Girl VS Guy Pickpocket Experiment!

[–]Tastysalad10191 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC36 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]itchybrain7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]itchybrain9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]biffsocko4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]biffsocko5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chris10961 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]weareequal33 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ADH-Kydex9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerekAcorah3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Le4chanFTW0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's classic animal behavior. The male instinct is to let other males perish to reduce competition. It's extremely rare to see creatures break from this pattern, but it does happen. I think the problem with humans is that it's no longer necessary to live by these standards. You don't need to protect women so vehemently because there is such an abundance of them on the planet. In fact, I believe the global population statistics put women at an estimated 1% more than men, so potential child-bearers actually outnumber the amount of seed-spreaders.

It's an interesting dynamic, and I think it falls in line with the saying, "You can take the animal out of the wild, but you can't take the wild out of the animal." At the end of the day, we're still animals ourselves, and for whatever reason, these instinctual behaviors still exhibit themselves in modern life.

[–]SirSkeptic44 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics14 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eulabeia6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]itchybrain4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex44 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr24 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ShitLordXurious10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bartab31 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]18 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpanishGuy18 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]15 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]springy14 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Babill3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]majavic6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OvalNinja11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]warspite886 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XDingoX831 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I hate the genetic excuse. It's lame, human being are capable of rational thought and overcoming innate reactions to situations. That is what separates us from a dog or a cow. To blame genetics is a cop out.

Edit: I guess I'll write it here because all the rest were downvoted. MRA always state that men don't rape and rapist rape (and I agree with this). Yet the minute someone states that humans are not a slave to their biology and that humans make choices not driven by instinct but by free will they get downvoted. That is the very argument of men don't rape / rapist rape. That men are not driven by their penis and that evil people commit sexual assault. My mind is boggled, if humans are slaves to instinct than I have no choice but to concede I am a rapist and that we all are and the feminist are right. I'm actually disappointed because I honestly believed that the subscribers in this sub were capable of understanding the differences between instinct and rational thought.

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XDingoX83-6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XDingoX83-6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XDingoX83-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Functions of the body are not instincts. Reflexes are not instincts. You know why? Because they are not behaviors they are just functions of the body. A dog eating poop out of the litter box is an instinct because it's a behavior. Dogs eat the poop of their young to keep predators from finding them. For some reason they also feel the need to eat the poop in the litter box. Salmon swim all the way back to where they were born to copulate and then die. Those adorable sea turtles all start making a run towards the sea when they are born. No one tells them they just do it. They don't do because they choose to. Instinct makes them. Name me a BEHAVIOR, keyword, that is widespread among the human species. We're not born knowing how to do anything. Everything we do we learn how to do, we are either taught or we use our ability to reason to figure it out.

[–][deleted]4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XDingoX83-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XDingoX83-5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Instinct.. Well why would we choose to have sex at all? What is the cause of masturbation? We can choose all sorts of things that we don't want to do but that does not negate the reality of instinct. It is an instinctual drive. If it wasn't it wouldn't be a matter would it? If we weren't instinctively driven the human race would have been gone a long time ago. Human nature is a thing. Edit: What other animals on the planet are not driven by instinct?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instinct

in·stinct 1 [in-stingkt] Show IPA noun

an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
natural intuitive power.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/instinct

in·stinct (ĭn′stĭngkt′) n.

An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
A powerful motivation or impulse.
An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy. adj. (ĭn-stĭngkt′)
Deeply filled or imbued: words instinct with love.
Obsolete Impelled from within.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

in·stinct noun \ˈin-ˌstiŋ(k)t\

: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned : a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way

: something you know without learning it or thinking about it

: a natural ability

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/instinct

instinct Line breaks: in|stinct noun Pronunciation: /ˈɪnstɪŋ(k)t

/

1An innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli: the homing instinct More example sentences 1.1A natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking: they retain their old authoritarian instincts More example sentencesSynonyms 1.2A natural propensity or skill of a specified kind: his instinct for making the most of his chances More example sentencesSynonyms 1.3 [mass noun] The fact or quality of possessing innate behaviour patterns: instinct told her not to ask the question More example sentences

adjective Pronunciation: /ɪnˈstɪŋ(k)t

/ (instinct with) • formal Back to top

Imbued or filled with (a quality, especially a desirable one): these canvases are instinct with passion More example sentences

Derivatives

instinctual Pronunciation: /-ˈstɪŋ(k)tjʊəl/ adjective More example sentences instinctually Pronunciation: /-ˈstɪŋ(k)tjʊəli/ adverb More example sentences

Origin

late Middle English (also in the sense 'instigation, impulse'): from Latin instinctus 'impulse', from the verb instinguere, from in- 'towards' + stinguere 'to prick'.

