/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm a scientist, and I want to know if I'm wrong. I want to know if there is really something there. To find out, I need to debate, to ask questions, to doubt.
But if just doubting it is going to get me screwed, then fuck truth. There is no point debating if you can't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong and If you think I am wrong just because I'm a guy. I can do the same and consider that any woman that thinks like you is just another feminazi and every guy a white knight, who doesn't see it either, but pools in to get some eventually.

Its in this point when I realize that if I want to find out the truth, I can only consider anonymous opinions on the internet, for only them have nothing to win, and nothing to lose.
And that is pretty depressing.

Yes OP, most women are stupid cunts, and it will only get worse so deal with it.

Skeptics that are primarily skeptics are posers.

Scientists have to be open to observations that may adjust their views.

You're completely right OP. In our society, political correctness has completely taken over and minority groups are able to exert way too much power, just because the rest of society is fucking terrified of offending them in any way, shape, or form.

People all over the world need to learn to harden the fuck up. If you're offended by something someone says or does, and it doesn't affect you in any directly negative way, learn to fucking deal with it. If anything, by getting pissy about it, YOU'RE making the problem worse because you're broadcasting to the world that "THIS IS WHAT I DON'T LIKE, PLEASE STOP DOING IT". Of course that won't help anything.

> giving a shit what women think

I seriously hope you guys don't still do this

I believe that all people should be treated equally OP, and this bitch Rebecca Watson sounds like just another grade A cunt. Don't assume that just because she happens to be a feminist, that all feminists are like her. There are plenty of cunty women, some are feminists, some aren't. Shes just hijacking an ideology to justify her own cunty butthurtness.

>>3339699
> bitching about minority groups having power
> "People all over the world need to learn to harden the fuck up"

sure is ignoring the number of homosexuals, transgender etc. murdered everyday

>>3339722
Note where I said:

>doesn't affect you in any directly negative way

There's a difference between being hit on in an elevator and being murdered, I'm sure you'll agree.

>>3339720

I agree with this. OP, there are women in the world who think that just because they're women, they're entitled to a higher, godlike treatment, when in reality, everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender.

>>3339736
Maybe we can give out special privileges. We do so for the handicapped and it isn't a big deal.
But they aren't aiming for equality, they are aiming to make the world a better place for them, and some how, its fair.
There is no bullshit, there is no pretending, and we make concessions.
But this double discourse is what breaks my balls. How come you are allowed to say nigger while I'm not, and then you pretend we are equal? You cannot act to be treated specially under the banner of equality, its dishonest.

>>3339736
this. after my ex went to university and started meeting men who would date her & spend a lot of money, her personality openly changed to the perspective that women need a special type of respect that isn't extended to men.

Legitimately said that to me.

my ex has regressed into childhood.

>>3339667
>Sexually objectify...

Her?

>>3339773
so in a way, what I guess I'm saying is, unless I've found a woman to be intellectually stimulated and socially marginal, I've learned to treat women like children.

>>3339680
v

What I'm wondering is why stereotypical feminazis always seem to think that sexual objectification is somehow misogyny. Looking at a given person as "someone who may want to fuck me" and not much else is a gender-neutral position, and those that practice it often wholeheartedly support it in the reverse gender direction as well. Like it or dislike it, but it does not target women in particular in any way.

>So, here is the tale. A man's argument is dismissed because he can't see something

>ad hominem
>butthurt femanazi cunt resorting to logical fallacy

everything seems to be in order here

>>3339789

Not to say women shouldn't be treated differently in social situations (Chivalry, etc) but, there are plenty of women out there who are intelligent people worth talking to and getting to know. You just need to stop dating childish whores.

>>3339890
>Not to say women shouldn't be treated differently in social situations (Chivalry, etc)

this is the part I don't get. Does a woman being in a social situation predicate the need for chivalry? & if not, when does it? when it feels right? so it's up to chance?

>>3339912

In my personal opinion, being polite in general is a great thing to do; 9 times out of 10, it will make someone's day.

Also, it depends on the social situation. Take being in a lab; that type of social situation does not require you to treat a woman differently. Being outside on a rainy day, on the other hand, and opening a door for a girl and letting her go in first, that's a situation where chivalry is rightly practiced.

Now, if a woman rejects your chivalry outright, she is not a lady nor worth getting to know. If returns your politesse with gratitude, she is worth getting to know.

As someone with first hand experience, you should really listen to me.

>>3339890
childish whore is pretty much embedded into every woman's psyche

she just chooses when and where to access it

Am I the only person seeing the logical conclusion from the syllogism?

>girl gets hit on in elevator. shit bricks
>dawkins says 'don't qq girls get it worse elsewhere'
>girl argues 'well you're a guy you can't understand'

two conclusions follow. one is false one is true
1) man is still held accountable for actions he doesn't understand (and can't understand is wrong)

2) man is no longer held accountable for actions he cannot understand is wrong

I argue (2) is the logical conclusion from the given premises.

