If god is truly genderless

[Throw_aside]

Even if we accept your premise that neither men nor women literally create or give life from nothing, that still doesn't explain why god is referred to as “he” rather than “she.” If god is REALLY beyond biological sex then using exclusively masculine pronouns isnt any more scientifically justified than using feminine ones. You cant argue that god is beyond gender while simultaneously treating one gendered description as the default and the other as a humanification or as offensive. Also claims about half souls and celestial beings, and god animating biological vessels arent scientific facts theyre metaphysical or religious beliefs, regardless of how strongly you believe in them theres nothing scientific about it

is this good enough for hush?

 

[foidslayer]

an iq score is simply one piece of a muuch larger puzzle when measuring a persons overall ability. Like processing speed, reasoning working memory and other factors are analyzed as well. And the only number that really counts or matters is 70 because that directs the individual to either the mental health department of the state or the department that deals with intellectual disabilities. Borderline cases often are problematic because of this.
Even those with high iq scores are often susceptible to mental health issues that might escape a person of average intelligence. But ive never taken one and i never will

low IQ cope ngl

 

[SilasSoStupid]

I like athleticism tests

an iq score is simply one piece of a muuch larger puzzle when measuring a persons overall ability. Like processing speed, reasoning working memory and other factors are analyzed as well. And the only number that really counts or matters is 70 because that directs the individual to either the mental health department of the state or the department that deals with intellectual disabilities. Borderline cases often are problematic because of this.
Even those with high iq scores are often susceptible to mental health issues that might escape a person of average intelligence. But ive never taken one and i never will

I like athleticism tests

 

[leea]

Because religion was built on patriarchal concepts and systems (sexism basically) and in those times men were seen as superior to women and therefore they attributed the male pronouns to "god" which got stuck and people still use it nowadays without questioning it
Also if Jesus was a woman they would have thought shes a witch and immediately killed her instead of spreading this religious propaganda, and if god was believed to be a "woman" people wouldnt believe in this religion
I mean its stupid to put a social/biological label on a deity and theoretically god couldnt be a woman or any other gender but then why do we use male pronouns on god? Why do "we" see him as a father? Because patriarchal constructs appeared thousands of years before christ and religion was basically a way to shape humans into really believing men are superior. Also people are close minded and cant adapt to new concepts. And why do people get offended? Because they view those ancient texts as sacred, so changing the male pronouns would basically change how they saw it in history which is understandable but again extremely close minded

This actually makes sense ngl

 

[Throw_aside]

is this good enough for hush? View attachment 420830

shit i accidentally went to sheol after raping it, i do have negative but i wanted to go up first

 

[leea]

low IQ cope ngl

Whats your iq?

 

[foidslayer]

This actually makes sense ngl

ad hominems coming in clutch!

 

[foidslayer]

Whats your iq?

top 99.7th percentile mensa tested

 

[lambosforjesus]

Even if we accept your premise that neither men nor women literally create or give life from nothing, that still doesn't explain why god is referred to as “he” rather than “she.” If god is REALLY beyond biological sex then using exclusively masculine pronouns isnt any more scientifically justified than using feminine ones. You cant argue that god is beyond gender while simultaneously treating one gendered description as the default and the other as a humanification or as offensive. Also claims about half souls and celestial beings, and god animating biological vessels arent scientific facts theyre metaphysical or religious beliefs, regardless of how strongly you believe in them theres nothing scientific about it

I can answer nearly ALL your questions, Leea. Again, I learn from the highest beings in the universe living in 8th through 36th sphere spirit worlds typically between 250 and 100,000 years old. Conversely, Earth is 1st sphere and populated with naive new souls . - The Buddha and many, if not MOST, of the other individuals thought to be prophets are still STALLED in 6th sphere worlds at this very moment.

You are naturally assuming I'm just some other ordinary random person on the web bandying my relative beliefs about. This is not the case.
Here is a teaching/priceless adage on the general topic of a person's level of knowledge:

YOU CAN RISE NO HIGHER THAN THE SOURCE FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION.

Now to answer your questions...

"Even if we accept your premise that neither men nor women literally create or give life from nothing, that still doesn't explain why god is referred to as “he” rather than “she.”"

People refer to God as a HE .. because they are not truly connected to God.. and basically DO NOT KNOW what they are talking about. Earth is a low realm where the average human has a soul developed at a tadpole level.. and I am even talking about the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND MOST REVERED THINKERS and DOERS and BUSINESSMAN of Earth and even PHILOSOPHERS and MOST WORLDWIDE SPIRITUALISTS - who are merely under the influence of Earthbound or 1st sphere or "natural_love" spirits non-divine.

Earth is virtually an upside down realm.. in how wrong most mainstream respected beliefs are.

God is a he and a she. So your intuition is basically correct on this one. Plus, the Bible has been processed through human understandings and filters. Mary Magdalen's writings were literally taken out, and she was actually the other soul-half of the Jesus entity. Again, it sounds extreme or hyperbolic, but most humans just don't know anything real.. and the same goes for discarnate spirits of which there are 20 billion invisibly around Earth right now.

