exclude from such a test if it is to be rigorous and universally verifiable.By the above if we are to appeal to something like logical nihilism, delora is completely justified in her feelings. At least in that sense. Though, I wouldn't take this route.
Jesus Christ shut the fuck up. You absolutely need a cock inside you. Like it’s very fucking obvious now.
Why I'm Indifferent to Men and Women: A Manifesto
Both have an immense capacity for retardation and genius.
Both have an immense capacity for insidiousness and sincerity.
Both have an immense capacity for ugliness and beauty.
Essentialist Philosophy and Ideology that serve Men and damn Women, or serve Women and damn Men are equally faulty in their fragile epistemic and ontic foundations.
Do you account for the statistical effects of the worst of male behavior versus that of female behavior? You can specify your thoughts on the taking and evaluating of these statistics, to clarify.
The statements I have made in this manifesto are general enough that all I need to confirm the set of hypothesis are single instances, n = 1, of a man or woman exhibiting these things. They are inherently easy to confirm in this sense.
However, each of these claims are built on ambiguous categories. Its not completely clear as to what someone being 'beuatiful' or 'ugly' means, let alone what variables I would use to construct a dependence between a gender and one of these categories.Accounting for statistics in this case isn't all that fruitful, hence I wouldn't. This begs the question of weather the statement themselves are valid or meaningful, someone who follows a very strict statistical epistemology of propositions would say no. If we instead accept a more logical framework that is not statistical then not only are all the propositions valid, they are true given a these propositions logically only require singular examples for verification. What weakens the logical treatment is the inclusion of 'immense', adjectives in general add ambiguity to propositions. If we could come to an agreement as to what qualifies as making something immense,the propositions will be less ambiguous. I don't think that is a difficult task.
Your manifesto certainly has more bearing on a 1v1 basis, but can we aggregate and discover any dichotomy worth making a bias for?
I believe we can form valid biases under a Statistical Epistemology. For instance some of these have been stated in this thread.
natasha87 said:tf r u talking about, men are responsible for most murders, rapes, child molestation etc lmao, any violent crime.We have pretty good evidence to support the validity of these hypothesis, the question is what dichotomy between the sexes/genders depending on your accepted definitions) do these hypothesis support.
Fundamentally, in the strictest mathematical sense, what the hypothesis aim to establish in the first place.
If my hypothesis is that men commit more violent crimes than women and I verify that hypothesis, then I have verified exactly that dichotomy.
I could use the verification of this dichotomy as evidence for another, for instance the hypothesis men are more dangerous than women. But, it should not be the only variable in the verification of this hypothesis given its reasonable to define none-crimes/violence as dangerous.
natasha87 said:if anything women are the nurturing and compassionate sex, the ones with empathy, the more caring and understanding ones.This is also the case when arguing women are more compassionate than men. Given the set of stated hypothesis, we can not come to that conclusion unless we only use said hypothesis as our variables and that to me seems logically incorrect. There seem to be far more dependencies with compassion than just the rate of a sex/gender committing violent crime. So to confirm this hypothesis we need to determine the other dependencies and find a way to weight them, which is far from an easy task given the ambiguous nature of the notion of compassion.
If we are to argue by statistics we have to be very careful on how we establish inferences about new unverified hypothesis from old ones.
The initial post, a long with what's revealed to be Deloras feelings later on in the thread, seem to want to establish that Men are more loveable than Women. This is just not something we will be able to establish logically or statistically given the level of ambiguity inherent in the hypothesis. Its unclear how you would test this given its unclear what quantifiable variables you should include and exclude from such a test if it is to be rigorous and universally verifiable.By the above if we are to appeal to something like logical nihilism, delora is completely justified in her feelings. At least in that sense. Though, I wouldn't take this route.
Jesus Christ shut the fuck up. You absolutely need a cock inside you. Like it’s very fucking obvious now.
this is arguably the dumbest response one could have to anything
Why I'm Indifferent to Men and Women: A Manifesto
Both have an immense capacity for retardation and genius.
Both have an immense capacity for insidiousness and sincerity.
