Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    None of those three elements add up to the conclusions you're trying to draw; that human societies are always predicated on exploitative coercion. That's what you were asked to back up, and which you refuse to provide any evidence for.

    Not some societies. You claimed all societies.



    You have yet to cite anything to back this up.

    The existence of some early exchange systems doesn't disprove socialist systems; socialism is not averse to concepts of trade.
    The existence of some exploitation by some groups, particularly of out-group individuals in some form of slavery, does not speak to some kind of significant class systems wherein the means of production were monopolized for the elites.
    You haven't made a single argument establishing that cooperation is somehow against human nature, which is a fundamental premise you've expected us to accept as a given. As you've given no evidence, my response is "nuh uh", particularly as I have backed up my counter-argument on that point.


    The "symbols of their power in life" is projection, on your part. Unless you've got oral history or some other record of their motivations or intent. If you do, feel free to provide them.

    Until you do; I'm not going to accept your imagination as an argument, not when there are myriad alternative explanations.



    Well, at least it's becoming clear you have little academic training.

    A single critique is not a refutation, solely by existing. It's just a response, in an academic conversation. One author's opinion on another author's work.

    Also, basing your entire viewpoint on a single author's arguments demonstrates a fairly fundamental lack of understanding in pretty much any field. If you submitted an essay for a first-year course in basically any subject citing only articles by one author, you'd probably get a failing grade.

    And lastly; attacking the rigor of social sciences based on arbitrary bullshit is the antithesis of academic ethics. To be clear; the only significant difference between social sciences and the "hard" sciences is that it's not unethical to conduct experiments in chemistry or physics, but it generally is unethical in psychology, sociology, and anthropology; human-rights-abuses levels of unethical. And in the case of sciences like history, simply impossible in any practical sense; one cannot "experiment" with different historical outcomes, not without the ability to literally replicate and model the entire Earth and every living organism upon it, at least. This is not a lack of rigor; it's a fundamental limit on what can be ethically or practically pursued.
    good thing that's not what im trying to claim, what im trying to claim is YOU don't have the knowledge and understanding of the subject to be drawing the definitive conclusions that you are drawing. this whole misanthropy shit came from some peanut gallery commenter who confused my telling you, you don't know what your on about as support for the exact opposite,

    and as far as sociology
    https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/s...ural%20science.

    Sociology cannot be called a science because it cannot maintain complete objectivity with social phenomena. Sociologist has his own prejudice and bias hence he cannot observe his subject with complete detachment. Complete objectivity in the study of human behaviour is impossible Sociology deals with social relationships which cannot studied like physical objects. Hence objectivity is not possible in Sociology.
    Sociology is not a science because it can’t make experimentation. Sociology deals with human relationships which cannot be put to laboratory test. We can’t see or weigh human relationship because it is abstract in nature. We can’t do experiment with abstract things.
    Like natural sciences Sociology can’t accurately make prediction. Natural Sciences make prediction on the basis of certain data. But Sociology deals with social relationships and human behaviour which are so uncertain and peculiar that we can’t make any accurate prediction about it. We can’t predict what will be one’s behaviour at a certain point of time nor we can predict about the trends or speed of social change. Hence sociology is not a science.
    Sociology suffers from terminological inefficiency. Sociology has not yet became able to develop adequate set of scientific terms. Many terms used in Sociology is vague and carry different meaning to different persons. For example the term caste and class has not yet acquired clear meaning. Hence Sociology is not a science.
    taken from that article. the existence of those arguments against it mean it is not a science. it has elements of a science but it is not a science which is why its an arts degree not a science degree.

    you are also basing your arguments entirely on the works mauss and those who follow mauss. whilst rejecting even the possibility of there critique's being correct, then say i lack understanding, ever heard of hypocrisy ?

    and besides all that you then use that to base and prove a further theroy that socialism is inherent to humans.... which is my root issue with you, you draw conclusions from rocky foundations and affrim there correctness time and time again in thread after thread, your like the MMO-C Jorden Peterson

    further more i have cited, ive told exactly what books i get my opinion on the matter from. so cut that crap.

    and on the point of power and status we know neanderthal had rudimentary status markers such as predator pelts, bird wings or claws, colorants, and a range of speciality items, and we learnt burying our dead from them. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...2.2011.00376.x
    Last edited by Monster Hunter; 2020-09-10 at 10:57 AM.