"Also claims about half souls and celestial beings, and god animating biological vessels arent scientific facts theyre metaphysical or religious beliefs, regardless of how strongly you believe in them theres nothing scientific about it."

No, Leea. It's ALL.. already been proven by the 2.5 billion spirits in celestial heavens representing only 4% of the soulful entities in the universe. It's all SOURCED and completely known information (by those who know.. hmm lol ).. you just don't hang with people who know enough - due to what I mentioned in my previous answer. about how low Earth is.. and how SO FEW actually know truth.

Again.. YOU CAN RISE NO HIGHER THAN THE SOURCE FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION. If you hang with humans.. you are going to wield in your subconscious a lot of limiting beliefs and understandings regarding existence.

KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS! Divine teachers don't run, since once real truth is inside you,, you will naturally want to share it with others.. which is an ATTRIBUTE OF TRUTH by universal design, btw, so it can propagate. This propagation can occurr since TRUTH STANDS FIXED, UNTHREATENED, and IMMUTABLE as tentative seekers skirt to and fro timidly about it.. sometimes curious, sometimes fearful, sometimes testing it.. until they realize it is FACT. -

These are advanced concepts. Leea. I am not religious, but a teacher of the universe.. and know in detail the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Jesus.. not those vaguely conveyed in the Bible.

-Lambos

 

[Throw_aside]

I can answer nearly ALL your questions, Leea. Again, I learn from the highest beings in the universe living in 8th through 36th sphere spirit worlds typically between 250 and 100,000 years old. Conversely, Earth is 1st sphere and populated with naive new souls . - The Buddha and many, if not MOST, of the other individuals thought to be prophets are still STALLED in 6th sphere worlds at this very moment.

You are naturally assuming I'm just some other ordinary random person on the web bandying my relative beliefs about. This is not the case.
Here is a teaching/priceless adage on the general topic of a person's level of knowledge:

YOU CAN RISE NO HIGHER THAN THE SOURCE FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION.

Now to answer your questions...

"Even if we accept your premise that neither men nor women literally create or give life from nothing, that still doesn't explain why god is referred to as “he” rather than “she.”"

People refer to God as a HE .. because they are not truly connected to God.. and basically DO NOT KNOW what they are talking about. Earth is a low realm where the average human has a soul developed at a tadpole level.. and I am even talking about the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND MOST REVERED THINKERS and DOERS and BUSINESSMAN of Earth and even PHILOSOPHERS and MOST WORLDWIDE SPIRITUALISTS - who are merely under the influence of Earthbound or 1st sphere or "natural_love" spirits non-divine.

Earth is virtually an upside down realm.. in how wrong most mainstream respected beliefs are.

God is a he and a she. So your intuition is basically correct on this one. Plus, the Bible has been processed through human understandings and filters. Mary Magdalen's writings were literally taken out, and she was actually the other soul-half of the Jesus entity. Again, it sounds extreme or hyperbolic, but most humans just don't know anything real.. and the same goes for discarnate spirits of which there are 20 billion invisibly around Earth right now.

"Also claims about half souls and celestial beings, and god animating biological vessels arent scientific facts theyre metaphysical or religious beliefs, regardless of how strongly you believe in them theres nothing scientific about it."

No, Leea. It's ALL.. already been proven by the 2.5 billion spirits in celestial heavens representing only 4% of the soulful entities in the universe. It's all SOURCED and completely known information (by those who know.. hmm lol ).. you just don't hang with people who know enough - due to what I mentioned in my previous answer. about how low Earth is.. and how SO FEW actually know truth.

Again.. YOU CAN RISE NO HIGHER THAN THE SOURCE FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION. If you hang with humans.. you are going to wield in your subconscious a lot of limiting beliefs and understandings regarding existence.

KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS! Divine teachers don't run, since once real truth is inside you,, you will naturally want to share it with others.. which is an ATTRIBUTE OF TRUTH by universal design, btw, so it can propagate. This propagation can occurr since TRUTH STANDS FIXED, UNTHREATENED, and IMMUTABLE as tentative seekers skirt to and fro timidly about it.. sometimes curious, sometimes fearful, sometimes testing it.. until they realize it is FACT. -

These are advanced concepts. Leea. I am not religious, but a teacher of the universe.. and know in detail the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Jesus.. not those vaguely conveyed in the Bible.

