Women are children. They do not have the mental capacity to form such an elaborate scheme, nor the temerity to overcome the difference in social status between individuals and groups.
I don't think there's a study that could back up that view. "Women are children".
First it's a contradiction in terms, but the point is that women are physically incapable of being adults or even mature due to their mental failings. This is patently false. Obviously, women are capable of being adults, that's how the definition works. And certainly women are capable of being mature.
There's also the rest of it:
"They do not have the mental capacity to form such an elaborate scheme". Once again, yes, individual women are capable of conspiracy. There are no "classes of people" which can conspire as such a demographic, or as an innate result of being their demographic. Conspiratorial action is normally the actions of individuals, and there are plenty of women who are capable of conspiratorial action and subterfuge. There is enough history for us to have observed this.
"or the temerity to overcome the difference in social status between individuals and groups." I don't think you used the word temerity right here. The best I can figure is that you don't think women can see the distinction between individuals and groups.
If I'm going to be charitable, I'm going to assume your going to show some studies about how women, as an abstraction, have a propensity for X. You're probably going to show mean distributions, probabilistic statistics, hell you might even make an argument from neurochemistry or genetics that shows that females are less likely to do Y or engage in Z.
And that's all fine, but then you are using that to make a judgment call that asserts a level of innate cognitive inferiority that women as a collective demographic, are so mentally incapable that it would be warranted to treat them as retarded, or wards of the state. Your evidence wouldn't support that.
It would be like telling me that whites as a race are physically incapable of bench-pressing 100 lbs. They don't have the physical acumen that Africans have. Here's a long list of Ugandan Olympians, here's some genetic study regarding the length of legs for European genetic stratas, etc. That conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence because it is not only a sweeping generalization, but it's a sweeping generalization which is patently false on it's face.
Hell, I'll even go one step further. Let's say Jester loses his mind and argues that jews are mentally incapable of forming a racial cabal to dominate the Earth. Then he goes and presents evidence of jews, on average, having an IQ of 65 or something. That's still an argument of innate inferiority, and it's still not based in reality, and the comment would have to be removed.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
What?
What part of that post breaks R16?
That's an interesting way to interpret R16.
If I were to back up this view with figures, studies, and/or articles, would it then be acceptable?
Or are we simply disallowed from making a post commenting on the mental acuity of a protected class of people?
This is, by the way, one of the major reasons I think there needs to be a very public official discussion on the rules.
I don't think there's a study that could back up that view. "Women are children".
First it's a contradiction in terms, but the point is that women are physically incapable of being adults or even mature due to their mental failings. This is patently false. Obviously, women are capable of being adults, that's how the definition works. And certainly women are capable of being mature.
There's also the rest of it:
"They do not have the mental capacity to form such an elaborate scheme". Once again, yes, individual women are capable of conspiracy. There are no "classes of people" which can conspire as such a demographic, or as an innate result of being their demographic. Conspiratorial action is normally the actions of individuals, and there are plenty of women who are capable of conspiratorial action and subterfuge. There is enough history for us to have observed this.
"or the temerity to overcome the difference in social status between individuals and groups." I don't think you used the word temerity right here. The best I can figure is that you don't think women can see the distinction between individuals and groups.
If I'm going to be charitable, I'm going to assume your going to show some studies about how women, as an abstraction, have a propensity for X. You're probably going to show mean distributions, probabilistic statistics, hell you might even make an argument from neurochemistry or genetics that shows that females are less likely to do Y or engage in Z.
And that's all fine, but then you are using that to make a judgment call that asserts a level of innate cognitive inferiority that women as a collective demographic, are so mentally incapable that it would be warranted to treat them as retarded, or wards of the state. Your evidence wouldn't support that.
It would be like telling me that whites as a race are physically incapable of bench-pressing 100 lbs. They don't have the physical acumen that Africans have. Here's a long list of Ugandan Olympians, here's some genetic study regarding the length of legs for European genetic stratas, etc. That conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence because it is not only a sweeping generalization, but it's a sweeping generalization which is patently false on it's face.
Hell, I'll even go one step further. Let's say Jester loses his mind and argues that jews are mentally incapable of forming a racial cabal to dominate the Earth. Then he goes and presents evidence of jews, on average, having an IQ of 65 or something. That's still an argument of innate inferiority, and it's still not based in reality, and the comment would have to be removed.