[–]XDingoX830 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you are missing the point. So I'll but it more succinctly.

Instincts are a behavior exhibited by the vast majority of a species that is innate and the individual has no control over.

Functions of the body do not fall under this because they are required to exist and are also not behaviors. So reflexes, peeing, and breathing are not instincts. Like I said before under the definition of instinct if we claim that sex is instinctual then we have no control over ourselves when it came to it. Also we would have an innate knowledge about sex yet we don't we actually have to talk to our children about sex and explain it to them. So it's not an instinct. We are also all aroused by different stimuli if it was an instinct we would all be aroused by the same stimuli. Cats when they mate the female moans loudly and stick their ass up in the air to let the males know their ready to go. Human arousal stimuli range from tits and ass, to feet, to poop.

Why do people choose to have sex. It feels good. We like it because it feels awesome. Many animals don't have sex for fun, hell some die having sex. But we do it because it feels awesome. However unlike other animals we choose to have sex. We can say fuck it and not have sex for our entire life.

To put it simply instinct is when you are a slave to biology. Humans are not we make choices we make efforts to understand as much as we can and base our decisions off that. We are not slaves to our biology.

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]XDingoX830 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Dimitrisan6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blue_Shoes_23 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bitdude5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thename2261 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thename2262 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thename226-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thename2262 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thename2261 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thename2261 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bitdude1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Highspeed_Lowdrag3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Awesomesaucemz2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]H2owsome2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything-5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]piar8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChandyC0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sillymod8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything-6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sillymod7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything-5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sillymod2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thetastything0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ahh sudoscience. The first clip he sued them all and won. The second one is.. they are assholes. A big world full of stupid people. But still, you really think this is proof of anything other than that those people are idiots is beyond me. Only two clips are of the male, three for the female. Only one man reacts and one woman. In both places people around the area reacted but only one acted and one was male and the other a female(in the man putting the sugar on her drink.), and one woman in the man getting poison. All i saw is three people who called it out instantly 2 female and 1 male.

Also the titanic? mostly male workers that died in the engine room, staff, and such . I get it we have a culture that makes men to be strong and don't have to be protected. But makeshift science just fuels the whole circle jerk of unreasonable people in the MRA side, this is no different from those sudoscience the crazy hardcore feminist use to attack men.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ahh sudoscience

Pseudoscience. Learn to spell.

The first clip he sued them all and won.

What the hell are you talking about?

The second one is.. they are assholes. A big world full of stupid people. But still, you really think this is proof of anything other than that those people are idiots is beyond me.

Clearly you re just dancing around the issue. The "Slap" video is only an example of something that happens on a regular basis. Not so much dogpiling on a guy for defending himself, but women in total shock that they got hit back. Get out & get some sun.

All i saw is three people who called it out instantly 2 female and 1 male.

Men would be less likely to do that because of the way women front with the "it's none of your damn business you creep" act.

But makeshift science just fuels the whole circle jerk of unreasonable people in the MRA side, this is no different from those sudoscience the crazy hardcore feminist use to attack men

"Blah, blah, blah MRA's are just as bad as Feminists," "Yadda, yadda, yadda, I'm above it all," "Quack quack quack my perception of things is so superior I can declare myself above the fray with all the feigned moral superiority it takes to keep my shoeleather from hitting the pavement too often."

[–]thetastything1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry that my lexis is lesser than yours.

Like i said, he sued everyone who attacked him on the video and won. Even against the woman who slapped him.

You clearly are miss quoting me. Sense I clearly mention the second video and you change the subject to the first video.

How do you know men are less likely to do this? Would you not have called her out? or this is mainly a male trait?

Nope, i have my quirks with the opposite sex. But i know i have them, and can keep them aside from my opinion. Both sides in my opinion are mostly populated by good people. It is just the ones that don't stop talking and just lash out hate that are the problem. This video is fuel for the "bad" MRA's. Pseudoscience like this has no real worth. IT just shows a few random clips of a couple of 20 something people "pickpocketing" and who caught them. Same for the second video, if what they put on those clips are 100% truth( they only did the amount of footage and showed the highlights) it's still no proof. It is just a handful of situations where you happened to get those results, but a real study would have hundred or thousands of this things on'em. And even if lets say the woman was stopped only 30% of the time, that still a social experiment meaning its result could change if you do it even on a different building. All you could say is that female thieves have a tendency to be more ignored.