  2. #202
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    54,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    and on the point of power and status we know neanderthal had rudimentary status markers such as predator pelts, bird wings or claws, colorants, and a range of speciality items, and we learnt burying our dead from them. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...2.2011.00376.x
    Why do you think they went extinct? Why do you think there was a divergence?

    Side note... archeology is a social science...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    It is... because we are not a hive mind... wtf? We are discussing human place in society, between your assertion of individuals through domination, versus community. Biology =/= sociology...



    Take a 100 sociology college course and perhaps you’ll understand it well enough to be able to articulate it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Which ones? Just note... he said this:



    So, Pavlov’s dog and the Iron Mother experiments don’t fit... You know what does?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Mishukov
    its not, because we arnt a hive mind, a hive mind would be a group only with no individual. we are social animals, we are individuals that work within social groups. as such the individual aspect and the group aspect both exist, there are group needs and desires and individual needs and desires, for any system to work for humans it must cater and allow the expression of both.

    within any such group there are individuals with there own individuality and priority's, that place the self, or the close family group above the wider community, that place the wider community above the nation e.t.c. and that's where collectivist thinking on a national scale falls apart. because it fails to consider both the individual and the close groups and thus bias's the exist with groups, far leftists see only wholes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Why do you think they went extinct? Why do you think there was a divergence?

    Side note... archeology is a social science...
    we shared much of the same traits as neanderthal, we also share 20,000 genomes, because we interbred showing either social compatibility, or early humans penchant for raping the women of the tribes they conquered, ...either way.

    i don't think we need to go into how much of a hack job archaeology has been over the years, how many times do they think they have found troy now?

  4. #204
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    54,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    its not, because we arnt a hive mind, a hive mind would be a group only with no individual.
    Why are you then using biology, to justify psychology? Yes, our minds are not part of a network, it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic.

    we are social animals, we are individuals that work within social groups. as such the individual aspect and the group aspect both exist, there are group needs and desires and individual needs and desires, for any system to work for humans it must cater and allow the expression of both.
    Yey, are we done?

    within any such group there are individuals with there own individuality and priority's, that place the self, or the close family group above the wider community, that place the wider community above the nation e.t.c. and that's where collectivist thinking on a national scale falls apart. because it fails to consider both the individual and the close groups and thus bias's the exist with groups, far leftists see only wholes.
    Why is nation different than other items you said? Is there no nationalism? Is there no patriotism?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    we shared much of the same traits as neanderthal, we also share 20,000 genomes, because we interbred showing either social compatibility, or early humans penchant for raping the women of the tribes they conquered, ...either way.
    Are we just guessing now?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

    Edit: Oh and to your comment about someone else being Jordan Peterson... using Neanderthal and monkeys to describe human social structure is better... but, not so much better than lobsters, that you get to insult others by calling them Jordan Peterson.
    Last edited by Felya; 2020-09-10 at 11:10 AM.
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Why are you then using biology, to justify psychology? Yes, our minds are not part of a network, it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic.



    Yey, are we done?



    Why is nation different than other items you said? Is there no nationalism? Is there no patriotism?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Are we just guessing now?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

    Edit: Oh and to your comment about someone else being Jordan Peterson... using Neanderthal and monkeys to describe human social structure is better... but, not so much better than lobsters, that you get to insult others by calling them Jordan Peterson.
    Biology is integral to human behaviour


    It is clear from multiple lines of evidence that all researched behavioural traits and disorders are influenced by genes; that is, they are heritable. The single largest source of evidence comes from twin studies, where it is routinely observed that monozygotic (identical) twins are more similar to one another than are same-sex dizygotic (fraternal) twins.[11][12]

    The conclusion that genetic influences are pervasive has also been observed in research designs that do not depend on the assumptions of the twin method. Adoption studies show that adoptees are routinely more similar to their biological relatives than their adoptive relatives for a wide variety of traits and disorders.[3] In the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart,
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics

    And unlike Sociology, behavioural genetics is a regonised science.

    And as for group size the difference is drunbar's number. Though his exact number and method of arriving at it is yet another example of anthropology being a wild west of hack philosophers publishing anything. It has had further study and has some grounding biological that there is a rough set size humans have for what they see as there community group, which is usually much smaller than a town or city or nation. To enforce cohesion beyond the natural fraternity of a group community, constructs such as patriotism and nationalism as well as laws and there enforcement are needed.

  6. #206
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    solve coagula
    Posts
    54,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    Biology is integral to human behaviour
    Indeed, but you being a singular individual, has nothing to do with social behavior, unless you are asserting a hive mind. It’s the same as me claiming we are social, because we are not asexual...

    And unlike Sociology, behavioural genetics is a regonised science.
    /facedesk.... fine, our reproduction requires multiple individuals, with best results for survival stemming from more varied genetic pool in reproduction. How do you accomplish this as an individual? Are we done?

    And as for group size the difference is drunbar's number. Though his exact number and method of arriving at it is yet another example of anthropology being a wild west of hack philosophers publishing anything. It has had further study and has some grounding biological that there is a rough set size humans have for what they see as there community group, which is usually much smaller than a town or city or nation. To enforce cohesion beyond the natural fraternity of a group community, constructs such as patriotism and nationalism as well as laws and there enforcement are needed.
    Why are you giving me evidence, you already argue against? Okay... your attempt at trying to contradict me is invalid... I agree?

    Bold is why we are not discussing biology, it’s also a biased statement. It doesn’t enforce, it simply uses it. The whole concept of fascism, hinges on reinforcing social structures, through demonizing a group of people as outside humanity. It’s not reinforcing, it’s using it To direct it for personal gain. Because our innate instinct is to belong...
    As above, so below.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Indeed, but you being a singular individual, has nothing to do with social behavior, unless you are asserting a hive mind. It’s the same as me claiming we are social, because we are not asexual...



    /facedesk.... fine, our reproduction requires multiple individuals, with best results for survival stemming from more varied genetic pool in reproduction. How do you accomplish this as an individual? Are we done?



    Why are you giving me evidence, you already argue against? Okay... your attempt at trying to contradict me is invalid... I agree?

    Bold is why we are not discussing biology, it’s also a biased statement. It doesn’t enforce, it simply uses it. The whole concept of fascism, hinges on reinforcing social structures, through demonizing a group of people as outside humanity. It’s not reinforcing, it’s using it To direct it for personal gain. Because our innate instinct is to belong...
    Our intended instinct is to belong to a group no more than 150 to 500, beyond that there's needs to be a constructed binding element.

    The individual is important in sexual selection because it is the individual that is selected, unless you think our natural way is a good old community gang bang.

    You seem to be failing to grasp the point, individualism and community are not mutually exclusive, a community is a collection of individuals that as well as doing whats best for the group also do whats best for them selves within the group. What do you think the point of or brains developing the ability for pride is ?

    Individualism and community are not mutually exclusive, but any system that fails to recognise the existence of the other or worse trys to suppress it, is doomed to fail.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Which ones? Just note... he said this:

    So, Pavlov’s dog and the Iron Mother experiments don’t fit... You know what does?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Mishukov
    For example, UBI trials certainly count as social experiments.

    You subject part of population to certain conditions then check results. Similar things happen with various welfare programs.

    They certainly can count as experiments - their results cannot be predicted with full certainty and sometimes can be unexpected by those enacting them, and data that is gathered for purposes of program evaluation can be (and is) used to further social understanding.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2020-09-10 at 01:39 PM.

  9. #209
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    64,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    taken from that article. the existence of those arguments against it mean it is not a science. it has elements of a science but it is not a science which is why its an arts degree not a science degree.
    Where did I claim it was a science?