>>3339952

I beg to differ. Not all women are like that.

>>3339989
He did admit the possibility of a woman choosing not to exercise it.

>>3339989
You're right. Some can't control it at all.

>>3340007

See:

>>3340002

Bitches and whores.

>>3339667
>>Richard Dawkins tells her to stop whining when the average woman in muslimland gets raped for breakfast, and that complaining about such things undermines the cause.

not that I agree with her
but what the hell Dawkins, what a douchebag response
what was the fucking point of this
it's just snarky and unconstructive

I am losing even more of the respect I used to have for you

>>3340038

Not all women are like that; men can be that stupid too, etc.

>mfw men are success objects and nobody, man or woman, seems to give a fuck

And, depressing as it is, without risking making a woman feel objectified, you will never become romantically or sexually involved with any woman, except by pure chance. And there is literally no good way to tell how a woman will respond to such advances. So you either have to do it and be a dick, or not a be a pussy.

I sometimes talk about thi with some of my friends
I would tell them:
>Lets say a woman steals your car, wouldnt you beat the fuck out of her even if she's a woman?

Most of the men are like
>Lolno, you cant hit women

And then the women are like
>Yeah, she deserved to be beaten

And then the men are like
>uhhh, well i guess i would

My point?
Everyone is retarded, not just women

>>3340050

Whining about getting offered sex does undermine feminism.

Dawkin's didnt really go about it the right way

He should've just told her to get over herself and focus on real issues in sexism.

>>3340050
You sound like a woman

>>3340075
And when I am hanging out with the gang, it is impossible to go a whole night without being hit by a woman. A casual thump on the arm or leg in response to not having attention paid to her, or a slap in response to a statement she didn't appreciate.

WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THIS IS OKAY?

Men do not hit so lightly. Or if they did, nobody would put up with it.

>>3339943
can you please break up your points into things that I can more easily understand? You omitted an explanation for a few of the things you said, like
>>on a rainy day, on the other hand, and opening a door for a girl and letting her go in first, that's a situation where chivalry is rightly practiced
>>if a woman rejects your chivalry outright, she is not a lady nor worth getting to know
>>As someone with first hand experience, you should really listen to me (lol that's some strong ethos right there)

>>3340077
>>3340050
Also, Dawkins has always been a douchebag. this whole thing began because he was a douchebag who wasnt afraid to say: your bullshit religion is bullshit.

His response was pretty standard: You were offended by the man in the elevator, in same way people are offended when I say jesus is magic. You have the right to be offended, but thats it, and thats your problem..

>>3340077
>>3340050
Also, Dawkins has always been a douchebag. this whole thing began because he was a douchebag who wasnt afraid to say: your bullshit religion is bullshit, and that's pretty douchebaggy when you think on it. Its like calling some one kids ugly when they are ugly. Its the truth, but its not nice.

His response was pretty standard: You were offended by the man in the elevator, in same way people are offended when I say jesus is magic. You have the right to be offended, but thats it, and thats your problem..

>>3340166
>>on a rainy day, on the other hand, and opening a door for a girl and letting her go in first, that's a situation where chivalry is rightly practiced

Meaning, in normal social situations that involve women, be polite. If it involves men, be polite as well, but not outwardly so.


>>if a woman rejects your chivalry outright, she is not a lady nor worth getting to know

Normally, if a girl is a polite woman, with a good attitude and half of a brain, she will not think you're being a misogynist in anyway when practicing chivalry.


>>As someone with first hand experience, you should really listen to me (lol that's some strong ethos right there)

If I haven't made it clear, I'm a girl.

>>3340205

Why shouldn't I be as outwardly polite because they have penis?

Being offended by some guy making some rude comments is a far cry from having something actually happen to you.

I assume she rebuffed the man. I assume he didn't then force himself on her. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Is there sexism? Yes. Will casual sexism ever end? No, not so long as people of one gender usually want to fuck people of the other, and people perform an elaborate and arbitrary dance to determine who fucks who. Will institutional sexism ever end? It 99% has over here.

Now the focus should be on raising boys and girls who don't play such silly games, who don't feel entitled to whatever kind of treatment they want from whoever they meet. And, of course, on liberating those men and women who still suffer under the kinds of absolutist societies Dawkins and Skepchick both oppose.

>>3340205
I hope this isn't too much of an inconvenience or anything, and I'll make clear that I do practice some chivalry myself because I find that women enjoy the idea of being taken care of and/or protected. However, you also say that women who do not enjoy acting out a fantasy of helplessness (my understanding of chivalry, correct me if I'm wrong) are "not worth getting to know". Why do you think this?

>>3340219

because she's a typical whore who thinks its her way or the highway.

>>3340213

I guess what I meant to say with "outwardly" is that you can make advances with chivalry. Unless you're an engineer, I don't think you want to do that to guys. But, that doesn't mean don't hold doors and such; just don't try and make conversation about his current relationship, etc, afterwards.