You want real science? Get real results and get them peer reviewed, if not it is just internet fuel for the cause.

(note: i forgot how to write pseu and didn't feel like looking it up.)

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How do you know men are less likely to do this? Would you not have called her out? or this is mainly a male trait?

Because you decided to give me the "women called her out, too" argument, I gave you a trait in females tht may explain why more men wouldn't.

Both sides in my opinion are mostly populated by good people.

Aw, how smarmily sweet, Let's all hold hand s& sing 'kum bah-yah."

It is just the ones that don't stop talking and just lash out hate that are the problem. This video is fuel for the "bad" MRA's.

That's clearly a judgement call on your part. What are "bad MRA's" to you may be fine with me. I, on the other hand, have a problem lately with smarmy, self-important & judgmental "moderates."

Pseudoscience like this has no real worth.

Hello? They said it was a SOCIAL experiment, not a scientific one.

IT just shows a few random clips of a couple of 20 something people "pickpocketing" and who caught them

To repeat what I began with, you could interview the experimenters & camera crew...

but a real study would have hundred or thousands of this things on'em

Nope. Samples are often not that big.

You want real science? Get real results and get them peer reviewed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticism_of_peer_review

[–]thetastything1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah except it isn't. You could argue that it's a phenotypic trait, but then so would having 10 mates. Humans choose to hate other because they can be assholes if they so choose to. if you think you shouldn't stop a woman for committing a crime because she is a woman then you are just an imbecile.

Granted it was a generalize statement but still. Mocking a statement just points out how you can't counter it. Also how is it kum bah-ya to say people are good? It would be to say none likes to steal or everyone wants peace, but i just mainly said it as to point out that odds are they aren't douche bags.

Except it isn't a social experiment. As much as we would like it to be true that "the difference from science and screwing around it's just writing it down", but we both know it isn't that simple. Also they are not writing anything down so they technically are screwing around.

You could, but won't they lie? i mean they made the video, what makes you think they would tell you what happened? The video is clearly edited in a weird way as to control what we see. Odds are what they showed is just part of the coin, not even a full side of it.

Yes you would. To represent a few million people of an specific area you need to do this a lot of different times. And then even if you do so it would only hold on that are. And if you do it a years later sense it is social science you could get a complete turn around in the results.

A the quoting of a wiki(don't get me wrong wiki is a god sent). But, If you read a little up there you can also see the justification for it. And why is peer review important? Because even a 500 million dollar experiment could be so wrong. All science has to be peer reviewed for the simple reason that unless you're god and never make mistakes you are gonna have mistakes. The point of peer review is to point out most mistakes so that they can be rectified. And also that is science, if your ideas are not strong enough to get a bashing from other then you have no place in science, Ludwig Boltzmann it is a excellent example of this. He was bashed by them and now his work is a staple of science. The truth is nothing but what the majority thinks, but it is a fact when you can prove it and replicate it.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah except it isn't. You could argue that it's a phenotypic trait, but then so would having 10 mates. Humans choose to hate other because they can be assholes if they so choose to. if you think you shouldn't stop a woman for committing a crime because she is a woman then you are just an imbecile.

And that's why the cops often arrest the man during a DV call based on VAWA, regardless if she was the primary or even sole aggressor. Society is imbecilic.

Point rejected.

Granted it was a generalize statement but still. Mocking a statement just points out how you can't counter it.

No, mocking a statement means I don't think it should be taken seriously enough to consider.

Point rejected.

Also how is it kum bah-ya to say people are good? It would be to say none likes to steal or everyone wants peace, but i just mainly said it as to point out that odds are they aren't douche bags.

Because you are so zealous to talk about doing things "scientifically," then you turn around in speak in generalities that actually have less support than the videos. I was just calling you out on your hypocrisy.

Don't accuse us of lazy thinking, and then turn around and engage in lazy thinking.

Except it isn't a social experiment. As much as we would like it to be true that "the difference from science and screwing around it's just writing it down", but we both know it isn't that simple. Also they are not writing anything down so they technically are screwing around.

