Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last
  1. #21
    NOTE TO SELF - MOAR GRAPPLE - GET A NORMAL HAIR CUT - REPEAT supporting member
    Matt Phillips's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bahstun
    Posts
    9,754
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquil Suit View Post
    difference ************, difference!
    Are you making a point, or suggesting a word?
    Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie


    KosherKickboxer has t3h r34l chi sao

    In De Janerio, in blackest night,
    Luta Livre flees the fight,
    Behold Maeda's sacred tights;
    Beware my power... Blue Lantern's light!

  2. #22
    Tranquil Suit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3,923
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The latter.
    go to http://www.bullshido.net/forums/prof...do=editoptions > under Thread Display Options > Number of Posts to Show Per Page: 40

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    147
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    eh, i think if cyborg wanted to take a fight with a male of same weight class, she could come out on top. especially if she avoided the ground. then she wont have to worry so much about the strength of the male shes fighting. i train with some girls that can brawl. and they can hit just as hard as any dude. even harder. id put money down she could win.

  4. #24
    Hedgehogey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    5,330
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Above person still thinks that groundwork is the place where strength matters most.

    Anyway, let's look at the root causes of the much cited strength difference statistic. There's two factors here that I think get ignored every time some slobbering evopsych fanboy cites it:

    1: Boobs are dead weight. That's between four and eight pounds you give up automatically.

    2: (Sexist) Social factors cause female children to be turned away from athletics, especially combat athletics (see the number of mouthbreathing reactionaries who supported that boy who wouldn't wrestle the girl in the nationals). There's no way this doesn't have an influence on the muscle mass of those same children as they grow up. Even if an individual girl has less backwards parenting, her talent pool of potential opponents is smaller.

    Society has a big influence on physical development. Change society and you will see supposedly innate differences shrink or disappear.


    "The only important elements in any society
    are the artistic and the criminal,
    because they alone, by questioning the society's values,
    can force it to change."-Samuel R. Delany

    RENDERING GELATINOUS WINDMILL OF DICKS

    THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST NON-EUCLIDIAN SPLATTERJOUST EVER

    It seems that the only people who support anarchy are faggots, who want their pathetic immoral lifestyle accepted by the mainstream society. It wont be so they try to create their own.-Oldman34, friend to all children

  5. #25
    alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    8,202
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    interesting idea about the social aspect, although i know a lot of women who have been bought up playing sports, and their basic physiology hasn't changed. id like to see some kind of basis for that arguement.

    you could make the arguement that if social norms changed then what we deem as attractive in a mate would change. i personally find weak women a turn off, my GF is for her size quite strong, and definitely puts on muscle easier than most women. if that were a more attractive trait we might see it bred more often. then again everyone seems to breed now even the fugly hambeats who really shouldnt...

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    97
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hedgehogey View Post
    2: (Sexist) Social factors cause female children to be turned away from athletics, especially combat athletics (see the number of mouthbreathing reactionaries who supported that boy who wouldn't wrestle the girl in the nationals). There's no way this doesn't have an influence on the muscle mass of those same children as they grow up. Even if an individual girl has less backwards parenting, her talent pool of potential opponents is smaller.

    Society has a big influence on physical development. Change society and you will see supposedly innate differences shrink or disappear.
    As much of a dickhole as you are, I definitely agree with this, women have more deadweight AND they don't get into athletics till later in life(usually year 8-10ish) and even then its usually **** like volley ball that all adds up to a major disadvantage, that being said I don't think changing society will suddenly make female brock lesnars or even girls much bigger then 170.
    Last edited by All Dice; 6/19/2011 12:34pm at . Reason: fixing the fucking quotes

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    116
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by All Dice View Post
    As much of a dickhole as you are
    I've read quite a few of your posts, and if I were you, I wouldn't be calling anyone anything insulting ever.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    783
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hedgehogey View Post
    Above person still thinks that groundwork is the place where strength matters most.

    Anyway, let's look at the root causes of the much cited strength difference statistic. There's two factors here that I think get ignored every time some slobbering evopsych fanboy cites it:

    1: Boobs are dead weight. That's between four and eight pounds you give up automatically.

    2: (Sexist) Social factors cause female children to be turned away from athletics, especially combat athletics.
    For that matter, The normal healthy bodyfat percentage for men and women differs. Although that may be irrelevant at the professional athelete level. And similarly (and for the same reason) female body's retain fat more easily than men (although perhaps this can be relatively easily overcome with super intense training, perhaps not)

  9. #29
    Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hedgehogey View Post
    Above person still thinks that groundwork is the place where strength matters most.

    Anyway, let's look at the root causes of the much cited strength difference statistic. There's two factors here that I think get ignored every time some slobbering evopsych fanboy cites it:

    1: Boobs are dead weight. That's between four and eight pounds you give up automatically.

    2: (Sexist) Social factors cause female children to be turned away from athletics, especially combat athletics (see the number of mouthbreathing reactionaries who supported that boy who wouldn't wrestle the girl in the nationals). There's no way this doesn't have an influence on the muscle mass of those same children as they grow up. Even if an individual girl has less backwards parenting, her talent pool of potential opponents is smaller.

    Society has a big influence on physical development. Change society and you will see supposedly innate differences shrink or disappear.
    They won't disappear. We've got historical examples to observe here. Societies where women are allowed or encouraged to take on 'warrior' roles don't produce women with the same upper body muscle mass and bone structure as the men of the same culture, they produce women who are stronger than they would otherwise be.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.

  10. #30
    Hedgehogey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    5,330
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    What are these societies? Please cite anthropological papers to go with your suppositions.


    "The only important elements in any society
    are the artistic and the criminal,
    because they alone, by questioning the society's values,
    can force it to change."-Samuel R. Delany

    RENDERING GELATINOUS WINDMILL OF DICKS

    THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST NON-EUCLIDIAN SPLATTERJOUST EVER

    It seems that the only people who support anarchy are faggots, who want their pathetic immoral lifestyle accepted by the mainstream society. It wont be so they try to create their own.-Oldman34, friend to all children

Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO