Curb stomped

[Rod]

Just now, motonoggin said:

I'm horrible at it.

I know 

[NaturallyAspirated]

10 hours ago, Wildboer said:

I believe the phrase goes, "He's not wrong, he's just an asshole."

I don't think he's even an asshole.  What he says makes some sense actually.  

As I've said before, anyone questionable looking gets called human, not goofy ass pronoun.

Neal

[Rod]

She was being an asshole way more than he was

[XC.Morrison]

Jordan:  I like pizza.

Cathy:  So you’re saying pizza tastes good?

Jordan:  I didn’t say that.  I’m just saying the data shows that I ate pizza 4 times last week.

Cathy:  Umm, okay....

Jordan:  gotchya!!!  And also you’ve offended me.

[motonoggin]

Jordan: Lobsters also love pizza. Pizza makes them happy. So lobsters and people are the same.

 

[Wildboer]

4 hours ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

I don't think he's even an asshole.  What he says makes some sense actually.  

As I've said before, anyone questionable looking gets called human, not goofy ass pronoun.

Neal

Come on Neil, Hierarchical tendencies in Lobster behavior has nothing to do with contemporary social order.

[Wildboer]

4 hours ago, Rod Johnson said:

She was being an asshole way more than he was

Says a bonafide asshole shithole 

[sledderj]

16 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

Come on Neil, Hierarchical tendencies in Lobster behavior has nothing to do with contemporary social order.

 

Dude, he's a Phd in clinical psychology.  He taught at Harvard and has written on the subject, as have others.  It's not some obscure idea he pulled out of the air.  They study lobsters because of their simple nervous system.  His assertion is if you unpack the human brain down to basic components, there are distinct similarities.  The basic components are the ones that kick in when shit hits the fan and the rest of our brains become unable to cope or process what's going on and thus can and will influence behavior at a very basic level.  The hierarchy lobsters naturally fall into could very well be an indicator on one part of a multifaceted explanation as to why humans have done the same.  The fact that he was so adamant about it tells me he could go on for hours as to why.  

Like every other subject in that interview, it's complicated and there's no simple, singular answer to anything.  His lobster spiel is but one small sound bite of his overall opinion on the subject.  She asked, he answered and you and Moto et al bite into it hook, line and sinker.  I give her a little lee way being that she was thinking on her feet on live TV.  You actually had time to think about it.   

 

 

 

 

 

[motonoggin]

5 minutes ago, sledderj said:

 

Dude, he's a Phd in clinical psychology.  He taught at Harvard and has written on the subject, as have others.  It's not some obscure idea he pulled out of the air.  They study lobsters because of their simple nervous system.  His assertion is if you unpack the human brain down to basic components, there are distinct similarities.  The basic components are the ones that kick in when shit hits the fan and the rest of our brains become unable to cope or process what's going on and thus can and will influence behavior at a very basic level.  The hierarchy lobsters naturally fall into could very well be an indicator on one part of a multifaceted explanation as to why humans have done the same.  The fact that he was so adamant about it tells me he could go on for hours as to why.  

Like every other subject in that interview, it's complicated and there's no simple, singular answer to anything.  His lobster spiel is but one small sound bite of his overall opinion on the subject.  She asked, he answered and you and Moto et al bite into it hook, line and sinker.  I give her a little lee way being that she was thinking on her feet on live TV.  You actually had time to think about it.   

 

 

 

 

 

We share what, like 75% of our Dna with bananas?

Dude's a fucking charlatan. 

[motonoggin]

The lobster stuff is just the tip of the iceberg with this guy. 

[motonoggin]

[motonoggin]

Fuckwads like this have been misapplying social and behavioral science in order to justify all sorts of repugnant and oppressive shit since social and behavioral sciences were invented. 

It's not any different now than it was then. 

