Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

Old subthreads
Guest

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19201

Post by Guest »

clip starts with soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much misogyny

[youtube]tU3sZgh5xeM[/youtube]

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19202

Post by Steersman »

Dick Strawkins wrote:I think that 'Patriarchy' is a very useful term for feminists for a couple of reasons.
<snip>

Third, well, now we get to the nitty gritty. Patriarchy theory, as espoused by academic feminists, is a very different model to that used by scientific anthropologists. It elevates gender powers structures above all other societal markers as a way of explaining society.

<snip>
Interesting analysis with which I largely agree. However, from my admittedly limited readings in and understandings of the topic, I would say the roots of the problem go rather deeper than just the reliance of various “academic feminists” on “gender structures” as the basis for explanation and policy. For instance, consider the following quote from Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate which is, I think, suggestive of the problematical nature of the general sociological principles that many radical-feminists and their fellow-travelers seem to subscribe to, a case in point probably being Zvan’s statement in Nugent’s dialog and that Phil questioned:
These two ideas – the denial of human nature, and the autonomy of culture from individual minds – were also articulated by the founder of sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), who had foreshadowed Kroeber’s doctrine of the superorganic mind:
Every time that a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we may be sure that the explanation is false …. The group thinks, feels, and acts quite differently from the way in which members would were they isolated …. If we begin with the individual in seeking to explain phenomena, we shall be able to understand nothing of what takes place in the group …. Individual natures are merely the indeterminate material that the social factor molds and transforms. Their contribution consists exclusively in very general attitudes, in vague and consequently plastic predispositions.
[pgs 23-24]
And, as a more recent manifestation of that rather questionable perspective, there’s this quote from the same book about several well-known anthropolgists and a dispute they were having:
[Sponsel] even admits that much of his criticism of Chagnon comes from “an almost automatic reaction against any biological explanation of human behaviour, the possibility of biological reductionism, and the associated political implications. [pg 118]
So it would appear that they give more autonomy and causal influence to the group than is, I think, entirely justified – virtually the apotheosis of the collective. And while, as mentioned, there may be some support for the concept in the phenomenon of emergence, I think it is rather problematic, if not actually “unhinged”, to have disconnected the behaviours of the individuals in that group from their genetic roots.

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19203

Post by Tony Parsehole »

Guest wrote:clip starts with soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much misogyny

[youtube]tU3sZgh5xeM[/youtube]
Ronni Ancona is as fit as a tick.

Guest

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19204

Post by Guest »

whole episode fun!

[youtube]bpwof-jqFcQ[/youtube]

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19205

Post by windy »

nippletwister wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
By the era of Shakespeare the word is offensive and obscene and Shakespeare must use it on stage in covert form in puns and acronyms, the most famous of which is this punning passage from Act 3, Scene 2 of Hamlet...
http://www.billcasselman.com/unpublishe ... in_use.htm
In a paperback edition I had, Ophelia's line was rendered, "You are keen, my lord", and a footnote explained that "keen", meaning sharp, was also a double entendre for "sexually aroused", contributing to the obvious joke in the next line, "It would cost you a groaning to take off mine edge".

Makes me wonder.....if "queynte" already existed and was pronounced the same as the modern "cunt", would "country matters" have come off to the audience as a pun/joke as well? Might there have been just a little extra stress on the first syllable? The question that is hanging low and thrusting through my brain right now is: Just how naughty were Elizabethan audiences?
Very.

Here's another example, from Twelfth Night:

MALVOLIO:
(picking up the letter) By my life, this is my lady’s hand: these be her very C’s, her U’s and her T’s and thus makes she her great P’s.

genital reference and potty joke in one sentence, classy!

(there are a couple different interpretations for the first part, either the audience was supposed to hear C-U-T which would have been a double entendre similar to "slit", or with a bit of emphasis on the middle "and", straight up C-U-n-T.)

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19206

Post by Pitchguest »

doubtthat is a lawyer. No doubt about that. Also panoply.

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... -883195574

He/she also thinks we should shut up about Laden, because apparently threats of physical violence is small potatoes.

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... -883220583

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19207

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I've just bought my first electronic cigarette today. What I can say right this moment: takes 8 hours for the first battery charge via USB. Enjoying the nice red and green leds so far. Still smoking regular fags while waiting, though...

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19208

Post by Michael K Gray »

Pitchguest wrote:He/she also thinks
I have gained the very strong impression that "doubtthat" has only X chromosomes.
But: when it comes to pseudonyms, "dough-hat" may in fact be a Chinese hermaphrodite Hobo with a "Flock of Seagulls" haircut and an overbite, and a 2nd class degree in Municipal Hygiene.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19209

Post by Hunt »

Dick Strawkins wrote:I think that 'Patriarchy' is a very useful term for feminists for a couple of reasons.
First, the word denotes a real term in anthropology that has plenty of supporting data.
Therefore anyone dismissing 'patriarchy' out of hand can be painted as a denialist; someone who rejects a well validated scientific model.
Second, there are rather obvious real world situations that currently support the anthropological model - for example family structures in many parts of the middle east and the developing world.

Third, well, now we get to the nitty gritty. Patriarchy theory, as espoused by academic feminists, is a very different model to that used by scientific anthropologists. It elevates gender powers structures above all other societal markers as a way of explaining society. Thus the rich middle class woman is always at an inherent disadvantage compared to the immigrant pool boy who would starve if he loses his job.
In my opinion there is widespread agreement that society has disparities of power and wealth. Indeed, considering history it would have to be so. We are not that far removed from slavery, famine, genocide, mass migration and pandemics. These events will leave a marks on our current society that will take many generations to level out. To label the current state as 'patriarchy' is dummy level sociology. Gender structures are but one of many disparities in society and, unless you live in Saudi Arabia, unlikely to be the main structural disparity that one encounters.
For example what if we used some other term rather than 'patriarchy'.
'Capitalism' for example holds far more explanatory power - although it's not ideal.
What if there isn't a word and we made up a term - say, 'Slymeism': the theory that modern society is best explained by a combination of historical and economic factors that includes, capitalism, expectation to conform to traditional gender roles, religious ideology, racism, nationalism and tribalism.
I would suggest that 'Slymeism' would be a far better fit.

Which, of course brings us to the issue of scientific skepticism - in other words what do you do when you have two competing theories, one of which seems to explain far more than the other. If you are really a skeptic you drop the lesser theory and adopt the better one. I think that this is what should have happened to academic patriarchy theory a long time ago. It is useful to only a minor level and there are far better sociological explanations that are ignored due to its popularity amongst academic feminists and that popularity seems to be derived from its woo-like 'explains everything' nature.
Particularly when combined with "intersectionality," which I've described as a craptastic theory. In engineering it would be considered a kludge because what it effectively does is paper over any discrepancy inherent in sociological theories like patriarchy, making them even less falsifiable, effectively closing the loop against that possibility. You have a condition that might jeopardize the consistency of patriarchy? That's okay, since by intersectionality, people are subject to complex interference patterns of oppression. It doesn't really matter what the situation, it can be accounted for by the theory just by fitting the right variables to it, but what's never mentioned is that "shit happens" is probably as good an explanation if not better. Or capitalism, or plutocracy.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19210

Post by Michael K Gray »

For all of the feline-followers out there in Slymeland:
[youtube]cToIICJiZe4[/youtube]
Security footage of three Lion Cubs Born at our Monarto Zoo near Adelaide, South Australia.
Stealing mother's milk.
To be arraigned in the Murray Bridge Magistrate's Court for petty larceny.

