it's a forum and it ought to have been obvious who my question was for
Define "forum"; does forum mean a conversation between 2 specific people and noone else is entitled to express their ideas?? I don't think so. Defining one's terms is the FIRST requirement of clear reasoning - you are not there yet.
it's a forum and it ought to have been obvious who my question was for
Define "forum"; does forum mean a conversation between 2 specific people and noone else is entitled to express their ideas?? I don't think so. Defining one's terms is the FIRST requirement of clear reasoning - you are not there yet.
i'm speaking with ciljettu
You're really beautiful when you're angry
Unfortunately chris is a "he" and the avatar is not a true representation. Bit of a fraud, much like the "feminism" he espouses.
Not a nice feeling being outnumbered chris?
Still at least its 2 vs 1 not 80 vs 1, so count yourself lucky
That's a shame. another man who has sold out so he can be accepted by a shrinking number of women. For some guys, kissing up to women is the only way they can get women to talk to them.
you guys are silly.
Unfortunately chris is a "he" and the avatar is not a true representation. Bit of a fraud, much like the "feminism" he espouses.
Not a nice feeling being outnumbered chris?
Still at least its 2 vs 1 not 80 vs 1, so count yourself lucky
That's a shame. another man who has sold out so he can be accepted by a shrinking number of women. For some guys, kissing up to women is the only way they can get women to talk to them.
Excellent perception... indeed chris has been acting feminist to try and gain validation from one particular female but with very limited success. Perhaps if he emasculated himself some more, she would blow him a kiss ?
HAHAHA!! That's awesome; good luck chris!! maybe if you have an operation she will like you better
Don't put much stock into ciljetto, he makes sexual remarks to underage girls on a chess site.
Don't put much stock into ciljetto, he makes sexual remarks to underage girls on a chess site.
He also turns virtually every forum topic he posts in into a debate about women. This one is a good example. The original topic had nothing to do with women.
so you've been led to think and you seem unwilling to discuss the facts of your problem
I've already mentioned facts: decreased longevity is a fact.
Other facts include disadvantage in family courts, greater occupational risk, enforced participation in the military, cultural suspicion around male sexuality, etc, etc.
I could go on all night, but it is close to bedtime.
there is no question that this is correct; men are severely disadvantaged due to the "equality" movement; our issues are not even acknowledged, much less dealt with. Everybody has been brainwashed to believe that women have it "worse than men," when in fact the opposite is true.
We already had this discussion in another thread.
The primary cause of inequal longevity is risk taking behaviour, which is largely linked to higher testosterone in men.
Another main cause is sexual dimorphism.
What is your plan for fixing this?
Don't put much stock into ciljetto, he makes sexual remarks to underage girls on a chess site.
He also turns virtually every forum topic he posts in into a debate about women. This one is a good example. The original topic had nothing to do with women.
You are both liars - the profile of that user was false, as three people suggested at the time. But you are showing another problem with feminism - false accusations and rape hysteria.
That is very well-put. False accusations and rape hysteria are trump cards for some women - when their reasoning fails, call the nearest man a rapist
Don't put much stock into ciljetto, he makes sexual remarks to underage girls on a chess site.
He also turns virtually every forum topic he posts in into a debate about women. This one is a good example. The original topic had nothing to do with women.
You are both liars - the profile of that user was false, as three people suggested at the time. But you are showing another problem with feminism - false accusations and rape hysteria.
Oh really? You don't think anyone might have taken screen shots or copied any of it?
And why exactly did you delete your comments if you didn't think you made inappropriate comments? Your comments were so bad staff even had to go back through and delete the places where people had quoted you.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/chess-player-of-the-month-may-2012?page=33
I think ya'll should drop your anti-woman tirade and go back to discussing the OP's topic before you get his thread locked.
We already had this discussion in another thread.
The primary cause of inequal longevity is risk taking behaviour, which is largely linked to higher testosterone in men.
Another main cause is sexual dimorphism.
What is your plan for fixing this?
Greater public health expenditure on health and health education aimed specifically for men, or "positive action" for men on public health expenditure. In short, the traditional feminist solution.
How will that fix higher testosterone and greater average height? Seems like it would have zero effect.
I think ya'll should drop your anti-woman tirade and go back to discussing the OP's topic before you get his thread locked.
Right. Standing up for men is anti-woman. That is feminism in a nutshell.
Three people said the profile was false... quite typical of feminists to smear anyone who contradicts them with paedohysteria.
Look I am 15 and you are harassing me
That's weird you say you are 15 when your profile says your DoB is 1977, my math must be off.
But this is typical. Those who devote themselves to foolish endeavors tend to scrap quite fiercely in defending their wasting of limited life resources.
I don't know; to me, the fact that my mind gets satisfaction from getting better at the game is truly enough for me to want to devote my whole life to it. It's all about satisfaction and challenge.
