5 ms·

Girls in general are better people and killing them is plain stupid.

riffic 17y ago
I agree with this.
greenlblue 17y ago
Honestly, why would anyone take offence at this and downvote? Most of human history has been dominated by men and it has been war after war after war. Throw in the several male prophets whose followers have created several religions and the subsequent strife and women win by at least 1000 points. At this point it shouldn't even be an issue which is the better gender.
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  Even if true, it's a very polarizing thing to say. It drags the conversation towards an unhealthy, flamey place.
  - greenlblue 17y ago
    If somebody disagrees I would like to know their stance on it and their argument against my view. Being downvoted certainly says people don't approve of the comment but I don't see how it's polarizing or why it's wrong to make polarizing comments if there is a modicum of truth in it. I'll chalk it up to my Asperger's syndrome.
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      Saying something so obviously controversial and polarizing demands more backup than the mere statement itself. You know your opinion is going to be unpopular, so the onus is upon you to expand upon that idea in your original post, otherwise it looks like you're just trolling. In response to your later justification, though, most western societies have been patriarchal, so the fact that we've been very successful at fighting and killing each other is not an indication that women somehow would not if given the chance. Your argument breaks down to this: since men are so bad at keeping the peace, women must therefore be better at it.
      - greenlblue 17y ago
        In response to your later justification, though, most western societies have been patriarchal, so the fact that we've been very successful at fighting and killing each other is not an indication that women somehow would not if given the chance. But that's just it. The entire time men have been behaving badly women haven't even shown the slightest interest in participating so that's already evidence enough for me to make some conclusions about which is the more docile and empathetic gender.
        lionhearted 17y ago
        > The entire time men have been behaving badly women haven't even shown the slightest interest in participating so that's already evidence enough for me to make some conclusions about which is the more docile and empathetic gender. While we're broadly generalizing, does the fact that men have accounted for 95%+ of all inventions, scientific breakthroughs, philosophy, and governance in history mean men are more proactive and hard working to go alongside women being more docile and empathetic? And does this lend itself easily to a judgment that a particular gender is better?
        greenlblue 17y ago
        Obviously not. The societal pressures have been different but the thing about people is that it's hard to distinguish between what's actually innate and what's culturally enforced. So given the chance women would be just as proactive and inventive, heck we are already seeing that, but they wouldn't be as aggressive.
        potatolicious 17y ago
        Slightest interest in participating? You realize that in most western, patriarchal societies women were not allowed to participate? Not to mention, many Native American cultures were matriarchal, and had absolutely no compunction about slaughtering each other there, either. I find it somewhat ironic that your justification for saying that women are better than men is that they are more docile and empathetic - the very same reasons that were trotted about to try and deny women the vote (i.e., too docile and easily led by the nose politically, too emotional to vote rationally, etc). It's hard to consider you pro-female when you seem to riding the same train of thought as anti-female folk. I do mean this in the most sincere, respectful way possible: have you considered taking a course in anthropology at your local university? I studied anthropology in a limited way during my time college, it was very eye-opening, and IMHO your viewpoint wouldn't stand up to a simple gut check against even introductory undergrad-level anthro. I know this may sound like I'm bashing you, but I'm really not trying to - IMHO you seem like you have a lot of misconceptions about culture and history which can be rectified by formal education on this subject.