>>3340222

Wow, someone's bitter.

>>3340213
didnt you read my post?:
>>3339773
>women need a special type of respect that isn't extended to men

ugh dont get me started on rebecca watson. bitch thinks shes hot shit drops names like she is the coolest person on earth and single handedly ruins my favourite podcast :(

>>3340227

I'll take that to mean I'm correct.

>>3340205
YOU'RE A GIRL??? omg bitch cunt stfu I'll rape you myself etc. etc.
please go on to overreact to every sexual advance any unattractive man makes on you
so that an army of trolls will do my bidding and make additional rape threats and lulz

>>3340223
so, on rainy days when if I hold a door for a woman, inquiring the status of her relationship is more acceptable than If i held the elevator door open for her?

do all women see men as potential rapists?

>>3339943

What he said.

so in order to avoid unfair control and abuse by men, rebecca has toiled to create her whole public life as a reaction to the manipulations of male trolls??? does anyone see the irony here???

>>3340242

No! I was just proposing a situation. Holding an elevator is the same thing. It's all just hypothetical.

>>3339667
A couple years ago she posted a video on her youtube channel of a guy rambling about nothing for 90% of the eight minute run. I suggested that she use jump cuts or have her guests practice their dialogue first. Her response:

>> Please never watch another video on my channel again. Its just obvious that you can't distinguish between a laidback conversation and a formal interview, and therefore your comment is not constructive as it assumes that I wanted the talk to be the latter. To avoid wasting your time (watching) and my time (reading your comment & replying), I suggest you just not watch anymore. This kind of video isn't unusual on my channel and there will be more.

She's kind of a bitch amirite?

>>3340235
Whether or not she's actually an entitled whore or whatever you said is of less importance to me than the fact that she hasn't answered my question yet and has instead decided to become distracted by people who are easy to refute/dismiss

Sure is Pharyngula in here

>>3340260

the answer is obvious.

I provided it for you.

>>3340259
How did you respond?

>>3340260

Please state the question clearly, then, because I thought I answered it multiple times. Are you asking why there are gender differences? If you should oblige to them?

Throw me a bone here.

>>3340276

Holy fuck, he asked why do you think women who don't indulge in helplessness fantasies aren't worth a shit!?!

>>3340269
>>women who do not enjoy acting out a fantasy of helplessness (my understanding of chivalry, correct me if I'm wrong) are "not worth getting to know". Why do you think this?
you did?

Whoa. I thought this whole time the OP said that somebody hit her on an elevator. Now I realize that he meant someone tried to flirt with her. Wow.

>>3340282

Yes, she likes acting out helpless fantasies.

She thinks she's always right.

Those who don't aren't worth your time because they aren't like her.

>>3340280
Yes that is basically a crude summary of what I was trying to ask

only ugly women want to institutionalize the protections that naturally exist for beautiful women while still complaining about the views of beauty that cause those protections.

I never get a bad response when being chivalrous. I guess I give off a father/older brother vibe.

>>3340280

Well, I can answer that.

I never implied that they indulge in helpless fantasies. I said CHIVALRY was a nice thing to practice. There's a difference between having a door held open for you and not being able to open a door. Women who automatically get offended by such acts are usually the type of women who think that all men are misogynistic people, out to use and abuse women and also have a tendency to be like the woman that the original topic of this thr. At least, that's from my experience.

>>3340283
Its not even clear if it was flirting. The guy said he found her fascinating and invited her to his hotel room for coffee. That's not distinctly flirtatious.

>>3340296
personally, I never get a negative response when I hit on women, am not chivalrous towards them, and fuck the shit out of them without asking permission and directly disobeys all objections they have to what I want to do to them or with them sexually or otherwise, but that's just because I'm really fucking attractive. isn't feminism great????????

>>3340299

well thats because chivalry assumes the woman is an object of man and like any other object, a proper man would respect the property of another man.

>>3340286
>>3340286
women are solipsists?

>>3340304

Yes, that's exactly how I am. Completely.

>>3340286

Then perhaps practice a modernized version of chivalry/politesse, where it addresses both the women's rights movement while still being a whole lot nicer than most people.

>>3340307
If by solipsist you mean "selfish bitch"...

>>3340311
I prefer to practice a version called "generally not being a douche." I happen hold the door open to both men AND women, and I try not to hit anyone if they don't hit me first.

>>3340318
so you only hit on girls who approach you first?

>>3340299
So, you're saying that chivalry is not enjoyed by women because it is a helpless fantasy, but for some other unspecified reason. What is that reason? Why do you, personally, enjoy chivalry? How does chivalry make you feel?

>>3340299
lol i love the way the world works,

you open the door for a women

"OMFG YOU'RE TRYING TO UNDERMINE ME. AND ARE ONLY OUT TO USE AND ABUSE WOMEN..."

wTF?
I personally dont know about the rest of the country but im Hispanic, from the south, and i was always taught to do this whether its for a man or woman, give them a fucking smile and move on...

