Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
2018 Toronto Van Murders
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostMore warble...We are denying the scientific authenticity of psychology and psychiatry so tell me what someone who professes to an expert in either of these pseudo sciences may say is irrelevant. If Vulcan as a planet does not exist what someone who professes to come from there says means nothing. "Then the unicorn said..." has meaning but does not make unicorns real. Nor do see it in any way related to solipsism.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Versus View PostBeing employed in the marketing business I had a lots of experiences with promo girls and models, yes we are talking 10+ girls. Take or leave it, but they confirm everything that MGTOW says."Draft beer, not people."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Versus View PostSerbia is one big high school where chads bully nerds whom than go to the West and design weapons that are than used against Serbian chads whom go and bully others. I mean, our engeneers were included in tomahawk navigation system design and also were included in F-14 cockpit design. The very weapons used in 1999 against Chad army. Its just insane. The Putin cult is self explanatory.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Red Team View PostWell that's still a pretty small sample size. Wouldn't you also say the culture where you live differs greatly from mine? The limiting factor for MGTOW theory is its generalizability across multiple perspectives, they are based off assumptions made by the sole perspective of men and their anecdotal experience with women.
https://starwarsblog.starwars.com/wp...ue-CROPPED.jpg
Who is the archetype for a princess?
Or this
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/...af6ef3726262ac
Or poorer Balkan version, in the form of a Serbian war criminal and the hottest folk super star
https://www.kurir.rs/data/images/201...c-arkan_ls.jpgLast edited by Versus; 01 May 18,, 21:45.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostAssumes people are deterministic or simplifies them to a point that they are to create a conceptual model ?
It is just not possible to do empirical 'verification tests' in what they call 'behavioral sciences'. You cannot prove what someone is thinking and different people may have different motivations for behaving in an almost identical manner. Many people cross roads but for different reasons. You cannot make a categorical statement regarding why people cross roads unless you say "to get to the other side" which is basically just another way of saying they cross roads. There is nothing empirical or verifiable to it. It's 'mind stuff' that cannot be prove correct or incorrect. Nor do even really have a empirical understanding of what a 'mind' is, let alone a 'psyche' or an 'ego'. It is words we use to describe things we cannot see, taste, smell, touch or measure. It does not mean the words 'mean nothing' or have some value as descriptions in a subjective way. It just means they are not science in the true sense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Versus View PostBeing employed in the marketing business I had a lots of experiences with promo girls and models, yes we are talking 10+ girls. Take or leave it, but they confirm everything that MGTOW says.Originally posted by Red Team View PostWell that's still a pretty small sample size. Wouldn't you also say the culture where you live differs greatly from mine? The limiting factor for MGTOW theory is its generalizability across multiple perspectives, they are based off assumptions made by the sole perspective of men and their anecdotal experience with women.
If she showed up and modeled once, or once in awhile, then took the money and gone home, and paid a bill or two, I think it's possible to maintain a healthy mindset.
Long-term, in such a line of work, where one doesn't flip the switch and turn it all off - but is instead dealing with the same people, day in, day out, for years on end, and building actual on-going relationships with others, and allowing what should be strictly a money-making endeavour to pervade the rest of one's entire life, instead of compartmentalizing it away from everything else in one's life, I think that's a recipe for disaster.
If one if going to do this type of thing for work, compartmentalization and not forming bonds/ties to others involved in this line of work is necessary.Last edited by Ironduke; 01 May 18,, 22:02."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostAn extremely flawed sample as well. Beauty for money, where there's a long-term relationship between employer and employee, I believe this causes vicious cycle between men and women. This, in turn, creates, I don't know the correct word for it, but perhaps, "pathologies" or "neuroses", that are either not present or not as pronounced in the rest of the general population.
If she showed up and modeled once, or once in awhile, then took the money and gone home, and paid a bill or two, I think it's possible to maintain a healthy mindset.
Long-term, where one is dealing with the same people, day in, day out, for years on end, and building actual on-going relationships with others, and allowing what should be strictly a money-making endeavour to pervade the rest of one's entire life, instead of compartmentalizing it away from everything else in one's life, I think that's a recipe for disaster.
In few words, if one if going to do this type of thing for work, compartmentalization from all other areas of one's life, and not forming bonds/ties to others involved in this line of work is necessary.Last edited by Versus; 01 May 18,, 22:05.