Both have an immense capacity for ugliness and beauty.
Essentialist Philosophy and Ideology that serve Men and damn Women, or serve Women and damn Men are equally faulty in their fragile epistemic and ontic foundations.
Do you account for the statistical effects of the worst of male behavior versus that of female behavior? You can specify your thoughts on the taking and evaluating of these statistics, to clarify.
The statements I have made in this manifesto are general enough that all I need to confirm the set of hypothesis are single instances, n = 1, of a man or woman exhibiting these things. They are inherently easy to confirm in this sense.
However, each of these claims are built on ambiguous categories. Its not completely clear as to what someone being 'beuatiful' or 'ugly' means, let alone what variables I would use to construct a dependence between a gender and one of these categories.Accounting for statistics in this case isn't all that fruitful, hence I wouldn't. This begs the question of weather the statement themselves are valid or meaningful, someone who follows a very strict statistical epistemology of propositions would say no. If we instead accept a more logical framework that is not statistical then not only are all the propositions valid, they are true given a these propositions logically only require singular examples for verification. What weakens the logical treatment is the inclusion of 'immense', adjectives in general add ambiguity to propositions. If we could come to an agreement as to what qualifies as making something immense,the propositions will be less ambiguous. I don't think that is a difficult task.
Your manifesto certainly has more bearing on a 1v1 basis, but can we aggregate and discover any dichotomy worth making a bias for?
I believe we can form valid biases under a Statistical Epistemology. For instance some of these have been stated in this thread.
natasha87 said:tf r u talking about, men are responsible for most murders, rapes, child molestation etc lmao, any violent crime.We have pretty good evidence to support the validity of these hypothesis, the question is what dichotomy between the sexes/genders depending on your accepted definitions) do these hypothesis support.
Fundamentally, in the strictest mathematical sense, what the hypothesis aim to establish in the first place.
If my hypothesis is that men commit more violent crimes than women and I verify that hypothesis, then I have verified exactly that dichotomy.
I could use the verification of this dichotomy as evidence for another, for instance the hypothesis men are more dangerous than women. But, it should not be the only variable in the verification of this hypothesis given its reasonable to define none-crimes/violence as dangerous.
natasha87 said:if anything women are the nurturing and compassionate sex, the ones with empathy, the more caring and understanding ones.This is also the case when arguing women are more compassionate than men. Given the set of stated hypothesis, we can not come to that conclusion unless we only use said hypothesis as our variables and that to me seems logically incorrect. There seem to be far more dependencies with compassion than just the rate of a sex/gender committing violent crime. So to confirm this hypothesis we need to determine the other dependencies and find a way to weight them, which is far from an easy task given the ambiguous nature of the notion of compassion.
If we are to argue by statistics we have to be very careful on how we establish inferences about new unverified hypothesis from old ones.
The initial post, a long with what's revealed to be Deloras feelings later on in the thread, seem to want to establish that Men are more loveable than Women. This is just not something we will be able to establish logically or statistically given the level of ambiguity inherent in the hypothesis. Its unclear how you would test this given its unclear what quantifiable variables you should include and exclude from such a test if it is to be rigorous and universally verifiable.By the above if we are to appeal to something like logical nihilism, delora is completely justified in her feelings. At least in that sense. Though, I wouldn't take this route.
Jesus Christ shut the fuck up. You absolutely need a cock inside you. Like it’s very fucking obvious now.
this is arguably the dumbest response one could have to anything
Jesus Christ shut the fuck up. You absolutely need a cock inside you. Like it’s very fucking obvious now.
and to put it in better context, lena means that out of all family murders, 91% of time its the man doing it, which makes sense, since a woman probably cant.
Knives exist.
To clarify my point here, KNIVES EXIST. If a woman wants to harm or kill a man, they can do it. Many incels and soibois become school shooters for a reason, rather than punching people, so why couldn't a woman take up arms as well, or plan how to take down her assailant to even half the degree that weak men obsess over a future encounter?
