awepittance Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 i have a really good memory so I was surprised to find out I said this in that older feminism thread (posted by hello spiral above) has almost less value than a chair leg in an anus I can't even begin to figure out what I meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I can only remember it was some running joke. Something silly. But from an older thread before that one. * thinking about rixxx harassing mike with a chair leg * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 damn dude, for some reason every-time you post these weird japanese memes with like an anthropomorphic representation of semen (you posted something else of like a cartoon japanese kid ejaculating out of his fish-dick in an autechre thread) it fucks up the rest of my day and makes it hard for me to jack off later. is something wrong with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted November 9, 2015 Author Share Posted November 9, 2015 Someone please try to harvest my semen. did i miss something important from the thread? Men beware. Women are hiding cryogenic tubes in their vaginas, waiting to catch your sperm. Your genetics are so superior that they must have it for their offspring. dude why! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwmbrancity Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Jimmy Savile woulda been all over that child's fish dick...... priorities! damn dude, for some reason every-time you post these weird japanese memes with like an anthropomorphic representation of semen (you posted something else of like a cartoon japanese kid ejaculating out of his fish-dick in an autechre thread) it fucks up the rest of my day and makes it hard for me to jack off later. is something wrong with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambermonk Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 so what? none of that goes against anything I've said, at no point have I said biological factors entirely determine behaviour. you have said that there is 'no clear evidence for any biological drives of human behavior', which as I've shown with many examples is complete nonsense. the fact that we get hungry or thirsty (thirst is largely regulated by this hormone, there are more complex factors involved in hunger), and at some point in the future eat some food or drink something is a clear example of a biologically influenced behaviour. even if you found an example of a person who never voluntarily ate or drank anything in their entire lives, it wouldn't disprove anything I've said, it would be enough that it influences most of the people most of the time. you've shown exaclty zero examples, and you really couldn't, because as i said showing a clean effect of some biological determinant requires completely controlled social enviornemnt, which is pretty much impossible to achieve. eating food is a very much conscious action meant to make you feel ok, keep functioning, not suffer, not die and so on. but in some contexts people decide not to do it because, ie hunger strikes, religious ceremonies, some ideas of cleansing and so on. the fact that most people choose to stay alive and full of energy doesn't mean that it's hunger that determines their behaviour, their choice to stay alive and full of energy does. what about homosexuality in animals? (which is near universal). you said we're not animals, because of our consciousness and how it creates social structures. if this is something that other animals lack, and you think sexual orientation is socially constructed in humans, how come you think it can be biologically constructed in animals (unless you deny it exists there)? of course the real picture is that neither is true, there is a strong biological basis for sexual preference in all animals (including humans), and in humans the forms that preference may take, in terms of social conventions and so on, evolve in the social sphere, but even other animals have social structures and have differing behaviours based on them. you have some logic issues here, just because it can exist in animals and is determined by whatever mechanisms says nothing about its existence or lack of within humans. we're quite different if you haven't noticed. it's difficult to design completely controlled experiments it's true, but it's a far better approach to attempt to do so than rely on the non-empirical notions pulled entirely out of the asses of 'critical theorists'. twin studies do succeed in controlling for a lot of those factors though. evo-psych and sociobiology are definitely in the realm of soft sciences, but they're not outright pseudo-science like most of sociology and political and economic theory, they are strongly empirical and falsifiable. it's pretty damn easy to take two identical twins, put them in different social environments and watch how different they grow to be, so i dunno wtf "critical theorists" you are talking about, this is basic scientific method. but it's pretty much impossible to do the vice versa as i said and twin studies have exactly the same issue i've been talking about, they control for a very small array of social factors (of course they think it's enough because they're clueless about anthropology and sociology), do their hereditary bullshit calculations and think they've arrived at some clean genetic factors that determine whatever, this shit gets fed to the press and and people like you end up consuming it. such studies have been criticized to death. this is a good paper that tears down another