Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 67 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 62 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

"Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: ToasT » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:24 am

Image

Look what they've done to him

Look what they try to do to the business school students. Teach them the metric system is actually based on 11.


I can see a case study on clever business practice, 'lets give this reject batch of rulers to business students cause they typically don't measure stuff'
  • 0

User avatar
ToasT
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:23 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:36 am

POLAND_SPUD wrote:but not to such extent. Anyway he's just another proof that universities are feminized these days. Look what they've done to him :shock:


He is entitled to his views, certainly 10 years ago we would have been much more in agreement.

Out of curiousity MrC, what's the gender ratio in your course?

I can see a case study on clever business practice, 'lets give this reject batch of rulers to business students cause they typically don't measure stuff'


Haha! probably :) they'd be too busy scratching away strategic parts of the first "A" in AUCKLAND anyway :D
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: velocity3x » Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:58 pm

Jack,
The time is near. Will the epoxy cave slip quietly unnoticed into obscurity..... OR..... will it be decommissioned with pole dancers, loud music and copious volumes of adult beverage?
  • 0

User avatar
velocity3x
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Yuma, Arizona
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: Gun Freak » Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:18 pm

Are you kidding? He's packing that thing into his suitcase and bringing it with him to the land of Eh!
  • 0

OG Anti-Hybrid
One man's trash is a true Spudder's treasure!
Golf Ball Cannon "Superna"M16 BBMGPengunHammer Valve Airsoft SniperHigh Pressure .22 Coax
Holy Shat!
User avatar
Gun Freak
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:38 pm
Location: Florida
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 11

Unread postAuthor: Labtecpower » Tue Aug 13, 2013 3:29 pm

Image
  • 0

"ñøw mÿ šįg šüçkś!"
User avatar
Labtecpower
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:38 am
Location: Herb Island
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: Gun Freak » Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:29 pm

You posted the original Joseph Ducreux meme?
  • 0

OG Anti-Hybrid
One man's trash is a true Spudder's treasure!
Golf Ball Cannon "Superna"M16 BBMGPengunHammer Valve Airsoft SniperHigh Pressure .22 Coax
Holy Shat!
User avatar
Gun Freak
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:38 pm
Location: Florida
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 11

Unread postAuthor: Labtecpower » Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:14 pm

Looks like it to me :roll:
  • 0

"ñøw mÿ šįg šüçkś!"
User avatar
Labtecpower
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:38 am
Location: Herb Island
Reputation: 7

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:17 pm

Jesus you became so annoying when you started university
I was annoying before that, it's just that particular topics were never really discussed on Spudfiles so I kept quiet about them. I've definitely got worse since uni, I'll give you that :D

For men it requires some skill for women it requires none.
Women talking about how to get the interest of a particular man in the office is pretty much what my lunch break consists of. Most of them are shy or apprehensive about being the person who tries to take things further than just flirting for the same reason guys sometimes are with the additional factor that it's not really the "norm". Even hot girls complain about hot guys that they can't get. Most of the time, for both genders, "skill" consists of some physical form that has been perfected through abnormal routine and diets. Apart from that, it's a bit of confidence mixed with conversational techniques that would make most people blush in private.

Have you never seen a girl hit on a guy? It's exactly the same as a guy hitting on a girl, you can tell when it's cringe as f*ck and the flirting is going horribly or when the person is clearly a pro with lots of experience. In terms of fundamentals, they strategies are pretty similar between genders.

in fact most slut shaming is done by women as a part of intra-sexual competition
I don't think it's about sexual competition, not directly anyway. For me, it's more to do with a social status and image thing. It's the same with guys but with other traits (such as masculinity).

Lol no offence but I can't believe you've read it.

This is the kind of response I expected from three Creationists who approached me in the park whilst I was reading this book. People see Dawkins and think it's an anti-religion book or that it's some crazy theory that isn't substantiated by observation or held in high regard in academic circles. People unfamiliar with evolutionary theory only know Dawkins for his anti-religious books, they're often not aware of his 'previous' career and original claim to fame.