Well actually, you have no idea if they did or didn't. Point being, Sociology is not a real science.

You could, but won't they lie? i mean they made the video, what makes you think they would tell you what happened? The video is clearly edited in a weird way as to control what we see. Odds are what they showed is just part of the coin, not even a full side of it.

Of course. And so could people doing scientific experiments.

Yes you would. To represent a few million people of an specific area you need to do this a lot of different times. And then even if you do so it would only hold on that are. And if you do it a years later sense it is social science you could get a complete turn around in the results

I don't think most lab experiments are done on a "few million" rats. In fact, I would venture to guess most experiments aren't.

A the quoting of a wiki(don't get me wrong wiki is a god sent). But, If you read a little up there you can also see the justification for it.

Irrelevant. I'm just tired of people worshiping at the altar of "peer review" as if it's somehow foolproof.

The point of peer review is to point out most mistakes so that they can be rectified. And also that is science, if your ideas are not strong enough to get a bashing from other then you have no place in science, Ludwig Boltzmann it is a excellent example of this. He was bashed by them and now his work is a staple of science. The truth is nothing but what the majority thinks, but it is a fact when you can prove it and replicate it.

So?

[–]thetastything1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes cops do this, can't argue with that but this is not what we are talking about, that is a whole another can of worms.

No, i'm right and you are wrong, and that is final!!! (that is what you wrote)

I clearly i said i made an assumption there and was before the "scientific" statement, i kept them separate. Also don't re-structure what i wrote to put in an attack. Never accused anyone of being lazy thinking.

Sociology is a science. It is the study of the human development, origin, etc. But by its nature it always changes and evolves. I said that before. Example you like red and i blue, someone ask us if we like the red room, we both could say yes, or you could say no and i yes, so on and forth. But it is still a science. If they documented it i would like to view it, but odds are they don't even know how to even format a paper.

Well the difference between this and a peer review is that so many people view them that bullshit tends to be called, especially is such a sketchy "experiment".

No, there are not even on the same field. You cannot compare biological experiment to a sociological one, not the same field. Do you know how hard it is to get from animal to human trials? a few thousand rats are gonna die(depends but still). You cannot compare this two. If you have a city with 3 million people, 30,000 people is 1% of the population... yeah you only need like 20 people to make a reliable study...

Peer reviews are why science works, don't like it don't use technology. Peers reviews are more than just to say if something works or not is a way for scientist to exchange information and knowledge. So much of what we know got rejected or instantly accepted, but it takes and views from people a lot smarten than myself.

That if you wanna say you made an experiment get it peer reviewed, if not you are just saying something for the sake of saying something. This "experiment" validity what so ever. Just fuels the idiots who just hate females.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes cops do this, can't argue with that but this is not what we are talking about, that is a whole another can of worms.

Actually, no it isn't. It's quite in the vein of an apologetic for a misandrist society.

No, i'm right and you are wrong, and that is final!!! (that is what you wrote)

Suit yourself.

I clearly i said i made an assumption there and was before the "scientific" statement, i kept them separate. Also don't re-structure what i wrote to put in an attack. Never accused anyone of being lazy thinking.

Truth hurt?

Sociology is a science. It is the study of the human development, origin, etc. But by its nature it always changes and evolves. I said that before. Example you like red and i blue, someone ask us if we like the red room, we both could say yes, or you could say no and i yes, so on and forth. But it is still a science. If they documented it i would like to view it, but odds are they don't even know how to even format a paper

I think there is plenty of educated opinion out there to the contrary, enough to make an argument that it is not. One could argue that it shouldn't even try to be scientific, as in the Interpretivist position.

Well the difference between this and a peer review is that so many people view them that bullshit tends to be called, especially is such a sketchy "experiment".

So?

Once again, you only know part of the experiment.

No, there are not even on the same field. You cannot compare biological experiment to a sociological one, not the same field. Do you know how hard it is to get from animal to human trials? a few thousand rats are gonna die(depends but still). You cannot compare this two. If you have a city with 3 million people, 30,000 people is 1% of the population... yeah you only need like 20 people to make a reliable study...

Right now you appear to be aimlessly rambling on & I have no idea what you are even getting at.

