| |
|
It's not that these arguments can't be backed up by hard science
Dude, it's been five pages and two-plus threads and I am still waiting for the hard science. You've been asked for the hard science. You are apparently a kick-ass scientist and wildly amazing magician who can pass judgment from on high (and I'm sure Grant Morrison sleeps better at night knowing you think he's doing, you know, okay), punching holes in major world problems and confronting the whiners with the hardboiled hard facts of life. Trying to stay strong in the face of all this condemnation.
And yet, five pages on, after repeated requests, I am still waiting for the hard science.
No amount of whining about fairness changes the fact that rape is the *core* of a good deal of female behavior not only in the human world, but right across the mammal and other animal kingdom.
Hard science. Please. Published psychological studies. Surveys with control groups. Papers in journals. Gimme some.
This is useful because women are *biologically* *attracted* to men with money.
Hard science. Please. Evolutionary examinations. Some study where some guy gives an identical twin $50 to stick in his pocket and both twins go cruising. Papers in journals. Published reports. Bring it on.
...men are *biologically* *attracted* to women with strong physical symmetry and a 1/3 waist/hip ratio.
Well, according to this study, that old saw has been debunked somewhat. American men are attracted to a 0.68 WHR, but Hazda men tend to prefer a WHR of 0.78. See what I just did there? With the link to a published peer-approved study dated after the original 0.70 WHR theory was advanced? Wasn't that cool?
You spend a little time dealing with lightly built, physical small, extremely sexually attractive women and you pretty soon realize that a quarter inch under the surface is the constant awareness that they are *going to get raped if they are alone with the wrong man at the wrong time.* And, again, the rape statistics rather bear that out.
Hard statistics. Please. I'd like to see the report, from a credible organization, that rape statistics report that lightly built, physically small, extremely sexually attractive women have a constant awareness that they are going to get raped if they are alone with the wrong man at the wrong time. Precisely a quarter-inch below the surface, they have this awareness. Right next to that part of the brain that contains your favourite recipes, or whatnot. And it has been proven through hard science to be constant. Government report. PDF on the health ministry site. Any old thing. Please.
And what we casually refer to as "jerks" is pretty much all of the behaviors which strongly corelate with high testosterone: aggression, less use of words, muscular build, impulsiveness and so on. The Jock archetype, in other words.
According to the oft-cited-by-you dictionary.com, what we casually refer to as "jerks" is a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person. Well, that certainly describes one person in the room. But I'd say ze's a little less "Jock stereotype" and more the "arrogant blowhard who falls back on vague wimblings about hard science without ever showing any rigor whatsoever."
But if you have hard science showing the linguistic goalpost of "jerk" has shifted, please, I'm all ears. Language studies. Surveys of mass-published material. Newspaper articles, even. I await.
And that's one post. Everything you say is full of vague, poorly qualified, "common sense" blathering, and any time somebody calls you on it you start off on another tangent.
I, personally, am still waiting for the hard science. I don't give a flying tuna who you are in The World, whether or not you held Grant Morrison's hand as he entered the mothership, which major world issues you have torn huge gaping holes in using your awesome powers, or what you have suffered in your road to Now.
I really don't care.
What I care about is that you have entered a space that a lot of other people care about and have expended a lot of effort on, and started to spatter the walls with ill-conceived gibberish that you keep claiming is "hard science" without any science whatsoever.
So I am repeating the earlier request. The onus is not on other people to disprove whatever you whack away at on a word processor. The onus is on you, the Hard Scientist, to back your shit up.
Please. |
|
|