If you're familiar with evolutionary theory, you're going to be familiar with ideas Dawkins proposes in The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. While he wasn't the most important evolutionary thinker of his time, he did some important work on ideas and concepts first hypothesised by some of the names I dropped earlier. The Selfish Gene isn't like a pop-sci book you'd find today, it's more of a series of arguments for a hypothesis in similar vein to books like The Origin of Species or Adaptation and Natural Selection.

Approaching some of the evolutionary questions of its time (as well as present day) with a gene-centred view proved to be extremely useful when addressing things like altruism, reproduction, social constructs, and kin selection. Gould and others have some legitimate criticisms about this view but it doesn't mean the hypothesis is entirely wrong or no longer useful.

You see I don't enjoy writing two page long posts on the internet as much as you do. Besides my posts are not scientific papers
I don't enjoy this either, I waste too much time doing this haha. It is somewhat useful though. I'm not going back to uni until next year so it's good to keep ideas fresh and to not stagnate.

I get that your posts aren't scientific papers, but why make scientific claims? Some of what you guys have said is equivalent to dissenting from some substantiated aspect of theoretical physics. Even if the claim you made had no alternative theory with suitable evidence, the claim itself would still require evidence to affirm its validity. What we're discussing doesn't belong to the social sciences. Just because you experience these behaviours every day of your life it doesn't mean you're qualified to assert fact about them. You can make observations, yes; I have stated that from the start. You can even draw inferences from your observations if you wish. But you're statements are more arrogant than would be expected from mere inferences.

You can't dispute or make claims willy nilly as if the entire discipline of ethology was up in the air because it lacks the rigour and preciseness of physics or chemistry.

The problem being that you use your "truths" about women to validate further claims about them. I'm not so concerned if you think every woman is this way or that, I'm concerned if you say all women are this way or that so they shouldn't be allowed/are not able to do this or that.

Have I already mentioned you became very annoying since you started your studies ?
Haha I know I deserve it. But it's how a member who is studying engineering here would react if people started devising new theories about some aspect related to physics. You may observe something in experiments about a particular material and every time you use that material your observations are similar. You then use these observations to state something as fact about that material with your evidence consisting of unmeasured observations from a non-experimental set-up. Furthermore, the hypothesis lacks any underlying theory or mechanism based on established principles as justification; the person has gone from observation to conclusion, skipping everything in between.

In advanced societies, the father-mother-children family unit is the norm and premarital sex is frowned upon. If you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
Premarital sex is frowned upon? Perhaps if you're living in a catholic-dense region. I only know a few hardcore religious people who I went to school with and I don't think many of them have abstained from sex.

Even if we agree that premarital sex is frowned upon, that relates to both men and women. But since premarital sex is not really frowned upon in many advanced societies (at least in Commonwealth countries and many European countries), we clearly don't need 'slut shaming' to maintain our advanced society. People are having plenty of sex before marriage yet we are still able to maintain a healthy ratio of father-mother-children family units.

The problem is that you are using traits of our "advanced" society to support the statement that we need slut-shaming: our society is advanced because we slut-shame, and we slut-shame because our society is advanced.

Additionally, some form of "slut-shaming" would be found in less "advanced" societies as well. I believe there it is also used in relation to social status rather than sexual competition directly. The exact reasons for it would depend on their mating system. I would say slut-shaming isn't far removed from males 'calling out' another male. That being said, I don't think slut shaming or calling out in a less advanced society is entirely comparable to slut shaming or calling out in our society. Our society has more complex interactions and there's far less importance and pressure on our social behaviours than in less advanced societies.

To recap: slut-shaming isn't required for maintaining a healthy birth rate, slut-shaming isn't required to maintain the nuclear family ideal, and slut-shaming isn't found in every advanced society to the same degree nor is it found exclusively in advanced societies. It clearly has some social role, but I don't think it's a positive attribute of our society nor should it be reinforced to try and maintain the status quo.

Yes. Yes it is.
Women are unable to decide when to have sex? Wouldn't that mean all sex is rape? How are women able to do anything if they can't decide from the most simple of choices? POLAND and yourself have made similar extraordinary claims like this but you don't follow them through to see what the consequences of such a claim would be if true.

Why should I start a family then? Why should I be pressured by society to commit to a woman when she is not similarly obligated? The lack of stigma against female promiscuity has removed my will to contribute to the gene pool.
No one is saying you have to start a family. No one is saying you have to commit to an unfaithful woman. You're arguing that the lack of slut shaming has removed your will to breed? Think about it from a woman's perspective for just one second: men have very little social stigma relating to promiscuity, men typically have more sexual partners than women, men are not tied down for 9 months bearing a child and can leave as long as they pay some child support. In terms of risk, women have a much greater risk going in to a relationship than men do. I'm not going to criticise the how you have weighed the odds and decided your future; not all people aren't willing to take the same risks, especially if they think the pay-off is worth different amounts. However, saying the lack of slut-shaming has forced your hand is a pretty ridiculous argument to make.

Dawkins spells some of this out in The Selfish Gene, it can be in the man's best interest to flee after impregnating a woman as soon as possible; mainly because he has a 9 month head-start. That's evolutionary speaking, not so relevant to society today, but these evolutionary arguments often help explain the origin of human behaviours or culture. There's a lot of talk about the origins of monogamy and arguments like the above are presented as hypotheses. No one is saying it is still in a man's best interest to flee after impregnation, but has this past behaviour influenced who we are as a society today? Possibly.

and do paid work with women
I do paid work with women. Males are outnumbered about 5:1 in the group of ~30 I work with.

I'd say the need for social stigma would disappear only if child alimony was abolished and taking care of children by men was prohibited by law
Again, I have no problem if you don't want to raise a child but why extend your preference across an entire society? Not everyone shares your opinions, in fact a huge number of people don't. What is your justification for prohibiting the care of children by men? Do you have any reason or argument at all? Seems like you just want zero responsibility. Hey, we all want that but then you realise that you live in a society and you can't do whatever the f*ck you please.

The mere fact that there contraceptives have become available doesn't change our hardwired instincts. Based on our assumptions no men would have sex with a girl that is on a pill (and he knows it) because the only driving force behind sexual attraction is reproduction. Evolution and basic instincts don't change overnight - that takes thousands of years
Wut? What part of your life today is geared towards maximising your reproductive output? We've been capable of conscious decision making a lot longer than we've had contraceptives. Hell, we wouldn't even have contraceptives if we weren't capable of conscious decision making.

Based on your assumptions, no men would have sex with a female who is on the pill. Thankfully, those assumptions are not evident in evolutionary theory relating to contemporary humans. You do realise that we are conscious beings, right? We can make decisions for ourselves. We're not 100% programmed survival machines. As Dawkins would argue we have been given the ability, through natural selection, to think for ourselves and a 'consequence' of this is society and culture. I say consequence, because although culture evolves similarly to traits in a gene pool, cultural traits aren't required to be beneficial for them to spread. You scoffed at my mention of reading the Selfish Gene but you'd really do yourself a favour by reading it.

We're not talking about insects here, we're talking about a species that builds huge cities and watches TV. Our lives are not exactly under the same evolutionary pressures that most other species are.

Anyway he's just another proof that universities are feminized these days.
That's some solid reasoning there, POLAND :wink:

Out of curiousity MrC, what's the gender ratio in your course?
Hmm, maybe 40% male to 60% female. It's hard to know for sure though since the courses are very inter-disciplinary so not everyone there is pursuing the same area of research. As for professors and lecturers, the split is even or slightly in favour of males.

Edit: I will add that I've only ever had two classes devoted to topics discussed in my posts (evolutionary behaviour) and for both those classes I didn't pay much attention (still got the highest marks in the class though :wink:). My point being that I doubt I'm influenced by any "feminism" or gender differences in what I learn at university. I do well in those classes because I've read books and other literature about those topics before taking the class so I haven't learned that much new content from taking them. Books like The Selfish Gene don't promote feminism or anything like that either, in fact they frequently use what would be considered sexist language today.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:52 pm

Lol no offence but I can't believe you've read it.


