Ladies! You may think you’ve got the men of the world fooled, but the guys over on MGTOWforums.com can see right through you! As dontmarry puts it:
Everything that a woman does is deceitful. From makeup, push-up bras and high heels, to fibbing about her dick count or proclamations of ‘I don’t mind marrying a poor man’ (oh yes you do).
That’s right, ladies! We know those eyelashes aren’t real! We know your cheeks aren’t really that rosy! And your lips aren’t really that red! And your boobies aren’t really … um, what was I saying? I got distracted thinking about boobies. Anyway, you’re all a bunch of liars! I bet some of you even wear Spanx, which are a tool of Satan.
Also, that thing he said about the dick count. Stop the lies! We demand dick count accuracy!
Can it really be that difficult to understand my fundamental premise? Namely, fine, moral women choose fine, moral men. Skanky, immoral women choose skanky, immoral men (and all the subphyla within, like thugs and degenerates).
“Fine,” “moral,” “skanky,” and “immoral” are normative, rather than objective, concepts. As such, they are not terribly useful for understanding who chooses whom and why. How do you define moral vs. immoral? Skanky vs. fine? What are the objective criteria for these categories? As far as I can tell, it’s that “moral” and “fine” people are the ones Chuckee approves of; “immoral” and “skanky” the ones he disapproves of. Needless to say, the applicability and usefulness of your theory for anyone other than yourself is somewhat limited.
Now, if you were going to stipulate that people tend to choose people of similar IQ or socioeconomic status, the that would be a testable premise. Saying that skanks go with skanks is not, unless you can give an objective definition of what constitutes a skank.
[oh for pete’s sake] What was I trying to achieve? I was responding to Nob’s assertion that I said something along the lines of “all women choose thugs” or something like that, can’t remember specifics. Clearly, my response served to demonstrate that I never made any such claim and don’t believe any such thing. And here you are waffling about objective evidence blah blah blah blah blah. Unbelievable.
Whose my audience here? Undergrads? High-school students? Primary-school students?
Now do I really need to define “thug”? Why stop there? Do you want me to define the word “define” as well, or maybe “maybe” as well, or “well” as well? Type “thug” into Google, and voila, a definition will be forthcoming. For example:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thug
Yes, you do need to define “thug” for the purposes of your theory. Is it someone with a criminal record? A history of violent felonies? A proclivity towards violence? Someone who wears his pants too low? It is this level of precision and rigor that separates a useful theory from mere bloviating.
Whose my audience here? Undergrads? High-school students? Primary-school students?
People with graduate degrees, but that’s only speaking for myself.
Besides, I don’t think “waffling” means what you think it means.
Fourth post in row. Sorry, Dave, but one more before bed.
Chuck, I’m trying to address your points in good faith. You’ve been throwing around terms like “thug” and “skank” as if they have some objective validity. How would you plot skankiness or thugishness on a bell curve? You must have some objective way of measuring these variables in order for the use of a bell curve, or any other kind of statistical analysis, to be relevant. If you wish to be taken seriously when you invoke such statistical tools, then avoid the use of normative terms, because a bell curve can’t measure those qualities.
If you wish to admit that you were just bloviating, that’s fine by me, but please spare us the fake outrage when someone calls you on it.
I should compile a book of Chuckie’s statements and flog it on the internet as a surefire cure for insomnia.
You do raise a relevant point here. But I am not just “bloviating”. There are many parameters that can be examined in the context of statistical distributions, but “thug” and “skank”, in and of themselves, do not lend themselves readily to this kind of analysis. They can, however, be alluded to by way of proxy variables, like crime statistics. “Thugness” and “skankness” are lifestyle choices and attitudes and people change. So you are right, they cannot be analysed “objectively”. But this does not mean that we should ignore them. They are important because they relate to psychology, evolution, what our cultures stand for, and what our cultures become.
Liberal stats accept p-values of 0.1, conservative stats demand p = 0.05 or less.
Duh.
Subphyla? Please please please draw out this tree for us. 😀
Chuck, you still haven’t given any actual data. You’ve just insisted on a bell curve that is so far not indicative of anything, because you fail to provide any actual data.
You fail statistics, hard. As I’ve said before, you would be kicked from any basic courses because you still fail in demonstrating any level of accountability.
So that’s your rebuttal, chuck? You’re claiming that I’m either lying, deliberately misrepresenting, or taking your words out of context?
You sure? Okay then.
Tell you what, I have a lot of work to do today but when I’m finished, I’ll be happy to provide direct citations that will disprove every one of your claims. So, get to drinking, and start preparing more of your patently hilarious, Calvin-Ball style, dwnials and bullshit equivocations.
I predict much hilarity.
Yay for Calvin-ball!
Chuck, you’re still dodging my question: how do you measure these proxy variables and where is the evidence to support your suppositions? At best, what you have is a rather vaguely defined hypothesis. Thought experiments have their place, but they are of limited usefulness when describing sociological phenomena. Hard data is the coin of the realm in the social sciences.
Chuck, if they are lifestyle choices, how are they being genetically passed down? Inquiring minds want to know just how little you understand evolution.
That definition of “thug” linked to is amazingly imprecise. If you look at the actual history of the word, and by extension the context, it is a slang term literally created to refer to non-white men as savage, violent criminals. It stems from the word “Thuggee” during the British Imperial occupation of India. The situation with the Thuggee tribes is so complicated that I won’t even try to explain it–think of the religious, cultural, national, and racial intersections and the complications those aspects cause. This is especially true because Imperial England relied on a lot of justification from writers and important thinkers who argued about the English’s obligation to create an empire in order to “civilize” the “savage” (read: not white) cultures.
Now, most people don’t think that when they use the word “thug.” However, whenever someone calls someone else a thug, *especially* if the alleged thug is not white, that is the history of the word that they are using, the baggage that the word carries.
Maybe there’s something wrong with gene theory, and the whole evo-psych paradigm – which I believe there is, and I’m not the first one to believe this.
CB, while your most recent questions are perfectly reasonable, you are asking me to explain an entire other paradigm. Otto Weininger is the philosopher who famously drew attention to the relationship between criminality and prostitution at one end of the continuum, and between moral men and women at the other. I believe that he was onto something. The way that I interpret him is that male and female constitute different aspects of a shared reality. Logic (reality) is somehow related to male and female opposites, so we are talking about a discipline that addresses the importance of meaning, which the sterile, established mainstream has overlooked.
Refer to the following site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
There are many forms of systems theory, some discredited, others not properly explored, and still others that are yet to be more fully interpreted. I cannot possibly be expected to go there and do them justice, within the context of the philosophy of meaning (phenomenology, pragmatism, linguistics, etc), in an online forum.
“Logic (reality) is somehow related to male and female opposites, so we are talking about a discipline that addresses the importance of meaning, which the sterile, established mainstream has overlooked.”
So where do the queer people fit in? Or do they just not exist?
If you are going to refer to Systems Theory Chuck, you’d realize you need to actually (again) provide data on inflows, outflows, and your stock. You know what your not doing? That. You know what you don’t have? Empiricism. Don’t get me wrong, I actually like systems theory as an analytical tool. But you are not doing any form of systems theory. You are not even close because you fail the basic tenants of it; Information.
Having read a lot of British Victorian fiction in which “thug” is undoubtedly racist, offensive, horrible and wrong … I don’t think linking to a dictionary definition that discusses the source of the word is at all effective in disproving that it has serious racist undertones (overtones?).
Can you be more specific? Do you mean to say that you think that Lamarck might have been right?
Kollege:
Well, if he’s nice to her, he’ll be nice to the mammoths, too, when he should be hunting them.
Actually, my ex-girlfriend was one of those people who conflated “healthy couples fight” with “fighting is healthy,” which is a variation of the same idea.
Bwahahahahaha! “I can’t be wrong, it must be SCIENCE that’s wrong!”