Peer reviews are why science works, don't like it don't use technology. Peers reviews are more than just to say if something works or not is a way for scientist to exchange information and knowledge. So much of what we know got rejected or instantly accepted, but it takes and views from people a lot smarten than myself. That if you wanna say you made an experiment get it peer reviewed, if not you are just saying something for the sake of saying something. This "experiment" validity what so ever. Just fuels the idiots who just hate females.

Yeah... "the idiots who just hate females." Trafficking in stereotypes is really scientific. Do you write comedy sketches for SNL?

[–]thetastything1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes it is, we are talking about what is happening on the video, and if a cop sees that and doesn't stop he/she, the one that got robbed could sue him and their department. This is about how a group of people are presented with a situation where they get something stolen in secret and if they will "call it or not"

Nope, you still only mocked the statement i originally made and basically said you found it inferior and not to be even considered.

Truth hurt?.. All you did was fused two different statements and told that i said people in mra's don't think.

hahaha, you think that is evidence? Two bloggers from the internet? with one liners like is america coming to an end? It is still a science, and if you look up the definition won't you see that it is a science? And you know that people use it actively to see what demographic to target.

Yeah, again this is no experiment. http://imgur.com/rqzfleN . This is a comedy video on a comedy channel.. in no way this is a experiment, get over it. It is like me going to the mall and trying to scare someone and calling it an experiment.

You clearly said that "do scientist use millions of rats? no.." You cannot compare biology the study of living thing, to sociology the study of society, etc. This clearly leads to the comment you made about not needing that many samples because that 10 or even a hundred samples could represent how human would act, this could not represent a whole city filled with millions of people.

Yeah, still peers reviews are a corner stone of why science works, like it or not they are so important, no wiki article can change that. Unless you wanna use a pill that was just made and with no human testing or animal testing. Then review are important.

O and the first comment on this thread is how woman always get a pussypass, and how men are always the victim. Circle jerks like this is why reddit laughs at us. Because you scream "look see, this is how men are oppressed" about a comedy video that the results are completely skewed for what they wanted to put out.

[–]kevinwayne1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes it is, we are talking about what is happening on the video, and if a cop sees that and doesn't stop he/she, the one that got robbed could sue him and their department. This is about how a group of people are presented with a situation where they get something stolen in secret and if they will "call it or not"

How this is actually contradicting anything I said is beyond me. Might I suggest learning to write for clarity? Also, use Reddit formatting.

Nope, you still only mocked the statement i originally made and basically said you found it inferior and not to be even considered.

You're welcome.

Truth hurt?.. All you did was fused two different statements and told that i said people in mra's don't think.

No, but I did in fact say you were being intellectually lazy.

And case in point:

hahaha, you think that is evidence? Two bloggers from the internet?

I could have given you a whole list of Google results, but I thought I'd male it easier for you. In fact the different positions (Interpretivist, Postivist, etc) are discussed on both pro and anti sites in terms of the question of "Is Sociology a science." That's probably because they are the legit categories that are discussed in the debate. You would know this if you bothered to do some homework.

It is still a science, and if you look up the definition won't you see that it is a science? And you know that people use it actively to see what demographic to target.

Do you know what a Focus Group is? Ever participated in one? Administered one? If you did, you would know how big their sample size actually is. Do the names Birch, Arbirtron or Nielsen mean anything to you? Any idea how many they get in their demographics studies? Might wanna try finding out before you front like you're an authority on these matters.

Yeah, again this is no experiment. http://imgur.com/rqzfleN . This is a comedy video on a comedy channel.. in no way this is a experiment, get over it. It is like me going to the mall and trying to scare someone and calling it an experiment.

So I have nothing new to say to this, because everything I've been saying pretty much still stands, so we'll move on.

You clearly said that "do scientist use millions of rats? no.." You cannot compare biology the study of living thing, to sociology the study of society, etc. This clearly leads to the comment you made about not needing that many samples because that 10 or even a hundred samples could represent how human would act, this could not represent a whole city filled with millions of people.

Keep digging a hole for yourself.

Yeah, still peers reviews are a corner stone of why science works, like it or not they are so important, no wiki article can change that. Unless you wanna use a pill that was just made and with no human testing or animal testing. Then review are important.

Mhmmm. There's no corporate interest behind getting certain medicines on the market. Nope, none at all.

O and the first comment on this thread is how woman always get a pussypass, and how men are always the victim. Circle jerks like this is why reddit laughs at us. Because you scream "look see, this is how men are oppressed" about a comedy video that the results are completely skewed for what they wanted to put out.

