metafour

Verified Member
  • Content count

    5,152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

metafour last won the day on September 19 2016

metafour had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

447 Sterling

About metafour

  • Rank
    ALPHA & OMEGA

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. The scientific consensus is most definitely on his side; I've seen it all before and well outside Wikipedia (the fact that they use this as some sort of proof of debunking is hilarious). First of all; the fact that "many social scientists are skeptical" in the conclusions made by biologists is irrelevant, as social science is a largely BS field which has long determined that biology can't have any significant impact in anything, when the actual empirical data suggests the exact opposite. They did a whole documentary on this in Norway (one of the most "progressively socialist" nations in the world) which led to mass cutbacks in the funding of their "social science" led government think-tanks on the grounds of spreading BS and misinformation. Everything that this guy refers to is covered in this documentary ("Hjernevask" ) and you can see real scientists and psychologists confirm it if you wish. The documentary asks a simple question: if Norway (and the neighboring Scandinavian nations) are the most "gender-equal" nations in the world (which they are), then why do these nations feature among the most extreme representations of gender-specific employment in the world (ie: nurses are overwhelmingly female, engineers are overwhelmingly male)? The real-world results are the complete opposite of what forced "gender equality" would make you believe. The answer is simple: the two biggest factors which determine your choice in profession are biology and environment; if you subsequently eliminate the environmental aspect (which is what they did in Norway) then you allow the biological factor to flourish as there is no counterbalance. Therefore when you give the sexes COMPLETE freedom to choose, you end up with a ton of female nurses and a ton of male engineers, even though these same females have had it piped into their heads since birth that they are free to be scientists, they choose not to be. Ironically, where do you see the greatest representation of females in engineering, computer science, etc? In nations like India and China which aren't the least bit socially progressive, in fact, they are completely primitive by Western standards of "equality". Why? Because the poverty level of these nations gives a financial incentive for these females to go into these fields, because they pay more and thus there is a greater ability to provide for one's family in a society that features much higher gaps between the poor and the rich. This is the environmental factor overriding biology. Actual scientists have found measurable gender differences in children as young as infancy, long before "learned behavior" can ever make any impact (which is the entire crux of social scientists; that gender differences are ALL learned behavior). The bias in your second article from the "evolutionary biologist" is evident immediately from the numerous references to "alt-right" and "racism". You can watch a 45 minute interview with the guy who wrote the memo on Stefan Molyneux's Youtube channel; its evident immediately that he is about as "alt-right" and chauvinistic as Hillary Clinton is. To conclude that his memo had anything to do with politics or misogyny is an immediate admission that one completely misinterpreted his viewpoints or even the purpose of his memo. There are even responses debunking your evolutionary biologist right on your same page; including this one which goes over several suggestions: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
  2. Pedophilia is next, just wait. Since we've now concluded that apparently children as young as ~2-4 can determine what their gender is or isn't, the next step is to conclude that children can also choose who they are romantically tied to. You people don't understand the slippery-slope; all these things that seem like "nothing to worry about" at first glance are cogs in an ever-evolving agenda. Just ask yourself, how did we go from debating the validity of gay marriage to 4 year olds getting sent to "transgender camp" in the span of a ~decade? What seemed like a joke a decade ago is considered to be normal today.
  3. Everything that he said was completely logical and backed by psychological and biological academia. The fact that his memo was edited multiple times (sources ripped out, graphs of data removed) before being unleashed on the masses is proof that it simply made too much sense; you can't let logic get in the way of your agenda. Finding his actual FULL "manifesto" is difficult, and there is a reason for that. Of course, the irony in it all is that basically everything he said was confirmed by the subsequent actions that took place, all the way down to the women at Google who didn't show up to work because they were so emotionally traumatized by this guy's completely logical and unassuming manifesto.
  4. First Lady Fights Back

    I'm going to hurt your feelings, but women are by and large psychologically attracted to being dominated, hence why rape fantasies are shockingly common and why regardless of race/culture/time period/etc. the female attraction towards scoundrels, criminals, and "bad boys" over passive "nice guys" is well documented. You can wave your girl-power flag all you want, but you can't run from ingrained human behavior. Go look up the statistics for orgasm rates among actual rape victims, they are pretty wild. Better yet, care to explain the astronomical success of trash like 50 Shades of Grey? They didn't sell a couple hundred million copies of that series because its well written, I can tell you that much. What a woman "prefers" and what she subconsciously "wants" are two entirely different things.
  5. Europe Becoming Accustomed to Extremists?

