/sci/ - Science & Math

>proud feminist
>working toward "master's degree"

Why do I feel that it is NOT engineering or physics?

>>3835625

Because it's written that she's studying social science.

Bitch should have gotten a real degree.

But seriously, the current income distribution is messed up.

>>3835631
>social
>sciences

>social science
>science
>reddit

>pays $20k for a social "sciences" education at a private college
>is in debt in graduate school for social "sciences"
>makes all the worst decisions in life
>blames it on the gubmint
>wants government to solve all her personal problems

Stay classy, liberals

Should have gotten a Ph.D. in mathematics. Then she would have been paid to go to grad school, and could have 300k starting.

>>3835625

Because she's not getting paid to do it.

>>3835658
But she would be working for goldman sachs with a math degree.

>>3835647
Right, because it's scientists who nuke people and declare war.

Who gets into debt for a social science degree? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is why I'm not liberal - I can think actively and rationally about the choices I make about MY life. No one forced this bitch to go to school. She made the choice to put herself in debt.

I'll be 20k in debt after I finish my master's. Continuing through PhD probably won't get me further in debt since I'm funded.

It's a biostats degree so it'll be paid off in the first 5 years of working, max.

Trollin'.

My sister in law is a sociology major.

She now makes 100k/yr in hospital management

My friend was an English major

He now makes 75k/yr managing a lab of sci grads

Obama got a law degree

Etc.

>>3835647

female and social "sciences" logic lol

behold, /sci/ the kind of people that run countries...to the ground.

She gets herself in debt then wants to work for a nonprofit organization and then expects the government to pay it off. What the fuck America

>>3835647
that's not it at all you dumb motherfucker

>>3835690
yeah, we should all just accept the nazi party and keep our head downs and make the next generation of eugenics tools for the fascist state.

I'm sure she doesn't need a degree to do feminism activist work (what a waste of fucking time that is in itself), and she certainly doesn't need a fucking master's degree. Her own fault she's in debt, deal with it.

>>3835688

Obama was the only one decently consistent with his degree. Most law students work in manipulating/working around government.

>>3835702
>implying usa isn't already a 90% facist state

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

>>3835704
why is it a waste of time?

>>3835616
85k in debt, finishing second bachelors. lol

fml

>>3835713

What else is she going to use a feminist degree for other than feminism work

Fucking lol'd OP. +1

>>3835702

unless that's sarcasm, that is some seroius logic fail, breh.

Fixed:
> yeah, we should all just accept the Liberal/Republican party and keep our head[s] down and make [through the force of the state] the next generation of eugenics tools for the fascist state [, in which we already live in.]
> Liberal dictatorship will kill all republicans/conservatives.
> Conservative dictatorship will have you observe god, and kill dissenters.

>>3835730
what makes it a feminist degree? why is feminist activist work a waste of time?

>>3835740
Feminist=/=Women's rights activist

>>3835754
what's your point?

>>3835757
My point being feminism is a waste of time

Excuse me while I spread some /b/ in your /sci/
>>3835740
Because feminism = misandry. It's not about advancing women, it's about sticking it to men.

>>3835740
Well feminist's do society absolutely no good. Women already have equal rights, and often come out better off in divorce and custody of children cases. What the fuck are they campaigning for? An entire master's degree to go work for no money for a feminist group is absolutely a waste of time. Not to mention the fact that a master's degree in social 'science' is a waste of time no matter what you use it for.

I didn't know feminism was a thing you went to school to do.

I guess she could be a baby sitter.

>>3835616
LOOL
Debt could be worse though.

>>3835768Women already have equal rights

How's that Islam working out for ya?

>>3835779
WE SHOULD TAKE THE FEMINISTS

>>3835779
>implying she doesn't live in America

>>3835765
no it's not

>>3835767
after millennia of patriarchal oppression i think they have a point to be sticking it to men. it's not about advancement, it's about liberation.

>>3835768
they have equal rights in the eyes of the law but there is more to society than law. the point of getting a master's degree is to read deeply into the cause she wants to campaign for.

>>3835787
AND GIVE THEM TO THE ISLAMIS

>>3835787
>>3835795

You know, that may work out the same way in the end; they will all die.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-08/world/iraq.women_1_abdul-jalil-khalaf-basra-honor-killings?_s=PM:
WORLD

>>3835795

send them to the Islamis! Make them work for their degrees worth.

>>3835804
If they succeed at feminizing the Salamis, then they get to do good in the world without bothering us.
If they fail, they die for their cause, just like men do when we believe in something, and we remain unbothered.

>>3835792
You are either a terrible troll or a butthurt cumdumpster. Feminism is crap. It's for bitches who want all the rights, responsibilities, and respect of being a man, but also the perks which come with being a woman. They don't want men and women to be equal. They want matriarchal societies and cultures. Not only is that unlikely to occur naturally and impossible to create by force, but there's no reason it should exist at all either than "men have, like, run the world, and, like, stuff, since, like, forever, so womyns should do it now and it'll all be all better". It's beneath childish.

>>3835825
seriously no it's about liberation from patriarchy. you should read into it so you at least seem like you know what you are talking about.

>>3835820
>Salamis
>Patrick

Iamokaywiththis

>>3835792

>after millennia of patriarchal oppression i think they have a point to be sticking it to men.

Because all the reasonable, young, or unborn males _should_ suffer for the barbarous actions of their ancestors.

Stay classy.

>>3835842
no, the modern man still perpetuates the ideas of his ancestors. maybe it's a little too subtle for you to notice.

Student loans: social evolution at work

>>3835846
If you are such a female.
Then why aren't you a Salami?