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19211

Post by Jonathan »

Over on A+ Ceepolk demonstrates professionalism and impartiality as a moderator. See also her next comment on that thread.

Totally not bullying him there. Oh no.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19212

Post by Michael K Gray »

Jonathan wrote:Over on A+ Ceepolk demonstrates professionalism and impartiality as a moderator. See also her next comment on that thread.
Totally not bullying him there. Oh no.
When my missus was a psych nurse, I heard saner conversations in "J" ward, where all of the hopeless shit-smearing raving-bonkers nutters were forcibly restrained.

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19213

Post by Jonathan »

Michael K Gray wrote:
Jonathan wrote:Over on A+ Ceepolk demonstrates professionalism and impartiality as a moderator. See also her next comment on that thread.
Totally not bullying him there. Oh no.
When my missus was a psych nurse, I heard saner conversations in "J" ward, where all of the hopeless shit-smearing raving-bonkers nutters were forcibly restrained.
Notice also the reference to "nauseatingly high levels of whiteness". Lovely.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19214

Post by Michael K Gray »

Jonathan wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Jonathan wrote:Over on A+ Ceepolk demonstrates professionalism and impartiality as a moderator. See also her next comment on that thread.
Totally not bullying him there. Oh no.
When my missus was a psych nurse, I heard saner conversations in "J" ward, where all of the hopeless shit-smearing raving-bonkers nutters were forcibly restrained.
Notice also the reference to "nauseatingly high levels of whiteness". Lovely.
Is that not a tad racist?

Or should I "check" my something-or-other privilege?

Reign-check? Hat check? Spassky check?

Jonathan
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19215

Post by Jonathan »

Michael K Gray wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Jonathan wrote:Over on A+ Ceepolk demonstrates professionalism and impartiality as a moderator. See also her next comment on that thread.
Totally not bullying him there. Oh no.
When my missus was a psych nurse, I heard saner conversations in "J" ward, where all of the hopeless shit-smearing raving-bonkers nutters were forcibly restrained.
Notice also the reference to "nauseatingly high levels of whiteness". Lovely.
Is that not a tad racist?

Or should I "check" my something-or-other privilege?

Reign-check? Hat check? Spassky check?
No no no. It can't be racist because Ceepolk is black. Black people can't be racist about white people if they lack institutional power. Clearly someone didn't read Social Justice 401. It's written on the back of the third toilet door in a little bar in Tennessee.

That guy will be gone soon. If he objects to her bullying then it's tone-policing and talking back to a moderator. No way he can win.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19216

Post by Michael K Gray »

Jonathan wrote:No no no. It can't be racist because Ceepolk is black. Black people can't be racist about white people if they lack institutional power. Clearly someone didn't read Social Justice 401. It's written on the back of the third toilet door in a little bar in Tennessee.

That guy will be gone soon. If he objects to her bullying then it's tone-policing and talking back to a moderator. No way he can win.
Ah huh.
See-yolk IS black, eh?
I don't belive that for a minute.
No: I don't believe that for a picosecond!
As they are wont to urge:

Citations Required.

Or at least a driver's licence, not that Cee-fuckall is old enough to drive.
"Black", eh?
How black? As black as the Andaman Islanders, or the Sri-Lankan tribes-folk?
What about the blacks of central Australia, who have naturally red hair?

Ooh, ooooh! A "non-whiteness" privileged kompetition!
Let the bidding begin!
(All bids shall be in the Pantone Scale)

Bid #1 from the bloke in the Panama hat in the second row. "Slightly browner than underdone toast".
What am I bid for "Calico Mist" from the Dulux catalogue?

What was that Madame? "Mist" reminds you of "misogynist"?

Call Security.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19217

Post by Aneris »


JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19218

Post by JackSkeptic »

Jonathan wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Jonathan wrote:Over on A+ Ceepolk demonstrates professionalism and impartiality as a moderator. See also her next comment on that thread.
Totally not bullying him there. Oh no.
When my missus was a psych nurse, I heard saner conversations in "J" ward, where all of the hopeless shit-smearing raving-bonkers nutters were forcibly restrained.
Notice also the reference to "nauseatingly high levels of whiteness". Lovely.
Is that not a tad racist?

Or should I "check" my something-or-other privilege?

Reign-check? Hat check? Spassky check?
No no no. It can't be racist because Ceepolk is black. Black people can't be racist about white people if they lack institutional power. Clearly someone didn't read Social Justice 401. It's written on the back of the third toilet door in a little bar in Tennessee.

That guy will be gone soon. If he objects to her bullying then it's tone-policing and talking back to a moderator. No way he can win.
I have been reading this thread at JREF which follows the inane ramblings at A+ http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 1&page=164

The A+ mods routinely abuse then ban practically everyone who falls into their web and the place is a good indicator of where people like Carrier wish to take us in his dream of perfection and homogeneity. Their complete lack of skepticism and empathy along with their persistent racism and inane levels of censorship makes their forum one of the nastiest places anyone could visit. It has actually harmed people emotionally.

The A+ forum represents everything I hate about extreme ideologies and it is a shame they have hijacked and abused the name 'Atheism'. If they had not done that I could simply write them off as a bunch of useless clowns and ignore everything they say. Until that time people like Carrier can expect a lot of pushback from his ignorant statements about where he wants the 'atheist movement' to go. Carrier, PZ and the rest of them do not get to wash their hands of it, especially as they are more than willing to employ similar tactics to avoid people examining their views.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19219

Post by Michael K Gray »

Aneris wrote:
If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he call me?

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19220

Post by Karmakin »

Hunt wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:I think that 'Patriarchy' is a very useful term for feminists for a couple of reasons.
First, the word denotes a real term in anthropology that has plenty of supporting data.
Therefore anyone dismissing 'patriarchy' out of hand can be painted as a denialist; someone who rejects a well validated scientific model.
Second, there are rather obvious real world situations that currently support the anthropological model - for example family structures in many parts of the middle east and the developing world.

Third, well, now we get to the nitty gritty. Patriarchy theory, as espoused by academic feminists, is a very different model to that used by scientific anthropologists. It elevates gender powers structures above all other societal markers as a way of explaining society. Thus the rich middle class woman is always at an inherent disadvantage compared to the immigrant pool boy who would starve if he loses his job.
In my opinion there is widespread agreement that society has disparities of power and wealth. Indeed, considering history it would have to be so. We are not that far removed from slavery, famine, genocide, mass migration and pandemics. These events will leave a marks on our current society that will take many generations to level out. To label the current state as 'patriarchy' is dummy level sociology. Gender structures are but one of many disparities in society and, unless you live in Saudi Arabia, unlikely to be the main structural disparity that one encounters.
For example what if we used some other term rather than 'patriarchy'.
'Capitalism' for example holds far more explanatory power - although it's not ideal.
What if there isn't a word and we made up a term - say, 'Slymeism': the theory that modern society is best explained by a combination of historical and economic factors that includes, capitalism, expectation to conform to traditional gender roles, religious ideology, racism, nationalism and tribalism.
I would suggest that 'Slymeism' would be a far better fit.

Which, of course brings us to the issue of scientific skepticism - in other words what do you do when you have two competing theories, one of which seems to explain far more than the other. If you are really a skeptic you drop the lesser theory and adopt the better one. I think that this is what should have happened to academic patriarchy theory a long time ago. It is useful to only a minor level and there are far better sociological explanations that are ignored due to its popularity amongst academic feminists and that popularity seems to be derived from its woo-like 'explains everything' nature.
Particularly when combined with "intersectionality," which I've described as a craptastic theory. In engineering it would be considered a kludge because what it effectively does is paper over any discrepancy inherent in sociological theories like patriarchy, making them even less falsifiable, effectively closing the loop against that possibility. You have a condition that might jeopardize the consistency of patriarchy? That's okay, since by intersectionality, people are subject to complex interference patterns of oppression. It doesn't really matter what the situation, it can be accounted for by the theory just by fitting the right variables to it, but what's never mentioned is that "shit happens" is probably as good an explanation if not better. Or capitalism, or plutocracy.
Well, the thing is that if one is looking at things from an intersectional point of view, if you're still looking at "patriarchy" as this overwhelming force, you're doing it wrong. These two concepts are entirely contradictory to one another. It might be a kludge, but intersectionality is more representative of the various power dynamics that exist in society. The problem that academics often have, and why they support something like patriarchy theory, is that it's a simple explanation that fits everything in their eyes. It's a correct answer.

I don't think life's quite that simple.

As I've said before, I actually think this is a wider problem in terms of academia (I think that Economics in particular is JUST as guilty of this sort of thinking at a basic level especially), where people feel they need to have a correct answer to teach people. When we're talking about human societies, which are complex at almost an infinite level, these models often change very quickly, and there's always exceptions. Things these strict models can't stand.

The problem with Zvan's definition of patriarchy, and again this is a common problem, is that in reality it's ONLY looking at the top. I agree that for certain reasons, that's the case that men hold most of the positions of top power in our society. However, we're talking about a society that's only what...40? 50? years removed from the big technological and cultural changes to lessen the importance of pregnancy in shaping these power dynamics. That's what I honestly believe actually. I don't think that the stuff Pinker is talking about is all that important, to be honest. The only biological difference that matters, in my opinion, is pregnancy. That's something that for the longest time shaped the core of how we arranged our society. Due to medical advances, we are able (and of course, this is a good thing) to break down those gender roles based around pregnancy.

But, these things don't happen overnight, which is why men still have most of the "positions of power". In another 40-50 years..even 10-20 years I think, without any real new change, things will be much more balanced IMO.

In any case, the big problems with Zvan's definition are twofold. First, I think that it further glorifies power as being the "ONLY" real goal in society, which I think is a quite harmful attitude. Second, because it's so focused on power, it results in her acting in a spoiled, entitled, privilege-seeking fashion. Her beliefs mean things, as do all of ours. And that particular brand of sexism that she holds on to, that's focused on building power structures for their own sake, is a dangerous, dangerous thing.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19221

Post by welch »

Michael K Gray wrote:
Aneris wrote:
If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he call me?
If you want him to call, don't put out on the first date.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19222

Post by Michael K Gray »

Karmakin wrote:Her beliefs mean things
Utter Garbage.
Her BEHAVIOUR means things.
Her private beliefs do not.
Not in any palpable way.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19223

Post by Hunt »

welch wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Aneris wrote:
If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he call me?
If you want him to call, don't put out on the first date.
Or you might end up like this:

[youtube]y1ev49weFWQ[/youtube]

Guest

Re: nambla.tk

#19224

Post by Guest »

franc wrote:http://nambla.tk/
For Contrast:

www.nambla.org/‎

TheMudbrooker
.
.
Posts: 786
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:15 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19225

Post by TheMudbrooker »

Michael K Gray wrote:
Karmakin wrote:Her beliefs mean things
Utter Garbage.
Her BEHAVIOUR means things.
Her private beliefs do not.
Not in any palpable way.
Utter Bullshit.
Belief drives behaviour.
Or do you think someone strapping ten pounds of C-4 to his ass and setting it off on a bus in Tel Aviv because he believes he'll be rewarded for it in the afterlife isn't a palpable expression of belief?

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19226

Post by Karmakin »

Michael K Gray wrote:
Karmakin wrote:Her beliefs mean things
Utter Garbage.
Her BEHAVIOUR means things.
Her private beliefs do not.
Not in any palpable way.
I think the idea that what we believe is entirely separated from what we do, is quite frankly silly. Now, I think that there could be a good argument that we're talking about a chicken and an egg type scenario...are our professed beliefs a post-facto justification for our behavior, or are the beliefs the source of the behavior? But at some level, at least for myself, what I believe often plays pretty strongly into what I do. I don't think I'm that much of an oddity here.

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19227

Post by Bhurzum »

TheMudbrooker wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Karmakin wrote:Her beliefs mean things
Utter Garbage.
Her BEHAVIOUR means things.
Her private beliefs do not.
Not in any palpable way.
Utter Bullshit.
Belief drives behaviour.
Or do you think someone strapping ten pounds of C-4 to his ass and setting it off on a bus in Tel Aviv because he believes he'll be rewarded for it in the afterlife isn't a palpable expression of belief?
It's also worrying that belief is still used to justify the behaviour of others.

Personally, I think belief comes first in the chain of causality. Remove the belief and there's no reason for the behaviour to even manifest itself.

Just my (semi-sober) 2 cents.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19228

Post by Hunt »

Karmakin wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Karmakin wrote:Her beliefs mean things
Utter Garbage.
Her BEHAVIOUR means things.
Her private beliefs do not.
Not in any palpable way.
I think the idea that what we believe is entirely separated from what we do, is quite frankly silly. Now, I think that there could be a good argument that we're talking about a chicken and an egg type scenario...are our professed beliefs a post-facto justification for our behavior, or are the beliefs the source of the behavior? But at some level, at least for myself, what I believe often plays pretty strongly into what I do. I don't think I'm that much of an oddity here.
As Sam Harris argued in End of Faith, belief matters because belief is a direct avenue to action, and in one guise or another, he's been arguing it and taking shit for it ever since.

rpguest

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19229

Post by rpguest »

belief drives action, so in the manner of what actions are objectionable one must ultimately object to the beliefs that drive them as well

not that it is necessarily one belief per action or realized consciously

but thats pretty much the whole point of being able to talk about anything, and treating no belief or idea or concept as sacrosanct

the problem is with beliefs that underlie actions that are defended dogmatically, given cultural immunity, etc. and as we've seen it can affect atheists to the same degree as theists.

