Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Are you woke enough?


Rob_Zepp

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

so if i can't give you proof of gravity, does that mean gravity does not exist or it invalidates the empirical observation of gravity ?!?

The objective, empirical differences between men and women's choices in life exist. Too bad your ideology is not in congruence with the empirical evidence. 

Except you can give me proof of gravity. You can’t give me proof of what you’re claiming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said:

It’s societal. Take the western world for example, it’s a relatively recent shift that the acceptable jobs for a women, before she got married mind you, have moved beyond nurse, secretary, teacher, etc. 

 

You say it’s nature, I say nurture. Unless you can back up yours with hard science, I’m going to continue to not believe women are hardwired to do certain work.  

Give us evidence that it is societal. 
Explain to us, how women gravitate towards some jobs more than men ( and vice versa) in ALL societies known to man, if its all 'societal' ? Unless you are a creationist, believing in the 'divine hand' argument, there is no rational basis on conclusion of ALL cultures aligning on this - thousands of them- if it was 'societal'. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

Except you can give me proof of gravity. You can’t give me proof of what you’re claiming.

Before proof of gravity existed, aka prior to Issac Newton, did it invalidate the empirical evidence of gravity ?

I will give you one RIGHT now, in 2019 : the universe has far bigger mass than can be accounted by observation. We observe a certain amount of mass ( lets say X), all the math shows us that the actual mass is 100x. We have no explanation currently towards the excess mass in universe ( dark matter, dark energy, etc are theories, not proven facts, to address this). So does this mass imbalance exist or not, since we cannot explain the phenomena of it ???

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Before proof of gravity existed, aka prior to Issac Newton, did it invalidate the empirical evidence of gravity ?

I will give you one RIGHT now, in 2019 : the universe has far bigger mass than can be accounted by observation. We observe a certain amount of mass ( lets say X), all the math shows us that the actual mass is 100x. We have no explanation currently towards the excess mass in universe ( dark matter, dark energy, etc are theories, not proven facts, to address this). So does this mass imbalance exist or not, since we cannot explain the phenomena of it ???

 

How the hell should I know? What does that have to do with anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

How the hell should I know? What does that have to do with anything?

Because thats your argument : objective, observable phenomena is irrelevant, if we cannot give the scientific explanation for it. 
We are in the exact same boat re: physics today. The gravitational observations tell us that there is approximately hundred times the mass of objects we have observed, in our own galaxy too. Ie, our galaxy has 100x the mass than what we can account for. No physics theory explain it. So does that mass imbalance exist or not, since we cannot explain  the reasoning behind it ?


Its PRECISELY the same deal with men and women gravitating towards different jobs - the empirical evidence ( like the missing mass of the galaxy), exists. The scientific mechanism for it ( just like with the missing mass), does not exist. 

 

Not to mention, you've conviniently side-stepped the whole question of justifying YOUR POV that its nurture. I have already explained why its nature over nurture: it exists in ALL societies, regardless of culture, ergo, its not a culture/nurture thing. Only rational explanation to 'nurture but linear results' in all society, is the divine guiding hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Because thats your argument : objective, observable phenomena is irrelevant, if we cannot give the scientific explanation for it. 
We are in the exact same boat re: physics today. The gravitational observations tell us that there is approximately hundred times the mass of objects we have observed, in our own galaxy too. Ie, our galaxy has 100x the mass than what we can account for. No physics theory explain it. So does that mass imbalance exist or not, since we cannot explain  the reasoning behind it ?


Its PRECISELY the same deal with men and women gravitating towards different jobs - the empirical evidence ( like the missing mass of the galaxy), exists. The scientific mechanism for it ( just like with the missing mass), does not exist. 

 

Not to mention, you've conviniently side-stepped the whole question of justifying YOUR POV that its nurture. I have already explained why its nature over nurture: it exists in ALL societies, regardless of culture, ergo, its not a culture/nurture thing. Only rational explanation to 'nurture but linear results' in all society, is the divine guiding hand. 

You’re the one who made the claim about brain chemistry, I’m asking for proof. I gave my opinion and cited historical precedent

 

This aside into physics is completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

You’re the one who made the claim about brain chemistry, I’m asking for proof.

I said the difference is nature, which can only be due to brain chemistry.

