24
   

What is your attitude towards your gender?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 05:22 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
I infer that u have probably chosen to ignor
my question as to elucidation of your response, Spendius.


I didn't ignore it Dave. The answer seems so self evident. Yes--technologically.

Tempermentally. Artistically. "Here" like what you see.

Do you think atheists could have done it?

In response to your question,
I will render the following:

I am not aware of evidence that Thomas Edison,
Robert Fulton or Nicola Tessla woud have done
their work sooner or better if thay had different spiritual opinions.
(I am not implying that thay were atheists.)

Whether an atheist coud have done this work:
I have no information.
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 05:45 am
@hawkeye10,
I don't think women do that necessarily.
I know this thread is based on perceptions, which are hard to quantify, so I'm not asking for 'evidence', but do you have a particular example in mind?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 06:04 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:

I don't think women do that necessarily.
I know this thread is based on perceptions,
which are hard to quantify, so I'm not asking for 'evidence', but do you have a particular example in mind?

U r less demanding than I am.





David
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 06:05 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
oooh, marital rape and clairvoyance, is there nothing you can't do

the man has to be right. The woman decides if he is right. That is a 50/50 split, there is no man running over a woman.


You seem to be very confused
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 06:11 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
oooh, marital rape and clairvoyance, is there nothing you can't do

the man has to be right. The woman decides if he is right. That is a 50/50 split, there is no man running over a woman.


You seem to be very confused

Yeah; I don 't understand that statement either.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 07:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I am not aware of evidence that Thomas Edison,
Robert Fulton or Nicola Tessla woud have done
their work sooner or better if thay had different spiritual opinions.


They are mere way stations. They had a fabulous system of science and social organisation to exploit. I'm talking about the origins of that out of primitivism.

I suggested Spengler for your attention but as you are too impatient to engage with that wild and fascinating philosophy I will quote a little for you. It is from Chapter VII of Volume I; Music and Plastic, The Arts of Form. He is writing about the influence of the Gothic north on the architecture, music, painting and plastic of the Renaissance. He sees the Renaissance as an ephemeral fad of small consequence and the Enlightenment as not disimilar to the hoola-hoop craze.

Quote:
It was just then, too, that Nicolaus Cusanus, Cardinal and Bishop of Brixen (1401-1464), brought into mathematics the "infinitesimal" principle, that contrapuntal method of number which he reached by deduction from the idea of God as an Infinite Being. It was from Nicholas of Cusa (sic) that Leibniz received the decisive impulse that led him to work out his differential calculus; and thus was forged the weapon with which dynamic, Baroque, Newtonian, physics definitely overcame the static idea characteristic of the Southern physics that reaches a hand to Archimedes and is still effective in Galileo.


There is more to the persecution of Galileo than those who use his case to have an easy ride are aware of. They like to think of his temporary house arrest in his palatial apartments as out the other side of extraordinary rendition on the scale of evil. They use him as one might a fly swatter. Which defines their opinion of their opponents quite nicely.

I have a theory all of my own about how the Bishop arrived at the "infinitesimal" principle but whether I am right or wrong one might say with confidence that everything you do and think and dream Dave is sat upon him having done so. And I think his deduction was based on a close reading of the Gospels which one might expect someone in his position to have taken the trouble to do.

I see no way an atheist could have deduced what he did. Atheists would have been too busy boozing, shagging, gourmandizing and sleeping I should imagine. Expertly maybe.

The people you mention are basically technologists and entrepreneurs and not scientists at all. Not that I don't admire them.

But if you seek easy explanations I have no doubt there is a whole raft of people eager to provide them for a consideration. The trouble is that you end up knowing nothing about anything but believing that you know everything about everything and you end up in that state Goethe called "giddy lunacy".

Does that satisfy your curiosity?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 07:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
See, David. We CAN agree Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 07:42 am
@Sglass,
Quote:
All I could gleam from Spendi's comment is that gay guys are more creative and intellectual and that straight guys talk ****.


I can only assume a profound cultural imiscibility S.

As soon as I hear someone talking about creativity and intellectuality as if they are gathering these concepts into the fullness of their own ample bosoms I am immediately aware that they are as far away from them as it is possible to get. Which is a sensible place to be in view of the scary nature of creativity and intellectuality.
Sglass
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 07:47 am
@spendius,
If nothing else Spendi, you do wax poetic.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 07:58 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
Osso, I totally see what you mean about the need to get away from laundry talk etc. When my mum and my gran are together it's like the annual village gossip convention and I find it unbearable. (Whats more, it's not even interesting gossip, it's just like who had a leg operation and who missed church on sunday).