Zenspace
.
.
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19230

Post by Zenspace »


LMU
.
.
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:40 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19231

Post by LMU »

Karmakin wrote:--snipped--

The problem with Zvan's definition of patriarchy, and again this is a common problem, is that in reality it's ONLY looking at the top. I agree that for certain reasons, that's the case that men hold most of the positions of top power in our society. However, we're talking about a society that's only what...40? 50? years removed from the big technological and cultural changes to lessen the importance of pregnancy in shaping these power dynamics. That's what I honestly believe actually. I don't think that the stuff Pinker is talking about is all that important, to be honest. The only biological difference that matters, in my opinion, is pregnancy. That's something that for the longest time shaped the core of how we arranged our society. Due to medical advances, we are able (and of course, this is a good thing) to break down those gender roles based around pregnancy.
I have been thinking about an idea that is similar or maybe the same as yours. Imagine a school where a bunch of children play chess, but one half of the children are not allowed to use their knights, while the other half are not allowed to use their bishops. The children aren't treated differently in any other respect. You could expect the two groups to develop different strategies or styles of play due to differences in the pieces allowed to them. These differences in strategy or style might be due to consciously different rational decisions made while playing, or they might be due to different decisions made for intuitive reasons learned through many games.

When talking about behavioral differences, people talk about nature (consequences of biology, brain structure differences, hormones, etc.) and nurture (cultural constructions, subtly differing education or instruction, etc.), but what would you call something like I described above? It's nature in the sense that the difference is due to having different "equipment", but it's also nurture in that the difference is due to learning to deal with the consequences of having different "equipment". If you assumed that the effects of differing biologies on the brain and behavior were negligible, and that all people were treated, educated, etc. the same, you might still expect (for example) men and women to behave differently just due to the different ways they reproduce.
Karmakin wrote:
But, these things don't happen overnight, which is why men still have most of the "positions of power". In another 40-50 years..even 10-20 years I think, without any real new change, things will be much more balanced IMO.

In any case, the big problems with Zvan's definition are twofold. First, I think that it further glorifies power as being the "ONLY" real goal in society, which I think is a quite harmful attitude. Second, because it's so focused on power, it results in her acting in a spoiled, entitled, privilege-seeking fashion. Her beliefs mean things, as do all of ours. And that particular brand of sexism that she holds on to, that's focused on building power structures for their own sake, is a dangerous, dangerous thing.
I think the focus on power and attaining or keeping power is interesting. Science, reason, and logic can't tell you what your goals are, they can't even tell you to get out of bed in the morning except as a means to an end. Many people do desire power, but many other people do not. Some desire family, some desire knowledge (yay ERV!), some desire other things or a mix of the above. People that seem so focused on their or other people's power are really saying more about themselves than about other people. That's part of the reason I have a low opinion of patriarchy theory and people who promote it: they seem to be denying that fathers can love their children, which I know is false. They also seem to deny that the fraction of women whose goal was power were ever successful in any degree, which I know is false too.

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19232

Post by d4m10n »

Aneris wrote:Stephanie Zvan finally got around and "explains" Teh Patriarchy[TRADE MARK SIGN]. There is some merit in the idea, but it is different than used by many feminists. For them, and, apparently for Zvan it is a bit like Satan. It "explains" everything wrong in the world. Her usage of the term explains exactly nothing. It is merely a label for the over-representation of men in positions of influence, but that way no insight is gained from it. A situation cannot "do" anything, it merely "is". Anyway... here is the tautological "theory"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... r-dummies/
I wonder if anyone will be allowed to express skepticism on that thread without the usual dogpile/butthurt/banning.

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19233

Post by Metalogic42 »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I've just bought my first electronic cigarette today. What I can say right this moment: takes 8 hours for the first battery charge via USB. Enjoying the nice red and green leds so far. Still smoking regular fags while waiting, though...
I just got mine last Saturday (shown below - eGo-T 650 mAh battery with a ce4 clearomizer), and I absolutely love it. Luckily it came precharged. What did you get?

http://oasisvape.com/wp-content/themes/ ... 00x300.jpg

Altair
.
.
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19234

Post by Altair »

d4m10n wrote:
Aneris wrote:Stephanie Zvan finally got around and "explains" Teh Patriarchy[TRADE MARK SIGN]. There is some merit in the idea, but it is different than used by many feminists. For them, and, apparently for Zvan it is a bit like Satan. It "explains" everything wrong in the world. Her usage of the term explains exactly nothing. It is merely a label for the over-representation of men in positions of influence, but that way no insight is gained from it. A situation cannot "do" anything, it merely "is". Anyway... here is the tautological "theory"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... r-dummies/
I wonder if anyone will be allowed to express skepticism on that thread without the usual dogpile/butthurt/banning.
So far the comments are surprisingly civil and even interesting. I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone.

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19235

Post by Submariner »

From Zvan's Teh Patriarchy post:
8
hjhornbeck

May 3, 2013 at 12:24 am (UTC -5)

Miri @4:

and men tend to have more upper body strength

Oh, I do so hate it when people say that.

Based on a hunch, I decided to put that maxim to the test a while ago. I grabbed the World Records for Men’s and Women’s Weightlifting and plunked them into a spreadsheet. Yes, men can lift more than women at the elite level (263 vs 188kg, world record to world record), but a quick glance at the weight categories shows the obvious: men are, on average, bigger than women. Nobody would be shocked if a 120kg man could out-lift a 90kg person, be they man or woman. What we really care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman.

And the answer is yes: compensating for weight, women weightlifters can only lift 84% of what male weightlifters manage, on average.

But that’s not the whole story, either. As most of you are keenly aware, women tend to carry more body fat. That adds bulk, but does not increase strength. We wouldn’t be shocked if a 90kg weightlifter could out-lift an overweight 90kg person, no matter their gender; so what we REALLY care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman, after compensating for body fat.

And the answer is maybe. I get figures ranging from 90-94%, depending on the assumptions I make. I had to use proportions gathered from wrestling, unfortunately; there’s been no scientific study of female weightlifters that I could find after hours of searching.

That hints that we STILL haven’t reached the whole story, either. Olympic Men’s Weightlifting dates back two thousand years, and an international organization has been keeping official Men’s records for over 100. That same organization started tracking official Women’s records in 1988, and there was no Women’s Weightlifting in the Olympics until 2000.

So flip that around: despite having poorer training, being actively discouraged from competition both directly and indirectly, and without a tradition or community to cheer them on, professional women weightlifters can lift 90-94% of what their male counterparts can. The stats bear this out, too, by noting that women are breaking lifting records 2 to 5 times faster than men. They still have a lot of room to improve…

… which makes parity a near certainty. I was overjoyed at this, and started doing research in preparation for publishing a paper. At which point, I found I wasn’t alone, the first, or the best:

“Absolute strength of the women ranged from 42.2 to 62.8% that of men. When strength was expressed per kilogram of MM [muscle mass], these gender differences were smaller and/or not present. These data suggest that MM is a major determinant of the age- and gender-related differences in skeletal muscle strength. Furthermore, this finding is, to a large extent, independent of muscle location (upper vs. lower extremities) and function (extension vs. flexion).”
Frontera, Walter R., et al. “A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45-to 78-yr-old men and women.” Journal of Applied Physiology 71.2 (1991): 644-650.

