Florida Yoga Studio Shooter Identified As InCel

[Liriena]

Can't speak for situations of severe injury, but we do know that in maritime disasters men are the ones who, in most cases, have done a terrible job of saving women and children.

I might have just read your post really wrong, but the whole "Women and children first!" was an actual thing.

The source I provided in another post: http://m.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/33/13220.full.pdf

The Titanic was, in fact, an outlier. "Women and children first" has never been an actual, widespread policy.

[Balican]

I might have just read your post really wrong, but the whole "Women and children first!" was an actual thing.

(Image)

The source I provided in another post: http://m.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/33/13220.full.pdf

The Titanic was, in fact, an outlier. "Women and children first" has never been an actual, widespread policy.

I'm way too exhausted to read through all of that and compose an intelligible response. I'll be back tomorrow if I have any qualms.

[Ostroeuropa]

I might have just read your post really wrong, but the whole "Women and children first!" was an actual thing.

(Image)

The source I provided in another post: http://m.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/33/13220.full.pdf

The Titanic was, in fact, an outlier. "Women and children first" has never been an actual, widespread policy.

If the social narrative in a situation suggests that the women should sit and wait for a man to save them and suggests to a man that nobody is going to save him except himself as well as reinforces the notion that the women will be saved by other men, this is precisely what you'd expect to happen when the chips are down.

That's a separate matter from men being valued less than women and womens lives being considered more important by society, it's merely an example of how that fails to always be put into practice and how the narrative is self-defeating in its goals sometimes.

This view is reinforced by the captain and crew behaving similarly and to a greater degree despite the obligations on them. I'd say you can't realiably use this data to counter the point that womens lives are more valued than mens in maritime disasters, nor in general. It's more evidence that you can't expect most people to value their own lives less than other peoples no matter how much you expect it of them.

[Liriena]

The source I provided in another post: http://m.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/33/13220.full.pdf

The Titanic was, in fact, an outlier. "Women and children first" has never been an actual, widespread policy.

If the social narrative in a situation suggests that the women should sit and wait for a man to save them and suggests to a man that nobody is going to save him except himself as well as reinforces the notion that the women will be saved by other men, this is precisely what you'd expect to happen when the chips are down.

That's a separate matter from men being valued less than women and womens lives being considered more important by society, it's merely an example of how that fails to always be put into practice and how the narrative is self-defeating in its goals sometimes.

This view is reinforced by the captain and crew behaving similarly and to a greater degree despite the obligations on them. I'd say you can't realiably use this data to counter the point that womens lives are more valued than mens in maritime disasters, nor in general.

Man this is some tortured logic.

[Ostroeuropa]

If the social narrative in a situation suggests that the women should sit and wait for a man to save them and suggests to a man that nobody is going to save him except himself as well as reinforces the notion that the women will be saved by other men, this is precisely what you'd expect to happen when the chips are down.

That's a separate matter from men being valued less than women and womens lives being considered more important by society, it's merely an example of how that fails to always be put into practice and how the narrative is self-defeating in its goals sometimes.

This view is reinforced by the captain and crew behaving similarly and to a greater degree despite the obligations on them. I'd say you can't realiably use this data to counter the point that womens lives are more valued than mens in maritime disasters, nor in general.

Man this is some tortured logic.

That's not particularly tortured logic, it seems a relatively straightforward interpretation of why you can't use this data to assert the thing you're trying to. I'd say your response is unfairly dismissive and doesn't actually address the point.

It's not evidence that WCF isn't a widespread policy, it's possible that it is policy, but it's akin to the war-on-drugs in terms of efficacy. We already know about things like the bystander effect and how it impacts crisis situations. ("Someone else will deal with it.").

Imagine the impact of the bystander effect where the bystanders are under the impression someone else is dealing with it.

[Costa Fierro]

LMAO you think I'm an incel. Turns out if you try and explain why people do things, you must be one of them.

You've previously said you were one.

When was that?

