Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2013, 03:58 AM
RE: Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
How exactly did I know who started this thread just by reading the title?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2013, 04:02 AM
RE: Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
(09-08-2013 03:58 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  How exactly did I know who started this thread just by reading the title?

Because you are a slave to women and you blindly follow the Atheist religion, so you get a bit telepathic powers. You lucky, lucky bastard.

Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2013, 10:45 PM
RE: Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
(09-08-2013 03:58 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  How exactly did I know who started this thread just by reading the title?

Because you're a prick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 03:08 AM
RE: Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
(09-08-2013 03:58 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  How exactly did I know who started this thread just by reading the title?

Sockpuppet much?

Troll harder bro! Tongue

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2013 06:29 AM by No Mere Ape.)
RE: Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
Very amusing thread but the OP appears to be poorly informed.

Let's start with human biology:
The evolutionary "mate-value" for males and females are different. For males, it concerns anything that indicates 'good genes', whereas for females the only concern is fertility.

Females function as vessels for transfer of 'good genes' (supplied by the males) from one generation to the next. They are mostly conservative of genetic material and these genes are almost exclusively inherited down the female line, with huge numbers of copies to replace damaged genes. On the other end, this means that the accumulation of genetic material, both deleterious or enhancing, is subject to strong selection only in the male line. Males are the filters for evolution.

Humans wouldn't evolve so quickly if not for males; consequently, men are more biologically evolved than women are. You can actually track the increasing intellectual complexity of the human lineage by following the rise in Testosterone levels. Testosterone happens to be one of the main elements that induce organizational effects in the brain with relation to intelligence.

Contribution to humanity:
Men have contributed 99% to human knowledge — everything from grand civilizations, medicine and science to the most intricate constructs of technology. Even ideologues/feminists like Camille Paglia note, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts".

You can break down the history of science even further only to find an all-male enterprise:
- Philosophy and mathematics, the very roots of science, do not require anything more than the ability to think. There are no female abstract thinkers, either in history or today and only one great female mathematician in history, Emmy Noether.
- There are no "huge gaps" in the history of invention where hidden female inventors" are going to crawl out of the walls.
- Collective inventions are entirely male but cannot be attributed to specific persons.

For example, in every culture throughout history, woodworking and metalworking have been entirely male domains. The significance of this is as follows: metalworking gave rise to early chemistry, which in turn sparked metallurgy (working with alloys); both of these together advanced the creation of synthetic materials such as plastics.

Look around you! Nearly everything is built with wood, metal, alloys, plastics or any combination of the above. They are all literally "man made". This is a historical truth and no library can properly contain this legacy.

You can split the remaining historical roster of "female scientists" into three classes:
1) Strictly standard science. Nearly all of their proceedings have been strictly empirical (eg: Marie Curie); the only thing that's "spectacular" about them are their gender, not their contributions. Empirical work is standard science, not the works of genius or even intellectual eminence.

I also find it interesting how Marie Curie is credited alone by some people, despite the fact that Pierre Curie contributed to the same findings.

2) Misinformation/exaggeration. For example, there are those who claim that Ada Lovelace was the "first programmer". The historical consensus is that she has made no meaningful direct contribution except for the translations. There is no evidence that she possessed appropriate mathematical ability either. From 'Difference and Analytical Engines' (1990) by Bromley AG in the Annals of the History of Computing notes referring to Lovelace: "All but one of the programs cited in her notes had been prepared by Babbage from three to seven years earlier. The exception was prepared by Babbage for her, although she did detect a "bug" in it. Not only is there no evidence that Ada ever prepared a program for the Analytical Engine, but her correspondence with Babbage shows that she did not have the knowledge to do so." From 'The Difference Engine' by Swade D notes referring to Lovelace: "The first algorithms or stepwise operations leading to a solution – what we would now recognize as a 'program', though the word was not used by her or by Babbage – were certainly published under her name. But the work had been completed by Babbage much earlier."

3) Actual contributions. There are some fields that have been female domains throughout history, like nursing and obstetrics. These are not "inferior" contributions, quite the contrary, they are some of the most important domains in biological sciences. This is so marked, that they've been written into law for thousands of years, like the Code of Justinian. Greek temples built facilities specifically for female doctors.

