From my PERSONAL experience and perspective, i have started realizing a lot of men acting more and more like women. They would talk so softly, and basically use body languages that many women would use(its hard to explain phsyical body language movements...).
Constantly looking at what others are doing, and basing their decisions based on what others think/do, some guys would literally ask everytime before they do something. Some guys would like tell their troubles to their female/male friends in public places in which i can hear! When i see these stuff, it frustrates me... Obviously TONS of guys are excluded from this, but just incase some of these values applies to you, catch yourself.
Edit: I understand if a guy is gay, and he acts like a women. I accept it and give him my 100% respect. What upsets me is when a guy's feminity takes over his mind, which is displayed through his body language.
On September 04 2008 13:24 YanGpaN wrote: From my PERSONAL experience and perspective, i have started realizing a lot of men acting more and more like women. They would talk so softly, and basically use body languages that many women would use(its hard to explain phsyical body language movements...).
Constantly looking at what others are doing, and basing their decisions based on what others think/do. It sometimes upsets me to see a guy do this...
Despite what I just wrote in that feminist blog, I actually do a lot of things that "women" are supposed to do and don't give a f*** about it.
I shave more of my body than most men (and some women) do. I don't go around farting and confronting people to prove the size of my penis, and I don't eat huge chicken legs or anything like that.
But as far as body language, or decisions, or whatever you're talking about, I have no idea. Sounds crazy to me.
Edit: I didn't write that blog about feminists, I wrote IN it saying that the author should contact me as I am hairy and don't wear deodorant (which aren't true) much like the women he was idealizing.
you may be right. People seem much shyer nowadays too. Maybe we're evolving, or maybe we're becoming dissociated from society by all the new communication technology where we don't see each other in person so much. Which means as men, we're learning to communicate better...like women.
oh, and also yangpan, nowadays it seems there isn't the typical asshole guy anymore. In the past there always used to be those stereotypical bullies/jocks, but instead they all have learned to gain an even higher social value by being "nice" assholes.
Which allows them to easily have the women they want, because since everyone is getting more shy, it means the quiet shy ones don't have any value comparatively to the evolved gentlemanly asshole.
On September 04 2008 13:27 YanGpaN wrote: yeah ancestral, theres like tons of things i realize in life as the day goes by, but keeps forgeting it later on, and your blog reminded me of this.
LOL... it's not my blog. I just wrote a joke in it. Unfortunately it probably wasn't that funny.
Yeah, men should act like men, and women like women. I don't care what your sexual preference is, but its not at all related to your personal actions and personality. Simply put, fairy men and beastly women are completely and utterly unacceptable, just as unacceptable as transvestites- who I am sorry, are mentally ill. I'm a man trapped in a women's body. Honestly what kind of society but the most PC [ours] would not think, immediately "oh this person has a chemical imbalance, we should provide him with help before he mutilates himself and undergoes constant social degradation". Jeez.
On September 04 2008 13:29 ScarFace wrote: Yeah, men should act like men, and women like women. I don't care what your sexual preference is, but its not at all related to your personal actions and personality. Simply put, fairy men and beastly women are completely and utterly unacceptable, just as unacceptable as transvestites- who I am sorry, are mentally ill. I'm a man trapped in a women's body. Honestly what kind of society but the most PC [ours] would not think, immediately "oh this person has a chemical imbalance, we should provide him with help before he mutilates himself and undergoes constant social degradation". Jeez.
I think people can make weird life decisions, but the idea of being "born the wrong sex" is completely ridiculous, I agree.
I however, like hygiene (shave dark areas with hair) and it helps mentally with bicycle racing (you think you're faster when your legs are shaved). But I still act "like a man" I guess.
Im only 19 but, in my short lifetime, at least in my country, kid's are every day more and more fucked up, maybe is the tv (mtv), maybe the music they listen to, the artist they look up to or maybe they don't spend much time with their parents. Regarding on what Ancestral wrote, you can be manly and shave at the same time, it has nothing to do with behaving like a women imo.
So many assumptions in this blog that ought to be seriously questioned!
My contention is this: manliness is that which men do.
If men are more open about insecurities, that is manly. If they move in certain ways, that is manly.
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).
