View Single Post
  #134  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:13 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Anybody who reads my post know that this is flatly not true. I "ignored 3 of them". No, I did not. I actually read the first paper, then wrote a paragraph responding to it. Budget Player Cadet linked to this paper, and I read the paper and then explained what the paper actually said, and how it contradicted BPC's position. Anyone can read the thread and see that this is true, so I'm sure what you're hoping to accomplish by falsely claiming that I ignored it. It is true that I didn't respond to the next two papers, but reading scientific papers takes time and I don't have an infinite amount of it.
...so you ignored two of them. Gotcha. From your "rebuttal":

Quote:
The first paper that you link to contradicts your position. It discuss "emotional inexpression" among men involved in medical interviews. It notes that some men have difficulty expressing emotions but most men do not. It discusses differing possible explanations for "normative male alexithymia" (which is basically the theory you and others have been pushing in this thread, that males don't express emotions because they been socialized to conform to a certain gender norm). The paper says that this has been theorized; it hasn't been proven. It discusses different possible explanations for why a subset of men won't express emotions, some biological and some social, without endorsing any particular one.
I haven't done a deep dive into that particular paper (because as you say reading scientific papers takes time and I don't have an infinite amount of it) but this doesn't mesh with my read of the paper at all. Can you cite the parts of the paper that you think support your read on things?

Anyone can read this thread and see that you dismissed the APA cite out-of-hand, choosing to cite alt-right propaganda to claim the APA was disseminating propaganda. It isn't an ad hominem to point that out. Your cite was utter garbage.

Quote:
I did offer an argument that the APA guidelines are propaganda, specifically quoting that the guidelines say "boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender", and noting that this is a political statement, not a scientific one. The entire document is packed with political references to privilege, patriarchy, and other unscientific notions that only the left believes in.
Regurgitating alt-right propaganda is not an argument against APA guidelines. Boys and mens, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender is not a political statement. Its a statement that very much fits the evidence. Privilege exists whether you believe it or not. There are plenty of people "on the left" who don't believe in privilege or patriarchy. Just talk to a Bernie Bro for a few minutes. You are dismissing arguments you don't like based on your perception of their political position. That isn't fucking scientific. Your entire position here is based on rank hypocrisy.