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Hitler was also cheered on by women. There are plenty of examples of women doing evil things. Just a couple of weeks ago I think there was a female amok runner. Also, men and women face different challenges in wife. For example I suppose in many primitive societies, if one tribe raided another, the enemy men were killed, but the enemy women were taken home and being married (just one example).
  - olliesaunders 17y ago
    There it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
    - Tichy 17y ago
      I remembered that before I mentioned Hitler. So what? Hitler existed. Is he now "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"?
      - olliesaunders 17y ago
        No, I just thought it was funny.
        Tichy 17y ago
        Not even sure if it actually applied - according to Wikipedia, it applies to comparing people to Hitler or Nazis.
- araneae 17y ago
  There's a bit of cognitive dissonance in your post. It's obvious that you think that the reason that men have been the head of wars is innate, biological determinism. Yet men have also been the ones who developed science and technology. On HN, almost all of us are men. Is that also due to innate, biological determinism? If not, how do you explain the fact that all the things you dislike about men are innate, and all the things you like are not? And if yes, how can you say that women are better than men? Do you not value science, technology, and entrepreneurship?
  - relay 17y ago
    I'm not going to argue on nature vs nurture but I will ask you a hypothetical question.. if you had to make a choice between fast evolution of "science, technology, entrepreneurship" and a peaceful world without war nor violence, which would you take ? If (I have no idea whether it's the case or not) biological determinism was true and those views were confirmed, I still wouldn't see women as inferior. Being smart enough to create and have low enough morals to use the atomic bomb is NOT a gift, it's a curse.
    - geebee 17y ago
      We posted at the same time. I actually agree with you. The only thing that really irritates me is they way some people are willing to assign "innate" or "cultural" based (it appears) on nothing more than whether they consider the activity to be good or bad.
    - araneae 17y ago
      Ask girls about their experiences in all girls schools and ask them if they'd like to experience that for the rest of their lives. It's unlikely that killing off all men and then cloning the remaining females is a viable solution to world peace. In answer to your actual question, though, you proffer a world with no war in violence as an ideal. However, I challenge that idea that you would even enjoy living in such a world; or at least enjoy living in such a world that is necessitated by a total lack of violence. In elementary school, we learned that the central element to every story is conflict. A story with no conflict is boring. The same is true of life. And then add to that that it's impossible to have a world without conflict without giving everyone a lobotomy, which would then result in the sudden collapse of civilization and the extinction of the human race... It's a very simplistic world view you have that all violence is wrong. Sometimes violence is necessary, and sometimes it's entertaining (sports or action movies, anyone? Or a good beheading in the old days?). But even if you disagree on those two points, conflict is inherent in any system where individuals of the same species compete for resources. There are such things as dumb questions, especially if they're hypothetical.

