Mad Max Fury Road

[Industrypariah]

What a great defense the gay community has if you criticize them their agenda, etc. If you dare criticize or think it's nasty you're either a closet homo, or insecure about your sexuality.

It was a peer reviewed study that used the the scientific method you fucking moron

If you think psychology is real science then I feel sorry for you. For most things it's the science of name calling. There are some things everyone knows are crazy (like when get hallucinations or get Alzheimer) everything else is grey area and mostly name calling.

Herp derp. What makes you the authority on what's a science and pseudo science when you can't even grasp basic concepts like the scientific method. It's also obivous you didn't read the study and just dismissed it outright because it doesn't confirm to your bias.

You're just an insecure idiot with an opinion.

 

[Industrypariah]

So why did they need to hire vagina monologues for action movie? Does not make much sense without conspiracy

Here's we go. Another knuckle dragging derp.

How about this conspiracy for you fuck tards:

Movie exe: We want to maximize our profits and have a traditional male demograhic movie appeal to women as well.

Is this simple enough for some of you retards that call yourselves capitalists and marketers?

 

[bluechinagroup]

Sure, but it's a bad excuse because they know they'd lose just as many as they'd gain. There are many religious people who wouldn't think about watching it, and then those who just don't like watching gay sex enough to stop watching the show.

And you think religious people would be okay with the heterosexual sex on the screen and NOT call GoT pornography?

They only risk losing people like you, and it's pretty obvious to me that you will continue to watch GoT while grumbling about the gay sex. I guess you can use the fast forward button like how I am sure some gay people do when they have to deal with heterosexual sex?

Good thing you never watched that other HBO show with male genitalia and homosexual kissing,"Six Feet Under", despite it being an amazing show with fascinating well developed characters.

 

[rusvik]

Here's we go. Another knuckle dragging derp.

How about this conspiracy for you fuck tards:

Movie exe: We want to maximize our profits and have a traditional male demograhic movie appeal to women as well.

Is this simple enough for some of you retards that call yourselves capitalists and marketers?

Feminism doesn't appeal to most women, except for its benefits. Most women have zero interest in seeing a dyke looking Charlize Theron behave like a man. The way you get women to watch movies aimed at men is through romance plots and drama. You inject a bit of Days of Our Lives (the charicature of female fiction).

That's Mad Men with all their drama, which they easily do without but then it would a Entourage in a different setting. Or Game of Thrones the same.

Lol at you appealing to capitalism and calling others out.

Yeah, why don't all the multi billion dollar beauty companies not use ugly feminist bitches in their ads. How come they use feminine, slim women in all their ads?

It's because women respond to it, dumbass, regardless of what they might parrot from their feminist indoctrination.

The fact you try to bring up this point as if 'we' are the ones who are against free market interest, while it is exactly feminism which is entirely against human nature/female nature/free market incentive, is just another proof that there is an agenda here which operates for completely different goals than short term profit.

 

[Industrypariah]

Feminism doesn't appeal to most women, except for its benefits. Most women have zero interest in seeing a dyke looking Charlize Theron behave like a man. The way you get women to watch movies aimed at men is through romance plots and drama. You inject a bit of Days of Our Lives (the charicature of female fiction).

That's Mad Men with all their drama, which they easily do without but then it would a Entourage in a different setting. Or Game of Thrones the same.

Lol at you appealing to capitalism and calling others out.

Yeah, why don't all the multi billion dollar beauty companies not use ugly feminist bitches in their ads. How come they use feminine, slim women in all their ads?

It's because women respond to it, dumbass, regardless of what they might parrot from their feminist indoctrination.

The fact you try to bring up this point as if 'we' are the ones who are against free market interest, while it is exactly feminism which is entirely against human nature/female nature/free market incentive, is just another proof that there is an agenda here which operates for completely different goals than short term profit.

Where did I say that I think beauty companies need to use ugly women? Stop stuffing words in my mouth. Beauty companies (Indeed all companies) should use whatever gives them the biggest profit. Full stop. Also good job broadly painting all feminists as "ugly bitches" you intellectual midget. Everything is black & white with you isn't it? Thanks for proving to me what kind of bias you have.

