Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
cn, i don't think it's a male/female dynamic, it's a vulnerable vs powerful dynamicwhen i was a child, there were numerous attempts at me from pedophilesI lived on a house that had a long driveway the length of a football field+ that was isolated up on a hill - twice i was staked out by pedophiles who pulled up the driveway after i got dropped off by the schoolbus and walked u
Wow. Sorry to hear all that mate.
As a kid my next door neighbor was a pedo and it was well known. It was the one house the neighborhood kids knew (and were told) to never enter. We all used to play outside a lot and I remember him requesting us to play (basketball?) with our shirts off because he just got a new camcorder and wanted to see how the sun reflected or some other BS excuse.
He was the bandleader at the local school and I'm sure he got some victims. It didn't help his cause that he was a fat slob.
Although not exactly a tale of valor, I have a funny story about a friend who lived in West Philly during the late 1980s and early 1990s, which wasn't the safest time in the history of that neighborhood. He said that he was walking down the street with his girlfriend when someone rushed him from behind and knocked him to the ground. He immediately took off running. After run
You don't have to be faster than the bad guy, just faster than your woman.
A+
Thanks guys, I appreciate the stories and helping me win the debate ♥
Must not have been a very good debate if a series of anecdotes won it.
Not to make light of it but I know for a fact it's not all true. Don't tell anyone, but we knew just how much nitro we could add to our racing kart fuel or how long we could soak our tires in solvent so as not to get caught. Like they say in the racing world: it's only cheating if you get caught.
That's sick. Glad you sniffed it out. Unfortunately the next one or the one after that didn't. In an ironic way, the law enables that. Meaning that while you couldn't legally prove it, you provided ample evidence to "get a rope."
yeah we called the cops and they were like "well we all know what's going on here but he hasn't broken the law so there's nothing to do"
Anyway, much obliged 😀
Paint me like one of your French girls.
Close. My position was that men don’t actually protect women, and if you asked men what’s the most dangerous thing they’ve ever protected a woman from, most would answer another man, thus demonstrating the issue.
i mean i think if there were ever an opportunity to protect anyone the vast majority would
in fact, i'm sure your dear friend iron mong would genuinely be one of the first in line to do so
thing is in this modern age, there's not much to protect anyone from anything except other people
Close. My position was that men don’t actually protect women, and if you asked men what’s the most dangerous thing they’ve ever protected a woman from, most would answer another man, thus demonstrating the issue.
That is how most social mammal species operate. Males protect their females (and offspring/genes) from being taken by other males.
It is heartening to see you are making deductions about how the world works that can be easily observed by watching Animal Planet for a couple hours.
As an aside, that is why in many conservative, patriarchal cultures (eg Middle East and India) it is considered socially acceptable to sexually assault females walking unattended in public. As it is considered the male relatives responsibility to protect the females, so allowing them to be assaulted is a failing on their part.
The intuition pumping of the question makes it a bit too leading, because when someone says “a man protected a woman” the first thing that comes to mind will be instances of a physical threat. But, let’s say someone is a caretaker of their elderly grandmother, like a very popular youtuber who became famous with the aforementioned videos about that, one could say they are “protecting” their grandmother in the broader sense. It’s just not really how competent english speakers use the phrase.
Also, most women can protect themselves from other women, and even if they can’t, then they’re just not that likely to fight another woman, and even if they did, the deterrence of having a guy there (most men would destroy a woman in physical combat) probably keeps it from happening. So all things considered most examples just would be men protecting women from other men, based on how most people use that phrase and the types of cultural associations it has.
Also when women talk about feeling “protected” they might also associate that with feelings of safety, being provided for, and being emotionally cared for, but we wouldn’t say a guy that takes care of his girlfriend is “protecting her” from something even though that’s the assocation.
That is how most social mammal species operate. Males protect their females (and offspring/genes) from being taken by other males.
It is heartening to see you are making deductions about how the world works that can be easily observed by watching Animal Planet for a couple hours.
As usual, you’ve managed to elude the point entirely.
The two sides were “Men are natural protectors of women” vs “Women need protection primarily from men”
And then I used you guys to illustrate it.
As usual, you’ve managed to elude the point entirely.
The two sides were “Men are natural protectors of women” vs “Women need protection primarily from men”
And then I used you guys to illustrate it.
It is both. Men are natural protectors of women (but really, the continuation of their own genes via women) primarily from other men. Obviously our technology and social programming has complicated matters greatly, but the basic hardware hasn't changed from the time we had common ancestors with Chimpanzees.
It’s not both. You can’t simultaneously be the perpetrator and also the rescuer. And if you eliminate the perpetrators, no rescue is even required.
Very good though immediately taking this directly to its usual final destination which is always “evolutionary biology for idiots”
It’s not both. You can’t simultaneously be the perpetrator and also the rescuer. And if you eliminate the perpetrators, no rescue is even required.
Very good though immediately taking this directly to its usual final destination which is always “evolutionary biology for idiots”
You approach the matter from a false paradigm. Human social groups aren't organized "men vs women." That is a completely false paradigm. They are organized "genes vs genes." Men don't collaborate as a group to hold down women. They compete for their "affections."
And women generally join the victors. Genetic analysis indicates that through most of human history generally one genetically related group of males would genocide another and take their women as conquest.
It is postulated that at the subconscious level this is why liberal women in western societies are more accepting of foreign men from extremely mysoginistic, patriachial cultures. Again at the subconscious level, they aren't sure who is going to win in the end (westerners or foreigners) and take them as spoils of war, so they are hedging their bets.