>>3340307
just looked up the definition of solipsism...
so funny... and so true...

>>3340330

Chivalry, personally, makes me feel that to other people, I look like I'm worth getting to know.

Obviously I'm not; I'm on 4chan at midnight, trying to prove to a bunch of people that chivalry is a nice thing to do.

>>3340318
>>3340304

Not the same guy, but you are just forcing things here.
Chivalry as I see it is just a sign of how much you care for a person. The reasons of this caring could be admiration, looking for a bond/fun/someone to improve yourself, etc.

>>3340343

Samehag here.

I'd also like to add:

>>3340345 To why I like chivalry.

>>3340328
No, I hit on girls, only I don't consider that a douchey thing to do and I don't see why anyone would.

I'm a young woman and whenever a prospective boyfriend is about to open a door, I rush over and open it for him. they know what's up

>>3340345
So why do you only do it for women? You only care about women?

I do things for others because I assume they're incompetent, and most of the time they are.

I do things for women often, because most of them are unable to even understand why they're incompetent. We could label them all insane and have them institutionalized if they were men, but as it stands we need them free to bitch and fuck.

women need special privileges for the sole purpose of getting into her pants.

call it sexist if you want but that's how we make babies and if I treat you as an equal and don't try to wow you the chances of anything sexual happening is minimal.

In a workplace setting or similar women are to be treated as an equal because the workplace is not a place for sexual encounters (unless you are into that sort of thing)

>>3340360

The action is the right one, the reason might not be the right one in my opinion. That action is just a mix of "dont pity me" and "im doing this only to prove a point". You should be doing this as a true sign of affection/concern for the other existence.

>>3340345
So, then, chivalry is gender neutral? It is not sexual or even dependent on sex? Then why do you recommend that men let a woman go inside first on a rainy day?

>>3340368
See, this is where the women bitching at you because you held the door open for them are right. You DO just want to get in their pants.

At least you're honest.

>>3340353
but you said
>I try not to hit anyone if they don't hit me first.

..are you a girl pretending to be a guy? I'm on to you.

>>3340364

I do it for men and women.

But now, you cant deny that and heterosexual male and an heterosexual female that are interested in each other care for the other. Also cant deny the biological behavioural patterns we have (like the whole men approaches women thing...not that it is something you cant culturally/logically override)

>>3340377
Hit. With my fists. Not hit ON.
It was a reference to the chivalrous rule of "don't hit girls."

Stop trolling me damnit

>>3340374

Is not:

>>3339943

>>3340384

Chivalry also has a rule that says "dont fuck women"

>>3340386
women like to be fucked.

>>3340368
because women have a sexuality that affords them with pleasure when they are subtly belittled
Nobody admits this verbally, but they sure fucking do in just about every other way. My success with girls went up MASSIVELY after I realized this.

>>3340386
hehehehehehehehe

chivalry is gay

>>3340375

there is nothing wrong with a guy trying to get in a girls pants, it's one of the most basic principals of humanity; Guys dance a little jig and girls hold up the charade to decide if they think he is good enough. Both sides can be considered sexist in this regard and it is never going away.

for the record I fully support the feminist movement as there was a genuine problem in society when it came to how women were/are treated, but as it is now the majority of self-proclaimed "feminists" are just assholes/sexists and they are giving feminism a bad name.

>>3340375

Thats how we are programmed. Also: "call it sexist if you want but that's how we make babies and if I treat you as an equal and don't try to wow you the chances of anything sexual happening is minimal."

You change your primitive ways (women) and we will change our maquiavelical/teleological and primitive ways too.

Also not ALL chivalry is to get in your pants, a lot of it is because they value other aspects of you as an individual.

>>3340394
hah, yup.
tell a girl she has hairy legs.
or that she needs to pull up her strapless top because her bust is small.
did this to 2 girls when I was in HS, long story short, they tried to break off my dick with their clams.

>>3340385
No, but the "rainy day" poster said she agreed with the post I was quoting... I know, confusing, but she "added" it to her position.

>>3340242
>do all women see men as potential rapists?

Ideally, after all how else can they milk his bank account for child support payments?

Also posted this on Skepchick doubt it'll get past approval.
>Could someone explain to me how “privileged” is a more solid argument than Christians referring to non-believers as “Satanists”?

>Registered just for this, enjoy your slippery slope.

>>3340408

the whole concept of chivalry is that women are men's property and it is rude to mistreat other people's property.

chivalry died with the feminist movement and for all intents and purposes it should stay that way.

>>3340415
I think you misunderstood... Verbally telling a girl that she is ugly is obviously not a good way to get in her pants. But acting like her superior, and acting like you are more powerful and knowledgeable than her, and expressing your physical/intellectual/emotional superiority to her in subtle ways... looking her in the eye, responding to some of her complaints with amusement, never acting weak, etc...

