Carter: Yeah, if your expectation is to lift that kind of weight, you will need a gorilla. In order to lift the highest weight a gorilla can lift, you will need a male gorilla. I'm not sure gorillas and lions are "very relevant" the way you think they are.
No, if I needed to lift that kind of weight I could simply increase the number of people or use a machine. When I ordered a pool table the delivery guy was like "covid" and left it on my sidewalk/driveway. It was over 320lbs. I am not a weak man and I almost got it in the house myself but ended up doing it with 3. When you use your brain and not just your brawn you don't need to be a gorilla to lift the same amount of weight a gorilla can lift. So no. You don't need a gorilla. Get my point yet?
"If the male somehow didn't exist the female would be at the highest levels because there would be no other to compare them to"
Carter:You REALLY want to exterminate all men, don't you? You suggest it pretty frequently.
LOL. playing devil's advocate is how I increase in wisdom. Trust me. I don't want to exterminate myself. But if you want to truly talk about women you have to be able to put yourself in their shoes. Otherwise, you're just another man telling them what YOU think they want and need.
"Evolution finds that the most efficient form of survival is NOT brute strength but a balance of strength, speed, agility, and most of all INTELLIGENCE."
Carter:You would argue women have the greater balance between these attributes, or a higher capacity for any of the above? I would argue the opposite.
I wasn't talking about women vs men. I was talking about humans vs other species. Men are more balanced towards logic and reason while women more towards creativity and compassion. However, that doesn't mean all women are the same, that all men are the same, that there aren't guys who get extremely emotional and act out of it, including violently. We don't just have testosterone. We also have estrogen. What makes us men and women is shared by both genders. It is only the amount that differs. You're treating women like they are a lesser species. I simply disagree with that. But if you think this you are more likely to find and end up with a woman who is less than a queen. If you want more you will keep looking until you are satisfied. I've had all types of women so I know that all types exist.
"A woman can shoot a 400lb gorilla just as easily as you can."
Carter:Wrong on every level. Women are smaller, more fragile, fearful, squeamish. You keep talking about being old, but everything inside you is resisting being an adult right now.
Speak for yourself and for your own woman. You cannot speak for every woman, nor for even the majority. A 400lb gorilla would strike fear in the hearts of the vast majority of men. That is because that gorilla could do the same amount of damage to a human male that it could do to a human female. You wouldn't fight a gorilla without a gun; male or female. Police officers often shoot black men claiming they were afraid for their lives. So let's not cloud the issue with fear. If a woman had to shoot to protect her children, afraid or not, she would shoot and could kill that gorilla the same as you. Are you not more fragile and fearful than a gorilla? Could it be because of your smaller size? Would you start a fight with Dwayne Johnson or Wesley Snipes? I doubt it.
"Without being forced to do so they would simply use their males to fight for them. THAT would be the SMARTER way to survive."
Carter: Not a good example. He risks his life for the woman because she passes on his line. That's called responsibility. Men have accountability attached to their privileges. I could give some ground on your point, women do use men a lot in our society, you could say it's smart. What does society say about men who use women? They're just smart?
But your argument was about survival, not responsibility or morality. If one species were to use another species to survive that may be morally ambiguous but not strategically ambiguous. When Europeans came to America they survived with the help of the natives. That was smart. But then they forced the Natives off their land and killed them. That was morally bankrupt. I have no problem if women use men because, like you said, we use them too. But what do we get out of having children that they don't? Do they not get the same benefit? And not only do you risk your body to protect them but for a long time men actually worked for women, working so that the woman could stay home whether she had children to take care of or not. With equality, they are actually giving up this benefit in favor of sharing the workload. There are problems with this, economically speaking, but the reality is that its easier to stay home and cook and clean but it is the act of working that trains mind and body to get stronger. So what you know of women is what you see when you allow them not to be challenged. ANYONE, male or female, who has a job that isn't mentally challenging is going to be at a mental disadvantage to someone who does. That is simply the nature of evolution. So don't misunderstand. I'm not saying women are superior. I'm simply saying that given different circumstances a woman is superior for a given task than a man who isn't as prepared for the task. But there are men who can cook better than women and there are women who can shoot better than men. You have to consider both nature and nurture and what's the best tool for the task at hand. You might thing 1 man with brute force is the best when in reality the same task can be accomplished with multiple people (any gender) balancing the load and strength required.
"So if a tribe of women needed to survive they could do so using their own strength and intellect."
Carter:I'm not really sure what your point is with this, if a male dominated tribe could just come along and enslave the lot of them if they really wanted. All your arguments rely on exterminating male influence or extrapolating "most" into "all". I have a hard time imagining women make it through the ice age on their own. Take down some mammoths?
That's the problem right there! If a male tribe has the mentality and lack of morality to enslave women then they would need to protect themselves from men. If you're saying they need men to protect themselves from men then who protects them from their male protectors? Can you take down a mammoth? Of course women could do it. Why do you keep thinking in terms of brawn? If you are up against a bigger/stronger opponent you shouldn't try to match their strength. You should out think them! If you are playing football you run different strategic plays in order to overcome your disadvantages. Same thing in the Art of War. Chinese men are typically smaller than us. Does that mean we would definitely win in a land war with China? Come on, man. You're smart.