Gayness and femininity are totally separate! (The idea of the feminine is another thing that should be challenged - why should docile behavior be feminine, for example?) There is nothing about being gay that makes one womanly! 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. All this assumes manliness goes hand in hand with testosterone, which to me is a silly reductionist sort of view.
If you do want to make a biological sort of argument (and I think most of TL.net leans that way), you could look at it from the perspective that modern lifestyles are reducing testosterone and exposing men to all sorts of estrogen mimicking substances.
True, men and women are not what they used to be. Let's state this with no value judgment!
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.
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.
I'm staying the fuck out of this discussion except for this. You have to cite something for a statement like that.
I would suggest that gay men are stereotypically feminine because that is how our culture has defined homosexuality for men. Our culture can't wrap its collective mind around the fact that a gay man can be truly like a straight man in all respects except sexual preference. My best friend is a very openly gay man, and you'd never guess he is gay if it weren't for the fact that he talks about it so openly. And he doesn't like feminine men. He likes muscular, healthy men.
I know another gay man who DOES come off like the stereotypical lisping, very sensitive, insecure gay man. I don't know why he is like that, but I suspect modern Western gay men are sometimes this way because, again, our culture has told them that this is how gay men ought to be - this is the only way they can be.
Jibba: I don't have to do anything. I won't cite anything because 1) I don't have the source handy and 2) I politically reject a technocratic system that says there is some eternal unshakeable foundation of knowledge that we must all point to for validation of our arguments. We should all think for ourselves and look deeply for ourselves. If you place your faith in experts, then don't believe me...... I don't lose sleep over that. But if that is where your faith is, my faith is in the idea that you will be frequently misled by people who ostensibly serve the cause of pure knowledge, but REALLY serve myriad causes that have nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with politics.
That's fine if you want to take your whole anti-tech stance, but in that case you should edit the comment out and not use it as evidence, since you don't agree with it either. You can't use something as evidence and then say it doesn't need citing because you don't believe in it as evidence.
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.
I'm staying the fuck out of this discussion except for this. You have to cite something for a statement like that.
Rofl. Where the hell do you get this kind of stuff from?
I disagree Jibba; if someone cares about where I got that information from, they can look for themselves. This is the problem with citations: in modern technocratic societies, people are typically complacent and take cited statements as fact. "If it's in a journal, or even in a prestigious news paper, it MUST be true!" Bullshit! I'd rather not rely on that "unshakeable foundation of knowledge" that is built and protected by a priest-class of experts. I'd rather say what I believe to be true and let people think about it or look into it for themselves.
For my purposes, I don't even really care if it's true. I'm interested in the interplay of ideas. I don't even necessarily believe in Truth.
They once thought sperm "attacked" and fertilized the passive egg. Now it's said that sperm flounder aimlessly and the egg goes after the sperm. What is true? Is our truth ever divorced from politics and ideology? Can we ever escape metaphor in our observations? Should we even try?
On September 04 2008 14:08 nA.Inky wrote: I disagree Jibba; if someone cares about where I got that information from, they can look for themselves. This is the problem with citations: in modern technocratic societies, people are typically complacent and take cited statements as fact. "If it's in a journal, or even in a prestigious news paper, it MUST be true!" Bullshit! I'd rather not rely on that "unshakeable foundation of knowledge" that is built and protected by a priest-class of experts. I'd rather say what I believe to be true and let people think about it or look into it for themselves.
For my purposes, I don't even really care if it's true. I'm interested in the interplay of ideas. I don't even necessarily believe in Truth.
They once thought sperm "attacked" and fertilized the passive egg. Now it's said that sperm flounder aimlessly and the egg goes after the sperm. What is true? Is our truth ever divorced from politics and ideology? Can we ever escape metaphor in our observations? Should we even try?
That's actually why people ask for citation - depending on how reliable the source is, they choose to either believe it or not. In this specific case source is Inky which usually contains some pseudo philosophical made up bullshit that has no background whatsoever. Therefore whole argument based on his one statement was garbage.
On September 04 2008 14:08 nA.Inky wrote: I disagree Jibba; if someone cares about where I got that information from, they can look for themselves. This is the problem with citations: in modern technocratic societies, people are typically complacent and take cited statements as fact. "If it's in a journal, or even in a prestigious news paper, it MUST be true!" Bullshit! I'd rather not rely on that "unshakeable foundation of knowledge" that is built and protected by a priest-class of experts. I'd rather say what I believe to be true and let people think about it or look into it for themselves.
For my purposes, I don't even really care if it's true. I'm interested in the interplay of ideas. I don't even necessarily believe in Truth.
They once thought sperm "attacked" and fertilized the passive egg. Now it's said that sperm flounder aimlessly and the egg goes after the sperm. What is true? Is our truth ever divorced from politics and ideology? Can we ever escape metaphor in our observations? Should we even try?
What the hell? Are you serious, or did you trip out on some drug and get all weird? I will agree that there is no such thing as the ultimate truth, at least not one which we can understand. However, questioning the viability of peer reviewed sources that are done by some of the most brilliant minds in the world is a pretty fucking ignorant thing to do, simply because you have absolutely nothing to disprove them.
Without this system of checks, you would have to sift through mounds of dog shit before you could find something even remotely close to substantial. I'm not saying you should believe newspapers, but you've pretty much just shat on the basis for scientific progress due to your inability to understand it.
On September 04 2008 15:15 travis wrote: People generally ask for citation in an attempt to stave off the possibility that they are wrong.
People refuse to give citations due to the fact that they are wrong.
You see, I can make broad assumptions too.
People generally ask for citation in an attempt to stave off the possibility that they are wrong.
Should I have put "I think" in front of my post, your highness?
Um, no. If you told me the world was flat I would ask you for proof because I refuse to believe it unless you provide enough substantial evidence to disprove the idea that the world is round. This is the way to understanding.
If I sat there and accepted your proposal at face value, what kind of person would I be?
I could not comprehend why people would not put up citations because they actually give you different perspectives and a different understanding which you in turn could interpret.
You, however, see citations being used as a means to prove someone wrong or right and not a path to understanding. Even worse, is the fact that citations are not simply citations, but the ideas of people put into writing and rejecting these means that the only thing that you consider to be true is what YOU think is true. That you hold within yourself some unfathomable ability to ultimately discern what is or isn't true.
On September 04 2008 15:43 mahnini wrote: Hey you know what I just realized?
I could not comprehend why people would not put up citations because they actually give you different perspectives and a different understanding which you in turn could interpret.
I am not sure what you mean. Isn't the purpose of a citation to validate what you or someone else is already saying?
You, however, see citations being used as a means to prove someone wrong or right and not a path to understanding.
Do not tell me what I see.
Even worse, is the fact that citations are not simply citations, but the ideas of people put into writing and rejecting these means that the only thing that you consider to be true is what YOU think is true.
I believe this is a good thing. Blind faith is a bad thing.
Investigate, incorporate what makes sense, move on.
That you hold within yourself some unfathomable ability to ultimately discern what is or isn't true.
@ the OP (since I'm too lazy to read everyone response... sorry):
I don't know what values you're hanging onto. Is a man cooking feminine to you? There have always been great male chefs. Is talking about feelings feminine to you? Every famous male writer in history is guilty of this.
I think the only thing that's different about the men of today, and the men on yesteryear, is that some of us are confused about how to act toward women. It's not romantic to ask every step of the way, but it's risking rape accusations if you're wrong. Men are scared to be as bold as they would have been once before. But society is evolving to go compensate for that. A man can be romantic by confessing his feelings for the girl, in which case if the girl responds positively, he knows he has the go ahead. It replaces the mood killings questions of "is it okay if I...?"
Women have changed too. In yesteryear it was an expectation that the woman tended to the home in a marriage, while the man made the money.
Change isn't necessarily bad. Rocky is a macho man, and he talks about his feelings all the time. Bruce Lee was a philosopher. What the hell is wrong with not being a dense as fuck "Eat. Sleep. Have sex." mentality? Men have always been thinking creatures =/
In short: Worry about yourself. If most guys are screwing up and acting like pussies, well then I guess you'll be reeling in a lot of girls with your manliness If you're wrong, you'll find out soon enough.
On September 04 2008 15:43 mahnini wrote: Hey you know what I just realized?
