And I despise your utilized choice form of intolerant, condescending, snarky, manipulative tactics. It shows even more of a complete disrespect for debate than your false accusation of "fibbing." Oh, I'm sorry, I don't see a paper. I see a reference number and a summary. If you'd like to post the entire paper here, without expecting your opposition to go through you to get details from the study--such as control variables, etc.--then by all means, do so. If not, don't expect anyone to take your study seriously, because nobody else can see it. And since you're the one making the argument, you have the burden of either showing the study--the full study--or acknowledging that you're either unable to or that there are things in the study that you don't want your opposition to see (such as the afore mentioned lack of considered variables). Who is fibbing now? I have nothing to "fib" about. I haven't seen the entire study. You, on the other hand, are keeping the study from your opposition whilst expecting the opposition to take your word as truth. Not going to happen. You want people to respect your style of debate? Learn a style that isn't offensive and ignorant.
So, in summary, we have you saying that a paper that you haven't read is flawed because, although it includes numerous control variables, it doesn't include numerous control variables. Strong argument you've got there!
No, in summary, we have me saying that there's no way for us to verify the paper's claim, let alone for us to verify that the paper is legitimate. In summary, we have me saying that you're making the claim that this paper is accurate when you've only provided a snippet of the paper and seem to be expecting your opposition to go through you to get the details and to do your homework for you. You didn't even post a link to where the paper can be found, you simply posted bits and pieces [supposedly from this paper] and have claimed that they've been "empirically tested." I can do that too! 2010, The Ambivalent Sexism Counter-claim: Differentiating Between What Some Weirdos Call "Sexism" and the Real World. Journal of "I make things up to suit my argument," unabridged version Vol 302, pp. 550-552 "Reiver's paper is incorrect because male motive for opposing abortion is not limited to two variants of sexism." And there you have it, empirical evidence that your argument is incorrect. Now disprove it. That is essentially what your argument is--you post some obscure journal reference with a snippet of text and when someone argues it, you claim that it's been empirically evidenced and therefore is essentially above criticism. What I have yet to see you do, however, is to post the actual content of the entire study up on the board for scrutiny. I wonder why you're so hesitant to do that...
The "you've used peer reviewed evidence" attack is one of the most idiotic that we see on the net. I've ensured that I've referred to academic research, rather than secondary source and biased information. That you were prepared to make stuff up about the paper (i.e. falsely suggesting that it doesn't have control variables, despite obviously adopting a regression methodology) only demonstrates a lack of objectivity. Shall we conclude that you can't actually offer a valid critique? Lets!
Attacking someone's argument for demonstrating that you've clearly failed to actually provide--in entirety--the study which you're referencing is one of the most idiotic and pathetic attempted counters that we see on the net. You posted a paragraph summary of what you claim is "academic research" yet failed to ensure that your opposition could see it and verify its legitimacy, therefore it's as if you didn't post any evidence at all. The problem with your argument is that things could very well be made up about the paper, but there's no way for anyone to tell without the entirety of the paper being posted for everyone to see, is there? Yet you still refuse to copy and paste the contents of this so-called "academic research," which would take all of a simple couple clicks/swipes of the mouse and maybe the hitting of a key on the keyboard or two. Shall we conclude that--seeing as you failed to actually post the full contents of the study or link to somewhere that the study could be viewed in its entirety--your study's legitimacy cannot be confirmed? Yes, let's!
As already observed, no study can cover every variable, it didn't imply to me that these two do and it is a question for the OP how many issues the study he chooses to quote will cover. You are free to post counter studies and evidence the wrongness of his, but you haven't. Why would I have to follow other debates? We are posting in this thread, not others. Whatever that means. Reiver isn't the thread topic though he wasn't snarky and saying that doesn't look like respectful debate. I don't think you have addressed any point raised, or countered the OP in any way.
You haven't got an argument. You've made stuff up about its nature and, when cornered, you've had to go with the standard troll about peer review That would be breaking copyright. Here's the DOI though: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x You've really put your foot in it with this thread. You described how you'd 'play pretend' with reading an article and now you're finding any means possible to dodge and hide form content. A lack of objectivity does encourage these drastic limitations.
I couldn't care less if it's peer reviewed or not, I just think for a piece of evidence which makes a claim to be considered valid, the opposition should be able to see the stupid thing with their own eyes. Oh how convenient. "That would be breaking copyright." I don't have a login to that library and I'm not going to pay for a subscription. Expecting people on the internet to automatically have access to your obscure references and/or just take them at your word if they don't is hardly a position of intelligence in the online debate arena. More intellectually dishonest hyperbole. The article cannot be reviewed and the conclusions it makes cannot be verified. Find a different source. If your argument is so supported and if you have so much "respect" for debate, you should have no issue finding a source which is available for everyone to view and scrutinize. I just find it more than slightly amusing that it took you until page 4 of this thread to even post a simple link to the abstract of this study which you've been touting since page one.
