Aristotle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
Friday
Claire Khaw
04/09/2015 21:12
Which comment are you complaining about?
04/09/2015 21:14
Gillian Carpenter
Don't even speak to me Claire. I'm incandescent with rage. How dare you accuse anyone of having a sexual interest in underage boys? What gives you the fucking right? So for right now - fuck off.
04/09/2015 21:14
Claire Khaw
I didn't say she had.
I was giving a HYPOTHETICAL example.
04/09/2015 21:14
Gillian Carpenter
Yes you did. Now fuck off.
04/09/2015 21:14
Claire Khaw
Ridiculous.
You don't even know what a hypothetical situation is.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
How can supposedly middle class educated and professional women not know the difference between a hypothetical situation and an accusation?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) September 4, 2015
Sarah Bailey:"Slut is now considered a derogatory term for someone. It's like name calling in the playground. And now people realise that the number of sexual partners one has had has no bearing on who they are as a person."
Claire Khaw asked a question.
Friday
Claire Khaw
04/09/2015 21:12
Which comment are you complaining about?
04/09/2015 21:14
Gillian Carpenter
Don't even speak to me Claire. I'm incandescent with rage. How dare you accuse anyone of having a sexual interest in underage boys? What gives you the fucking right? So for right now - fuck off.
04/09/2015 21:14
Claire Khaw
I didn't say she had.
I was giving a HYPOTHETICAL example.
04/09/2015 21:14
Gillian Carpenter
Yes you did. Now fuck off.
04/09/2015 21:14
Claire Khaw
Ridiculous.
You don't even know what a hypothetical situation is.
12 comments:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
Which group is this?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/734316336681016/781627375283245/?notif_t=group_comment
They are a bunch of washed up 'has beens or never has beens' and I don't know why you bother with them.
Carpenter keeps putting you 'on the naughty step' FFS?!?!
The only reason she doesn't ban you permanently is because you keep them alive. Without you that group would be like the communal lounge of a geriatrics home.
How can you stand being around a bunch of losers for so long??
Ditch the crazy bitch and her gang of flying monkeys for goodness sake.
But women like that are in charge.
The views of the media are their views. They are the mainstream and the establishment.
They even deal with sex offenders.
Their smugness and sense of entitlement is just as breath-taking as their narrow-mindedness and their ignorance.
I went to school with women like that and then spent a couple of decades working with them.
For starters they will still call their parents mummy and daddy.
They'll have gone through a rebellious phase, drugs, alcohol etc and been into scenes such as punk, mods, new romantics. They'll have been 'anti establishment' for a while and joined 'causes' that were fashionable like Menwith Hill, poll tax protests, BNP, Tree huggers and they'll be filling boxes for Calais and chaining themselves to railings in support of Syrian refugees.
Their parents had little or no time for them and hardly noticed they were there until they fucked up and caused embarrassment. Then Daddy would step in with his cheque book and the path to the straight and narrow begins.
Their pasts are erased unless they wish to flaunt it to bottom feeders that they feel need to know that they are 'one of them' deep down.
They love to think that they are elitist and superior but deep down they are desperately unhappy. Many are incapable of maintaining longterm relationships unless that relationship provides them with something other than love or friendship.
They enter professions that they are not equipped for or able to cope with on the back of the family name and money which ultimately will but them back where they started with alcohol or drug dependency.
These women are IN CHARGE OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. They deal with sex offenders and sexually abused children. It is chilling.
Of course there is a huge difference between a woman who has slept with five men, compared to women who have slept with fifty five men.
A sane man does not want a slag for a wife.
Slags can't understand this.
Thank you for all our comments. Can I have some about the usefulness of propounding theories and hypotheses?
In future, put hypothetical in brackets, Claire. If nothing else it'll save some righteous indignation.
I think people who go around thinking they are educated professional graduates should be named and shamed if they do not know what a hypothesis is. It is a devastating tool of debate, as I have ably demonstrated. These harridans are furious with me because I easily won the argument so they want to pretend I accused one of their number of being some sort of sex offender when all I did was say "Would the feelings of your nearest and dearest change towards you if they knew you had X cubed partners rather than X partners?" Of course they would. Instead of admitting that I was right after all, they removed me from their cosy little circle.
On the question of sex partners one could in theory have no sex partners at all to having slept with thousands of people.
I am sorry to keep going on about this, but I don't think people really understand the point I am making.
What Sarah Bailey said was patently wrong ie that it has no effect on our personalities or character the number of sex partners we have had.
I proved this by posing a HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION about how her husband would feel if her sex partners included under-aged adolescent boys. That was what got me kicked out of the group because that point hit home and they really had no answer to this.
Not only her husband would mind but her friends and family would too.
They then pretended I had in fact accused her of having a penchant for under-aged adolescent boys when of course I had done nothing of the sort.
I correctly predicted that in the poll the rest of the group would agree with her and agree about the statement she made about the number of sex partners one has had being irrelevant to our personality or character.
So now they are pretending that they don't know the difference between a hypothetical question and an accusation.
If they had enough power they would actually conflate the two to protect their own feelings.
The usefulness of the hypothesis is in solving problems cannot be denied but these women would BAN ITS USE if it challenges any of their views.
I am saying these women represent mainstream opinion in the media and they are stupid, unprincipled, easily offended and do not respect either truth or logic.
I am saying if you allow these women to carry on representing mainstream opinion your civilisation will decline and its intellectual heritage will be sacrificed to protect mediocre and over-promoted women from offence.
Post a Comment