Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Green Monster said: brother please, i do not wish be jaahil on the subject, pleas show us frome where u get 5-7 percentage particpation rate football https://www.statista.com/statistics/267963/participation-in-us-high-school-soccer/ womens, they r 46%... Soccer is virtually negligible in the US, so it having half as many women as men doesn't make a difference. Quote brother pleas explain how 46 per cent women participation in football/soccer leads to world champion female football team to loss to u15 mens school club??? The same reason why US national team loses to Ghana. The specific Sport is not entrenched enough. Quote brother, u mention basketball aswell, https://www.statista.com/statistics/267942/participation-in-us-high-school-basketball/ womans are 44% in basketball in us brother, u can see all sttats from that website only here is track and field, https://www.statista.com/statistics/268002/participation-in-us-high-school-track-and-field/ 45% girls brother, this level of jaahiliyat is not good, i will pray to allah to give u knowledge testosterone haemoglobbin does nt effect height brother, they affect muscle mass and oxygin retntion... so muscle mass, strength, performance...height is genetic borther, and has to do with nutrition as well... brother why u hate punjabi so much... what part of india r u from??? once agin i will pray to allah to give u knowledge and end ur jaahiliyat Maybe you should pray to your imaginary sky-friend to give you manners first. Yes, the German women must've got much more haemoglobin and testosterone than Indian or Pakistani men, to have greater height and muscle mass than our average. Maybe they are the super-race afterall!!! But hey, I don't expect people from a religion where women are second class citizens, to accept the idea that women are equal to men. #idiot. PS: I don't have Punjabis. Just think Punjab is the most overrated part of the Indian subcontinent, that's all. Big fat zero in history, culture and top of the class in jahilliyat behavior. Edited January 19, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 8 hours ago, Green Monster said: no brother, 46 woman to 54 percent men is not half as many... brother ur maths skills needs improving no brother, US women's national team is current womens world cup champions... see here brother https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FIFA_Women's_World_Cup_finals Results by nation[edit] National team Wins Runners-up Total finals Years won Years runners-up United States 3 1 4 1991, 1999, 2015 2011 Germany 2 1 3 2003, 2007 1995 Japan 1 1 2 2011 2015 Norway 1 1 2 1995 1991 Brazil 0 1 1 – 2007 China PR 0 1 1 – 1999 Sweden 0 1 1 – 2003 3 times champions, alluding most recent the world cup champions women lost to 14 and 15 year old boys brother... this level of jaahiliyat is not good brother... brother u are being jaahil once again, hemoglobin and testosterone dont have to do with height borhter... testosterone affects muscle mass... hemoglobin muscle capacity... height is genetics + nutrition... brother that is an interesting facts, where do u get that german women have greatter muscle mass than average Asian man... that woud be and interesting read brother, pleasse share with me... as far as i know brother, here https://www.livestrong.com/article/246036-how-much-more-muscle-mass-does-a-male-have-than-a-female/ see brother, mens have 40 percentage more muscles and teh muscle they have is 5-10 percent more stronger... Hey idiot, if German women are tallen than the average Pakistani, what do you think is on their skeletal frame ? just skin ?? Sure, women have less muscle mass than men- due to thousands of years of inferior nutrition and oppression. This is why sexual dimorphism in species homo sapiens is decreasing, not increasing- because women are catching up in nutrition. Obviously, 10,000 years of oppression and negative consequences to their bodies wont be undone in 2 generations but the progress is being made. As I said, I don't expect jaahils following jaahil religions which treat women as second class citizens, to understand and be extremely insecure. The simple fact is, there are no jobs in the world today that women are not qualified to do. Even military. IDF proves this by kicking the butt of the 'macho arab muslims' over and over and over again and their women make better soldiers than Arab men do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rageaddict Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Punjabi Bashing by Kaali Worshipping Effeminate Bengali Male Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 8 hours ago, rageaddict said: Punjabi Bashing by Kaali Worshipping Effeminate Bengali Male Muloghonto Err I am an atheist. So no Kali for me. PS: Bengal has a far greater martial history than Punjab. And Bengal is a 'middle to lower-middle' ranked player in the Subcontinental martial history game. Let that sink in for a moment. Punjab has been nothing more than backwater and punching bag for all of history till the rise of the shortlived Sikh Empire. Their entire martial bravado - that's entire Punjab- Indian as well as Pakistani- is a 'Johnny come lately' to the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Green Monster said: brother, you are being jaahil again... please stop brother... see here brother http://nidsun.org/what-does-your-total-body-weight-consists-of-and-what-are-the-proportions-of-fat-muscles-connective-tissue-and-bones/ brother, how can one possibly think height = muslces??? height comes from bone brother... a persons weigh doesnt only come from muscle brother.... their is fat, bone, connective tissues all part of weight brother... Because human physiology is proportionate, you idiot. A six foot tall person has more muscle than a five foot tall person, regardless of gender. Quote what makes u think weight directly equal muscle mass brother???? this is first time i hav heard such... brother, whre did u go to medical school??? india or the West??? brother, this is first time i am hearing this only... please shwo us how women had inferior nutrion for 1000 years... eagerly waiting ur response... Because women have always eaten after men and in subsistence farming societies, it means its the woman who goes hungry, not the man. Quote brother u did not read singh saab's article brother that means that teh decline in sex dimorphism happened thousands upon thousands of years ago... before humans even existed... What a moronic comment. So sexual dimporphism diminished in our species, before our species even existed ? Sexual dimorphism is DECREASING as we speak. Quote and ur people, neanderthals and modern humans have same per cent of sex dimorphism brother, from the same article it is says that it becomes less useful for mens to be larger and so the difference has decreases... this is with beta males like u brother... probably the size of a small school girl and poor at sports... The sexual dimorphism of species homo sapiens was lesser pre-agriculture, became greater with agriculture, as men created laws to dominate women due to inheritance. As per being poor at sports, pretty sure in my sport of choice I can beat anyone here while puffing on a cigarette. Its jaahil munafiqs following jahil religions like yourself who concern yourself with out-dated models of alpha male or beta male or such nonsense. Quote i pray to allah to give your more strength... brother... no need to be so sensitive... brother look https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/gaza-a-mans-war-israel-gender/375689/ even the jews will not let their women be apart of there occupying army's crimes... they themself say less than 4 per cent women in combat roles... brother, are u a isreali general that u are aware and they arent... They have less than 4% combat roles, because their society is still sexist due to them beliving in imaginary God and moral code created by illiterates. What IDF proves, is that women are capable of any combat role and have been decorated as such for it. Israeli women have made better combat soldiers than Arab men have and they have the victories and decorations to prove it. Edited January 19, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 3 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Because in almost every single civilization women are second class citizens. Your grandparents lifestyle was 'first feed the kids, then feed th husband and only then the woman eats'. This means women get way less nutrition than the man and that has left an effect.. India is fine example of first class , second class and third class citizens divided in caste from thousands of years, Is there any kind of racial differences that have occurred due it? Lower castes had some of the worst nutrition from the centuries even worse than upper caste women, so by your logic all lower castes of today should have been weaker than even upper caste women?? Also Black slaves were imported into west indies and USA , and don't tell me they got hyper nutrious food , but today descendents are kicking asses of descendents of their masters , by your logic they should have been extremely weaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Green Monster said: brother muloghonto says a 6 foot tall person has more muscle than shorter person, please brother, give us an article which say wat u says don't twist my words. I said a six foot tall person has more muscle mass, regardless of gender, to a five foot tall person. 1 hour ago, Green Monster said: where did u go to medical school, only u say such bizarre physiology... see brother, a 6 foot tall womans, would be 159 lbs, 35% muscle, equals 56 lbs muscle... a 5 foot 9 man, 157 pounds, 45% muscle, equals 71 lbs of muscle... Complete nonsensical char. Hey fool, ideal body weight is on body structure. Ectomorphs, Mesomorphs, Endomorphs etc. You are an idiot if you think Gwhendolyn Christie is below 200-220 pounds at her fittest. Or that Someone like Peter Forsberg is unfit if he is 240 pounds at 6'1 1 hour ago, Green Monster said: a shorter man has more muscle mass than taller women and that womens 56 lbs muscle is 5-10 weaker pound of pound Nothing more than more nonsensical propaganda. 