I'm not trying to take a side here, just point that the data you are using isn't a solid metric to simply say "this disproves you instantly."
If women are barely punished for crimes (so less of a deterrent effect), and still they commit far fewer crimes, that really does show something.
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
Men are more than perfectly capable of crimes, I'd agree even that they commit far more. But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
I think you may have misunderstood. Even if women and men were exactly the same in every respect except size and strength, women would still be less likely to commit crimes due to lesser ability.
But if you're going to talk about how capable people are of doing bad things, then surely the crime rate is relevant.
But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
I think it is folly to try to brand people as bad or good because of their biology. But that was my point entirely. Even though crime rates don't prove that men in general are worse than women, then surely they do prove that men are capable of doing bad things, and to a greater extent than women at that (see the rate of violent crime).
But if you're going to talk about how capable people are of doing bad things, then surely the crime rate is relevant.
And crime is only measured by data and things we enforce as illegal. Its hard to make something criminal when you can't prove it in a court of law. And the only reason this is relevant is because most of the "bad things" women are responsible for are immeasurable, such as warping the minds of children they are rearing. Unlike him I don't think they are orchestrating some grand conspiracy of evil you can nail them on.
But that was my point entirely
And I didn't disagree with your point, because his was so outright foolish enough that anything could honestly disprove it. Only that "crime rates" are not solid metrics for disproving it, because of how imperfectly they are enforced between the two genders.
And the only reason this is relevant is because most of the "bad things" women are responsible for are immeasurable, such as warping the minds of children they are rearing.
I think that is more due to the Zeitgeist than an evil inherent to women. Throughout most of history, women did just fine raising the young. However, men have always been more violent.
This obviously results in criminal violence, but also in good things, like defending your home and country.
Unlike him I don't think they are orchestrating some grand conspiracy of evil you can nail them on.
I'll never understand. Hell, I wondered if he's a troll, but he's so anti-Stormfag that this seems unlikely.
Only that "crime rates" are not solid metrics for disproving it, because of how imperfectly they are enforced between the two genders.
Well, even if male crimes rates were 1/5 of those of women, I think it would still do a good job of disproving his claim that men are literally incapable of doing anything bad.
I think that is more due to the Zeitgeist than an evil inherent to women. Throughout most of history, women did just fine raising the young
Its inherent to them because the relationship is inherent to them, once it breaks down due to any reason it will effect them. But that was just one example, merely to show that they can commit "great bads" without being criminal. This was as a foil to the great bads men can commit, which can generally be traced by criminality due to their inherent traits. One of which is that violence.
I'll never understand
Either way, its new for me to not be the most woman hater in the room. And that's a high bar to clear.
I'm not trying to take a side here, just point that the data you are using isn't a solid metric to simply say "this disproves you instantly."
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
Men are more than perfectly capable of crimes, I'd agree even that they commit far more. But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
I think you may have misunderstood. Even if women and men were exactly the same in every respect except size and strength, women would still be less likely to commit crimes due to lesser ability.
But if you're going to talk about how capable people are of doing bad things, then surely the crime rate is relevant.
I think it is folly to try to brand people as bad or good because of their biology. But that was my point entirely. Even though crime rates don't prove that men in general are worse than women, then surely they do prove that men are capable of doing bad things, and to a greater extent than women at that (see the rate of violent crime).
And crime is only measured by data and things we enforce as illegal. Its hard to make something criminal when you can't prove it in a court of law. And the only reason this is relevant is because most of the "bad things" women are responsible for are immeasurable, such as warping the minds of children they are rearing. Unlike him I don't think they are orchestrating some grand conspiracy of evil you can nail them on.
And I didn't disagree with your point, because his was so outright foolish enough that anything could honestly disprove it. Only that "crime rates" are not solid metrics for disproving it, because of how imperfectly they are enforced between the two genders.
I think that is more due to the Zeitgeist than an evil inherent to women. Throughout most of history, women did just fine raising the young. However, men have always been more violent.
This obviously results in criminal violence, but also in good things, like defending your home and country.
I'll never understand. Hell, I wondered if he's a troll, but he's so anti-Stormfag that this seems unlikely.
Well, even if male crimes rates were 1/5 of those of women, I think it would still do a good job of disproving his claim that men are literally incapable of doing anything bad.
Its inherent to them because the relationship is inherent to them, once it breaks down due to any reason it will effect them. But that was just one example, merely to show that they can commit "great bads" without being criminal. This was as a foil to the great bads men can commit, which can generally be traced by criminality due to their inherent traits. One of which is that violence.
Either way, its new for me to not be the most woman hater in the room. And that's a high bar to clear.