Genie
The last suugo bender
Will do in the near future, ii soo ducay walaal
Laakin magac ficaan isku bixi walaashay. Shan-futo- leh waa maxay bisiinka
How about xamdi-xarifey ileen xarifad baad tahay ??


Magacaygu waa qurux, maad iga tegi?
Will do in the near future, ii soo ducay walaal
Laakin magac ficaan isku bixi walaashay. Shan-futo- leh waa maxay bisiinka
How about xamdi-xarifey ileen xarifad baad tahay ??
Magacaygu waa qurux, maad iga tegi?
Provided that social/legal/scientific precautions are taken to make it remain ethical, I'm not against discussions or research on 'racial' realism or biological-gender realism if that's what you are asking(I think it could entail a lot of positive things actually). Words such as "inferiority" when describing differences aren't very scientific though...so that's a dead giveaway of that hateful bias peeking in.If well-over the majority of scientists had a census like on Climate Change that different ethnicities/races had intellectual differences (black/African blacks at the bottom, white & Asians at the top) and women were intellectually inferior to men -- would you accept this conclusion in the modern age?
Yup, no argument from me there; I completely agree with that. So what led you to ask me if I was an atheist, if you weren't referring to the "rejecting fundamentalism" part of my post...?Rejecting of fundamentalism is not something exclusively to atheist, if all religion would be fundamentalist humanity would not have grown as a society beyond the medieval period.
It's like rejecting vegetables because you don't like carrots.
Provided that social/legal/scientific precautions are taken to make it remain ethical, I'm not against discussions or research on 'racial' realism or biological-gender realism if that's what you are asking(I think it could entail a lot of positive things actually). Words such as "inferiority" when describing differences aren't very scientific though...so that's a dead giveaway of that hateful bias peeking in.
Words such as "inferiority" when describing differences aren't very scientific though...so that's a dead giveaway of that hateful bias peeking in
I thought you where an orthodox christian (are you?) but your post seemed to elude that you believe in the theory of evolution (do you?) which goes against the doctrine of abrahmic religion, which is why asked if you left the fold of christianity.Yup, no argument from me there; I completely agree with that. So what led you to ask me if I was an atheist, if you weren't referring to the "rejecting fundamentalism" part of my post...?
How do I reconcile the two? I don't, really.I thought you where an orthodox christian (are you?) but your post seemed to elude that you believe in the theory of evolution (do you?) which goes against the doctrine of abrahmic religion, which is why asked if you left the fold of christianity.
If you answered Yes to both How do you reconcile the two ?
I'm not familiar with Aristotle's theory on intellect and the role of heart vs brain so I'll have to do some reading before getting back to you on that. I don't know why centering the brain instead of the heart is related to Satanism or "killing off spirituality" though...I see the soul as the main house of spirituality, neither the brain or heart.@TooMa'aan
I take it you also reject Aristotle cardiocentric views in favour of occultist Galen views in regards to whether intellect is in the brain or the heart, Aristotle believed the latter and all scriptures back him up on this, it was commonly taught in European schools until the satanists took over late 16th century and relegated the heart to just blood pump organ in a quest to skill off spiritualism and the frequent spiritual purification that took place.
I have a topic on this in the science section were this new age hippie satanic views are refuted with studies after studies, since you reject Aristotle's view on women, do you also reject his cariocentric model? and on what basis do you accept/reject anyway, you ran away from our Hebrew discussion last time when it got serious and asked you to lay out your methodology.
I came across raging feminist lib-tard SJW Somali women who is also an atheist (ironically) arguing against the existence of God/Prophets using Darwin natural selection theory, stating how only stupid dumb/inbred people would believe in such constructs, while thanking Darwin for liberating her
The ironic part in all of this is that Charles Darwin is on record to have married his cousin, so did his father and much of the Darwinian blood-line is inbred.