“The sex difference in upper-body strength was larger than that in lower-body strength. Adjusting strength measures for FFW and/or FFCSA eliminated the sex difference for all measures except curl and bench press strengths. When strength was predicted from FFW and the appropriate limb FFCSA, the combination of these
two variables accounted for an average of 97% of the sex-related variance (sex difference) in strength for both swimmers and non-athletes. The sex-related variance in strength associated with differences between men and women in FFW and limb FFCSA was similar for both upper- and lower-body strengths.

The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size. For occupations and sports activities in which strength is important, FFW and limb FFCSA may be more valid qualification criteria than sex.”
BISHOP, PHILLIP, Kirk Cureton, and MITCHELL COLLINS. “Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women.” Ergonomics 30.4 (1987): 675-687.

So saying men have more upper body strength than women is very misleading, and I do not want to hear another skeptic or feminist saying it ever again.

Mutatis mutandis, this is the exact same argument that folks like Warren Farrell use to explain the "pay gap" these arguments are routinely rejected by the SJW's. This argument above even uses some of the exact same language.

Therefore:

I don't ever want to hear a SJW bring up the pay gap ever again.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19236

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Zenspace wrote:I'll just leave this here...

http://superofficialnews.com/fappy-the- ... turbation/
One can only pray that Fappy will survive incarceration with blowhole intact!

Voryn
.
.
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:36 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19237

Post by Voryn »

Pitchguest wrote:doubtthat is a lawyer. No doubt about that. Also panoply.

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... -883195574

He/she also thinks we should shut up about Laden, because apparently threats of physical violence is small potatoes.

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... -883220583
I don't know how you can deal with s/h/it, if I read a large number of s/h/it's posts in one sitting I'm sure my face would hurt due to all the facepalming the posts cause. They remind me a lot of marilove's posts over on skepchick, completely missing points and retaliation with anger.

"You guys are goofballs...blahlbahlblah... can't you read? .. blahlblahblah...you're so stupid! .. blahlbahlblahlablahhhhggg"

It's not surprising that doubtthat doesn't think Laden's threats are nothing, I mean, they have The Vacula to worry about! He's been associated with bombings and Ted Bundy!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yXukkJ8TquY/T ... yboard.gif

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19238

Post by sacha »

KiwiInOz wrote:
sacha wrote: Kiwi, you know my door is always open for you
I do indeed, sacha.
San Francisco is only an aeroplane flight away.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19239

Post by sacha »

Aneris,

I was not trying to have a go here: http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 125#p87128

I'm honestly interested in your perspective on this.

I'm often a cunt, but not always.

sacha
.
.
Posts: 2450
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am
Location: Gender Traitors International

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19240

Post by sacha »

Submariner wrote:From Zvan's Teh Patriarchy post:
8
hjhornbeck

May 3, 2013 at 12:24 am (UTC -5)

Miri @4:

and men tend to have more upper body strength

Oh, I do so hate it when people say that.

Based on a hunch, I decided to put that maxim to the test a while ago. I grabbed the World Records for Men’s and Women’s Weightlifting and plunked them into a spreadsheet. Yes, men can lift more than women at the elite level (263 vs 188kg, world record to world record), but a quick glance at the weight categories shows the obvious: men are, on average, bigger than women. Nobody would be shocked if a 120kg man could out-lift a 90kg person, be they man or woman. What we really care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman.

And the answer is yes: compensating for weight, women weightlifters can only lift 84% of what male weightlifters manage, on average.

But that’s not the whole story, either. As most of you are keenly aware, women tend to carry more body fat. That adds bulk, but does not increase strength. We wouldn’t be shocked if a 90kg weightlifter could out-lift an overweight 90kg person, no matter their gender; so what we REALLY care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman, after compensating for body fat.

And the answer is maybe. I get figures ranging from 90-94%, depending on the assumptions I make. I had to use proportions gathered from wrestling, unfortunately; there’s been no scientific study of female weightlifters that I could find after hours of searching.

That hints that we STILL haven’t reached the whole story, either. Olympic Men’s Weightlifting dates back two thousand years, and an international organization has been keeping official Men’s records for over 100. That same organization started tracking official Women’s records in 1988, and there was no Women’s Weightlifting in the Olympics until 2000.

So flip that around: despite having poorer training, being actively discouraged from competition both directly and indirectly, and without a tradition or community to cheer them on, professional women weightlifters can lift 90-94% of what their male counterparts can. The stats bear this out, too, by noting that women are breaking lifting records 2 to 5 times faster than men. They still have a lot of room to improve…

… which makes parity a near certainty. I was overjoyed at this, and started doing research in preparation for publishing a paper. At which point, I found I wasn’t alone, the first, or the best:

“Absolute strength of the women ranged from 42.2 to 62.8% that of men. When strength was expressed per kilogram of MM [muscle mass], these gender differences were smaller and/or not present. These data suggest that MM is a major determinant of the age- and gender-related differences in skeletal muscle strength. Furthermore, this finding is, to a large extent, independent of muscle location (upper vs. lower extremities) and function (extension vs. flexion).”
Frontera, Walter R., et al. “A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45-to 78-yr-old men and women.” Journal of Applied Physiology 71.2 (1991): 644-650.

“The sex difference in upper-body strength was larger than that in lower-body strength. Adjusting strength measures for FFW and/or FFCSA eliminated the sex difference for all measures except curl and bench press strengths. When strength was predicted from FFW and the appropriate limb FFCSA, the combination of these
two variables accounted for an average of 97% of the sex-related variance (sex difference) in strength for both swimmers and non-athletes. The sex-related variance in strength associated with differences between men and women in FFW and limb FFCSA was similar for both upper- and lower-body strengths.

The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size. For occupations and sports activities in which strength is important, FFW and limb FFCSA may be more valid qualification criteria than sex.”
BISHOP, PHILLIP, Kirk Cureton, and MITCHELL COLLINS. “Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women.” Ergonomics 30.4 (1987): 675-687.

So saying men have more upper body strength than women is very misleading, and I do not want to hear another skeptic or feminist saying it ever again.

Mutatis mutandis, this is the exact same argument that folks like Warren Farrell use to explain the "pay gap" these arguments are routinely rejected by the SJW's. This argument above even uses some of the exact same language.

Therefore:

I don't ever want to hear a SJW bring up the pay gap ever again.

I was thinking the same thing while reading that.

Zenspace
.
.
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:13 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19241

Post by Zenspace »

Submariner wrote:From Zvan's Teh Patriarchy post:
8
hjhornbeck

May 3, 2013 at 12:24 am (UTC -5)

Miri @4:

and men tend to have more upper body strength

Oh, I do so hate it when people say that.

<snip>

So saying men have more upper body strength than women is very misleading, and I do not want to hear another skeptic or feminist saying it ever again.

Mutatis mutandis, this is the exact same argument that folks like Warren Farrell use to explain the "pay gap" these arguments are routinely rejected by the SJW's. This argument above even uses some of the exact same language.