[Wildboer]

3 hours ago, sledderj said:

 

Dude, he's a Phd in clinical psychology.  He taught at Harvard and has written on the subject, as have others.  It's not some obscure idea he pulled out of the air.  They study lobsters because of their simple nervous system.  His assertion is if you unpack the human brain down to basic components, there are distinct similarities.  The basic components are the ones that kick in when shit hits the fan and the rest of our brains become unable to cope or process what's going on and thus can and will influence behavior at a very basic level.  The hierarchy lobsters naturally fall into could very well be an indicator on one part of a multifaceted explanation as to why humans have done the same.  The fact that he was so adamant about it tells me he could go on for hours as to why.  

Like every other subject in that interview, it's complicated and there's no simple, singular answer to anything.  His lobster spiel is but one small sound bite of his overall opinion on the subject.  She asked, he answered and you and Moto et al bite into it hook, line and sinker.  I give her a little lee way being that she was thinking on her feet on live TV.  You actually had time to think about it.   

Finally someone engages the topic at hand.

This is why clinical psychology is kinda bullshit. Even Frued was a fucking whack job. 

[Edmo]

4 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Fuckwads like this have been misapplying social and behavioral science in order to justify all sorts of repugnant and oppressive shit since social and behavioral sciences were invented. 

It's not any different now than it was then. 

He does make some valid points though. I bet my wife out earns 90% of the men she works with. But she’s the one working 60 plus hours a week. I’ve had to pick up the slack at home with the kids (cooking, cleaning, etc). Most of the women I’ve known and worked with are not this driven at work, and the home is the priority.

[DriftBusta]

6 hours ago, motonoggin said:

We share what, like 75% of our Dna with bananas?

Dude's a fucking charlatan. 

And who are you, exactly?  What are your credentials and accomplishments in life?

[Momorider]

9 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

And who are you, exactly?  What are your credentials and accomplishments in life?

NeoFascistsHimmlerStoner  

[motonoggin]

31 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

And who are you, exactly?  What are your credentials and accomplishments in life?

Appeal to authority fallacy. One doesn't need to have a degree in anything to understand what the guy is doing. Lobsters naturally existing in hierarchies doesn't mean all human hierarchies are natural. That's an obvious logical fallacy. 

You think he's right because he supports your world view and that's all you know about it. You, like most people, have no idea if lobsters actually share anything in common with humans. If this guy were saying gender norms are social constructs and that trans people and their pronouns are valid you'd call bullshit. Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view.

Remember when they used science to prove that blacks were inferior to whites? That women were inferior to men? That Aryans we're superior to everyone else? 

Same kind of shit. Make sure you contribute to this guy on Patreon tho. 

[motonoggin]

2 hours ago, Edmo said:

He does make some valid points though. I bet my wife out earns 90% of the men she works with. But she’s the one working 60 plus hours a week. I’ve had to pick up the slack at home with the kids (cooking, cleaning, etc). Most of the women I’ve known and worked with are not this driven at work, and the home is the priority.

Of course, that's how guys like this work, they take something with a grain of truth and twist it mercilessly until it fits their preconceptions.

[f7ben]

9 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Appeal to authority fallacy. One doesn't need to have a degree in anything to understand what the guy is doing. Lobsters naturally existing in hierarchies doesn't mean all human hierarchies are natural. That's an obvious logical fallacy. 

You think he's right because he supports your world view and that's all you know about it. You, like most people, have no idea if lobsters actually share anything in common with humans. If this guy were saying gender norms are social constructs and that trans people and their pronouns are valid you'd call bullshit. Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view.

Remember when they used science to prove that blacks were inferior to whites? That women were inferior to men? That Aryans we're superior to everyone else? 

Same kind of shit. Make sure you contribute to this guy on Patreon tho. 

Wolfie just got crucified with rusty nails  

[Edmo]

16 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Of course, that's how guys like this work, they take something with a grain of truth and twist it mercilessly until it fits their preconceptions.

When he spoke about equal pay in the workplace the facts he used were spot on. The part where they talked about pronouns was just his opinion obviously.

[motonoggin]

Just now, Edmo said:

When he spoke about equal pay in the workplace the facts he used were spot on. The part where they talked about pronouns was just his opinion obviously.

Right, but he's trying to trick you into thinking that everything he's saying is fact. Obviously a lot of people fell for it.