This is the kind of response I expected from three Creationists who approached me in the park whilst I was reading this book.
No, this is the kind of response you get from a person who has read it and understood it. If you have understood it properly you wouldn't write stuff you wrote and have such opionions.

slut-shaming
I recently came across a post by a woman on how she hates sluts for lowering the price of sex for men - that's almost literal wording. I'd say slut-shaming is predominantly female thing. If there is anything a man wants it is MOAR sluts.

Based on your assumptions, no men would have sex with a female who is on the pill. Thankfully, those assumptions are not evident in evolutionary theory relating to contemporary humans. You do realise that we are conscious beings, right? We can make decisions for ourselves. We're not 100% programmed survival machines.
There is your problem. Poor reading skills are one of them as you clearly totally missed what I was trying to tell.

People are not concious beings at all. Just because people know that sugar is bad for them doesn't stop them from craving it. It's the same with irrational fears (irrational as in I know it's not dangerous but I am still afraid), women on pills, the fact that we find 20 yr old girls more attractive than 60yr old ones. It's all stuff that's hardwired into our brains and there is nothing or little we can do about it.

We're not talking about insects here, we're talking about a species that builds huge cities and watches TV. Our lives are not exactly under the same evolutionary pressures that most other species are.
and yet most of that was achieved as a direct result of our grand grand grand fathers' attempts to get more pussy.


One day you're going to get my point and you're going to be like - damn should have listened to them earlier I wouldn't waste my youth on all this BS
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Unread postAuthor: Blitz » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:33 pm

Okay. Ya know what...

Image
  • 0

User avatar
Blitz
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:48 am
Location: West Chicago, IL
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:24 pm

Heh, I remember that poster from the Simpsons, inside Nelson's house. :)


'gotta nuke somethin':D

The time is near. Will the epoxy cave slip quietly unnoticed into obscurity..... OR..... will it be decommissioned with pole dancers, loud music and copious volumes of adult beverage?


Yep, less than a month left now! My original idea was to pump gas into the cave... then, the refrigerator's compressor could have clicked on... but ultimately I'm just giving away/throwing away/selling stuff.

Are you kidding? He's packing that thing into his suitcase and bringing it with him to the land of Eh!


You'll be amazed how little I'm taking with me... basically my sherline setup, clothes, small electronics.... the rest is simply not worth shipping vs buying it new from Eh!land.

Women talking about how to get the interest of a particular man in the office is pretty much what my lunch break consists of.


Im beginning to understand...

I don't think it's about sexual competition, not directly anyway. For me, it's more to do with a social status and image thing. It's the same with guys but with other traits (such as masculinity).


Hahaha... you haven't been reading between the lines of the feminine conversations you overhear.

Premarital sex is frowned upon? Perhaps if you're living in a catholic-dense region. I only know a few hardcore religious people who I went to school with and I don't think many of them have abstained from sex.


I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't think you'll find many parents encouraging their daughters to sleep around.

People are having plenty of sex before marriage yet we are still able to maintain a healthy ratio of father-mother-children family units.


Single parent (overwhelmingly female) "families" in the West are on the rise, supported either by court enforced alimony or state handouts. To believe this is sustainable in the long run is naive.

slut-shaming isn't required for maintaining a healthy birth rate


There will still be a lot of births if people a f***ing, certainly. It goes without saying, people have always f***ed, hence people.

Still:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Europe

Less "native" children being born, immigration on the rise, you can't say the West isn't changing.

slut-shaming isn't required to maintain the nuclear family ideal


If female promiscuity is "uncontrolled", no one will want to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free.

and slut-shaming isn't found in every advanced society to the same degree nor is it found exclusively in advanced societies. It clearly has some social role, but I don't think it's a positive attribute of our society nor should it be reinforced to try and maintain the status quo.


There are many cases where divorced husbands have been forced out of their marital homes by cheating wives. Can you imagine having to live in a crummy apartment while your wife is shagging her lover in the house you're still paying for?