I agree with this.

Honestly, why would anyone take offence at this and downvote? Most of human history has been dominated by men and it has been war after war after war. Throw in the several male prophets whose followers have created several religions and the subsequent strife and women win by at least 1000 points. At this point it shouldn't even be an issue which is the better gender.

allenbrunson 17y ago
Even if true, it's a very polarizing thing to say. It drags the conversation towards an unhealthy, flamey place.
- greenlblue 17y ago
  If somebody disagrees I would like to know their stance on it and their argument against my view. Being downvoted certainly says people don't approve of the comment but I don't see how it's polarizing or why it's wrong to make polarizing comments if there is a modicum of truth in it. I'll chalk it up to my Asperger's syndrome.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    Saying something so obviously controversial and polarizing demands more backup than the mere statement itself. You know your opinion is going to be unpopular, so the onus is upon you to expand upon that idea in your original post, otherwise it looks like you're just trolling. In response to your later justification, though, most western societies have been patriarchal, so the fact that we've been very successful at fighting and killing each other is not an indication that women somehow would not if given the chance. Your argument breaks down to this: since men are so bad at keeping the peace, women must therefore be better at it.
    - greenlblue 17y ago
      In response to your later justification, though, most western societies have been patriarchal, so the fact that we've been very successful at fighting and killing each other is not an indication that women somehow would not if given the chance. But that's just it. The entire time men have been behaving badly women haven't even shown the slightest interest in participating so that's already evidence enough for me to make some conclusions about which is the more docile and empathetic gender.
      - lionhearted 17y ago
        > The entire time men have been behaving badly women haven't even shown the slightest interest in participating so that's already evidence enough for me to make some conclusions about which is the more docile and empathetic gender. While we're broadly generalizing, does the fact that men have accounted for 95%+ of all inventions, scientific breakthroughs, philosophy, and governance in history mean men are more proactive and hard working to go alongside women being more docile and empathetic? And does this lend itself easily to a judgment that a particular gender is better?
        greenlblue 17y ago
        Obviously not. The societal pressures have been different but the thing about people is that it's hard to distinguish between what's actually innate and what's culturally enforced. So given the chance women would be just as proactive and inventive, heck we are already seeing that, but they wouldn't be as aggressive.
      - potatolicious 17y ago
        Slightest interest in participating? You realize that in most western, patriarchal societies women were not allowed to participate? Not to mention, many Native American cultures were matriarchal, and had absolutely no compunction about slaughtering each other there, either. I find it somewhat ironic that your justification for saying that women are better than men is that they are more docile and empathetic - the very same reasons that were trotted about to try and deny women the vote (i.e., too docile and easily led by the nose politically, too emotional to vote rationally, etc). It's hard to consider you pro-female when you seem to riding the same train of thought as anti-female folk. I do mean this in the most sincere, respectful way possible: have you considered taking a course in anthropology at your local university? I studied anthropology in a limited way during my time college, it was very eye-opening, and IMHO your viewpoint wouldn't stand up to a simple gut check against even introductory undergrad-level anthro. I know this may sound like I'm bashing you, but I'm really not trying to - IMHO you seem like you have a lot of misconceptions about culture and history which can be rectified by formal education on this subject.
Tichy 17y ago
Hitler was also cheered on by women. There are plenty of examples of women doing evil things. Just a couple of weeks ago I think there was a female amok runner. Also, men and women face different challenges in wife. For example I suppose in many primitive societies, if one tribe raided another, the enemy men were killed, but the enemy women were taken home and being married (just one example).
- olliesaunders 17y ago
  There it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
  - Tichy 17y ago
    I remembered that before I mentioned Hitler. So what? Hitler existed. Is he now "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"?
    - olliesaunders 17y ago
      No, I just thought it was funny.
      - Tichy 17y ago
        Not even sure if it actually applied - according to Wikipedia, it applies to comparing people to Hitler or Nazis.
araneae 17y ago
There's a bit of cognitive dissonance in your post. It's obvious that you think that the reason that men have been the head of wars is innate, biological determinism. Yet men have also been the ones who developed science and technology. On HN, almost all of us are men. Is that also due to innate, biological determinism? If not, how do you explain the fact that all the things you dislike about men are innate, and all the things you like are not? And if yes, how can you say that women are better than men? Do you not value science, technology, and entrepreneurship?
- relay 17y ago
  I'm not going to argue on nature vs nurture but I will ask you a hypothetical question.. if you had to make a choice between fast evolution of "science, technology, entrepreneurship" and a peaceful world without war nor violence, which would you take ? If (I have no idea whether it's the case or not) biological determinism was true and those views were confirmed, I still wouldn't see women as inferior. Being smart enough to create and have low enough morals to use the atomic bomb is NOT a gift, it's a curse.
  - geebee 17y ago
    We posted at the same time. I actually agree with you. The only thing that really irritates me is they way some people are willing to assign "innate" or "cultural" based (it appears) on nothing more than whether they consider the activity to be good or bad.
  - araneae 17y ago
    Ask girls about their experiences in all girls schools and ask them if they'd like to experience that for the rest of their lives. It's unlikely that killing off all men and then cloning the remaining females is a viable solution to world peace. In answer to your actual question, though, you proffer a world with no war in violence as an ideal. However, I challenge that idea that you would even enjoy living in such a world; or at least enjoy living in such a world that is necessitated by a total lack of violence. In elementary school, we learned that the central element to every story is conflict. A story with no conflict is boring. The same is true of life. And then add to that that it's impossible to have a world without conflict without giving everyone a lobotomy, which would then result in the sudden collapse of civilization and the extinction of the human race... It's a very simplistic world view you have that all violence is wrong. Sometimes violence is necessary, and sometimes it's entertaining (sports or action movies, anyone? Or a good beheading in the old days?). But even if you disagree on those two points, conflict is inherent in any system where individuals of the same species compete for resources. There are such things as dumb questions, especially if they're hypothetical.