Jaicilgin: literally hasn’t done shit
Based on this evidence, I’d counter that he has ONLY done shit.
That’s his biological job
Blessed with glorious purpose.
No-one has any biological job. Live how you want.
Even if we had it, imagine how small your life is if you actually believe we are born to do a biological job.
I was put here to add carbon to the air and convert food into shit!
My job is to increase the entropy of the universe faster.
Imagine if we flipped the tables. If it’s all on women to have and raise kids and nothing more, wouldn’t that mean a man’s job is to get laid/donate sperm, impregnate someone once, and that’s it? If that’s all there is and he’s fulfilled his role, there’s no need to stay alive after that. Like a male bee, exploding after mating. Why bother with society, hobbies, learning and growing? OP’s “job” as a man is nothing more than to literally fuck off and die, mission complete.
Obviously I don’t believe that, just taking his argument to its logical conclusion. I’ve heard people say that women are just for making babies so many times in my life, but I’ve never heard men’s role put in the same terms.
It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous. We’re all so much more than our biological equipment. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, I just had to rant for a moment.
I like that reasoning. If I had any toxic male friends saying shit like this I might use it, thanks!
Unfortunately they’ll probably just say they are meant to be the masters of a harem and kill any potential rival males. Literally troglodyte shit
I disagree.
I have a biological imperative to turn garbage food into poop.
This doesn’t even make sense from a (pretty stupid) “you have to have children” point of view, what is stopping women to have kids later in life, when they’ve got an education, know what they want in life, and are financially and mentally stable enough to raise them?
Of course I know the answer starts with “m” and ends with “isogyny”, but it’s a very stupid take even in its own framework
Well.
You see. J-douche up there? He likes ‘em young and thinks every guy does, too.
Ok, now listen to me. Please, PLEASE, never again say something like
it’s a very stupid take even in its own framework
You never know who’s reading this and I guarantee you that there is always someone ready to take that as a personal challenge.
Sometimes I do enjoy making conclusions from stupid and insane premises, can be a fun little thinking exercise. There seems to be a little devil’s advocate in my head.
Listen, power to women, and Vera Rubin’s work was amazing and she deserves every praise.
But nobody has ever proven the existence of Dark Matter. What’s proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe due to the way things move and effects of gravity, under our current understanding, requiring a large amount of mass that we have not observed.
Does that make sense? It could be that our models or understandings are just wrong, or it could be that there is some magical unobservable matter, but we don’t know. We haven’t proven anything.
The reason I think this is important is because we keep throwing money at bigger and bigger dark matter detection chambers, and we keep operating on the possibly incorrect assumption of dark matter while we create new theories.
What’s proven is that our current mathematical models do not accurately represent the universe due to the way things move and effects of gravity
This is actually the bit that Vera Rubin discovered. The summary of her discovery in the quote is the issue :)
That’s… What finitebanjo said?
Nope.
The reason I think this is important is because we keep throwing money at bigger and bigger dark matter detection chambers, and we keep operating on the possibly incorrect assumption of dark matter while we create new theories.
Okay, Sabine, whatever you say. I’m sure bubble chambers and TPCs (I assume since you’re targeting “chambers” that other experiments like DEAP are fine) for direct detection are a catastrophic money sink that you’re totally not exaggerating even a little.
Edit: Wait, are you specifically targeting the funding for the search for WIMPs? Since you’re just joining us from your 15-year coma, I’m afraid to inform you that problems have gotten much worse for science than bubble chamber and TPC costs.
A theory from a famous SF book I just read (not gonna say the title, not to spoil): dark matter is the matter that has collapsed into a smaller spatial dimension (2 or 1)
How would you go about proving the existence of regular matter?
I think therefor I am, I guess.
How do you know you’re made of matter?
Matter describes what exists.
So, dark matter is matter?
Dark matter has never been proven to exist.
The only matter you’ve proven to exist is your own consciousness, so that’s not saying much.
Since you’ve defined matter to be everything that exists, you must believe that whatever is the explanation for dark matter is matter, since it exists.
Just throwing it out there, that scientific discoveries can be done by married mothers as well
Also, if you’re not married with kid at 24 as a dude, you failed.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume ‘Jaicilgin’ failed.
Man, I hope he failed.
I hope he never stopped failing
My female friend had a female doctor try to talk her out of a contraceptives prescription; that she was 28 and should be having babies…
It’s not a misogyny thing, per se, rather just people that define their lives by the templates supplied by societal stereotypes. Never take advice from a person that doesn’t think for themself.
people that define their lives by the templates supplied by societal stereotypes
This is literally institutional misogyny.
It is many things. Institutional misogyny can be a cause for some.
Oh, for sure. I meant that in this specific example
the templates supplied by societal stereotypes
are called institutional misogyny.