Any social scientist worthy of the name would be intensely interested in such conversations.

There is a considerable body of sociological research relating to gossip. It is a key component structure of the life of communities. And it is mostly a female monopoly. For you to pan it Queenie is a full frontal attack on your gender.

Anybody out of the gossip loop might as well be in Timbukto.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 08:03 am
I once heard a Chief Constable say that he didn't care what was going on so long as he knew what it was. One might imagine from that that his officers were told to nosey around with the gossips.
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 11:48 am
@spendius,
Quote:

Any social scientist worthy of the name would be intensely interested in such conversations.

There is a considerable body of sociological research relating to gossip. It is a key component structure of the life of communities. And it is mostly a female monopoly. For you to pan it Queenie is a full frontal attack on your gender.


'Any' social scientist wouldn't hold such a strict essentialist stance, spendy.
Not nowadays.

You're making sense but I don't agree.
Plus, the thread is general.
What is YOUR attitude towards YOUR gender?

I have had a lot of responses from straight men, who are taking time out from applying their intelligence and creativity to the earth's crust to gossip about it on here.
You spend more time on here than me.
Intellectual banter is your chief interest, it appears.
I am busy channelling my 'intelligence and creativity' into the material of my degree.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 03:28 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
What is YOUR attitude towards YOUR gender?


I haven't the faintest idea. I've never thought about it.

I think men are expendable. Is that what you think is an attitude. I think it's a fact. "The last rasping gasp of the mantis's groom" sort of thing. It's also a fact that evolution has equipped us with pain sensitivity in order to try and minimise the worst effects. As long as we don't prejudice the well being of women and tiny tots.

I don't have many attitudes. Are they not distracting?

I know social scientists are interested in gossip circuits.

Quote:
I have had a lot of responses from straight men.


That I can well believe after seeing your picture recently.

A large percentage of the things around you are derived from the earth's crust. Men derive them and women use them. Some men do too I know but really they only look like men. Lawnmowers for example. Mountain climbing equipment.

Does it not make you laugh watching those silly sods trekking to the South Pole in a race with other silly sods. Him with the frost-bitten nose looked a right twottle I must say. Have they an attitude to their gender? It doesn't look a very interesting one. Except watching them express it. And what about the camera and sound teams? Out of sight out of mind.

I only came on here because you're on.


The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 04:15 pm
@spendius,
Well you've lost me a bit now.

Quote:
I know social scientists are interested in gossip circuits.


I'm sure they are. I'm sure gossip circles reveal a lot about humanity.
I'm not sure that a social scientist would say that my distaste is an affront to my gender though. We've gone past that age.
And we've gone past the age where men get the things from the earth's crust and women use the things, if that ever was an age.
BorisKitten
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 04:48 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Quote:
Re: spendius (Post 3718279)
Well you've lost me a bit now.

Lost me, too.

Er, WHAT, Spendius?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 05:03 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
One chap was just on Sky News Newspaper review bragging about him cycling from Land's End to John O'Groats, or the other way round, with his son.

Are you not moved to tears? He used an item about long range weather forecasts, which have recently been somewhat wide of the mark, as an excuse to inform us all of his dazzling and creative courage.

And he's an opinion former. A ******* role model. Watch out for the nation's arterial routes being clogged up with self important cyclists.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2009 05:06 pm
@BorisKitten,
Quote:
Lost me, too.


Well don't try to cross the road without an officer to guide you.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 12:21 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I would however condone doing something to a woman that she claims that she does not want under very limited conditions, like the man knows her very well, and knows that she will in the end be happy that her man took charge.


I like how Louis CK puts it better (paraphrased): "raping someone on the off chance that they may like it".



No matter how much you may know someone it's a pretty big risk and he aptly describes it as "out of your mind".
chai2
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 01:43 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
I would however condone doing something to a woman that she claims that she does not want under very limited conditions, like the man knows her very well, and knows that she will in the end be happy that her man took charge.



nobody knows me that well.

spendius
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 3 Aug, 2009 02:12 pm
@chai2,
I'm content to let others take that risk of pleasing you chai.
 

Related Topics

Sex and Evolution - Discussion by gungasnake
Sex Affairs and Public Figures - Discussion by Thomas
Pre cum and ejaculate - Question by Chelsea120
Does every woman have her price...? - Question by nononono
sexodus - Discussion by gungasnake
Why Judaism rejected homosexuality - Discussion by gungasnake
am i addicted to masterbation? - Question by 23Flotsofquestions
Hairfall and sex - Question by out-mounty
I'm 31 and bad at sex - Question by BadAtSex
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 07:43:34