>>3835846
You are an okay troll. However, there is still a lot of room for improvement.
4/10

>>3835846
What ancestors? My mom raised me alone, you worthless roast-beef cunt.

>>3835846
In the third world, feminism is badly needed. In the first world, men are treated quite a bit worse than women.

>>3835864
you're too stupid to be on /sci/

>>3835869
you too

>>3835871
i sincerely doubt that

>>3835846

What's a matter mad you can't compete

>BAWWWW I'M NOT TREATED EQUALLY

>BAWWW NOT I HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS BUT CAN'T MAKE IT AND A MAN'S WORLD

protip: you wanna be equal to men? Start acting like it.

>>3835846

>the modern man still perpetuates the ideas of his ancestors

Patently false. You're shitting on years of civil rights breakthroughs by women from the past hundred years. Are men barring women a say in anything, dominating them as their ancestors were? I think not. Much progress has been made so far, granted some work remains.

I see that it is not nearly as bad as it once was. To the point which you shouldn't be "sticking it" to anyone who doesn't specifically deserve it.

>>3835829
How is modern "patriarchy" keeping women down or "oppressing" them at all so as to require "liberation"? Liberation from what? Women have the upper hand in a lot of Western society's practices. How do you know once you've achieved the goals its working towards? Abolitionists won once slavery was abolished. Civil Rights people win every time a more qualified job applicant gets hired and just happens to be black (forget niggers in this discussion, they don't deserve the rights other legitimate black people earned for them anyway).

My point is, can you give anything concrete here?

>>3835616

I really don't understand how people live so far outside their means. If you can't afford to go to a private institution, then get your fucking AA at community college then transfer to a public school in-state. I don't want to hear your bitching about student loans when there is a WIDELY available EXTREMELY CHEAP alternative to private institutions.

>>3835875
Is legal to cut off bits of genitalia attached to infant females for no reason at all in the U.S., or did I miss something? But that's ok, genital mutilation is nothing next to being objectified, right?

>>3835878
i am a man you dumb motherfucker. feminism isn't about equality, it's about liberation. the clue is in the name (it's not 'equalism'). do i have to keep repeating this?

>social science
i stopped reading there

>>3835872
If you're so smart then why are you on /sci/?
>>3835897
If feminism is about equality then why is female in the name but not male? Why not just use the already existing Equal Rights movement?

>>3835897
So you want all women to break off from normal society and go live somewhere separately? Yeah, that sounds viable.

>>3835884
some work remains i.e. some ideas are still perpetuated

>>3835889
anything feminine is still viewed as having weak traits. women who have sex with multiple partners are still called sluts whereas a male counterpart is just proving his masculinity. the list goes on.

>>3835894
that's a religious practice that probably has a lot to do with patriarchy actually

>>3835908
not personally no but that is a strain of feminist thought. of course it's "crazy" though because it's such a far cry from the status quo

>>3835897

Liberation from imaginary shackles as it were. The problem you see is largely from delusion.

>>3835907
never claimed i was smart.

feminism ISN'T about equality, it's about liberation. the clue is in the name (it's not 'equalism')

>>3835924
what the fuck are you getting at? jesus christ you are retarded

>>3835924
If it's not about equality then it's about inequality.
And that's terrible.

>>3835917
>that's a religious practice that probably has a lot to do with patriarchy actually

>It's only legal to mutilate the genitalia of infant males.
>Must be patriarchy, lol.
You know, in Islam and Africa they cut pieces off of women for religious reasons. In the U.S. and Europe, that's considered barbaric, and is against the law. There's not a country on earth that has outlawed male circumcision.

>>3835923
it's really not imaginary. it's harder for men to see this because they are perpetuating these ideas without thinking about it but women are on the receiving end of this and notice it more.

>>3835917

>the modern man still perpetuates the ideas of his ancestors
>implies all ideas are perpetuated.


>i.e. some ideas are still perpetuated

Ohh so now _some_ ideas are perpetuated? Good. we're getting closer. Care to tell us specifically which ideas are faulty here?

>>3835779
Muslim's need Women's right's activists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, not feminists like Germane Greer who make bullshit outspoken statements for the sake of trying screw men over and publicity for their own inflated ego's.

>>3835935

If it were about equality then why don't feminists address the social and legal advantages women have over men?

I'll start supporting feminism when they start supporting equal rights for fathers.

>>3835917
Don't even go into that "women with multiple sex partners are sluts but men the same number are players" bullshit because it has been beaten into the dirt already.

The short version is thus: men are driven to mate to pass on their genes. This leads them to overlook many flaws in a mate just to have sex, because once she's pregnant his job is done and his line continues. Women only want to mate with the best men so the best traits are passed on, so they're picky about the men they fuck. Therefore, it is easier for a woman to have many sexual partners than a man and his action is now an achievement to be lauded.

>>3835927
idk what you're getting at either dude

>>3835930
no it's not. it's about overcoming inequality.

>>3835933
different religions in africa. there's a history of circumcision - it wasn't created solely for the purpose of removing the foreskin "just because"

>>3835935

Ohohoho.. Well thats all I need. You've clearly demonstrated that you don't know how a null hypothesis works and that you are not a scientist.

Claiming something exists that is below detection limits. Hilarious. May as well claim pink unicorns exist as well.

>>3835829
Nope. If they wan't something, women have every oppurtunity to earn it in this society. They shouldn't have to be handed opportunities and benefits over men by some feminist regime.

>>3835941
i listed some before

>>3835949
i keep saying it's about liberation and NOT equality

>>3835951
oh jesus christ no not evolutionary psychology. there's no basis in thinking women who have sex with multiple partners are lesser beings because men have the excuse of their genetics. that is the most ridiculous shit ever

>>3835953
i think you missed the point of my post dude

>>3835957
yeah that works in theory...