Is it unintelligent? Although it's not a practical thing to do, part of the reason why we do impractical things is because in this society sometimes we can focus on the abstract things because we have firefighters, plumbers, construction workers to do all the "dirty work." One might argue that such jobs are the most admirable because without people like them we would be helpless in certain situations. However, at the same time I think people respect beauty, and know that the type of beauty you can get in music, art, or chess is incredible, and that people will do so much for one of the deepest pleasures. If we didn't have challenges that gave us satisfaction, abstract or not, what would be the point of living? We want to be healthy and everything, but we also want to give ourselves deep satisfaction; passions like music, and romantic love, are two things that can do that.
And if people don't agree with that as a justification, I can accept that. I only know it's satisfying because of how it affects me. Personally, I think it's better than being addicted to something like World of Warcraft because that virtually puts your mind in a different world, expecting to drink potions with every one of your meals for instance. Chess mostly just focuses and challenges your mind, but not giving your mind any fantasies to think about.
But this is typical. Those who devote themselves to foolish endeavors tend to scrap quite fiercely in defending their wasting of limited life resources.
I don't know; to me, the fact that my mind gets satisfaction from getting better at the game is truly enough for me to want to devote my whole life to it. It's all about satisfaction and challenge.
Is it unintelligent? Although it's not a practical thing to do, part of the reason why we do impractical things is because in this society sometimes we can focus on the abstract things because we have firefighters, plumbers, construction workers to do all the "dirty work." One might argue that such jobs are the most admirable because without people like them we would be helpless in certain situations. However, at the same time I think people respect beauty, and know that the type of beauty you can get in music, art, or chess is incredible, and that people will do so much for one of the deepest pleasures. If we didn't have challenges that gave us satisfaction, abstract or not, what would be the point of living? We want to be healthy and everything, but we also want to give ourselves deep satisfaction; passions like music, and romantic love, are two things that can do that.
And if people don't agree with that as a justification, I can accept that. I only know it's satisfying because of how it affects me. Personally, I think it's better than being addicted to something like World of Warcraft because that virtually puts your mind in a different world, expecting to drink potions with every one of your meals for instance. Chess mostly just focuses and challenges your mind, but not giving your mind any fantasies to think about.
It has been shown that games like chess sharpen the mind and make you less likely to suffer from Alzheimers later on, which is enough justification for me to play. I don't want to be drooling on myself the last 20 years of my life.
Well, I don't know, I can't put myself in others' shoes. Maybe I would feel differently if my IQ was 100. But from my point of view, I think anything in chess is graspable with well-learned experience.
I don't think it's understanding chess that's the issue. I believe more intelligent folks have a better sense of intuition and ability to get to the truth. Not to mention superior visualization skills. The difference between a 170 IQ and a 100 IQ is that the guy with a 170 IQ has a better sense of intuition.
I have an average IQ(102) and I almost never listen to my intuition. I can't tell you how many times I've messed up games because I didn't make the tactical brilliancy due to me being too scared.
For instance, a thought to sacrifice a knight comes to my mind and I will question it. Nothing comes to me. "Why would it work?" I do not know. And then I blow it, costing me the game.
If I were more intelligent, more thoughts would come to me from beneath the surface and I would finally understand why. I fear this is what will limit me in my chess-playing...
There is no need to assume that this problem is due to intelligence. I have actually been in your situation: when it's hard to tell whether a move will work or not.
It's all experience! Why does the master "smell" mate with a certain piece sacrifice? Believe me when I tell you this: He has seen positions like the one he is looking at, trillions of times! (ok, slight exaggeration lol) If a position looks like a sort of position you have seen before, and you had a certain evaluation for that position you have seen before, you will subconsciously adjust the differences to the position you are calculating in your head and I think this final estimate is how you feel about the sacrifice; it's what determines if your hunch thinks it will work or not. You just get a sense for what is "generally enough" pieces attacking your opponents kingside and the characteristics of an "inadequate" defensive force.
Experienced players trust their intuition because their intuition is more valuable, and more likely to be correct, than that of a less experienced amateur. If you are inexperienced, your intuition might not be correct all that often and it might even be wise to be skeptical of it. I don't think this really has to with intelligence. If you learn from your experience, like I have done in my chess so far, you should see your hunches improving.
chrisr2212 wrote:
how could "equality for women" be morally wrong ?
Feminism has nothing to do with equality for women. It has to do with stomping everyone who is not a woman off the face of the earth, and exalting womankind and their "rights" over everything and everyone else. Men and women are NOT equal. we are completely different. This moronic worship of "equality" has caused incalculable harm. Feminism is an excuse for women to get away with murder and anything else they decide to get away with
At last someone else who has taken the red pill.
ciljettu - there are at least 2 of us on the planet with minds of our own; it's not over yet for humanity.