Don't dis a rapist with the wrong pronoun (Baltimore style)

#21
(Feb 19, 2019 08:59 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 19, 2019 08:31 PM)Leigha Wrote: And it's not to say that I've never been in risky/dangerous situations with men, but I don't view men as a whole, as ''dangerous.'' I also see the opposite be true, in terms of how many men view women. Males rights activists often see women as ''the enemy,'' and rant on about ''hypergamy.'' Perhaps, we all have to stop drawing lines in the sand, and find some common ground in order to move forward.

I agree. While I do agree with most criticisms of what feminism has done to the culture, many men's rights activists tend to take it too far the other way, with things like MGTOW (men going their own way). Alpha males don't have a problem with women seeking hypergamous relationships, so a lot of their vehemence is just being butt-hurt.

Yep. Hate to say this, but many male activists are alpha wanna-be's. Being rude to women (all women, simply because they're women) in hopes you get laid by the end of the night, doesn't make one alpha. lol

Some of them have been legitimately hurt and wronged by women, and a system built around supporting women. But, many wish to blame every mishap that's ever transpired in their lives, as ''women's fault.'' And, they tend to be a jealous lot, looking at the ''alpha types'' as having it all, because they can bang any woman they want. Their worth is wrapped up in what women think of them, and since they don't exhibit ''natural'' alpha traits, they blame women for hypergamy, and it must be feminism's fault as to why they can't hold onto a good relationship with a woman.

I was reading an article recently written by a men's rights activist, and he talked about how ''Thailand is where it's at. You'll be treated like a king.'' He went onto to explaining how he has given up on American women, and goes to Thailand to find women interested in him. haha Interested? You're paying to have Thai prostitutes sleep with you, dude. Rolleyes

This is a small subsection of the men's rights platform, but they're out there nonetheless, and while many won't venture to Thailand to find women to sleep with them, they are bitter that American women just don't ''get them.''
Reply
#22
(Feb 19, 2019 09:35 PM)Leigha Wrote:
(Feb 19, 2019 08:59 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 19, 2019 08:31 PM)Leigha Wrote: And it's not to say that I've never been in risky/dangerous situations with men, but I don't view men as a whole, as ''dangerous.'' I also see the opposite be true, in terms of how many men view women. Males rights activists often see women as ''the enemy,'' and rant on about ''hypergamy.'' Perhaps, we all have to stop drawing lines in the sand, and find some common ground in order to move forward.

I agree. While I do agree with most criticisms of what feminism has done to the culture, many men's rights activists tend to take it too far the other way, with things like MGTOW (men going their own way). Alpha males don't have a problem with women seeking hypergamous relationships, so a lot of their vehemence is just being butt-hurt.

Yep. Hate to say this, but many male activists are alpha wanna-be's. Being rude to women (all women, simply because they're women) in hopes you get laid by the end of the night, doesn't make one alpha. lol
Much less have any chance of getting them laid. Rolleyes

Beta males often confuse being a "bad boy" for being an asshole.

Quote:Some of them have been legitimately hurt and wronged by women, and a system built around supporting women. But, many wish to blame every mishap that's ever transpired in their lives, as ''women's fault.'' And, they tend to be a jealous lot, looking at the ''alpha types'' as having it all, because they can bang any woman they want. Their worth is wrapped up in what women think of them, and since they don't exhibit ''natural'' alpha traits, they blame women for hypergamy, and it must be feminism's fault as to why they can't hold onto a good relationship with a woman.
Yep. That's the problem. They can never quit seeking female approval long enough to be an alpha male.
Instead, they need to work on not being attention-seeking.

Quote:I was reading an article recently written by a men's rights activist, and he talked about how ''Thailand is where it's at. You'll be treated like a king.'' He went onto to explaining how he has given up on American women, and goes to Thailand to find women interested in him. haha Interested? You're paying to have Thai prostitutes sleep with you, dude. Rolleyes

This is a small subsection of the men's rights platform, but they're out there nonetheless, and while many won't venture to Thailand to find women to sleep with them, they are bitter that American women just don't ''get them.''

To be fair, having not read that article, people in many countries are more interested, just on the off chance they could make it to the US. But I'd be apt to make the same assumption as you did when it comes to MGTOW.

It's sad that these pathetic men undermine what are otherwise legitimate problems with sexist laws and dissuade a lot of men from joining their cause. So it's left to a handful of prominent female men's rights advocates to champion the cause while not running the risk of being branded by the association.
Reply
#23
I think the alpha male is a myth.