>>3835952
How is overcoming inequality not striving for equality?
If you think like I do that the slut/winrar discrepency of public opinion makes no sense then why not just change your opinion and accept that you don't control how the rest of the world thinks?
How do you feel about perpetuating female stereotypes of lacking basic critical thinking skills and argumentative ability by presenting obvious contradictions in what is best-case scenario a troll string of posts by an actually indifferent male poster who doesn't really care for the subject matter yet enjoys watching the already decrepit science and math board decay even further one impossible step at a time?
Whatchu know about run-on sentences?

>>3835962
>i keep saying it's about liberation and NOT equality
And yet you won't specifically say from what women are to be liberated! You keep dumping nebulous terms like "patriarchy" and "inequality". Until you can provide a real example from a specific instance of what you're talking about, you'll continue to be presumed a troll/cumdumpster.

>>3835973
well you achieve equality through liberation. it's not about legal equality anyway. the fact that you don't get this brings into question your thinking skills, actually. also i'm a man, which i mentioned before.

i haven't contradicted anything i've said.

>>3835977
i have provided examples. just read the thread dude.

And so I cry sometimes when I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out, what's in my head
And I, I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning and I step outside
And I take A deep breath and I get real high
And I scream from the top of my lungs,
What's goin' on

>>3835970

No, I think you missed the point of mine. The model I presented fits your line of reasoning flawlessly.

>Claim something exists
>Third parties cannot verify your claim
>Third parties remain under impression that nothing is wrong.
>lolno its because you can't see it!

...

Rethink it.

>>3835737
>>3835669
>>3835647

But I'm liberal, been in college for five years, just taking classes for fun, jobless, and I'm nowhere near in debt. I usually manage by getting money from my stock portfolio to pay for tuition (I wouldn't even sign up for a term if I couldn't afford it), and I sell some artworks and photographs on the side that earn me a quick $2000.

I feel sorry for people who go to school without affording it, and end up owing so much money to somebody. It's this weird mindset modern first world citizens have that a college education is the end-all-be-all for life, that's worth sacrificing your newborn child to some deity for, that you're pretty much as a good as dead without it; even though employers will tell you a college education is pretty much worthless if you still don't know how to work efficiently or have no employment experience prior to it. Even my brothers doubles masters in physics and chemistry could only get him a job at a coffee shop because he didn't bother getting work experience or social connections while in university. Same with my friend who has an aerospace engineering degree, another with a petroleum engineering degree, and my niece with an astronomy degree; no employers would take them because of the lack of work experience and social connections they had. A sad truth of modern day reality. :(

And I say hey.... hey....
I said hey, what's goin' on
And I say hey.... hey....
I said hey, what's goin' on

>>3835998
it is detectable... "but women are on the receiving end of this and notice it more."

you must have missed this

>>3835990
I'm getting sick from all this circular reasoning.
>you achieve equality through liberation
>can't be liberated until declared equal

You need to leave.

you can TA as a student in the social sciences

I just don't think they have guaranteed funding.

>>3835994

Congrats, you tricked me into actually reading through the thread. All you've said is "patriarchy" and "oppression" over and over again.

Sage, report and move on fellas.

>>3836003

And yet for some magical reason, men cannot...?

>>3836007
where did i say "can't be liberated until declared equal"?

And I try, oh my God, do I try
I try all the time in this institution
And I pray, oh my God, do I pray
I pray every single day FOR A REVOLUTION!

>>3836014
i said 'more' which implies they can. do you really not understand what i'm saying?

>>3835616
Jeez, I guess socialist revolution might actually in the US after all. I'm scared...

And so I cry sometimes when I'm lying in bed
Just to get it all out, what's in my head
And I, I am feeling a little peculiar
And so I wake in the morning and I step outside
And I take deep breath and I get real high
And I scream from the top of my lungs,
WHAT'S GOIN' ON!!

>>3836010
"anything feminine is still viewed as having weak traits. women who have sex with multiple partners are still called sluts whereas a male counterpart is just proving his masculinity. the list goes on.:

And I say hey.... hey....
I said hey, what's goin' on
And I say hey.... hey....
I said hey, what's goin' on
And I say hey.... hey....
I said hey, what's goin' on
And I say hey.... hey....
I said hey, what's goin' on

>>3836023
Bullshit, that's general cultural references. Do you have an example of a specific woman who was provably unjustly treated for no reason other than being a woman? I haven't seen one ITT.

>>3836033
that's what i'm talking about though dude.

>>3836023

>women who have sex with multiple partners are still called sluts

Funny, because I remember reading an article about how women are at the root of this. They view sex as a commodity and bargaining chip, and women who give it away freely are like scabs to a union. I can't help them from oppressing themselves.

>>3836033
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_sewing_machinists_strike_of_1968

Party thread. No feminicrap arguments allowed. Everyone is invited but you must take a shot for every argument post you make.
There will be NPH

>>3836017

Sigh. Ok you aren't getting what I'm trying to teach you, I guess I'll just say it straight out and hope that you get it.

Ever hear of the burden of proof? Thats what you have. You have to provide a convincing case to any person who is skeptical of what you claim. We see my case as well as:

>>3836007
>>3836010

That you have not provided much if any evidence for what you claim, and therefore, we weren't convinced your claim was valid. It's that simple really.

>>3836038
it's still used by men disparagingly

In fact, let's make this science related.

>>3836044
the discussion of what i've already brought up hasn't ended yet. there's no real need to move on to more examples.

>>3836051

You haven't brought up anything yet.

>>3836048
Laundry Day.
See you there.
Underthings.
Tumbling.
Wanna say.
Love your hair.
Here I go.
Mumbling.

