Gender 'Equality' Nonsense

[Obdurate]

Y'all are just jumpin' on the bandwagon. I took shots at LiberalVichy first, YA POSERS!!

 

[Zorak]

Y'all are just jumpin' on the bandwagon. I took shots at LiberalVichy first, YA POSERS!!

well I ignored this at first :24:

But when it became about language and grammar I had to weigh in, I've studied it too long not to, and met enough wankers who speak just like her.

 

[gillibean]

well I ignored this at first :24:

But when it became about language and grammar I had to weigh in, I've studied it too long not to, and met enough wankers who speak just like her.

Bad spelling and grammar annoy me but I try to ignore it under most circumstances. When the person decides they are smarter than everyone else but can't even get its/it's right, that's the point where I start to object.

 

[LiberalVichy]

If you are so highly educated .. please explain why can't you spell, punctuate, or form paragraphs properly

I am intelligent and well-read. I admittedly do a lot more thinking, reading and arguing than I do extensively writing. The Neo-Liberal Corporatist view that education can only come through these state-sanctioned, state-regulated, state-subsidized 'Universities' is rather absurd, and fairly backward if you want to teach anything other than what is convenient for the political elite.

 

[SRC]

I am intelligent and well-read. I admittedly do a lot more thinking, reading and arguing than I do extensively writing. The Neo-Liberal Corporatist view that education can only come through these state-sanctioned, state-regulated, state-subsidized 'Universities' is rather absurd, and fairly backward if you want to teach anything other than what is convenient for the political elite.

You need to quit using thesaurus.com .. seriously.

 

[gillibean]

I am intelligent and well-read. I admittedly do a lot more thinking, reading and arguing than I do extensively writing. The Neo-Liberal Corporatist view that education can only come through these state-sanctioned, state-regulated, state-subsidized 'Universities' is rather absurd, and fairly backward if you want to teach anything other than what is convenient for the political elite.

How much college education have you had?

 

[Zorak]

I am intelligent and well-read. I admittedly do a lot more thinking, reading and arguing than I do extensively writing. The Neo-Liberal Corporatist view that education can only come through these state-sanctioned, state-regulated, state-subsidized 'Universities' is rather absurd, and fairly backward if you want to teach anything other than what is convenient for the political elite.

OHHH I GET IT!

They didn't let you in

 

[DaveM]

dude, liber whatch macall it, do you have like, a shorter sumamry for those of us slightly drunk from the night before

 

[Minor Axis]

I am intelligent and well-read. I admittedly do a lot more thinking, reading and arguing than I do extensively writing. The Neo-Liberal Corporatist view that education can only come through these state-sanctioned, state-regulated, state-subsidized 'Universities' is rather absurd, and fairly backward if you want to teach anything other than what is convenient for the political elite.

Yeah but there a lot of every day people in those state sanctioned schools getting their credits, not elite at all. BTW, just what the heck is political elite?

 

[groundpounder]

I am intelligent and well-read. I admittedly do a lot more thinking, reading and arguing than I do extensively writing.....

The rub is that people who are genuinely intelligent and well-read (mutually exclusive, BTW) tend to get a lot of things right:
1) word selection that is appropriate to not only their target audience, but also the one that's going to end up doing most of the reading. Being a walking thesaurus does you very little when you inject a "fecundation" where an "enrichment" would have done fine.
2) proper grammar, which lends itself to pauses for emphasis, appropriate breaks in a thought, etc. all of which direct the message of the written word. The sharper the grammar, the better the post
3) proper spelling, with the exception of an occasional and understandable typo. But using "their" or "there" where a "they're" should have gone is a no-no.

The higher minded one tries to make their posts, the more important these traits become in that post. The tightrope gets higher, and errors become more glaring. Now, when one goes out of his or her way to BLATANTLY call themselves intelligent and well-read, then you have yourself a whole different level of accountability. If one is uncomfortable with that accountability or deems is unimportant, then don't call oneself intelligent.

 

[groundpounder]

And in all of this, the rules are quite a bit relaxed with obvious colloquialisms

 

[LiberalVichy]

The rub is that people who are genuinely intelligent and well-read (mutually exclusive, BTW) tend to get a lot of things right:
1) word selection that is appropriate to not only their target audience, but also the one that's going to end up doing most of the reading. Being a walking thesaurus does you very little when you inject a "fecundation" where an "enrichment" would have done fine.
2) proper grammar, which lends itself to pauses for emphasis, appropriate breaks in a thought, etc. all of which direct the message of the written word. The sharper the grammar, the better the post
3) proper spelling, with the exception of an occasional and understandable typo. But using "their" or "there" where a "they're" should have gone is a no-no.

No, someone who is a good (or experiences) writer or speaker will do these things. Intelligent people tend to be better at a lot of stuff than most people, but being intelligent no more implies you'll be a good writer than you will be a good musician. Kant was a horrible writer, though his grammar and word selection were appropriate all he managed to do was confuse 90% of his readers.
Secondly, I don't really like or value the opinions of most of you some I'm not actually talking to you and - this applies to most message boards - I don't really consider it worth my time.

 

[Peter Parka]

Secondly, I don't really like or value the opinions of most of you some I'm not actually talking to you and - this applies to most message boards - I don't really consider it worth my time.

So why are you still posting here then?:24:

 

[LiberalVichy]

So why are you still posting here then?:24:

I have a lot of free time, there are a couple people on here worth talking to and nobody posts fast enough on any single forum. There are other forums I attend, which I prefer.

 

[Peter Parka]

I cant imagine who!! Even people who's political views I find rather stupid have intelligence beyond you.
At least they know how to spell or can admit their lack of grammar without trying to put others down about it.

 

[Obdurate]

lol Well Peter, she thinks anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism. Sums it up pretty well right there.

I mean, it's just a failure on multiple levels. She thinks she's above people but fails to grasp the very concept that makes anarchism anarchism. You completely ignore key concepts of anarchism and then claim you're an anarchist? It's bullshit. She's just a capitalist trying to fit in.

And that's the last time I come in this thread. Her shit gets tiring. She's giving anarchists a bad name.

 

[SRC]

Secondly, I don't really like or value the opinions of most of you some I'm not actually talking to you and - this applies to most message boards - I don't really consider it worth my time.

:24::24: well boo fucking hoo for you

 

[SouthOfHeaven]

:24::24: well boo fucking hoo for you

:24::24:

 

[Andre]

OK - I can't believe I just read this entire thread. Wow. Oh dear. Seriously - paragraphs would make it a lot easier to absorb your ideas.

One thing universities DO drum into you pretty well is the importance of referencing concepts. Your first post is full of statements which should have been referenced. You present your ideas as fact without providing any evidence that the fact has been established. If you want support for an idea try to sell it a bit better. You can't demand that people trawl trough the internet trying to find statements that support you - you have to do the work for the reader or you will just be dismissed.

Aside from those criticisms I would like to provide you with some SHAKY recent support that relates to one of your initial ideas.

I think men, on average, have more skill in dealing with and thinking about reality in an objective, rational way whereas women tend to be more concerned and skilled at maintaining social relations.

I have not invesitgated this study in any detail but perhaps you might want to look into it:

Girls are as competitive as boys – just more subtle - being-human - 25 June 2008 - New Scientist

 

[groundpounder]

Her lack of debating skills are only paralleled by the absence of her grammar skills