EPTMen are not what they used to be... - Page 3
| Blogs > YanGpaN |
|
Hittegods
Stockholm4642 Posts
| ||
|
OverTheUnder
United States2929 Posts
On September 04 2008 16:45 travis wrote: No, I still agree with inky. I feel no need to defend this statement. hmm, i'm pretty lost now too. | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
I specifically spoke about MY politics and philosophy surrounding citations. If you place your faith in citations, that's your call. I believe the idea of citations is to save work. If I'm writing something, rather than proving a million different premises of my argument to you, I can just say (so and so et al) did this work for me, and I'm using their facts as part of my argument. This serves a society of specialization. We can't all be physicists, biologists, philosophers, chemists, etc. So people rely on the work of other experts, and in cooperation they build huge networks of information. This is great if you believe that all the experts genuinely want to serve Truth. The thing is, when I "did some drugs and got all weird," I started to believe that maybe science is not, and never can be divorced from POLITICS, and as I pointed out, ideology and metaphor. Do you realize how much science is funded by commercial or government interests? Does Pfizer want to develop a new anti-depressant at VERY HIGH COST and then do research that proves it doesn't work? So here is the deal... if you want to research something, nothing is stopping you from researching it. I think it would be relatively easy to pursue information on testosterone and homosexuality. Maybe studies on it don't exist, but it would be fairly easy to pursue that information. But I think that much of the time, a citation serves to say "I, the author, looked into this problem, and found the relevant research to prove my point, so you can believe me when I say X is true." And this is how we go forward in our research now. We say "so and so took care of that for me, so I don't need to." And then much goes unquestioned. So, like I said, this serves technocracy (society led by specialized experts). The same way in the past it was only for an elite priest class to interpret the absolute word of god, now it is for those with 01928401980 years of school to produce truth, and it is for nobodies like us to cite those truth's in our little arguments. And I reject that system. I reject the ENORMOUS amount of faith that goes into it! Ironic that lay-scientists - ie many on TL.net - will badmouth the faith of Christians and other religious folks, yet have so much faith in the work of scientists - work that they do not understand, and scientists that they do not know. Given that we definitely do live in a technocracy, and that many people function in the ways I've described above, what incentive do people have NOT to lie with citations? What incentives do the experts have not to mislead you? Some recommendations for you then! Look into Edward Bernays. Study the PR industry (Trust US, We're Experts! is a good one). Study Plato's Republic. Study Noam Chomsky (Manufacturing Consent). Look into how corporations set up third party think tanks/research groups to produce scientific facts. I wish the movie The Matrix were fiction. In short, specialization necessitates technocracy and the practice of citing "facts" This method of organization produces powerful technology and science, but it also creates a lot of room for experts to mislead and manipulate, and I believe this is very much a part of society today. And since I am a believer that politics aren't something one should merely talk about, they are something one should embody, the way I speak and act is a reflection of my rejection of technocratic methods. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/images/stories/Edstrong/indoctrination.jpg) | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
 As for men changing, again, sure, it's happening. What I see is people being transformed into machines to be programmed, tested, graded, certified, degreed, accepted, rejected, employed, paid, guided, directed, etc. People in general are docile and unsure of themselves. The quest for normalcy is paramount. And so I'm not surprised to see men acting a bit insecure. IT has nothing to do with masculinity and a lot to do with a superficial, power-draining society. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Just kidding. Anyway lol my mom was pointing this out to me over the summer, how men nowadays are acting all sissy and indecisive, wearing pink shirts and can't do any sports or anything athletic. She then says she's very glad that I'm not following this trend. Explain 10 billion 'workout' threads on a nerdy internet forum like this then. Your mom is silly =/ People still believe in healthy mind, healthy body. Not everyone wants to look like Arnold Schwarshenegger, but we want our muscles to be apparent, and our weight under control. I mean... Why else would everyone be so fucking self-conscious about their looks ahha? I've met guys that are sissy and indecisive, but play more sports than me... Being decisive is more of a modern day quality than a 'strong men of the past' quality. Being sissy and indecisive is just a weak quality. It's not akin to either gender. I guess one could observe