AlekNovy

Apparently if its just sex, it doesn’t count gay. The reason I found this story interesting is because I think its starting to become a trend in western society from some things I’ve seen. Its becoming increasingly common for guys to go gay for “just the sex”. Maybe that “anglobitch” guy was right. Maybe guys are turning gay because of the difficulty involved in getting sexual with women.

FOXNews.com – Afghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds

In one instance, a group of local male interpreters had contracted gonorrhea anally but refused to believe they could have contracted it sexually — “because they were not homosexuals.”

Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot “love” another man — but that doesn’t mean they can’t use men for “sexual gratification.”

John Barban has this nice list of Logical Fallacies. I should make my own too…

Logical Fallacies | JohnBarban.com

1. Ad hominem

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter a claim or conclusion made by someone else by attacking the person rather than addressing the argument itself.

Example: Joe says you need to eat less calories to lose weight, but what does Joe know, he’s skinny and never lost weight before.

2. Ad ignorantiam

This is also called the argument from ignorance and the basic premise is that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.

Example I could argue that small undetectable pollutants floating around in the air are causing obesity, but we can’t prove it.

3. Argument from authority

Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Although it is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials.

Example: Stating something is true because “my doctor says so”.

This doesn’t mean they are always correct and furthermore it doesn’t mean they have any authority to make claims outside of their specific area of expertise.

The truth of a claim should always come back to logic and evidence and not merely the supposed authority of the person promoting it. Credentials and expertise are an indication of the tools needed for a person to be qualified to gather the needed evidence in a given area to make a truly informed claim. For example, I might think I know whats wrong with my car when there is a rattle coming from under the hood, but my mechanic has the credentials and expertise to investigate the rattle and determine what it is for certain. He may not know the answer just by hearing my story about the rattle at first, but he can employ is expertise and education to discover what it is.

4. Argument from Personal Incredulity

I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. It is not a valid argument to assume something is not true simply because you personally don’t understand it.

Example: Not believing that antibiotics can help get rid of an infection simply because you don’t understand how an antibiotic works in your system, and therefore because you don’t understand how an antibiotic works it must not be possible and not work at all.

5. Confusing association with causation

This is the assumption that because two events are correlated that one must have caused the other.

Example: Many women who are fit and go to the gym regularly wear lululemon pants, therefore lululemon pants make you fit and go to the gym.

6. Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable

Assuming that any phenomenon that is currently unexplained is by nature unexplainable. This is a very limited way of thinking. Science is always uncovering new insight and information and most unexplained phenomenon will eventually be explained with enough investigation.

Example: We currently cannot explain with 100% certainty why some people gain weight easier than others, and therefore we will never know.

As with any scientific field of research we are always investigating and finding more information. Just because we don’t have the full answer today does not mean we will not find the answer tomorrow.

7. False Continuum

The idea that because there is no obvious and definitive difference between two extremes that there is no difference between them at all.

Example: Claiming that all carbohydrates are ‘bad’ for you and assuming that white refined sugar can be classified the same as the ’sugar’ you get from a fruit or vegetable.

8. False Dichotomy

Erroneously and arbitrarily reducing many possibilities down to only two.

Example: if high sugar foods can contribute to health problems we must never eat sugar at all.

It is clearly possible to avoid health problems and still eat some amount of sugar.

9. Non-Sequitur

In Latin this term translates to “doesn’t follow”. This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

Example: Eating too much fat is bad for you and therefore any foods that contain fat are not meant to be consumed by humans.

10. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy follows the basic format of: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related.

Example: You had pizza for dinner last night and woke up with a headache today, therefore the pizza must have caused the headache.

11. Reductio ad absurdum

In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion.

Example: If carbohydrates are bad for us (as the low carb people would say) then that means all fruits and vegetables must also be bad for us and therefore we should never eat any of them.

12. Slippery Slope

This logical fallacy is the argument that a position is not consistent or tenable because accepting the position means that the extreme of the position must also be accepted. But moderate positions do not necessarily lead down the slippery slope to the extreme.

Example: Eating less sugar cannot be the correct answer for weight loss because that would mean we would have to change the fundamental way we process food, shop for food, subsidies crops, cook all baked goods, and could never eat at a restaurant ever again.

13. Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning

This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize (and one of my biggest pet peeves). In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid.
A good example of this is the ad-hoc dismissal of negative test results.