-Lambos

dnr

 

[leea]

top 99.7th percentile mensa tested

Coping with mental illness, thats what they want you to believe

 

[foidslayer]

Coping with mental illness, thats what they want you to believe

You've outdone yourself this time

 

[Throw_aside]

It's kind of interesting how online debate is meaningless, whereas real life debate is so good, because online once the guy starts ragebaiting or using fallacies, that's it. you leave unsatisfied, whereas irl you can just beat up and r**e the other party if you get annoyed after a certain point. water

 

[aspiringstacy]

men are simply more willing to commit on their anger and show aggression
there's a lower barrier, that's why even in an age where war/battle is dictated by guns/technology
5 single moms would likely not defeat 5 men of their own age

this is why patriarchy exists in fact

so
foid=emotional
men= high t warrior

First of all u should study bio essentialism before coming on here spewing out bs like this
Men arent more willing to commit on their anger and show aggression just because they were born as men
Just as women arent more "sensitive" because they were born as women
Its just how most if not all cultures were built, men were raised with the idea of expressing distress through anger and physical violence while women were raised to be patient and not escalate conflict. It was never biological, it was cultural conditioning. And the people that spread this myth are ignorants themselves yet they never really question it. If youre specialised in biology or psychology im waiting for ur counterargument
Second of all physical size doesnt have anything to do with combat. Weapons were created exactly with the goal of eliminating physical strength differences. Victory doesnt depend on gender, it really depends on training, a woman could do as well as a man with the same training. In history and even nowadays men were forced to serve in the army so they represented a majority, which explains why most people nowadays still think men make better soldiers, which is just untrue

 

[leea]

I can answer nearly ALL your questions, Leea. Again, I learn from the highest beings in the universe living in 8th through 36th sphere spirit worlds typically between 250 and 100,000 years old. Conversely, Earth is 1st sphere and populated with naive new souls . - The Buddha and many, if not MOST, of the other individuals thought to be prophets are still STALLED in 6th sphere worlds at this very moment.

You are naturally assuming I'm just some other ordinary random person on the web bandying my relative beliefs about. This is not the case.
Here is a teaching/priceless adage on the general topic of a person's level of knowledge:

ive been studying mainstream religions for a while. And all of them go against science but lets suppose christianity is this perfect and flawless religion. You would still have to prove that these beings actually exist that you can reliably communicate with them and that what they tell you is not just an interpretation or something that cannot be independently verified. Otherwise it basically becomes trust me because my source knows more than you. Its not scientific at all and theres no proof of it?
Claiming that earth is a low realm does not really solve that either. If someone disagrees you can just say they are too spiritually undeveloped to understand the truth which makes the claim impossible to properly challenge or test. That is not really evidence the same goes for the 8th through 36th spheres billions of spirits soul halves and celestial beings. You can believe in all of that but calling it scientific fact requires evidence that other people can independently test and reproduce. Spiritual beliefs and scientific evidence are not the same thing
And your own saying that you can rise no higher than the source you receive information from applies to you too. How do you know your sources are actually higher beings and not beings that simply claim to be higher beings you cant literally explain religion WITH religion

YOU CAN RISE NO HIGHER THAN THE SOURCE FROM WHICH YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION.


Now to answer your questions...

"Even if we accept your premise that neither men nor women literally create or give life from nothing, that still doesn't explain why god is referred to as “he” rather than “she.”"

People refer to God as a HE .. because they are not truly connected to God.. and basically DO NOT KNOW what they are talking about. Earth is a low realm where the average human has a soul developed at a tadpole level.. and I am even talking about the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND MOST REVERED THINKERS and DOERS and BUSINESSMAN of Earth and even PHILOSOPHERS and MOST WORLDWIDE SPIRITUALISTS - who are merely under the influence of Earthbound or 1st sphere or "natural_love" spirits non-divine.

Earth is virtually an upside down realm.. in how wrong most mainstream respected beliefs are.

Most of them are influenced by religion because they want to enforce or promote religious beliefs onto other people and society. They can also use their intelligence and reputation to make religious ideas seem more credible or convincing even when intelligence itself does not prove that those religious claims are true.

God is a he and a she. So your intuition is basically correct on this one. Plus, the Bible has been processed through human understandings and filters. Mary Magdalen's writings were literally taken out, and she was actually the other soul-half of the Jesus entity. Again, it sounds extreme or hyperbolic, but most humans just don't know anything real.. and the same goes for discarnate spirits of which there are 20 billion invisibly around Earth right now.

If the traditional understanding is supposedly wrong then you still have to demonstrate why your version is more reliable. Otherwise anyone could claim they have access to the real teachings and dismiss everyone else as ignorant.
Also if god is beyond biological sex then it would make more sense to describe god as genderless rather than insisting god is literally both male and female. Masculine and feminine language can be used symbolically without meaning god actually has a biological gender.

"Also claims about half souls and celestial beings, and god animating biological vessels arent scientific facts theyre metaphysical or religious beliefs, regardless of how strongly you believe in them theres nothing scientific about it."


No, Leea. It's ALL.. already been proven by the 2.5 billion spirits in celestial heavens representing only 4% of the soulful entities in the universe. It's all SOURCED and completely known information (by those who know.. hmm lol ).. you just don't hang with people who know enough - due to what I mentioned in my previous answer. about how low Earth is.. and how SO FEW actually know truth.

Youre proving religion with religion and i dont believe in both.
If a group of beings allegedly believes or teaches something is not independent evidence that the claim is true. You would still need some way for people outside that group to verify it.but you just assuming your sources are correct before you have demonstrated that they are. If the information is genuinely universal truth then it should not depend on being part of a particular spiritual circle to recognize it? If its the truth i wouldnt NEED to be influenced to believe it.

