Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,133
- 160,299
Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...
- Thread starter Balthazar_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
They sure as shit can be. What they might have lost to gravity they have gained in experience.
Older women know stuff man.
They'lldostuff. Stuff that you wouldn't even think to ask no matter how much german porn you watch.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,197
- 23,355
The documentary this whole conversation has been about. I'm just pointing out how retarded their arguments are, and the rest of you have helped make my case for me.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
My question was always human instincts, which u failed to provide an actual answer. So now that you have asserted that we have no way of knowing what instincts were there, would you like to revise your own statement that instincts were been overwritten or lost due to society?
protip.. This is your chance to correct your argument due to the acknowledgement of a lack of supporting evidence. That is how since works.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,197
- 23,355
You realize it doesn't make the opposing argument any stronger either so it's at best a complete fucking wash, but you CAN extrapolate by taking instincts and behaviors shared by all other modern primates and comparing them to human instincts and behaviors. I mean neuroscientists and anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists do this all the time.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,957
- 79,442
I personally don't care about the particulars of whatever opposition argument Mist feels like she's refuting. I'm trying to hit home that the very nature of this kind of research requires a great deal of assumptions to even get started. I'm not willing to accept the idea that we can say much if anything that is intelligent about the instincts and behavior of a monkey-lemur that existed millions of years ago because we can observe chimpanzees today and that we can then take those observations and make claims about the evolutionary trajectory of other species that had a divergent path (the not-quite primates, the cavemen, the early humans, and the recent yet uncivilized humans) over tens of millions of years.
If we had some per-civilization humans to observe, and some cavemen to observe, and some not-quite primates to observe, then it would be very valuable to see who gained or lost what instincts and what behavior at what times. We can't do any of that and to pretend we can by looking at a species we haven't been on the same course as for a hundred million years is the height of absurdity.
If we had some per-civilization humans to observe, and some cavemen to observe, and some not-quite primates to observe, then it would be very valuable to see who gained or lost what instincts and what behavior at what times. We can't do any of that and to pretend we can by looking at a species we haven't been on the same course as for a hundred million years is the height of absurdity.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,197
- 23,355
How? You haven't actually brought ANY viable evidence of these biological assumptions. You also haven't brought any evidence that contradicts my argument. You've attacked the structure of my argument, which is fine, but yours is even shakier, and has no real overarching theory AND no real evidence.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,957
- 79,442
Here is what you need to do. You need to take every single piece of research that has started with assumption that we know what the instincts of the monkey-lemur ancestor we share with chimpanzees are because we can observe chimpanzees and stop acting like it's not just the current best guesses of a social science (also known as "not a real science").
It's interesting, chimpanzees are the best we've got to work with, but this isn't what you think it all is.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
And... you lose. Everything.
Never mind the fact that Mist is literally the only person in this entire conversation to use science to back up her stance. Never mind that she makes claims that are both easier to grasp and better backed up by everything we've learned about humanity up to this point. The fact that you need to pull out a "girls will be girls" claim to defend your side means that you havenothing. You've lost and you know you've lost.
Don't get me wrong, you'll all keep pretending. You'll keep patting each other's backs and sucking each other's dicks, but it's getting more and more pathetic by the second. If you, for a second, evendaredto actually follow the tenets you claim to defend, you'd realize you'd have no choice but to acknowledge Mist has been balls-on accurate about virtually everything she's said. That's not gonna happen, though. You're going to keep creating an imaginary villain to stake your claim against, you're going to keep making up arguments Mist never actually made in order to contradict them... Basically, you're going to do everything in your power to avoid acknowledging that some lesbian you've never met has a better grasp of the human condition than you do. It's entirely understandable and undeniably predictable, but there it is.
Carry on, gents... it's a good show...
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,133
- 160,299
your white knighting has been adorable but she wont even be your friend, you'll need to find a new maiden.
this is aside from the fact that she been getting everything wrong in this thread much like you.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Agree completely. But when science actuallyDOESback up everything Mist says, well what do you do then?
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 80,133
- 160,299
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
This is really basic, and that's why its so infuriating. Science is not an appeal to authority.
She's not citing science. She's citing philosophical thought, even scientific philosophical thought. And that's valid. That's not science. That's what comesbeforescience.
Phenomena --> Consideration --> Experiment --> Insight --> Validation --> Phenomena
Left to yourselves you guys WOULD create a Cult.
She's not citing science. She's citing philosophical thought, even scientific philosophical thought. And that's valid. That's not science. That's what comesbeforescience.
Phenomena --> Consideration --> Experiment --> Insight --> Validation --> Phenomena
Left to yourselves you guys WOULD create a Cult.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
A) She's had me on "ignore" since ages ago. I'm OK with this. It doesn't change the fact that she's right. (Believe it or not, there are reasons besides "trying to impress someone" to defend a particular point of view.)
B) You saying she's been getting everything wrong doesn't make it so. See: her stance actually being backed by scientific evidence and the opposition's stance being backed by nothing but "feels" (oh, the irony!).
Again, carry on! I'm loving this one-sided demasculation. It's both fiercely entertaining and delectably educational.