>>3340430

>implying concepts and definitions dont change

You just changed completly of topic and you are using your own definition of chivalry. I think my definition, although not the one in the dictionary, is the most useful and the ideal one.

Also your reply doen not follow the part of my post that adresses the primitive behaviour humans engage. You could even say chivalry and other interpersonal behaviour modes with the goal of getting to your pants (note that some of them could have different goals/reasons to be, like beign a sign of caring) are a response of your selective nature (which again can be overriden by cultural/educational factors). Its evolution baby!

>>3340430

This would be fine; except that women respond unpredictably to chivalry. It can be just the thing that makes her like you, it can seem like the right thing at the time pragmatically to help her out, or it can be offensive in some way.

It's not just momentum. People like getting free stuff. Women are not above exploiting this. They are also not above selectively exploiting it and being offended by it. Why? Imagine you're a guy who is sexy enough to get women to jump through hoops to sleep with you. Imagine the kind of bullshit you'd put them through with no intention of paying them back in sex-dollars. This is the life of the top half of attractive women. If you think a guy would fucking ride this sweet situation for all it's worth, then it stands to reason women would too.

The action of women alone, or the action of men alone, could end chivalry once and for all. The action of half of men and half of women cannot, because it will still be worth something to both of them to buy into it.

>dat pic
holy shit man..

>>3340343
>>3340345

Chivalry is distinctly about treating women special in the modern context, I would recommend dropping the world and instead going with 'common courtesy'.

It's common courtesy to hold open a door for ANYONE who happens to be going through a door you have just interacted with.

>>3340437
i think you misunderstand:
I acted like an asshole to 2 girls.
They had sex with me.

Why don't you go take your advice out to the woods...maybe the squirrels will care. >(protip: if the person I'm responding to is a woman, she will feel repulsed, yet aroused by what I just said)

>>3340430
But then why aren't we more polite to carriage?
Its rude to damage someone else property, why the fuck those teenagers keep leaning on my car?

>>3340465
lol
have fun assuming that men and women work the same way sexually
"no intention of ever paying them back in sex dollars"
lol

>>3340430

your post:
>convenient definition of chivalry (which even then some wouldnt find that horrible if you also consider men are also objects...as in governed by the laws of physics)
>Moralistic proposal with no foundation (why should it be gone for all intents and purposes? ehich purposes? why?...more critical thinking less slogans)

Not that i support misogyny, i just want to find factual mechaisms and act accordingly towards a common definition of "good" in this situation

>>3340469

Rain-Day poster here.

I guess I have to agree. When looking at the bigger picture, I'd prefer it if everyone was polite to everyone, gender issues aside.

>>3340470
oh, I see you understand

>>3340469

/agree

Also would like to add another term: special courtesy for special individuas you have special interest in (this includes caring)

>>3340483
FOREAL MY NIGGGEEEAAAAAA
BROUGHT YOU OVER TO THE SIDE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
FUCK THE POLICE

>>3340480

They don't, obviously. Maybe the top tenth of men can get laid as easily as the top half of women.

I don't know why men err towards saying yes to sex, even if they don't really want it; while women err towards saying no, even if they do want it; but there we have it. If men were transported to a magical land where they suddenly had right of refusal on sex, and they were being asked constantly, they'd be doing some fairly underhanded things too.

Women want sex just as much as men. Maybe not with the same exact waveform, but it averages out.

>>3340422

>that image

I get a slight troll sense when I read the OP. I'd respond in earnest for now, if I had something to say, but I'm on the lookout.

So they tell him to leave, and he responds with the accusation of sexism. My troll-o-meter is now clicking away. I'm getting a strong reading. He doesn't try a reasoned response, but he starts throwing around accusations.

Then she responds with: it's not possible to be sexist against men.

I don't even. Maybe he is a troll. But nobody put those words in her mouth.

>>3340498

C.. Congratulations?

>>3340462
That is the modern usage of chivalry of every person I have ever known, instead of trying to reinvent a loaded word use the correct term.

>>3340557

Don't sexualize me, silly boys.

>>3340604

We... we can't...

>>3340604
I just puked a little.

>>3340604
3D pig disgusting.

>>3340601
I am never getting married/having children. It's disgusting how someone could think like that.

>>3340638
It's kind of like this:
>getting married to a woman in the USA
Stupid and crazy.
>getting married to a woman in the USA with a prenup
Still crazy.

>>3340601
Prenup.

>>3339680
>generalization half the population based on a few dumb whores
Looks like men are just as stupid.

This guy's problem was that he tried to approach an HB10 with no social proof, and without using any negs. What a total AFC... of course he ended up coming off as creepy.

It is depressing knowing that most people are truly not nice, not down to earth, and are like the people posting in this thread.

>>3340704
That's only partial protection, and half-useless in states like California.

>>3340604

I'd hit it, aww yeah.

But then she'd bitch at me for thinking about having sex with her. Lolz!

I honestly don't understand what feminists want.

>>3340601

>>3340738
>not nice, not down to earth, and are like the people posting in this thread.

LOL!

>Kurt

>Married a woman that killed him and made it look like suicide.

Pre-nup nothing man. Alimony should be wiped out totally. It was fine in a less enlightened time, when wives were expected to give up any careers for the role of housewife or mother. Nowadays, you should be able to support yourself, not rely on some man. Split the assets, sure, base it on some metric that takes into account how much you brought into the marriage and how long you've been married. But once the divorce is final, nobody owes anybody anything.

I don't even really understand why this is an issue. I mean, shit, so there's some in-fighting in the popular skeptic community, who gives a fuck? How is this kind of shit not the "rational free thinking atheist's" counterpart to TMZ?

I have mixed feelings about all of this.
This skeptic chick was not put under some sexual microscope when simply asked to come to the room. She was asked to go his room. That's it.
Just because he was alone with her in the elevator doesn't mean he had rape on his mind, and just because he asked a question with POSSIBLE sexual intent doesn't mean he was viewing her as just that.

They had a conversation in an elevator, the dude could have been gay.

Also Dawkins went in over his head with this one. His comment was weird and awkward.

>>3340822

One can use the tone one wants. Besides, what he said is true.

>>3339674
>I'm a guy

In the spirit of gender equality, cock or GTFO.

>"Dawkins is wrong because he is an old wealthy white man"
>you are wrong because you are a stupid dumb woman

>>3340872
Go on chatroulette, you will have no trouble finding a male willing to provide a cock before getting out. Tits however, you will not

lol women causing bullshit drama for being women......AGAIN

>Richard Dawkins tells her to stop whining when the average woman in muslimland gets raped for breakfast

That means 1.6 billion women are raped daily. This Dawkins you all worship seems kind of stupid.

when liberal atheist faggotry collides with feminist atheist faggotry. incredible the things that qualify for news in the atheist community. absolutely pathetic.

>>3341044

>1.6 billion

There are not even that many people in the entire middle east, much less women, much less muslims.

>>3341061

And you think that all Muslims are middle easterners.

>>3341061
aw how adorable, look at the Dawkins worshiper. he 'believez in scienz' but doesnt know there is close to 2 billion muslims in the world. so much for valuing knowledge.

>>3341061

There are in total 1.6 billion Muslims. That's why this retard got to this number.

>>3341076
> but doesnt know there is close to 2 billion muslims in the world
> so much for valuing knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

> have estimated 1.2 to 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world

HERPA DURRRR. Retard

>>3341073

I said "much less muslims", didn't I? Learn to read.

>>3341076

Dawkins is a self-righteous pomp.

>>3341078

Not all muslims live in "muslimland".

cool story bro

Dawkins was exaggerating, but fuck him anyways.

His point was valid. Do you know how people get together? They hit on each other.

From this women's logic, If couples are to exist, women have to hit on guys, and guys can't hit on women.

AKA, shes a sexist undermining her cause

>>3341088

I did not say in the middle east ONLY, I think you need to fix your eyesight.

What does holding a door open have to do with chivalry or women?

If I'm going in a door and there's someone behind me, I hold it open for them regardless of who they are because they're right behind me and they're entering through the door too. Isn't that normal?

>>3341086
>hurr durr i was made a fool of so now ill try to pretend youre the fool by nit picking

>>3339667
147 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

Saged, hidden, reported to irc.

>>3341119

> implying that I'm that guy

>>3341101

This might be just a cultural thing, but from my point of view chatting some stranger up and inviting them to your room is pretty impolite. Might be different for Americans / anglophones in general, as I noticed they put much less importance on politeness in interpersonal relationships.

I'd hardly call it sexist and objectifying, though.

>>3341130
In what way did that person imply you were a guy?

>>3341129
Dawkins is always /sci/ related.

>>3341135
I listen to the video, and although that situation was probably over the border,
the guy was interested in her, but explicitly did NOT want to put any pressure on her.

>>3341164
Oh, come on. In my opinion he was trolling her. I mean, either that or he is borderline retarded. Trying to pick up a woman who just gave a speech on sexism and is pretty much obviously a female chauvinist? Not the best idea in my book.

>>3340704
Doubt those work when talking about child support.

>>3341180
If so, 9000 Internets for him for splitting the atheist movement in half and unleashing unprecedented misogyny through the community. Never did so little cause so much.
You could learn a thing or two about him, religion vs science trolls. Your shit is getting old, and it just wont do.

>>3341202
>splitting the atheist movement in half and unleashing unprecedented misogyny

We don't need close-minded non-scientists, because they're just angry teenagers that were raised by their single-mothers.

Femnazis and minorities can't form a legitimate argument without resorting to ad hominem and straw men.

Dawkins messed up from the very beginning.

The only way to handle bitches like this is to not even bother.

He should have never agreed to talk to her in the first place.

>>3341216
>closed-minded

bisexual liberal atheist detected

>>3341249
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

>>3341202

>misogyny

a word that lately means same thing as "common sense" used to.

lol i just argued this with my girlfriend.

I just like how everyone dismisses Dawkins as pretty much any guy who can't see things sometimes.

He is a leader of a RATIONAL movement, that's all he does.

In short here is a man who has made a living off of telling people to "think outside, think from other perspectives, think rationally, see things from different points, ect" who is closing himself off and not making an effort to think about it from her perspective, deliberately making an effort to tell her to "stop trying to teach others of your viewpoint and making people question long time doctrines"

I mean, to me it's REALLY FUCKING hypocritical that someone who preaches rationality and skepticism would at the same time fight against it for something he doesn't understand.

>>3339667
this thread = tl;dr
>It says that since he is a white male, he cant "see" why it was so wrong and therefore his argument is invalid.
Ad hominem. Plain and simple.
Not even logical.

Dawkins never said; he can't see it.
He says he understands it very well. Says that the fear of sexaul assualt is the same as standing next to someone chewing gum. He says that it's an elevator so you can easily escape if you want to.

He asks other people to show him the point but he isn't making an effort to understand it. He is just being a stubborn rich white man who doesn't know what it feels like to be sexualy objectified or to have a fear of possibly being raped, and he won't make any effort to understand.

In short, for this one Dawkins is being idiotic and hypocritical.

Also I like how people are siding with him against all REASON, becuase of course he can't NEVER BE WRONG

What this is really showing to me, is that the athiest movement is really a movement against religion, not a movement for reason or skepticism.

>man you dont like comes onto you
accuse him of sexual objectification

>man you like comes onto you
no problems

What is so amazing, is how much these people trully worship richard dawkins to the point they will fight against reason and work to see things from a specific perspective, not from one based on fact, but one based on bias so that he remains right.

It's like, really amazing to me. I can't understand it other than this weird hero almost religious complex.

I don't like Dawkins either but he tends to draw attention to important fallacies in man's "logical" thinking.

This woman obviously thinks she is entitled to more than what is already given to men. Let's put her on the front lines in Afghanistan and see how long she lasts

>>3340769
Just thought I'd tell you that the pic made me shit myself with laughter.

>She assumes the act was a sexual objectification and says so in public.
women are objects, all humans are. people are animals. people are better when we stop trying to deny this.
an offer, unlike abuse, can be declined. taking grievance call it an abuse trivializes abuses. google fistula mutilation and war rape for real abuses. petty, distracting bullshit should get feminists mad

>>3341299
>miss huge fallacy
>who is closing himself off from her irrational appeal
fixed

apparently she believes human beings have somehow transcended past animalistic and primal instincts.

Typical spoiled bitch. send her to the middle east

>>3339711

Seriously

>>3341325
So a nigger stands close to me and ask me the time. I heard this is a common technique to let him see what kind of watch I have and see if I am worthy of mugging. I tell him I don't have a clock, he says "well thanks anyway" and leaves.
Latter I blog and I tell my friends how I was "almost mugged by a nigger".
Somebody tells me that doesn't mean he was going to rob me, and that the whole thing might make me look slightly racist, but I tell him he doesn't understand what is like to be a white man near a nigger and the feeling of fear it involve, he just doesn't get it because he isn't a white man.
See, the fear of potentials include the fear of everything. The range of things people can be afraid of is almost as diverse and arbitrary as the things that might make you feel offended. I can be afraid of black people ( potential mugging), homosexuals ( potential raping) Jews ( potential world domination) engineering ( potential faggotry)
Does it mean that all niggers should avoid asking me what time it is because it scares me?

>>3341325
>call her disgust of feeling diminished by a free offer 'fear of sexaul assualt'
>He calls out their unfounded condemnations and tells them 'to show him the point'. Outrageous!
fix'd
>He is just being a stubborn rich white man who doesn't know what it feels like to be sexualy objectified or to have a fear of possibly being raped, and he won't make any effort to understand.
ad hominem

fuck yeah richard dawkins

It's nice to see that Dawkins isn't afraid to call bullshit when he sees, even it if it's not related to religion.

>>3341325
>In short, for this one Dawkins is being idiotic and hypocritical.
ad-hominem.
>he can't NEVER BE WRONG
facepalm.

>>3341488
5 star post.

An interesting side story:
In 2010 Rebecca organised Boobquake, which was a lot of women dressing like sluts to prove dressing immodestly doesn't cause earthquakes, because a Muslim Cleric said that's why Pakistan had an Earthquake.

It caused a shitstorm in the feminist community because some feminists thought this was encouraging the objectification of women, and therefore anti-feminist.

Has anyone confirmed it was even fucking Dawkins?

This is the internet after all, everyone can be anyone.

>>3341672
PZ Meyers confirmed the IP.

>>3341671
That bitch is fugly

>>3340205

>woman claiming to think what women want

Oh lawd, the hilarity

Seriously, I haven't met a single woman in my life who wasn't batshit insane in one way or another. The ones that don't seem batshit insane are usually the worst after you get to know them.

>hold the door for a girl out of politeness
>he wants to fuck

>hold the door for a guy out of politeness
>wait what?

Maybe I just like to hold doors, ever think about that? Nope, because women are dumb. This is a fact you cannot argue with. The women who do have a semblance of intelligence usually have very high testosterone and mustaches and can therefore be considered demi-men.

I have a very batshit insane unscientific theory on why women are so womenly.

Women are known for being self-important, arrogant, ignorant, sneaky and generally selfish. This has good reason. In ancient times the men protected the women, the survival of the women depended on the men, so the women has to try to make the men protect her. The most effective way in doing so is to make the women a selfish, arrogant bitch who ignores anything that isn't benifical to her survival. This arrogance is usually regulated by men who don't put up with too selfish women, so the women has to restrain herself to survive, however, today women can be as cuntish as they want and if men don't cooperate and claim they're bitchy, they're claimed sexist, at least by insane women such as Rebecca Watson. In order for women to stay enjoyable there needs to be regulation from men on how bitchy they are, or hell breaks loose. After a women got the protection or is in the eyes of the man precious enough to acquire and protect, the man is pretty much in the hands of the woman. Women actually are the reigning gender as of now.

Ugly or fat women who are unlikely to get under the protection of a man have some kind of identity crysis and turn into feminazis, you probably know the details already.

>>3341678
Some how I figured the comment section of that site was more reasonable...

Fuck this shit I'm going back to religion. Amen.

>>3341825
It's ok, you don't need to be a ball-less woman worshipping entitlement culture dumbass to be an Atheist. Plenty of us even believe that if women want to pretend to be equal to men then they need to give up on all this puritanical sex-devalues-women thinking and realize that women enjoy sex just as much as men and aren't any worse for admitting that fact. Bring on the intelligent, empowered sexually aggressive women!

Feminists won't be happy until the complete subjugation of males happens.

>>3341781

Seems legit

Once the world collapses everything will go back to the way it was

HERE'S HOPING

>>3339667
>MFW that maybe wasn't even Dawkins, just some guy who posted with his name. I saw the comment.


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/always_name_names.php#comment-4295492
comment 75

>>3341844

Good thing I'm an abusive asshole who beats and degrades women

Don't worry my fellow men as long as I'm alive you'll never be subjugated

>>3341844
>implying it will stop there
>implying we're not heading straight to labor camps working 20 hour days

>>3341867

NOT WHILE I'M STILL STANDING

You can trust me I'm legit

>>3341858
>Good thing I'm an abusive asshole who beats and degrades women
>Don't worry my fellow men as long as I'm alive you'll never be subjugated
>Implying this doesn't give them legal ammunition to "protect themselves from abuse"
>mfw

>>3341882

>Legal ammunition
>Implying a cripple in a coma can do anything

Never fear my friend, the "law" doesn't work on me

Maybe it was sexual objectification, maybe it wasn't. The fact that she is a woman, and was struck does not prove that it was though.

>>3341891
That's the most bro thing anyone has ever said on /sci/.

>>3341922Maybe it was sexual objectification, maybe it wasn't.

This seems like one of those "grass is always greener" issues. I'm a man and I've love to be sexually objectified.

>>3341922
She wasn't struck, she was asked to go to someone's room for coffee.

A perfectly acceptable request between two men or two women but it's sexual objectification if a man requests it of a woman. (you see coffee is actually code for I want to ravage you from behind and 'my room' is actually code for whether you like it or not; in the language of feminists)

The appropriate thing to have said in the article was 'guys I can't exactly trust random strangers at these things so please don't ask me to have a private conversation with you'. Instead she went with the sexual objectification bullshit

>>3341948
If her intention was to increase the number of retarded feminists that read her blog I predict she has succeeded. Well played dumb bitch, well played.

>>3341948
well damn...Still, my argument stands.

>First this woman, Rebecca Watson , gets hit on an elevator.

No, WTF

She was HIT ON in an elevator. A guy asked her back to his room. SHE WAS NOT HIT.

Rebecca again?

Ok so we have:

1. Dinosaurs with saber tooths (lol I am such a good skeptic but I blindly trust dubious sources!)

2. Public wedding that annoys everybody who just wanted to see a fucking skeptics conference!

3. Thinks anybody in an atheist conference wants to hear about feminism.

4. Anecdotal evidence everywhere. "Hurr I get bad E-Mails that means that atheists are sexist."

And now this...I am beginning to think that this Rebecca Watson is either the bitchiest bitch on this planet or a theist in disguise who trolls all the atheists.

>>3339667

This was an Asspie making a bad joke. Or a Rapist. But probably the former.

>>3340601
thanks, i lost what little faith i had left in humanity

the moment you start letting girls join your club.... this happens

>>3342900
My point exactly. Whats the point of bringing people that thinks half the organization is just a potential rapist?