frequently used method evo-psych hacks use, the adoption studies, but the logic behind the critique is very similar to the critique of twin studies. http://rpadgett.butler.edu/ps320/coursedocs/Richardson-Norgate.pdf of course it makes logical sense, there is nothing illogical about the notion of consciousness emerging out of the functional capabilities of the brain (how it happens is another question entirely). the exact nature of all of these capabilities is of course not known, and in terms of genetics we now know that gene-protein coding can only account for a certain percentage of all heritable traits for example, but this is an active area of research, not a dead end (epigenetics and gene regulation from 'junk' dna are two examples, but who knows what others we may find). but we don't need to know everything about it to discern real knowledge, that delta FosB example I gave before is a perfect example of this. and I never said that constraint leads to wholly determined behaviours, not the first time you've misrepresented me, it's just that constraints can certainly lead to certain behaviours becoming more likely in the aggregate. no this doesn't make sense, it's really like saying that data emerges from functional capabilities of the hard drive. im repeating myself but let it be the closing point, the only way that you can scientifically show that something is determined by biology is to hold constant the social environment, you can't disagree with that if you accept the scientific method. so unless you show me a study that managed to do it all of your conjectures are meaningless and all those heretability studies come nowhere close to that. i know this position about both biology and social environment influencing behavior is very hip and popular and "the truth is somewhere in the middle" narrative fuels it, but there's simply no serious proof of any biological determinant of human behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drillkicker Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Gavin McInnes represents a lot of the characteristics I really hate in people, but he has very good points on trans-whatever (can't keep up with the suffix that's used). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwmbrancity Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 kin ell Eugene mate, on an intellectual ego-trip much these days? The fact you cant concede 1 point, specifically about hunger, just makes you look stubborn. Of course people fast..... but that proves fuck all. My experience with what might be called Alt-Right Yanks is via their worship of Ayn Rand, Objectivism & Libertarianism as excuses for the pursuit of narcissistic drives. When explaining how certain British and European health services work, even while acknowledging specific benefits, it would always boil down to "would u pay for your neighbours mortgage? No? Then why should we pay for obese cunts who know what they're doing is gonna cost $$$$ in the long run?" There really is no answer to that, other than foreign exchanges at early ages where the diversity/benefits/cons of different systems might be experienced 1st hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 what about alt/auth right leaning frackers? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 what about dudes who are torn between left libertarianism and pragmatic centrism/technocracy? it sucks i want to our governments to get us organized and unified enough to get into space colonies but I also have strong anti-authoritative/anti-state tendencies. i'm still very down with single-payer healthcare being instituted in the u.s. but i also yearn to live mostly off the grid at some point. at heart im like a hunter thompson type (not so much on the gun thing) OR a neil young "i drive an SUV that runs off vegetable oil" (but i'm ok with mp3s) actually i have no idea im posting in this, i almost did like 9 pages ago but i dont have to time to dive into this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoggy Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Reading this thread, I'm wondering if these groups such as left wingers, right wingers, feminists, men's right activists and so on - are sort of unreliable since they are too commited to taking a single stance and pushing it as hard as they can - and ignoring anything that contradicts that stance. It seems to me also that when there is a strictly bi-polar antagonism, both poles often obfuscate the real source of the antagonism, though they may well have very good specific points to make, and may help provide some analytical variation. Ugh, this is tricky though because I'm not saying either side is right or wrong (though I may or may not have an opinon on that) - I'm just making the very specific point that as topics or categories, these singular stances are unreliable in the sense that they aren't conducive to a discussion in which both sides have the united aim of seeking a beneficial outcome. Am I making any sense or is some repetitive antagonism just unavoidable? Fuck it, I dunno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 everyone should stop talking. you aren't getting anything done. worst thread 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Reading this thread, I'm wondering if these groups such as left wingers, right wingers, feminists, men's right activists and so on - are sort of unreliable since they are too commited to taking a single stance and pushing it as hard as they can - and ignoring anything that contradicts that stance. It seems to me