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. — Hanover

:lol: You’re funny.

So you disagree. — Brett

As the saying goes, you're not even wrong.

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

How so? I didn't mean to troll. Maybe it comes out somehow; but, you can't deny the facts presented in the OP, which is the point being made here.

I think he is reacting to a particular choice of language: "inferior". The thrust of the OP is an inquiry into why there are disparities between gender prison population numbers (an excellent question to ask, in my opinion), but framing it in context of superiority/inferiority (though motivating) has way too much baggage.

Oh, I don't see it a pejorative? I mean, men do populate prisons (not only the US) moreso than women do.

The facts presented in OP?

I disagree with @VagabondSpectre, I think he's just being kind. Nothing in your OP suggests that you were trying to have a discussion about "why" you "wanted" to discuss what it meant. You specifically wanted to debate whether women are better/better socially than men because more men are in prison than women.

You've framed a ridiculous and shallow interpretation as your OP, the fact you presented is irrelevant. Here's yet another poster who thinks the ways they interpret facts are just part and parcel with the fact. You presented absolutely no evidence for why your assertion that this fact is even relevant to your argument, you presented no evidence or argument as to why this fact alone would demonstrate anything or to what degree.

This isn't your first thread which does this, most of your threads do. They get attention because of the titles in the same way people crowd around a fist fight. I can't even see any discussion of the OP in this thread, just people fighting about whether one gender is superior or how genders have been mistreated and other similar crap. You should be stopped from doing this, that's what I think and I hope some mod agrees.

You should be stopped from doing this, that's what I think and I hope some mod agrees. — Judaka

Sopped from what?

Making threads like this, which just poke the hives nest, warn first then revoke the privilege to make threads or ban.

Making threads like this, which just poke the hives nest, warn first then revoke the privilege to make threads or ban. — Judaka

I don't get your drift, though, OK.

It’s not just this thread. The whole level of discussion generally is pathetic and petty.

I thought you and I had a rather nice give and take about Beauty. Am I wrong?

Yes we did. There are posters who seek to further a discussion and there are others who shut it down. Discussions just never go anywhere. There’s no exploration, no original ideas, no testing of thoughts.

It must be a very uninviting place to a new comer.

My posts in this thread may have been of questionable quality, but I was illustrating the point through a couple of examples that generalizing only works in general thought such as in statistics. Generalizing doesn’t tell you ANYTHING about specific people.

I think that's just how philosophy forums are, I've visited many and usually what you can hope for is that there will be a handful of posters you enjoy talking to.

Well, Judaka, then they’re not really about philosophy. People on this forum probably regard themselves as intelligent people but their attitudes belie that. There are posters who try to explore sensitive ideas and straight away the street fighters enter the room, we know who they are.

I think we need to lower expectations or broaden expectations here. Not every post is going to be philosophically profound. This is a community of people and you have to take the good with the bad. People are going to talk past each other. People are going to blow off steam. People are going to joke, and people are going to get frustrated and angry. These are not just avatars. These are real people with varying degrees of intellect, experience, maturity ... and they can get moody.

Sorry, that’s just letting people off lightly. You’re right,they are not special. There needs to be more humility and more genuine curiosity.

I think philosophy is really something best done alone, I just use forums to see my own ideas in a different light.

You should see what the forum is truthfully, determine your feelings about posting here and then accept what happens within the parameters of that. My understanding of philosophy forums is that most of the people here are not here to learn, they're here mainly because they want to either share their ideas or teach.

If you want to learn without being taught, discuss things with humility, you really need to identify who's going to do that with you. The only thing you can always expect is that people will disagree with you, that's why I like to come here and look for valid critique on my ideas, I know people will try their best to show me I'm wrong most of the time.

Sorry, that’s just letting people off lightly. You’re right,they are not special. There needs to be more humility and more genuine curiosity. — Brett

You’re an older person, aren’t you? You should’ve realized by now that you can’t control people, expecting them to conform to your ideals. I think a part of wisdom is accepting the world as it is. Otherwise you are just banging your head against a wall, and that only hurts you, leaving the wall (world) unaffected.

unsubstantiated claptrap — T Clark

The wider distribution of "lots of awful, lots of great" among men than among women is unsubstantiated claptrap? It's obvious to anyone who looks, and it's been verified in study after study.

The wider distribution of "lots of awful, lots of great" among men than among women is unsubstantiated claptrap? It's obvious to anyone who looks, and it's been verified in study after study. — fishfry

Well, here's how you "substantiated" it previously:

From the fact that both the prison population and the Nobel prize winner population skew strongly male; we can conclude is that men have a much wider distribution of achievement. When I was in grade school I noticed that the "good girls" just did what they were told, and "did well" in school on that basis. Women cluster to the middle ... not too many serial killers, and not too many Nobels. — fishfry

"Substantiate" means to "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of." What evidence have you provided other than your memories of the good girls in school and offhand claims about serial killers?

Why not try asking a woman who she thinks is extraordinary? I would bet that she might surprise you. Perhaps men get distinguished because it’s mostly men doing the judging.

Therefore, for the sake of talking about society or culturally, does that fact that prison populations are predominantly male mean or imply that females are socially superior to males? — Wallows

Superior in what sense? Impulse control? Less inclined to use drugs?

Superior in what sense? Impulse control? Less inclined to use drugs? — Anaxagoras

Careful. You might start something even more ugly than the OP. :wink:

Why not try asking a woman who she thinks is extraordinary? I would bet that she might surprise you. Perhaps men get distinguished because it’s mostly men doing the judging. — Noah Te Stroete

Also, what of the seemingly fact that fathers tend to be harder and tougher with their sons than with their daughters? What does this bring out in males as they come of age?

Also, what of the seemingly fact that fathers tend to be harder and tougher with their sons than with their daughters? What does this bring out in males as they come of age? — Noah Te Stroete

My ex-wife’s father was abusive and hard and tough with her. Perhaps she learned to be maladjusted where most fathers treat their daughters more gently? Just a thought. Discuss.

Careful. You might start something even more ugly than the OP. :wink: — Noah Te Stroete

I just read the sequence of the discussion

Superior in what sense? Impulse control? Less inclined to use drugs? — Anaxagoras

Yes, all of that.

Yes, all of that. — Wallows

I think Bitter Crank offered you the best explanation....

Men are more likely to engage in state-prohibited behavior than women are, and society tends to be more concerned about the kind of violations that men engage in than what women engage in.

There are class and race issues here too. Poor black men are at the bottom of the opportunity pool, more often than not. The easiest way for poor black men to find opportunity is through crime. In poor white societies, poor white men also resort to crime to find opportunity.

Poor women engage in crime too, but are less likely to engage in crime that is intensively policed. — Bitter Crank