1 hour ago, Green Monster said: so women have less muslce even if taller, there muscle r weaker, and they lack the hormone testosterone which cause building of muscle mass, have less hemoglobin so muscles perform worse, we can only say brother muloghonto is a fool!!! brother, u are very stupid, kuch to sharam karo!!! and admit u r wrong... even allah can't save u from ur arrogance... 1 hour ago, Green Monster said: brother, i will pray to allah to remove ur jaahiliyat, but i m begining to think it is impossible for u !!! Ok. Pray away to the imaginary buddy of an illiterate from 1500 years ago, to save the guy who is not extraordinary, yet knows more than that entire illiterate's civilization. Sounds like a smart decision to me. 1 hour ago, Green Monster said: not me brother, the article... u are now ignorings the article to!!! brother, where r u getting this information... please give it to me... please brother, u seem to be some learnd scholar!!! , pleas give a simple jaahil like me an article for the bold... that is not what this article says!!! https://mobile.nytimes.com/1997/08/26/science/new-clues-to-history-of-male-and-female.html?referer= brother, that means the dimorphism has been the same for 3 lakh years!!! I will give you a hint, since you are new and you suffer from jahilliyat on this topic due to your religion, but learn to cite. Random news paper clippings are meaningless. 1 hour ago, Green Monster said: that doesnt fit the story u are saying... please enlighten all of us from our jaahiliyat!!! brother muloghonto is more aware of soldiers capabilities than israeli generals themselves!!! mashallah!!! I already posted an official article from the IDF, where the General says that women have served combat roles with distinction and yet, face no less hurdles than men to perform their jobs. Since Israelis are far superior soldiers than their Arab counterparts, it stands to reason that their women make far better soldiers than the average Arab soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Singh bling said: India is fine example of first class , second class and third class citizens divided in caste from thousands of years, Is there any kind of racial differences that have occurred due it? Lower castes had some of the worst nutrition from the centuries even worse than upper caste women, so by your logic all lower castes of today should have been weaker than even upper caste women?? Not necessarily. Indians have a long and distinguished history of malnutrition since recent times. Our industrial age was not as prolonged as the European industrial age (and we are not done either). That means except the elites ( read: rajas and darogas and such), everyone else was on subsistence living. Didn't matter if you were an upper caste warrior or a Brahmin or a peasant farmer- most Indians had barely enough to eat on bad years and enough to eat and have a few extra things on the good years. This means, we have 80--90% being malnourished through the last 1000 years or so. 1 hour ago, Singh bling said: Also Black slaves were imported into west indies and USA , and don't tell me they got hyper nutrious food , but today descendents are kicking asses of descendents of their masters , by your logic they should have been extremely weaker black people did not come from long established farming cultures. Their history of farming is far more recent (from where the slaves came) and their diet has far more hunter-gatherer variety to it. Plus, they already surived horrible transport conditions- stands to reason, that was the greatest 'eliminator of anything but the toughest of constitutions' to the ones who set foot on the new world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Not necessarily. Indians have a long and distinguished history of malnutrition since recent times. Our industrial age was not as prolonged as the European industrial age (and we are not done either). That means except the elites ( read: rajas and darogas and such), everyone else was on subsistence living. Didn't matter if you were an upper caste warrior or a Brahmin or a peasant farmer- most Indians had barely enough to eat on bad years and enough to eat and have a few extra things on the good years. This means, we have 80--90% being malnourished through the last 1000 years or so. black people did not come from long established farming cultures. Their history of farming is far more recent (from where the slaves came) and their diet has far more hunter-gatherer variety to it. Plus, they already surived horrible transport conditions- stands to reason, that was the greatest 'eliminator of anything but the toughest of constitutions' to the ones who set foot on the new world. There was always elite class and their women always much more to eat than rest 80-90%.If. Your theory that malnutrition in women lead to sexual dimorphism then descendents of those elite should had no or lesser degree of sexual dimorphism Also you are saying 20 k years ago Men and women were similar as they were hunter gatherers and farming changed it.So by your logic Blacks or other tribes which just started farming or still are hunter gatherer should have no or less sexual dimorphism Do you have any scientific research which support your theory Edited January 20, 2018 by Singh bling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Singh bling said: There was always elite class