# Did they really need to research this? ;)



## Jennifer Price (Jan 25, 2008)

He's Not as Smart as He Thinks

"Are men smarter than women? No. But they sure think they are. An analysis of some 30 studies by British researcher Adrian Furnham, a professor of psychology at University College London, shows that men and women are fairly equal overall in terms of IQ. But women, it seems, underestimate their own candlepower (and that of women in general), while men overestimate theirs."


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jan 25, 2008)

There are sure a lot more TV shows and movies in the last decade pushing women-empowerment.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that women are equal in intelligence.

BUT, most women appear to be D-U-M-B simply because they act like "women." Therefore their intelligence is M-O-O-T!!!!!

Their intelligence is often trumped by their emotions. They make decisions based on their emotions instead of logic and what is right, fair, etc.

Most women have a reduced situational awareness, and have a lack of ambition.

Most women don't take preventive action such as maintaining their car, or putting things off until after they expire. (For example, letting a traffic ticket go to arrest warrant status.)

Now, I have witnessed many men, all liberals I might add, with the same issues above, however I wave witnessed it more with women which is maybe because most women are liberals. I have never met a conservative woman.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 25, 2008)

^^Come to SC, SuperAlpha. You won't find many liberals, period.


----------



## MA_PE (Jan 25, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> There are sure a lot more TV shows and movies in the last decade pushing women-empowerment.
> For the sake of argument, let's agree that women are equal in intelligence.
> 
> BUT, most women appear to be D-U-M-B simply because they act like "women." Therefore their intelligence is M-O-O-T!!!!!
> ...


That was a well-said, logical, post there Mr. Gambini.

Of course, you realize you will never be with a woman again.


----------



## Dleg (Jan 27, 2008)

^^The guy's obviously got issues. :screwloose:


----------



## TouchDown (Jan 28, 2008)

SA - I can't believe you said that....

I'm a guy and a liberal and *sniff* that hurts. Can someone hold me?

I also know a few women who attempt to take advantage of the "dumb" to make their guys feel important/smart... let's just say that being a father of 2 girls changes perspective and if they every play the dumb blond I'll have to call them on their crap.


----------



## testee (Jan 29, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> I have never met a conservative woman.


most people don't wear thier politics on thier sleeves. You have to have more than 3 sentences of conversation to determine affiliation in my experience.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jan 30, 2008)

I have no problems with getting women, even the liberal ones, however I would not settle down with a liberal woman.

Now back to the women intelligence argument, prove me wrong about how they act non-intelligently. Maybe it is because they do not give a damn, but it still backs up my points.

Touchdown had a point about women, being such intelligent creatures that they are, *"act dumb"* as a gift to their men. Wouldn't their intelligence be masked by their obvious dumbness?

That somewhat agrees with what I said in my first argument:



> For the sake of argument, let's agree that women are equal in intelligence. BUT, most women appear to be D-U-M-B simply because they act like "women." Therefore their intelligence is M-O-O-T!!!!!


NONE of the other replies have done anything except to personally attack me by telling me that I can't get a woman or that I have issues.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 30, 2008)

The fact that not one woman on this board has taken your bait and replied to your post is proof enough of their intelligence for me. But I guess it does show my lack of intelligence (note to self: don't feed the trolls).


----------



## frazil (Jan 30, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> My Pool





SuperAlpha said:


> Within the first year or so, I calculated the #chicks hours vs the equivalent #escort hours and ..... it is more than paid off....





SuperAlpha said:


> I have no problems with getting women


It's not hard if you're willing to pay, but that may explain the quality issues you're having.


----------



## cement (Jan 30, 2008)

lusone: for frazil!

I know lots of intelligent women, and have never seen them act dumb. Regarding conservative women, there are a quite a few. But if your view of what a conservative should be excludes women, you will be hard pressed to find any kind of majority or influence with your opinions.

We generally do a pretty good job on this board of avoiding hate speech. Bashing 51% of the population is not going to work, and should not be encouraged.


----------



## Jennifer Price (Jan 30, 2008)

frazil said:


> It's not hard if you're willing to pay, but that may explain the quality issues you're having.



Awesomeness. lusone:

I held my tongue in replying to him b/c why should I have to prove my intelligence to a person who has already lumped me in a group to which I do not belong.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Jan 30, 2008)

> It's not hard if you're willing to pay, but that may explain the quality issues you're having.


