I didn't get into that, because I didn't want to sound to conspiracy'ie, but you've inspired some references. I remember that Canada killed in the female aspects of the olympics, and they said that it was just because we spend more money on it. I saw some female soccer players complaining that they're made to play on turf, rather than real grass, when they'd never make male players do that.

This springs full circle to my original* (though also opinion, lol) post as well, the subtext is that women are not as great of a spectacle, so lets not give them our attention. It's a competition of divisions, which becomes self-fulfilling for as long as it is maintained.

My original post responded directly to the context of the OP. I didn't suggest that women competed with men generally or particularly in all sports, but rather conceded that entirely, gave my opinion of the subtext of it, and then wished to explain why men excel in some areas, and women in others.

Okay deal, but if we're shifting back and forth so rapidly between the general and highly particular to make this point, then I pick marathon swimming.

Do you have contradictory research to offer, or only anecdotes?

Yes, I said that it isn't true, because it isn't very informative. It's a vague comparison. Like saying that being rich makes you "generally better" than poor people. It just sounds like a value judgment when put that way, rather than anything based in reality.

Did you just vaguely look up "marathon records" or something? Those numbers don't say much, and are not detailed research. Here is something that I just looked up, but it is in correspondence with other research I've read, as well as my own observations and inferences based on endurance vs body weight rather than where I got the idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2015/jan/20/women-are-better-than-men-at-marathon-pacing-says-new-research

What trivial truth? I don't always see the obvious.

It will not only be okay, but mandatory when I'm galactic supreme emperor.

Isn't everything okay to say?...

My position is that comparing groups without qualification is never very informative, or accurate. It always depends on what we're talking about. Men aren't better at sports unequivocally.

It isn't in fact true. In marathon conditions, the gap closes. Women tend to weigh less, so that things that require less explosive force, and more continuous effort, the more body weight becomes more and more disadvantageous.

It's also even more complex than that, as "races" are often identified with particular athletic aptitudes which has more to do with the particular environment from where they come than anything else.

When it comes to dance, and figure skating and such, the only thing that differs is that they have the males do things that show greater feats of strength than the women can do, but other than that are they really better? Is being able to pull of four spins in the air rather than just three all that big of a deal?

It's a reference to an old radio show I believe, that I've never heard... but it's also reminiscent of beware the believers.

Irony is a mastery of truth, Nietszche was raised by women, and surrounded by women with few to no male role models growing up. He talks a lot of masculine talk, but the woman he wanted ran away with his friend because she thought he was too feminine... so madness and vicarious world domination was more like plan B.

I doubt that any of them care, or question the difference between particular female and male players, but rather wish to assert the male division itself to be superior to the female division. It's a waste of time watching women, as you won't be seeing the best, the implication is, and thus the attention ought to be given to the male ones, as they're superior, more spectacular sporters (sports people are sporters, right? If not I'm coining it).

It's not a him against her thing, I don't think, but an us against them.

Lol, I misspelled calve. I learned most of everything I know from audio lectures and audio books over the years while working eh, I'm not the greatest in print. Glad that I have the spell checker.

It's pretty great. I owe pretty much everything to it honestly. I'm more than confident that one could achieve the same thing from the other direction. Psychological transformation transforming the body as well, which is really what religion is about -- but I did it the other way around.

Yes, the cause is revealed to me. The intention, or meaning of the negative emotion that impacted me, basically. It brings the memory back to the event, and reveals the actual intention or meaning of that thing they said or did. Difficult to describe. I just release it, and then I know.

I imagine that meditation is just the thing that happens to me when I space out alone, not engaged with anything, though it isn't intentional, or something I do on purpose. Though I did train it for awhile.

I developed the internal physical awareness to notice when things get bound up through yoga, yes. I still do yoga from time to time, but not nearly as frequently. I feel like it is just training an internal physical awareness, rather than just being an exercise.

So, yeah, yoga.

I'd like to believe that I'm immune to deception at this point -- but not true. I doubt that anyone could slip an inconsistency, statistical unlikelihood, factually mistaken, or logically fallacious idea past me, but when it comes to body language, anyone with a superior physical discipline can fool me, as long as they make no technical errors. I'm not even the best male at it, let along a match for most females.

I'm slow is all, but as the Buddha said, like the moon and the sun, the truth never remains long hidden. The physical damage it causes, the tightness and stiffness and attachment they cause, I'll notice eventually, and force a release, which will reveal the cause of it. So I won't notice immediately. Even children with inferior physical disciplines will often still possess more acute senses, and can fool me.

I am improving everyday though, and still have lots of room for growth.

As for what I'd do in that situation... well unless they have a book of the end, then it won't be a long term strategy, and the truth will come out eventually. If they're powerful enough to maintain the illusion, they I guess that it's time for battle.

