Science is a popularity contest

Originally posted by humy
That is just about as an unscientific inference you can possibly make. You obviously have absolutely no concept of real science.
Just for starters, why would be "vindictiveness", which remember, is something you cannot scientifically readily quantify or measure or unambiguously define, "completely irrational"? Yes, although not exactly scientifically, you can ...[text shortened]... ational behavior; one can be perfectly rational and yet, without contradiction, be totally evil.

http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/the-myth-of-oppression/violence-by-women/a-historical-review/#fn16-4107

The post that was quoted here has been removed

My daughter may be in that boat, maybe not. She has an Ma in music, wants to complete Phd but at NYU the prof there claims he rejected her because there were 25 highly talented applicants and he could only select one. Would love to find out if that were the truth or if he was just blowing smoke because she ticked him off somehow.

If she had ticked him off for whatever reason, he would be unlikely to tell her that I would think.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/the-myth-of-oppression/violence-by-women/a-historical-review/#fn16-4107

I just read that link, and certainly nothing in that link contradicts what I just said. Nothing I said implied that females are incapable of cruel acts, if that is what you are implying? And I am not a feminist and said nothing to support feminism so it certainly isn't relevant to anything I said or believe. Have you even bothered to read the link? Or did you stupidly just look at the headlines to find something you personally think vaguely sounds like it might have something to do with what I just said and idiotically not caring if it is totally irrelevant to what I just said? Please explain to us how you think the content of this link is relevant to what I just said and exactly how so...

I am guessing here that you know you have totally lost the argument and you are just getting desperate trying and failing to use irrelevancy to deflect attention away from that.

Originally posted by humy
I just read that link, and certainly nothing in that link contradicts what I just said. Nothing I said implied that females are incapable of cruel acts, if that is what you are implying? And I am not a feminist and said nothing to support feminism so it certainly isn't relevant to anything I said or believe. Have you even bothered to read the link? Or did you s ...[text shortened]... ust getting desperate trying and failing to use irrelevancy to deflect attention away from that.

What you said is rubbish. I stated what I did because I have experienced the irrational vindictiveness of a woman and saw others suffer through the same thing. People thought I did something to deserve that vindictiveness because she was affable and liked by many people. When it was discovered that she embezzled money from a mentally handicapped man they realized they were foolish for doubting me. After she was convicted for it and she was living in my house pending the divorce she told my kids not to feed my rabbits and chickens because she knew I cared about them. They all died from being denied water.

I suppose my mistake was repeatedly telling my kids to not forget to take care of my animals. If I had not done that they may have been spared that horrible suffering before they died. I could tell you much more, but I think you get the point. It takes a special kind of vindictiveness to do something that horrible.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Duchess is showing her own bias and ignorance. Women kill children more often than men. There is nothing to suggest women have more empathy than men just because women are usually the care givers in society. This myth leads men to have more empathy for women though, which would explain why they get away with crimes more than men. Women's crimes are therefore under reported.

Duchess is simply a misguided feminist.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Women kill children more often than men.

Many children I raised by single parents and, out of those that do, far more live with their mothers rather than their fathers. Thus it would be no surprise if more are killed by their mother's than their fathers, not because woman are more likely to murder generally, because they are not, but rather simply because there are far more woman than men as single parents for their children so that, even if a much lower proportion of female parents kill their own children than male parents, the total number of such killings by female ones could still be significantly higher.
Thus a statistical fact that more woman kill their children than men isn't evidence that a given female parent is more likely to kill her child than a given male parent and thus is not evidence that woman are generally more 'vindictive'. Rather, it is evidence that far more single parents are woman -which we already knew.

It is like saying brunette are more vindictive than redheads because more brunette parents kill their children (same flawed logic ). More of them DO kill their children so premise is correct, but the inference is still TOTALLY WRONG because the reason more of them do is because there are more of them as parents, NOT because they are more 'vindictive'.

This should be pretty simple for most thinking people to quickly work this out for themselves but I guess you chose not to because of your prejudice and bias against woman. That proves just how stupid and hypocritical you are of accusing Duchess of "bias and ignorance".

Their, sorted.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Interesting that Duchess omitted the part of my quote where I stated I have seen other women be very vindictive to other men. None of you will hear about them, but I can find some historical examples as well.

Shirley Flodstrom, Susan Eubanks and Anna Gades don't represent all women either, but these are women who killed their children to hurt their children's fathers. This is the extreme, but it shows the vindictiveness of the female mind when you consider females have maternal instincts.

Originally posted by humy
Many children I raised by single parents and, out of those that do, far more live with their mothers rather than their fathers. Thus it would be no surprise if more are killed by their mother's than their fathers, not because woman are more likely to murder generally, because they are not, but rather simply because there are far more woman than men as single pa ...[text shortened]... w stupid and hypocritical you are of accusing Duchess of "bias and ignorance".

Their, sorted.

interesting that, for once, Metal Brain hasn't even given any response to my proof he is wrong yet alone his usual completely stupid irrelevant kind. I guess this proof was just too much for him.
Excellent! We must remember to keep using this particular proof to shut him up.

so, just remember, whenever he says (or words of the same effect ) as said evidence that women are generally more vindictive than men:

"Women kill children more often than men."

Just point out the fact there are more single female parents than single male parents so more women killing there own children is not evidence of them being more vindictive but rather it is merely evidence that much more single parents are woman; which we already knew.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

A good rhetorical question: he's so prejudiced against woman that he doesn't care if his arguments are wrong.

Originally posted by humy
A good rhetorical question: he's so prejudiced against woman that he doesn't care if his arguments are wrong.

Are you a woman?