I've got this friend who used to always tell me his 'advice' on how to get women back in my single days. I was a little embarassed to hang out with the guy because I didn't want women thinking I had the same views.

He always said "You gotta pay to play man" as in the guy needs to spend tons of money on meals and gifts and dates and how if he did enough of that the women would repay him by letting him sleep with her. Real romantic, huh? He tended to get a few dates here and there but with real shallow, dead end types.

Now he's engaged. Made sure he found a woman with far less career aspirations/earning potential because heaven forbid she make more than him. He told me his goal in a marriage was to find someone who would cook and clean for him and leave him along when the game was on. It's like a stereotypical sitcom except it's not funny because it's for real here.


----------



## NCcarguy (Jan 30, 2008)

All I know about women is they typically have better looking BOOBS than men do!!! Is that why I keep getting called into the HR office?


----------



## snickerd3 (Jan 30, 2008)

VTEnviro said:


> He told me his goal in a marriage was to find someone who would cook and clean for him and leave him along when the game was on. It's like a stereotypical sitcom except it's not funny because it's for real here.


Not all that uncommon, one of my good friends from high school married a guy like that. Wont cook or clean and heaven forbid she wants to watch something else when a game or race was on. He keeps the temperature so low during the winter so they can afford the cable bill instead of the heating bill.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Jan 30, 2008)

snickerd3 said:


> ...keeps the temperature so low during the winter ...


Well, I do this, but it is to keep the beer cold! And yes, I do my fair share of chores. Wife and I trade cooking/cleaning duties every night.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Jan 30, 2008)

frazil said:


> It's not hard if you're willing to pay, but that may explain the quality issues you're having.


Sure, but I never paid the chicks as you imply. I paid for the pool and the chicks flock to it...I see no problem with this. I still own the pool. I get what I want and I reap the benefits.


----------



## Sschell (Jan 30, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> Sure, but I never paid the chicks as you imply. I paid for the pool and the chicks flock to it...I see no problem with this. I still own the pool. I get what I want and I reap the benefits.


Tom Leykis listener???


----------



## DVINNY (Jan 31, 2008)

How have I missed this thread up until now?

starting off as a potential classic.

(Fraz, nice one BTW)


----------



## Dleg (Jan 31, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> NONE of the other replies have done anything except to personally attack me by telling me that I can't get a woman or that I have issues.


You obviously DO have issues and you can count on continuing to receive such comments or "personal attacks" (as you phrase them) if you continue to spout such inappropriately sexist comments.

I've got a lot of work to do (believe it or not) and can't spam today, but after watching a quality female EB member (gatormech) never come back after your sexist comments last year, I won't miss the opportunity to say so this time. Go see a psychiatrist and deal with your female issues, or at least have the courtesy to not post them here.


----------



## cement (Jan 31, 2008)

^^ :appl: :appl: :appl:


----------



## rudy (Jan 31, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> There are sure a lot more TV shows and movies .... blah... blah.... blah....
> blah... blah... blah...
> 
> Now, I have witnessed many men, ... blah... blah... blah... I have never met a woman.


Whoa partner ! Thems are fightin' words.



SuperAlpha said:


> NONE of the other replies have done anything except to personally attack me by telling me that I can't get a woman or that I have issues.


ALL of your posts have done everything to personally attack women and men


----------



## DVINNY (Feb 1, 2008)

Dleg said:


> but after watching a quality female EB member (gatormech) never come back after your sexist comments last year,


Obviously, I missed something somewhere. ?


----------



## cement (Feb 1, 2008)

I remember.


----------



## Dark Knight (Feb 1, 2008)

Cement said:


> I remember.


I don't. But Gatormech never came back. That is weird. I never saw SuperAlpha as a troll or a problem member. All this is a surprise for me since I thought he was just kidding but looks like I was wrong. On the other hand YKW was obliterated for similar reasons.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Feb 1, 2008)

gatormech must have left before I got here, but I would almost swear that wasn't the case.

I guess I missed it, too.


----------



## Dark Knight (Feb 1, 2008)

Well, if the posts are offensive and in detriment of any member here, no matter the sex, then get rid of the posts. It is that simple. I was somehow surprised of reading some of the posts and thought they were totally out of order but, again, thought that was just a joke since always thought SuperA was a quality poster.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Feb 1, 2008)

sschellhase said:


> Tom Leykis listener???




