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.
I’m for the Ruby Challenge. When the only way to get meaningful response is to make mocking limericks… it’s past the point at which attempts at engagement continue to have merit.
Ruby, if you don’t actually address the counterarguments all I will say to you is:
Argument needed.
Katz,
A grepping loon! There’s a term that didn’t deserve to fall out of use (God knows the behavior hasn’t fallen out of use).
The term of art I’m familiar with is a kibozer. Sort of like a bulldozer, but funnier.
dicipres,
I checked manboobz since I am just curious to see your reactions… It is always interesting to converse with the lobotomized retarded schizophrenic feminist NOW members, with a Tourette syndrome, which frequent this site.
Wow, you are projecting aren’t you? And what the fecking frakkity shit is wrong with having Tourette’s?
I want to try Cliff’s tactic (I hope there is no patent on it) :
Ruby, hi!!
IF A GROUP IS X IN AVERAGE, IT DOESN’T MEAN EVERY MEMBER OF THE GROUP IS X.
(not all women are attracted to money)
EVEN IF YOU PROVE SOMETHING HAPPEN TODAY AND HERE IT DOESN’T PROVE IT’S GENETIC
Wait wut? I’m suppossed to be in the Swamp now? But I’ve been commisioned to bring a Wild Narcissistic Miscreant to justice! Now, if I can just find my way around this courthouse…let’s see….I follow the sun until ten am…divide by room 101 and turn left at the purple rock with pink polkadots…
Oh yeah. My hamster had some silly objection to the rollers on the fax machine. Waddlebum used his Substitute ability and summoned an eight inch tall, pink stuffed Chatimal which will repeat anything you say in a squeaky voice. Um though it is kinda spread a little thin over an eight by eleven space. Hope it helps!
Oh and uh pecunium? Here’s a Karmic Frying Pan of fate. I borrowed it from Yaweh a couple of millenia ago. I don’t think he’s missed it though. I have heard that his wife Judith has been looking for it….
Still…its always good in a pinch. Just try not to turn anyone a pillar of salt okay?
Great. I’ll just put it in the lumber room, with the tack-hammer Thor left behind the last time he came through with the goat cart.
Half-ass schools? The University of Arizona, the University of Vienna, Rutgers University (state university of New Jersey), these aren’t good schools? LOL! You guys are too funny. I got science on my side, you’ve got mockery. Yeah, insults and limerics prove anthropologists wrong. Dumb asses!
Man, I miss all the fun bits. I can be the quest tracker, and check off each item/objective as we attain/obtain it!
I also have a large supply of swamp-proof galoshes, if those might come in handy. I’m all out of the red ones, though. Had a goblin horde through here last week and they were awfully partial to them.
Ruby: An argument from authority is a logical fallacy. I don’t feel compelled to agree with findings just because they are by two people from “prestigious” universities.
Amused, it’s fine to disagree, but some people can’t do it without being disagreeable.
@Amused: Talking to you since Ruby is unable to see anything written to her! Definitely agreed that the appeal to authority is fallacious–plus, in this case, the idea that because some universities are located high on status ladder that everybody who works there is the best is also iffy–there can be weak programs, and weak faculty, at “prestigious” universities. And even good scholars can produce weaker work at times, and so forth.
Plus, as others pointed out, she didn’t really cite the actual work in all cases, but popular media reporting of interviews with the scholars which as WE ALL KNOW EXCEPT RUBY is not the same thing.
That first one is not. UofA is okay, but it is no Stanford.
http://www.socialpsychology.org/ranking.htm
Ranking of doctoral psychology programs by professional organization.
U of A is on it, but not that high. Rutgers, ditto.
Not that it proves any one piece of research is “right” (because academic research is never only about right or wrong, but about ongoing testing of claims and theories and methods).
Ruby: Amused, it’s fine to disagree, but some people can’t do it without being disagreeable.
Motes, and beams.
What university someone is at don’t mean shit; it’s what they actually say/the research they actually do. You’ve provided one piece of evidence. It was flawed, we told you why.
You denied we had done it. You called us liars.
I gave you four studies. in response to the one you cited, you also talked about some stuff reporters and TV producers said.
Tell me why the studies I linked to: not abstracts, the entire report, aren’t as good as the one you did.
Arguments needed.
Citations needed.
Ruby… you have your knickers in a twist because of limericks?
Take a look at when the limericks happened. I didn’t start them until after you had refused to respond to discussion about the study you linked to. Until after you refused to accept that a DiscoverTV program isn’t actually science.
