I think the difference is one who hijacks a discussion for attention, versus one who creates discussion by being controversial.
That's a fair point. I don't want to be controversial, but is seems just by possessing common sense these days you are labelled controversial.
Where I took issue with you was when you casually expressed that women more more empathetic as if it was true. This is clearly feminist propaganda based on MISANDRY. You only need to look around and realise that men go to war, sacrifice their lives, perform dangerous jobs, practise chivalry, study how to eradicate disease and vaccines etc etc all so women and children don't need to suffer. And women have the cheek to suggest they are more empathetic. Why do men do this, 1) because it is in their Nature to protect, to express their empathy and 2), because they know women won't. Women will RARELY put anybody first before themselves, women are selfish creatures, deeply narcissistic, and their narcissism extends to the point of believing they are superior to men, more empathetic, better parents etc etc, when evidence clearly points the other way.
Sadly, Historically this truth was well known, even the Buddha rejected women as monks because he said they were too vain to achieve any real sense of spiritual enlightenment, only reluctantly changing his mind after some women convinced him otherwise, but even then he was skeptical and imposed conditions. Feminists would label my post discriminatory, misogynistic etc etc, this is even further evidence of how deeply ingrained they have convinced societies that women = good, man = bad. If women criticise men it is deserved and justified, if men criticise women he is full of hate, a misogynist and a threat.
Is the world a better place now that feminism has destroyed families and used men to force other men out of childrens lives? Was that done out of empathy or some deeply imbedded self interest inherent in all women?
