What Are You Doing Right Now? (244 Viewers)

[Fr3sh]

Pretty much, but that's just typical X behavior. Say an outlandish statement and then when confronted about it, twists it around by saying people lack reading comprehension. See Buffon not being good in the '90s, F not being equal to M times A, denying holocaust, etc. At least Dusan isn't trying to twist what he says by blaming people for having bad reading comprehension.

This was the first comment:
"women have not contributed to the advancement of humanity in either science, technology or philosophy. Their forced entry into the workplace has indeed rendered marriage obsolete and as a result made for a more promiscuous society."

"Forced entry in the workforce": technically women have been in the workforce forever but he must be talking about the white collar workforce, right? To become part of the white collar workforce, you need an education and college degree. Keep in mind for example that Harvard Medical school only started accepting women in 1945. At a much lower rate then men. So they were not on equal footing, which can explain why they haven't gotten as many chances as men.


"has indeed rendered marriage obsolete" - not quite true as people still get married every day. They do get married less and at an older age but there is no way to contribute the decrease in rate of marriage to women being in the workforce. A study done by Pewter states that:
"Marriage, while declining among all groups, remains the norm for adults with a college education and good income but is now markedly less prevalent among those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder."

"In 2008, there was a 16 percentage point gap in marriage rates between college graduates (64%) and those with a high school diploma or less (48%). In 1960, this gap had been just four percentage points (76% vs. 72%). The survey finds that those with a high school diploma or less are just as likely as those with a college degree to say they want to marry. But they place a higher premium than college graduates (38% versus 21%) on financial stability as a very important reason to marry."

So the women in the workforce (or at least white collar workforce) are getting married, it's the people who don't make a lot of money that don't see getting married as necessary. IMO, people now have more options and ability to chase after things they enjoy doing rather than settling down in a loveless and soul-sucking marriage because "that's what everyone does". Nothing wrong with that.

The next comment: "and as a result made for a more promiscuous society." Promiscuous is a derogatory word, first of all. Type it in on google and right above the definition it says derogatory. Then he says to Matt:

"That things are not better that's his interpretation which in this case really boils down to personal preference. "

That tells us his interpretation of women is negative or derogatory based on his previous statement. Or maybe it's just his lack of writing comprehension. Not an invalid theory given that his grammar is pretty atrocious.

But let's get back to the point at hand. The society we're in now is more promiscuous. Promiscuous means "having or characterized by many transient relationships". Surprisingly, people are now having less sex (according to bbc, NYT, etc) than in the previous millenium while women continue to gain ground on the workforce. So this completely invalidates the theory that the promiscuity is due to women forcing their entry into the workforce, because then the more and better jobs they get, the more promiscuous sex they'd have, right?

And lastly, I'd like to mention women like Rosalie Franklin and Barbara McClintock who are responsible for how far we have gotten in DNA research, Grace Hooper who created the first compiler, which translates human coding language into binary, Rachel Carson who has helped us take care of the environment and our bodies through her research and efforts to ban the pesticide DDT, Dorothy Hodgkin who helped pave the way to saving countless lives by discovering a technique of mass producing insulin and penicillin, and many more women who have contributed to science and technology, among other things.

Spoiler

- - - Updated - - -

kinda wanted to use this one cause fat christina is sexy as fuck

- - - Updated - - -

lord have mercy

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

Spoiler

- - - Updated - - -

kinda wanted to use this one cause fat christina is sexy as fuck

- - - Updated - - -

lord have mercy

He's been trying hard to get my attention, but he's just not smart enough to warrant an answer.

 

[IliveForJuve]

in dollars or pesos?


Then why did you even in ask?

I'm always curious about Tuz members' opinions on certain topics.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much, but that's just typical X behavior. Say an outlandish statement and then when confronted about it, twists it around by saying people lack reading comprehension. See Buffon not being good in the '90s, F not being equal to M times A, denying holocaust, etc. At least Dusan isn't trying to twist what he says by blaming people for having bad reading comprehension.

This was the first comment:
"women have not contributed to the advancement of humanity in either science, technology or philosophy. Their forced entry into the workplace has indeed rendered marriage obsolete and as a result made for a more promiscuous society."

"Forced entry in the workforce": technically women have been in the workforce forever but he must be talking about the white collar workforce, right? To become part of the white collar workforce, you need an education and college degree. Keep in mind for example that Harvard Medical school only started accepting women in 1945. At a much lower rate then men. So they were not on equal footing, which can explain why they haven't gotten as many chances as men.


"has indeed rendered marriage obsolete" - not quite true as people still get married every day. They do get married less and at an older age but there is no way to contribute the decrease in rate of marriage to women being in the workforce. A study done by Pewter states that:
"Marriage, while declining among all groups, remains the norm for adults with a college education and good income but is now markedly less prevalent among those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder."

"In 2008, there was a 16 percentage point gap in marriage rates between college graduates (64%) and those with a high school diploma or less (48%). In 1960, this gap had been just four percentage points (76% vs. 72%). The survey finds that those with a high school diploma or less are just as likely as those with a college degree to say they want to marry. But they place a higher premium than college graduates (38% versus 21%) on financial stability as a very important reason to marry."

So the women in the workforce (or at least white collar workforce) are getting married, it's the people who don't make a lot of money that don't see getting married as necessary. IMO, people now have more options and ability to chase after things they enjoy doing rather than settling down in a loveless and soul-sucking marriage because "that's what everyone does". Nothing wrong with that.