Yes, although I always had the same philosophy, Tom's show sure reenforces it!


----------



## SuperAlpha (Feb 1, 2008)

Dleg said:


> You obviously DO have issues and you can count on continuing to receive such comments or "personal attacks" (as you phrase them) if you continue to spout such inappropriately sexist comments.
> I've got a lot of work to do (believe it or not) and can't spam today, but after watching a quality female EB member (gatormech) never come back after your sexist comments last year, I won't miss the opportunity to say so this time. Go see a psychiatrist and deal with your female issues, or at least have the courtesy to not post them here.



DID YOU ACTUALLY READ MY FIRST POST? Why don't you go back and read it again. This time pay attention to what I said.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Feb 1, 2008)

Dleg said:


> but after watching a quality female EB member (gatormech) never come back after your sexist comments last year, I won't miss the opportunity to say so this time.


Who? and what comment? and why would a comment on the internet affect someone so much? geez...


----------



## SuperAlpha (Feb 1, 2008)

BringItOn said:


> Well, if the posts are offensive and in detriment of any member here, no matter the sex, then get rid of the posts. It is that simple. I was somehow surprised of reading some of the posts and thought they were totally out of order but, again, thought that was just a joke since always thought SuperA was a quality poster.


Read my post again with a logical frame of mind instead of an emotional one. You will see:

I made factual statements. Statements of facts are NOT personal attacks against anyone. The statements I made are factual observations of real world examples and situations.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Feb 1, 2008)

Look, I am sorry that I offended you guys. I should act more professional in this type of forum.

I do not need to justify my ways of thinking. We are all different people with different views on things.

I will not argue this any further.

Again, I am sorry.


----------



## Sschell (Feb 1, 2008)

I remember gatormech she was cool!

I don't remember the comment/conflict though...


----------



## Sschell (Feb 1, 2008)

I must say I thought that all the commotion was fun... like DV said on its way to classic...

since I have heard leykis' schpiel (and I have a penis) this ideology does not offend me... my fiance on the otherhand would take a swing at leykis if she had a chance.

This guys name is superalpha for christ sake... what do you expect???

anyways, please don't think I'm defending the guy... obviously he'll speak for himself...

from my experience on this board, the women on this board are VERY intellegent, and probably not the type to hop into bed with a dude because he's got a cool pool... so SA's statements don't really apply to present company.

my $.02


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 2, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> I do not need to justify my ways of thinking. We are all different people with different views on things.


Now wait a minute.

Merriam-Webster defines liberal as "broad-minded." Broad-minded is defined as "tolerant of varied views."

After your liberal-bashing you want us to be tolerant of your views; to *be* liberal? That, by your own argument would make us stupid. Since I'm fairly liberal I've been ignoring your argument for the most part. But now that you're asking me purposely to be stupid, well, let's take a look at your argument on its face.

You claim that most women (and liberals) are stupid because they allow emotion to affect their judgement. You offer no evidence of this other than some circumstantial "observations." We later find out through a third party that your "observations" may be skewed (most of us probably agree that the women you attract with your pool aren't very intelligent). You also ask us to disprove this point that you have offered no verifible evidence on. In effect, you're asking us to disprove a negative, which is impossible. Then later when no one could disprove it, you could claim that it must be true because it was not disproven. However, it is not rational to expect us to do the impossible.

What this argument does is (1) takes a small, skewed sample set and tries to apply it to the majority, and (2) uses an irrational argument to try to prove it's true.

Back to Merriam-Webster, irrational is defined as "not endowed with reason or understanding" and "lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence." Also, intelligence is defined as "the skilled use of reason." Therefore, an irrational argument is not intelligent.

I find it ironic that the argument being used to try to prove someone else is not intelligent, is _itself_ not intelligent.

&lt;this part is tongue-in-cheek&gt;From my own observations the faux logic used in the argument to "prove" an irrational point is a typical tactic of the Conservative. Now given that Conservatives are irrational (dumb) and Liberals are emotional (dumb). Who is left to be intelligent?&lt;end tongue-in-cheek&gt;

The people that don't go around doling out labels like Conservative or Liberal or Dumb Woman.

Dude, just a word of advice: the only thing that going around calling all women dumb accomplishes is making yourself look like a jackass (at least when you're with intelligent company).