The funnies part of all is how Darwin thought that women were inferior likening the female brain to that of the lower class like the "Negros" whom he deemed 'most inferior', hence as a black women she is even more inferior then the already inferior white women (double insult), he uses the following Animal comparisons to further his theories.
Charles Darwin (Animal Argument for women being Inferior)
"no one disputes that the bull differs in disposition from the cow, the wild-boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare, and, as is well known through the keepers of menageries, the males of the larger apes from the females," the same must be true with human females (Darwin, 1896:563). Further, some of the traits of women "are characteristic of the lower races, and anti therefore of a past and lower state of civilization" (1896:563,564)"
Charles Darwin other Argument
a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).
Darwin is not much different to the rest of the demonic masonic occultist Europhile scientists up until the 19th century whom all held this view, so did all the students of Darwin until the Satanists realised using is better then demonising them.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
http://www.icr.org/article/darwins-teaching-womens-inferiority/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_and_women
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...arles-darwin/BFC25032C289905CA3A85F0F26CFD5A2
@VixR
@Asma
@DiricLover
@TooMa'aan
hmmm, for some reason i see where old Darwin was coming from he states that if we were to analyse the men and women in poetry , sciences , physics (including quantum), engineering , mechanics , mathematics , computer science and medicine and put them in to categorise of each sector and which gender dominates it , you will find that even today men dominate a LOT of these sectors , concluding that he could be on to something however i don't allude to the idea that women are dumb because we aren't.
Women for the most part enjoy beauty (modelling is dominated by women) , and or compassionate jobs such as nurses (again dominated by women) Women simply have no interest in STEM the government spends money to try and appeal to women into doing STEM its laughable to be honest. I think we have differences , but what men dominate and do in even todays society makes the most impact , and that was the point he was making or at least thats what i perceived.
NOTE: i don't agree with all of what he said just the statement of "if we were to analyse...." yada yada and how it still applies today. Nothing more , nothing less .
Women are on average dumber than men but you don't have to hate them because of that. stop the misoginy
FAKE NEWS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...r-than-boys-at-school-despite-inequality.html
Girls do better than boys at school, even in countries where women’s liberties are severely restricted, a study has revealed.
New research shows that girls outperform boys in mathematics, reading and science literacy in 70 per cent of countries, regardless of levels of national gender equality.
Psychologists at the universities of Glasgow and Missouri looked at the educational achievement levels of 1.5 million 15-year-olds from around the world using Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data taken between 2000 and 2010.
The findings, which are published in the journal Intelligence, show that even in countries which are known for their lack of gender equality, including Qatar, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, girls still outstrip educational performance of boys.
Stop generalising more than 3.5 billion people in the world. If you don't want to do STEM subjects that's fine, but don't say women have no interest in STEM careers.
@Asma
Your missing the point, this wasn't just a misogynist believe he uttered over coffee but based on his principles of natural selection and evolution which he applied to argue for not only your inferiority but the entire black race, he even examined 'skulls' of negro's from Tazmania ( whom he ordered to be killed to make this examinations possible)
He cited numerous animal examples which I quoted to argue for the inferiority of women & blacks with the black women being at the bottom in terms of intelligence, since he brought the theory of natural selection/evolution and was the godfather of it using those theories to make the case, your left in tatters here.
This is how Allah humiliated a people he has honoured by making them blindly worship a crazed occultic masonic white-supremacist women-hating Europhile deranged Cadaan gaal, and yet whats worse is that despite him openly using his theory of evolution to argue for your inferiority you still make excuses for him by blatantly lying suggesting this was some believe he had over coffee independent of his work on evolution.
This is the epitome of self-hate and Stockholm syndrome that you and many others are displaying, again not a single one of you even attempted to refute him using his own principles of evolution through natural selection citing your own animal theories why he is wrong, or refute his white-supremacy and the blacks being less developed.
Welcome backWell yeah. You can be progressive on some aspect and archaic on others, this attitude was commonplace during his time so it's hardly suprising.