Venting of a "friendzoned" AS dude

Page 5 of 6 [ 93 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

04 Sep 2016, 3:28 pm

rdos wrote:

Hopper wrote:

Quote:

I cannot see how these people have to be misogynist, or why they would think women are objects.

Because that's part of the definition.

Then I think you need to expand on the definition, and exclude quite a few guys that think being nice will get them a girlfriend. In fact, I think your new group of Nice Guys is rather minimal.

The commonly understood definition is already out there, it's not Hopper who is defining it, he is just relaying the established cultural definition: Urban Dictionary: Nice Guy Syndrome

_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,671
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 Sep 2016, 3:36 pm

rdos wrote:

Hopper wrote:

No, the Nice Guy is always a misogynist who thinks women are objects. He's also a misandrist, but that's another matter.

Another strange generalization. :lol:

The "Nice Guy" is more of an internet meme character. They rarely exist in real life.

But here on WP they talk so much about Nice Guys as if they're so common and like 90% of guys.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 04 Sep 2016, 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

04 Sep 2016, 3:36 pm

wilburforce wrote:

rdos wrote:

Hopper wrote:

Quote:

I cannot see how these people have to be misogynist, or why they would think women are objects.

Because that's part of the definition.

Then I think you need to expand on the definition, and exclude quite a few guys that think being nice will get them a girlfriend. In fact, I think your new group of Nice Guys is rather minimal.

The commonly understood definition is already out there, it's not Hopper who is defining it, he is just relaying the established cultural definition: Urban Dictionary: Nice Guy Syndrome

Yes, I know, and such a fuzzy definition in no way can predict that Nice Guys are misogynists or regard women as objects. Additionally, the group defined is highly heterogeneous since the traits described are not necessarily related. This is just an excellent example of why sociology is not a valid science.

Not only that, but it appears that some traits are primary, while some others are related to failiures to form relationships. If you want to make a point, you cannot mix-up cause and effect like that in a huge mess.

Last edited by rdos on 04 Sep 2016, 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,671
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 Sep 2016, 3:40 pm

^ Sociology, psychology and psychiatry are all not real sciences.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

04 Sep 2016, 3:45 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

^ Sociology, psychology and psychiatry are all not real sciences.

True, because in psychiatry we see similar reasoning processes with committees deciding on arbitrary criteria for arbitrary disorders.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,671
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 Sep 2016, 3:49 pm

rdos wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

^ Sociology, psychology and psychiatry are all not real sciences.

True, because in psychiatry we see similar reasoning processes with committees deciding on arbitrary criteria for arbitrary disorders.

Which means that.....

that......

.....all your ND/NT theories are not real science :lol:

.

I am sorry rdos, but they are not, Asperger's Syndrome is still only a psychiatric diagnosis, and there's still no biological/medical definition for it.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

04 Sep 2016, 3:54 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

.....all your ND/NT theories are not real science :lol:

.

I am sorry rdos, but they are not, Asperger's Syndrome is still only a psychiatric diagnosis, and there's still no biological/medical definition for it.

I didn't use arbitrary definitions, and I certainly didn't rely on the DSM, so I don't think that follows. I even abandoned the term "Aspie" because people thought it had connections to Asperger's Syndrome. :lol:

Besides, if my theory is correct, there will never be any biological, genetic, or medical definition of neurodiversity or autism.

Aaendi
Deinonychus

Joined: 31 Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 363

04 Sep 2016, 4:09 pm

Hopper wrote:

Quote:

I cannot see how these people have to be misogynist, or why they would think women are objects.

Because that's part of the definition.

Because there is no definition. It means whatever the user wants it to mean. It's used to accuse any random guy of misogyny for any old reason.

Bob gave a girl a birthday present. Bob is a nice guy. Bob is a misogynist who see's women as sex objects because he is a nice guy.

Last edited by Aaendi on 04 Sep 2016, 4:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

04 Sep 2016, 4:12 pm

You're using the existence of Urban Dictionary to discredit/dismiss Sociology?

Of course, if we followed the monistic reductionist perspective in pursuit of a 'real' scientific understanding to help those who bring their difficulties here, we'd be offering help in the guise of equations.

Neither psychology nor sociology need to be 'real' sciences in order to do good and be helpful. It's a bit like thinking, if someone who hasn't seen a cricket match before asks what's going on, the 'real' way to explain is to break out the physics jargon.

_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.

Hopper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Aug 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,920
Location: The outskirts

04 Sep 2016, 4:16 pm

Aaendi wrote:

Hopper wrote:

Quote:

I cannot see how these people have to be misogynist, or why they would think women are objects.

Because that's part of the definition.

Look, I know where I am, and I understand a little lenience is due. But if you're not going to read what I write, don't try to engage me.

_________________
Of course, it's probably quite a bit more complicated than that.

You know sometimes, between the dames and the horses, I don't even know why I put my hat on.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

04 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm

Aaendi wrote:

Hopper wrote:

Quote:

I cannot see how these people have to be misogynist, or why they would think women are objects.

Because that's part of the definition.

Exactly. It's used in the propaganda machinery of feminism. If this was not the case, we would see a strict definition that actually included the traits and not an implicit reasoning process that is only valid for feminists themselves.

Another example when it is ok:
Bob gave a girl a compliment. Bob is an alpha guy. Bob expects the girl to have sex with him. Bob is only looking for casual sex. Because Bob is a desirable guy, it means he doesn't think women are objects. (yet, he obviously does).

Aaendi
Deinonychus

Joined: 31 Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 363

04 Sep 2016, 4:25 pm

Hopper wrote:

Aaendi wrote:

Hopper wrote:

Quote:

I cannot see how these people have to be misogynist, or why they would think women are objects.

Because that's part of the definition.

Look, I know where I am, and I understand a little lenience is due. But if you're not going to read what I write, don't try to engage me.

Oh, did you run out paragraphs to copy from your Jessica Valenti book, now that we nailed all of you're arguments?

Thought so.

wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

04 Sep 2016, 4:25 pm

Hopper wrote:

You're using the existence of Urban Dictionary to discredit/dismiss Sociology?

Of course, if we followed the monistic reductionist perspective in pursuit of a 'real' scientific understanding to help those who bring their difficulties here, we'd be offering help in the guise of equations.

Neither psychology nor sociology need to be 'real' sciences in order to do good and be helpful. It's a bit like thinking, if someone who hasn't seen a cricket match before asks what's going on, the 'real' way to explain is to break out the physics jargon.

Is neuroscience considered "real" science? Because more and more each day neuroscience is being folded into psychiatry and psychology, as well as medical/biochemical science. How much neuroscience does psychology need to include before it can start to be considered "real" or "hard" science? Is there a percentage threshold or something? :lol:

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

04 Sep 2016, 4:27 pm

Hopper wrote:

You're using the existence of Urban Dictionary to discredit/dismiss Sociology?

You don't need to revert back to physics or equations in order to be scientific. A good start is to use empirical methods, correlations, and cause-effect analysis. However, in feminism and sociology, this never happens, and it is done in the same way as the DSM. You define something in arbitrary ways, and then try to predict other variables or effects with invalid methods like you did with Nice Guys and viewing women as objects.

wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

04 Sep 2016, 4:28 pm

Aaendi wrote:

Hopper wrote:

Aaendi wrote:

Hopper wrote:

Quote:

I cannot see how these people have to be misogynist, or why they would think women are objects.

Because that's part of the definition.

Look, I know where I am, and I understand a little lenience is due. But if you're not going to read what I write, don't try to engage me.

Oh, did you run out paragraphs to copy from your Jessica Valenti book, now that we nailed all of you're arguments?

Thought so.

I don't understand this level of hostility: you are reacting angrily as if you're being personally attacked, but no one is attacking you. Maybe take a breath and go for a walk or something and return to the conversation when you can see it more clearly and without so much extraneous emotion so you can drop the unnecessary hostility?

Aaendi
Deinonychus

Joined: 31 Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 363

04 Sep 2016, 4:32 pm

How can I be angry when Hopper's posts are hilarious!

Hopper does a really good job at impersonating feminists.

Last edited by Aaendi on 04 Sep 2016, 4:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Page 5 of 6 [ 93 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Venting of a "friendzoned" AS dude Post Reply New Topic

Venting of a "friendzoned" AS dude