Therefore:

I don't ever want to hear a SJW bring up the pay gap ever again.
That post seemed to go to an awful lot of effort to argue around the obvious. I am unaware of any arguments that men are stronger (on average) than women because their muscles are different or better. Of course it is a mass thing - and humans are a species which exhibits dimorphism with the males trending larger and therefore stronger than the females, which is the whole point of dimorphism in evolution. I would have been very surprised if any of the quoted studies had a different result. My sister is an aerobics instructor, and while I am a little bit larger than her (about 4" taller ) I bet she would kick my rear in anything that didn't involve a pure strength exercise due to her more extensive endurance training. But I still have a mass 'advantage' and am stronger in terms of strength. Men do trend larger and, there also trend stronger. This does not make men 'better' per se, only larger. Why is this a problem for some feminists? Is it really necessary to twist the obvious out of shape so they feel better?

d4m10n
.
.
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:17 am
Location: OKC
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19242

Post by d4m10n »

Submariner wrote:I don't ever want to hear a SJW bring up the pay gap ever again.
The world's most elite athletes are about as representative of humanity in general as are CEO's, Senators, and Generals. Sampling from the tails isn't going to give us insights into the bulk of the distribution.

Jimmy Russel
.
.
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:51 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19243

Post by Jimmy Russel »

Submariner wrote:From Zvan's Teh Patriarchy post:
8
hjhornbeck

May 3, 2013 at 12:24 am (UTC -5)

Miri @4:

and men tend to have more upper body strength

Oh, I do so hate it when people say that.

Based on a hunch, I decided to put that maxim to the test a while ago. I grabbed the World Records for Men’s and Women’s Weightlifting and plunked them into a spreadsheet. Yes, men can lift more than women at the elite level (263 vs 188kg, world record to world record), but a quick glance at the weight categories shows the obvious: men are, on average, bigger than women. Nobody would be shocked if a 120kg man could out-lift a 90kg person, be they man or woman. What we really care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman.

And the answer is yes: compensating for weight, women weightlifters can only lift 84% of what male weightlifters manage, on average.

But that’s not the whole story, either. As most of you are keenly aware, women tend to carry more body fat. That adds bulk, but does not increase strength. We wouldn’t be shocked if a 90kg weightlifter could out-lift an overweight 90kg person, no matter their gender; so what we REALLY care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman, after compensating for body fat.

And the answer is maybe. I get figures ranging from 90-94%, depending on the assumptions I make. I had to use proportions gathered from wrestling, unfortunately; there’s been no scientific study of female weightlifters that I could find after hours of searching.

That hints that we STILL haven’t reached the whole story, either. Olympic Men’s Weightlifting dates back two thousand years, and an international organization has been keeping official Men’s records for over 100. That same organization started tracking official Women’s records in 1988, and there was no Women’s Weightlifting in the Olympics until 2000.

So flip that around: despite having poorer training, being actively discouraged from competition both directly and indirectly, and without a tradition or community to cheer them on, professional women weightlifters can lift 90-94% of what their male counterparts can. The stats bear this out, too, by noting that women are breaking lifting records 2 to 5 times faster than men. They still have a lot of room to improve…

… which makes parity a near certainty. I was overjoyed at this, and started doing research in preparation for publishing a paper. At which point, I found I wasn’t alone, the first, or the best:

“Absolute strength of the women ranged from 42.2 to 62.8% that of men. When strength was expressed per kilogram of MM [muscle mass], these gender differences were smaller and/or not present. These data suggest that MM is a major determinant of the age- and gender-related differences in skeletal muscle strength. Furthermore, this finding is, to a large extent, independent of muscle location (upper vs. lower extremities) and function (extension vs. flexion).”
Frontera, Walter R., et al. “A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45-to 78-yr-old men and women.” Journal of Applied Physiology 71.2 (1991): 644-650.

“The sex difference in upper-body strength was larger than that in lower-body strength. Adjusting strength measures for FFW and/or FFCSA eliminated the sex difference for all measures except curl and bench press strengths. When strength was predicted from FFW and the appropriate limb FFCSA, the combination of these
two variables accounted for an average of 97% of the sex-related variance (sex difference) in strength for both swimmers and non-athletes. The sex-related variance in strength associated with differences between men and women in FFW and limb FFCSA was similar for both upper- and lower-body strengths.

The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size. For occupations and sports activities in which strength is important, FFW and limb FFCSA may be more valid qualification criteria than sex.”
BISHOP, PHILLIP, Kirk Cureton, and MITCHELL COLLINS. “Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women.” Ergonomics 30.4 (1987): 675-687.

So saying men have more upper body strength than women is very misleading, and I do not want to hear another skeptic or feminist saying it ever again.

Mutatis mutandis, this is the exact same argument that folks like Warren Farrell use to explain the "pay gap" these arguments are routinely rejected by the SJW's. This argument above even uses some of the exact same language.

Therefore:

I don't ever want to hear a SJW bring up the pay gap ever again.

impeccable logic. If I can find a woman who weighs 85kg while compensating for body fat, then she might have upper body strength somewhat comparable to mine.

Therefore in the real world, regardless of actual average size, body fat and muscle mass, men don't have more upper body strength than women.

Bourne Skeptic
.
.
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:18 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19244

Post by Bourne Skeptic »

Jimmy Russel wrote:
Submariner wrote:From Zvan's Teh Patriarchy post:
8
hjhornbeck

May 3, 2013 at 12:24 am (UTC -5)

Miri @4:

and men tend to have more upper body strength

Oh, I do so hate it when people say that.

Based on a hunch, I decided to put that maxim to the test a while ago. I grabbed the World Records for Men’s and Women’s Weightlifting and plunked them into a spreadsheet. Yes, men can lift more than women at the elite level (263 vs 188kg, world record to world record), but a quick glance at the weight categories shows the obvious: men are, on average, bigger than women. Nobody would be shocked if a 120kg man could out-lift a 90kg person, be they man or woman. What we really care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman.

And the answer is yes: compensating for weight, women weightlifters can only lift 84% of what male weightlifters manage, on average.

But that’s not the whole story, either. As most of you are keenly aware, women tend to carry more body fat. That adds bulk, but does not increase strength. We wouldn’t be shocked if a 90kg weightlifter could out-lift an overweight 90kg person, no matter their gender; so what we REALLY care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman, after compensating for body fat.

And the answer is maybe. I get figures ranging from 90-94%, depending on the assumptions I make. I had to use proportions gathered from wrestling, unfortunately; there’s been no scientific study of female weightlifters that I could find after hours of searching.

That hints that we STILL haven’t reached the whole story, either. Olympic Men’s Weightlifting dates back two thousand years, and an international organization has been keeping official Men’s records for over 100. That same organization started tracking official Women’s records in 1988, and there was no Women’s Weightlifting in the Olympics until 2000.

So flip that around: despite having poorer training, being actively discouraged from competition both directly and indirectly, and without a tradition or community to cheer them on, professional women weightlifters can lift 90-94% of what their male counterparts can. The stats bear this out, too, by noting that women are breaking lifting records 2 to 5 times faster than men. They still have a lot of room to improve…

… which makes parity a near certainty. I was overjoyed at this, and started doing research in preparation for publishing a paper. At which point, I found I wasn’t alone, the first, or the best:

“Absolute strength of the women ranged from 42.2 to 62.8% that of men. When strength was expressed per kilogram of MM [muscle mass], these gender differences were smaller and/or not present. These data suggest that MM is a major determinant of the age- and gender-related differences in skeletal muscle strength. Furthermore, this finding is, to a large extent, independent of muscle location (upper vs. lower extremities) and function (extension vs. flexion).”
Frontera, Walter R., et al. “A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45-to 78-yr-old men and women.” Journal of Applied Physiology 71.2 (1991): 644-650.

