Oh man the absolute salt. well i assume that when everyone just resorts to namecalling that i at least made a dent into their stubborn heads. >last century ideas >live in a very small village man you two realy seem to think im from some kind of podunk village, not because of my views but because you seem to assume that this tactic has any effect on me.
Judging by your arguments ive been on the internet longer than both of you. Ive witnessed the tail end of the atheism versus religion proto culutre-war and im well aware that when you start comparing your adversary to someone from a previous century or a small village (man, dont you people love stereotyping others? pot, kettle..) youve realized youve got nothing to add in the field of argumentation.
you just revealed your own biases and arrogance about your position. Im not subscribing to your framework.
>Yes, there is a crisis of masculinity today, in post-feminism society, because we have discovered that the way we used to think man should be, that ain't shit
Speaking of revealing your biases. I think you dont even KNOW what we "used to" think a man should be. Is Stoicism bad? Are you in favor or against stoicism in the face of crisis? Given the current situation thats an interresting thought. What abotu self saccrficie? is that good? or bad? Because from your previous posts im somehow thinking that what you equate to "masculine behaviour" is not the "prescribed masculine behaviour" that one can attribute to the past at all, but rather juvenile male behaviour.
>Tbh feminist theory AND evolunionary psychology are both pseudoscience.
One of them is an academic field, one of them is an ideology. One of them engages with its critics, one of them doesnt. Evolutionary Psychology can predict outcomes, feminist theory can not. Which is a pretty good indicator wether or not a hypothesis is any good or not. And before you ask me about sources, look up the Scandinavian experiment regarding career choice and upbringing in which it was hypothesized that upbringing alone dictated what careeers you were interrested in. In the end the study concluded that males were still more interrested in "thing" related fields such as mathematics and engineering.
Not to mention that evolutionary psychology is NOT a fully "Nature" aligned field in the nature vs nurture hypothesis.
>Yes, I have never studied it, just like Sordak. The difference, I won't name drop a field of study I am not familiar with just to support my argument.
Say i hypothesize that if i drop an object, it will fall down. Am i namedropping physics? I mean i have studied some physcis in my chemistry major, but at the end of the day im not a physcis major, or a maths major. I know how Hartree-Fock calculations work, i still probably wont be any help explaining the Schrödingers equation to you mathematically.
Am i just namedropping? Your logic isnt working out. You can use something without having studied it. Ive read papers on it and articles by people who have studied it, that seems to be sufficient for making an argument on a video games website.