Other fields of medicine were initially male dominant because they mostly pertained to war-related care (which itself is a male domain). They too eventually saw a surge of female health practitioners later down the line.

--------------------
Good day! Smile

My blog: http://nomereape.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 12:28 PM
RE: Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
Coming out of my long slumber because this jackass is just too much to ignore anymore and I don't want to miss out on all the fun. I realize this idiot is simply trolling, most likely doesn't believe the crap he spews and any serious response is a waste of time, but I've got some time to kill right now, so I'm going to indulge myself this guilty pleasure.

I've read a few of the threads and comments started by numnuts here and I've noticed a certain trend; the assumption that human beings are basically simply equations and live at the level of stimuli-response is demonstrably wrong. Of the millions of life forms on this planet, we are one of the few that has evolved beyond the point where we simply breed and die, and are part of an even smaller fraternity (or, if you prefer, sorority) of life forms capable of self awareness. We make choices and interact and form relationships that have nothing to do with procreation. We are social creatures who require social interaction. We are sexual and I think human nature requires sexual interaction, sure, but that is not the only form of social interaction we crave and require. In fact, I think that is the least of what we require in terms of social interaction.

Any response to this twit that gets into specific examples of what men contribute misses, I think, the fundamental point of who we are. Claiming our worth is based on our genitalia and reproductive organs is as inane and preposterous as trying to value a persons worth from the color of her skin. All of us contribute to the community and impact the lives around us. Our worth is measured by those around us and how we impact them.

Case in point - I've been married for almost 16 year, I have two sons and my wife assures me the factory is now closed and we are having no more. My oldest is 10 1/2. According to shithead here, I've served no useful purpose in my wife's and childrend's lives since I inseminated her 11 years ago or so. I'm fairly certain my wife and kids would readily disagree with that. I'm a father, a husband, a companion, a friend. My wife didn't feel the need to leave me after we were done having kids and she didn't marry me only to have kids. Our life together is far more than that. Relationships like you describe do exist in nature, though. The black widow spider comes to mind. Hopefully, you can see the difference between human beings and arachnids.

Two final points to you:
1. you have a very skewed concept of the burden of proof. When you put some outrageous thesis out, the burden is on you to prove it. Even if you put "Truth!" in the title thread, the burden is still on you. The burden is not on us to prove your ridiculous thesis wrong. But, if you want proof it is wrong, any couple that is still happily married after they are done having kids pretty much dispels your hypothesis.

2. If being a woman's slave is really your thing, I'm sure you can use the internet to find a way to make the fantasy happen, albeit for a price. I think you are in big trouble with that, though. One of our women, the appropriately named Dom, already gave you a command and you failed to obey it. I sense some painful discipline in your future.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 12:40 PM
RE: Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
(06-08-2013 02:05 PM)MentalMasturbation Wrote:  Sorry but we are slaves to women.
You make it sound so easy.
Where do I find these women that will allow me to be their slave? Sad

[Image: 21omssh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like LostLocke's post
15-08-2013, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2013 04:05 PM by Azaraith.)
RE: Men are WORTHLESS. What do they have to offer? NOTHING. (Women give you children)
I'll have to be honest, I just about fell off my chair laughing at the original post. Haven't read through the rest yet, but I'm not sure how anyone could be so laughably misinformed... I mean, how the hell do you get to be older than 12 (presumably) and still not have a clue how reproduction works? Hint: sperm comes from the male. No men, no sperm, no sperm clinics, no reproduction, no species. Women have the "joy" of bearing the offspring, but one gender has to play that role (can't bear half a child each and stick 'em together).

Neither gender is more valuable to the process than the other. You could go the cloning route and claim that women could clone themselves, but then there's also the theoretical possibility of men creating artificial wombs and not needing women. Or using a different species as a surrogate womb (I shudder to even consider that, but it's a *possibility* regardless of my qualms). I don't think that the OP is really worth any more time and effort than what's already been wasted though, they're off the deep end of loony.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: