Manosphere Amud - The Balloon Loon, Loveshy Extraordinaire

[Fwiffo]

You realize that what most of us are asking for when we say *CITATION NEEDED* is raw data, not necessarily an excerpt from a peer reviewed article. For example, I could say that all women have a predilection for pizza lunches on Tuesdays. Now others would challenge me on it and ask for some evidence. If my conclusion was sound, I may have receipts from local pizza places on Tuesdays, samples of blood whose chemistry indicate a weekly diet of pizza, or even testimonials from a large sample size of women. If the data vets my conclusion, it is accepted; if it doesn't, it isn't.

Your problem is that you don't have any evidence for what you say, ever. You look at low resolution pictures of two skulls and say that they are related, ignoring the VAST body of evidence that proves otherwise. When we call you out on it, you beg us to simply accept you at your word.

You're a poor scientist.

 

[Sunny-D]

Sincere congratulations for all of the time and effort you have painstakingly spent on this, one of the most idiotic, deluded and poorly drawn things I have seen in a very long time.

You realize that what most of us are asking for when we say *CITATION NEEDED* is raw data, not necessarily an excerpt from a peer reviewed article. For example, I could say that all women have a predilection for pizza lunches on Tuesdays. Now others would challenge me on it and ask for some evidence. If my conclusion was sound, I may have receipts from local pizza places on Tuesdays, samples of blood whose chemistry indicate a weekly diet of pizza, or even testimonials from a large sample size of women. If the data vets my conclusion, it is accepted; if it doesn't, it isn't.

Your problem is that you don't have any evidence for what you say, ever. You look at low resolution pictures of two skulls and say that they are related, ignoring the VAST body of evidence that proves otherwise. When we call you out on it, you beg us to simply accept you at your word.

You're a poor scientist.

I mean goddamn, not only that, but the basic fact that good science examines the data (and all the data, not just a limited handful of it) and makes a conclusion based on that - not makes a conclusion first, then searches for anything that could be construed as supporting it while ignoring the rest.

Like DNA.

This guy has ignored the existence of DNA in its entirety seemingly this whole thread. C'mon man.

 

[ON 190]

You're just making gibberish up, completely off the top of your head.

You were saying, Mr. Amud?

You're a poor scientist.

He demonstrates his data using MSPaint. I'm not holding my breath on credibility.

 

[Stratomsk]

All this image proves is your moronic inability to provide evidence. You can make a statement about anything you like, but its another thing to actually give raw data and statistics that lend credence to your claims.

EVIDENCE MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

 

[Dynamite Ninja]

I think @silentprincess needs to give this fartknocker a crash course in niceness.

 

[Arctic]

I don't know whether to rate this winner or autistic.

 

[Simplicity111]

I don't know whether to rate this winner or autistic.

I'd rate it "horrifying" if I had access to that rating, because dear lord that pic is disturbing.

 

[Amud]

I'd rate it "horrifying" if I had access to that rating, because dear lord that pic is disturbing.

What is disturbing about it? It's just a silly cartoon that I made in MS Paint.

 

[Simplicity111]

What is disturbing about it? It's just a silly cartoon that I made in MS Paint.

The faces... and the wand...

 

[Wet]

Wow, I just checked back and he's still going over a day later. I guess he really is the new holden.

 

[TM Ambrose]

Broadly defined human races have much more genetic diversity already than breeds of dogs or other animals.

I'm going to presume he doesn't know what STR's are or really anything about genetics. I'm going to presume this came right out of where Chris shoves his tugboat.

 

[TM Ambrose]

Snorting condoms is ridiculous. Using finger cots for neurocranial restructuring is exactly what many chiropractors do, and it has a large backing of patients and doctors who swear by the technique. It is therefore not ridiculous. See the difference?

Actually it's considered pseudoscience. The backing of it is mostly shady doctors who haven't been updated on any modern techniques which is surprisingly common.

 

[TM Ambrose]

Pictured: How speds think science works. BTW Theory is a unification of several ideas and wouldn't be developed by a single individual. You would know this if you understood science. Also I'm glad you mention racist sexist for some reason. You know females have been doing science since the 17th century right? Science has cared in very few situations. In fact a lot of what we know about DNA was discovered by women.... and a good bit of what we know about physics..... and transposable elements which i'm sure you have no idea what are. Also scientific papers DO have to cite their sources if they're not using original research for their whole paper. Also since i'm guessing you're trying to compare yourself to people with a scientific background most scientific papers are published because peer review is a powerful thing. Peer review includes people that wouldn't normally be involved. Credibility is also commonly considered when publishing an article.

 

[drtoboggan]

Do you sterilize the stuff you shove up your nose, @Amud? It's not just uppity medical professionals who recommend it.

 

[4Macie]

It's not sexist to point out that some female archaeologists sleep with their male superiors to get ahead in the field. There are women in many fields who do this. That's a fact. Pointing out facts is not sexist, since sexism is an opinion.
Now you're just being silly. If you guys don't understand any word I use, just ask and I will gladly define it. Some of the words I use might not be on OFFICIAL PAPERZ but they still have meanings that I can explain. You're just making gibberish up, completely off the top of your head.

It's a little sexist that you assume that there aren't males fucking female bosses to get a step up too.

 

[Sunny-D]

"Howell claims the conditions amenable to NCR include: "Alzheimer's; arthritis, attention deficit disorder, dyslexia, autism; cerebral palsy; Down's Syndrome (holy shit guys it cures inborn genetic disorders); low energy, organ functioning; osteoporosis; Parkinson's disease and tremors; phobias; relationship difficulties LOL WELP; seizures; strokes; tinnitus; vertigo and other balance problems; wrinkles (NCR replaces a face lift)." (source, emphasis mine)

So in other words it's snake oil.

 

[AnimuGinger]

This is a lot of zeekaceeforazin (word I just made up, accept it or you're all close minded noberflaxitacins).

 

[DrChristianTroy]

I've been gone for a few days for a work trip. What the fucking fuck?

PS- Yo @Amud, who are your top five?

 

[The I Scream Man]

Pictured: How speds think science works. BTW Theory is a unification of several ideas and wouldn't be developed by a single individual. You would know this if you understood science. Also I'm glad you mention racist sexist for some reason. You know females have been doing science since the 17th century right? Science has cared in very few situations. In fact a lot of what we know about DNA was discovered by women.... and a good bit of what we know about physics..... and transposable elements which i'm sure you have no idea what are. Also scientific papers DO have to cite their sources if they're not using original research for their whole paper. Also since i'm guessing you're trying to compare yourself to people with a scientific background most scientific papers are published because peer review is a powerful thing. Peer review includes people that wouldn't normally be involved. Credibility is also commonly considered when publishing an article.

Agreed, correct me if I'm wrong b0ss but I believe what he's describing is a hypothesis, which is generally created by one individual or maybe a small team.

As far as the validity of your claims, @Amud, there's a reason that stuff like this needs to be peer-reviewed: because it falls way way outside the realm of what's generally accepted in science. If someone came up to you and spouted something similarly unorthodox, would you just instantly believe him? If that's the case then you should give me all your money for safe-keeping, since it's poisonous and is slowly killing you.

 

[TM Ambrose]

Agreed, correct me if I'm wrong b0ss but I believe what he's describing is a hypothesis, which is generally created by one individual or maybe a small team.

Hypothesis or a set of hypotheses, possibly even using a set of data to propose a law.