Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

appleseed123

Members
  • Content count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About appleseed123

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ

Converted

  • Location
    canada
  • Interests
    this forum
  • Gender
    Male
  • Personal Text
    "the planet is fine, the people are fucked"
    george carlin regarding climate change
  1. This may seem arrogant, but I like my type to most. It is the one with the most beneficial characteristics (not listing em), so I dislike the type most opposite of us (subjective thou).
  2. Well, unless only women can be nurturing (or any other personality trait), or only men can be aggressive (or any other personality trait), that still doesn't work. Naturally I cannot speak definitively for the entirety of the feminist population, but I am pretty sure that is all that anyone is saying.

    Anyway, it's really not to hard to judge people as individuals rather than [collective group of females] and [collective group of males]. Everyone is different, both within and between sexes.

  3. its not biological OR , its biological psychological (used wrong word sorry) differences, like you said "Personality traits are sex-blind". That is what I meant that feminists say. Sorry for the confusion

  4. That's a very weak and pitiful strawman. I have never heard a feminist say that there are no biological or physiological differences - in fact, if you'll notice, we're all saying the opposite. But the existence of biological differences does not prove any inherent differences in traits. Personality traits are sex-blind. And until our enormous social constructs that teach men they must behave in x manner, but never in y manner, because that is for women, and the social constructs that do the same for women, are removed, you can't prove that they are inherent. Considering the number of men and women who do not exhibit the characteristics that are supposedly inherent in their sex (e.g. nurturing in women, aggressive in men), I'd say that it is largely social construct.

  5. it is far from reality, even clueless stated that he didnt believe it reflected reality. But some ppl (cough *feminists* cough) dont believe it is far from reality. Such things like gender as a social construct with no biology physiological differences will reflect this. That is the point of using the "hypothetical" example.

  6. Thanks. Interesting/amusing for me as well.

  7. Trying to prove a point about the real world by using a hypothetical situation that is so far gone from reality is absurd.

  8. a hypothetical situation is absurd? Really? Isn't that the point? By taking out all the variables except a select few, how can it not be absurd?

  9. I assure you I am not misunderstanding what he is saying. There is a difference between not comprehending it and finding it absurd.

  10. I read the entire thread, and I see a common misunderstanding in your posts. Yes, if you do not desire great(er) strength in friends, do not base your friendship upon such as criteria. But, if two candidates are equal, why not chose the great(er) strength friend? Even thou there is no utility from the strength now, does not mean there wont be later on. There is a possibility you will need it later. Unless you desire friends that need to be small to do certain activities (horse jockey?), or you desire them based on being less able to help you, say move fire wood, due to some tendencies you have (self-destructive?), base the friendship on strength (ALL ELSE EQUAL including personality, like robots if it helps). Its almost like free life insurance. You have no use for it now, but you might need it next year. @clueless, thank you. It has been amusing reading everyone argue over such a simple question and, one would think, logical answer. Especially those who project their impression of the question upon you.
  11. @ storm, lets just say that he believes the free market is more efficient and a better approach to solve the problem/s that the social program targets. Ok? Maybe the motive plays a part in determining if it is hypocritical.
  12. It helped me feel "normal" not in the sense of being the same as everyone else but that there are others like me regardless of how far spread we are. Reminded me of how im not alone, and it really helped me embrace who i was inside instead believing I was some how defunct due to my social ills
  13. narrow, its one paragraph, of course. But thank you for proving your argument instead of using insulting claims like "uniformed and miserably". Regardless, OP, judge yourself. Feminism will give you one verison. Others will give you another. Dont just research using feminism literature. Its like reading about the nazi's through nazi literature (not comparing feminism to nazi's, just an ex).
  14. Its not hard to understand feminism. They claim the desire of equal rights, sometimes through opportunity and sometimes through equal outcome. They base equality on statistics whether fake or real, and use their influence to change government and/or social norms (the later being hard to change). Since gender is a social construct, they believe any difference in girls/boys is due to the way they were raise and influenced by society. So less than 50% girls in engineering is society's fault. What you need to narrow your search down to is their use of justification from discrimination in the past and determine for yourself whether it is unbiased.
  15. @warrior, yea things change when you have the reserve fiat currency. Unfortunate