What city in California has the hottest prettiest girls?

[dmode]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

I should address the "weaker sex" complaint. Are women truly the weaker sex? Do they need the "protection" of men? Because their purposes and priorities are different from men, it follows that in general, they have different strengths and weaknesses. Yes, I'm generalizing - there are individuals of both sexes who are exceptions to the rule. But in general women are more easily led by their emotions, more easily led into dangerous situations, and they benefit from men in their lives who can take a more objective and de-personalized view of things. Men still lead, and women still follow, though women need not follow blindly or un-intelligently.

One thing I have to admit. After reading all the posts from Pilgrim and especially the above one, it is shockingly clear to me on how much Christianity and Islam have in common when it comes to dogma. I was watching an Islamic cleric (male of course) trying to answer the exact same question - "Are men and women equal in God's eyes?". And his answer was "yes, they are equal, but they have different roles to play in the society. Men should use their physicality to bring in livelihood, while women should use their emotional prowess to raise families". I briefly dated a Muslim girl a few years back and she subscribed to the same theory. Of course these texts were written with an agrarian society in mind and are completely incompatible with a knowledge society.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by jaijai

Cool!!!
I'll have to remember how to play.
Why is it that the only thing i remember is the number 15?
Or am i vaguely remembering tennis?
I honestly don't know at this moment but i just drank a Big Foot ale (rare that i drink but anxiety was getting the better of me) which is extremely strong and on an empty stomach .... yikes.

Heh ... yes, even through the Bigfoot, you recall the magic number: 15 ...
Rules of Cribbage

You know, this thread first started as a rather innocent bit of fun ... and I checked in on it with some chuckles ... until I saw Pilgrim posting. Then I thought to myself: "uh-oh, here we go into fantasy-land of "purity and the Virgin". So I read his post. Sure enough. The world according to the Pilgrim demands another either/or division into black and white / whores or virgins. In both cases: femininity objectified / spurned or owned -- and without any of the humor intended by the OP and most subsequent posters.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: cribbage and laughs between the sexes.

[nullgeo]

And, finally, speaking of talented women doing things most men would not even try to do ... this contribution from my [possibly] slightly feminist sister who, like me tonight, just couldn't get to sleep so sent me some sexist entertainment:

What a Woman Will Do For A Glass of Red Wine

A Glass of Red

hope the link works for you all

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Too too funny, Pilgrim. As usual, it is you who has started out with the false premise. And what an absolutely bs position you use to cop out anyway.

In other words, you refuse to deal with the substance of the issue and want to talk about me and you ... and you, and you, and you.

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Oh, the false premise? -- That any of my sisters, wives, or mother were / are feminists. Of the bunch only one sister might -- just maybe -- consider herself somewhat feminist ... but even she would not refer to herself as such generally. Of course, in your closed minded world, any woman who doesn't acquiesce to a male-centric view of superiority must be a "feminist".

Substitute "sexual egalitarian" for "feminist" if you like: they are ideological birds of a feather. True believers are identified primarily by their hyperventilating whenever obvious, common-sense differences between the sexes are mentioned in public by social conservatives. Secondarily, they are also distinguished by an obsession with anecdotal "proofs" that the rule they refuse to acknowledge has (gasp!) a few exceptions. Finally, they are noted for their fixation on Marxian power struggle as applied to relations between the sexes (standard fare in "Women's Studies" departments), so that male-female relations are reduced to questions of superiority/inferiority, control, domination, and so forth.

I'd love to spar with your sisters, Nullgeo, but only if they are as rational as you claim, and are willing to stick to the arguments instead of constantly turning the conversation towards praise of their own wonderful selves.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Interesting also that someone such as yourself, whose entire world view is shaped by total, blind devotion to one institutional dogma, a dogma based on unprovable fictions that rely on faith rather than facts, and who persistently quotes others as proofs, as if quotations are reliable signs of authority, -- should cast another, whose view is shaped by broad worldly experience in addition to mere education, both sources unstructured by any dogma, as "unwise".

You're an intelligent man, Nullgeo. I think you're intellectually capable of having a productive debate. But thus far, I have yet to witness you engage in any substantive discussion that did not quickly degenerate into a chest-thumping all-about-Nullgeo monologue.

Have you ever just rallied with a friend in tennis or ping-pong to see how long you could go without missing the ball? First it might be three overs, then five, then seven ... and pretty soon you can go fifteen minutes. It just takes practice.

So here's a suggestion for you. The next time you are discussing some topic of import here at City-Data, try to go three posts without bringing up the great Nullgeo. Just three, that's all. Discuss the topic, the idea, the argument - not the persons doing the arguing, and especially not your wonderful self. You might also try to avoid denigrating your interlocutor, but maybe that's asking a little too much: it will be hard enough for you just keeping Nullgeo out of it. You might surprise yourself over time. Once you get to three posts in conversation, try holding out for four next time, and then five, and then six. Once you're competent at that, then you can work on not discussing the other personalities in the conversation. Baby steps. Pretty soon you'll be sailing along, having a great time, and making good progress based on some hard-won common ground.

You're welcome.

[WesternPilgrim]

"Great men talk about ideas; mediocre men talk about things; small men talk about people." - Admiral Hyman Rickover

[jaijai]

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by jaijai

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Relevance?

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

You're an intelligent man, Nullgeo. I think you're intellectually capable of having a productive debate. But thus far, I have yet to witness you engage in any substantive discussion that did not quickly degenerate into a chest-thumping all-about-Nullgeo monologue.

Have you ever just rallied with a friend in tennis or ping-pong to see how long you could go without missing the ball? First it might be three overs, then five, then seven ... and pretty soon you can go fifteen minutes. It just takes practice.

So here's a suggestion for you. The next time you are discussing some topic of import here at City-Data, try to go three posts without bringing up the great Nullgeo. Just three, that's all. Discuss the topic, the idea, the argument - not the persons doing the arguing, and especially not your wonderful self. You might also try to avoid denigrating your interlocutor, but maybe that's asking a little too much: it will be hard enough for you just keeping Nullgeo out of it. You might surprise yourself over time. Once you get to three posts in conversation, try holding out for four next time, and then five, and then six. Once you're competent at that, then you can work on not discussing the other personalities in the conversation. Baby steps. Pretty soon you'll be sailing along, having a great time, and making good progress based on some hard-won common ground.

You're welcome.

Tell you what Pilgrim -- you let me know when you recognize yourself in the above ... you know, the parts about endlessly, obsessively, focusing on your bigoted, judgmental, religious morality ... one post after another and another and another and another. Try not posting your own nonsense. The difference between us in this regard is that I am endlessly fascinating and remarkable and witty and worldly -- while you and your diatribe are, well, not.

As for having a productive debate -- with you? Lmfao ... you must be joking. Debate your fictions and fantasies? Pointless. You have nothing better to do in life than live by dogmatic ritual, go to mass, and read books looking for quotations to substitute for actual personal thought. It's all you've ever done and all you ever will.

The only "debate" going on with you is your tiresome mental self-master-debating about the greatness of your own religious and moral visions to force upon the world -- such as you have manged to insert even here in a spoof thread about where "hot" women can be found in California. You just troll from thread to thread inserting yourself and your moral brilliance as the opportunity strikes you. And when you don't see a topic that catches your fancy for your religious mission, you create specious topics under the cover of vague connections to California.

Hang on a bit, and I'll get back to you with more great stories about The Great Nullgeo in just a bit. I've got a million of 'em.

[NewToCA]

thread isn't even close to original topic, and is now closed