    This is beyond a straw man. You're building straw colossi.

    you are also basing your arguments entirely on the works mauss and those who follow mauss. whilst rejecting even the possibility of there critique's being correct, then say i lack understanding, ever heard of hypocrisy ?
    Sociology and anthropology aren't split into two camps. Where the hell did you get that particular bit of nonsense from?

    and besides all that you then use that to base and prove a further theroy that socialism is inherent to humans....
    Literally never claimed that. Yet another straw man.

    which is my root issue with you, you draw conclusions from rocky foundations and affrim there correctness time and time again in thread after thread, your like the MMO-C Jorden Peterson
    And yet, you're the one who said we're like other animals, which is directly in line with Peterson's ridiculous lobster analogy. You're the one cherry-picking a single source and refusing to consider other arguments, because you had a predetermined conclusion and only want one source that supports it.

    further more i have cited, ive told exactly what books i get my opinion on the matter from. so cut that crap.
    If you'd gotten even a baccalaureate degree, you'd know that's not how citations works. You can't just list a book by title.

    and on the point of power and status we know neanderthal had rudimentary status markers such as predator pelts, bird wings or claws, colorants, and a range of speciality items, and we learnt burying our dead from them. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...2.2011.00376.x
    The problem with that point, as you're citing it, is twofold;
    The existence of "rudimentary status markers" is not evidence of a class system. Not sure where you even got that idea; it's not from Hayden.
    It's actually unclear from the abstract (and I currently don't have academic access) so I can't check the article, but I'd be curious how Hayden even draws the conclusion that they are status symbols in the sense that we generally understand, or if he's perhaps defined that term specifically in a way that's more explanatory of his meaning. Because as it stands, any claims as to the purpose would be, essentially, guesswork.


    Edit: Also, it's frankly more than a little fucking weird that you've gone on tirades about lack of rigor in the social sciences, and sociology and archaeology specifically, while someone defending anthropological papers as ironclad fact that cannot be contested. Anthropology is just like the other social sciences.
    Last edited by Endus; 2020-09-10 at 03:28 PM.

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Where did I claim it was a science?

    This is beyond a straw man. You're building straw colossi.
    you know you keep saying this but it dosnt make you suddenly right or make you look any more correct in your arguments.

    Sociology and anthropology aren't split into two camps. Where the hell did you get that particular bit of nonsense from?
    literally not what i said or anything to do with what i said. you are basing your ideas on works that has alot of criticism and is still under debate but you're presenting it as fact to try to prove your own further argument, you are as bad faith as it can possibly get and when i point this out you try your damndest to diflect from that, because you know it shoots down your whole argum

    And yet, you're the one who said we're like other animals, which is directly in line with Peterson's ridiculous lobster analogy. You're the one cherry-picking a single source and refusing to consider other arguments, because you had a predetermined conclusion and only want one source that supports it.
    to say humans have things in common with other apes is should hardly be a surprise or create upset unless you live in the bible belt and this is the first time you have heard of evolution (probly likley you seem to belive in a lot of other wishful fantasy ideas).

    to follow the same illogical and outcome biased steps Peterson does to draw his conclusion's and then try to pretend to be an authority on them, that's another thing, that's what you do constantly. just because you have opposite opinion's to Peterson dosn't mean you get to them in just the same intellectually dishonest way's, you are a writer, from what i hear a piss poor one at that, you have never delt with any system more complex than a shoe lace, stop walking into threads like you have even an ounce of ability to understand complex multilevel systems like human behaviour because all that happens is you make you big sweeping statement that you have gotten from a macro view of some thing and then you base 1000 further arguments of it like you have suddenly had some insight the experts haven't

    If you'd gotten even a baccalaureate degree, you'd know that's not how citations works. You can't just list a book by title.
    i have a BSC and an MSC in computer engineering, i have done more than enough citation for a life time, so excuse me for not bothering to find the exact quotes from books on my shelf, just to show some random Canadian that making sweeping statements and building arguments from them is stupid, and thats the thing i dont need to disprove mauss, theres plenty all ready doing a fine job of that in academia, all i need to show is you dont understand that A. there is a debate and B. building your world views on something still under discussion is stupid.