“The sex difference in upper-body strength was larger than that in lower-body strength. Adjusting strength measures for FFW and/or FFCSA eliminated the sex difference for all measures except curl and bench press strengths. When strength was predicted from FFW and the appropriate limb FFCSA, the combination of these
two variables accounted for an average of 97% of the sex-related variance (sex difference) in strength for both swimmers and non-athletes. The sex-related variance in strength associated with differences between men and women in FFW and limb FFCSA was similar for both upper- and lower-body strengths.

The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size. For occupations and sports activities in which strength is important, FFW and limb FFCSA may be more valid qualification criteria than sex.”
BISHOP, PHILLIP, Kirk Cureton, and MITCHELL COLLINS. “Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women.” Ergonomics 30.4 (1987): 675-687.

So saying men have more upper body strength than women is very misleading, and I do not want to hear another skeptic or feminist saying it ever again.

Mutatis mutandis, this is the exact same argument that folks like Warren Farrell use to explain the "pay gap" these arguments are routinely rejected by the SJW's. This argument above even uses some of the exact same language.

Therefore:

I don't ever want to hear a SJW bring up the pay gap ever again.

impeccable logic. If I can find a woman who weighs 85kg while compensating for body fat, then she might have upper body strength somewhat comparable to mine.

Therefore in the real world, regardless of actual average size, body fat and muscle mass, men don't have more upper body strength than women.
"If I can find a woman who weighs 85kg while compensating for body fat, then she might have upper body strength somewhat comparable to mine."

Be on the lookout for an East German named Olga!

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19245

Post by Submariner »

Jimmy Russel wrote:

impeccable logic. If I can find a woman who weighs 85kg while compensating for body fat, then she might have upper body strength somewhat comparable to mine.

Therefore in the real world, regardless of actual average size, body fat and muscle mass, men don't have more upper body strength than women.

After converting that mass to Merkin and compensating for fat, wow that's a big girl.

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19246

Post by Southern »

Oh, poor Olga. Caught by Getulio Vargas's repressive apparatus because Luis Carlos Prestes was a clueless idiot.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19247

Post by AndrewV69 »

Pitchguest wrote:doubtthat is a lawyer. No doubt about that. Also panoply.

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... -883195574

He/she also thinks we should shut up about Laden, because apparently threats of physical violence is small potatoes.

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... -883220583
If this is the same doubtthat from this thread?
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2013/03/20 ... /#comments

*shrug*

As I recall Dan L. and doubtthat were pretty unhelpful then. So much so I doubt I would ever bother with either of them again.

bovarchist
.
.
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19248

Post by bovarchist »

d4m10n wrote:
Tony Parsehole wrote:"Oily, like batter
Only fatter
hairy?
And scary.
Curly clocksprings form on my mound
Thick pubes abound.
A smell like a hot kipper
A gash like a melted slipper"

-My Important Vagina
T. Parsehole, 2013

It's Thursday night and I'm writing poetry.....Fuck my life.
Props on the melted slipper as visual metaphor. Haven't had a poem hit me that since junior high.
Try this:



[youtube]http://www.ebaumsworld.com/media/embed/259122[/youtube]

bovarchist
.
.
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19249

Post by bovarchist »

Whoops, can't figure out how to embed a non YouTube video. Oh well...

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/259122/

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19250

Post by Steersman »

d4m10n wrote:
Submariner wrote:I don't ever want to hear a SJW bring up the pay gap ever again.
The world's most elite athletes are about as representative of humanity in general as are CEO's, Senators, and Generals. Sampling from the tails isn't going to give us insights into the bulk of the distribution.
Indeed.

Although it seems to be a fairly common tendency which is probably related to stereotyping, of ascribing to an entire class the attributes of a small segment of it – frequently for rather self-serving ends. Apropos of which you may have seen PZ Myers, quite reasonably, taking Astrokid to task for that – even if Myers then shot himself in the foot by doing pretty much the same thing.

But I think the problem is also partly due to common, and somewhat sloppy, methods of describing that phenomenon that don’t really include or encompass a statistical perspective or understanding. For instance, the previous discussions have talked about how “men have more upper body strength than women” as if “men” and “women” were autonomous and homogenous classes. Far better and more accurate, if somewhat more wordy, to assert that – for example, using Pinker’s clearer example of height – “at a height of five foot ten, men outnumber women by a ratio of thirty to one; at a height of six feet, men outnumber women by a ratio of two thousand to one.” Extremely misleading if not ridiculously sloppy thinking to say that “men are taller than women”.

However, the wickets get decidedly stickier and more politicized when we’re talking not about relatively innocuous attributes like height and strength but ones like aggression or intelligence, the latter being the essence of Astrokid’s arguments. And in that case, to talk, as he did, about the disparity in Nobel prizes granted to men and women – a class that might comprise some 0.00000001% of the population or, maybe, 70 people which might have broken down into 50 men and 20 women – as being representative of the other 99.999999999% of the population has to qualify, at least, as rather sexist if not actually misogynistic.

But that highlights, I think, the problems that follow from insufficient knowledge of statistics in the general population. As you probably know the physicist Leonard Mlodinow wrote the book “The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives” – which I have though haven’t finished reading – apparently to rectify that to some extent.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19251

Post by Steersman »

AndrewV69 wrote:@ERV - Congrats!
@Renee - glad to hear your guy is doing better.

@Slymepit - doing a driveby. Been busy with RL stuff including volunteer work for the NDP.
How’s that going? I haven’t decided yet myself as I need to look into a few of the details of the various Party platforms. Generally, I think there’s some benefit to periodically changing parties-in-power even if only on the “new-broom-sweeps-clean” principle.

However, I’m a little apprehensive that the NDP aren’t too clear on the fact that Canada – and BC – rely on resource extraction for our qualify of life; they seem to have some history of killing the proverbial goose ….
AndrewV69 wrote:
cunt wrote: <snip>
I deleted the "self-rape-threat" section as the amount/quality of evidence presented would embarrass a 9/11 troofer.
Would it not have been better to state that it had been debunked and cited the reasons why rather than just deleting the section?

That way you would have a clear "chain of custody" rather than leaving open the door to speculation and further questions.
As with all Wiki-type documents, the previous version is still there. Although there might have been some benefit to adding a note as to why the offending section was deleted. I know the regular Wikipedia articles have “Talk” pages where such reasons can be provided but I didn’t see one for that particular article.

bovarchist
.
.
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:07 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19252

Post by bovarchist »

welch wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Aneris wrote:
If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he call me?
If you want him to call, don't put out on the first date.
Cuz if you let a guy sleep with you, he'll never want to do it again.

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19253

Post by Cunning Punt »

Jimmy Russel wrote:
Submariner wrote:From Zvan's Teh Patriarchy post:
8
hjhornbeck

May 3, 2013 at 12:24 am (UTC -5)

Miri @4:

and men tend to have more upper body strength

Oh, I do so hate it when people say that.

Based on a hunch, I decided to put that maxim to the test a while ago. I grabbed the World Records for Men’s and Women’s Weightlifting and plunked them into a spreadsheet. Yes, men can lift more than women at the elite level (263 vs 188kg, world record to world record), but a quick glance at the weight categories shows the obvious: men are, on average, bigger than women. Nobody would be shocked if a 120kg man could out-lift a 90kg person, be they man or woman. What we really care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman.

And the answer is yes: compensating for weight, women weightlifters can only lift 84% of what male weightlifters manage, on average.

But that’s not the whole story, either. As most of you are keenly aware, women tend to carry more body fat. That adds bulk, but does not increase strength. We wouldn’t be shocked if a 90kg weightlifter could out-lift an overweight 90kg person, no matter their gender; so what we REALLY care about is if a 90kg man can out-lift a 90kg woman, after compensating for body fat.

And the answer is maybe. I get figures ranging from 90-94%, depending on the assumptions I make. I had to use proportions gathered from wrestling, unfortunately; there’s been no scientific study of female weightlifters that I could find after hours of searching.

That hints that we STILL haven’t reached the whole story, either. Olympic Men’s Weightlifting dates back two thousand years, and an international organization has been keeping official Men’s records for over 100. That same organization started tracking official Women’s records in 1988, and there was no Women’s Weightlifting in the Olympics until 2000.

So flip that around: despite having poorer training, being actively discouraged from competition both directly and indirectly, and without a tradition or community to cheer them on, professional women weightlifters can lift 90-94% of what their male counterparts can. The stats bear this out, too, by noting that women are breaking lifting records 2 to 5 times faster than men. They still have a lot of room to improve…

… which makes parity a near certainty. I was overjoyed at this, and started doing research in preparation for publishing a paper. At which point, I found I wasn’t alone, the first, or the best:

“Absolute strength of the women ranged from 42.2 to 62.8% that of men. When strength was expressed per kilogram of MM [muscle mass], these gender differences were smaller and/or not present. These data suggest that MM is a major determinant of the age- and gender-related differences in skeletal muscle strength. Furthermore, this finding is, to a large extent, independent of muscle location (upper vs. lower extremities) and function (extension vs. flexion).”
Frontera, Walter R., et al. “A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45-to 78-yr-old men and women.” Journal of Applied Physiology 71.2 (1991): 644-650.

“The sex difference in upper-body strength was larger than that in lower-body strength. Adjusting strength measures for FFW and/or FFCSA eliminated the sex difference for all measures except curl and bench press strengths. When strength was predicted from FFW and the appropriate limb FFCSA, the combination of these
two variables accounted for an average of 97% of the sex-related variance (sex difference) in strength for both swimmers and non-athletes. The sex-related variance in strength associated with differences between men and women in FFW and limb FFCSA was similar for both upper- and lower-body strengths.

The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size. For occupations and sports activities in which strength is important, FFW and limb FFCSA may be more valid qualification criteria than sex.”
BISHOP, PHILLIP, Kirk Cureton, and MITCHELL COLLINS. “Sex difference in muscular strength in equally-trained men and women.” Ergonomics 30.4 (1987): 675-687.

So saying men have more upper body strength than women is very misleading, and I do not want to hear another skeptic or feminist saying it ever again.

Mutatis mutandis, this is the exact same argument that folks like Warren Farrell use to explain the "pay gap" these arguments are routinely rejected by the SJW's. This argument above even uses some of the exact same language.

Therefore:

I don't ever want to hear a SJW bring up the pay gap ever again.

impeccable logic. If I can find a woman who weighs 85kg while compensating for body fat, then she might have upper body strength somewhat comparable to mine.

Therefore in the real world, regardless of actual average size, body fat and muscle mass, men don't have more upper body strength than women.
It's.... almost like s/h/it started with a conclusion and looked for the evidence to support it, but no, I am being ungenerous.

Cunning Punt
.
.
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:50 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19254

Post by Cunning Punt »

bovarchist wrote:
welch wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
Aneris wrote:
If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he call me?
If you want him to call, don't put out on the first date.
Cuz if you let a guy sleep with you, he'll never want to do it again.
That's why it took him 3 days to rise again.

Bhurzum
Brassy, uncouth, henpecked meathead
Posts: 5059
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:08 am
Location: Lurking in a dumpster

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19255

Post by Bhurzum »

Just because...

[youtube]AOAutS956Sc[/youtube]

justinvacula
.
.
Posts: 1832
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19256

Post by justinvacula »

I report following my protest of a National Day of Prayer event -

http://www.skepticink.com/justinvacula/ ... xperience/

Especially note the attitudes of the theists who engaged with me.

http://i.imgur.com/Lg0chlf.jpg

Posing with Christians -- all of us clearly agents of the patriarchy (TM)

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19257

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Metalogic42 wrote:
Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:I've just bought my first electronic cigarette today. What I can say right this moment: takes 8 hours for the first battery charge via USB. Enjoying the nice red and green leds so far. Still smoking regular fags while waiting, though...
I just got mine last Saturday (shown below - eGo-T 650 mAh battery with a ce4 clearomizer), and I absolutely love it. Luckily it came precharged. What did you get?

http://oasisvape.com/wp-content/themes/ ... 00x300.jpg
The exact same as you. Cigartex "La Dynamique". finally charged, and pretty awesome!

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19258

Post by Hunt »

rpguest wrote:belief drives action, so in the manner of what actions are objectionable one must ultimately object to the beliefs that drive them as well

not that it is necessarily one belief per action or realized consciously

but thats pretty much the whole point of being able to talk about anything, and treating no belief or idea or concept as sacrosanct

the problem is with beliefs that underlie actions that are defended dogmatically, given cultural immunity, etc. and as we've seen it can affect atheists to the same degree as theists.
That's an excellent point. Placing too much emphasis on the direct connection between belief and action is an invitation to thought policing, particularly if you give yourself license to extrapolate the implications of belief. You might end up like a certain group we know, thinking that questioning rape culture means you're a rape apologist, or perhaps even a rapist.

There's also the widespread tendency to separate belief from its inherent uncertainty and consider all belief to be 100% certain, which isn't how it works. Belief is far more complicated than that, whether it's hypothetical, counterfactual, etc.

Guest

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19259

Post by Guest »

justinvacula wrote:Especially note the attitudes of the theists who engaged with me.

Posing with Christians -- all of us clearly agents of the patriarchy (TM)
they were obviously hypnotized by the pornstache

Metalogic42
.
.
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:56 am

Re: Jim the Pleb Made Me Do It

#19260

Post by Metalogic42 »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: The exact same as you. Cigartex "La Dynamique". finally charged, and pretty awesome!
Actually, I just picked up a blue Vivi Nova clearomizer today, and switched from a pure PG juice to a 60/40 VG/PG mix (menthol/vanilla FTW!), and I'm very happy with it.

http://www.flysmoke.com/wp-content/uplo ... 11/011.jpg

Locked