I know you're Russian and all, but stop obsessing over conspiracies like a retard. Companies want to maximize their profits and not try to sell you an ideology.

As some of the more intelligent people here said: Media is a reflection of our society.

 

[WickedJoe]

It was a peer reviewed study that used the the scientific method you fucking moron. What makes you the authority on what's a science and pseudo science when you can't even grasp basic concepts like the scientific method. It's also obivous you didn't read the study and just dismissed it outright because it doesn't confirm to your bias.

Peer reviewed doesn't mean it was peer verified. It just means someone did a single study and peers read it. It doesn't even mean that everyone agreed with the study or it's method. Bad science is published all the time. I got more scientific method in a ball of my ear wax than you'll have you're whole pathetic life.

I read the abstract, but you can't read the whole paper because you'd have to pay for it. Not worth it. I could go into just how fucked up psychology and psychiatry is but it would take a book. There are many out there already. If you kept up with anything you'd know that they've labeled so many people as mentally 'ill' in some way that they'd medicate 3/4 of the population. Most psychology is a fucking joke.

Regardless, the paper might be correct or incorrect. So the question is, is someone who simply finds homosexual sex on their tv shows nasty or unappealing homophobic? If you read my previous posts you'll see my full opinion on homos, etc and most would prob agree that I'm not homophobic. I think most hetero men are in my boat but just don't want to be called names when they dare to criticize men sucking each other off on popular tv shows.

And if you think I'm homophobic, do you think i'm fecalphobic too?

 

[Industrypariah]

I got more scientific method in a ball of my ear wax than you'll have you're whole pathetic life.

That doesn't even make sense, so it's obvious you're talking out of your ass.

Also

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review.

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

So you clearly don't know what you're jabbering about. Peer verified isn't a term used in the scientific community you fucking moron.

Regardless, the paper might be correct or incorrect. So the question is, is someone who simply finds homosexual sex on their tv shows nasty or unappealing homophobic? If you read my previous posts you'll see my full opinion on homos, etc and most would prob agree that I'm not homophobic. I think most hetero men are in my boat but just don't want to be called names when they dare to criticize men sucking each other off on popular tv shows.

And if you think I'm homophobic, do you think i'm fecalphobic too?

Yeah you're definately homophobic. I think you should get over it and get used to the fact that they're a major demographic that the media wants to appeal to so you'll keep seeing gay sex on your favorite tv shows. You're not going to see shit eating because that's a very small subset of individuals and not a significant enough demographic.

If you're fecalphobic then you'd probably be afraid to take a shit each day. Did you stop shitting? Another derp moment from wickedjoe.

 

[WickedJoe]

And you think religious people would be okay with the heterosexual sex on the screen and NOT call GoT pornography?

Religious people have been watching hetro porn since it's inception. But many will draw the line at homosexual sex scenes. They'll start talkin bout the devil, etc.

They only risk losing people like you, and it's pretty obvious to me that you will continue to watch GoT while grumbling about the gay sex. I guess you can use the fast forward button like how I am sure some gay people do when they have to deal with heterosexual sex?

It's true, i'll continue watching. It's funny because it's like watching this great show but some asshole stuck in random scenes of '2 girls 1 cup' every so often. How would you feel about that? And then you say to yourself.. 'wow i don't remember any shit eating in the books, I wonder why this is here.'

Good thing you never watched that other HBO show with male genitalia and homosexual kissing,"Six Feet Under", despite it being an amazing show with fascinating well developed characters.

Don't really care too much about kissing or the random hanging dick. Do care about hard-fucking gay sex scenes or guys sucking each other off.

 

[WickedJoe]

That doesn't even make sense, so it's obvious you're talking out of your ass.

If you can't see that was a joke, then you probably can't see many other things too. It basically means I know much more about science and the scientific method than you.

Your definition of peer review does not contradict what I've said. I've worked in laboratories at university and helped publish papers. All it really means is that nobody found any grievous errors in the study yet. It in no way means the study's conclusion is TRUE or VERIFIED. It's only verified if it's replicated, and often replicated many times. I'm sorry you don't know what science is.