[Liriena]

It's not evidence that WCF isn't a widespread policy, it's possible that it is policy, but it's akin to the war-on-drugs in terms of efficacy.

Incredibly shitty analogy, because we know for a fact that the war-on-drugs is working as originally intended (it's disproportionately affecting people of color, who were Nixon's main targets). Meanwhile, the alleged "WFC" policy only seems to have explicitly being invoked twice, and elsewhere there is no sign of it in text, subtext or practice.

If you have to butcher Ockham's razor and fuck your own argument over with a (to put it mildly) clumsy analogy to preserve a foundational myth of the notion of "muh male disposability", then maybe you need to at least give up on the myth.

[Liriena]

relatively straightforward interpretation

"Women and children were disadvantaged in all but two maritime disasters, but 'women and children first' was totally a real guiding principle and it's just that everybody else fucked up and the misandry ended up hurting women the most by accident."

That's not a straightforward interpretation. That's dollar-store theodicy.

[Len Hyet]

It's not evidence that WCF isn't a widespread policy, it's possible that it is policy, but it's akin to the war-on-drugs in terms of efficacy.

Incredibly shitty analogy, because we know for a fact that the war-on-drugs is working as originally intended (it's disproportionately affecting people of color, who were Nixon's main targets). Meanwhile, the alleged "WFC" policy only seems to have explicitly being invoked twice, and elsewhere there is no sign of it in text, subtext or practice.

If you have to butcher Ockham's razor and fuck your own argument over with a (to put it mildly) clumsy analogy to preserve a foundational myth of the notion of "muh male disposability", then maybe you need to at least give up on the myth.

Objection, N=18 is an insufficiently large sample to draw sweeping conclusions about the population in question, which more than likely numbers in the hundreds if not thousands.

[Liriena]

Incredibly shitty analogy, because we know for a fact that the war-on-drugs is working as originally intended (it's disproportionately affecting people of color, who were Nixon's main targets). Meanwhile, the alleged "WFC" policy only seems to have explicitly being invoked twice, and elsewhere there is no sign of it in text, subtext or practice.

If you have to butcher Ockham's razor and fuck your own argument over with a (to put it mildly) clumsy analogy to preserve a foundational myth of the notion of "muh male disposability", then maybe you need to at least give up on the myth.

Objection, N=18 is an insufficiently large sample to draw sweeping conclusions about the population in question, which more than likely numbers in the hundreds if not thousands.

A fair objection.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not evidence that WCF isn't a widespread policy, it's possible that it is policy, but it's akin to the war-on-drugs in terms of efficacy.

Incredibly shitty analogy, because we know for a fact that the war-on-drugs is working as originally intended (it's disproportionately affecting people of color, who were Nixon's main targets). Meanwhile, the alleged "WFC" policy only seems to have explicitly being invoked twice, and elsewhere there is no sign of it in text, subtext or practice.

If you have to butcher Ockham's razor and fuck your own argument over with a (to put it mildly) clumsy analogy to preserve a foundational myth of the notion of "muh male disposability", then maybe you need to at least give up on the myth.

I did consider noting that about the drug war but I thought you would be able to control yourself and acknowledge the point rather than dodge it and deliberately refuse to understand what i'm saying, apparently wrongly. So how about Prohibition then.

It's not butchering occams razor to point out your data isn't inconsistent with male disposability. It's also not a foundational myth, it's an observation. Further I wouldn't necessarily need to deal with this data because this data is not modern data and we're chiefly concerned with modern dynamics post-feminism. You rarely see MRAs make the WCF-maritime point for a reason, it's the kind of thing entry level anti-feminists use.

We already know about things like the bystander effect and how it impacts crisis situations. ("Someone else will deal with it.").
Imagine the impact of the bystander effect where the bystanders are under the impression someone else is dealing with it.
Add on top of that the women not placing as much impetus on saving themselves because they believe someone else will, and it adequately explains the data.

You've still not actually done anything to address this argument, you're just dismissing it out of hand and snarling tbh.

relatively straightforward interpretation

"Women and children were disadvantaged in all but two maritime disasters, but 'women and children first' was totally a real guiding principle and it's just that everybody else fucked up and the misandry ended up hurting women the most by accident."