I could not comprehend why people would not put up citations because they actually give you different perspectives and a different understanding which you in turn could interpret.
I am not sure what you mean. Isn't the purpose of a citation to validate what you or someone else is already saying?
While that may be the superficial purpose, I believe the purpose of citations is to educate and enable the exploration of differing perspectives.
Even worse, is the fact that citations are not simply citations, but the ideas of people put into writing and rejecting these means that the only thing that you consider to be true is what YOU think is true.
I believe this is a good thing. Blind faith is a bad thing.
Investigate, incorporate what makes sense, move on.
Yes, but inky is implying that the notion of citations themselves is not a viable method of presentation. That there is some big bad entity controlling it.
Oohh... I want to throw my two cents into this little side argument
I am not sure what you mean. Isn't the purpose of a citation to validate what you or someone else is already saying?
A citation is provided in general so that two people arguing believe the same truths, but are comparing viewpoints and other experiences. If one person believes the gap between rich and poor in America is very low, and the other believes it is high, there is no point of them arguing about it. Neither one can come to a conclusion with the other because one or both doesn't know what they're talking about. Misunderstandings arise, and both thinks the other is an idiot until they discover this fundamental fact to their argument is disputed, and until they discover the correct answer... Neither has any business arguing.
It's why you can't write a professional essay without citations... What if you have your facts wrong? You waste a lot of time arguing a point that quite frankly doesn't exist due to it being based on a false assumption.
On September 04 2008 15:43 mahnini wrote: Hey you know what I just realized?
I could not comprehend why people would not put up citations because they actually give you different perspectives and a different understanding which you in turn could interpret.
I am not sure what you mean. Isn't the purpose of a citation to validate what you or someone else is already saying?
While that may be the superficial purpose, I believe the purpose of citations is to educate and enable the exploration of differing perspectives.
If that was the case, no citation should ever be necessary.
Even worse, is the fact that citations are not simply citations, but the ideas of people put into writing and rejecting these means that the only thing that you consider to be true is what YOU think is true.
I believe this is a good thing. Blind faith is a bad thing.
Investigate, incorporate what makes sense, move on.
Yes, but inky is implying that the notion of citations themselves is not a viable method of presentation. That there is some big bad entity controlling it.
I don't think inky is conclusively saying anything.
Ok, I've completely lost sight about what we were discussing.
Here's a basic summary: 1. inky believes citations are useless 2. inky believes you should do your own research (somehow different from what citations provide) 3. inky believes he doesn't have to backup what he says 4. travis believes citations are a way to validate arguments 5. i believe citations are a way to understand the other side of an argument 6. 4 and 5 are kind of the same but hold differing mentalities 7. i get into a discussion with travis in which backpedals his agreement with inky and takes the neutral stance on everything
You can make your own home-made soap and then see what happens from there.
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.
I think this is a product of people having office jobs, long working hours so they don't have time to do any sports, and then they go home and watch TV that fills their minds with an image of what they're supposed to look like: covered in brands with skin as shiny as a newborn baby's butt cheek.
That is because in our modern age, the "intrinsic" qualities a man has (physical strength, endurance etc.) have become largely irrelevant (in most jobs you aren't doing any more physical work, and you also don't have to hunt for food anymore). What matters these days is intelligence and charisma and the ability to express yourself. Obviously, women as the more social and communicative beings are usually better in #2 and #3, for many men that's not so easy. Furthermore, some personal traits a "real man" has (roughness, not caring about much, not being overly hygienic, not having perfect manners, and other things) are often considered bad these days. It's only natural that men become more like women (or let's rather say: BEHAVE more like women). Because that's the smartest and most socially accepted way now. Women still like the men who play the tough guy, but it's not like you should behave most of the time anymore.
Wow, this thread derailed massively. I'm still happy to talk about the original topic, but I also feel I should say more about citations.
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.
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.
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.
Testosterone doesn't matter. Did you realize all astronauts have been gay? And Jesus was gay? And gay men have been shown to have IQs 25% higher than straight men? Every world leader is gay.
