Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Chapo said: 

natasha87 said: 

Chapo said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

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. 

 You’re a dumbass.

But what if you just need a cock inside you, tbh?

Buttered Toast said: 

But what if you just need a cock inside you, tbh?

 I’m a male. I need vagina around my dick.

Chapo said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

But what if you just need a cock inside you, tbh?

 I’m a male. I need vagina around my dick.

 Kind of talking those in question of the fact, like...well, place your person here _______.

Chapo said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

But what if you just need a cock inside you, tbh?

 I’m a male. I need vagina around my dick.

Pretty sure you need a cock inside you. 

Turncoat said: 

Chapo said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

But what if you just need a cock inside you, tbh?

 I’m a male. I need vagina around my dick.

Pretty sure you need a cock inside you. 

 Pretty sure you desperately need a vagina around your dick.

Turncoat said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

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. 

I thought your argument was too stupid, again naive of me, so i didn't respond

whatever a woman can do, a man can do + extra physical strength

so a woman with a knife still has to fight a man that can use a knife too. the moment you go on this road as a woman, you have set up to fight a tougher opponent. While as a man, you just need to dispose of people(ur wife and children) with seriously inferior strength, it is child's play, for the average man vs woman.

school shooters are children. am i naive for thinking that I do not have to explain further on this point?

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

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. 

I thought your argument was too stupid, again naive of me, so i didn't respond

 

whatever a woman can do, a man can do + extra physical strength

so a woman with a knife still has to fight a man that can use a knife too. the moment you go on this road as a woman, you have set up to fight a tougher opponent. While as a man, you just need to dispose of people(ur wife and children) with seriously inferior strength, it is child's play, for the average man vs woman.

---

school shooters are children. am i naive for thinking that I do not have to explain further on this point?

 

 yea i never got why he said knives. i was thinking gun obviously

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

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. 

I thought your argument was too stupid, again naive of me, so i didn't respond

whatever a woman can do, a man can do + extra physical strength

That doesn't stop the pointy end from going stabby-stabby. 

The problem here is not one of brawn, but one of impulse. This is why Testosterone is becoming increasingly problematic. 

so a woman with a knife still has to fight a man that can use a knife too.

Then she gets a gun? Poisons his sammich or his beer when he demands one? Learns how to do a proper nut-buster with a knee strike? 

I don't really see your point here, being a tougher opponent has nothing to do with if they choose to act on it or not. The problem here is moreover how quickly violence or other, quick-release actions are the go-to for men, while women tend to think things through more and resort to violence when other avenues have already been considered. We can even see this in Suicide trends between the sexes, with Men being more prone to crashing a car or shooting themselves compared to women aiming for something like Pills. 

the moment you go on this road as a woman, you have set up to fight a tougher opponent. While as a man, you just need to dispose of people(ur wife and children) with seriously inferior strength, it is child's play, for the average man vs woman.

---

school shooters are children. am i naive for thinking that I do not have to explain further on this point?

School shooters are boys, not boys and girls. 

Either way you can't deny how much more violence is committed by men, and how many of those men aren't strong. People keep imagining hypothetical abusers like they're jacked, but a lot of them aren't really that strong and are surprisingly comfortable with thinking no one will mess with them. 

natasha87 said: 

 yea i never got why he said knives. i was thinking gun obviously

A gun would be a more obvious choice. The problem I mentioned still remains, but it makes things far more equal.

Guns are easy to get in USA only tho. With maybe some exceptions.