Women don't see violence as the immediate solution, while men often have to resist the urge to act that way in order to explore other answers. It is not a matter of physical prowess when we have weapons and cunning to account for, it is a predisposed mentality that affects decision making.
Men need to be held accountable for their impulses.
Why I'm Indifferent to Men and Women: A Manifesto
Both have an immense capacity for retardation and genius.
Both have an immense capacity for insidiousness and sincerity.
Both have an immense capacity for ugliness and beauty.
Essentialist Philosophy and Ideology that serve Men and damn Women, or serve Women and damn Men are equally faulty in their fragile epistemic and ontic foundations.
Do you account for the statistical effects of the worst of male behavior versus that of female behavior? You can specify your thoughts on the taking and evaluating of these statistics, to clarify.
The statements I have made in this manifesto are general enough that all I need to confirm the set of hypothesis are single instances, n = 1, of a man or woman exhibiting these things. They are inherently easy to confirm in this sense.
However, each of these claims are built on ambiguous categories. Its not completely clear as to what someone being 'beuatiful' or 'ugly' means, let alone what variables I would use to construct a dependence between a gender and one of these categories.Accounting for statistics in this case isn't all that fruitful, hence I wouldn't. This begs the question of weather the statement themselves are valid or meaningful, someone who follows a very strict statistical epistemology of propositions would say no. If we instead accept a more logical framework that is not statistical then not only are all the propositions valid, they are true given a these propositions logically only require singular examples for verification. What weakens the logical treatment is the inclusion of 'immense', adjectives in general add ambiguity to propositions. If we could come to an agreement as to what qualifies as making something immense,the propositions will be less ambiguous. I don't think that is a difficult task.
Your manifesto certainly has more bearing on a 1v1 basis, but can we aggregate and discover any dichotomy worth making a bias for?
I believe we can form valid biases under a Statistical Epistemology. For instance some of these have been stated in this thread.
natasha87 said:tf r u talking about, men are responsible for most murders, rapes, child molestation etc lmao, any violent crime.We have pretty good evidence to support the validity of these hypothesis, the question is what dichotomy between the sexes/genders depending on your accepted definitions) do these hypothesis support.
Fundamentally, in the strictest mathematical sense, what the hypothesis aim to establish in the first place.
If my hypothesis is that men commit more violent crimes than women and I verify that hypothesis, then I have verified exactly that dichotomy.
I could use the verification of this dichotomy as evidence for another, for instance the hypothesis men are more dangerous than women. But, it should not be the only variable in the verification of this hypothesis given its reasonable to define none-crimes/violence as dangerous.
natasha87 said:if anything women are the nurturing and compassionate sex, the ones with empathy, the more caring and understanding ones.This is also the case when arguing women are more compassionate than men. Given the set of stated hypothesis, we can not come to that conclusion unless we only use said hypothesis as our variables and that to me seems logically incorrect. There seem to be far more dependencies with compassion than just the rate of a sex/gender committing violent crime. So to confirm this hypothesis we need to determine the other dependencies and find a way to weight them, which is far from an easy task given the ambiguous nature of the notion of compassion.
If we are to argue by statistics we have to be very careful on how we establish inferences about new unverified hypothesis from old ones.
The initial post, a long with what's revealed to be Deloras feelings later on in the thread, seem to want to establish that Men are more loveable than Women. This is just not something we will be able to establish logically or statistically given the level of ambiguity inherent in the hypothesis. Its unclear how you would test this given its unclear what quantifiable variables you should include and exclude from such a test if it is to be rigorous and universally verifiable.By the above if we are to appeal to something like logical nihilism, delora is completely justified in her feelings. At least in that sense. Though, I wouldn't take this route.
Jesus Christ shut the fuck up. You absolutely need a cock inside you. Like it’s very fucking obvious now.
this is arguably the dumbest response one could have to anything
Jesus Christ shut the fuck up. You absolutely need a cock inside you. Like it’s very fucking obvious now.
...you seriously have no idea how much I hate when men say women just need cock, like no they don't wtf.
Even if they're sexually repressed, the creeps who say that shit always imagine their own cock sublimating the desires of a balled up fist.