Quote:There are a lot of false dichotomies out there — left brain vs. right brain, nature vs. nurture, etc. But one really persistent myth, that is literally costing human lives, is the distinction between “alpha” and “beta” males.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article...alpha_male

I’ve enjoyed Robert Sapolsky’s work over the years. He thinks that humans are more complicated and that alpha males in other species operate differently than what is observed among humans. Animals dominate physically. Humans dominate socially but we have many different social circles. You could dominate in sports but suck at your job. There’s just too many variables.
Reply
#24
The concept of ''alpha male'' stems from the animal kingdom. Unfortunately, it's been twisted in American culture to mean something else, but it's a concept that shows itself in different species within the animal kingdom. Perhaps, better phrased would be ''dominant vs non-dominant males.''
Reply
#25
(Feb 19, 2019 10:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the alpha male is a myth.

Quote:There are a lot of false dichotomies out there — left brain vs. right brain, nature vs. nurture, etc. But one really persistent myth, that is literally costing human lives, is the distinction between “alpha” and “beta” males.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article...alpha_male

I’ve enjoyed Robert Sapolsky’s work over the years. He thinks that humans are more complicated and that alpha males in other species operate differently than what is observed among humans. Animals dominate physically. Humans dominate socially but we have many different social circles. You could dominate in sports but suck at your job. There’s just too many variables.
Well, thanks for telegraphing your lack of credibility with that "nature vs. nurture" is a myth nonsense. It baffles me that anyone interested in science could fail to see the clear difference between genetic traits (nature) and learned behavior (nurture). If you think those are the same...well, bless your heart.

I've told you this before, but it is a straw man that anyone has argued that human alpha males are no more complicated than animal alphas. "It's complicated" is a well-worn cop out for people trying to dismiss something without any real alternative or more explanatory reasoning. It's tantamount to saying "I don't know, but you must be wrong". Wha wha whaaaa.
Reply
#26
(Feb 20, 2019 12:25 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 19, 2019 10:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the alpha male is a myth.

Quote:There are a lot of false dichotomies out there — left brain vs. right brain, nature vs. nurture, etc. But one really persistent myth, that is literally costing human lives, is the distinction between “alpha” and “beta” males.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article...alpha_male

I’ve enjoyed Robert Sapolsky’s work over the years. He thinks that humans are more complicated and that alpha males in other species operate differently than what is observed among humans. Animals dominate physically. Humans dominate socially but we have many different social circles. You could dominate in sports but suck at your job. There’s just too many variables.
Well, thanks for telegraphing your lack of credibility with that "nature vs. nurture" is a myth nonsense. It baffles me that anyone interested in science could fail to see the clear difference between genetic traits (nature) and learned behavior (nurture). If you think those are the same...well, bless your heart.

I've told you this before, but it is a straw man that anyone has argued that human alpha males are no more complicated than animal alphas. "It's complicated" is a well-worn cop out for people trying to dismiss something without any real alternative or more explanatory reasoning. It's tantamount to saying "I don't know, but you must be wrong". Wha wha whaaaa.

There was never a nature vs. nurture debate. It was pop-shit.

Stick with the easy stuff. It suits you.
Reply
#27
(Feb 20, 2019 02:29 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 20, 2019 12:25 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 19, 2019 10:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the alpha male is a myth.

Quote:There are a lot of false dichotomies out there — left brain vs. right brain, nature vs. nurture, etc. But one really persistent myth, that is literally costing human lives, is the distinction between “alpha” and “beta” males.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article...alpha_male

I’ve enjoyed Robert Sapolsky’s work over the years. He thinks that humans are more complicated and that alpha males in other species operate differently than what is observed among humans. Animals dominate physically. Humans dominate socially but we have many different social circles. You could dominate in sports but suck at your job. There’s just too many variables.
Well, thanks for telegraphing your lack of credibility with that "nature vs. nurture" is a myth nonsense. It baffles me that anyone interested in science could fail to see the clear difference between genetic traits (nature) and learned behavior (nurture). If you think those are the same...well, bless your heart.

I've told you this before, but it is a straw man that anyone has argued that human alpha males are no more complicated than animal alphas. "It's complicated" is a well-worn cop out for people trying to dismiss something without any real alternative or more explanatory reasoning. It's tantamount to saying "I don't know, but you must be wrong". Wha wha whaaaa.