That's not a straightforward interpretation. That's dollar-store theodicy.

Dollar store theodicy. I'll remember that next time I see feminists try to explain misogyny is secretly the cause of a mens issue. The problem is, we have actual measurable evidence of in-group bias in women not present in men, people viewing women more positively than men, and so on. So, you know. it kind of only works one way, and its the way the data points. Yes Lir. Misandry hurts women too. (Example, women victims of women abusers and so on.).

Again, you've done nothing to actually deal with the criticism of your attempted use of this data and explain why it isn't possible.

[Galloism]

It is in Florida, where this occurred.

It's seldom enforced as far as I see.

We used to pick people up for it. We even had undercover officers who dressed as prostitutes to catch Johns.

Looking back on it, I now say the law is unjust (and doesn't benefit either prostitutes, Johns, or the general public), but that's what happened and no doubt continues to happen.

[Liriena]

you're just dismissing it out of hand and snarling tbh.

Forgive me for not treating your unsourced assertions, circular logic and self-defeating examples with the respect they clearly earned by virtue of being spoken with great eloquence.

Also, tone policing is lame.

[Bombadil]

Just on the whole review your standards thing, in checking out that study I cited earlier..

When men message women, women tend to respond most often to men around their own ages. But when women message men, they’re actually more likely to get a response from younger men than they are from older ones. A 40-year-old woman will have better luck messaging a 25-year-old man than a 55-year-old one, according to the data. And a 30-year-old man is more likely to respond to a message from a 50-year-old woman than a message from any other age group. When women make the first move, the age gap dating norm is reversed.

A 40-year-old woman will have better luck messaging a 25-year-old man (60% reply rate) than she would a 55-year-old one (36% reply rate).

So maybe approach some older ladies people, happy cougar hunting.

[Len Hyet]

Just on the whole review your standards thing, in checking out that study I cited earlier..

When men message women, women tend to respond most often to men around their own ages. But when women message men, they’re actually more likely to get a response from younger men than they are from older ones.

Huh, damn that is almost exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.

Was this broken down by age group?

[Ostroeuropa]

you're just dismissing it out of hand and snarling tbh.

Forgive me for not treating your unsourced assertions, circular logic and self-defeating examples with the respect they clearly earned by virtue of being spoken with great eloquence.

Also, tone policing is lame.

They're explanations of why the data might not prove what you're saying it proves. That's how science is done. You're throwing out a bunch of snarl words that don't actually apply in this situation. I'm not claiming its true, merely that it is possible.

[Liriena]

Dollar store theodicy. I'll remember that next time I see feminists try to explain misogyny is secretly the cause of a mens issue.

Is it sad or funny that I was fully expecting that exact sort of sentence?

Just on the whole review your standards thing, in checking out that study I cited earlier..

When men message women, women tend to respond most often to men around their own ages. But when women message men, they’re actually more likely to get a response from younger men than they are from older ones. A 40-year-old woman will have better luck messaging a 25-year-old man than a 55-year-old one, according to the data. And a 30-year-old man is more likely to respond to a message from a 50-year-old woman than a message from any other age group. When women make the first move, the age gap dating norm is reversed.

A 40-year-old woman will have better luck messaging a 25-year-old man (60% reply rate) than she would a 55-year-old one (36% reply rate).

So maybe approach some older ladies people, happy cougar hunting.

I mean, we're already living in a time when "Daddies" are considered attractive, so we might as well show "Mommies" some love too?

[Galloism]

Just on the whole review your standards thing, in checking out that study I cited earlier..

When men message women, women tend to respond most often to men around their own ages. But when women message men, they’re actually more likely to get a response from younger men than they are from older ones. A 40-year-old woman will have better luck messaging a 25-year-old man than a 55-year-old one, according to the data. And a 30-year-old man is more likely to respond to a message from a 50-year-old woman than a message from any other age group. When women make the first move, the age gap dating norm is reversed.