>>3836052

see

>>3836023

>>3836054
With my freeze ray I will stop.
The world.
With my freeze ray I will find the time to find the words to-

>>3836056

That's half true. Its a package deal.

The other half is that females who have no sex are considered pure and men who have no sex are considered losers. We have losers in both extremes. Think guys all have it good? Then you haven't been on 4chan long enough

Tell you how.
How you make.
Make me feel.
What's the phrase?
Like a fool.
Kind of sick.
Special needs...
Anyway.

>>3836039
>the strike ended three weeks after it began, as a result of a deal that immediately increased their rate of pay to 8% below that of men, rising to the full category B rate the following year.

>The ultimate result was the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970, which came into force in 1975 and which did, for the first time, aim to prohibit inequality of treatment between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment.[8][2][4][9][10]

Seems like that was resolved and discrimination eliminated.

It's not a death ray or an ice beam that's all Johnny Snow.
I just think you need time to know that I'm the guy to make it real.
The feelings you don't dare to feel. I'll bend the world to our will, and we'll make time stand stiiiiiiiill.

>>3836073
Well you wanted an example of women getting treated less than men because they are women, you got an example.

That's the plan.
Rule the world.
You and me.
Anyday.
Love your hair-

>>3836078

That example is not valid for present times or even in my lifetime for that matter.

No I-I love the air.

>>3836068
that relates to patriarchy though - a woman should belong to one man. if she has sex, she is impure and thus undesirable. a man should be having sex and racking up numbers of how many women he has had sex with; objectification.

With my freezeray I will stop-

>>3836084
Then you should've asked for that in the first place instead enacting sloppy anchoring effects to front a faux argument.

>>3836089
>>3836084
>>3836078
>>3836073
>>3836068
>>3836056
>>3836052
>>3836051
>>3836047
>>3836044
All taking shots. Now.

>>3836089

I know what you are saying. What I am saying is that there is the other end of the spectrum where guys lose out or are looked down upon in a similar manner. I don't think either sex has the advantage here on the whole.

>it's not about advancement, it's about liberation.
>seriously no it's about liberation from patriarchy
>feminism ISN'T about equality, it's about liberation. the clue is in the name (it's not 'equalism')
>it's about overcoming inequality.
>i keep saying it's about liberation and NOT equality
>well you achieve equality through liberation.

>after millennia of patriarchal oppression i think they have a point to be sticking it to men.
>Because all the reasonable, young, or unborn males _should_ suffer for the barbarous actions of their ancestors.
>no, the modern man still perpetuates the ideas of his ancestors.

make up your mind

>>3836091

An argument need not be presented to you. You need to present an argument to us so that we may be convinced that you are right. Reason being the null hypothesis is that there is no injustice in how women are treated by men as a society. You need to give us a way to reject the null hypothesis or it will remain.

>burden of proof

Ugh.. you still don't get it. I guess you just don't learn too quickly.

>>3836114
You still should've made it clear you wanted an argument to be presented in a specific way, instead just vaguely asking "I would like some examples for this" and shoot it down when they didn't present it in a way you should've asked it to be. It's your fault for failing semantics. It's your fault for making a writing, or lacking knowledge of how to write an argument. It's your fault. lrn2english, you fucking Eurofag.

>>3836132

So are you going to present your argument or are we done here?

>>3836113
...the point is liberation.

Well I was going to do more Scientists/Science in fiction in order to cure this thread but the Dr. has me thinking, steampunk is science fiction.

>>3836132
>I need you to explicitly tell me I have to argue my point or you're at fault for me not automatically realizing this.

>>3836137
I already did, and so did everybody else. Well, except you that is.

>>3836146

Where is it? I don't see an argument anywhere. I see just a bunch of snappy catchwords here and there.

>>3836144

I know right? I told him a while ago that the burden of proof was on him, he doesn't get it.

>>3836143
Which makes steampunk girls /sci/'s domain!
No it doesn't but it's better than feminism threads.

>>3836160
how about reading a fucking book

>>3836173
Good idea!
I don't trust those squishy /lit/ fellows.
What is /sci/'s recommendation on steampunk literature?
My understanding is that the content came before the aesthetics.

>>3836173

>how about reading a fucking book

Gosh, that's not a very compelling argument at all!

>>3836140
it seems you said there are two goals: liberation and equality, but that they differ in significance in some way

>>3836188
burden of proof is bullshit. give evidence as to how women are treated in a just manner.

>>3836144
Well that is the general mindset if you plan to go into science.

>>3836160
And that's your fault for not bothering to look through the thread for:

>>3835917
>>3835894
>>3835804
>>3836023
>>3836039

>>3836166
I'm sorry but you don't understand what burden of proof means. You don't understand what an argument is, has the evidence you've provided here and proven. You don't understand what an argument or example is, or how to even ask for one. You don't even understand anything in this thread or board, you've just proven to lack the intellectual capability to do so, it's your fault.

>>3836166
burden of proof works both ways, dumbfuck.

>>3836191
well all humans are equal at birth but for some reason there is this thought that women are lesser people and should have their lives decided by tradition - that is to serve men. that doesn't sound like equality so feminism exists in an attempt to liberate women from this oppression. it runs deeper than changing a few laws, too.

Guise.
What if.
Okay guise.
Guise wait.
Guise.
What if I took a dog.
Ok wait.
Guise.
We make a dog.
Run on steam.

>>3836215
I respected feminism when it was about gender equality.

It's not anymore.

>>3836216
And girls too.

>>3836216
>i don't need to be told that i'm wrong
>i'm going to spend the rest of my day in a thread i don't like posting shit about steampunk
>untouchable!

