It adapts through trial and error. — VagabondSpectre

No, I don’t agree with that. There is no trial and error. It’s really deformities existing at opportune moments.

If by "bad form" you mean unsubstantiated claptrap based on unsystematic, biased observation, then yes, it is bad form. Don't try to pretty it up with some sort of truth to power act. — T Clark

So you disagree.

Is being tall a deformity?

Being tested out in the real world (to find out what deformity works (i.e: to find out who can more successfully reproduce)) is the trial and error I'm referring to.

The emergence (the sustaining of) and slow optimization of new "deformities" happens because inter-generationally they result in higher reproductive success.

t’s been a long time since women ‘had’ to have children. It might be difficult for them to refuse that possibility but they have had that choice for a long time. — Brett

I take it you don't know much about what it's like to be a woman.

Okay, but when you talk about trial and error it sounds like you mean intention.

Is being tall a deformity? If everyone else wasn’t at the time, then yes. It wasn’t an intention.

Is that a question or statement?

Being tested out in the real world (to find out what deformity works (i.e: to find out who can more successfully reproduce)) is the trial and error I'm referring to. — VagabondSpectre

It’s the finding out bit I can’t get around, but maybe it’s just the words you’ve used.

Actually, ignore everything I’ve said. I think I’ve picked up the disease of this forum; just nitpicking. I’m sure we both know what evolution is.

But isn't it bad if these traits lead to more violence and harm in the world? — NKBJ

I wasn’t talking to you. If you’re going to respond to something I say at least try saying something that isn’t completely vacuous.

Nobody's an island. We're all either lifted up or squashed by those around us wherever we happen to be. We're amazing in our ability to construct myths and then inhabit them, giving life and reality to whatever fiction works for us.

But the life in each individual is beyond the categories and the fictions. Realizing that is to understand what freedom really is.

This thread should be deleted, OP is either trolling or stupid. Much like most of his threads really.

If you want to have a private conversation with someone, then PM them. This is an open discussion thread, so by participating here you are tacitly giving consent to all forum members responding to you.

In any case, I'll take your rudeness to mean you don't actually have anything to counter. :)

An observation, so technically the latter.

For example, your post just assumes that women do have a choice in having children in this day and age, when the reality is that these choices are limited to varying degrees according to geographical location, education, class, race, and many other factors.

Also, why is it that a woman must choose between children and a successful career? Men have never had to do that.

And to this day, men are less burdened by having children then women are, because women do the bulk of the work.

(And, yes, I'm generalizing. There are exceptions for everything I said.)

You said bad things are bad. Do I need to “counter” that?

Of course I cannot help you if you assume “aggression” and “physical strength” are universally “bad” traits.

You either assume I’m not all that sharp or you were, for reasons known only to you, stating the blatantly obvious. Either way you’ve not presented anything for me to “counter”. Go ahead and make a point and maybe I’ll think it’s worth responding to.

I’m here to concern myself with being “polite” or “rude”. I merely stated that if you are going to reply to a question I pose then say something of substance rather than throwing a pointless question at me, maybe?

You said bad things are bad. Do I need to “counter” that?

Of course I cannot help you if you assume “aggression” and “physical strength” are universally “bad” traits. — I like sushi

You said:

I explained this already. Men are stronger and more aggressive.

Neither of these traits are necessarily “bad” or “good”. What is your point? — I like sushi

In my response I was trying to make a point that these traits are leading to very many bad things. So, just because the traits may not initially be bad, they do necessarily cause a lot of harm in the world. In which case we DO have to examine these traits. If men weren't so aggressive, they wouldn't cause so much harm.

I’m here to concern myself with being “polite” or “rude”. I merely stated that if you are going to reply to a question I pose then say something of substance rather than throwing a pointless question at me, maybe? — I like sushi

That's just aggression showing through. Since there's no reason to be rude, I kindly ask you to treat me with respect. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and just impedes our ability to exchange ideas.

I’ll say this and no more ... if a man happens to be intelligent, rational, artistic, morally astute, strong and aggressive it doesn’t, as far as I can tell, make them harmful to society.

If there is non-conlficting data from a broad spectrum of studies I’d ne VERY interested to see them. I understand perfectly well such assumptions may be wrong. I VERY much doubt being aggressive and strong alone makes someone “bad” or harmful to society.

Like someone else mentioned if we said the same about “young black men” then I imagine myself and many others would be quick enough to point out several other factors are being neglected.

To add, I don’t think it much different to argue that men are better than women because women are weak and lack enough aggression - there are very few people who would despute that men are on average more aggressive than women and stronger. If women were of equal strength then I think we’d certainly see a lot more women in prisons. If the top positions in society were mostly occupied by women we may also see a rise in the number of women in prisons - I’d imagine the strength factor would be more of a factor as well as societal dispositions towards alcohol.

Everyone knows that men act differently than women. It's obvious. Other than certain outliers, little boys emerge from the womb acting differently than little girls.

Women look different, act different, talk different, and smell different than men. Those differences result in entirely different behaviors, some of which result in disproportionate incarceration rates for men.

Out of the three of us, my ex-wife is most likely to end up behind bars. — Noah Te Stroete

You're just reciting the universal rule that all ex-wives are crazy. The other side of that rule is that all ex-husbands are assholes. That's what the wives say, not me.

Well, I AM an asshole, but my ex-wife was in the “emotionally disturbed” classes in high school and was voted most likely to have a hit list. LOL. We still hang out and get along just fine, so you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Well, I AM an asshole, but my ex-wife was in the “emotionally disturbed” classes in high school and was voted most likely to have a hit list. LOL. We still hang out and get along just fine, so you really don’t know what you’re talking about. — Noah Te Stroete

I do know what I'm talking about. I said she was crazy and you were an asshole, and you confirmed both of those things. I didn't say you didn't get along with her.

You said I was “reciting” the “universal rule”. I am not reciting it. In our case, it happens to be true, whereas others are usually biased towards their exes when they recite it.

She is also an asshole and I am also crazy (clinically when I’m off my meds). I was reciting nothing. If anything, you were being a lazy thinker when you assumed I was calling her “crazy” when I had not said that until you mentioned it.

You said I was “reciting” the “universal rule”. I am not reciting it. In our case, it happens to be true, whereas others are usually biased towards their exes when they recite it. — Noah Te Stroete

An interesting distinction worth discussing. It might be that the universality of the rule is based upon reality. You have no counterexample, considering you meet the stereotype.

She is also an asshole and I am also crazy (clinically when I’m off my meds). I was reciting nothing. — Noah Te Stroete

You sound like you still love her.

Well, most ex-wives aren’t diagnosable as “disturbed”, and ex-husbands who are called “assholes” by their ex-wives are not universally assholes to everyone, just usually to their ex-wives. We are more of an exception to the fallacious “Rule”.

We are more of an exception to the fallacious “Rule”. — Noah Te Stroete

You meet the rule perfectly. In my case, though, my ex is crazy, but I am lovely beyond compare, so there is at least one instance of the rule not being applicable.

You sound like you still love her. — Hanover

She’s the mother of my children. I don’t hate her. The love of my life is my wife, Crystal, whom I’ve been with for twelve years.

You meet the rule perfectly. — Hanover

My point was that it is generally a fallacious Rule. It just happens to be true in our case.

She’s the mother of my children. I don’t hate her. The love of my life is my wife, Crystal, who I’ve been with for twelve years. — Noah Te Stroete

Introducing names into this discussion tends to humanize the people we're talking about, and I'd rather think of them as hollow literary constructions we can ridicule. Also, telling me that this crazy ax murderer of yours mothered your children also doesn't help me in keeping her in non-human status.