Guys, cut elubas some slack. He's just a female apologist because his mother happens to be a female so this topic is personal for him.
Hmm? No, it's not personal. In fact I can't think of the last thing I argued about on chess.com that was personal for me.
Yeah, but your mom is a female right? Just a yes or no answer please... no need to obfuscate things mr loobs.
Sigh.
Yeah, but your mom is a female right? Just a yes or no answer please... no need to obfuscate things mr loobs.
Hang on a minute...
I read somewhere that at least 95% of mass murderers had female mothers!
Hmmmmm....
The protein folds in my mitochondria take into account quantum physics to make energy for me to live. Wow, lets "appreciate" that in a macro social context -- barf.
No, let's appreciate the pain women go through when they have children. Because a pregnancy can be explained scientifically means that they suddenly don't go through pain and stress?
Gender has nothing to do with it. The only reason why men seem more talented is simply because there are more men that play than women. If there were just as many women playing, things would be a lot different.
Sigh.
Hahaha 
You sigh at me having some fun but endlessly talk circles with fiveoswords. At least I'm talking with you, not a broken record talking past you every time.
No, let's appreciate the pain women go through when they have children. Because a pregnancy can be explained scientifically means that they suddenly don't go through pain and stress?
Yes, my example was meant to be silly. Pain of pregnancy? What a contrived tired example. As you see in my posts, I couldn't take it seriously. Lets appreciate something meaningful they have to go through. You don't even have to miss work for pregnancy. Pain of childbirth, or how their bodies go nuts, especially after menopause... there's something to think about.
I've heard technology is developing though to a point where, into the future, women might not need a man for that. Don't remember how though lol.
That's possible in more or less distant future, but in the present, they do need men for developing such technology. Even if we imagine that female-only scientists are able to create technology that would eliminate men from human reproduction, they still need them for ''producing'' new generations of scientists. It turns out that men are digging their own graves, waiting to be silently shoot dead in the future.
Perish, you mysoginistic bastards, that is the last time you forked my queen and king. King? We'll have to rename that lazy drone.
Haven't you heard? Men run the planet. They give birth to women, and then force them to do all the dangerous and difficult jobs while they sit at home raising children.
Wait, that's not at all what men do.
:-D ! -- wait, though -- are you or are you not counting "raising children" as a difficult and dangerous job? I would.
Yeah, I disagree with Elubas that it doesn't take much talent and even that it's not an art. Molding a person is immensely more difficult than chess. Especially if you have more than one kid. Each one is different, needs change year to year, and there's no way to really prepare. Imagine you get to play 1-5 chessgames in your whole life. You mess up a kid in the "opening phase" and as an adult there can be difficulties they don't work out for decades, if at all.
From a kid's perspective you may think the parents have it all together... but they're taking care of their life in the background at the same time. I think it's something very easy to screw up and something very few are good at.
"Pain of childbirth, or how their bodies go nuts"
Well, that was implied when I said pregnancy :) The whole process: carrying the kid, the symptoms, giving birth to him or her, etc.
Like I said about parents, I'm not a parent, so, it is what it is, but that doesn't mean I will automatically give the benefit of the doubt. But you make good points. I guess it's just that, what truly qualifies as a failure of parenting? Some kids are raised better than others, but generally they do turn out ok in the grand scheme of things. Like I said though, that doesn't in any way dilute the appreciation we should have for them. It is quite a commitment obviously.
Well, I think of raising kids kind of like a chess game (do I play chess too much yet?) in that it's impossible not to make mistakes. IMO one main reason is there's no way to practice. Sure you can read books and talk to your parents, but then you have a kid whose personality catches you completely off guard.
I don't think most people have serious psychological issues, perhaps as Freud would say. But at the very least I think as each person enters adulthood they have strengths and weaknesses as a person, and as they go out on their own it's now up to them if they want to work on their weaknesses.
Fair enough. I will give some benefit of the doubt :)
I certainly don't doubt your powers to do that! You're one of the most reasonable posters around who is also willing to talk about varying subjects, even with people I would consider trolls.
Thanks :)
Haven't you heard? Men run the planet. They give birth to women, and then force them to do all the dangerous and difficult jobs while they sit at home raising children.
Wait, that's not at all what men do.
:-D ! -- wait, though -- are you or are you not counting "raising children" as a difficult and dangerous job? I would.
Yeah, I disagree with Elubas that it doesn't take much talent and even that it's not an art. Molding a person is immensely more difficult than chess. Especially if you have more than one kid. Each one is different, needs change year to year, and there's no way to really prepare. Imagine you get to play 1-5 chessgames in your whole life. You mess up a kid in the "opening phase" and as an adult there can be difficulties they don't work out for decades, if at all.
From a kid's perspective you may think the parents have it all together... but they're taking care of their life in the background at the same time. I think it's something very easy to screw up and something very few are good at.
Okay, you only get to play 1-2 games (5 if you're poor) but also imagine the other player is an infant. Then your analogy is complete.
Gender has nothing to do with it. The only reason why men seem more talented is simply because there are more men that play than women. If there were just as many women playing, things would be a lot different.
Oh, for $#@!'s sake...
Psychologically it may be easier to mistake a 21 year old man as a kid (whether because of looks, hobbies, etc), compared to a 21 year old woman, but that's just psychological.
I'm not sure if it's even psychological.
It probably is. Just for example, a female adult is not expected to be particularly tall, and often wears dresses, has lots of pretty colors around her, etc. But if a male happened to have that same body, without the accessories and such of course, he would just look underdeveloped. However looking and actually being are two different things. How people use their life experience is up to them. They may become very mature, or remain immature even well into adulthood.
Guys, cut elubas some slack. He's just a female apologist because his mother happens to be a female so this topic is personal for him.
Hmm? No, it's not personal. In fact I can't think of the last thing I argued about on chess.com that was personal for me.