    The problem with that point, as you're citing it, is twofold;
    The existence of "rudimentary status markers" is not evidence of a class system. Not sure where you even got that idea; it's not from Hayden.
    It's actually unclear from the abstract (and I currently don't have academic access) so I can't check the article, but I'd be curious how Hayden even draws the conclusion that they are status symbols in the sense that we generally understand, or if he's perhaps defined that term specifically in a way that's more explanatory of his meaning. Because as it stands, any claims as to the purpose would be, essentially, guesswork.
    its in the books I told you to go read. namely the first which talks about how the rigid class system's of today developed from the simple more fluid social class's based on the dependence the group had on select individuals back then. that dependence afforded privileges and power, and those privileges were a resource to covet and thus you have the birth of the internal social ladder

    Edit: Also, it's frankly more than a little fucking weird that you've gone on tirades about lack of rigor in the social sciences, and sociology and archaeology specifically, while someone defending anthropological papers as ironclad fact that cannot be contested. Anthropology is just like the other social sciences.
    its actually quite simple, anthropology and sociology arn't sciences, its dressed up philosophy and guess work based on what limited information that is available, nothing in it is set in stone or in any way trust worthy enough to base anything from, which is my point and why i hate you, because you dont see that, you dont see that what your basing your staments from is just educated guess work that you then quote as fact to prove what ever further assanine idea you may have, and the best way i can think of showing you how stupid that is, is to literally throw it back at you,

    so now you have a choice, agree social science and anthropology is rocky and thus its stupid to base your further belief's from.
    or
    stick to beliving social science shopuld be treated like the finding of a real science and thus except that the theory's you are using as your base have strong critisim and counter points as well as havent followed correct scientific rigor and cheaking and thus your stupid to base your belief's off them.

    pick one.

  11. #211
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    64,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    literally not what i said or anything to do with what i said. you are basing your ideas on works that has alot of criticism and is still under debate but you're presenting it as fact to try to prove your own further argument, you are as bad faith as it can possibly get and when i point this out you try your damndest to diflect from that, because you know it shoots down your whole argum
    You claimed I was basing my entire argument on Mauss. Here's the direct quote; "you are also basing your arguments entirely on the works mauss and those who follow mauss". I cited 6 articles, back a few pages. Not only were none of those by Mauss, none of them even referenced Mauss in their sources. You tried to divide the field of anthropology into Testart or Mauss, with no other relevant authors. So yes; that was your claim, and it was patent nonsense, and worse, it just continued your pattern of making shit up that had nothing to do with my actual arguments.

    i have a BSC and an MSC in computer engineering
    So, not actually trained in the social sciences and speaking on a subject you don't have much real understanding of or training in.

    its actually quite simple, anthropology and sociology arn't sciences, its dressed up philosophy and guess work based on what limited information that is available, nothing in it is set in stone or in any way trust worthy enough to base anything from, which is my point and why i hate you, because you dont see that, you dont see that what your basing your staments from is just educated guess work that you then quote as fact to prove what ever further assanine idea you may have, and the best way i can think of showing you how stupid that is, is to literally throw it back at you,
    You're being hypocritical, since you're treating Testart as an ironclad factual source that cannot be contested or disputed, when even you admit that his work, in your own words, is "dressed up philosophy and guesswork".

    Don't blame me for your own inconsistencies, and don't project your own biases against the social sciences onto me. You're still attacking arguments I never made.

    so now you have a choice, agree social science and anthropology is rocky and thus its stupid to base your further belief's from.
    or
    stick to beliving social science shopuld be treated like the finding of a real science and thus except that the theory's you are using as your base have strong critisim and counter points as well as havent followed correct scientific rigor and cheaking and thus your stupid to base your belief's off them.

    pick one.
    Why? The first is just fundamentally wrong and deeply misunderstands what the social sciences are and how they function. And the second isn't something I have ever argued; that's the straw man you invented.

    This is a false dilemma you've presented. Worse, neither option is a sensible take on anything.