You wouldn't believe some of the shit people have got away with publishing, then went on lecture tours for yrs, and got much acclaim and fame.. but then a few yrs later people tried replicating it and despite trying many times it didn't work. Then their career is ruined.

Regardless, you think i'm homophobic so I guess my opinion is no longer valid to you because I secretly want to pound your ass. Great defense tactic man.

 

[Industrypariah]

Your definition of peer review does not contradict what I've said. I've worked in laboratories at university and helped publish papers. All it really means is that nobody found any grievous errors in the study yet. It in no way means the study's conclusion is TRUE or VERIFIED. It's only verified if it's replicated, and often replicated many times. I'm sorry you don't know what science is.

If nobody found any grievous errors in the study yet then it means the study already passed through its first hurdle. There is no such term as "peer verified", so it's not clear what you were talking about. Obviously the highest standard in the scientific method is when an experiment is replicated many times in order to confirm a hypothesis.

 

[potentialeight]

Maybe next we can get the writers from Will and Grace to consult on a remake of Full Metal Jacket.

 

[WickedJoe]

If nobody found any grievous errors in the study yet then it means the study already passed through its first hurdle. There is no such term as "peer verified", so it's not clear what you were talking about. Obviously the highest standard in the scientific method is when an experiment is replicated many times in order to confirm a hypothesis.

It's not clear what i'm talking about to you because you know very little about science - probably only what you've seen in pop science articles and Wikipedia. But that's ok.

A study or observation is nothing until it's been replicated. Reproducability is everything. Just because there isn't a catch phrase on wikipedia for "peer verified" doesn't mean shit. But yes, something that's been published has passed through the first hurdle though.

Also, psychology is a weak/soft science in the first place. The brain is so complex and we try to box it in and dumb it down with our definitions of various behaviors. We're still in the Dark ages on brain science yet these fuckers want to make conclusions on what is good/bad and should be treated with drugs? Like i said I could write a book on this. But all you need to know is that peer reviewed papers dealing with soft sciences that make sweeping conclusions are much more prone to error. You could start with the definition of homophobia itself.. it's a fucking subjective opinion (aka soft science).

 

[Industrypariah]

It's not clear what i'm talking about to you because you know very little about science - probably only what you've seen in pop science articles and Wikipedia. But that's ok.

I have a Masters degree in Electoral Engineering. What kind of hard science degree(s) do you have again?

 

[WickedJoe]

I have a Masters degree in Electoral Engineering. What kind of hard science degree(s) do you have again?

B.S. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
No graduate degrees for me, I found out I liked programming more than lab work so started developing my own software.

Anyway, with an EE degree you'll know quite a bit about science, and you'll probably know I'm right in what i've said in the last few posts.

 

[JulianTrueFlynn]

I like sci-fi movies

 

[jryan21]

I have a Masters degree in Electoral Engineering. What kind of hard science degree(s) do you have again?

LOL you work for Diebold?

 

[Capital]

So why did they need to hire vagina monologues for action movie? Does not make much sense without conspiracy



It is not gender bashing, it is propaganda bashing. So more like bashing of bashing (by propaganda).

Completely different thing.

See the movie. You're acting fucking hysterical.

There's no evil feminist propaganda in this film. I've seen it twice and I couldn't detect any hidden social commentary you could apply to modern Western societies.

Just because they hired a feminist writer/consultant doesn't mean there's some sort of fucking conspiracy to brainwash the masses through Mad Max. The fact you'd reach for a conspiratorial explanation before a simpler, more plausible one speaks volumes about your biased, myopic worldview.

 

[Industrypariah]

LOL you work for Diebold?

Electrical Engineering. Mobile auto correct slip up.

 

[Industrypariah]

Anyway, with an EE degree you'll know quite a bit about science, and you'll probably know I'm right in what i've said in the last few posts.

Well indeed you're right that repeatable experiments that give a consistent result is the gold standard. Hopefully that study can be repeated multiple times on larger sample sizes.

 

[icestationzebra]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eUf_WnMcGI[/ame]