Hope I haven't (further) offended anyone. I knew this would be a lively thread when I saw Jen's original post, but I never expected it to take this route. Quite interesting.


----------



## SuperAlpha (Feb 2, 2008)

mudpuppy said:


> You claim that most women (and liberals) are stupid because they allow emotion to affect their judgement.


You misread what I said.

Go read my first post and pay attention to the placement of the word, "appear." You may need to refer to Merriam for the definition as well. Then read the part about their intelligence being a moot point. Maybe I should have phrased it better, like they "act" dumb.

ETA-Also the second line should give you another clue that I have not called women dumb, stupid, etc.

"For the sake of argument, let's agree that women are equal in intelligence."

As for the liberal definition, sure you might be right, but this is a professional-oriented website and since political correctness is the norm, unfortunately it goes hand-in-hand with lliberalism. So on here, we should *appear* to be liberal (dumb).


----------



## SuperAlpha (Feb 2, 2008)

There is a major reading comprehension problem here.

Maybe it is the font size on your screens.

If you would go beack and read exactly what I said in my first post, then you shall see that I never once said women were stupid, dumb, etc.


----------



## EM_PS (Feb 2, 2008)

You're coming across as desperate dude: desperate to somehow expunge your defaming statement earlier &amp; in the way you lobby to prove to the public forum members here that you can 'get chicks' - are we in 8th grade here? By the way, David Hasselhoff called: he wants his 1984 Trans Am back.

:holyness: Rereading your initial post, you state: most women appear to be D-U-M-B simply because they act like "women" - so no, you don't come out and call women dumb, you just state that they APPEAR dumb because they ACT like WOMEN! Therein, if in acting like a woman you appear dumb - ipso facto women must be dumb? How else are we to take your statement?

Hello McFly! Anyone home McFly!?

opcorn:


----------



## mudpuppy (Feb 2, 2008)

SuperAlpha said:


> For the sake of argument, let's agree that women are equal in intelligence.
> . . . Therefore their intelligence is M-O-O-T!!!!!


Ok, you never came right out said women are stupid. You said their intelligence is moot and then you went on to list a bunch of stupid things that they allegedy all do. I don't see a difference.

BTW--I apologize if my citing definitions was offensive; it was only meant to establish a baseline for a rational argument.

(edit--yeah, what Error Matrix said)


----------



## SuperAlpha (Feb 2, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> You're coming across as desperate dude: desperate to somehow expunge your defaming statement earlier &amp; in the way you lobby to prove to the public forum members here that you can 'get chicks' - are we in 8th grade here? By the way, David Hasselhoff called: he wants his 1984 Trans Am back.
> :holyness: Rereading your initial post, you state: most women appear to be D-U-M-B simply because they act like "women" - so no, you don't come out and call women dumb, you just state that they APPEAR dumb because they ACT like WOMEN! Therein, if in acting like a woman you appear dumb - ipso facto women must be dumb? How else are we to take your statement?
> 
> Hello McFly! Anyone home McFly!?
> ...


You guys have serious reading comprehension issues. Turn off the emotion (yeah...you know what I mean) and look at my statements from a logical point of view.

Are you saying that I stated women are DUMB? If so, please quote my exact statement of fact to back up your statement.

That part about the chicks was in response to someone else's attempt at a jab.

It is a fact that typical women "act" dumb. If we are to accept (as agreed in my first post) that they are at least as intelligent as men are, as Jen's article says, then their intelligence is masked by how they act.


----------



## EM_PS (Feb 2, 2008)

error_matrix said:


> so no, you don't come out and call women dumb






SuperAlpha said:


> look at my statements from a logical point of view.
> Are you saying that I stated women are DUMB? If so, please quote my exact statement of fact to back up your statement.


WTF? What about my last post wasn't crystal clear?

I looked at your statements from strictly a logical point of view - i asked at the end of my last post for you to proffer up how else was the casual reader to take your statements? The comprehension short coming is in your court fella. Your written discourse was and continues to be flawed. You didn't mean to offend, but the manner in which you stated your opinion could hardly do otherwise. Everything you offer up as fact, is IN FACT, your opinion, nothing more, nothing less. This is nothing more than my logical examination of this entertaining, self-inflicted, witchhunt (you're the witch, by the way).


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2008)

Okay guys ... let's cool our jets.






Topic locked.

JR


----------

