- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 7,441
- Reaction score
- 338
Still doesn't explain women using those props in situations where sexual availability is irrelevant.Proximal vs ultimate explanation.
Still doesn't explain women using those props in situations where sexual availability is irrelevant.Proximal vs ultimate explanation.
Still doesn't explain women using those props in situations where sexual availability is irrelevant.
I didn't get offended, but you certainly seem to feel that way. Also the way this exchange went wasn't much different than the one with the previous poster, it's just that you have soft skin.
btw, I couldn't care less about whether people draw inspiration from him. His self-help work is nothing to be amazed at, but I have no qualms about it. It's whatever. It's when he starts yapping about the postmodern cultural Marxist ***NOT JEWISH AT ALL*** conspiracy that I think he sounds like an idiot. Also the same people who feel inspired about his "clean your room" schtick end up taking those words to heart which just spawns more idiocy.
Listen to his long form interviews with Rogan, Rubin and Gad Saad. Only 10 hours or so of audio.Please show me a source for this assertion, because I have seen no indication that this is true.
Obviously the 2nd. High heels and some carefully applied makeup do make a woman more enticing.There are two separate arguments here. First one is why are high heels and red lipstick sexually arousing to men. Evo psych explanation is pretty good here, I think. High heels create a pelvic position that females make when they are available for mating, and red lipstick simulates sexual arousal.
The other part is why women use these props. Proximate explanation is that it makes them feel good. It's intrinsically rewarding. But the real question is why they evolved such a mechanism. It's simple, it increaces the chance to be selected and to pass down their genes.
Which of these 2 arguments you find problematic?
Or, since you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide evidence for it.Listen to his long form interviews with Rogan, Rubin and Gad Saad. Only 10 hours or so of audio.
Yeah, I'm out. The evidence is in those interviews I said you should listen to.Or, since you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide evidence for it.
Bill Maher is a leftist shill who isnt loyal to america and Jordan Peterson is an opportunistic canadian trying to benifit off of Trumps wave.
Obviously the 2nd. High heels and some carefully applied makeup do make a woman more enticing.
Now, for women "evolving" a mechanism: that's ludicrous. I'm not even against the idea that those props became standard exactly because then enhance certain characteristics. That's a fine argument to make. It's when people start saying that women in general use them with that in mind (or even in some deep deep evolutionary urge) that they stop making sense. I repeat: when a girl buys high heels and wears them the next day, it's not some deep-rooted mating call. It's downright confusing how people will have long arguments about how human beings reason and their thinking process, then look at a woman with red lipstick and say "nah it's not that she likes the color, or it goes well with her skin and/or clothes... deep down, bitch is dtf."
Also, context matters. Peterson brought it up directly after being asked about sexual harassment in the work place. Not a single word about that, let's jump straight to high heels and makeup, out of the fucking blue. Then saying that doesn't mean women invite innapropriate sexual advances nor that it should be prohibited... ok, so why would anyone bring it up in the first place? It's like you argue that a cop was unjustified in shooting an unarmed black male. I say black males comit a disproportionate ammount of crimes. But I'm NOT saying the shooting was right. I'm just "saying." Tehehe.
That's a tactic Peterson shares with people in this forum. They'll bring up all sorts of arguments, stats, news, whatever... all in support of what can only be one point. And then they refuse to make that point because they know how they would be seen in return. Plausible deniability and all.
I do find it worrying though that universities are pretty much solely liberal institutions without a conservative viewpoint but I think it's simply a matter of like-minded people hiring more like-minded people. It's still a bad way to go. I'm not easily offended but I also don't like being misrepresented.
Liberal views are great.When will people start to realize that education inherently lends itself to a more liberal view of the world?
I don't know much about Bill Maher, but that's a very odd characterization of Jordan Peterson. I'd call myself a fan of his--I've watched probably 50+ hours of his videos--but I've only ever heard him talk about Trump once or twice(for a total of about 5 minutes), aside from the Bill Maher appearance. And even then, only when he was directly asked.Bill Maher is a leftist shill who isnt loyal to america and Jordan Peterson is an opportunistic canadian trying to benifit off of Trumps wave.
Obviously the 2nd. High heels and some carefully applied makeup do make a woman more enticing.
Now, for women "evolving" a mechanism: that's ludicrous. I'm not even against the idea that those props became standard exactly because then enhance certain characteristics. That's a fine argument to make. It's when people start saying that women in general use them with that in mind (or even in some deep deep evolutionary urge) that they stop making sense. I repeat: when a girl buys high heels and wears them the next day, it's not some deep-rooted mating call. It's downright confusing how people will have long arguments about how human beings reason and their thinking process, then look at a woman with red lipstick and say "nah it's not that she likes the color, or it goes well with her skin and/or clothes... deep down, bitch is dtf."
Also, context matters. Peterson brought it up directly after being asked about sexual harassment in the work place. Not a single word about that, let's jump straight to high heels and makeup, out of the fucking blue. Then saying that doesn't mean women invite innapropriate sexual advances nor that it should be prohibited... ok, so why would anyone bring it up in the first place? It's like you argue that a cop was unjustified in shooting an unarmed black male. I say black males comit a disproportionate ammount of crimes. But I'm NOT saying the shooting was right. I'm just "saying." Tehehe.
That's a tactic Peterson shares with people in this forum. They'll bring up all sorts of arguments, stats, news, whatever... all in support of what can only be one point. And then they refuse to make that point because they know how they would be seen in return. Plausible deniability and all.
You see, I've gotten a lot of this over the course of this thread. "Oh you don't understand him, that's where your criticism comes from". The fact that he communicates in such a simple manner (in fact one of my criticisms is that at times he's overly reductionist in attempts to find a "bazinga") is precisely what allows people to criticize him. "You don't understand him" followed by nothing is tantamount to "well you're wrong" and I don't take it seriously. This is kind of an emotional aspect of discussion in this place, people will weave together lazy rebutals and then get frustrated when you don't magically come around to their side.Looking through your criticisms of Peterson, I don't think you're actually understanding what he's ever said. And he communicates pretty simple messages in pretty simple language.
You should feel pretty bad.
Also, Lol @ you sounding like a neanderthal in that earlier post where your disagreement with established and sound biological theory causes you to call Peterson a neanderthal.