Nothing is more complex than the interactions between dynamos. I literally do not see the two as distinct. Simply because I can separate both the emotional hurt, and the physical hurt from the social pain. Firstly, predictable violence is much much easier to deal with. You know what to do, and not to do. When it's unpredictable, and abrupt, that drives you insane. It's the intent to harm, and lower you on the status pole that matters, and isn't merely an intent, but these behaviors are used amazingly effectively, and result in the same kinds of destruction to the victim.

Simply hurting yourself by falling, or having a loved one die do not have these same prolonged harmful effects, and actually are more likely to come with insights that elevate you. That bring strength and wisdom.

That's is a frequent response of mine as well, the ol'cold shoulder. To turn your back on them. Physically violent people tend to expect a lot of courtesy, and respect. Emotionally violent people tend to expect to be entirely protected from being forced to do anything that they don't wanna do. Both see the other one as a far far worse thing than the thing that they do, but both are violence. Both aim at harm, or retribution.

I confront them, and tell them the truth. The truth is a violent attack on the ego, and it also hurts deeply, but it is violence against the devil, and liberating of the real person. This fact is easily missed though, and seen as the same thing that a physically, or emotionally violent person is doing. True violence is dominating, belittling, downgrading. To lower someone on the pole of status in some way with regards to oneself.

The truth may hurt even more than any of those, but it aims are precisely the opposite.

No, they're clearly not the same thing, and analogous (this is pretty much just common sense, isn't it?), and you acknowledge this yourself in the same post you are suggesting that they're analogous in. I don't really want to just try to explain everything I say, so if people are just going to respond to me to be confrontational, or for whatever reason, and don't really show any grasp of it, I don't feel compelled to respond.

? Is morality like physical? Made of parts, and facts that exist externally to agents, and can be laboriously quantified and mapped? Morality is analogous to the physical environment?

Sounds intimidating. When I went to see wonder woman, some girls set behind us, and at one point I heard one audibly say something about my ear hair. I told my sister, and she thought I was paranoid. She doesn't realize that pointing out my ear hair, and making a comment about figuring out how to grow my head hair back is considered a pretty good retort or reproach me by like every single woman I encounter. It's attempted emotional violence with a smile on their face.

When the toxic person arrives, do they poison the environment, or are they subtly knocked down, retaliated against, and put into their rightful place? What's done about them when identified as the enemy?

You're only interested in how you appear obviously.

Got any other suggestions?

...? L2r bro...

Just like when there is a problem in any other area of life, emotional or social problems always point at an excess, or deficiency. — Wosret

He edited his previous comment which omitted excess, and only said deficiency...

I didn't say that.

Emotional reasoning, or social reasoning takes place when the mind is still. Once you've dealt with all of the circumstantial, and bodily concerns, and gots none of those worries, the brain will just automatically shift to emotional, or social reasoning. Here is the place you'll learn about yourself, because of that reaction you or someone else had, that impacted you, and this matters for some reason. Just like when there is a problem in any other area of life, emotional or social problems always point at an excess, or deficiency. Whether yours or someone else'.

Just like with all other forms of reasoning, general security, confidence, health, age, social strata, sex, gender, height, weight, and a million other things will also effect the process, and predispose one to certain conclusions (to say one's constitution).

Personally I'm now going to tell everyone that I'm a skeptic because of the test until the day I die. I'm getting it tattooed into my calf as we speak.

Always a pleasure. :D

Yeah probably. At least I responded. I know how much you hate being ignored.

"Whimpering submissive" is just as much of a strategy to get what you want, and effect things as "big huge cock dominant" or whatever.

Being pitiful, the victim, and things effects behavior, it isn't meaningless, or just putting up a white flag in order to roll over and give everything that the "dominant" one wants. The whole dominant/submissive dichotomy is misleading, or outright wrong.

I prefer to say things like "overt", and "covert", or ying and yang release.

Like I said, I don't actually know that. You'll have to fill me in.

Lol, solidarity.

I know you do.

It of course ought to just be passed on from generation to generation, from parent to child. So that you become at least as good as your parents. It ought to be easy and natural.

Without proper role models, corrupt, incompetent, or absent parents, then you have to turn to cultural in order to find out how to deal with later stages of life differently than they did.

The ideal is to surpass our parents. Some can't be satisfied though. Some kids lived quietly, followed studiously, and observed intently until they learned everything that everyone had to teach them, and then they realized something about those heroes, gods, and legends... and became their "parents". The ideal, is to surpass our parents though.

I don't know what to say, you'll need a more specific question.

Men are all morally insane.

Straight from the heart. Wrong or right, it's my true opinion.