A 40-year-old woman will have better luck messaging a 25-year-old man (60% reply rate) than she would a 55-year-old one (36% reply rate).

So maybe approach some older ladies people, happy cougar hunting.

I'll admit, that does surprise me.

[Bombadil]

Just on the whole review your standards thing, in checking out that study I cited earlier..

When men message women, women tend to respond most often to men around their own ages. But when women message men, they’re actually more likely to get a response from younger men than they are from older ones.

Huh, damn that is almost exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.

Was this broken down by age group?

Here.. https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-w ... 43a2ca5178

Part of the problem is that men most often make the first move and they always tend to go younger, just part of expectations I guess.

From that same data extract the actual problem is there's a whole lot of racism in dating. Try being a black female.

[Fartsniffage]

Just on the whole review your standards thing, in checking out that study I cited earlier..

When men message women, women tend to respond most often to men around their own ages. But when women message men, they’re actually more likely to get a response from younger men than they are from older ones.

Huh, damn that is almost exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.

Was this broken down by age group?

I'm after a sugar mama.....

[Len Hyet]

Huh, damn that is almost exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.

Was this broken down by age group?

Here.. https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-w ... 43a2ca5178

Part of the problem is that men most often make the first move and they always tend to go younger, just part of expectations I guess.

From that same data extract the actual problem is there's a whole lot of racism in dating. Try being a black female.

Men start 80% of conversations on OkCupid, and they tend to message younger women. The older men get, the younger the women they message (relative to their own age).

Ahh, there's what I expected to see.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've dated an older woman. It did not go well. Currently dating a younger one, it's going well. The age has little to do with it. The older one was less mature than the current one by several orders of magnitude.

[Liriena]

Forgive me for not treating your unsourced assertions, circular logic and self-defeating examples with the respect they clearly earned by virtue of being spoken with great eloquence.

Also, tone policing is lame.

They're explanations of why the data might not prove what you're saying it proves. That's how science is done. You're throwing out a bunch of snarl words that don't actually apply in this situation. I'm not claiming its true, merely that it is possible.

Ok, gotcha. You are just arguing for the possibility, and you are doing so purely in the interest of objectivity and science.

By the way, I'm still waiting on this:

There's the study showing around 2/3rds of women will refuse to consider a man who has even experimented with other men. For men the amount is far lower and they're more tolerant of women experimenting. There's also the studies on women having a warped view of what "Normal" attractiveness is, men grade women on a bell curve and women grade 80% of men as below average.

We also have the stats on women initiating the majority of divorces and so on (though here i'll concede that's partially due to the deck being stacked heavily in their favor by feminists.).

I think it's not a stretch to conclude that if there is anti-virgin sentiment, it's something more prevalent in women, especially given the typical narratives surrounding virgins in our society.

Disregarding the fact that your gish-galloping has nothing to do with Foryis' original point and you're basically projectile vomiting random facts in the service of a vaguely anti-feminist argument (again)... you could at least actually cite these studies.

[Fartsniffage]

I've dated an older woman. It did not go well. Currently dating a younger one, it's going well. The age has little to do with it. The older one was less mature than the current one by several orders of magnitude.

When I was 21 I was dating a 35 year old Finnish woman who thought she was a white witch, all while living in Greece. Shit was intense....

[Bombadil]

Here.. https://theblog.okcupid.com/undressed-w ... 43a2ca5178

Part of the problem is that men most often make the first move and they always tend to go younger, just part of expectations I guess.

From that same data extract the actual problem is there's a whole lot of racism in dating. Try being a black female.

Men start 80% of conversations on OkCupid, and they tend to message younger women. The older men get, the younger the women they message (relative to their own age).

Ahh, there's what I expected to see.

Well hence I spoke of expectations and standards, men tend to go after younger girls.. there's another study where they're simply asked to assess attractiveness, men top out at picking 22 years at the top of the age range whereas women go much higher.. but if men got over that and widened their approach they might have better success.