that lots of guys are concerned with fashion these days... but it's been like that for at least a century now. Look at fashion trends and tell me guys stayed put? It's gone from wearing suits everyday with a stylish hat, to ripping your own jeans right when you get them, to buying them preworn, and now to dress shirts and well fit jeans. I don't really follow fashion trends myself, because A: I don't want to all of a sudden look like I had a complete makeover and B: I don't really know what they are to begin with. But that doesn't stop every one of my friends from being trendy. Just like they're worried about their clothes, they're more worried about working out than I am too. I'm just an apathetic individual, and it's probably not a good quality even if it does make me fit some weirdo's idea of gritty. | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
Gay men are able to control physical objects by pure thought. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
CapO
United States1615 Posts
that shit is old, and most men are no longer like that. now days, there has been an increase in men's desire to look better by getting facial skin cares, wearing nice designer clothes (cheap clothes don't properly fit most people), shaving certain areas, putting on nice colognes, working out to get in shape, and becoming more feminine when it comes to being stylish and clean. simply, being metro sexual is the new era. i think this is the definition of a man, who knows how to take care of himself. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On September 05 2008 00:08 nA.Inky wrote: And I reject that system. I reject the ENORMOUS amount of faith that goes into it! Ironic that lay-scientists - ie many on TL.net - will badmouth the faith of Christians and other religious folks, yet have so much faith in the work of scientists - work that they do not understand, and scientists that they do not know. Given that we definitely do live in a technocracy, and that many people function in the ways I've described above, what incentive do people have NOT to lie with citations? What incentives do the experts have not to mislead you? However, I understand the work of the scientists since I am one myself... And I can say to you that citations are not there to prove a fact wrong or right, but to show the basis on what grounds you argue and what your theories are based on. Facts is only what you can feel with your own senses, science is built upon facts but it do not proclaim that theories are facts. Instead science is all about making theories to describe how an event will happen based on observed facts in the past, this is what leads us forward, but nowhere do theories supercede facts in science. If you say that gay penises are larger you got to have read a study about it or done one yourself. Since the chances that you have done a study about penis sizes are so close to 0% that we can take it for a fact that you haven't, then you must have read about it. Now since you posted that as a pure fact you obviously believed in it and as such you are a hypocrite if you say that citations are useless since you yourself use such facts in your argumentations no matter if you put the citation in or not. On September 04 2008 13:45 nA.Inky wrote: Did you know that on average, gay men have both MORE testosterone and BIGGER dicks than straight men? I'm not joking. And if you add more testosterone to a gay man, he does not become hetero - he becomes MORE gay. These are not the words by someone who doubts the results of scientific studies, instead this are the words done by someone who neglects the basis of the study and just tries to convince people that he has more proof than he can show. On September 04 2008 13:45 nA.Inky wrote: Look, so much of this stuff is cultural. It used to be very normal in Europe for men to kiss each other full on the lips. IN ancient Greece, what we call homosexuality was VERY common (perhaps valued over heterosexuality). What told you these facts? Probably doubtful sources since all of these stuff comes originally from scientific papers.... On September 04 2008 13:45 nA.Inky wrote: There are just soooooooo many assumptions in this blog that it troubles me.... It implies that it is womanly to be insecure, docile, openly emotional, etc, and manly to be bold, decisive, etc.... This is cultural stuff. This is even the biggest hypocrisy of them all! You yourself attack others for making assumptions when you refuse to prove that what you say is anything but assumptions. Maybe if you did not hold such double standards people would listen to you more. Now, I will conclude with the words that I believe that all this blabbering about "Science is probably corrupt" is more to save your face than an ideology you live by. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 05 2008 04:41 Klockan3 wrote: However, I understand the work of the scientists since I am one myself... And I can say to you that citations are not there to prove a fact wrong or right, but to show the basis on what grounds you argue and what your theories are based on. Facts is only what you can feel with your own senses, science is built upon facts but it do not proclaim that theories are facts. Instead science is all about making theories to describe how an event will happen based on observed facts in the past, this is what leads us forward, but nowhere do theories supercede facts in science. If you say that gay penises are larger you got to have read a study about it or done one yourself. Since the chances that you have done a study about penis sizes are so close to 0% that we can take it for a fact that you haven't, then you must have read about it. Now since you posted that as a pure fact you obviously believed in it and as such you are a hypocrite if you say that citations are useless since you yourself use such facts in your argumentations no matter if you put the citation in or not. you are hardly the only scientist here. I don't think any part of his argument was riding on whether or not his statement that gay penises are larger(or whatever he said) is correct. That is completely beside the point, and I doubt he cared about it at all. These are not the words by someone who doubts the results of scientific studies, instead this are the words done by someone who neglects the basis of the study and just tries to convince people that he has more proof than he can show. No, these are the words of someone trying to illustrate a point, a concept. There are any number of varying statements he could have made to illustrate this concept. The accuracy of his statement has very little to do with the concept he was trying to convey. This is even the biggest hypocrisy of them all! You yourself attack others for making assumptions when you refuse to prove that what you say is anything but assumptions. Maybe if you did not hold such double standards people would listen to you more. 1.) He attacked no one. 2.) Clearly he was stating his interpretation, one I agreed with. 3.) Innocent until proven guilty. If someone wants to know if one of his statements are true or false, shouldn't they do, say, 2 minutes of research on google and find out for theirselves? Where is the double standard? How are statements of opinion comparable to statements of fact? Now, I will conclude with the words that I believe that all this blabbering about "Science is probably corrupt" is more to save your face than an ideology you live by. wtf are you talking about | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Innocent until proven guilty (whatever that means in this context) + Show Spoiler + BTW, Inky's statements were false (1984 study by Columbia neurobiologist Heino Meyer-Bahlburg found no correlation between testosterone levels and sexual orientation) but since he doesn't "believe" in "technocracy" or "facts" or "logic" he will never admit it. | ||
|
Folca
2235 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
kpcrew
Korea (South)1071 Posts
men in korea and many places in europe use handbags WTF IS THAT? wear a fucking backpack or something ive seen guys on korean college campuses that have more style than most of the women | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
In short, I concede - Jibba, Klackon, you are right about my specific statement. I should have provided a citation or softened my words. What happened is I jumped on Jibba's comment as an excuse to talk about my concerns about technocracy - and I absolutely stand by my words on that matter, and think that whole argument stands. I could have been less sloppy about it. It's good that you guys are critical of me here. But it is too easy (I'm not complaining); I'm not a credentialed expert, and I don't pretend to be. Any strong statement by me stands out like a sore thumb. How many people apply the same time to critical thought/activity when a credentialed expert makes a statement or quotes previous work? SOME undoubtedly do, particularly if you are an expert in the same field, and wish to look into other research. But I would contend that MOST do not. There are many Dawkins fans here. How many follow his endnotes/citations to the original source to verify Dawkin's claims about biology? Probably a very, very small percentage. Why? Because Dawkins is a known name, people take him seriously, he's an expert, and because research he mentions is probably technical, difficult, and boring. My whole point in a nutshell is that people take experts too seriously, and this is dangerous. Nick | ||
|
nA.Inky
United States794 Posts
Klackon or someone else might jump on this and say "DUH! This is what science already does! Hence the difference between theory and fact!" Possibly true.... In theory that is how science works. But again, I am interested in the political implications of ideas, and I would contend that most people, particularly non-scientists, do not treat science in this way. And the problem arises outside of science as well, when experts are involved. It is for non-experts to just accept the facts of science and experts, and I think they often do. Again, technocracy is dangerous! Taking experts so seriously is dangerous. The scientific model works well in theory, but it assumes the experts are interested in Truth. When you throw politics into the equation, things can get massively skewed. Who funds most research? | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4653 Posts
![[image loading]](http://membres.lycos.fr/binouseteam/hokuto_kenshiro01.jpg) | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4653 Posts
| ||
| ||
