So someone on Reddit posted a video showing time-lapse video of a girl from infanthood to 12 years old. Naturally, Redditors responded with creepy pedophilia jokes, and one Redditor (speaking for many, judging by the numerous upvotes) took the opportunity to complain about just how hard it is for dudes to not have sex with underage girls. Apparently these girls deliberately develop earlier than boys as part of an elaborate plot to entrap guys and send them to jail.
Thanks to ShitRedditSays for pointing me to this latest bit of egregious Redditry.
Definition of ideologue: One who ignores the actual counterarguments, in favor a flip dismissal which accuses all his interlocutors of acting in bad faith.
My views DO NOT come from hatred. Dr. Helen Fisher, PhD is a Biological Anthropologist, a Research Professor and member of the Center for Human Evolution Studies in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University. Is she a misogynist for claiming women like men with resources?
BTW, I don’t like either extreme in the gender wars.
Ruby: Have you linked to an actual study she wrote?
No.
Have you responded to the studies I did link to?
No.
Have I responded to the links you’ve posted and the only study you’ve linked to?
Yes.
Who is the one refusing to look at opposing viewpoints?
You.
BTW: I don’t care for the extremes in the gender wars.
I’ve never said you were such.
But… the extreme that says women are evil… they agree with you about women liking rich men.
So, while you may not, “agree” with their ends, you are agreeing with their arguments.
Which means you might want to better examine the beliefs you have, to make sure they are sound.
That would mean reading studies, not news articles, nor television programs.
Sorry THE PREVIOUS COMMENT OF MINE WAS DIRECTED TO RUBY.
Ruby, I see you’re impressed by titles. Yippee. Back your shit up.
Ruby: Which of us has said the claim is, qua the claim, misogynistic?
I’ve not. I’ve said your support for the argument is shit.
I’ve said misogynists use that claim to justify their misogyny.
That doesn’t make it, prima facie, a misogynist claim.
But unless you can provide better evidence than you have; evidence I find more convincing that the four studies you’ve been ignoring, I am going to persist in saying it’s a shit-claim.
You believe in the “gender wars”? ahahahhahahahahahahah
Tulgey Logger,
I didn’t claimed that lions/wolfs/etc. posts are rigorous science, and yes I definitely need to get more data to back these ideas (the information about the animal came from national geographic tv, not journals).
These are my ideas based on my observations and published at my blog. If you don’t buy it, that’s fine. I am not publishing in a peer-reviewed journal and you are not a referee.
dicpres: Tulgey is a referee. We all are. Some of us are better at it than others. You’d be better off if you were trying to get this into a peer reviewed journal; at the very least the criticisms of the greatest flaws would be in private.
But you made it public. Anyone can comment. You may incorporate the crtiiques, or not, but the merit of your work is what will convince the objective observer. You may not think people here are objective (your little rant above strongly implies this to be the case), but that means you have to either accept an audience of the already converted, or work to convince those who disagree.
I know what a genuine activist would choose.
@dicipres
If you aren’t going to put your thing up to scrutiny then it isn’t really worth jack shit and isn’t really scientific. You can believe whatever crap you want but don’t expect us to take it seriously.
——–
So now ruby believes in the gender wars and bonding phase/first attraction phase which are both mra/pua terms so take that as you will.
the mras you try so desperately to distance yourself from deny that, too. doesn’t make it any less true.
gee, i wonder why?
I need to have a title then…I am Supreme High Princess Commander Professor of All Things.
And I say that the only women who want to marry men with tons of money are Playboy Playmates named Anna Nicole.
ruby, basically all reactionaries are the same reactionary. the fact that you have some non-reactionary ideas doesn’t mitigate the fact that for you, they seem to take second place to being a reactionary.
Naturalnews.com and whale.to aren’t published journals, either, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t pseudoscience and that doesn’t mean they are exempt from criticism.
As for me, I’m no referee, but the first thing I would do if I were you is critically examine the evidence of hypergamy in human societies, as well as the whole notion of the ten-point scale. That is, if I wanted to present my ideas as having anything to do with science, as you do, dicipres.
I do have to give dicipres credit on one thing, though: it’s a hard name to pronounce, let alone put into a limerick.
@Pecunium
Short answer is yes, and they worked with one of the authors who later critiqued their findings more extensively (Hothorn).
Relevant quote:
Citation: Herberich, E., Hothorn, T., Nettle, D., Pollet, T. (2009). A re-evaluation of the statistical model in Pollet and Nettle 2009. Evolution and human behavior, 31(2), 150-151.
Article (paywalled) here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.12.003
More information available here: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/multcomp/index.html
So has Ruby explained if I exist or not yet?
Is dicipres going on about hypergamy? Well then, four studies he can use in his paper
So dicipres didn’t do good followup to see if the study (three years old) had been superseded.
Big Momma, just to let you know..Blooger is giving me a ton of crap and not letting me post from my phone. I got some recipies up for yogurt ect…more coming when I figure out why its not letting me post.
Also, fixed the link problem with my name. It should take you to my blog.
@lauralot You exist, no matter what Ruby thinks, and the rest of us are glad of it.
@Pecunium Well, why would you want to check to see if a study that supports your position has been superseded? Then you might need to stop using it! 🙂
I think she’s run off to comment in other threads and pretend none of this ever happened. Again.
cloudiah: It’s not just a question of superseded, it’s possible for a later study to not really address the same points.
But this was a secondary analysis of the same dataset. That’s a lot harder to just rule out as not being truly topical.
There once was a red carborundum
Facing a tricky conundrum
She then turned her back
To head up the track
As thought there ‘ad been none done.