>>3836222
Not sure what you're sayin' but here's a guitar.

Looks like my work is almost done here.

>>3836198

And you don't understand the power of the null hypothesis. That's ok though, nobody was born knowing what a null hypothesis is (see what I did there? didnt think so.)

But since you so kindly gathered your snippets of text, I would be right to address them.

1. On circumcision: I hope you haven't forgotten that males are circumcised routinely, arguably for no reason as well.

2. I have already addressed and completed the half-truth of sexual recognition: men who do not have sex are scorned in a similar manner. There are losers at both extremes.

3. You are quite right that many women in the middle east are oppressed and clearly not given the same rights as men. This should be remedied, but only by the hands of their own society (you know how stuff ends when outside influences meddle in such affairs). However, this is not relevant to western society in which most of us on this board live. Asserting this example would be preaching to the choir so to speak. We already agree with you on this point.

4. 1968 is hardly present time. The events of the 1968 strike indeed led to law correcting injustices to women, but it is not pertinent to present time, for which (i assume, you didn't clearly state it) you make your case.


Anything else?

>mfw women will never be equal because men are biologically superior

>>3836200

>he thinks the null hypothesis must be proven

I said.
Haaaaaaay eeey aaay eeey
Haaay eeey aaay
I said Hey.
What's goin' on?

>>3836220
No it still is, just not as much as it used to be. You can still find feminists that are about equality as well as anti-patriarchy that makes it socially acceptable to be violent against women for something like adultery (like say Islamic countries or reports you hear first world countries of where a jealous boyfriend would beat or kill his girlfriend or wife for interacting with another guy). But yes, there are a lot of "modern 'feminists'" (had to double quote that word) that are giving it a bad name and using it as a scapegoat, yet there's still feminists like the one I just explained in the previous sentence out there, they're usually older and can be viewed as "veteran feminists." In fact, I've known a "veteran" who was a professor of mathematics at my college who would not only go into discussion about violence against women, but is also easy to induce her into a rage-fueled rant about how "modern 'feminists'" are giving it a bad name and using it as scapegoat or means of asserting control via political correctness. She even hates anti-pornography feminists saying that "it's still a persons right to go into such a field if they enjoy it."

Think of it as a black guy getting pissed at black gangs for fitting the stereotype.

>>3836242
they're not scorned in a similar manner. to not be a loser a man can have sex. there's no way for a woman to become pure again after having sex.

Maybe I should bohemian raphsody.

>>3836242
>1968 is hardly present time. The events of the 1968 strike indeed led to law correcting injustices to women, but it is not pertinent to present time, for which (i assume, you didn't clearly state it) you make your case.
like the two other people said before, you should've made it clear you wanted a modern example in the first place.

>>3836253
no, but those who claim for burden of proof also have to provide some themselves

One of my favorites.

>>3836265
> there's no way for a woman to become pure again after having sex.
I think you're overselling the "slut" thing.

You know the "slut" shaming thing is pushed by women on other women, right? They are trying to socially harm each other in their competition for men. Men also compete for women and harm each other to do so - just not in the same way.

Decided to start splitting up my folder as I go.

>>3836276
yes but it is still used disparagingly by men to denote a woman's lack of worth.

>>3835996
LSD spiked waters are seeping through our veins.

>>3836284
Men don't use "slut" nearly as much as "bitch". "Slut" as used by men is generally reserved for actually describing sexual promiscuity and/or unfaithfulness, not just as an epithet.

Women use "slut" a WHOLE lot more than men do, and chiefly as an epithet.

>>3836265

Interesting point. One is a reversible effect, the other is non-reversible. However, there are ways to mask a women's purity that are currently implimented (Ex: hymen repair surgery). Additionally, women can redeem their appearance by simply decreasing sexual activity, basically to the point where they are nearly considered to be "pure" once again. Combine the two, and society cannot tell the difference.

Assuming societal norms and appearances are the operating variables in your argument (I assume they are), then there really isn't a distinct advantage either way.

Still, its not as easy for guys to "simply have sex"
Some guys either don't have the time, dont care, are afraid, or would rather not lose his virginity to a prostitute, perhaps some combination of the said reasons.

>>3836305
Men don't actually look for a woman to bleed when they have sex anymore, do they?

>>3836306
(cont)
For the first time in the relationship, I mean. Surely men don't expect every woman to be a virgin.

I respect women but I'll never respect feminists.

>>3836298
it's oppressive when men use it though because it's not about competition. men using the term 'bitch' is the same - it's a term specifically feminine used to denote something undesirable.

Is this the real life?

>>3836306

Not so much in western society. In middle eastern cultures, more likely.

>>3836215
all people's lives are determined by the past

Is this just fantasy?

>>3836295
what da fuck man.

>>3836315
>men using the term 'bitch' is the same - it's a term specifically feminine used to denote something undesirable.
Sure. Are you saying that the existence of gender-based epithets at all is the issue?

Men and women are different, and they will complain to each other about the other gender when things don't go well. There is no getting around this.

>>3836305
so a woman has to undergo surgery or suppress human sexual urges in order to be seen as desirable? that's a little insane.

Caught in a landslide.

No escape from reality.

>>3836306
Well it's a good way to know that you're her first, and that you're conquering something.

Even as a guy, I never got the whole "durr hurr I popped her cherry" thing. I would freak out if I got someones blood on me, especially my junk. And I'm uncomfortable with taking a girls virginity. Women put so much emotional attachment to sex that they can remember it vividly, especially they're first. So every little thing you do during her first time, every fuck up or anything awkward and uncomfortable, all of it? She's going to fucking remember it for life. No thanks.

