What Are You Doing Right Now? (164 Viewers)

[Post Ironic]

What was her second Nobel prize for, no google

Radium.

Anyways. We're getting nowhere with this. I don't even disagree entirely with the premise that women don't have the same capability in science, applied science, philosophy, etc. as men. My problem is with you stating it's a fact. It's an opinion, and one day you may be proven right, as neuroscience progresses and we learn more about the differences in brains between the genders. I think it's quite likely that the male brain is more suited to the physical sciences and maths especially, research thus far has shown this, even if much more needs to be done.

But there are always outliers, and Marie Curie is one of these. As are a number of the other women I named. I mean, I named like 30 women, the ones I have read about over the years. I could of course name hundreds, if not thousands of men if my memory was up to it.

This argument wasn't about expecting you to concede that women are the same or have contributed as much as men in even the last 20 years. It's about accepting that women have contributed something, there are outliers and exceptions like Marie Curie and a few others, and that you cannot yet call it a fact they don't have the brain capacity/design to match the achievements of men.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

But that proves you nothing. I'm an unread and dumb person.

Oh I got all day for the well read and intelligent to chime in, and I will keep your admission in mind in any potential future interactions.

 

[Maddy]

Now that I think of it. My dick's more well read than my mind. I've shagged more women than I have read books.

 

[Post Ironic]

Now that I think of it. My dick's more well read than my mind. I've shagged more women than I have read books.

That's either very impressive, or truly sad.

 

[Maddy]

No one is saying it's equal. The argument is literally whether women have contributed 0 of note, or something. Of course it's far less than men. Light years less.

The discussion shouldn't be about why this was the case, as thousands of years of exclusion make that obvious.

The discussion should be about why women haven't made more progress now that these fields are opened up to them, contrasted with what men have achieved in that same time period, and whether this shall remain the case long term. But that's pretty hard to extrapolate given the small sample size.

Well, I think this is a good starting point. Exactly my thoughts.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Radium.

Anyways. We're getting nowhere with this. I don't even disagree entirely with the premise that women don't have the same capability in science, applied science, philosophy, etc. as men. My problem is with you stating it's a fact. It's an opinion, and one day you may be proven right, as neuroscience progresses and we learn more about the differences in brains between the genders. I think it's quite likely that the male brain is more suited to the physical sciences and maths especially, research thus far has shown this, even if much more needs to be done.

But there are always outliers, and Marie Curie is one of these. As are a number of the other women I named. I mean, I named like 30 women, the ones I have read about over the years. I could of course name hundreds, if not thousands of men if my memory was up to it.

This argument wasn't about expecting you to concede that women are the same or have contributed as much as men in even the last 20 years. It's about accepting that women have contributed something, there are outliers and exceptions like Marie Curie and a few others, and that you cannot yet call it a fact they don't have the brain capacity/design to match the achievements of men.

But I never made such claims the fact part relates to up to date, my challenge is: "Name one major contribution, women made in science, technology, or philosophy" the challenge was not women will never make a major contribution. And as far as science tackling this, I highly doubt it, it would be career suicide.

 

[Wittl]

I will keep your admission in mind in any potential future interactions.

 

[Maddy]

That's either very impressive, or truly sad.

Actually I finished a book this morning: 'All the Light We Cannot See' by Anthony Doerr. Highly recommendable.

 

[Post Ironic]

But I never made such claims the fact part relates to up to date, my challenge is: "Name one major contribution, women made in science, technology, or philosophy" the challenge was not women will never make a major contribution. And as far as science tackling this, I highly doubt it, it would be career suicide.

I was responding at first to Dusan, apologies if I misrepresented your argument. But no matter, as you and I are beyond niceties now. Lol

Your opinion is that Marie Curie is not a major contribution whereas mine is that she is. And her scientific peers would lend evidence to mine by awarding her two Nobels. The only person in Nobel history to win awards in two different sciences.

What I'm unsure of is why you wouldn't concede Curie as a major contribution? It wouldn't harm your overall premise. There are always outliers and exceptions. She seems like an obvious example of one to me. None of the others I listed would I call major or revolutionary, even if I think them significant. De Beauovoir is very significant to shaping the modern discourse, but that's more of a social/culture thing than philosophical per se.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually I finished a book this morning: 'All the Light We Cannot See' by Anthony Doerr. Highly recommendable.