There was never a nature vs. nurture debate. It was pop-shit.

Stick with the easy stuff. It suits you.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nat...i=scholart

Again, thanks for telegraphing your ignorance. Wink
Reply
#28
(Feb 20, 2019 02:36 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 20, 2019 02:29 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 20, 2019 12:25 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 19, 2019 10:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think the alpha male is a myth.

Quote:There are a lot of false dichotomies out there — left brain vs. right brain, nature vs. nurture, etc. But one really persistent myth, that is literally costing human lives, is the distinction between “alpha” and “beta” males.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article...alpha_male

I’ve enjoyed Robert Sapolsky’s work over the years. He thinks that humans are more complicated and that alpha males in other species operate differently than what is observed among humans. Animals dominate physically. Humans dominate socially but we have many different social circles. You could dominate in sports but suck at your job. There’s just too many variables.
Well, thanks for telegraphing your lack of credibility with that "nature vs. nurture" is a myth nonsense. It baffles me that anyone interested in science could fail to see the clear difference between genetic traits (nature) and learned behavior (nurture). If you think those are the same...well, bless your heart.

I've told you this before, but it is a straw man that anyone has argued that human alpha males are no more complicated than animal alphas. "It's complicated" is a well-worn cop out for people trying to dismiss something without any real alternative or more explanatory reasoning. It's tantamount to saying "I don't know, but you must be wrong". Wha wha whaaaa.

There was never a nature vs. nurture debate. It was pop-shit.

Stick with the easy stuff. It suits you.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nat...i=scholart

Again, thanks for telegraphing your ignorance.  Wink

Try reading a few, dumb (_l_).
Reply
#29
(Feb 20, 2019 02:45 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Feb 20, 2019 02:36 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Feb 20, 2019 02:29 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: There was never a nature vs. nurture debate. It was pop-shit.

Stick with the easy stuff. It suits you.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nat...i=scholart

Again, thanks for telegraphing your ignorance.  Wink

Try reading a few, dumb (_l_).

I have, so take your own advice, moron. If you had the wherewithal to do anything but troll, you'd be quoting something...anything...to attempt to support your lame bare assertion.

You like Pinker, right?

Heritability studies became much easier to perform, and hence much more numerous, with the advances of genetic studies during the 1990s. By the late 1990s, an overwhelming amount of evidence had accumulated that amounts to a refutation of the extreme forms of "blank-slatism" advocated by Watson or Montagu.
...
The situation as it presented itself by the end of the 20th century was summarized in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (2002) by Steven Pinker. The book became a best-seller, and was instrumental in bringing to the attention of a wider public the paradigm shift away from the behaviourist purism of the 1940s to 1970s that had taken place over the preceding decades. Pinker portrays the adherence to pure blank-slatism as an ideological dogma linked to two other dogmas found in the dominant view of human nature in the 20th century, which he termed "noble savage" (in the sense that people are born good and corrupted by bad influence) and "ghost in the machine" (in the sense that there is a human soul capable of moral choices completely detached from biology). Pinker argues that all three dogmas were held onto for an extended period even in the face of evidence because they were seen as desirable in the sense that if any human trait is purely conditioned by culture, any undesired trait (such as crime or aggression) may be engineered away by purely cultural (political means). Pinker focuses on reasons he assumes were responsible for unduly repressing evidence to the contrary, notably the fear of (imagined or projected) political or ideological consequences.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_ver...the_debate


Rolleyes
Reply
#30
Francis Galton coined the term but that was a long time ago, dearie.

Most everyone understands now that it’s a combination of both and we now know that you can even alter your gene expression.

Some of the newer larger samplings indicate that it’s about 60% genetics vs. 40% environmental but that depends entirely on what you’re looking at. There are some conditions that are influenced by both and others that are primarily environmental or primarily genetic. Take something as simple as height for an example, it’s primarily genetics, but there are certain environmental factors that can contribute, e.g., childhood diseases, diet, etc.

It’s just like the left vs. right brain myth. You’ll still find self-help gurus peddling that shit but they operate together. Just-so stories sell.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Noam Chomsky style + The Shat's style C C 0 255 Apr 5, 2017 04:11 PM
Last Post: C C
  Lark style versus Owl style: Sex, drugs, late nights, and psychopaths C C 0 439 Jul 21, 2016 05:34 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)