"I already showed you that women are over 40% of the agricultural workers. So if a rich woman happened to be sexist and wanted women only she could do that."
Carter: Come back when they are 40% of garbage men, sewage workers, plumbers, construction and maintenance, mining, logging, etc... but don't hold your breath, 'cus women have absolutely no inclination to do that stuff. It's not their way.
Why would women want to be those things? I don't. I have ZERO desire to do any of those things. I like jobs where I get to use my mind and intelligence. There are different kinds of strength. That's what I'm trying to get you to see. What's better than mining is using your brain to come up with alternative methods to using humans to do it.
"Women are largely submissive out of being socialized by society to be so."
Carter: So in your view, testosterone and estrogen have minimal to no effect on aggressive impulses. There are legit studies on the subject, but I'm way too ADD to read those, and a lot of them involve animal testing, which isn't apples to apples.
I'm pretty sure from doping controversies that testosterone does add to aggression. But aggression is not a good thing to be out of control. Do this. Go to a mirror. Lift your shirt. See that you have nipples. Even though you have nipples that doesn't mean you can breast feed. So even though a woman isn't AS aggressive doesn't mean she should be submissive at all times. Are you aggressive at all times? Are gorillas aggressive at all times? No. One should be balanced. And when one has a partner one should take that partner's balance in consideration to form a duality that is beneficial to both and is balanced between the two.
Carter: On the other hand... why is it ok when you generalize women? If they want to be submissive, it's because they are brainwashed? So they need you to protect them from their dysfunctional instincts, right? Why do I feel like you're already part of the way to where I'm at?
No, I'm not generalizing women. I'm telling you that we don't get a full picture of their potential because our society is patriarchal. That patriarchal influence affects their development in ways I cannot fully comprehend or relate to. It's similar to how white supremacy affects black people in ways that whites cannot fully comprehend or relate to either. But because I know what its like to be on the receiving end of white supremacy and to have my people pigeon holed and characterized and devalued... I have 'some' idea of what it must be like for women; many of whom are raped, beaten, and/or molested.
Carter: I don't need a f'n pep talk on how anyone can follow their NBA dream if they work hard, you're an embarrassment. I could be a 1-legged midget for all you know. I have enough awareness to say I genetically have a high capacity for certain things and not others. Let alone, I'm NOT willing to work hard like NBA players. Why does that matter? Most women aren't willing to work hard enough to be CEOs. They just wanna complain there aren't more of them.
LOL. But there was a time when black people could only play in the "negro leagues". And while that was going on whites could still hang on to the notion that their white players were better than the black ones. Look it up. It's not a pep talk. People can do amazing things but it depends on your beliefs and motivation. This is why everyone can't be everything. Everyone can't be a top sales agent. Everyone can't be a CEO. Everyone can't be a model. Everyone can't be Idris Elba. What I'm talking about is the virtures of individualism and merit. You don't need to compare all women to the women you know just like no one needs to compare all black people to that black people you either know or see on TV.
On to authority. "Barack Obama was a good leader."
Carter: Obama admin increased government spying powers, took us from 2 wars to 7, did a coup on Gaddafi to prevent an African currency, tortured whistleblowers, didn't prosecute war crimes, separated families in cages, cracked down on protesters, instituted a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan instead of a public option, let a pipeline go through Native land, kept Guantanamo open, opened the arctic to drilling. I can go on and on. He was objectively terrible.
LOL... It would go too far off topic to address each of these points so I'll just disagree for now.
Carter: My concepts are well defined, so I have a pretty objective standard whether an authority is meeting its aim. Authority is there to remove dangers and create order. Functional is defined as that which promotes health and sustainability/harmony. If the authority is, itself, creating danger and disorder, causing harm and ruination, and that is the sum of its existence, how can you call it good? They are dysfunctional at best, and an illegitimate authority at worst.
So if men (generally speaking) have become a danger to women: rape them, molest them, beat them, leave them with the responsibility of raising their kids alone without financial support, how is this authority functional or legitimate? You could defend this by saying YOU have never done these things, but many men have. So just as you are not "many men" every woman is not "many women". So the same potential they have for needing your leadership because they can't survive without you is the same potential you have for being a terrible leader and man. It comes down to choice. It comes down to who you want to be and how hard you strive to become that. If you use, as a standard, those who don't strive you cannot say what's possible for those who do.
carter: I would say a good leader looks out for the best interests of ANYONE, regardless if they are under your authority or not. That was my objection to your definition. To state it in a wishy washy way, where responsibility ends where your group ends, is what I was objecting to. A good leader has to take care of more than just his own.
False. A good leader knows that the world outside is competitive. The US president is called the leader of the free world. That is only because they lead... the world. But if the US President says "America First" and acts like America only then what? He thinks this makes him a good leader because he doesn't realize the benefit to his own that comes from the greater leadership position. But he is immature and happens to be a moron. But a good leader can't take away from his own people to serve the interests of everyone else. It would be foolish for another country who isn't our ally to devalue their own currency so that other countries can buy more product than they can. You have to prioritize as a leader. When I work for a company I'm not trying to help our competitors. I'm trying to beat them. What sports team plays a game vs another team and tries to help everyone? Does that make sense to you?
If everyone was helping everyone you probably wouldn't need a leader at all.