Either slut-shaming should be the norm, or the concept of marriage and even fidelity should be abolished. We're clearly very bad at it, but a man-woman parent unit seems to be the best way to raise children. That's the dilemma here.

Women are unable to decide when to have sex? Wouldn't that mean all sex is rape? How are women able to do anything if they can't decide from the most simple of choices? POLAND and yourself have made similar extraordinary claims like this but you don't follow them through to see what the consequences of such a claim would be if true.


Women abhor personal responsibility, and are risk averse. I don't think this is an extraordinary claim. They tend to prefer that decisions are made for them. Why is it the norm that a guy asks a girl out? The guy is taking action and risking rejection, while the girl has the choice of accepting or declining his advances without effort or risk.

Why do so many women have rape fantasies?

Think about it from a woman's perspective for just one second


Why the FÜCK should I, when no woman would be prepared to do the same for me? If you are unaware of the blatant double standards that women apply across the board (and still manage to rationalise) then you're in for a bit of a shock.

men have very little social stigma relating to promiscuity


OK

men typically have more sexual partners than women


Surveys suggest it but I doubt this is the case in reality.

men are not tied down for 9 months bearing a child and can leave as long as they pay some child support.


"Some"?! There are men in prison because they cannot keep up with the child support. A man's basic asset is his labour, if that risks being taken away by force I would say that's a pretty huge risk.

However, saying the lack of slut-shaming has forced your hand is a pretty ridiculous argument to make.


It's symptomatic of a society that promotes an ideal and romantic notion of male/female relations which it is then unwilling to back up.

No one is saying it is still in a man's best interest to flee after impregnation, but has this past behaviour influenced who we are as a society today? Possibly.


Women are allowed to have abortions. Men aren't allowed to flee.

Hmm, maybe 40% male to 60% female.


I do paid work with women. Males are outnumbered about 5:1 in the group of ~30 I work with.


This suggests that you exist in a very feminine environment. Women aren't found in high proportion in environments that do not pander to them. You're either going to embrace it and become a mangina, or, we hope, you'll hyu-hyu-hyu-harden the f*** up!

I recently came across a post by a woman on how she hates sluts for lowering the price of sex for men - that's almost literal wording. I'd say slut-shaming is predominantly female thing. If there is anything a man wants it is MOAR sluts


Hear hear :D

Let's top it off with this gem from sickipedia:

As I went to reach for the largest cucumber in the supermarket a woman also went to grab it.

"Oh yeah, I bet I know why you want the biggest one," I winked.

"You've got me," she giggled, "do you fancy coming back to mine and watching?"

"No thanks," I replied, "I've got better things to do with my time than stand watching a woman make sandwiches."
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:40 am

No, this is the kind of response you get from a person who has read it and understood it. If you have understood it properly you wouldn't write stuff you wrote and have such opionions.
I've yet to see any indication in your writing that you have read the book let alone understood it, now would be a good time to offer your thoughts on it since you're refuting what I've said about it.

I seriously doubt you understood it properly judging by what you have said in this thread so far. You have a grasp of evolution more than the average joe, but I've yet to see anything from you that shows a more deeper understanding. Dawkins book can definitely be read multiple ways in the sense that someone not very familiar with evolutionary theory can interpret his words to mean different things. An example would be extrapolating many of his arguments from The Battle of the Sexes to vindicate modern behaviours. An even more specific difference between different readers would be between a "mutationist" (not in the old sense of the word) and a Darwinist who favours Natural Selection as the dominant force.

There's a lot to talk about from the book, reproduction just being one of the many interesting topics discussed. I had a hard time choosing only one; I've left plenty of arguments for you to choose from to demonstrate that you not only read it but understood it.

People are not concious beings at all. Just because people know that sugar is bad for them doesn't stop them from craving it.

I'm not going to turn this in to a philosophical discussion. We are clearly conscious in the sense of the term that we are conscious of ourselves, other species, and the world around us. There's a difference between being conscious and being in full control. No one is saying that we can choose not to crave sugar in that we could over-rule our biochemistry directly. I never made that argument, and I don't know who has.

It's all stuff that's hardwired into our brains and there is nothing or little we can do about it.
How does that relate to consciousness? I'll leave the specifics of your statement for another time but no one has argued that consciousness means you can over-rule your biology. Do you even know what consciousness means? This is why I have a hard time believing you read The Selfish Gene, you wouldn't have made it more than a few chapters without hitting a brick wall as he clearly explains a hypothetical origin for consciousness from the start.

There is your problem. Poor reading skills are one of them as you clearly totally missed what I was trying to tell.
Ok then, feel free to clarify:

Based on our assumptions no men would have sex with a girl that is on a pill - Whose assumptions are you talking about? Certainly not mine.

The mere fact that there contraceptives have become available doesn't change our hardwired instinctsNo one said it did, but what does contraception have to do with our instincts? You do not understand evolution or our evolutionary history in the slightest if you think contraceptives are a problem for evolutionary theory or our current behaviour.

and yet most of that was achieved as a direct result of our grand grand grand fathers' attempts to get more pussy.
Only in the sense that if they hadn't reproduced, the people who made those things wouldn't have been born. You think skyscrapers, TV, modern music, submarines, cars, and over-priced clothing are the result of an evolutionary adaptation and are currently under selective pressure? These things are clearly consequences of our evolutionary history, there's no gene that increases the fitness of an individual by making them build skyscrapers. Again, I find it hard to believe you could read The Selfish Gene and understand it correctly when you say stuff like this.

If I'm again misunderstanding you, please do clarify because the things you are saying are absurd.

One day you're going to get my point and you're going to be like
And what point is that? You've made plenty, zero with any real evidence backing them up however.

you haven't been reading between the lines of the feminine conversations you overhear.
But slut shaming is not necessarily done for competition over a single man. We don't live in a closed system like some less advanced societies do, so as the saying goes "there's plenty more fish in the sea". Slut shaming is done in high school for no reason, between two girls who are not competing for the same men, and there's usually no reproductive benefit from this slut shaming. It clearly seems to have a more behavioural and social role than reproductive. As I said before, it could be indirectly related to reproduction (hence, social status).

but I don't think you'll find many parents encouraging their daughters to sleep around.
Not sleep around, but a couple of relationships with boyfriends in high school is pretty much the norm here and many other western countries that I can think of.

Single parent (overwhelmingly female)
As you'd expect.

supported either by court enforced alimony or state handouts. To believe this is sustainable in the long run is naive.
And so they should be. The responsibility for a child isn't put solely on the female. A male can be a single parent and receive the same benefits, just because that happens less often doesn't mean there's a gender bias, the more sensible explanation is that men aren't required to bear a child for 9 months. Also, just because it's on the 'increase' (stats would be nice) doesn't mean it's going to continue to rise. I guess you support the notion that pensions shouldn't exist?

Anyway, what the hell does this have to do with slut shaming? We should slut shame so we don't bankrupt the economy? Really? Surely there's a better way... :roll:

Less "native" children being born, immigration on the rise, you can't say the West isn't changing.
I only said that slut shaming is justifiable based on your arguments.

NZ is probably one of the most susceptible countries to immigration changing our culture and society so I'm quite familiar with it all but it's best left for another discussion.

If female promiscuity is "uncontrolled", no one will want to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free.
Women seem perfectly happy with buying the cow when the milk is free, does that make women better than us? And again, I can't believe you're using this all to justify slut shaming as if you think that if slut shaming stopped overnight the world would come to a halt. You could almost justify any behaviour in the same way, arguing that it maintains status quo. It's so absurd.

Can you imagine having to live in a crummy apartment while your wife is shagging her lover in the house you're still paying for?
Therfore, slut shame?

My head hurts when I think about the argument you presented in that paragraph. Here's a brief example of why: there are many cases where divorced husbands were killed by their ex-lovers who were cheating on someone else. Can you imagine being dead? Don't get married; slut shame. I don't even know why you want to justify slut shaming, all your problems won't disappear overnight if we endorse it. In fact, it's pretty prominent at the moment yet all your problems still exist.

Either slut-shaming should be the norm, or the concept of marriage and even fidelity should be abolished. We're clearly very bad at it

Slut shaming is the norm? Well, it's so common that it's actually a problem in our society. Why argue for slut shaming when it clearly hasn't done anything to improve your doubts about marriage. And again, as I said to POLAND, why abolish marriage or fidelity just because you feel that way. Plenty of people don't agree with you and plenty of people agree with you. You know what the people who agree with you do? They don't get married and have polygynous (or polyandrous, if that's your thing) relationships.

Women abhor personal responsibility
Again, this is a pretty huge claim that will require some backing up. As I said to POLAND, can you tell me the mechanism by which women are made to abhor personal responsibility? I assume you know the neurological mechanism which causes this.

I can't see why you are rational when it comes to other parts of science, such as physics, yet believe you can just postulate any darn theory in to existence about women that fits your world view. You can't do that. It's not science. It's not rational. If The Guardian came out with an article saying "women love personal responsibility", no doubt you would scoff and complain.

Why the FÜCK should I, when no woman would be prepared to do the same for me?
Because in terms of the risks in committing to a relationship, which was your concern, women are at a far greater risk than men because men do not have a social stigma about their promiscuity. To spell it out: men have more freedom from society in sleeping around, women have less freedom, therefore women are taking a greater risk when they trust their partner to be faithful than vice versa.

I'm not making a point about men and women understanding each other's positions, I'm refuting your claim by saying you should look at it from the perspective because the grass is not greener on that side of things. Since there are only two sides, and the other side is in a worse position than your side for that given argument, your argument is not valid. Drop the complaining about women not seeing things from your side, it's irrelevant to my point and could be very well true for all I care.

Surveys suggest it but I doubt this is the case in reality.

I've only ever seen that damn Durex survey which popped up in the news here awhile ago. Obviously a flawed survey in many ways. However, this supports it's findings: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/abc_list_n ... erlifetime

I'm obviously not going to read the whole report but the main areas of concern seem to check out (sample, sampling method, questionnaire, etc). You would also expect it to be a lot more robust than most academic research asking similar questions. Naturally, it'd be magnitudes more robust than what could be gathered from personal experience (e.g. me or you)

There are men in prison because they cannot keep up with the child support.
Really? I could understand if they're in prison due to fraud or something similar (such as lying on government forms about their income and child support) but that's obviously not the same as going to prison for not being able to keep up with payments. Any examples of written law or something?

Anyway, who cares. As I said before, a child is not solely a woman's responsibility. If you disagree with this, then there are a million other thing you must think is wrong with society and the only solution would be to form a band of hunter-gatherers and try your luck in the wilderness.

It's symptomatic of a society that promotes an ideal and romantic notion of male/female relations which it is then unwilling to back up.
Society promotes a romantic notion of life itself; you go through being butthurt about that during your teens (and probably the rest of your life, to a degree).

Women are allowed to have abortions. Men aren't allowed to flee.
Women aren't allowed to have abortions willy nilly, not in many places (incl. NZ). How is having an abortion equivalent to a man fleeing anyway? A man fleeing doesn't get rid of the problem, it creates more.

Of course I'm sympathetic to strengthening certain laws regarding child support where it can be shown that the woman deceived a man regarding her intentions or contraception. Though I'm not familiar with the current legality of such practice anyway, for all I know a man could be exempt if he had a video of a girl poking holes in the condom in his wallet. So I can't really comment except to say I obviously don't think men should pay support when some form of agreement (that can be proven in court) existed before hand or they were tricked/victim of sabotage.

This suggests that you exist in a very feminine environment
Well not really. Them being girls doesn't change the environment of the work place at all: we work, have a break, work some more. I'm not sure what kind of changes you'd expect? I'm in a government department office, my bosses are government employees, I'm technically employed by the government. Dominated by men or women, the environment stays pretty neutral. Note that I said my group is 5:1 female to male, we work in an office space with other workers where the ratio is more evenly split.

Women aren't found in high proportion in environments that do not pander to them.
The government doesn't pander to women, it's neutral to gender... it treats women with the same respect as men. In other words, gender isn't a factor in the running of the office (how it should be). Being surrounded by women would never enter your mind, they're just colleagues. It's not like you can't bring out the dart board, flick on the footy, and crack a cold one because you work with woman. You can't do that because it's an office.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:36 am

I'm obviously not going to read the whole report but the main areas of concern seem to check out (sample, sampling method, questionnaire, etc). You would also expect it to be a lot more robust than most academic research asking similar questions. Naturally, it'd be magnitudes more robust than what could be gathered from personal experience (e.g. me or you)
Anyone who uses a questionnaire to measure such stuff is just freaking retarded. Reported versus reality are two completely different things. Read some stuff on conducting social experiments, etc. The Social Animal by Elliot Aronson is probably the best one for a start


No one said it did, but what does contraception have to do with our instincts? You do not understand evolution or our evolutionary history in the slightest if you think contraceptives are a problem for evolutionary theory or our current behaviour.
You wrote earlier that
when you consider that in today's society contraception is so widely available, there is no need for this social stigma at all
So on one occasion you write that there is no need for social stigma because there are contraceptives and now you write that contraceptives don't change our current behaviour


Women logic ?? :D
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:06 am

Anyone who uses a questionnaire to measure such stuff is just freaking retarded. Reported versus reality are two completely different things.
That's why we have statistics. How else can you ethically measure av. number of sexual partners?

I like to think of statistics, when used in this sense, like a scientific theory. Nothing in science can be proved, we can only provide supporting evidence for a falsifiable claim. But, in statistics, you can almost have that 100% certainty (in some cases) by doing a census of the population. If you want to know the mean of X in population Y, a census can tell you that mean without the need for an error term (the standard error). However, a census is not always possible nor practical. In fact, a sample can often provide a close enough estimate that a census wouldn't be worthwhile. So a robust survey is not "freaking retarded", it's what any sane statistician would do in most cases. Though, even a census isn't 100% accurate.

As you said, reported versus reality are different things, and that's not a bias captured by the standard error, but we can trust the results if the survey is well designed. A well designed survey would take in to account such biases and do its best to minimise them. When I said I checked the main areas of concern, that's what I was mainly looking for. The survey is designed so that no one should have any reason to lie. Obviously, the bias can't be minimised completely but as we are unable to measure such bias we have to trust the survey design.

Your argument could be used for any statistics ever used in a research paper; we don't know the size or direction of non-sampling error. But that's why we have statistics and experimental design. We can, like a scientific theory, say that likelihood of the conclusion being false is small enough that we should accept it. Please don't anyone complain about how I worded that last sentence, it's not how you should word a testable hypothesis but I'm only providing an example.

So, POLAND, if you can demonstrate an estimate of the size and direction of the bias in the linked survey, then we can see about calling its findings in to dispute. One way of doing this would be to use the same methods for your own survey but change whatever detail you think would make people tell the truth for that question. Until then, assuming the survey is as robust as it seems on first glance, we should accept the findings as accurate.

So on one occasion you write that there is no need for social stigma because there are contraceptives and now you write that contraceptives don't change our current behaviour
Exactly, because I never said that social stigma and contraceptives went hand in hand. JSR argued that we would need social stigma to help control birth rate and I replied by saying contraceptives already fill that role. There's no contradiction in what I said.

edit: just to clarify, I meant evolutionary behaviour/strategy when talking about contraceptives. I didn't say they couldn't change behaviour either. I meant that contraceptives do not clash with our behaviour as we are conscious of what they do and when to use them (we did invent them after all). Our "hard-wired instincts" don't have an internal or external battle with contraceptives, for obvious reasons.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:11 am

Until then, assuming the survey is as robust as it seems on first glance, we should accept the findings as accurate

Damn maybe law enforcement should start using questionnaires to fight crime ??
Have you ever killed someone? YES/NO
Are you a terrorist? YES/NO
Do you sometimes DUI ? YES/NO

Problem of crime solved

Having discussion with you is like having one with a woman minus chance to stare at boobs
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'