He hasn't posted a study, he's posted a paragraph which he claims is from a study, but it can't even be verified so he expects the opposition to just take his word for it. Of course you will take up the mantle of his defender and "yes person" though, because it suits your position on the topic. And you think you know something about "respectful debate?" How droll. You had me on your ignore list at one point in time and openly boasted about it in a different thread at one point in time and spoke of how when I had taken a break from the forum, it was "nice" for you. Respect? Your position clearly knows no such thing. Go ahead and please utilize that ignore feature again, let the people interested in actual discussion of the topic and evidence being presented talk. I don't need your third party attempts to obfuscate the discussion between Reiver and I. Your thoughts as a third party to Reiver's and my back and forth are irrelevant and hold no water. But I don't expect you to be any less of a "yes woman" for him as it suits your position and you have openly expressed distaste for me as a person in other threads at other times. So naturally, it's convenient for you right now to contribute to his nonsense.
Finally some truth out of you. You're just not interested in the available evidence. Fair enough. Try not to openly fib next time though. Pretending you had read a paper and critiqued it was terribly bad form! Not really. Very few articles are open source. Should we not refer to books or articles because you're not as well read? Of course not. That would be unscientific No, you mean that you fibbed that you could dismiss the evidence and now we've proved that you fibbed you're going for the standard "hide from the evidence" comfort blanket chosen by the anti-intellectuals The evidence merely exists, demonstrating that sexism is a significant factor behind abortion attitudes. The interesting issue is the form of sexism that dominates. You haven't even entered the debate, preferring instead to spam the thread with fib
I never pretended I had read it, that's a deliberately dishonest statement from you. The only part of it I had access to was the part you posted here. I was critiquing that part, obviously. But now that we've come to the real crux of it, that so-called "part" of a so-called "academic study" cannot be verified by the opposition, therefore you either need to find an alternative source or concede that the original source is unverifiable. I beg to differ. I've done just fine finding open source articles to support my arguments in the past. If I can do it, surely you can as well. No? Tough luck. Ad hominem. I'm quite well read, moreso than you no doubt, I just know that you cannot logically expect to use a closed source study in an internet debate and be taken seriously. That's just plain and simple logic. Not everyone has access to the materials you do and it has nothing to do with education, lack thereof or any other character flaw you might attempt to credit or discredit them with. The evidence hasn't been shown yet. How can you enter a debate when the opening post asks a question specifically related to evidence which hasn't even been displayed for all to see? It's impossible. I guess technically you're right, I didn't enter the debate, but how can one enter a debate that has yet to begin? I answered your question, but you childishly chided me because the evidence that supposedly supports your stance says my answer is wrong... That's like me referring to my study which I have right here in hard text which I can't post because it "violates copyright" but happens to prove your entire premise and the premise of this thread wrong. It's no different. That's ludicrous. This whole topic is a fib.
You've stated "Their so-called "investigation" was flawed and not objective" and "His study is based on the false premise that male anti-abortion attitude can be understood based on two factors--two types of sexism". Now, if one wanted to think well of someone, that would inform us that they are critiquing a paper that they have read. It would be illogical to attack something that one hasn't read. Are you claiming that tag then? There's no debate here. That the vast majority of papers are not open source is matter of fact. I will not reduce my knowledge of the literature just because you aren't as well read. That wouldn't be logical. The evidence exists and it doesn't agree with your dogma. Get over it! You cannot deny the relevance of sexism for abortion attitudes. You cannot dismiss the empirical evidence. Now if you'd like to refer to one of your open source articles that rejects sexism as a determinant of such attitudes then be my guest. We both know that you cannot. Now stop spamming and answer the question: Which form of sexism is more significant?
I read what you provided, which is all I could read. I don't have access to "Reiver's private collection of internet flamebait material." Oh, so you'd like to post a study proving that statement as well? Very well, I eagerly await a study which evidences the statement that the "vast majority of papers are not open source." Your position really needs to get over itself. It has nothing to do with being well-read or not, this isn't about making yourself feel good while pitifully attempting to insult the knowledge base of other posters. It's about standards of internet debate. You're on a public forum with many public users. Logic dictates that you appeal to your audience. That's what debate teaches us to do. I would assume you've taken courses on how to properly debate? No? Tough luck. Or the evidence doesn't exist and there's no way you can prove it does. Get over it! If I haven't seen any empirical evidence, I sure as hell can. Consider it dismissed! No, I'll pull a classic Reiver and refer to something from my private collection, because I'm sooo well read : Reiver's Big Encyclopedia of "I Make (*)(*)(*)(*) Up to Suit My Argument" unabridged version Volume 12 pp. 220-222 Sexism is neither a determinant nor a deciding factor in the opposition of many males when it comes to abortion There you go, Reiver. Empirical evidence. You can't dismiss it, by your own logic and standards. I guess you just don't have access to the same materials I do, you must not be as well read as I am. What a shame. The answer is "neither" and your evidence which supposedly rejects that answer as "untrue" has yet to be shown. Sorry pal, you're out of luck.
Sorry, I honestly thought you'd show the good sense to read something before making claims about its nature. Now we know the extent of your lack of objectivity, care to actually stop with the spamming? We have evidence demonstrating that sexism is indeed linked to abortion attitudes. We know that you cannot dispute that link. So answer: What form of sexism dominates?
That's okay, I thought you would show the sense to read the entirety of the study I posted countering your study before dismissing it too, but I was wrong there. It's not spam, this is discussion, if you think it's spam, report my post. We'll see what a moderator has to say about it. We're debating the legitimacy of your closed source study, an issue which should be put to rest before you even begin to ask questions relating to said study. My guess is that the moderation here would tend to agree, but I could be wrong. If you actually wish to report my comments here as spam, by all means feel free. We'll see what happens. No you don't, because I clearly just disputed it no longer than 5 minutes ago with a classic Reiver tactic--I pulled something from my very stocked private collection of knowledge, an empirical study, nonetheless. You don't have access to it, apparently, but according to your standards, that doesn't mean it's not valid and that in no way suggests its legitimacy is to be questioned. You're going to have to settle for continuing to be disappointed, because until you post verifiable evidence which can be accessed by all which supports your initial terms of the topic question, my answer will remain the same.
You haven't posted a study nor will you be able to! I'm not interested in your spam. Unless you can answer the question "Sexism: which type?" or offer evidence that rejects the sexism hypothesis you'll be ignored. I have no time for unimaginative anti-intellectualism
And the same can be said for you. You posted a paragraph which is supposedly from a study, but we can't actually be sure, because it's a closed study. I posted a statement which is supposedly from a study, but you can't actually be sure it is, because it also comes from a private collection of "knowledge." Obviously I'm neither unimaginative nor anti-intellectual, as you've already spent a great deal of time responding to my comments. Kind of proved yourself wrong there, huh? Either I'm not unimaginative or anti-intellectual or you just have a lot more spare time to waste than you'd like people to think.
More evidence of the importance of attitudes to gender can be found in the scholarly source Hout (1999, Abortion politics in the United States, 19721994: From single issue to ideology, Gender Issues, Vol 17, pp. 3-34). This finds that demographic differences in attitudes towards abortion are eliminated by controlling for attitudes to gender-roles and sexual morality
All of that can be chalked up to the unfortunate consequence of gender and biology. Men cannot bear children. They can choose not to have children, or get a medical procedure so that they physically can't, but they can never choose to become pregnant(that one pregnant man exception aside). You cannot make two people equal in this regard because they are, by their very existence, different. It's sort of the same way that adults and minors are two legally different groups. The woman gets the choice about her body and her uterus because she's the one that has the uterus. It's inside her, it's her's, and her's alone. A woman can't make a man put his penis inside anyone he doesn't want to. The penis belongs to the man. Not even in marriage can you be forced to copulate, even if it can result in an annulment. Since this issue is very specifically about pregnancy, something a man is not physically able to do, the idea that a man and a woman be considered equal here is silly. It's the mother's womb, the mother's body, not society's or the government's, no matter how much sex she had.
That's a form of the naturalistic logical fallacy. Just because nature chose women as the child bearers doesn't make it right that she should get to decide whether the child she AND a MAN created lives or dies. Again, the argument which appeals to such a factor of nature is logically fallacious.
It absolutely does. It's her body. Your body is the most basic possession you can have. If you don't even have the right to control it, you have been stripped of everything. You are a prisoner. It has nothing to do with nature choosing either side. It just is. Tough luck.
How about neither one? How about just the common sense notion that killing a child is wrong. Has it ever occurred to you that men might just not believe children should be killed? We repeat this over and over again loud and clear and yet for some reason all your brain can hear is "sexism." You're not even hearing what we're saying. You're just twisting it into something else that makes you feel like the good guy for rejecting it. Look at your post here. You are asking a ridiculously loaded question because you don't want a real answer. You want a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) pro-abortion answer that will demonize anyone who is male and pro-life. If you are not interested in having a truly honest and open discussion about this subject without using straw man arguments, then why did you even post this thread at all? Just to get people to validate what you already believe?
"It just is" is circular logic. Just because something "is" a certain way does not imply that it is right or that a certain argument triumphs. This is more circular logic coming from your side of the debate and your initial argument still invokes the naturalistic logical fallacy. Sorry. It just doesn't work.
From the looks of your post, you've got Reiver's style all figured out. Loaded questions with bull(*)(*)(*)(*) closed source studies that prove absolutely jack but attempt to demonize an entire group of people who happen to oppose something. Nice post. Rep added.
Why doesn't it? You can't make laws that change reality. Are you suggesting that a woman's uterus is not hers? Who does it belong to then? When does the transfer of ownership take place? And by whose authority does THAT happen, because that's not the law round these here parts.