Open your eyes.
Look up the the skies and seeeeeeee

>no, but those who claim for burden of proof also have to provide some themselves

When they discuss evidence, yes. By default, no. The null hypothesis requires no proof by definition. It's function is that of the default conclusion - that which you cannot reject unless you have evidence to convince yourself otherwise.

>>3836328
the general acceptance of female-based epithets into common speech to denote something undesirable is the problem. i don't think there is a male equivalent of this.

>>3836329

About as insane as forcing sexual activity and risking health to do the same.

I'm just a poor boy.
I need no sympathy.

>>3836340
>i don't think there is a male equivalent of this.
You have a point. However, I'll bring up my previous point - women are keeping the terms alive far more than even men do. Women can be fucking brutal to each other when it comes to epithets and gossip.

Because I'm easy come.

>>3836338
>The null hypothesis requires no proof by definition.
So what? If you demand proof, we expect to provide some yourself, otherwise you're just ad homing everybody that disagrees with your view.

Easy go.

>>3836338
>that which you cannot reject unless you have evidence to convince yourself otherwise
that's pretty much why you have to provide proof or examples yourself if you want it from the other person's argument

>>3836340
Yes there is. "Bastard", for one.

>>3836350

Once again, once we have some evidence to discuss, then counter-proofs can be presented. Else, the null hypothesis is not rejected, and requires no proof.

Little high.

Too fucking easy.

LITTLE HIGH.

>>3835635

My two words: fuck you.

Little low.

>>3836350

Its not an attack on a person of one cannot accept his viewpoint.

>>3836364
New guy ITT. Failure to reject the null hypothesis is not quite the same as "proving" and/or supporting the null hypothesis. You need to reverse the null hypothesis and test again if you want to support something.

Anyway the wind blows,

>>3836364
I agree, but we do have evidence in this thread to discuss, and have had it for some time now, so now we need evidence from the other party, but they're not presenting it and are just making straw-men, specifying for certain evidence when they shouldn't have made vague semantics for in the first place, so the ones that have provided the proof have pretty much won the argument. As far as I can tell, any evidence to discredit or disprove the examples and arguments that have been provided probably don't even exist, and the opposing faction is just making shit up to pass for an argument.

>>3836340
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dick
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prick
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cock

>>3836373

I'm trying to teach him/them that. They don't understand.

They are asserting an alternate hypothesis and demand proof for the null.

>>3836373
Ugh... fail-knowledge people here... 'scuse me, just back from pub.... but "To know that X is to know that NOT P where P implies not X".

Doesn't really matter to me.

>>3836372
actually since they are refusing to provide proof or citations against the argument, it pretty much is an attempt to discredit the other person rather than proving him wrong.

>>3836379

Did this cover it? Or was something missed?

>>3836242

Mama.
Just killed a man.

Put a gun up to his head, pulled the trigger now he's dead.

>>3836390
It's just an argument with no proof or evidence, just trying to discredit and attack the people making the argument and the argument itself. As said before, evidence for the quoted arguments probably doesn't even exist and people here are just making shit up.

>>3836384
You're right that failing to reject the null hypothesis does and should increase belief in the null hypothesis. But it's not the same level of evidence as passing a statistical significance test, is it?

Is failing to find a link between X and Y the same as successfully rejecting "there is a link between X and Y" with a given confidence level?

>>3836402

It addresses line by line the problems brought up by the other person. One of which is in agreement. None of them flatly dismisses but rather demonstrates that the claims are not sound.

>>3836415
That's fine, but that's just attacking the argument and the makers of it, it's just criticizing rather than an argument in this thread's since. And until some evidence is provided against the criticized to make it an argument, what he posted literally is meaningless, word-for-word meaningless, and I feel sorry for those who duped into wasting their time arguing against it.

>>3836434

Last time I checked, attacking the validity and/or soundness of an argument is fair game.

>>3836447
Yeah, but as mentioned before, it was also asking for proof and evidence that was always provided, so the next logical route would be to provide some against it, otherwise it's just a waste of time and it's more criticism than any argument.

>>3836283
ROFL

>>3836455

So his criticism wasn't valid? Specifically how so?

I see that he disagrees with you. surely you have more of a reason than that to say that his criticism wasn't valid.

>>3836471
We already went over this probably six times now, it was a demand for proof, somebody pointed it that it was already provided, kept demanding it without providing it's one, therefore it's not a valid argument until said proof is provided. As this thread has stated, the burden is them now, so the criticism is just attacking an argument that had already won for some time at this point.

>>3836480

>had already won

I think the point of his criticism was to show that they haven't won.

Also, he doesn't have to provide proof for a null hypothesis. He could simply not be convinced that you were right, that you didn't provide a compelling enough case that he could reject the null.

Remember when space?

>>3836505
;_;

>>3836480

Just in case you, yourself aren't convinced of the null hypothesis' validity, here's some reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

>>3836491
>>3836491
>I think the point of his criticism was to show that they haven't won.
Well until he's provided proof and citations for it, he's completely wrong. And the fact that he and everyone else just refuse to provide counter evidence for the claims and evidence just convinces me that it doesn't even exist at all, and it's just making shit up to support a lost argument.

>He could simply not be convinced that you were right, that you didn't provide a compelling enough case that he could reject the null.
Well that's his fault for not being able to intellectually understand it and being able to prove and argue for. It's completely his fault for this.

It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, one fails to reject the null hypothesis).

Just so we're all on the same page here.

I remember a bat.

Who dreamt of the stars.

>>3836515
>The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data.
That mean it only applies to sciences, not political and social arguments. And like science, you also have to provide counter evidence, not tautologies or semantics unless you can back them. In fact from reading this wikipedia article, the null hypothesis has nothing to do with this thread, and is just misusing science and scientific terminology to front an argument that's out of place for it.

>>3836523
(cont)
And I'm quoting from
>>3836515

>>3836517

Well until he's provided proof and citations for it, he's completely wrong.

Argumentum ad authoritatum and bare assertion. Both are fallacies. You have to do better than that.

Also, you only provided two citations: one was agreed with and the other was a. not chronologically relevant and b. resolved by law.

Who was swept from this world.

Whose wings and dreams became rockets beneath him as the sky opened up to reveal its mysteries.

>>3836531
>That mean it only applies to sciences, not political and social arguments.
Fuck me. If you think politics and socioeconomics are immune to empirical tests, then there's not point arguing.

>>3836531

>That mean it only applies to sciences, not political and social arguments.

So you concede that your argument is not scientific?

Good.

That will be all.

Now get the hell out of our board and take this off topic shit elsewhere. Or can you not read the title of this board?

11/10 troll. You are so good you don't even realize it.

>>3836544
>>3836549
Good. Cease this meaningless blabber and remember the important things /sci/.

>>3836535
And until counter evidence is provided, those citations and arguments pretty much won and have been proven right. Might as well, counter evidence doesn't even exist in the first place, just fallacies.

>>3836544
They aren't, that only belongs to the sciences, that's what makes science science, and any attempt to bring empiricism into something else is just a failed attempt at bringing intellectual validity towards it. It would be like saying psychology is a science, or even political science is a science, or that homeopathy is valid, all just purely wrong.

>>3836549
None of the arguments here are science, we've pretty much abandoned that once this thread descended into feminism and other social issues. But at least some people were able to provide proof and evidence, however sketchy, for their arguments, so they're pretty much right by far. But that's often the disappointment of reality, the good stuff or whatever seems more logical can also be non-existent.

>>3836563
Fuck you. Politics and socioeconomics SHOULD be studied scientifically.

By your argument, we'd never study astronomy because astrology was already around and "not science".

>>3836565

Yeah, no kidding. It was my naive hope that I could bring this bullshit into the realm of science where it could be discussed rationally. What a fool I was.

>>3836563
Astronomy and astrology virtually have nothing to do with each other, just poor wording. One is empirical and has data, the other is superstition, which is about as opposite from science as religion.

>Politics and socioeconomics SHOULD be studied scientifically.
They shouldn't, there's no empirical way to measure whether socialism is more oppressive than capitalism, or that republicanism has different levels of morality and ethics than democratism. There's no way to measure it scientifically, and it shouldn't, otherwise just any meaningless banter can be scientific.

>>3836569
That's your fault, not ours.

>>3836575
>They shouldn't, there's no empirical way to measure whether socialism is more oppressive than capitalism, or that republicanism has different levels of morality and ethics than democratism. There's no way to measure it scientifically, and it shouldn't, otherwise just any meaningless banter can be scientific.
Fuck you, it CAN be studied.

Nothing that can be influenced and observed is beyond the realm of science.

>>3836578
Then how can you empirically study that communism results in oppression and death? Can you take bits out of a communist brain and see it under a microscopic and see anything oppressive or deathly that can be attributed to the ideology? Can you see it in the cosmos that communism is an oppressive and dangerous regime? Can you even physically touch ideologies? No? Then it's not fucking science and can never be studied scientifically. And don't provide that social science bullshit, they aren't science, nor are any soft sciences science. They're more closer to superstition than rationality.

>>3836588
>Then how can you empirically study that communism results in oppression and death?
We've done it multiple times, and it has directly caused oppression and death each time. This isn't hard.

> Can you take bits out of a communist brain and see it under a microscopic and see anything oppressive or deathly that can be attributed to the ideology? Can you see it in the cosmos that communism is an oppressive and dangerous regime? Can you even physically touch ideologies? No? Then it's not fucking science and can never be studied scientifically.
You're so stupid it hurts.

We try communism. It fails miserably each time. Maybe we should stop from doing the same fucking thing again.

>>3836597
But you keep misunderstanding that correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did, that's not scientific since you can hard-fully observe and study such a phenomenon. Some things just aren't meant to be studied scientifically, but at least there's people who study it regardless and manged to get results and answers, but not science.

>>3836605
>you keep misunderstanding that correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation is all we have. In ANY science. You don't know what "correlation does not imply causation" means.

good god you guys are worse than /b/ at ignoring obvious trolls/ retards who ask for counter proof to their proof, but instead of continuing to bring evidence to finish the argument/ destroy the opposition, they argue about how the other guy didn't respect a norm of "hurr i give you you give me one at a time"
the only guy who's been doing it right is the guy posting steampunk
today i hate you, /sci/

>>3836617
No, YOU don't know what it means because your provided a half-assed argument and example that has nothing to do with scientific observation, just general observation.

>>3836597
communism has never existed

>>3836626
>nothing to do with scientific observation, just general observation.
What. Observation is observation.

And I know exactly what I'm talking about with correlation. The law of gravity is nothing more than a correlation that has held every time we've checked it.

>>3836666
Every time communism is implemented, it becomes a dictatorship (because that is the natural stable state for it to attain), and then communists shout "lol that time didn't count".

Stop it.

>>3836671
communism is a stateless society. every instance of 'communism' implemented in real life has kept the state, thus it is 'communism' in name only. if you have actually read anything about communism at all you would know this.

>>3836681
*whooosh*

NEARLY all instances of communism have gone downhill. Long term, stable communism is impossible in large groups with any chance of long term success because otherwise equallity cannot be maintained through social pressure. instead, the government has to step in to enforce, and in every case, the second a communist movement centralizes a government, it fails.

The largest, working version (and yes, you can debate the term working) was probably the Paris commune, which actually lasted over a YEAR without collapsing. of course, it had only a city full of people to govern, so the centralization pressures were lessened.

point is, communism is a failure when it comes to large scale government AND anything involving industrialization. Bottom-line, communism is not the right fit for any but the smallest countries.

>>3836668
No, a scientific observation is an empirical that can be studied and proven, like under a microscope or something like measuring brain waves or something. A general observation is a simple observations, that's it, not science.

>>3836687
>>3836681
>>3836671
Still not science nor can be studied scientifically. Political science or social sciences aren't real sciences.

>>3836682
nope

Christ you fags are fags.
r
Thanks He-Man/Steam Punk/Bohemian Rhapsody guy.

>>3836687
I agree with this.

However, even small-scale doesn't work without the right social forces. They tried it briefly in Jamestown, but people didn't work enough without personally reaping the rewards of their labors, at least partially.

I don't know if this is the best source about it, but I found one.
http://davidxjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/03/socialism-in-early-colonial-america.html

>>3836691
>A general observation is a simple observations, that's it, not science.
All observations are empirical. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

>>3836694
"True" "stateless" communism would just become a dictatorship again. You can choose what system to implement, but not the kind of people you put into it.

>>3836706
No they are not, and cannot be proven as such. If they were, then they would be science. But politics and social issues cannot be studied studied scientifically, so it's not an empirical observation, otherwise just anyone can do science, which is something we should not allow if we are to preserve science.

>>3836713
You're assuming your conclusion, and using it as an argument.

No.

I'm starting to think you don't even understand what science is.

>>3836713
>otherwise just anyone can do science, which is something we should not allow if we are to preserve science.
What the fuck am I reading.

>>3836710
>dictatorship
>without a state

>>3836723
"become" usually implies a change, bro.

>>3836725
why would it just become a dictatorship?

>>3836716
Then it would just be an ad hominem, and makes it more obvious the person making such a claim doesn't science himself.

Science: Physics, astronomy, chemistry, neurology, medicine, etc.

Not science: psychology, sociology, politics, social issues, fairy tales, superstition, homeopathy, philosophy, anything the general public can comprehend, etc.

>>3836730
Game theory.

>>3836732
You are still. Assuming. Your. Conclusion.

>>3836738
explain.

>>3836742
No, it is a fact. A complete, and utter fact. That is all it is, and other dissenting argument is actually just assuming the conclusion, they are the only ones doing that. Much like the idiots that demand counter proof against their shitty arguments and fake citations.

>>3836732

If general laymen correctly uses scientific method, he is doing science. Stop being elitist.

>>3836744
Not that guy, but look at it this way.

Say no one is in control or exerting any social, political, or economic power. By using what power I have to exert control and gain more power, I can get more of what I want. As soon as someone starts doing so, it snowballs.

Throw humans into a stateless society, and you'll have a state soon enough. And in disordered transitions far from a social equilibrium, a dictatorship is a very strong attractor (it seems).

>>3836745
>my conclusion is a fact
I already said you were assuming your conclusion, bro. Twice.

I'm calling troll.

>>3836755
Layman have been a threat for science over a millennia. When you have just any idiot doing science, it loses credibility and authenticity, and is no better than religion or any other superstition. Even Einstein is still guilty of this, and has remain a traitor his work ever since.

>>3836765
.........

what.

>>3836764
You only think it's an assumption, and you're wrong in every way like those fucks in this thread who tried to provide pro-feminist citations. Both of you deserve a brutal execution for your threats to science.

>>3836768
>say you defend science
>call for execution of those who disagree with your dogmatic assertions
I laughed

>>3836775
Well often defense requires somebody to die, like defending yourself from an invading country, you're going to have to kill a few invaders.

>>3836778
>defense of science requires somebody to die
No.

>>3836761
you'd have to convince people that their equally shared power is better in your hands and it would be better for you to exert power over them in a hierarchical structure rather than a free and classless society.

>>3836768
you don't even know what science is.

>>3836809
You don't have to convince everyone to vote for you to become a dictator. Just enough cronies with guns to keep everyone else in line, and you make them Party members.

Though it can certainly be done the democratic way - Hitler did.

So what's going with this "I'm the 99%" crap? Why am I seeing this everywhere?

>>3836824
Apparently it's a anti-wallstreet protest movement.

>>3836820
they will always be a minority in a society that probably has guns of its own. the point of communism was to overthrow the minority that held the majority of power. if it succeeds then there is very little chance a powerful minority will ever establish itself again.

>>3836818
No, you don't even know what science is, and you're projecting it on everyone else. You are a threat to science, and should be expunged.

>>3836808
Defense of anything can require somebody to die. Especially if it's something of importance and value as science.

>>3836827
> if it succeeds then there is very little chance a powerful minority will ever establish itself again.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this follows.

I agree that an armed society is harder to seize by coup than a disarmed one. But again, it can be done by social means as well. Communism has always been tied to cults of personality, for some reason.

>>3836835
0/10

You had a good run.

>>3836835
no, you don't know what science is.

>>3836840
We've already proven that I know what science is, you just don't and only think you did. Such plebeians like you deserve execution.

>>3836845
how did you prove it?

>>3836849
You're feeding a troll.

>>3836849
By explaining that true sciences are physics, neurology, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, etc. And that psychology, sociology, homeopathy, superstition, mainstream sciences, and philosophy are not. You've only proven to know nothing of either.

>Getting a degree and masters if you want to work for a non-profit feminist group
fullretard.
May as well spend your money on hookers and blackjack instead

>>3836855
you're just listing sciences but not actually explaining how they are or aren't science.

>>3836873
Still feeding a troll, bro.

>>3836873
No they are explanations, you just don't know what it is.