Example: You may claim that you can lift more weight than me, and we test your claim and determine that you in fact cannot life more weight than mean. At this point you begin with a series of excuses why on the particular day of the test you weren’t wearing the right shoes, and the weights weren’t calibrated correctly, and it wasn’t the correct humidity in the room etc…these are all arguments from special pleading in order for you to maintain your claim that you are still in fact stronger than me even though we have completed a test which proved otherwise

14. Straw Man

Arguing against a position or claim which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than arguing against the real position and claim held by those who oppose your point.

Example: I may state that weight training will make your muscles stronger, and you may argue back that everyone who goes to a gym won’t get stronger. In this case you would have replaced my statement about ‘weight training’ with ‘everyone who goes to a gym’. Clearly people go to the gym for all different kinds or workouts, and many of them do not do weight training at all.

15. Tautology

Tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B. It may not be immediately apparent when this fallacy is being used because of the way the argument is stated.

Example: Eating too much sugar makes you fat, therefore if you’re fat you must have eaten too much sugar.

16. The Moving Goalpost

A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for “proof” or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists.

Example: You say that a study of 100 people showed that exercises 3 times per week for 1 hour did not help people lose weight, and then I say “there weren’t enough people in the study, if they studied 1 million people it would show a different result”

It is easy to move the goal posts on any argument to make a claim seem false or to maintain support for a false claim.

17. Tu quoque

Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”

Example: Someone sells you a placebo sugar pill and tells you it can help with weight loss, and when challenged on this practice they point out that other pills don’t do anything either.

18. Unstated Major Premise

This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated.

Example: Stating that we should label food that is low in fat because many americans are overweight. The unstated major premise is that 1) Simply labeling foods as low fat foods can help reduce the rate of overweight americans 2) That being overweight is unhealthy 3) That eating high fat foods themselves are a contributing cause to overweight.

I’ve always thought those women whining about how there’s a shortage of men are just mostly in whine mode, but apparently there’s some truth to it… Coz here’s what I found out today…

How many gay people are there in the world? Rough estimate? | Answerbag

The Indiana University Kinsey Reports stated 10% of males being more or less exclusively homosexual and 2% to 6% of females being more or less exclusively homosexual.

So… there’s more men who won’t get in a relationship with women, then there are women who won’t get into a relationship with a man… Now add onto this all the emasculated men of today who are shy or afraid to be sexually expressive around women… And it really does seem (from a woman’s perspective) like there’s 2 women competing for every 1 guy.

The funniest part of this equation is the shy, emasculated men. Women today are literally BLIND to these men. They can literally be in a room with 10 guys and 10 women… where 2 of the guys are flashy loud-mouths, 3 are generally cool, social confident guys… and the other 5 are nice guys… And those women can actually look you in the eye and claim there were twice as many women as there were men.

Now, don’t project your assumptions on my argument above, this isn’t a “nice guy rant”, I’ve never been one. This isn’t a “rant” on why don’t women give nice-guys a chance. I genuinelly don’t think that’s even something to discuss. You can’t mandate whom one person gives a chance to. The point is this, they’re literally BLIND to these people.

The part that I protest against is… when generalizing the male gender, and making statements like “there are no men left” the average woman doesn’t take into account half the male population… Or if she’s a feminist, she goes a step further, and doesn’t take into account 80% of the male gender, and uses the word “men” to generalize about those 2 loud-mouth macho guys.

Men and Women Really Do Think Differently | LiveScience

Psychology professor Richard Haier of the University of California, Irvine led the research along with colleagues from the University of New Mexico. Their findings show that in general, men have nearly 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence compared with women, whereas women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence compared to men.

Men and Women Really Do Think Differently | LiveScience

This research also gives insight to why different types of head injuries are more disastrous to one sex or the other. For example, in women 84 percent of gray matter regions and 86 percent of white matter regions involved in intellectual performance were located in the frontal lobes, whereas the percentages of these regions in a man’s frontal lobes are 45 percent and zero, respectively. This matches up well with clinical data that shows frontal lobe damage in women to be much more destructive than the same type of damage in men.