    Sadiq Khan has quite a few interesting connections to groups that supported Hamas and other extremist organizations, on top of Muslim Brotherhood connections which got him elected in the first place. Whether or not he supports terrorism isn't up to me to decide, but he certainly isn't doing a whole lot to "fight terrorism" in his city. They've apprehended more people for "hate speech" on Twitter/Facebook following these attacks than they have known radicals who openly walk the streets, because everyone knows that mean words on the internet are more dangerous than people who are just itching to commit murder. 15 years ago this man fought to try to overturn the U.K's ban on known extremist Louis Farrakhan and yet today he's trying to ban Trump from making a state visit. Talk about double standards.
  6. Woody Barrett Transferring

    Frazier just wasn't very good. At some point the player can either play or he can't, regardless of what the situation is like. The ida that he would have been a star QB had the stars aligned differently is a joke: a star QB wouldn't look like crap even under a less than favorable situation. Jay Cutler had absolutely zero support on those crap Vanderbilt teams he played on and he still excelled.
  7. No. 5'7 is too short to bother with at CB. Who exactly is he going to replace to "provide depth"?
  8. Trump terrorism

    Why? You are completely irrational in this discussion. The reason why Islam is brought up with regards to violent crimes committed by Arabs is because there is absolutely relevance to the correlation. Just like there is relevance to the fact that the vast majority of serial killers are white: when they were chasing the DC Snipers they blew months of searching because the police were running under the pretense that the shooter was likely white, why this pretense? Because statistically serial-killings are almost always committed by white males. When a middle-eastern subject commits a violent crime, the story is almost always the same: "he was a regular guy, then he started spending all his time at the Mosque, then he started dressing entirely in traditional clothing and grew a beard". All the Western-born radicals who go from nice middle-class boys to joining ISIS in Syria/Iraq/etc. are converted in Mosques, they aren't converted in some non-existent "Terrorist Clubs" or "Muslim Superiority Rallies". In this case, religion absolutely becomes relevant to the discussion. The reason why religion isn't brought up when a white male commits a murder is because there is virtually no proof that religious fanaticism is ever the cause, not because there is some "white supremacist" double standard at play.
  9. Jabrill Peppers fail drug test (diluted)

    Its obviously not the reason. You think as multi-billion dollar industry can't afford to hire a few med-techs to draw blood?
  10. Reuben Foster Wonderlick Score

    This isn't taken as seriously by NFL teams as people think so a lot of these guys barely even try. Either way, it really doesn't matter for most positions. A few of the positions actually show negative-correlation: Corners for instance saw impact players by and large actually score lower on the test. Yeah, Reuben Foster isn't really smart. Most of these guys aren't smart.
  11. Best Signs in the March for Science

    "Look at my thick-rimmed glasses, I'm such a nerd/science enthusiast!!!"
  12. Best Signs in the March for Science

    I already told you that I'm well aware that Tyson has some qualifications; the claim was never that he was some guy that they just plucked off the streets, it was that he was a D-list scientist that all these progressive nerds (like the ones you see in the "Science March" pictures) vaunted up as some sort of Christ-like figure, when in reality Tyson is barely a blip in his own field (let alone even worth a soundbite in fields he has no clue about). Being a science popularizer is great; the problem arises when a science popularizer starts trying to overstep their boundaries which is exactly what you see constantly with frauds like Tyson and Nye who attempt to influence politics instead of doing the only thing they are even elevated to do: make people interested in science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is no different than someone like Bobby Flay: he's a created and mass-produced product. You want to watch Bobby Flay and get inspiration to become a chef? Great, no problem here. I'm going to have a problem however if Bobby Flay starts telling me what you can and can't do culinarily, or if he starts pretending to be an expert in the ethnic or regional cuisines that he doesn't belong to. Like I said: the problem with these new-age "Church of Science" fanatics is that they don't even understand the first rules of scientific theory; and its perpetuated by their heroes like Tyson and Nye who seem to want to shut down scientific discussion and who's own scientific stances are blatantly driven by politics. That isn't science.
  13. Best Signs in the March for Science