 

[foidslayer]

First of all u should study bio essentialism before coming on here spewing out bs like this
Men arent more willing to commit on their anger and show aggression just because they were born as men
Just as women arent more "sensitive" because they were born as women
Its just how most if not all cultures were built, men were raised with the idea of expressing distress through anger and physical violence while women were raised to be patient and not escalate conflict. It was never biological, it was cultural conditioning. And the people that spread this myth are ignorants themselves yet they never really question it. If youre specialised in biology or psychology im waiting for ur counterargument
Second of all physical size doesnt have anything to do with combat. Weapons were created exactly with the goal of eliminating physical strength differences. Victory doesnt depend on gender, it really depends on training, a woman could do as well as a man with the same training. In history and even nowadays men were forced to serve in the army so they represented a majority, which explains why most people nowadays still think men make better soldiers, which is just untrue

wanna know something? women would be more aggressive than men with the same exact power

study done on it too read "Queens" 2020, not to mention the fact that there's a reason why female cops have a bad reputation

men make better soldiers because they're physically stronger and mentally more aligned with it. You still need the strength to handle heavy weapons like an AK47 or M16

Men are also better strategists for war, there are twice as men with 120IQ than women. And if you're calling IQ cope here's a chart of general intelligence

 

[Throw_aside]

ive been studying mainstream religions for a while. And all of them go against science but lets suppose christianity is this perfect and flawless religion. You would still have to prove that these beings actually exist that you can reliably communicate with them and that what they tell you is not just an interpretation or something that cannot be independently verified. Otherwise it basically becomes trust me because my source knows more than you. Its not scientific at all and theres no proof of it?
Claiming that earth is a low realm does not really solve that either. If someone disagrees you can just say they are too spiritually undeveloped to understand the truth which makes the claim impossible to properly challenge or test. That is not really evidence the same goes for the 8th through 36th spheres billions of spirits soul halves and celestial beings. You can believe in all of that but calling it scientific fact requires evidence that other people can independently test and reproduce. Spiritual beliefs and scientific evidence are not the same thing
And your own saying that you can rise no higher than the source you receive information from applies to you too. How do you know your sources are actually higher beings and not beings that simply claim to be higher beings you cant literally explain religion WITH religion

Most of them are influenced by religion because they want to enforce or promote religious beliefs onto other people and society. They can also use their intelligence and reputation to make religious ideas seem more credible or convincing even when intelligence itself does not prove that those religious claims are true.

If the traditional understanding is supposedly wrong then you still have to demonstrate why your version is more reliable. Otherwise anyone could claim they have access to the real teachings and dismiss everyone else as ignorant.
Also if god is beyond biological sex then it would make more sense to describe god as genderless rather than insisting god is literally both male and female. Masculine and feminine language can be used symbolically without meaning god actually has a biological gender.

Youre proving religion with religion and i dont believe in both.
If a group of beings allegedly believes or teaches something is not independent evidence that the claim is true. You would still need some way for people outside that group to verify it.but you just assuming your sources are correct before you have demonstrated that they are. If the information is genuinely universal truth then it should not depend on being part of a particular spiritual circle to recognize it? If its the truth i wouldnt NEED to be influenced to believe it.

15 paragraphs just to say "where iz deee evidensee for ur religion1!"

 

[ghoulmania]

@lowlife who let this gentile speak

 

[foidslayer]

ive been studying mainstream religions for a while. And all of them go against science but lets suppose christianity is this perfect and flawless religion. You would still have to prove that these beings actually exist that you can reliably communicate with them and that what they tell you is not just an interpretation or something that cannot be independently verified. Otherwise it basically becomes trust me because my source knows more than you. Its not scientific at all and theres no proof of it?
Claiming that earth is a low realm does not really solve that either. If someone disagrees you can just say they are too spiritually undeveloped to understand the truth which makes the claim impossible to properly challenge or test. That is not really evidence the same goes for the 8th through 36th spheres billions of spirits soul halves and celestial beings. You can believe in all of that but calling it scientific fact requires evidence that other people can independently test and reproduce. Spiritual beliefs and scientific evidence are not the same thing
And your own saying that you can rise no higher than the source you receive information from applies to you too. How do you know your sources are actually higher beings and not beings that simply claim to be higher beings you cant literally explain religion WITH religion

Most of them are influenced by religion because they want to enforce or promote religious beliefs onto other people and society. They can also use their intelligence and reputation to make religious ideas seem more credible or convincing even when intelligence itself does not prove that those religious claims are true.

If the traditional understanding is supposedly wrong then you still have to demonstrate why your version is more reliable. Otherwise anyone could claim they have access to the real teachings and dismiss everyone else as ignorant.
Also if god is beyond biological sex then it would make more sense to describe god as genderless rather than insisting god is literally both male and female. Masculine and feminine language can be used symbolically without meaning god actually has a biological gender.

Youre proving religion with religion and i dont believe in both.
If a group of beings allegedly believes or teaches something is not independent evidence that the claim is true. You would still need some way for people outside that group to verify it.but you just assuming your sources are correct before you have demonstrated that they are. If the information is genuinely universal truth then it should not depend on being part of a particular spiritual circle to recognize it? If its the truth i wouldnt NEED to be influenced to believe it.

This is just wrong, you're basing your entire life and personality on falsifications which is kind of pityful to see, not that I'd have any empathy for a lowly being such as yourself anyhow

 

[bledilletante]

wanna know something? women would be more aggressive than men with the same exact power

study done on it too read "Queens" 2020, not to mention the fact that there's a reason why female cops have a bad reputation

men make better soldiers because they're physically stronger and mentally more aligned with it. You still need the strength to handle heavy weapons like an AK47 or M16

Men are also better strategists for war, there are twice as men with 120IQ than women. And if you're calling IQ cope here's a chart of general intelligence

View attachment 420851

Yeah and your wunderful graph proves there is twice as many male imbeciles than women and yet conviniently it is not mentioned. What is this cope. This indicates they are also "better" for war meat so it is not really all that.

 

[foidslayer]

Yeah and your wunderful graph proves there is twice as many male imbeciles than women and yet conviniently it is not mentioned. What is this cope. This indicates they are also "better" for war meat so it is not really all that.

? read the graph it isn't the IQ graph G

keep these retards coming at me jfl

 

[Throw_aside]

? read the graph it isn't the IQ graph G

keep these retards coming at me jfl

foid thinks every graph regarding male to female intelligence is that one bell curve, can't actually understand graphs and accidentally proves she's one of the midwits instead of what shes larping as (High IQ)

 

[bledilletante]

i am not talking about IQ dimwit

 

[foidslayer]

i am not talking about IQ dimwit

there wasn't any other graph in the message f****t

 

[bledilletante]

No shit, im talking about general inteligence. It is tied into the reqruitment process r****d. The military does not use traditional IQ tests for recruitment, but the ASVAB - Relies on g.

 

[Carcinogenic]

who cares that dose not change that sinners go to hell and the righteous to heaven

 

[aspiringstacy]

wanna know something? women would be more aggressive than men with the same exact power

More? Not necessarily more we never really had the same number of women as leaders as we had men to get to that conclusion. Youre making generalisations based on a small group. For example if you went to pick out some strawberries from a field and the first two you picked were mouldy, does that mean most of the field is? You didnt get to taste more to arrive at a conclusion of the estimated percentages. What youre doing is ignoring the difference in sample size

study done on it too read "Queens" 2020, not to mention the fact that there's a reason why female cops have a bad reputation

Well yes, because throughout history women that were in power still had to operate by men made political systems. They had to prove they werent weak to not be perceived as vulnerable by opponents. Those studies dont show anything about biological impulses, they just show womens response to political necessity, which is often agressive

men make better soldiers

Hm..

because they're physically stronger and mentally more aligned with it. You still need the strength to handle heavy weapons like an AK47 or M16

Yes because theyre trained. Train an average woman and she will have just as good performance. Yes, it is true that our bodies are made differently, men have higher body density and women in lower body. But instead of saying one is more useful than the other we need to understand raw lifting power isnt the only necessary thing in combat. Also the weapons u mentioned weigh only like 3-4 kg and are held in both hands, it would really take like only a few days of training for women to be able to hold that well. When I used to go to the gym I could easily lift 10kg in each hand because i trained for it (i wouldve made even further progress but i had to quit)

Men are also better strategists for war, there are twice as men with 120IQ than women.

And if you're calling IQ cope here's a chart of general intelligence

View attachment 420851

There arent as twice men, also i looked up the graph and it seems to be older than both of us so if you really believe in such old statistics when theres newer available data from neuroscience thats on you or youre just cherry picking just like you did with the queens study
Its proved that women and men dont have significant general iq differences
Also if you wanted to know, theres just slightly more men but theyre at both extremes, sub human iq and genius, and the percentage is too small to conclude such general ideas
Also strategy isnt only tied to iq, its about developing a skill set. You have to learn how to analyse information, risk and predict. These skills are only learned through education and experience, not through your ability to recognise patterns, it does help but imo only like 30% not entirely

 

[foidslayer]

More? Not necessarily more we never really had the same number of women as leaders as we had men to get to that conclusion. Youre making generalisations based on a small group. For example if you went to pick out some strawberries from a field and the first two you picked were mouldy, does that mean most of the field is? You didnt get to taste more to arrive at a conclusion of the estimated percentages. What youre doing is ignoring the difference in sample size

Well yes, because throughout history women that were in power still had to operate by men made political systems. They had to prove they werent weak to not be perceived as vulnerable by opponents. Those studies dont show anything about biological impulses, they just show womens response to political necessity, which is often agressive

Hm..

Yes because theyre trained. Train an average woman and she will have just as good performance. Yes, it is true that our bodies are made differently, men have higher body density and women in lower body. But instead of saying one is more useful than the other we need to understand raw lifting power isnt the only necessary thing in combat. Also the weapons u mentioned weigh only like 3-4 kg and are held in both hands, it would really take like only a few days of training for women to be able to hold that well. When I used to go to the gym I could easily lift 10kg in each hand because i trained for it (i wouldve made even further progress but i had to quit)


There arent as twice men, also i looked up the graph and it seems to be older than both of us so if you really believe in such old statistics when theres newer available data from neuroscience thats on you or youre just cherry picking just like you did with the queens study
Its proved that women and men dont have significant general iq differences
Also if you wanted to know, theres just slightly more men but theyre at both extremes, sub human iq and genius, and the percentage is too small to conclude such general ideas
Also strategy isnt only tied to iq, its about developing a skill set. You have to learn how to analyse information, risk and predict. These skills are only learned through education and experience, not through your ability to recognise patterns, it does help but imo only like 30% not entirely

What's with ngas and the graph it isn't about IQ

search up the bell curve of iq dumbass and you forgot about something called weapon recoil that will break your shoulder

if women were just as good as men in the military field they'd hire more women

"operate by men systems" they were rulers dumbass holy shit they were operating under a woman's system

you spend all this blabber all this time typing to look smart when I fuck your arguement with half as many words and complexity

and it's certainly not a small group, you cant discredit the study based on your emotions

 

[aspiringstacy]

What's with ngas and the graph it isn't about IQ

You yourself said its about iq and btw the bell curve is a measure of the differences between IQ distributed in the populations so yes it is about iq literally look at the fucking graph sent by you it says general intelligence

search up the bell curve of iq dumbass

Nice of u to use an ad hominem attack by calling me that and also denying the fact that i knew already what the bell curve of the iq is ,but really u wont make me fall for it
since youre so egotistical that you had to mention your iq, ill let you know im at the same level as you

and you forgot about something called weapon recoil that will break your shoulder

Ive really got no clue where you got the fact that weapon recoil will break your shoulder, i suppose u mean heavy artillery used incorrectly, and btw the AK-47 u mentioned barely feels like a push and the recoil in general of weapons has to be practiced, i took a shooting course with the PAK-9 and i can assure you i know what recoil is and also the fact that flr me to get to shoot such a lightweight weapon i still needed a shit ton of supervision and training from experts, let alone heavier stuff which have bigger recoil

if women were just as good as men in the military field they'd hire more women

or maybe women were culturally conditioned to not go into such fields and were discouraged, its not like theres a smaller number of spots its just less demand from women, and if it were for that there would be 0 women in the military, yet theres millions worldwide. id quit studying just to go into the army and prove u wrong

"operate by men systems" they were rulers dumbass holy shit they were operating under a woman's system

bro you mustve skipped lessons in history cause reading this feels unreal, you do realise that rulers couldnt do anything they want right? there were other institutions (the amount depends on the period of time) which had far more control than the queen or king. and do u really think those institutions were led by women? no, only by men. the only reason women got to be queens is because in a monarchy its the descendants that get the throne and in some situations they didnt have a choice but to pick a woman as ruler

you spend all this blabber all this time typing to look smart when I fuck your arguement with half as many words and complexity

using actual arguments and having to type more to prove my claim =typing to look smart
youre also using the fallacy of brevity
no u really didnt fuck my argument, all u did is become defensive and also attack the way i said it or understood things rather than counterargument the thing itself just to avoid the subject

and it's certainly not a small group, you cant discredit the study based on your emotions

wdym not a small group? in history there were THOUSANDS of male monarchs, emperors,etc while theres barely a few female figures and it was even so rare that those female figures got global recognition. also only around 3% if not less of rulers were women. it is a small group . also im not discrediting the study based on my emotions, i dont see where im being emotional, im disagreeing with the way youre using the study. i never said i dont agree with the queens study, i do agree, but we really have to question what led to these statistics, not assume biological facts about people which lived in different societies and were conditioned by culture and politics


when your arguments arent cherry picked, dont use ad hominem or the brevity bias and are also sustained by verifiable facts and the logic your brain is missing, please let me know to have a further debate

till then i think im gonna cry in my bed cus foidslayer got insecure of my "big words"

 

[foidslayer]

You yourself said its about iq and btw the bell curve is a measure of the differences between IQ distributed in the populations so yes it is about iq literally look at the fucking graph sent by you it says general intelligence

Nice of u to use an ad hominem attack by calling me that and also denying the fact that i knew already what the bell curve of the iq is ,but really u wont make me fall for it
since youre so egotistical that you had to mention your iq, ill let you know im at the same level as you

Ive really got no clue where you got the fact that weapon recoil will break your shoulder, i suppose u mean heavy artillery used incorrectly, and btw the AK-47 u mentioned barely feels like a push and the recoil in general of weapons has to be practiced, i took a shooting course with the PAK-9 and i can assure you i know what recoil is and also the fact that flr me to get to shoot such a lightweight weapon i still needed a shit ton of supervision and training from experts, let alone heavier stuff which have bigger recoil

or maybe women were culturally conditioned to not go into such fields and were discouraged, its not like theres a smaller number of spots its just less demand from women, and if it were for that there would be 0 women in the military, yet theres millions worldwide. id quit studying just to go into the army and prove u wrong

bro you mustve skipped lessons in history cause reading this feels unreal, you do realise that rulers couldnt do anything they want right? there were other institutions (the amount depends on the period of time) which had far more control than the queen or king. and do u really think those institutions were led by women? no, only by men. the only reason women got to be queens is because in a monarchy its the descendants that get the throne and in some situations they didnt have a choice but to pick a woman as ruler

using actual arguments and having to type more to prove my claim =typing to look smart
youre also using the fallacy of brevity
no u really didnt fuck my argument, all u did is become defensive and also attack the way i said it or understood things rather than counterargument the thing itself just to avoid the subject

wdym not a small group? in history there were THOUSANDS of male monarchs, emperors,etc while theres barely a few female figures and it was even so rare that those female figures got global recognition. also only around 3% if not less of rulers were women. it is a small group . also im not discrediting the study based on my emotions, i dont see where im being emotional, im disagreeing with the way youre using the study. i never said i dont agree with the queens study, i do agree, but we really have to question what led to these statistics, not assume biological facts about people which lived in different societies and were conditioned by culture and politics


when your arguments arent cherry picked, dont use ad hominem or the brevity bias and are also sustained by verifiable facts and the logic your brain is missing, please let me know to have a further debate

till then i think im gonna cry in my bed cus foidslayer got insecure of my "big words"

your whole arguement is an ad hominem which is funny

you just type a bunch of bullshit and act smart which is pityful

the greatest historical minds preferred basic english rather than useless blabber

 

[aspiringstacy]

your whole arguement is an ad hominem which is funny

it literally isnt i used counterarguments i didnt attack the way you write, even rn youre attacking my style of writing and length like legit proving the ad hominem, and even if i was dont forget about the tone policing fallacy you used the past 2 replies (youve really had like 4 fallacies already)
but at this point its no longer even a debate its criticising each other

you just type a bunch of bullshit

yet u refuse to tell me what the bullshit is whatsoever

and act smart

yes cause im definitely the one that had to mention iq tested by mensa just to have a reason to call the others dumbasses and basically reject all their arguments just because my narcissistic tendencies tell me im better than them intellectually and superior... yea it was definitely me..

which is pityful

good thing im self reliant and im not looking for other peoples validation unlike some

the greatest historical minds preferred basic english

and youve read all of their works? also it really depends because you cant put for example english literature in the same boat as physics
i never called myself a great mind and i doubt youre an exceptional genius that could achieve as much as those historical minds

rather than useless blabber

here again trying to make it seem as if an argument is wrong just because its longer meanwhile my answers were just more detailed (tone policing/brevity fallacy again)
i participated in national debates im pretty sure i know at least how a debate really works i never said i was more intelligent im just more knowledgeable in such fields.
your only argument as of now is how smart other people try to "act", yet you wouldnt know how a person really thinks nor how do they perceive themselves, but no im not acting smart, this is just the way of language i process information in and can express myself clearly

again this arguing turned into criticising one another so ill js stop entertaining
have a nice evening or whatever its for u gg i got better stuff to do

 

[foidslayer]

it literally isnt i used counterarguments i didnt attack the way you write, even rn youre attacking my style of writing and length like legit proving the ad hominem, and even if i was dont forget about the tone policing fallacy you used the past 2 replies (youve really had like 4 fallacies already)
but at this point its no longer even a debate its criticising each other

yet u refuse to tell me what the bullshit is whatsoever

yes cause im definitely the one that had to mention iq tested by mensa just to have a reason to call the others dumbasses and basically reject all their arguments just because my narcissistic tendencies tell me im better than them intellectually and superior... yea it was definitely me..

good thing im self reliant and im not looking for other peoples validation unlike some

and youve read all of their works? also it really depends because you cant put for example english literature in the same boat as physics
i never called myself a great mind and i doubt youre an exceptional genius that could achieve as much as those historical minds

here again trying to make it seem as if an argument is wrong just because its longer meanwhile my answers were just more detailed (tone policing/brevity fallacy again)
i participated in national debates im pretty sure i know at least how a debate really works i never said i was more intelligent im just more knowledgeable in such fields.
your only argument as of now is how smart other people try to "act", yet you wouldnt know how a person really thinks nor how do they perceive themselves, but no im not acting smart, this is just the way of language i process information in and can express myself clearly

again this arguing turned into criticising one another so ill js stop entertaining
have a nice evening or whatever its for u gg i got better stuff to do

all this pointless blabber and you wonder why women aren't voted for

 

[leea]

all this pointless blabber and you wonder why women aren't voted for

Just say you cant debate for shit

 

[foidslayer]

Just say you cant debate for shit

it isn't a debate if you can't read what i send properly then proceed to drop a wall of text because your ego got hurt

 

[Hector of Troy]

First of all u should study bio essentialism before coming on here spewing out bs like this
Men arent more willing to commit on their anger and show aggression just because they were born as men
Just as women arent more "sensitive" because they were born as women
Its just how most if not all cultures were built, men were raised with the idea of expressing distress through anger and physical violence while women were raised to be patient and not escalate conflict. It was never biological, it was cultural conditioning. And the people that spread this myth are ignorants themselves yet they never really question it. If youre specialised in biology or psychology im waiting for ur counterargument
Second of all physical size doesnt have anything to do with combat. Weapons were created exactly with the goal of eliminating physical strength differences. Victory doesnt depend on gender, it really depends on training, a woman could do as well as a man with the same training. In history and even nowadays men were forced to serve in the army so they represented a majority, which explains why most people nowadays still think men make better soldiers, which is just untrue

i don't think you know what biological essentialism means
and yes men are inherently more aggressive (aggressive not angry)
and women are inherently more emotional , you adding "x aren't y just because they're x" is not an argument nor does it refute any point

you're basically saying , men are more aggressive because culture
main problem with attributing these vast differences to the environment or even stricter "culture" is its just wrong

first question you have to ask yourself before even forming this argument is
how did so many different human groups, living in vastly different areas
you have groups that had different patterns of mating, some groups reached puberty faster, some lived in resource rich, some in resource poor, some in hot, some in cold geographies

how did all these different groups reach the same cultural outcome and came up with enforcing this culture on their males, and make them more aggressive?

Secondly what i'm saying is not remotely controversial unless it's discussed in some extremely liberal blue haired foid filled circle
there is robust biological evidence on why human males are inherently more aggressive

1- way higher circulating testosterone levels

2-evolutionary selection

males competed for territory, mates,status and etc
way more than females

after so many generations this would produce more aggressive males in comparison


3-there's some evidence for different male brain development

i could go on and, or explain each and how they would amount to more aggressive males and less aggressive females if you're interested

your last part of the argument is out of touch with reality
and i'm saying this as someone who trains
let's not even take sex and how differences there produce way better male fighters on average
you could possibly have a very competent male fighter lose a fight against a less competent, less trained male who's just bigger in size

even if we control for size AND agression AND amount of muscle (which is really reaching it but just for the sake of the argument )
males are naturally way stronger in their upper bodies

i've trained with girls and can confidently tell you, there are plenty of trained girls who would easily get beat by some random big guy with no training

and as for weapons and them eliminating the strength gap

that was my original point, and the topic of the discussion
SINCE males have a natural tendency of being more likely to act on their anger, be aggressive
females even with the existence of weapons that eliminate the differences between the physically weak and strong would not be able to beat men, be better soldiers/make better warriors

this behavior of male agression is not even remotely human specific
look at most mammals, look at our closest evolutionary cousins, other primates
>male bigger, stronger,more aggressive
because higher t, because they fight over mate status etc

and if you want to properly argue
you actually have to give reasons for your claims
saying it's just "untrue" is not evidence

 

[XWJJ]

Why do -------------------->SOME <--------------------------- religious people get offended when i refer to god as she?
I mean technically women are the closest thing to god they give life but why get offended. The non binary genderless pronoun is they/them and i dont even see them use it instead???

Brown hands typed this

 

[kys]

-------------------->SOME <--------------------------

there is your answer n****r

 

[leea]

Brown hands typed this

Im white as cum

 

[leea]

there is your answer n****r

Actually its most, i just didnt want to offend yalls sensitive asses

 

[kys]

Actually its most, i just didnt want to offend yalls sensitive asses

if god is genderless in the certain religion and some of the followers get offended whose wrong in this instance?

 

[leea]

if god is genderless in the certain religion and some of the followers get offended whose wrong in this instance?

The religious

 

[kys]

The religious

exactly, the religion declared the god is genderless just don't give it much thought or something

 

[hyperion]

Why do -------------------->SOME <--------------------------- religious people get offended when i refer to god as she?
I mean technically women are the closest thing to god they give life but why get offended. The non binary genderless pronoun is they/them and i dont even see them use it instead???

Genuinely the most insufferable, useless and retarded user to ever hex this forum.

Constant projection of you, who yourself is clearly a male pajeet, as some righteous defender of femininity.

No would take advantage of your drunken self at a house party - despite how much you drink, you hairy disgusting freak.

 

[saccharinesaint]

Wow putting religion bait and gender bait into one post

This is your best work so far. Mirin

shes lowkey a genius

 

[leea]

Genuinely the most insufferable, useless and retarded user to ever hex this forum.

Constant projection of you, who yourself is clearly a male pajeet, as some righteous defender of femininity.

No would take advantage of your drunken self at a house party - despite how much you drink, you hairy disgusting freak.

I think the way you type is more insufferable yo

 

[hyperion]

I think the way you type is more insufferable yo

I doubt I'd fuck you.

 

[leea]

I doubt I'd fuck you.

As if youd even have that choice

 

[XWJJ]

This type of post is genuinely so insufferable because its terrible bait but its just so bad that it loops back to being rage inducing

 

[leea]

This type of post is genuinely so insufferable because its terrible bait but its just so bad that it loops back to being rage inducing

Terrible bait but 4 pages make it make sense, its not even bait yall are just way too sensitive

 

[hyperion]

Terrible bait but 4 pages make it make sense, its not even bait yall are just way too sensitive

Sensitive - as if most people here aren't retarded retards such as yourself seeking attention.

Just kill yourself.