The next comment: "and as a result made for a more promiscuous society." Promiscuous is a derogatory word, first of all. Type it in on google and right above the definition it says derogatory. Then he says to Matt:

"That things are not better that's his interpretation which in this case really boils down to personal preference. "

That tells us his interpretation of women is negative or derogatory based on his previous statement. Or maybe it's just his lack of writing comprehension. Not an invalid theory given that his grammar is pretty atrocious.

But let's get back to the point at hand. The society we're in now is more promiscuous. Promiscuous means "having or characterized by many transient relationships". Surprisingly, people are now having less sex (according to bbc, NYT, etc) than in the previous millenium while women continue to gain ground on the workforce. So this completely invalidates the theory that the promiscuity is due to women forcing their entry into the workforce, because then the more and better jobs they get, the more promiscuous sex they'd have, right?

And lastly, I'd like to mention women like Rosalie Franklin and Barbara McClintock who are responsible for how far we have gotten in DNA research, Grace Hooper who created the first compiler, which translates human coding language into binary, Rachel Carson who has helped us take care of the environment and our bodies through her research and efforts to ban the pesticide DDT, Dorothy Hodgkin who helped pave the way to saving countless lives by discovering a technique of mass producing insulin and penicillin, and many more women who have contributed to science and technology, among other things.

X gon' give it to ya.

 

[swag]

God I love when my text apps get wrong numbers...

 

[Osman]

Greg Still the Louis CK of Tuz (taken Drus pantless dogma too far lol).

He's been trying hard to get my attention, but he's just not smart enough to warrant an answer.

Personal grudges aside, he made a sensible reply, maybe you don't have anything to add if your automatic reply to everyone is they aren't smart enough for your precious attention?

While elaborating on nothing you get asked about basically for how many pages now?

Skickat från min SM-G930F via Tapatalk

 

[pitbull]

Pretty much, but that's just typical X behavior. Say an outlandish statement and then when confronted about it, twists it around by saying people lack reading comprehension. See Buffon not being good in the '90s, F not being equal to M times A, denying holocaust, etc. .

can you please link me to the last two? Buffon not playing in 90ties was great fun, reminded me of RUS's Montero fiasco, I bet those are golden as well

 

[Raz]

I see people are starting to catch up to the real mr. (X). Since I'm terrified of another ban i purposely didn't mention any names, but you know about who I'm talking about.

 

[Monty]

so what's the conclusion to the argument?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Greg Still the Louis CK of Tuz (taken Drus pantless dogma too far lol).


Personal grudges aside, he made a sensible reply, maybe you don't have anything to add if your automatic reply to everyone is they aren't smart enough for your precious attention?

While elaborating on nothing you get asked about basically for how many pages now?

Skickat från min SM-G930F via Tapatalk

Ad hominem is now sensible lol anything to discredit a simple fact that bothers you to the core. I will reply to Matt, coz Matt has no agenda and will actually try to understand your point, the other garbage, well I can't even fathom how you or him think he's worthy of a second of my time.

- - - Updated - - -

I see people are starting to catch up to the real mr. (X). Since I'm terrified of another ban i purposely didn't mention any names, but you know about who I'm talking about.

You know the rules

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I'm feeling like a Wednesday, surrounded by the weak.

On a real though, this whole week has been feeling Fridayish.

 

[IliveForJuve]

I'm feeling like a Wednesday, surrounded by the weak.

On a real though, this whole week has been feeling Fridayish.

Not enough movement at work?

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Not enough movement at work?

Dunno what you mean by movement, but yeah December is quiet here. And lots of Xmas related activity around the place too. It's nice and chill for a change.

 

[DAiDEViL]

I'm feeling like a Wednesday, surrounded by the weak.

On a real though, this whole week has been feeling Fridayish.

Zach knows that feeling all too well.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Zach knows that feeling all too well.

...

 

[Fr3sh]

You know the rules

 

[pitbull]

Just took a smelly double dump, kind of looked like an x. So relieved I can share this knowing that @X reading comprehension is 10/10, this forum is blessed to have this humble genius as a mod

 

[Fr3sh]

Just took a smelly double dump, kind of looked like an x. So relieved I can share this knowing that @X reading comprehension is 10/10, this forum is blessed to have this humble genius as a mod

@DAiDEViL

Spoiler

- - - Updated - - -

i think it's the funniest one yet

- - - Updated - - -

nvm this one is better

Spoiler

- - - Updated - - -

last one

Spoiler

 

[DAiDEViL]

Goodbye @pitbull

 

[Osman]

Just took a smelly double dump, kind of looked like an x. So relieved I can share this knowing that @X reading comprehension is 10/10, this forum is blessed to have this humble genius as a mod

 

[Post Ironic]

It's either intellectual dishonesty or intellectual laziness to claim that Pierre Curie is responsible for the work of Marie Curie. It was Pierre who dropped his own research into Crystals to join Marie in her research and it was made very clear that their research was hers, first and foremost. Add to that, she won a second Nobel, this time in chemistry, for research and discoveries she made several years after Pierre's death.

Second. Giving Sartre credit for Simone De Beauvoir's work is equally laughable. Even more so considering her Second Sex is far more important to the modern discourse than anything Sartre wrote.

To state that one's own negative opinion of women's contributions in the sciences and humanities is "a simple fact" while providing no evidence at all, and displaying a stunning ignorance of female scientists and philosophers and the contributions they have made, is ludicrous. Not one of the names ALC and I provided have been discredited, no argument has been set forth as to why these dozens of women didn't make significant contributions; yet somehow, we should all just accept the "simple fact" that they didn't, or that their contributions are actually propaganda and it was men behind the scenes who were really responsible.

Laughable.