Suppose we switched from Patriarchy to Matriarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

No, I just didn't respond to them.

I am not obligated to provide a reply to every sentence in every post.



So...............no counter-argument, then?

Noted.



It's not a "strawman" because I wasn't making an argument.



I eagerly await the time when you actually attempt to rebut anything I write as opposed to simply screaming and stomping your feet because you're mad that I happen to disagree with you.

I understand you're mad that people have opinions different than yours, but I'm afraid I just don't care.

Good day.

Well, no, you made a series of statements.



In other words, it's a vague, practically useless term.



In order for me to refute your arguments, you first need to support them.

I have no reason to believe that "soft values" negatively effect the earnings of a company, that "soft values" have anything to do with "feminism" or women, that society is "worse" because of these supposed "soft values," or that "soft values" increase crime or mental illness. That's speculation, heaped on interpretation, heaped on speculation.

However, as is your wont, you seem content to make claims and vague generalizations, while expecting others to disprove your shaky premises.



Your data is objective. Your interpretation of said data is not.



I didn't bring up Kuhn.

Your intellectual dishonesty is off the charts. It is *because* you did not respond to the other parts of his post that you are guilty of cherry-picking...





Your post was BS, so it is difficult to make a counter-argument when there is no argument.




On this, we agree.



I have *already* rebutted your claims. You would know this if you actually knew anything about science.

Trolling conclusion: I can only implore that you make some claims relevant to this topic rather than engaging in an intellectual battle between You and I, as you lost that battle before you were even born. I invest substantial time in providing scientific content on WP, and you are just spouting incoherent rants left and right...

An argument is a series of statements as per the dictionary definition.....




If you want to talk vague and practically useless, look at your post history.



I have, throughout this thread, you just utterly fail at understanding basic logic, argumentation and science, so in that regard I suppose that you're doing a great job at enforcing stereotypes about females.




Then you need to launch a counter argument Scully, not sit here and make snarky pointless statements. I made my arguments in favor of soft values being linked to women, I posted data linking traits that are associated with soft values to women. Data in regards to the prevalence of mental illness is freely available on the CDC website and to anyone who has access to google, so are crime rates. So are studies that show no correlation between companies adopting soft values and higher earnings, higher market caps or higher growth rates. Furthermore, I never argued that there was a negative correlation or causation in companies, nor that there was a negative correlation or causation due to soft values, I argued that no positive benefit can be objectively measured in the data I utilized.




So, you're staying with the position that even though data you admit is objective shows that there has been no positive correlation between the introduction of soft values and market capitalizations or earnings. Furthermore, that data you agree is objective show higher prevalence of mental illness and crime thus no positive correlation with the introduction of soft values. Thus my conclusion is not mind-independent (philosophical definition of objective).

Furthermore, the fact that my conclusion is empirically testable, and thus follow Karl Popper's requirement for falsifiability through empirical experiments. Empirical experiments that have already been done in the data you agree is objective and upon which my conclusion is based.

Nice to know you're being reasonable. *Holds up sarcasm sign*




No, but you did feel content at cutting out my response to your statement about Kuhn, and put a general statement aimed at you in it's place. My response to your statement about Kuhn was "Hot in comparison to what?" which was an adequate reply to your straw man.

No, darlin.' What you've done is spouted a lot of evo-psych BS just-so stories and claimed that they represent "science."
Now, as requested after the last time I posted here:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Dominant
the ecological definition being the one relevant to this discussion.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Superior
Note that there is NO definition relevant to this discussion, because real biologists do not speak in terms of 'superiority' as being anthing other than location.

Yes you did, and I know what sarcasm means. But you know, tone of voice indicates sarcasm, and aspies are already bad at detecting it, let alone when there's NO tone because it's in text. Way to ignore everything else I said. Also, way to NOT elaborate.

There goes that female mind reading expectation thing again.

After reading more of this thread, I see you're quite the hypocrite, calling people out for "cherry picking," despite the fact that you've been doing JUST that. Also, I nicely asked you to elaborate, but you chose to ignore that. Whatever then, carry on being a bitter c**t.

It has nothing to do with "Aspergers."

It has to do with you flying off the handle and into a hissy fit every time someone says something you don't like. You know, if you would learn to control your temper and improve your reading comprehension skills, you might avoid embarrassing yourself in the future.

Oh, and I will carry on being a "bitter c*nt, thankyouverymuch. It certainly beats the alternative.

No, you ranted about your dislike of my posts.

And at no point did I ever mention "science." That was you.

Since you're officially at the point where you have to make up bullcrap in order to "win," I'll bid you good evening, sir.

Good luck with the "Internet Tough Guy" gig.

I also mentioned the fact that SARCASM is detected in voice by TONE, of which there isn't any because this forum exists in TEXT form.

Also, this: http://ezinearticles.com/?Aspergers-Syn ... id=1630591

"Aspergers kids often have challenges in the communications area. A major reason for an Aspie's difficulties with social functioning is the lack of understanding of subtle social cues and patterns of speech, such as SARCASM."

In other words, no rebuttal, or defense of "people-centric values" as a well-defined concept.

Noted.



No, you've made a series of claims about a nebulous, fluffy concept of "people-centric values," which is a term so vague and wishy-washy as to be practically useless.

No dice.



No, you posted data and then gave us your interpretation that it demonstrated "soft values (whatever they are)" are "linked" to women, and that, at some indeterminate time in history (whenever that was), "soft values (whatever they are)" were introduced into society, and that they must have had something to do with mental illness and crime rates. Oh, and that "soft values (whatever they are)" can't be proven to increase a companies profits.

Ostensibly, this is going to end with the usual, "it's true because TM says so" chestnut.



Of course. Based on what you personally feel are "soft values."



No, that is your interpretation of the data you posted. Mental illness statistics are objective. Crime statistics are objective. How much a company makes is objective. That they have anything to do with "soft values" is not.



What you personally consider to be "soft values" is not "empirically testable."



Probably because I was making a joke.

"Tone" most certainly exists in "text form."

You get to spend whole classes learning about "tone" in essays when you take upper-level literature courses.

But I forgive you for your meltdown. Happens to the best of us.

Good night.

Even if you're not a faux aspie, clearly you learned sarcasm and are using it relentlessly because you obviously know you're wrong but in order to maintain your false sense of superiority you refuse to back down and concede. I've seen this happen to quite a few people here on WP. You certainly have forfeited any respect I *might* have had for you and you are yet another reason women have no business in the military. Sleep tight, princess!

Pot, Kettle, black.

I'm a copper pot, sweetums.



And LOL @ feminists ITT raging with narcissistic butthurt frustration!

No, tone, in the context of sound, does NOT exist in text form because text cannot be heard... Or am I just the only human on earth who doesn't somehow HEAR TEXT?