Sex and the City quotes foster (female) stupidity

Well said! I’d be interested in seeing an actual argument against this.

And I had a strange idea that the one being leashed and controlled is the weaker and fear filled one. The stronger one will submit the weaker one and control him/her. The strong are in control, the weak are subservient. Both are afraid - the strong one is afraid of losing his superior position, the weak one is afraid of the strong one.

Weren’t allowed? I mean I agree it’s totally unrealistic that a 45kg chick wins a fight against 3-5 grown 80-100kg males, but it’s an action movie, who cares. I don’t think they weren’t ALLOWED to do it, but it’s just more cunning to make a few relevant, strong female characters in a movie to market it towards the female (more precisely, lesbian and feminist) audience more successfully. Look at Fast and Furious 5 and 6. Almost all possible combinations of race and gender are represented with characters so people all around the world can identify with them.

Also, not everything is a conspiracy JSS, for fucks sake :laughing:

 No. The root meaning of 'whore' is somebody who trades sex for material gain. That's the exact opposite of somebody who will have sex with anyone, or who takes sex casually. 
If you actually know what the word 'whore' means, and know what the criticism [i]really is[/i] that men are making when they call women whores, then complaining about women being whores while complaining that you can't get laid is completely consistent.  You are attacking a strawman. 

Not saying women ARE whores, but statik wanted a counter argument, and it was just staring me in the face so I had to oblige.

Hm, the definition of a whore I used is simply a promiscuous person who has a lot of sex with a lot of people. I also use the word “slut” for that same meaning. Under that definition I actually agree with Moreno that men are bigger whores, it’s just that as I explained it’s not a bad thing for a man to be a whore while it is for a woman.

“Hooker” and “prostitute” is what I use for people who trade sexual services for material gain.

3sum, I think “escort” is considered a bit more polite. Just sayin…

But wouldn’t it be really naive, NOT to see a pattern in that?

Why do you think Hollywood likes it so much to portray the opposite of reality: making women more dominant/stronger while men submissive/weaker. Why is the feminist worldview and the “battle of the sexes” so much supported by the media. To get a few more lesbians in the cinemas? :laughing:

The most effective way to make a population more manageable is to divide it…divide et impera - divide and conquer-; this goes back to Machiavelli. When you see it in this context: If there are the means to program a society, do you really think they won’t be used?

Yeah, if ‘whore’ means ‘inclined to promiscuity’ then I’d agree men tend to be more guilty- to the extent that I can’t imagine why anybody would try to claim the opposite.

Optimistically, because people are much more likely to be offended by the truth than by irony and they don’t want to rock boats. Cynically? Because they’re all a bunch of social Marxists using the soapbox they’ve been given to undermine one more pillar of traditional human society.

What’s so good about tradition?

It worked. What’s so good about an untested alternative?

It worked??? According to who? Back in the day, traditionally, people had slaves and witches were burned.

You didn’t answer my question.

I didn’t assert anything about untested alternatives. Burden of proof g. You didn’t answer mine either.

I sure as shit did. What’s so good about traditions is that they have a proven track record. I asked you a follow up question, you don’t feel like answering it, so now we’re all done.

A proven track record of what? You call that an answer? You expect me to believe that you’re arguing in good faith with that?

I honestly couldn’t care less what you think, I thought I made that clear. I already tried the whole ‘explain my beliefs in an honest conversation’ thing with you on multiple occasions, and in every case, you took it down to a single bullshit one-liner irrelevant to the conversation at hand. So now you get nothing from me- the moment you appear to be doing that thing you do, I drop the conversation. You should probably print this out, and tape it to the bottom of your computer monitor so you don’t have to keep asking me why when I blow you off.

Ucci, for what it’s worth, I’d actually like to know your answers to smears questions above. I really don’t think he’s being intentionally obnoxious. Tradition has a proven track record of some pretty terrible things as well. What you’re doing is a clear appeal to tradition.

I’m not arguing for any specific untested alternatives, but I think some alternatives could possibly be better ones. If we only stick to tradition we may never know.

    It's a relative thing. I'm making an appeal to tradition in general, as opposed to reform in general, because Smears asked what's so good about tradition, in general.   Whether or not every single tradition ever is good, or every single reform ever is bad, would be a whole other thing, right?  Sure, traditional cultures have some some pretty terrible things. But it's not as though we have some perfect society to compare them to. The question is not 'can we think of anything bad a traditional culture has done', we have to ask if radicalism has a better track record, and it pretty clearly does not.  Hence why I asked if alternatives are any better, and hence why Smears didn't want to answer that question.

I don’t really see how you can say tradition has a better track record than reform. I don’t think we’d seek reform if tradition had such a solid track record. Also, reform seems to be a part of tradition, so I’m not sure I agree that there is any real dichotomy.

Of course, I’m admittedly unaware of the discussions you’ve had in the past with smears regarding this subject, so my comments may not even be relevant.