Theres a difference between a woman and a sloot op. You sleeping with 2-3 sloots every week doesn’t mean you love woman. You just like sleeping around and take part in

Men are smarter than women. Men are also dumber then women. We have a more extreme range in IQ where women are more in the middle.

Thats why the majority of geniuses and incredible human beings are men. This is not a slight on women its just the way it is, you need to be the top 1% of the top 1% and women are incredibly scare at those intellectual levels. Its not a matter of “education”

Its just like saying men are faster than Women. Women could train 10 times more and 10 times harder than men but at that top 1% of 1% it will always only be men.

Aweir of the Great Man theory, and there's a reason why you haven't seen it taken seriously in over 100 years. People like it because it allows you to romanticize one subject without taking a more serious look into detail.

For example - let's just go with that page pic and take Napoleon as an archetypical Great Man of History. If Napoleon was born say 50 years earlier, would he still be a Great Man of History or just a forgotten artillery captain commanding drills in the peace after the Seven Years' War? How many Napoleonsdidlive before him and just never got their Grande Armee to command? And would he have risen to the top if he hadn't been in a specific place and time that was radically celebrating egalitarianism and allowed him to rise up based on merit? The British Army at the time was ****ing selling off commissions to any gentlemen who wanted to play officer - what if Napoleon had been born English instead of Corsican? Would he have been stuck at a lower rank and cock-blocked for promotion by some tea-sipping ******* colonel above him who had friends in high places?

So adding it all up, how much of Napoleon was him being some Great Man and how much of it was he just a product of his circumstances?

Now once Napoleon was in the drivers' seat, he showed some unusual levels of military talent in reking Europe, and you could argue that there were long-term outcomes for Britain, Germany, etc, that wouldn't have happened if any other general was in charge. But claiming that "the history of the world is the history of great men" is just whitewashing over all the context thatcreatedNapoleon in favor of a myopic look at the person.

And frankly, given your sig, I'm betting the only reason you buy in to the Great Man theory is just as a reaction and middle finger to "leftist academia" - which can get pretty fukkin leftist, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't agree with this at all. It's a very convenient sort of cultural marxist revisionism to claim that anyone could have been Napoleon if they too had been in the right place at the right time... and the right race... and the right gender.You're basically saying that Napoleon's deeds are not his own, but merely the result of great events of his day in which he was caught up. If so, why even bother studying the "who" part of history? Clearly, the "who" of history is very important. Go to any library and you will find biography after biography of great men, written by historian after historian. Why? Because the man matters! I don't think Carlyle meant to imply that circumstances were irrelevant... just that they provided the context for a great man to act. Alexander, Arminius, Luther, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. all changed the history of the world in ways they could not have anticipated and it's not certain to me that other men in their shoes would have done the same.



http://www.leviathanjournal.org/sing...by-David-Kelly

Breaking News: Men and women are different!

Men build and women birth.

Men's drive to succeed and produce is in order to obtain a higher quality women.
Women doll themselves up in order to attract higher quality males.

Me hating on a woman wanting a high quality male is no different than women hating on me for being successful and wanting a high quality woman.

Thedesireto "cement" oneself in history is largely a male trait.

Not hating on women

Just asking for examples of them being historically relevant

Major world advancements? (besides the washing machine that I already covered)

Cleopatra, Oelun Khan.

Women are not made to invent or build. They are made to reproduce and raise children. Just because they aren't in the spotlight doesn't mean they haven't effected the world. Almost all these successful men were raised by mothers that instilled values in them.

We can't measure women and men the same because we are built to do different things.

I already said a womans place in history is cemented by marrying or giving birth to a great man. But other then that they are of no historical significance.

i don't care why you started thread but....
honestly if someone asks you what george washington's wife's name was and you don't say martha within 2 seconds, you should be deported.

I cant even remember the names of women ive slept with let alone some old chick.

OP, real question here:

IF you had to assign value to both men and women overall in society today, using a scale of 0 (worthless) to 10 (irreplaceable) where would you put each of them? Give an example of a "0" man and woman and a "10" man and woman (or as close to a 10 as possible)

Example:
Women-7
Men-9

0/10 woman: Pick any one of the Kardashians or various vapid Hollywood icons for the Insta-hoe generation--plagues on society
10/10 woman: Olivia Jackson-- former model then professionally ranked muy-thai fighter. Did stunt double work in Hollywood for major films until an accident on the set of Mad Max causing a left arm amputation. Joined Team BRIT which is a motor racing team that has only disabled members but they race against non-disabled drivers, no special league of their own.

Your turn haha.

they don't put the names of every piece of trash you've stuck your diseased ridden dink in inside every fuking US history book, you cretin.

they don't put the names of every piece of trash you've stuck your diseased ridden dink in inside every fuking US history book, you cretin.

OP, real question here:

IF you had to assign value to both men and women overall in society today, using a scale of 0 (worthless) to 10 (irreplaceable) where would you put each of them? Give an example of a "0" man and woman and a "10" man and woman (or as close to a 10 as possible)

Example:
Women-7
Men-9

0/10 woman: Pick any one of the Kardashians or various vapid Hollywood icons for the Insta-hoe generation--plagues on society
10/10 woman: Olivia Jackson-- former model then professionally ranked muy-thai fighter. Did stunt double work in Hollywood for major films until an accident on the set of Mad Max causing a left arm amputation. Joined Team BRIT which is a motor racing team that has only disabled members but they race against non-disabled drivers, no special league of their own.

Your turn haha.

pics of motorbike slot

Donald trump/10 man - leader

Elon musk/8 - inventor

Lil xan/ 0


Women i havnt banged get a /10

Women ive banged get /0

Women not worth banging also /0

Gotcha. So women average out to a 3 in your world



And your whole worldview/perspective is related to if you've banged them or not. You have your self-worth wrapped up in how many females you can bang... yet you say women don't have value... yet you clearly value them enough to let them determine your self-worth...

Lol ok then.

Nope, I determine their value if I’ve banged them or not.But not my own.

Your posting history and thread creations of recent say otherwise.