I apologize but it’s late and I’ve been super tired im’ not even sure what exactly you are referring to, or talking about as a whole in ‘disagreeing’ with me.
if you can’t elaborate today, I actually might fall asleep any moment then we’ll continue tomorrow.
That’s good. I’m cool with where the conversation stands.
First of all. I want to make it clear that if I make fun of greenboy or disagree with any article or link you post, it doesn’t mean I’m doing the same to you because neither of these represent you. I’ve always spoken to you in a different tone and made disclaimers every time we conversed in the past in threads like these that we don’t have a problem until recently because I had assumed you already knew that from our past exchanges.
About the article, I’ll give you an example of why I find it very faulty and pretty intellectually dishonest at times.
Here’s what I think the author gets right in the article:
My question is whether the author’s extrapolations from this, and his further conflations with other things to make a broader case are accurate.
To get away from the right and left wing talking points because this has been spun to death on both sides from multiple angles, I’ll give you an example of a point that has remained free from all that, and tell you my point of view which you can verify from your own sources:
He is referring to cultures in the Indian region with regards to the dowry practice. The main reason for the origin of this practice is due to daughters not being able to inherit wealth from their parents. Even if the woman remains unmarried, the inheritance will be passed down to the sons. By marrying, the woman gets her share of the inheritance in the form of the dowry.
With regards to the idea that this acts as a “security bond”, a little bit of common sense will tell you that if a society is willing to enact such customs, including the one about inheritance going only to sons, such a society will be willing to ensure that the bride stays with the groom even in the absence of the dowry.
What really happens is that the dowry ends up working mostly in favor of the groom’s family since they will have leverage even if something is done to the bride after the wedding that is so egregious that even this society deems it to be unacceptable and the bride doesn’t have a brother named Sonny to fuck the groom up.
What he doesn’t also doesn’t say is that the Chinese and other groups with similar cultures practice the exact opposite. The groom pays the bride’s family a dowry and hosts the wedding.
To sum it up:
Seeing how intellectually dishonest, or possibly ignorant, he has been here, I would call his other arguments pertaining to other subjects into question. While some may be right(like the marriage laws in the US and certain gender quotas and such being enacted into law) the probability of his conclusions being accurate when viewing them as a whole is pretty low.
This is just my opinion. There’s no attack going on.
these guys will try and find one or two things they don’t agree with to dismiss the entirety of a very lengthy, thought out, and pretty spot on write up.
it’s comical isn’t it? when have you ever read a piece such as this and agreed with it all?
there’s things in here I think the writer does conflate, drag out of proportion, and end up making bold predictions that I don’t really agree with, and so the fuck what
so much of this is right than wrong. I appreciate you sharing this with me, seriously.
The entire thing was a slew of correlations, and the author’s insistence on a causation.
The rest isn’t dismissed just because the author’s assumptions are dismissed. Why are you always talking shit about staying on topic and discussing the points, then fall back on these victim crybaby tactics when someone actually tries to discuss the points.
You’ve literally added nothing to the conversation about the link beyond blockquoting a part and going “yeah this is all spot on”
You’re welcome.
Yeah, a lot of it actually explains so much. For example my absolute love affair with the way women in South America actually let their hair grow long. I love it, it’s so nice and I could never understand when I get back home why the fuck a lot of American girls keep it short.
I could never understand why but it’s really about the feminist movement and the whole cutting your hair short to look more like a man. It seems like feminists are about simply about making women more… manly? it is really bizarre.
This is when people will state that this is ‘conspiracy’ logic. Well, it is a fucking conspiracy, by groups within the United States trying to strip women from being WOMEN. What other logic makes sense here? That women prefer short hair? do they?
I’d like someone else to throw an explanation out there
what do you want to really discuss though? you’re going to accuse the guy of being wrong on some far out stat without him here to defend himself.
and to be honest I’m really not about seeing if he’s right or wrong about some of his more bold analysis’, I’m more interested in seeing HOW he came up with these ideas because for the most part they are spot on with what I see as a general societal problem.
this isn’t to say that you or anyone else will directly observe or experience these things, especially if you are already sitting there with a wife and kid… until something happens and god forbid your marriage blows up, then all of a sudden maybe what he says starts making more sense.
forget the statistics for a moment, simply based on interpersonal relationships I have had throughout my life I can see that a lot of what he says is true, just from observing the mainstream media (I don’t know what else to call it, I know a lot of people hate that term) I can see that a lot of what he says makes sense, simply from my own experience in the workforce I can see that a lot of this comes from somewhere… unless it doesn’t, and everyone that thinks like him is purely crazy or radical.
am I gonna know from a broader perspective if any of this is accurate? We can look at his numbers, and his analysis, and come up with some links that may go against them, but who is right?
I’m all about verifiable facts but when it comes to sociology, or culture in general, quantifying empirical evidence becomes really difficult.
Anyways, I apologize for coming off like a victim, let’s discuss with no attacks.
That term is new to me. Anyway, there are conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. The article covers the anti-male conspiracy that is flagrantly obvious in its presence and degree.
I’m fine with others not recognizing or disbelieving it. That’s what should make a forum peaceful.
I want to respond to @dt79 ‘s post this weekend. @dt79 you’ve always been nice to me. I don’t think I ever thought otherwise. If I ever was snappy, I apologize.
Haven’t you ever seen any women with either a short bob or pixie cut?
They’re freakin adorable! Especially with that asymmetrical thing.
But tastes vary. And baby barf. Lots of women get short hair cuts after they give birth.
Yeah here’s the thing
as a grown man I don’t want a woman to be adorable. I want her to be youthful, sure, but beautiful and of course sexy which can also be brought about with confidence. So the adorable thing doesn’t make any sense to me at all, and it seems… off to me.
I understand how it can happen. A lot of guys, especially from places like Japan never got the opportunity to live out teenage fantasies or desires. They went throughout puberty - the raging boner years, without ever having sex. From that perspective I can see how the attraction to “adorable” may manifest in adulthood.
Oh, see?
There’s your first mistake.
The rest is also completely laughable.
Can you actually name a far out stat he used? Literally everything was a basic skin deep number. The author’s input showed up in the form of causation.
Everyone is aware.
Sorry @BrickHead. Tried to respond directly to the article. Neither you nor GB seemed to want to discuss it. I’ll bow out now.
How do you start a post with saying I’m going to accuse the guy of having a bad stat, then say you’re all about verifiable stats. Holy.
What a roller coaster of a post.
So adorable!
Jamie Eason is smokin’.
I do. I haven’t had a chance to make in depth posts the last two days. Sorry about that.