    Yup. The first rule of science is to question everything. That means that you try to disprove your own theory, because in effect if it passes that test you are actually strengthening said theory. If you've heard clowns like Bill Nye talk, they want to SILENCE all discussion. Congratulations Bill: you are no longer even in the realm of science anymore. Dude should go back to teaching elementary school kids about the periodic table instead of whoring his perception as "the science guy" for monetary profit. When it comes to something as obviously controversial and unsettled as climate change, to pretend like a discussion doesn't even need to be had is not only absurd, but frightening. If the conclusions were as obviously iron-clad as you're led to believe, why are they constantly finding these think-tanks to be fudging if not entirely making up data? I love the "Religion of Science" followers who stoop down to claim that this is all "big business" trying to shut climate change down for profit when they can't even open their own eyes and see that the whole climate change field has become a ~billion dollar industry itself. Yes, corporations want less regulations. However don't be naive and turn your head to the fact that there is now a LOT of money to be made by people who are going to tell you that they need millions of dollars or else we're all going to be swimming in ~10-15 years LOL.
  14. Best Signs in the March for Science

    Maybe you should do the research. I've done the research. Tyson's academic past is spotty at best. He was denied his PhD at Texas, as apparently his professors encouraged him to "consider alternate careers" (a nice way of saying that his thesis was garbage). Tyson of course blamed racism, even though he admitted he was playing in bands and not focusing anywhere near enough on his research. He eventually got his PhD from Columbia. He's written barely any scientific papers, with none being noteworthy...ie: his actual scientific accomplishments are virtually nonexistent. His career blew up as he was anointed the successor to Carl Sagan, which is a joke at best considering that Sagan wrote some 600 academic papers and actually had clout within the scientific community. The reality is that Tyson would be a virtual nobody in the scientific community if he weren't a hip-talking black man. Michio Kaku (who is an actual physicist and 100x more qualified than Tyson) has been a "science popularizer" as long as Tyson has, the reason why its Tyson sitting atop the throne is because its not as "socially progressive" to parade around a Japanese scientist like it is to parade around a black scientist. I'm not telling you that Tyson isn't "smart" or that he has no qualification; I'm telling you that it is beyond ridiculous to anoint him as some unquestionable force in all things science when in fact his scientific achievements are more or less nonexistent. He's been caught bullshitting a stupid amount of times; most of it gets swept under the rug. Nevertheless the new breed of progressives who subscribe to the "Church of Science" vault him up as a Christ-like figure and lap up everything that comes out of his mouth as fact. That is the irony behind all this: you people can't even see that this new "rise of Popular Science" looks eerily comparable to the religious fanaticism that you s*** on constantly. You mock the "stupid religious man" for showing unquestioned faith in Christ/Mohammed/etc. yet hold fraudsters like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye in the same regard regardless of what they actually know or have any expertise in. If you can't see that these two are nothing more than political pawns then I don't know what to say. Go take a look at Bill Nye's new "science" show on Netflix if you want an example: its nothing more than a parade for every predictable Liberal SJW movement of today...but they're going to use the fact that its Bill Nye ("a scientist") to give it the credibility it lacks. Don't try to paint me with some anti-science bull**** label. I'm a huge fan of science and have been interested in physics for a long time. You are beyond blind if you believe that there isn't corruption in science. Even the "peer review" system which is supposed to act as a checking-system is subject to huge bias: just ask any scientist who tries to buck the status-quo and is immediately shut down by the majority pillars of what is considered to be "acceptable science".