Gay men are able to control physical objects by pure thought.
does your definition of being a man include a dirty smelly guy wearing shitty clothes with unshaved hair everywhere?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jibba and Klackon, I'll concede that it's a matter of degree, and I've been too hasty and sloppy in my statement on citations. In other words, true, we all refer to other work and other ideas. I'm not arguing that we throw out all information and act based only on our personal experience. At the same time, I think I would advocate treating non-personal experience (most information) as something other than truth..... I would treat such information in a framework beyond truth/falsehood. I would work with such information within a purely political framework, as in "what are the political implications of these ideas IN EXPERIENCE." This is not a justification for my particular statement about testosterone and cocks (Jibba, I think I was reading about the study you mentioned - I think I got confused and that it is that testosterone is even among gay/straight folks and that adding more doesn't change sexual orientation), but I will say that when I made that statement, I was less interested in the "absolute truth" of the statement and more interested in its political implication to the argument (I was dishonest though, I could have and should have stated that in the same post - this is where I was hasty and sloppy - in retrospect, I wish I had put it in question form, and then mentioned that I had read something that mentioned such an idea).
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.
A quick pre-emptive post - I said: "I'm not arguing that we throw out all information and act based only on our personal experience. At the same time, I think I would advocate treating non-personal experience (most information) as something other than truth." And and mentioned treating the information politically, and hinted at treating it hypothetically.
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.
Those men are Emo's. Not to be confused with gay homo or Emu's. It's is a genetical mutation, the spiritual balls don't drop down from their soul. Empty man-shell.
travis uses the same logic as a typical creationist. At first I thought travis was just another troll, but after reading some of his many posts... I'm starting to see a pattern of logic failure. EPIC logic FAILURE.
Jibba and Klackon, I'll concede that it's a matter of degree, and I've been too hasty and sloppy in my statement on citations. In other words, true, we all refer to other work and other ideas. I'm not arguing that we throw out all information and act based only on our personal experience. At the same time, I think I would advocate treating non-personal experience (most information) as something other than truth..... I would treat such information in a framework beyond truth/falsehood. I would work with such information within a purely political framework, as in "what are the political implications of these ideas IN EXPERIENCE." This is not a justification for my particular statement about testosterone and cocks (Jibba, I think I was reading about the study you mentioned - I think I got confused and that it is that testosterone is even among gay/straight folks and that adding more doesn't change sexual orientation), but I will say that when I made that statement, I was less interested in the "absolute truth" of the statement and more interested in its political implication to the argument (I was dishonest though, I could have and should have stated that in the same post - this is where I was hasty and sloppy - in retrospect, I wish I had put it in question form, and then mentioned that I had read something that mentioned such an idea).
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
And @ Travis: Relax, this is not a fight of any kind, I just cleared the mess up because it had gone a bit out of control which is obvious when you see such large disparities in views between the first post and the last. If you want to fight then post your own views on your own blog, do not humiliate yourself trying to defend someone who broke his own logic.
On September 05 2008 10:22 Mooga wrote: travis uses the same logic as a typical creationist. At first I thought travis was just another troll, but after reading some of his many posts... I'm starting to see a pattern of logic failure. EPIC logic FAILURE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Ok, I will do this anyway...
The thing is that I did not attack the logic of his first post or the logic of his last post. I attacked the crystal clear lack of coherence in his thoughts about science because it were causing a ton of unnecessary arguing since he obviously did not argue on his own terms either at first or he were going to extreme with his later posts. Any of those being true would both clear up this mess.
I do not say that the first post or the last post is wrong, just that he himself should be a bit more careful with his extremes.
Not sure if this is too relevant but I'll just throw this out.
It's been widely reported and studied that the estrogen that women use in birth control pills etc. tend to either get poured down the drain or otherwise removed down the drain by bodily processes. Our water treatment plants in the USA are not prepared to treat this at all, so especially if you get your groundwater underwater, you are getting higher doses of estrogen than normal (especially if you get water from a stream or something, a lot of waste just gets treated and dumped back into the water.) It's been shown that this is what's causing a lot of amphibians to become mostly female with very few males.
SiegeTanksandBlueGoo - yes, this is my understanding as well. It's almost funny that you mention it here, since it has nothing to do with really anything here, and yet it's kind of welcome, since this thread has aready been derailed to the point of insanity.
But yes, I'm very concerned about this sort of thing too. Antibiotics and other meds are an issue as well - not just hormones from bc and such. Our societies are incredibly foolish.
