Men’s Rights leader: Quit whining about the Holocaust, Anne Frank Center!

Re: scientists and credibility

Did anyone see Philomena Cunk’s interview with Dr Brian Cox? She was on top form as usual.

Dr Cox: “…and the universe will keep expanding”

Philomena: “That’s good. We could do with the space.”

Dr Cox: “No, it means the inevitable end of the universe.”

Philomena: “But didn’t you once tell us ‘Things can only get better’?”

Dr Cox: “Yeah”

Philomena: “So how can we believe a word you say now?”

@ dalillama

And…other parts

Did you ever see the first series of Blackadder and the codpiece episode?

As for clothing generally, perhaps the most ironic thing is that the Fedora was, I believe, originally a women’s hat.

@Dani

Thanks, indeed these were some pretty low-quality sources to put it lightly. Of course, my debate opponent considered himself to be some sort of scientist and believed that these sources were so accurate their data could be considered ‘fact’

@Policy of Madness

I have yet to see even the most dedicated evopsyche explain the genetic basis for a boy to prefer, directly out of the womb, a machine that is only one century old, and the other explanation leaves said preference impossible to detangle from social conditioning. The most parsimonious explanation is that the preference is social conditioning.

Perfect, thanks. Somehow I went along with the assumption of ‘toy truck’ = ‘masculinity’ without questioning it (goes to show how much these social pressures impact us). It’s so incredibly arbitrary. Let alone the fact that “natural selection” would never have granted a species (but only the males, for whatever reason!) the ability to recognize an invention that didn’t exist.

Just for fun, I did a bit of research on the actual invention of the wheel just to hammer home the point, turns out that the wheel was first invented for crushing grain. It was not originally used as a method of transportation.

@SFHC

Oh God, not that MRAcist-before-it-was-cool quack again. As someone in a related field, trust me when I say that random Twitter eggs with misspelled usernames are more likely to be approvingly cited by serious papers than that ridiculous waste of education.

Oh the best part? This is a fucking anti-Trump forum I had this argument is. The guy making the argument against me tried to compare my sources to Breitbart, tried to compare me to a Trump supporter multiple times, then tried to refute my neuroscience sources with pop/evo psychology and then tried lecture me on how discrimination works. You cannot make this shit up.

I took a page out of your book and told him that Evo Psych is a fucking pseudoscience and a collection of just-so stories.

@EJ

That’s something I didn’t realize until I read your replies (and did a bit of research). Evo Psych’s unfalsifiable hypotheses are in violation of the scientific method.

@Scildfreja

About men in leggings, Louis XIV instantly came to mind:

http://travelswithnancy.com/France/Versailles%20photos/Getty-Louis-XIVcpcr2.jpg

Any scientist who gets annoyed when you ask “How would you go about testing that” isn’t a scientist, they’re an aspiring cult leader.

In all seriousness, I think this guy legitimately believes that any science ‘declaration’ is automatically a fact.

@Dalillama

Bookmarked, thanks for the source.

I spent literal hours coming up with a rebuttal to his points, only to get concern trolling and deliberate attempts to strawman my arguments. I’ll leave a few gems, but thanks to everyone for the links. Overall, I’m glad I have a much firmer grasp on how to refute evo psych bullshit.

This was the ‘why a sample size of 40 is totes OK to draw conclusions about the entire human race’ (refering to the babies prefering specific toys argument):

http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/glossary/margins-of-error/
Let’s assume all males in the world are babies, so that’s already fake as hell for your argument’s benefit. Those sample sizes of say 40 for the 6 something billion of men have a MOE of around I estimate 19~ based on either a 95% confidence level or 99%. The accepted MOE is 10%-15% by nearly everyone (don’t tell me that’s not good enough and you need 0.01×10-50 to be sure, be rational). Now, let’s subtract all the males that aren’t babies (UNICEF’s 2014 report estimates 2.2 billion babies in the world, adjust for it however you want), and we get a nice number with a accuracy percentage for groups of 50% which is the worst case scenario for two option variables, which leads us to a 15.5 MOE with 95% CI and that’s with an abysmal accuracy percentage as well for a sample size of 40. And even this is a sloppy and lazy excuse for a sample size calculation, proper statisticians can avoid using duct tape calculators which ignore a lot of factors.

This was his rebuttal after I pointed out that author’s racist ‘why are black women less attractive’:

So someone is incorrect just because they have said absolute rubbish in the past (well technically, the nonsense he said comes years after the article I linked)? That’s not logical or rational whatsoever. He still has a PhD, but humans aren’t perfect. But the real crème de la crème is that you’re doing proper ad hominem… on someone who isn’t even in the discussion themselves… as a way to argue out of the argument and rather attack the person of things they have said outside the topic itself. Full circle indeed. Stick to criticizing the experiment, I expected a lot more talk on that rather than mootness. I’m honestly not surprised myself, the far right and the far left have the same tendencies under a different shell.

Fun stuff!

@Toby Nixon

Wow, what a Strawman.

Oh, we’re playing let’s see who can call more logical fallacies? I just got done playing that game with someone else!

Paul Elam literally tweeted to the Ann Frank Center to “get over themselves”. You can’t even dispute the use of the word ‘whining’ as Paul Elam adds the hashtag #quitwhining at the end of his Tweet.

Just because someone has a Penis he doesn’t owe an apology to every woman he meets.

Wow, what a false equivalency!

Ann frank center is a center. It does not relate to ‘every woman a penis owner meets’. Furthermore Paul Elam is a person. He is not, in fact, a penis.

But you know you’ll probably write something about how I hate Women,

Well so far your only crime has been a false equivalency. I haven’t seen evidence to suggest that you hate women, although that would be fairly unpresidented on this blog.

just read like a bunch of stuff into my comment and throw in some insults just to stir the pot.

Why insult you when I could just demonstrate how terrible your logic is?

I got one for you, since we’re throwing strawmans about… You know Palestine is being Destroyed by Israel, children dying in the street from phosphorus attacks but you want them to apologize for living in Israel and just leave now.

You’re right! That is a straw man argument. It’s also completely irrelevant to Paul Elam telling the anne frank center to quit whining!

Reactionaries do love improper capitalization. It’s one of their tells. Right there with the ellipsis that has any number of dots other than three.

The randomly capitalized penis did make me think of this