I have had his short story collection The Shell Collector on my shelf for several years but have never picked it up. I shall try to find the novel though.

 

[Dostoevsky]

Of course it's Dusan!

 

[Post Ironic]

I'm pretty sure I've read studies in the past done that show men's brains have superior ability for spatial rotation, especially in terms of speed of solving such problems. I think it has something to with parietal lobe differences.

And I believe studies have shown similar average IQ of men and women, but men have more variance. More genius level, and more dummies.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it's Dusan!

Your first statements that began this little tiff infuriated me.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I was responding at first to Dusan, apologies if I misrepresented your argument. But no matter, as you and I are beyond niceties now. Lol

Your opinion is that Marie Curie is not a major contribution whereas mine is that she is. And her scientific peers would lend evidence to mine by awarding her two Nobels. The only person in Nobel history to win awards in two different sciences.

What I'm unsure of is why you wouldn't concede Curie as a major contribution? It wouldn't harm your overall premise. There are always outliers and exceptions. She seems like an obvious example of one to me. None of the others I listed would I call major or revolutionary, even if I think them significant. De Beauovoir is very significant to shaping the modern discourse, but that's more of a social/culture thing than philosophical per se.

- - - Updated - - -



I have had his short story collection The Shell Collector on my shelf for several years but have never picked it up. I shall try to find the novel though.

Because like I said it's a shared discovery, and it's not some argumentative ploy, just keeping it objective, why should one partner get all of the credit? Doesn't make sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it's Dusan!

:hug:

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure I've read studies in the past done that show men's brains have superior ability for spatial rotation, especially in terms of speed of solving such problems. I think it has something to with parietal lobe differences.

And I believe studies have shown similar average IQ of men and women, but men have more variance. More genius level, and more dummies.

- - - Updated - - -



Your first statements that began this little tiff infuriated me.

That's what got the Harvard pres in hot waters

 

[Dostoevsky]

:hug:

It's always me against the world.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It's always me against the world.

'no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself'

 

[Post Ironic]

Because like I said it's a shared discovery, and it's not some argumentative ploy, just keeping it objective, why should one partner get all of the credit? Doesn't make sense.

- - - Updated - - -



:hug:

- - - Updated - - -



That's what got the Harvard pres in hot waters

I guess I believe Marie and Pierre made a major discovery together, and then she made another one after he passed away by isolating pure radium and won that second Nobel.

That's my opinion. You have yours. Que sera, sera.

It's funny that it was the Harvard President. That's where Lene Hau is professor of physics and applied physics. And she will likely be the first female Nobel laureate in physics in over 50 years at some point in the next decade.

 

[Dostoevsky]

lol @ PI's new avatar. Dafaq

Man up!

'no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself'

Aye.

Btw I'm planning to finish my book within the next 10-15 days. First... but not the last. Gotta put women to shame yet again.

 

[X Æ A-12]

While I do genuinely feel that women in general are less capable drivers (most of them just aren't passionate about driving), young men are by far the highest risk group. Which is also why they pay higher premiums on their car insurance. So if you're talking strictly about risk and you think rationally about it, you should pray for a female, not a male driver.

- - - Updated - - -




I can see why the incentive would be bigger for men. Up until recently it's also been easier for men in general to devote their entire lives to science or philosophy. But I don't think that is a completely satisfactory explanation of your view, which is that women aren't capable of revolutionary contributions to mankind.

men pay higher insurance premiums because they drive 5x the miles women do.

 

[Lapa]

lol @ PI's new avatar. Dafaq

Man up!

We also need you to man up and change your username back to Dule or Dusan or whatever it was!

 

[X Æ A-12]

so stressed they can't spell? I guess you mean the level of stress you experience when you get a disappointing gift?

That is posting from phone related spelling error

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Please elaborate.

Unfortunately white lives are valued more highly by society. So criminals don't wanna fuck with whiteys cuz the crime will get mode media coverage and be taken more seriously by police, plus they think the victim's family will have more resources to seek justice.

I mean you could still get robbed or something, but not as likely to be murdered.