I'm very glad Inky toned down his rhetoric. Thank you for proving to be a reasonable dude, which I always felt you were.
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
Most people would not question the expert, it's true. But anyone who does and who isn't familiar with the field is an idiot. For example, if someone were to write a textbook on how it's possible to create an infinite source of energy, and he has no credentials in physics, I would skim the book at laugh his face. If Albert Einstein did the same, I would give it serious consideration. We should leave the debating up to the experts. If we disagree with an idea strongly, we should study the field and come to our own conclusions.
I will concede that I agree with inky on the fallibility of experts. But I don't agree that "thinking for ourselves" will create a better world. Groupthink and outside influence is just as likely if not more likely with new schools of thought. I've noticed that in "alternative" media outlets, whether they're regarding politics or health, tend to be philosophically similar. Scientists, on the other hand, tend to often disagree with each other on substantial issues.
As an (angry and very annoyed) aside, I find it ironic that travis, who used citation after citation in his 9/11 blog and lambasted others when they couldn't come up with counter-citation and counter-citation, is now agreeing with inky. This is an unbelievable double standard. Somehow the arguments of groupthink don't apply to his own field of experts. And frankly, I hate arguing with this guy, because he is just a brick wall that doesn't give. He has never demonstrated anything more than a shallow understanding of anything he argues. I don't know what the hell he majored in, but it isn't philosophy or engineering. In this thread he consistently posts claim after claim, rarely bothering to make any warrants. Which works to his advantage because it is impossible to respond well to all his arguments. He seems to work under the belief that if you poke one hole in someone else's case, everything falls apart. In the realm of science and inductive logic, that is not true. I would just like it if he would try to substantiate his arguments. As it stands, all he does is point out the possibility of error, without making the case for error.
If we disagree with an idea strongly, we should study the field and come to our own conclusions.
that we should study the field and become *experts* ourselves. too many people glance over the literature and develop incorrect conclusions from a shallow understanding of the field.
Well, Ahrara, it would seem we agree and disagree, then. I am not saying the world would be a utopian paradise if we all thought for ourselves and did for ourselves. (I think it would be an improvement, but I wouldn't stake my life on it). I come down against technocracy because ultimately it is my belief that we should make our own decisions for ourselves. I think it is dangerous when we have experts that make decisions that are supposedly in our interest, but aren't necessarily.
This problem extends far back in time. Plato was a technocrat and argued for a highly technocratic society. Jump far forward and we have the Comte's who think that people are something like machines, or planetary bodies, that can be understood and controlled for the benefit of society. We have people like Edward Bernays and Walt Lippman, who think that people are insane and need to be guided by experts. We have the communist experiments in extreme social engineering. And we have a strong technocratic societies today. Here in America, the vast majority of decisions regarding production, policy, etc, have nothing to do with the individual, but the decisions are made by experts, and all this is justified by media and teachers and churches....
And I reject that. I don't want to be tested, graded, certified, assigned, judged, etc. I'll make my own decisions.
I realize that we may be talking about separate situations - you are talking about the simple situation of scientific debate, and I'm talking about a society that places faith in experts. I think the two are connected, but I'm emphasizing different.
On September 06 2008 00:37 nA.Inky wrote: We have people like Edward Bernays and Walt Lippman, who think that people are insane and need to be guided by experts.
People are always following something, at least in my opinion it is better that they follow an expert than a fool. Individuals might be smart, but group dynamics makes every mass of people extremely gullible.
Edward Bernays more or less proved that people are easily controlled with the invention of PR. The difference between him and the Nazis was that Bernays control led to stability and prosperity while the Nazis went insane and started WW2, otherwise they used exactly the same methods and those methods are still used in every country today in order to keep the stability/gain votes/build prosperity and in some rare cases to promote war.
Anyway, someone has to lead the people. If not the experts, then who should do it? They can't lead themselves, people in general have no sense in what is good for them or their country instead their opinions are shaped by the media which yet again is a group of experts ruling the masses.
On September 06 2008 00:37 nA.Inky wrote:And I reject that. I don't want to be tested, graded, certified, assigned, judged, etc. I'll make my own decisions.