Apparently women are pickier when it comes to choosing men… than men when choosing women, lol. Well we always knew this, but this is just another nail in the coffin for the deniers who’d rather not admit any difference:

Symmetrical People Make Better Dancers | LiveScience

Women are pickier

Interestingly, the male preference for symmetric females was not as strong as that of the female preference for symmetric males. This seems to confirm the theory that women are pickier when selecting a mate, since they bear most of the burden of raising a child, the researchers say.

But what this study really is about is how we are hard-wired to be attracted to someone by the way they dance, and apparently more attractive (symmetrical) people dance better, so even when its just their silhouettes, their dancing is preferred than of the less attractive.

Symmetrical People Make Better Dancers | LiveScience

Women watching the recordings preferred the dances of men who were more symmetrical, while men were more impressed by the dances of more symmetric females.

I’ve no doubtely noticed this quite a few times – women do seem to fear rejection more. I especially have noticed how they rationalize away males-being-rejected… I always wondered why those feminists will try to trivialize male-rejection… and then go into a diatribe on “passive rejection”, saying stuff like “women often are rejected by seeing a guy checking out a more attractive woman” ===> WHAT!?!? You’re comparing that to being told “fuck you ugly scam, how dare you ask me out”… I always thought its just crazy feminists who think women are more important, therefore let’s not care about males being rejected and over-focus on females’ rejection.

Well, there might be some reason to it that’s more deeper rooted. It is possible that women do fear and hate rejection more than men, even in much subtler forms.

Why Do So Many Women Experience the “Imposter Syndrome”? | Psychology Today

This may be why women have been evolutionarily designed to fear rejection and disapproval much more than men do.

A nice overview on humans and their monogamy, also introducing this interesting thing called social monogamy.

LiveScience.com: Life’s Little Mysteries – Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous?

Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

“I don’t think we are a monogamous animal,” said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. “A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed.”

She added, “Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it’s ‘natural.’”

No, not really, but apparently how women smell changes depending on the part of the month they’re in, and men detect this change subconciously (obviously resulting in appropriate horniness).

When a Woman Smells Best | LiveScience

The scent of a woman is more attractive at certain times of the month, suggests a new study that had men sniffing women’s armpit odor.

An amazing find. One of my favorite authors ever, Satoshi Kanazawa has this piece explaining the morallistic and naturalistic fallacies. They explain the irrational behaviour of both extreme leftists (marxists, feminists, political correctness crowd) and extreme rightists (super conservative religious nuts, people who like to go back to the 18th century rules)…

In short, here’s what the two fallacies are:

Two logical fallacies that we must avoid | Psychology Today

The naturalistic fallacy, which was coined by the English philosopher George Edward Moore in the early 20th century though first identified much earlier by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the leap from is to ought – that is, the tendency to believe that what is natural is good; that what is, ought to be. For example, one might commit the error of the naturalist fallacy and say, “Because people are genetically different and endowed with different innate abilities and talents, they ought to be treated differently.”

The moralistic fallacy, coined by the Harvard microbiologist Bernard Davis in the 1970s, is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. It refers to the leap from ought to is, the claim that the way things should be is the way they are. This is the tendency to believe that what is good is natural; that what ought to be, is. For example, one might commit the error of the moralistic fallacy and say, “Because everybody ought to be treated equally, there are no innate genetic differences between people.” The science writer extraordinaire Matt Ridley calls it the reverse naturalistic fallacy.

And here’s a practical example I like:

Both are logical fallacies, and they get in the way of progress in science in general, and in evolutionary psychology in particular. However, as Ridley astutely points out, political conservatives are more likely to commit the naturalistic fallacy (“Nature designed men to be competitive and women to be nurturing, so women ought to stay home to take care of the children and leave politics to men”), while political liberals are equally likely to commit the moralistic fallacy (“The Western liberal democratic principles hold that men and women ought to be treated equally under the law, and therefore men and women are biologically identical and any study that demonstrates otherwise is a priori false”).

Since academics, and social scientists in particular, are overwhelmingly left-wing liberals, the moralistic fallacy has been a much greater problem in academic discussions of evolutionary psychology than the naturalistic fallacy. Most academics are above committing the naturalistic fallacy, but they are not above committing the moralistic fallacy. The social scientists’ stubborn refusal to accept sex and race differences in behavior, temperament, and cognitive abilities, and their tendency to be blind to the empirical reality of stereotypes, reflect their moralistic fallacy driven by their liberal political convictions.