also that when there is a strictly bi-polar antagonism, both poles often obfuscate the real source of the antagonism, though they may well have very good specific points to make, and may help provide some analytical variation. Ugh, this is tricky though because I'm not saying either side is right or wrong (though I may or may not have an opinon on that) - I'm just making the very specific point that as topics or categories, these singular stances are unreliable in the sense that they aren't conducive to a discussion in which both sides have the united aim of seeking a beneficial outcome. Am I making any sense or is some repetitive antagonism just unavoidable? Fuck it, I dunno echo chambers + social media self-absorbtion + cathartic venting redirected in some shallow, supercial political stance of a person's choice RE: john' original post, for me the only thing on the i get slightly irked by are certain "social justice warriors" but I say that as a liberal / progressive and more often than not, I'm very pro-free speech. but I think it's a very recent trend and i've never been one to be against "political correctness" by default. in fact, 10, 5, or even 2 years I would say that anyone who was saying people are being too politically sensitive and offended and PC were usually trollish right wingers wanting an excuse to say awful, and more disturbingly, flat out ignorant/false stuff. but now I am shocked to say there is an alarming trend with some (not all) "SJWs" with a very warped and misguided view of reality and the world who are militant about lambasting anyone with a remotely controversial or contrarian viewpoint, to such a degree that it's not achieving anything progressive. like this whole Yale incident is absurd, that student is delusional and I have no qualms with her and her apologists being criticized. but I take this and most of the stuff on the list as knee-jerk reactions to the most extreme stances by the left - most alt right people should be ignored because it's like (as someone said earlier) the last charge of a dying ideology. i can say from personal experience when i went right of center for years (after I became annoyingly left-wing as a rebellious teenager) I did so as a libertarian and there's so much stuff I never got into rhetoric wise. I got burned out with all the hypothetical perspectives versus pragmatic realities especially on issues like healthcare. the tea party co-opting of much of the libertarian/libertarian republican was the final straw for me giving the identity a chance. RE: islamaphobia is something i don't even bother discussing IRL except with a handful of people because most folks don't even have one goddamn iota of basic historical context regarding the politics of the middle east. for example most rhetoric I am exposed to about Israel is detached from the actual reality of the country's perspective. as much as eugene gets flack here he's got an honest and direct opinion as an actual Israeli - most Americans usually get some batshit insane "news" about the country or if they are liberals they take a pretty neutral cop out stance on the conflict. when it comes to islam for the most part only people, right-wing or left-wing, who actually know what they are talking about are people who actually know muslim americans. it's interesting to see the presidential debates about Syria because they are so fucking far off from the reality of the situation and how the US is responding under Obama - the only ones being contrarian to the current lockstep GOP-Dem policy of realpolitik military actions are the non-interventionists like Rand Paul or the far left Dems. so much of the left vs right "debate" over middle east are puppet shows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Meh. I work in a STEM field and there are women literally all over the place and even in very high positions. Because they work hard. Nobody is preventing them from doing anything because it's 2015... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 The fascist left is extremely entertaining but also scary. Meh. I work in a STEM field and there are women literally all over the place and even in very high positions. Because they work hard. Nobody is preventing them from doing anything because it's 2015... Pretty much. In every job I've worked women are in leadership roles. It's just a false stereotype. People taking their personal experiences and applying it to humanity as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubbhasdance Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Big cum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlemflolia Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Oh my god at that video and the morons speaking in her defence. Holy fuck So fucking annoying when femitards get their panties in a bunch when someone makes a perfectly acceptable suggestion She's on the verge of tears about wanting a "safe space, not an intellectual space", fucking pansies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 The fascist left is extremely entertaining but also scary. Meh. I work in a STEM field and there are women literally all over the place and even in very high positions. Because they work hard. Nobody is preventing them from doing anything because it's 2015... Pretty much. In every job I've worked women are in leadership roles. It's just a false stereotype. People taking their personal experiences and applying it to humanity as a whole. The only place I've seen flat out inner politics and people being either stifled career wise or discriminated