This is fascist propaganda.

[Skidude600]

Yet there has been a tendency to use nature and animal behavior to justify and explain homosexuality. No offense WB and for the record I personally believe it IS natural, but there always has and always will be a connection between ourselves and the animal world. We are descendants of monkeys after all. Is behavior only learned or is it also part of our dna? Just curious......

[revkev6]

 

15 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Hey, I may be a pothead but I don't present lobsters as a legitimate analog for and justification of current patriarchal hierarchy. 

He's not at all if you listen to what he said... She brought that up and he scoffed at the idea. He's going back to the dawn of man. white europeans aren't part of his theory.

 

8 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Fuckwads like this have been misapplying social and behavioral science in order to justify all sorts of repugnant and oppressive shit since social and behavioral sciences were invented. 

It's not any different now than it was then. 

I've had this conversation with you before and you couldn't answer me then. show me ONE group of humans that did not have a social hierarchy. It does not exist. Humans naturally fall into a hierarchy. even then they make up bigger things to be bigger leaders!

1 hour ago, motonoggin said:

Appeal to authority fallacy. One doesn't need to have a degree in anything to understand what the guy is doing. Lobsters naturally existing in hierarchies doesn't mean all human hierarchies are natural. That's an obvious logical fallacy. 

You think he's right because he supports your world view and that's all you know about it. You, like most people, have no idea if lobsters actually share anything in common with humans. If this guy were saying gender norms are social constructs and that trans people and their pronouns are valid you'd call bullshit. Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view.

Remember when they used science to prove that blacks were inferior to whites? That women were inferior to men? That Aryans we're superior to everyone else? 

Same kind of shit. Make sure you contribute to this guy on Patreon tho. 

one does need to actually listen to what is said though. You seem to think that humans can exist without a hierarchy. if that is the case please show me where it has happened.

43 minutes ago, Edmo said:

When he spoke about equal pay in the workplace the facts he used were spot on. The part where they talked about pronouns was just his opinion obviously.

actually, this part I highly dislike. he has flopped on his take on the pronouns. watch another interview where he would not use any pronouns. this one he said he would if asked. as with about half the professors I've dealt with, his classroom is his domain. if you piss in their Cheerio bowl they will fail you. obviously somewhere along the line he was told to change his tune.

Edited January 23, 2018 by revkev6

[motonoggin]

2 minutes ago, revkev6 said:

 

He's not at all if you listen to what he said... She brought that up and he scoffed at the idea. He's going back to the dawn of man. white europeans aren't part of his theory.

 

I've had this conversation with you before and you couldn't answer me then. show me ONE group of humans that did not have a social hierarchy. It does not exist. Humans naturally fall into a hierarchy. even then they make up bigger things to be bigger leaders!

one does need to actually listen to what is said though. You seem to think that humans can exist without a hierarchy. if that is the case please show me where it has happened.

 

Strawman.

No one is saying all hierarchies shouldn't exist. I've never said anything of the sort. But you bought this obvious misrepresentation of his opponents argument so now he's got you guthooked.

What he's trying to do here is convince the audience that because hierarchies exist in nature, our current oppressive hierarchy is simply nature taking it's course. 

Obviously this is a fallacious argument and easily debunked, but people will run with it because he poses as some sort of authority on the subject, when in reality he's just a very smart liar.

[revkev6]

Just now, motonoggin said:

Strawman.

No one is saying all hierarchies shouldn't exist. I've never said anything of the sort. But you bought this obvious misrepresentation of his opponents argument so now he's got you guthooked.

What he's trying to do here is convince the audience that because hierarchies exist in nature, our current oppressive hierarchy is simply nature taking it's course. 

Obviously this is a fallacious argument and easily debunked, but people will run with it because he poses as some sort of authority on the subject, when in reality he's just a very smart liar.

he's saying humans have always had heirarchies and always will. end point. no social darwinism or other labels. he's braking it down to a biological reasoning.

if he is wrong there would be a society of humans that did not have one. point it out to the class and prove him and I wrong. your superior intellect should have no problem.