Until after you called me a liar
You are in no spot to be claiming moral high ground.
Arguments needed.
Citations needed.
Ruby: I have my degree in Comparative Sociology. What that means is I’m trained in Anthropology and Sociology, specific to research methodology, with my areas of focus in learning disabilities, fandom, and the sociology of childhood. I’m informing you that the criticism of the studies by others here are correct. These sorts of criticisms are what the peer review process focuses on, though Evo-Psych seems to be a very special case of having the worst peer review.
Let me re-iterate. You do not have science on your side. Your understanding of what “Science” constitutes as is similar to much of the media overreacting to a single study.
If you wish to actually approach what science is, start by dealing with the content of what the criticisms are, or actually read some studies (not media articles about them) and compare it to others. Learn the basic scientific method even. You are doing none of these things, and it is clear you do not understand why there is so much disagreement. Don’t write off the disagreement like you have been doing. It reflects very poorly on your character.
Flib, here’s the credentials of the scientists I’ve cited:
http://www.helenfisher.com/
http://www.anthropology.at/people/eoberzaucher
http://kenrick.socialpsychology.org/
Now how about posting a link to your site that list your credentials?
I wonder if our banishing ceremony would work on Ruby.
Ruby, while I appreciate you actually responded rather then your continuous vague avoidance of the subject, you are still avoiding the subject.
If you want to make it a “credentials” battle, I’m still holding validity, even though the direction you want to take this will be a red herring. Because this is not an argument between the originators of the study and I. This is between YOU and I. I am informing you that you have not actually read the very studies you are supporting. They DO NOT say what you think they say. I do not feel it necessary to re-iterate what everyone else HAS BEEN SAYING TO YOU SINCE THE START that you have SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN not to listen to.
Let me say again. THIS IS YOU RUBY, THAT IS AT FAULT. Your interpretation is flawed, and you have gone out of your way to be willfully ignorant of criticisms and showing no effort on understanding the methodological flaws. ON TOP OF THAT, you have failed to make the very basic distinction between culture and biology. AGAIN, not what the studies you have linked are saying.
Also, side note, if you want to actually link someones credentials through the internet, you either use them as a source from the journal, or from a faculty page at a university. Not personal webpages.
Again though, science is not on your side when you fail to understand the process and leap to conclusions. Can you even tell me what “science” is? I do not think you understand it at all, perhaps you could show me wrong by actually engaging in discussion rather then constant attempts at appeal to authority. Appeal to authority won’t work here because, as I have said, you did not read the studies at all. Which means your authority IS NOT EVEN WITH YOU.
I DO NOT NEED CREDENTIALS TO KNOW THAT “X HAPPENS” IS NOT THE SAME AS “X IS BIOLOGICALLY PROGRAMMED.”
People can have silver-plated credentials and be wrong! Or they can be saying a different thing than you think they are–they’re saying “straight women in America most often go for richer men” and you hear “all women are biologically programmed to always go for rich men.”
Wait, wait, I’m doing this all wrong.
I AM A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WITH MULTIPLE CERTIFICATIONS AND I KNOW THAT “X HAPPENS” IS NOT THE SAME AS “X IS BIOLOGICALLY PROGRAMMED.”
I say we just ignore the shit out of Ruby from here on out, no matter what she’s posting. Maybe she’ll get the hint and go away.
And Ruby continues to be aghast that her magic words aren’t working.
Just to add to what PF is saying, Pharyngula is a blog that is chock full of scientists, and studies are frequently thrown around. IT is not, however, 100% scientists, and one thing actual scientists there do not do is moan about someone’s lack of credentials (At least, not absent an actual argument, or unless the person is a long-standing lackwit). Because they understand the process, and understand peer review; the whole point is that they’ll make mistakes. If you can’t even meet a layperson’s objections, your paper doesn’t deserve to be published. I
f you, Ruby, had any actual knowledge of this, you would answer our criticisms yourself, because you would understand how the study made up for those flaws, or you would find better research; what you would not do is engage in argument-by-proxy-authority. But you don’t know the process. That’s why you keep doing this. And that’s a large part of why you’re still wrong.
I think Ruby does not understand that one of the marks of being a good scientist is the ability to read journal articles with a critical eye, even when they’re your own, and admit it publicly when further research proves you wrong. (In fairness, that article was posted as a rebuttal to something another troll posted, but it is the same evo psych BS being debunked so I hope not too OT.)
“I say we just ignore the shit out of Ruby from here on out, no matter what she’s posting. Maybe she’ll get the hint and go away.”
Works for me.