against because of personal bias was when I worked as in a state job for the Texas Legislative Library. Nothing of pure racism, sexism, etc. because but lots of little subtle stuff, lots of good boy and/or catty favoritism in the Texas State capital at the nonpartisan offices (unsurprisingly). In fact one of the most powerful people there is a woman and ironically the most mean-spirited of the bunch. She's denied people promotions because they aren't openly Christian. My wife who still works there just returned from maternity leave and the huge place lacks any facility for mothers to breast-feed and/or do lactation for the babies milk. A Senator offered her a office space but the same person I mentioned above, essentially the admin boss for the entire Senate, denied the Senator the persmission to do, despite giving the go ahead to do so days before. Just to be spiteful. I'll say this before I go. I've always felt class oppression, corruption, and unchecked power held by a ruling rich elite are the biggest ongoing threats and will be once the last remnants of systematic oppression are finally eliminated. That's why the Clinton versus Sanders race is the real one to watch. Hell, fascism in the true sense is most alive in the developing world, and that's where money talks more than anything. Perhaps that's why I actually do get a little irked when I see people blindly ripping on white males by default. I would easily fall in that camp despite the fact that my grandfather was a Mexican immigrant who picked cotton with his family or that much of my "white" ancestry is made up of Basque and working-class irish and english immigrants. No one in my family has ever been in any default position of power. there's no trust set aside for me. hell, ironically one of the friends I had get into college without having to pay tuition based on affirmative action came from a very affluent family. most of the racism i hear and see daily is done openly by other minorities. I'm not saying any of this even excuses the notions of rightwingers fighting progressive rhetoric, but the world is contradictory and complex and a lot of people who are so vocal online from have no grasp of that reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Meh. I work in a STEM field and there are women literally all over the place and even in very high positions. Because they work hard. Nobody is preventing them from doing anything because it's 2015... Pretty much. In every job I've worked women are in leadership roles. It's just a false stereotype. People taking their personal experiences and applying it to humanity as a whole. Lol you don't see the irony in stating the bolded, and backing that up with your personal experience (italicized) and applying it to humanity as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheatheman Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 tfw there was a thread dedicated to breasts in which people ITT posted smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Meh. I work in a STEM field and there are women literally all over the place and even in very high positions. Because they work hard. Nobody is preventing them from doing anything because it's 2015... Pretty much. In every job I've worked women are in leadership roles. It's just a false stereotype. People taking their personal experiences and applying it to humanity as a whole. Lol you don't see the irony in stating the bolded, and backing that up with your personal experience (italicized) and applying it to humanity as a whole? Yes, I saw the irony when I posted it. But that doesn't make it less of a false stereotype or less true that women are in leadership roles everywhere in the west. Go anywhere. Go to almost any fieild, any job, and there are women in leadership roles. Go to any restaurant, Go to any office, go to any place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Meh. I work in a STEM field and there are women literally all over the place and even in very high positions. Because they work hard. Nobody is preventing them from doing anything because it's 2015... Pretty much. In every job I've worked women are in leadership roles. It's just a false stereotype. People taking their personal experiences and applying it to humanity as a whole. Lol you don't see the irony in stating the bolded, and backing that up with your personal experience (italicized) and applying it to humanity as a whole? less true that women are in leadership roles everywhere in the west. The data doesn't support this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audioblysk Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 I commonly freeze my girlfriends upon inseminating them. Keeps them fresh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted November 10, 2015 Share Posted November 10, 2015 Meh. I work in a STEM field and there are women literally all over the place and even in very high positions. Because they work hard. Nobody is preventing them from doing anything because it's 2015... Pretty much. In every job I've worked women are in leadership roles. It's just a false stereotype. People taking their personal experiences and applying it to humanity as a whole. Lol you don't see the irony in stating the bolded, and backing that up with your personal experience (italicized) and applying it to humanity as a whole? less true that women are in leadership roles everywhere in the west. The data doesn't support this though. I looked at the data you presented and it said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.