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You claimed I was basing my entire argument on Mauss. Here's the direct quote; "you are also basing your arguments entirely on the works mauss and those who follow mauss". I cited 6 articles, back a few pages. Not only were none of those by Mauss, none of them even referenced Mauss in their sources. You tried to divide the field of anthropology into Testart or Mauss, with no other relevant authors. So yes; that was your claim, and it was patent nonsense, and worse, it just continued your pattern of making shit up that had nothing to do with my actual arguments.



    So, not actually trained in the social sciences and speaking on a subject you don't have much real understanding of or training in.



    You're being hypocritical, since you're treating Testart as an ironclad factual source that cannot be contested or disputed, when even you admit that his work, in your own words, is "dressed up philosophy and guesswork".

    Don't blame me for your own inconsistencies, and don't project your own biases against the social sciences onto me. You're still attacking arguments I never made.



    Why? The first is just fundamentally wrong and deeply misunderstands what the social sciences are and how they function. And the second isn't something I have ever argued; that's the straw man you invented.

    This is a false dilemma you've presented. Worse, neither option is a sensible take on anything.
    its actually quite simple, anthropology and sociology arn't sciences, its dressed up philosophy and guess work based on what limited information that is available, nothing in it is set in stone or in any way trust worthy enough to base anything from, which is my point and why i hate you, because you dont see that, you dont see that what your basing your staments from is just educated guess work that you then quote as fact to prove what ever further assanine idea you may have, and the best way i can think of showing you how stupid that is, is to literally throw it back at you,
    you really just don't get it do you?

    everything you have said apply's to you, and yet you feel you have the authority to criticise the OP but think yourself immune to having your own style of hypocrisy thrown back at you?

    you quote the works of Mauss, and those like Mauss or those who agree with Mauss or Mauss 3rd aunt twice removed or w/e and state your sources as fact and base your opinion's which you use to belittle other posters as true because of those sources and state it with authority, and when shown that 1. its not fact nor due to the nature of that field ever be considered a fact and 2. there are those in trained in that field that disagree and have there own argument as to why, you completely disregard them.

    you are the Jordan Peterson of MMO-C, just as Peterson does with Jung and his arguments you do with your sources and arguments, and the irony is you will never understand why people dislike you.

  13. #213
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    64,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Monster Hunter View Post
    you quote the works of Mauss, and those like Mauss or those who agree with Mauss or Mauss 3rd aunt twice removed or w/e and state your sources as fact and base your opinion's which you use to belittle other posters as true because of those sources and state it with authority, and when shown that 1. its not fact nor due to the nature of that field ever be considered a fact and 2. there are those in trained in that field that disagree and have there own argument as to why, you completely disregard them.

    you are the Jordan Peterson of MMO-C, just as Peterson does with Jung and his arguments you do with your sources and arguments, and the irony is you will never understand why people dislike you.
    I never cited Mauss, or anyone who referenced Mauss. That's just something you made up, based on nothing, because you have this image in your head that you'd rather respond to rather than anything I've actually said.

    I'm not going to bother wasting everyone's time by continuing to respond to it. You have no interest in what I'm saying and haven't made any effort to respond to it, just the straw men you chose to build up.

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I never cited Mauss, or anyone who referenced Mauss. That's just something you made up, based on nothing, because you have this image in your head that you'd rather respond to rather than anything I've actually said.

    I'm not going to bother wasting everyone's time by continuing to respond to it. You have no interest in what I'm saying and haven't made any effort to respond to it, just the straw men you chose to build up.
    its part of the opinion Mauss sided with... Jesus Christ.

    is that literally all you got, are you that incapable of self reflection you cant see i dont care who your quoting only that you quoted one side of an ongoing debate, used it as a basis to have a go at another poster and then when shown there's actually 2 sides to that debate and the debate its self is held in a field that's mostly hot air, you cant even admit that you shouldn't go round shiting on people when your own beliefs and opinions are also based on sand....

    and thats the real reason you won't respond from now on, because you know im right about you and who you are.

  15. #215
    Moderator Rozz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5,373
    Discussion isn't supposed to devolve into personal snipes but this thread wasn't in a good direction regardless. This is closed.
    Moderator of the General Off-Topic, Politics, Lore, and RP Forums
    "If you have any concerns, let me know via PM. I'll do my best to assist you."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •