It’s always a risk in allowing for greater variability, and there will at least appear to be much more failure than success. Fortunately, evolution no longer needs to be a matter of life and death. — Possibility

In fact that makes a lot of sense to me. Could you cite your sources? I would like to investigate more about it.

I didn't meant an accusation. What I tried to say is that you usually encapsulate your arguments using linguistic masks. That's cool. Reminds me of the way Nietzsche writes.

highly adaptable mind, at least. — Possibility

That is indeed what I was trying to figure out...

I find really hard to believe that the brain would harm itself. If it has done something, it has to be for good, or at least for better.

Medically, I am supposedly in a not normal condition. It doesn't feel good but everything doesn't spin around feelings.



How would you define that immunity?



You really like when masks tell the truth don't you?

predictability and boredom. — Tom Storm

I can't imagine a more chaotic nature than it is of boredom.
Not to mention predictability.

I thought I liked chaos, but you have passed my limit.

In fact you might even break ground and discover gold. Or more fire. Both would be amazing discoveries.

You're born in the wrong era, my friend. — Hillary

I am definitely born in the right era.
The world is always full of chaos, what difference would the era make?
By the way, who doesn't like chaos?

I'm not sure it's a depression then. — Hillary

Then I am either a god or a monster.
I don't believe in gods.

Being in a manic up can only lead to falling down. But the height feels great! — Hillary

I didn't say I was going to get that profit.

Do you know what is better than hitting rock bottom, Hillary? Staying there. Specially if it's forever, and more specially if you know it.

You must have liked the flames rising to the nose of Joan of Arc... — Hillary

I don't know if I have to take this as a joke or an accusation.
I will just say that I can't think of someone sexier than Joan of Arc right now.
Talking seriously... I like flames in every state of their existence. They make disgrace seem beautiful.
If I'm able to endure the pain, I think that to be burnt alive would be a glorious death.
Most great people in the past were burn in flames. Like Giordano Bruno.

But do you actually like being depressed? — Hillary

Yes.

How can you? — Hillary

Nothing can be worse. Anything else is profit.

think you are saying something important when you speak of not getting someone else's point of view. Being sensitive to other points of view might be very important to getting out of oneself and seeing the bigger picture? — Athena

I didn't mean that. What I meant is that I don't like to see things from the point of view of a certain school of thought. Every aspect of life is different.

I absolutely like to know what other people think about things. I just don't like when that opinion is another opinion, not individually thought by that particular person, but just a respected therefore repeated opinion from someone/something else than himself/herself.

That is the reason I made this thread.

moderation — Athena

Moderation... I think it is important when you are reasoning something. It gives you justice and the impartiality needed for one to reach truth.

However there is a difference between sadness and depression.

The shutdown, evidently caused you sadness, but not depression.

Depression makes you see things differently. It is not just a feeling of sadness. In fact, you rarely feel sad. Sadness is not the most common symptom of depression, I would say.

I insist it affects different people differently, but for me, for example, I don't usually feel sadness itself. For example, you see joy differently; when I was a child I remember really experiencing joy. There is no longer a meaning in joy, the idea of it disturbs me instead. Although you tend to pleasure at the same time.

The solution itself for depression is moderation, that is right. The problem is that it is logically equivalent to say that the solution to poverty is wealth.

is too serious. — Hillary

Thank you. I took this as a compliment. You made my week.

who like fires more often than women — Hillary

I really like fire. It is one of the most beautiful things on earth... but not more beautiful than women are.

I think you are confusing to be against feminism with to be against women.

Without women, the world would be uglier, grayer and colder. Even with fire in it. However that does not mean that a movement that not even favor them but serves as political campaign based on social inequality shouldn't be burnt to ashes (figuratively speaking. Or maybe not so figuratively).

take your depression seriously is kindof disturbing. — Hillary

As said above there are lots of kinds of people... more serious... less serious...
Each one has its punishment and its prize.

Man, to not get the joke is a serious problem! When we can no longer laugh at ourselves, we are in deep trouble, and for this reason, I wonder why we hold some philosophers on pedestals. They were seriously troubled men and can take us further into Hades instead of out of it. Comedians are often people who had terrible lives and they learned to use humor to cope with that. Some of them learned to teach us by using humor to make a point. The Greeks had both tragedies and comedies and I think this advanced their intelligence. — Athena

I don't disagree with that.

I laugh a lot daily. I find most things funny.

However there are stupid things one can do. It is better to be serious and laugh than to laugh because of being stupid, so to speak.

As humans we usually illustrate reality and somehow define and know how to function within that illustration of reality.

You can see it on religion, social movements, philosophies...

When used properly it helps like it helped you out of depression.

But there are lots of kinds of people... I would say I am the kind of human that doesn't easily illustrates reality or gets someone's else illustration.

Not chosen but my only way "out" of depression was and is acceptance.

I just have it and probably will not get literally out of it, but it's not completely bad. If it wasn't for it, I would have not be able to deal with things I dealt with.

I mostly see ironies in this respect.
To be grateful with depression. What an irony.

Now I get it. I don't get that kind of messages easily. The price you have to play, I guess.

It's been a while since the last time I had a stomachache because of depression. Now I experience headaches more frequently than before, though. I mostly experience other kinds of somatization, e.g. insomnia, chronic stress...

I would say I suffer mainly from psychological symptoms.

I enjoy this destiny and use it to better my life and keep myself away from stupid things. — FlorenceKaia

Very interesting statement.

What an irony. When you suffer from depression, a quote from Schopenhauer materializes itself:

"He who has tried the serious, is no longer interested in the joke."

I think you are a marvellous individual. — FlorenceKaia

Thank you. I don't want to be mean, but why?
Nothing I have said seem marvelous to me. I just exposed my truth.

I know you are trying to make me feel "better" with your words. There is nothing wrong with that but I have said that I don't like drugs that deal with depression because they alter reality as it is.

That's why I would prefer not to be comforted that way either, with words. I'd rather take this more seriously. Thank you again anyway.

I knew many would take this as an "emotional thread", but that is far from the truth. I wasn't looking for comfort.

Tears of Joy (Never, unfortunately, experienced that!). — Agent Smith

I have. Do you like music? It happens to me sometimes when I play some instrument.

Have you heard the Davy Jones song isolated from the movie? It is, in fact, marvelous.

I have the answer to my question. Biological differences have nothing to do with legal concerns.

In the good ol' days of yore known as damnatio memoriae! Nothing to see here, move along, move along! — Agent Smith

You know what? You're right.

Thank you again for all your answers. I found what I was looking for.
Have a great day.

Your mom is the one being fed. :monkey:

Do you want some?

I am talking about love, obviously.

My incel heart is full of love. I can definitely give you some, but only if you let me.

https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/ — Cuthbert

I still think you need to read more if those laws does not seem unfair to you.

Most of those laws, that you mention with such beautiful description, do not apply to lesbian women, for example.

I thought MmeGazelle was a fanatic. I was wrong.

Now I am sure I am talking with one.

I will stop replying to you before you start insulting and all that you all do.

I read a blog about it. — Cuthbert

Read more. :lol:

Thank you. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "the momentum it had in the opposite direction" and I don't understand the word "derogate" in this context. — MmeGazelle

A more precise word would be "cancel."

Lets suppose you have that pendulum swinging and it is currently in the left position. For it to stop, you need to cancel its angular momentum (you need to slow its movement). There is a difference between using the brakes and accelerating backwards. If you use the brakes, the car stops. If you accelerate backwards, the car also stops, but it will start going backwards. Applied to the pendulum which does keep its angular momentum (its "Circular movement energy"), it will swing back. Just as injustice.

Maybe what you mean is that although there is still injustice, the total momentum of the pendulum have decreased, and it will continue to decrease, so that is good. If that is what you mean, then we agree. However, if you believe that the pendulum is not currently on the women side, we do not agree with that.

I will take this particular debate as finished because the following is determined by personal opinion. So what I will state will no longer be based on anything but my personal experience and thoughts.

Are 'underlying position' and 'belief' not synonymous? — MmeGazelle

What I understand by "underlying position" is the information you are based on to say whatever you are saying. And I was not basing my arguments about men and women rights on what I personally believe about "Women nature."

Elaborating:

What I mean by women nature is the average way in which a woman thinks. I am taking beforehand that women and men think differently (this does not mean that we should be taken differently in the eyes of law).

If you have a negative opinion of women won't you seek evidence to support this belief? — MmeGazelle

Yes.

I have a "negative" (in quotes because I don't think it's necessarily negative) opinion on women because the most common behavior I have seen on women is manipulation. More specifically, emotional manipulation.

Then I have researched looking for other opinions, mostly on Internet. The arguments that state that women usually have evil tendencies seem to me as very logical although very ethically frustrating.

Here are some of these opinions:

https://www.quora.com/Are-women-more-wicked-than-men

(Just to make it clear, I do not think all of them are reasonable, as some of them seem to me ridicule. However the fact that a ridicule person says something reasonable and bases it on something ridicule, does not mean that anyone else cannot say that same reasonable thing and base it on something also reasonable.)

I have based this opinion mostly on other opinions... I have not find anything thoroughly discerned about the subject. I think people do not want to research about it because they fear the impact the outcome may have on society.

I wonder how free your thought can be if this is your underlying position — MmeGazelle

It's not my underlying position, why do you call it "Underlying position"?

That is something that I personally believe. Would you want to discuss it?

it is even in favour of women (imo, not) — MmeGazelle

The thing is, I just gave you a whole list of differences that favor women

https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/ — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

And, in your opinion, it is still not in favor of women.

It seems to me that you are not seeking truth, you are looking to justify the discourse of your ideology.

I will not help you. I will not reply again to you in particular about this subject.

By the way, I think your analogy of the pendulum is reasonable. But if you are looking for it to stay still (be even, be fair) you should not try to compensate the momentum it had in the opposite direction, because gravity will take it back again, you just have to derogate the position it is in. If feminism means equity, then modern feminism is anti-feminist.

Thank you for your answers.

your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement. — MmeGazelle

By the way, I participate in free thought, not in movements that bring me nothing.
Something that seems to be missing from you. Not name calling. :)

Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms — MmeGazelle

We are much closer to equality now — MmeGazelle

Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms, then we are much closer to equality... I get it.

Not name calling but your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement. — MmeGazelle

And what is the "'incel' movement"?

Something just as supremacist as what you just said? Because if that is the case then I am not.

Edit: I have looked it up. What I understood, is that "Incel" is the derogatory way of calling those who doesn't agree with feminism.

First you say such a supremacist thing

Perhaps women enjoy more power and freedoms — MmeGazelle

We are much closer to equality now — MmeGazelle

Then you try to ridicule my arguments calling them whatever derogatory way you happen to remember in your ideological arsenal

Not name calling but your arguments remind me of those of the ‘incel’ movement. — MmeGazelle

This is the scum of modern societies.
Ideologies of the day based on political make up.

Good point.
Especially considering fertility and mortality.

However,

since both are needed to reproduce a new life. — Alkis Piskas

It's a more statistical matter than that.
Let me illustrate it:

Are full-time employees or employers more important in the economy?

Well, both are necessary but they don't share the same importance.

Due to the fact that two or more employees can be hired by one single employer, however one single full-time employee cannot be hired by two employees, there is a greater probability of survival for the economy the more there are employees.

So, employees are more important. Both are necessary, but employees are more important because of that. (Because the more of them there are, the better, i.e., the more probability of survival for the economy)

I also think that "importance" is not the exact word to describe it. However I don't know any other that gets closer than it to what I am trying to say.

Haha.

If we move to the field of personal opinions... women have always seemed to me the most frivolous beings that have been born on earth.

Anyone, including women ‘deserve’ the same right to survival as anyone else in society. — MmeGazelle

Can you elaborate it a little more?

Can you give an example demonstrating where woman have more rights than men? — Philosophim

Can you elaborate on in what way women have more rights (legally) in Spain? — MmeGazelle

There is a web page that mentions many of the legal differences in Spain (that favor women), which is the country where I currently live in.
I don't know if any of you speak Spanish, but I translated some of them using Google Translate and it is understandable.

https://diferenciaslegaleshombremujerenespana.law.blog/

And I have no idea why you think there hasn’t been ‘real opposition’ to women gaining equal, or ‘more’ rights. — MmeGazelle

I think there has not been real opposition because it has not been obliterated yet.

"enslaved" by their husbands — javi2541997

Men love the idea of "enslaving" women. That never happens.

Now in a group of an species with 7 billion+ members, your argument on biological importance(procreation) is just silly at best.
Bill Burr comedy routine on wage inequality has far more sound foundations than that premise....
First of all your claim alone assumes that women can only bear one child at a time. Have you ever heard about twins triplets etc etc?
What about those women who decide not to have children? Do we need to discriminate those women differently?....I mean you argument has too many holes to be philosophical...not to mention ethical. — Nickolasgaspar

This is the last time I will repeat this.

The fact that women are evolutionary more important than men is a documented issue. I will not discuss that in this thread, especially with anyone who has not researched it.

What do I omit? — Hillary

I prefer not to say.

As stated above:

I genuinely love to debate, I believe it's one of the most delicious things on earth (after sex) but I will not debate something that has been so well argued. So I will not reply again about it. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Well, I don't have much more to say.

I am still not very clear about this but I think I just have to read more anthropology...

Thank you again for your answers.
I hope you have a great day.

A man can have 365 babies per year? With 365 women? He can impregnate all woman in the world in two months! — Hillary

Yes.
I don't know why you are omitting the point.

Anyways...

Thank you for you answers.

I was going to say the same thing -- their wives wouldn't let them. — Moses

If an individual is controlled by someone physically inferior, it is because he grants it.
(Maybe he/she would grant it because he/she is mentally inferior).

It is really common to see strong men controlled by stronger minds because the latter can shape the reality the former see.

If an average man's power of will is determined by an average woman's power of will, it is generally because he is letting her do it (I say average because there are really strong women too). I do not know why you think it would make any difference if I would be married... I know you are joking but almost nobody jokes not intending to say some truth, at least intending.

I have not. Based on your comment I guess I would not last long apparently anyway. (joke)

How so? The gentlemen produce the sperm. Just as necessary, if you don't mind me saying. Without sperm, no egg can be awakened. — Hillary

Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Explanation (I repeat this is something documented):

How many babies can one woman have in one year? The answer is approximately one.
How many babies can ten women have in the same amount of time? The answer is approximately ten.

Now:

How many babies can one man have in one year? Approximately 365. Maybe twice if he's healthy. (joke)

So, the more women there are, the more the probability is there for the specie to prevail. If there is zero men, then the specie will not prevail. However, women are more important for the specie to survive because, the more women there are, the more possibilities for more babies to be born.

We are not talking here about overall importance, we are talking about evolutionary importance.

I am not implying that men are of less value than women. I repeat, I am talking about evolutionary importance. So they are in fact more valuable than men in evolutionary terms.

Any emotional inference is simply wrong, as I am not talking about personal value.

other females may already be conceived by other males — SpaceDweller

I am not talking about females who are pregnant. That is why they are more important, because the more of them that there are, the more the species can grow. It is that simple... I genuinely do not know why you have something to say about it... You can say whatever you want, but you are currently honoring Plato:

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools speak because they have to say something."

Right now you are acting like you have to say something.

Did you even do some research about it?

I genuinely love to debate, I believe it's one of the most delicious things on earth (after sex) but I will not debate something that has been so well argued. So I will not reply again about it.

I would be glad if you give me your opinion on the main topic, however

What is the most coherent way to conclude this? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

male is supposed to protect female during that 9 months period. — SpaceDweller

Yes but that does not imply that a man cannot copulate with other women during that period.

your point is — SpaceDweller

You are wrong with this. It is not my point, my point was the question that I made.
That what you are quoting are things that I did not just think. They are well documented. You can do research if you want...

Wouldn't it be revelant to your logically coherent conclusion that individuals in the way you describe them are not acting rationally? — Tzeentch

Yes. The problem with rationality is that it is not what governs history of humankind, precisely.

Mass suicide. — L'éléphant

I must admit I'm biased to a more sustainable option.

Should individuals live "at war" with each other in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over? — Tzeentch

"in pursuit of a goal that they hold no stake in nor any influence over"

I think you are trying to tergiversate the main point of the conversation. I will not answer to you but may others note that before doing it.

What does feminism stands for? How worthy is it? — javi2541997

Some conspiracy theorist say that it is a way to separate men and women as parents so the government can take place and make civilization easier to "Socialize" taking parent's place in the long run. "Dismantling patriarchy" in the language of political speech.

The worst part is that I see that is more reasonable than most of what they claim to defend.

Jokes/conspiracy aside, there is something that is true:

Women and men are separating themselves from each other.

Maybe because of politics, maybe because of evolution... In any way, it is hard to bring a lovely conclusion out of this.

politicians use this complot to reach votes. — javi2541997

Yes but that is temporary. They always take advantage of the current problematic and then throw it away when they can't get much more out of it.

it is a topic that in the future would lose some credibility among the society — javi2541997

What do you exactly mean?

Yes, and tend to be the most corrupted too.

Don't get me wrong, I know this fits in the feminist speech perfectly, but I'm not a feminist. Just to be clear.

Women have evolutionary superiority. That somehow transforms into social superiority too. That can be visualized through the way they can use sex to manipulate men, for example.

However, despite this, men are physically stronger than women.

Unfortunately, this is something men have taken advantage of a lot, as women have of the former.

So... the big question is...

Is the most coherent conclusion that we have to just "Live at war" indefinitely?

It is what we have been doing since the birth of our species I think. The answer seems to be an obvious "Yes", but I prefer to reflect.

Yes, but that is because of the very point of evolution: to evolve implies to survive, not because of intelligence.

For humankind to survive, the life of women is more important than the life of men. I think that is documented enough so... that's why I just take it as a fact in my question. The very point of my question is more the relationship between that fact (fact, until someone refutes it, which I think it's hard as to refute the known distance between the sun and the earth) and society.

Thank you for your answers.

The thing is that nature does not distinguish very well between having an extinction or not. Evolution itself is not intelligent