You know that today you have way more freedom than people have had in any other age? And you still complain? Technocracy gives a ton of freedom to the individuals which they never had before, if you are pro individualism then you are also pro technocracy.
Or maybe I have misunderstood you? In what way do you want society to change, from the position we are in today? You want people to trust educated persons less, then who should they put their trust in instead?
The problem is that the masses are always easy to manipulate, thats a fact you can not ignore. The thing is that the masses do not even notice that they are manipulated but instead thinks that its their own free will to want to do the things they do while in fact they are just a part of the changed probability distributions created by manipulating the way the world is shown to them.
On September 05 2008 04:19 CapO wrote: does your definition of being a man include a dirty smelly guy wearing shitty clothes with unshaved hair everywhere?
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.
This post especially applies to asian men, as far as my experience goes. At the high school I recently graduated from male fashion, esp. in the somewhat more fobby circles could really be defined as going more in a 'pretty' direction than in a 'manly' direction. They really don't get shit from anyone for it and it isn't like they are all feminine. Seriously, some of the Korean fobs from my school, even though a lot of them are really 'pretty boy' looking, just spend the entire lunch pushing each other around and punching each other.
Same trend goes for asians in asia(as opposed to US). I was recently visiting some relatives in Hong Kong and they was a lot of the same thing going on. Most stores I went into were selling at least a few pink/purple shirts for guys. I bought some shirts while I was there and even though they weren't pink they were still quite tight-fitting, even though I'm really thin.
I say male femininity, at least in fashion, is just a trend. Lol...visual kei.
I have to agree with the OP though, when men act feminine it really gets on my nerves. Despite people talking about how it's bad to stereotype that men should be 'manly' in a tradition sense, I really don't want to be in a world where men act like women. Although men and women should be equal in legal and social terms, that really doesn't mean that they should be the same. There should be a difference between men and women besides just looks. It just makes me crazy when I meet a completely wishy-washy guy who is completely indecisive and can't say yes or no. Even worse is guys are are all into anime and want to act 'cute' all the time and speak in 'cute' voices.
Seriously, there is not such a thing as a woman born in a man's body. If your born a man just accept it.
On September 04 2008 13:29 ScarFace wrote: Yeah, men should act like men, and women like women. I don't care what your sexual preference is, but its not at all related to your personal actions and personality. Simply put, fairy men and beastly women are completely and utterly unacceptable, just as unacceptable as transvestites- who I am sorry, are mentally ill. I'm a man trapped in a women's body. Honestly what kind of society but the most PC [ours] would not think, immediately "oh this person has a chemical imbalance, we should provide him with help before he mutilates himself and undergoes constant social degradation". Jeez.
I think people can make weird life decisions, but the idea of being "born the wrong sex" is completely ridiculous, I agree.
I however, like hygiene (shave dark areas with hair) and it helps mentally with bicycle racing (you think you're faster when your legs are shaved). But I still act "like a man" I guess.
Fairy men can be entertaining sometimes though.
Chemical imbalance? Is that the auto-write off for anything someone doesn't understand? I realize it's hard to comprehend something you will never go through, so to have empathy for them is beyond your capabilities, but to simply say 'you have a chemical imbalance let me fix you" is really ignorant and insensitive to that person. How do you know what they are feeling? Is it so hard to understand that someone doesn't feel comfortable in the body they were born with?
As for men not being 'men' anymore, that's a load of crap. There are still masculine men and feminine women, but there are also masculine woman and feminine males. As society has grown and become less attached to older notions of what makes a man a man and a woman a woman, the social contraints that held people from being what they want have slowly lifted, which allows for more diversity. We're starting to become less attached to 'well you should act this way' to 'be who you are' and that is a much healthier approach at things.
On September 05 2008 09:43 KaasZerg wrote: Those men are Emo's. Not to be confused with gay homo or Emu's. It's is a genetical mutation, the spiritual balls don't drop down from their soul. Empty man-shell.
hahahahah
That post and ancestral's made this thread worth my time.
EPT
If you're wrong, you'll find out soon enough.
![[image loading]](http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/images/stories/Edstrong/indoctrination.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://membres.lycos.fr/binouseteam/hokuto_kenshiro01.jpg)
