i don't see the philosophical relevance of this, but whatever....

anywho....who's more dangerous?

the girls are of course sayin' the girls, givin' a round-about justification based on the "planning" strategies of women, while forgettin' that "strategy" is a mere subject of who is or isn't "dangerous".......many things must be considered....strength, staminia, emotions (or lack thereof), psychology, physiology, motivation, etc. etc. etc........

from all of these one could deduce who is a more dangerous person....for example, Lorena Bobbit is far more dangerous than Mr. Rogers, while Ted Bundy is far more dangerous than Lorena Bobbit, while a dictator or tyrant (such as Hitler) is far more dangerous than these individuals.....

and speakin' in terms of "violence"....males have this one hands down....even in lower-level species, such as Hippo's, the male is always the agressor....."what's mine is mine, and i have the testosterone to prove it!"..........

so yes, males are the superior gender......sure, there are some evil women out there, but men have always been the more evil of the two.......take your pick from any serial-killer.....man has always been the one to fear in that aspect.....white men especially.......but, in the long run, if you took everyone in the world and forced them to fight (anything goes), despite females out-numbering males, males will still come on top..........

oh, and speaking in terms of strategy, men are the superior ones.......strategy itself has to take into account several factors, such as bravery, "suicidal-missions," chance, logic, etc. etc. etc.