Comment
-
Well sure, there's cultural stereotypes of what is considered attractive depending on the society you're talking about, it doesn't mean everybody subscribes to them. But that kinda reinforces the point doesn't it? A century ago, men who were fat were considered attractive to women because they were seen as a sign of wealth. Now a potbelly is err...endearing at best. Hell 30 years ago, intelligent women were seen as intimidating and unattractive to men in a culture where a stay-at-home 20 something wife with their MRS degree was the attractive option. Attractiveness is not as static of a concept as one would think.
MGTOW theories are vulnerable to changes in culture and the times because they are theories primarily designed to deflect from the shortcomings of contemporary frustrated men who blame everything and everyone but themselves for not being able to find a partner. They often don't take into account things like partner incompatibility, increased selectivity due to prevalence of online dating sites/apps, or prevalence of independent career women. It's always gotta be some inherent unfairness or flaw in someone else.
Hypothetically, would these men continue to subscribe to the same views on women if tomorrow, they suddenly became attractive to every woman?"Draft beer, not people."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Red Team View PostWell sure, there's cultural stereotypes of what is considered attractive depending on the society you're talking about, it doesn't mean everybody subscribes to them. But that kinda reinforces the point doesn't it? A century ago, men who were fat were considered attractive to women because they were seen as a sign of wealth. Now a potbelly is err...endearing at best. Hell 30 years ago, intelligent women were seen as intimidating and unattractive to men in a culture where a stay-at-home 20 something wife with their MRS degree was the attractive option. Attractiveness is not as static of a concept as one would think.
MGTOW theories are vulnerable to changes in culture and the times because they are theories primarily designed to deflect from the shortcomings of contemporary frustrated men who blame everything and everyone but themselves for not being able to find a partner. They often don't take into account things like partner incompatibility, increased selectivity due to prevalence of online dating sites/apps, or prevalence of independent career women. It's always gotta be some inherent unfairness or flaw in someone else.
Hypothetically, would these men continue to subscribe to the same views on women if tomorrow, they suddenly became attractive to every woman?Last edited by Versus; 01 May 18,, 22:16.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GVChamp View PostThere's no more evidence that physics is a real science than sociology, and Schrodinger's Cat is the evidence for it. Physicists have no idea what they are describing at a fundamental level.
We have no clue what's really going on with quantum mechanics but it gives predictions that agree with perfectly controlled experiments to the 12th significant digits. That makes quantum mechanics more reliable and accurate than any theory or finding in any of the social sciences, ever.
Of course science isn't really about being right. It's more a systematic way of decreasing our ignorance of the objective facts if the world over time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Versus View PostMGTOW is an reaction to dual standards in the family courts and society. We don't hate women, we simply recognize their true nature and dangers of gynocentric state/law systems. I think that we would. Once you see it you cannot un-see it.
But here's the rub, these double standards aren't a function of any inherent evil of women at large, they are a function of some scumbag women who take advantage of a number of systems within our society (i.e., divorce courts, criminal justice system) that disproportionately favors them---not because of some conspiracy against men at large, but because of bureaucratic changes made as a result of (American) society's initiative to give women more legal agency during a time when women were expected to be dependents to men. What we are seeing now is largely an effect of bureaucratic inertia.
Bottom line, humans can be scumbags to each other and their behavior functionally takes advantage of any edge they have to achieve their ends.Last edited by Red Team; 01 May 18,, 22:34."Draft beer, not people."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Red Team View PostNow this is something that has empirical evidence behind it. For example, male to female domestic violence is taken very seriously by law enforcement, but female-to-male domestic violence is often looked at as a joke. There are more than a few cases of men abused by women that call the cops and get themselves arrested. As much of a meme as Gender Studies has become on the web, the non-bats**t insane academia side of it has done important work describing the double standards afflicting both genders throughout law and culture.
But here's the rub, these double standards aren't a function of any inherent evil of women at large, they are a function of some scumbag women who take advantage of a number of systems within our society (i.e., divorce courts, criminal justice system) that disproportionately favors them---not because of some conspiracy against men at large, but because of bureaucratic changes made as a result of (American) society's initiative to give women more legal agency during a time when women were expected to be dependents to men.
Comment
Comment