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I gave my opinion and cited historical precedent

You cited no such thing as historical precedent. You simply ignored history of mankind in pronouncing your view- namely that in EVERY SINGLE CULTURE there is the noted difference. This is the salient feature of 'nurture' arguers simply cannot handle - that nurture cannot be linear in all cultures in all parts of the world, without it being actual nature.

3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

 

This aside into physics is completely irrelevant.

Nope, it isn't. The relevance is, you are denying empiric observations because the mechanism hasn't been explained yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

I said the difference is nature, which can only be due to brain chemistry.

Nope.

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You cited no such thing as historical precedent.

Yes I did.

 

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

 

Nope, it isn't. The relevance is, you are denying empiric observations because the mechanism hasn't been explained yet. 

I’m not denying empiric observations, I’m denying your hypothesis as to what those observations mean. If I believed it was God’s will (and I don’t for the record), I’d be able to present as much proof to that idea as you have here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

Nope.

?? How is that a 'nope' ? A natural difference in behavior is not due to brain chemistry ?!?

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

Yes I did.

Show us where. 

 

Just now, HerrDrFunk said:

I’m not denying empiric observations, I’m denying your hypothesis as to what those observations mean. If I believed it was God’s will (and I don’t for the record), I’d be able to present as much proof to that idea as you have here.

You have provided absolutely zero proof of nurture and have failed to reconcile the major flaw in the nurture debate: that its present in ALL cultures known to mankind, which is thousands of them, most of them existing prior to intercontinental contact with each other. So explain to us, how is it 'nurture', when thousands of cultures come to the same conclusion/pathway pre-modern contact with each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

?? How is that a 'nope' ? A natural difference in behavior is not due to brain chemistry ?!?

It’s a nope to you saying there’s only one explanation. I think when we go into highly specific, definite statements, you should be able to post proof for them. You can’t.

 

22 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

 

Show us where. 

Page 5 or 6. Go back and find it yourself.

22 minutes ago, canuckistani said:


You have provided absolutely zero proof of nurture and have failed to reconcile the major flaw in the nurture debate: that its present in ALL cultures known to mankind, which is thousands of them, most of them existing prior to intercontinental contact with each other. So explain to us, how is it 'nurture', when thousands of cultures come to the same conclusion/pathway pre-modern contact with each other. 

All cultures? Really? That’s a mighty big claim.

Edited by HerrDrFunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I think when we go into highly specific, definite statements, you should be able to post proof for them. You can’t.

You need definitive proof that behavioral differences, when dictated by biology, is due to differing brain chemistry ?!? Ok, that can be easily supplied. 

Quote

 

Page 5 or 6. Go back and find it yourself.

just checked, there is no historical evidence cited in any of your posts in page 5 or 6. 

Quote

All cultures? Really? That’s a mighty big claim.

Yes. In all cultures. As in 100% of them. Women prefer nursing/medicine more than men, men prefer engineering more than women. Should you require data on that, I will be happy to provide that. From USA to Canada, Sweden to Russia, India, Iran, China, Thailand, Phillipines, South Korea, Japan- you name it, you got it: far more women apply for nursing & medicine than men, far more men apply for engineering than women. In every single damn country/culture. Admission application data is rather easy to pull up. 

Edited by canuckistani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You need definitive proof that behavioral differences, when dictated by biology, is due to differing brain chemistry ?!? Ok, that can be easily supplied. 

just checked, there is no historical evidence cited in any of your posts in page 5 or 6. 

Yes. In all cultures. As in 100% of them. Women prefer nursing/medicine more than men, men prefer engineering more than women. Should you require data on that, I will be happy to provide that. From USA to Canada, Sweden to Russia, India, Iran, China, Thailand, Phillipines, South Korea, Japan- you name it, you got it: far more women apply for nursing & medicine than men, far more men apply for engineering than women. In every single damn country/culture. Admission application data is rather easy to pull up. 

Page 6.

 

You can’t post any study which says this is due to brain chemistry because it doesn’t exist.

 

Ta-ta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Page 6.

See zero evidence of what you claim on page six. Maybe if you could actually post said evidence, it'd help your case. 

Quote

 

You can’t post any study which says this is due to brain chemistry because it doesn’t exist.

 

Ta-ta.

I can present plenty of examples of brain chemistry difference between men and women and actual claims from biologists who support said physiological differences, if you wish. 

 

Then as i said, there is empiric data of difference of interest between men and women in fields such as nursing and engineering in ALL cultures. 100% of them. I await the 'nurture' argument to reconcile that. 

Edited by canuckistani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...