Oh my. Reddit laughs at us? Earth shattering news. It's not as if they would do it anyway no matter what. Unless it was something they knew would pole a hole in their meta-narrative, then they wouldn't bring it up at all. I look more at the people who scream in our faces or vandalize our posters. Some events that have happened up in Canada the last 2 years come to mind.

Don't bother including yourself in the "us" when you have such a disdainful view of the people you claim to work alongside of.

[–]thetastything0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

(note: using format takes me too long but f it)

And that's why the cops often arrest the man during a DV call based on VAWA, regardless if she was the primary or even sole aggressor. Society is imbecilic. Point rejected.

I never metioned cops you brought them up. This is not about cops and how they react in this situation sense it is their job man or woman, they by law have to stop it, but i diverge, back to the main topic.

You're welcome.

No problem, i guess you have no counter argument for it so your abandoning it without a final statement.

Don't accuse us of lazy thinking, and then turn around and engage in lazy thinking.

Yep you did, i never accused anyone of lazy thinker.

could have given you a whole list of Google results, but I thought I'd male it easier for you. In fact the different positions (Interpretivist, Postivist, etc) are discussed on both pro and anti sites in terms of the question of "Is Sociology a science." That's probably because they are the legit categories that are discussed in the debate. You would know this if you bothered to do some homework.

Still recognize by the world as a science, and is force down the throats of all college students. Two blogger with different opinions don't change the fact. An sense even though it has ever changing results it is vastly use on different models for multiple purpose. If you think sociology is "pointless" that is fine, but don't say it isn't a science when it is classed as one. ( also i forget the name but the people who study roaches are pointless but they are still scientist doing science).

Do you know what a Focus Group is? Ever participated in one? Administered one? If you did, you would know how big their sample size actually is. Do the names Birch, Arbirtron or Nielsen mean anything to you? Any idea how many they get in their demographics studies? Might wanna try finding out before you front like you're an authority on these matters.

Focus groups.. You know those are just to get an idea. If focus take someone to represent a group of people and make an assumption about them. They use this and compare them with the tv ratings to get the best understanding of what people "like" but if you even see the cancellation rates of tv shows you can see they just speculate. This is why they always try to use census for big social things. Also how does a focus group changes the fact that it is a science.

So I have nothing new to say to this, because everything I've been saying pretty much still stands, so we'll move on.

Ok, i guess we are at odds here.

I don't think most lab experiments are done on a "few million" rats. In fact, I would venture to guess most experiments aren't.

No, this is a biological experiment. They aren't asking them if the like cheese more than peanut butter. They are testing biological responses to drugs, poisons, etc. Can you compare the study of the how the heart is affected by pot, and how people feel that their gender is being abused?

Mhmmm. There's no corporate interest behind getting certain medicines on the market. Nope, none at all.

Yeah, they are companies that want to make money making medicine, if they over charge or whatever it is a product that you don't have to use. And how does monetary interest changes the fact that they have to waste billions on testing to make sure the drug benefits outweigh its harm? They still have to be reviewed and if they don't pass those review they are out millions or billions.

Oh my. Reddit laughs at us? Earth shattering news. It's not as if they would do it anyway no matter what. Unless it was something they knew would pole a hole in their meta-narrative, then they wouldn't bring it up at all. I look more at the people who scream in our faces or vandalize our posters. Some events that have happened up in Canada the last 2 years come to mind. Don't bother including yourself in the "us" when you have such a disdainful view of the people you claim to work alongside of.

Hmmm, yes, this first thing you said its true. But you cannot deny that this sub is full of post that just scream the negatives which in truth are the minority, i think it has been quite a while sense a post that isn't about pussypass, they shouldn't happen and we should fight to fix them, but still there are other issues and strives that can be posted. Those are insane people who want to shut mra's, they have a right to hate, but you counter with facts and a calm voice. And just because i believe this is just a stupid video meant to get views by posting "controversial results" and feeds the people who are our side to just hate on the opposite sex. So i am not for equal rights sense my view are different that yours i guess.

Title	Girl VS Guy Pickpocket Experiment!
Author	kevinwayne
Upvotes	129
Comments	99
Date	March 14, 2014 9:05 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/20e2l4/girl-vs-guy-pickpocket-experiment/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/girl-vs-guy-pickpocket-experiment.1615399 https://theredarchive.com/post/1615399

Comments