Doing something permanent at 28 could be shortsighted and I would agree with the doctor in that case but surely a prescription is just temporary? I don’t see why the doctor would advice against it
Because the doctor is stuck in the mindset that women are baby factories and they should be that above whatever else they want to do in life.
“Boomer isn’t just an age group, it’s a state of mind.” -some rando on the internet
I don’t like this logic. It implies that a person’s value depends on their achievements. The only difference between the two is what the most important achievements are. Ultimately, this reinforces the right-wing logic that there are people of different values.
It’s two people paying for premium at X. What do you expect 😐
Synthesis: All man is created equal, except those who give money to the richest man in the world for a louder voice on a nazi forum.
I thought that was Threads.
I would say starting an argument from a point of view which the other is guaranteed to agree with is a great tool to convince people.
In this case it’s pretty obvious that people who say shit like “women only exist to bare children” will also look up to people with great achievements to their name. As such these to beliefs can be played against eachother.
If it won’t convince the original bum saying the stupid, it will be a very spectacular way to disarm their logic in front of other people with similar but not so extreme opinions.
But all people aren’t of equal worth. There isn’t an official arbitrator but we get to decide for ourselves, and there isn’t a much better way to evaluate them than their actions.
The “all men created equal” in the… US consitution or declaration or whatever is complete nonsense.
Declaring people to have a certain value relative to each other strikes me as uncomfortably close to treating people as things.
I don’t understand why only things can have different values. People have different impact on the environment, the world, etc. and what you value determines their worth on that scale. If everything is equally important to you, good or evil, then i guess everything and everyone can have the same value? I don’t really understand this paradigm.
What I’m saying is that it suggests uncomfortable things about the ethical framework in which whoever is making the valuations is operating. Not because of any specific valuation schemas, but because reducing people to numbers (values) is inherently dehumanizing.
I’m not saying that there aren’t terrible people who do terrible things. But any ethical framework or decision that dehumanizes people I would consider inherently unethical.
McClintock did her Nobel-winning work in her 40s, and it went unappreciated for 30 years because nobody believed her. An inspiring story for sure, but not one of an elderly woman discovering new biology.
That list does not affect him because he doesn’t consider those things to be achievements.
Should’ve just told him his dick is small and he’s a virgin. He would’ve cried himself to sleep over that
Dude about to discover the “Male Loneliness epidemic”
Dude’s just trying to coerce 18*-24 year-olds into having sex with him.
It’s not very effective.
* Lets give him the benefit of the doubt.
And these same people who are MGTOW, or “men going their own way”, are obsessed talking shit about women.
it’s “look at me !! …I don’t need you ! … … look at meeeeee”
Right? If you have to tell people you’re alpha, you ain’t. Much less if you make it the only aspect of your personality.
This just reeks of ragebait/engagement farming.
You don’t love a pointlessly gendered meme debate while the world is burning due to class warfare?
To be fair, they did say “biological job”
So I’d go with Rosalind Franklin who was 30ish when she did the X-ray diffusion thing and found dna was molecular.
Or Barbara McClintock, 46, for her work on “jumping genes”.
;)
Marriage isn’t biological
Don’t forget Noether! She discovered one of the most fundamental theorems of the universe: (paraphrasing) there is a 1:1 relationship between a conservation law (eg momentum) and symmetry (eg spacetime). This has shaped a lot of modern physics and helped explain otherwise unexplainable phenomena!
Hadn’t heard of her before! The theorem sounds interesting, but the Wikipedia article is a bit dense - I got that “any system with symmetry will have conserved values”, but I got lost on the implications. Would you mind expanding on her theorem?
Sure, the biggest implication is now we can look for symmetries in the universe and deduce a conservation law (with much difficulty by people way better at maths than me). This conservation law is not going to be broken by further refinements of our models, as it is inherent to the system. For example, you probably learnt about conservation of energy when learning Newtonian mechanics, but since this is a product of symmetry (in time iirc), then future refinements such as special or general relativity won’t break conservation of energy. The only way it could is if the symmetry is not fully accurate, like in quantum, where fluctuations in energy are possible, but very minor (providing phenomena such as the Casimir effect).
Most of the details are beyond me, and the maths certainly is, so please don’t take my interpretation of the literature as gospel!
So it lets us work out certain laws inherent in our universe? Wow, I did miss that implication…
Margaret Hamilton: Discovered chaos theory and then wrote the software landing the first people on the moon
And lately we have preserved a lot of different versions of the compiled/weaved AGU code.
I try hard to put myself into other people’s shoes but I find it impossible to imagine being as fuckin’ stupid as this.
Edit: I wonder if he applies the same logic to men. He looks over 24 to me.
Nah, he thinks men peak in their 40s and should be the ones hooking up with those 24-year-olds.
*shudder*
In reality he peaked in middle school.
Kindergarten