and their women always much more to eat than rest 80-90%.If. Your theory that malnutrition in women lead to sexual dimorphism then descendents of those elite should had no or lesser degree of sexual dimorphism Sure, if you could guarantee the results that the elites only ever married elites, that would be true. But that is not true- because elites themselves have plenty of instances - not just in India but worldwide- where they marry poor people of higher class - daughters of a prominent but poor Brahmin, marriage between an elite business family and a poor family with titles (such marriages for eg,were all the rage in UK in the late 1800s- you are an Earl/Duke/Squire who's fallen on tough times ? go to Murrica, marry a rich murrican lady who wants the 'title' and become rich). Quote Also you are saying 20 k years ago Men and women were similar as they were hunter gatherers and farming changed it.So by your logic Blacks or other tribes which just started farming or still are hunter gatherer should have no or less sexual dimorphism And they do have lesser sexual dimorphism. The hunter-gatherer tribes in Amazonias, our own Jarawa and Onge, the Inuits - they all have very little sexual dimorphism. This is a picture of an amazon tribe that doesn't farm- ie, all hunter-gatherers. Men and women are of almost similar musculature and height and definitely much lesser sexual dimorphism than we find in the 'civilized' world. Even their women are not completely afforded the same hunting opportunities, as they dedicate a significant time to child raising. Edited January 20, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 3 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Sure, if you could guarantee the results that the elites only ever married elites, that would be true. But that is not true- because elites themselves have plenty of instances - not just in India but worldwide- where they marry poor people of higher class - daughters of a prominent but poor Brahmin, marriage between an elite business family and a poor family with titles (such marriages for eg,were all the rage in UK in the late 1800s- you are an Earl/Duke/Squire who's fallen on tough times ? go to Murrica, marry a rich murrican lady who wants the 'title' and become rich). And they do have lesser sexual dimorphism. The hunter-gatherer tribes in Amazonias, our own Jarawa and Onge, the Inuits - they all have very little sexual dimorphism. This is a picture of an amazon tribe that doesn't farm- ie, all hunter-gatherers. Men and women are of almost similar musculature and height and definitely much lesser sexual dimorphism than we find in the 'civilized' world. Even their women are not completely afforded the same hunting opportunities, as they dedicate a significant time to child raising. Sexual dimorphism exists in all present hunter gatherer tribes whether it is bushman , Jarawa , pygmies or tutsies https://theuniverseandman.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-little-people-of-the-andaman-islands/ It is one of the standard feature found in all primates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Singh bling said: Sexual dimorphism exists in all present hunter gatherer tribes whether it is bushman , Jarawa , pygmies or tutsies https://theuniverseandman.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/the-little-people-of-the-andaman-islands/ It is one of the standard feature found in all primates Use your eyes. How much sexual dimorphism do you see in the said pictures ? Far, far lesser than in 'civilized' societies. And sexual dimorphism is decreasing. So it should tell you that naturally, women are not 'smaller/weaker' than men by any measurable margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism_in_non-human_primates#Body_size Now go educate yourself. For one, what other species are/are not, is irrelevant to this discussion. But since you brought up primates, read the abovementioned link. There is no physical sexual dimorphism amongst Gibbons for eg. In anycase, this discussion has been hijacked by male chauvinists to make irrelevant points about size of man vs woman. What is relevant, is that women can do any job a man can do and vice versa- including military field jobs, which I've already proven by giving examples from the IDF. As i said, its time abandon ideas created by illiterate men centuries ago, when we have far greater knowledge and technology at our fingerips and create paradigms better suited for the modern age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) And the prize goes to..... Justin Tridev!!!!! Edited February 7, 2018 by coffee_rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Wopeople, Hupeople, Peopledeep (No More names like Mandeep) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chapetmarunga Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 On 2/8/2018 at 3:23 AM, coffee_rules said: And the prize goes to..... Justin Tridev!!!!! Eh he was mocking her. I've read some twitter responses of people who actually attended the event that the lady was ranting about how charities sometimes discriminate against women. It was his shittey attempt at humour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts