• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study: tRump appeals to men who suffer from fragile masculinity

Keridan said:
I mean this seriously. Where in the world did they actually apply the scientific method or the Socratic method or anything approaching true discussion/research? The leaps and bounds of logic they did make me wonder if they are still capable of standing.
Click to expand...

not sure what part of the study you are complaining about now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Phys251 said:
Sorry, that trick didn't work earlier and won't work now.



If what the study was saying is wrong, then there should be another reliable study or two out there that says something very different. So instead of flailing, can you produce that study? Would be the best way to check the OP.
Click to expand...

you miss the fact that they don't have any real factually based evidence of what constitutes a "fragile masculinity". It would be akin to them saying, those who voted for Republicans in general have such fragility and then "proving" most of the people who voted for Trump are those people with fragile masculinity

btw what masculine values did Hillary push for?

I think this is a case of MEN who worshipped hillary trying to convince themselves they are more masculine then men who have no use for Hillary and what she stood for.
 
Phys251 said:
Sorry, that trick didn't work earlier and won't work now.



If what the study was saying is wrong, then there should be another reliable study or two out there that says something very different. So instead of flailing, can you produce that study? Would be the best way to check the OP.
Click to expand...

People don't tend to study whether the stars are really dreams going out in the night sky. Just because some idiot comes to a conclusion (meaning the "writers" and not you) doesn't mean lack of anyone bothering to write that 2 +2 = 4 makes it not true.

We've tried multiple times to show you the oh-so-many faults with sources, logic, and correlation. You are too busy deflecting to address those items. By all means, deepen the pit you stand in.
 
TurtleDude said:
they term things like searching hair loss or ED issues as "fragile masculinity"/ any scientific proof of that?
Click to expand...

Sounds more like common search terms for older individuals. The same individuals who often voted for Trump.
 
Phys251 said:
I didn't know you were an expert on gender. How long have you studied it?
Click to expand...

remind me of your academic credentials concerning "fragile masculinity"

I suspect you came across this article and since your goal is bashing those who voted for Trump, you latched onto it and posted it here without really understanding if these claims pass the smell test
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
not sure what part of the study you are complaining about now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your comment about the scientific method seemed to imply they actually applied it. I just can't find that in the article, links or sources. I see more of trying desperately to prove themselves right, no matter how massively failed the sources are.
 
ajn678 said:
Sounds more like common search terms for older individuals. The same individuals who often voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

yeah that is what I was thinking. When someone worries about going bald, "fragile masculinity" doesn't come to mind.
 
TurtleDude said:
you miss the fact that they don't have any real factually based evidence of what constitutes a "fragile masculinity".
Click to expand...

Perhaps the study was written for those who actually understand what it is without having to redefine it for the thousandth time. Just throwing that idea out there.

TurtleDude said:
remind me of your academic credentials concerning "fragile masculinity"

I suspect you came across this article and since your goal is bashing those who voted for Trump, you latched onto it and posted it here without really understanding if these claims pass the smell test
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's y'all vs. the article, not y'all vs. me, as much as y'all want to make it otherwise. That is where y'all are stuck.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah that is what I was thinking. When someone worries about going bald, "fragile masculinity" doesn't come to mind.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing other terms like "what to get your grandchildren for Christmas" made them look too normal so they omitted those.
 
Phys251 said:
Perhaps the study was written for those who actually understand what it is without having to redefine it for the thousandth time. Just throwing that idea out there.



Sorry, it's y'all vs. the article, not y'all vs. me, as much as y'all want to make it otherwise. That is where y'all are stuck.
Click to expand...

You're literally the one attacking people that pose problems with the study.
 
Phys251 said:
Perhaps the study was written for those who actually understand what it is without having to redefine it for the thousandth time. Just throwing that idea out there.



Sorry, it's y'all vs. the article, not y'all vs. me, as much as y'all want to make it otherwise. That is where y'all are stuck.
Click to expand...

its partisan hackery trying to comfort men who voted for Hillary
 
Keridan said:
People don't tend to study whether the stars are really dreams going out in the night sky. Just because some idiot comes to a conclusion (meaning the "writers" and not you) doesn't mean lack of anyone bothering to write that 2 +2 = 4 makes it not true.

We've tried multiple times to show you the oh-so-many faults with sources, logic, and correlation. You are too busy deflecting to address those items. By all means, deepen the pit you stand in.
Click to expand...

And there you go again. I threw you a lifeline--go find a study that comes to a different conclusion than this one did--but you continue to play the twiddle game. Twiddle with words, twiddle with definitions, twiddle with positions, etc.

Do you even know that earlier in this thread I tossed out a second study that showed the exact same result, right down to those from 2008 and 2012? And you have yet to produce the slightest bit of evidence to counter either.

See, I'd love to have an intelligent discussion with you despite the fact that our positions are miles apart. But when you keep arguing from a complete lack of evidence, with the occasional childish insult thrown in, what do I even have to go on?
 
ajn678 said:
I'm guessing other terms like "what to get your grandchildren for Christmas" made them look too normal so they omitted those.
Click to expand...

but men who researched cross dressing fashion advice or sexual re-assignment surgery were probably not counted either.
 
Phys251 said:
Sorry, it's y'all vs. the article, not y'all vs. me, as much as y'all want to make it otherwise. That is where y'all are stuck.
Click to expand...

I think it's cute that you did your best to pretend we were the ones on the defensive and try to tie us with the people in this article searching these terms ... right up until you were called out. Then it was "DON'T PICK ON ME!"
 
ajn678 said:
You're literally the one attacking people that pose problems with the study.
Click to expand...

And there it is. Critiquing = "attacking." There's the admission that I was waiting for.
 
TurtleDude said:
its partisan hackery trying to comfort men who voted for Hillary
Click to expand...

You are two years late with that assessment. But nice try.

Also, did you even notice that earlier in this article I tossed in a study which said the very same thing and came out before the 2016 election? So I've got two studies going in this thread from very different time frames that say the same thing. All you guys are doing is trying to figuratively shoot the messenger because you do not like the message, no matter how much you insist to the contrary. Happens every time discussions such as these come up.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Its linked in this thread in the op and in the Washington post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The study is not linked in the op. The article in the OP is reporting what allegedly reported I the Washington Post article. I haven't read the Washington Post article, however I can safely assume it is not the study they published but rather a story about the study.
 
Phys251 said:
And there you go again. I threw you a lifeline--go find a study that comes to a different conclusion than this one did--but you continue to play the twiddle game. Twiddle with words, twiddle with definitions, twiddle with positions, etc.

Do you even know that earlier in this thread I tossed out a second study that showed the exact same result, right down to those from 2008 and 2012? And you have yet to produce the slightest bit of evidence to counter either.

See, I'd love to have an intelligent discussion with you despite the fact that our positions are miles apart. But when you keep arguing from a complete lack of evidence, with the occasional childish insult thrown in, what do I even have to go on?
Click to expand...

Oh how I dream you were interested in an honest debate. Instead, you are more interested in the ad hominem, deflection, and trying to disregard all the folks who have shown you the flaws.

As already addressed, I read the loosely linked, incredibly biased article you linked to. It was easy enough to disregard if you actually read it. However, actually reading would have stopped the OP from happening.

I love a good debate. I stay on this board despite threads pointing to articles like this. On a rare occasion, I meet an intelligent person who I disagree with, but they are willing to respond to counter-points, and even might have an open mind! I look all over for them. There are some great minds here. Unfortunately, there are twice as many or more who dodge like you do and try to score cheap points.
 
TurtleDude said:
but men who researched cross dressing fashion advice or sexual re-assignment surgery were probably not counted either.
Click to expand...

Or "how do I get my wife's boyfriend to bond with me?"
 
Keridan said:
Oh how I dream you were interested in an honest debate. Instead, you are more interested in the ad hominem, deflection, and trying to disregard all the folks who have shown you the flaws.
Click to expand...

Beautiful projection. Ultra HD.
 
Phys251 said:
You are two years late with that assessment. But nice try.

Also, did you even notice that earlier in this article I tossed in a study which said the very same thing and came out before the 2016 election? So I've got two studies going in this thread from very different time frames that say the same thing. All you guys are doing is trying to figuratively shoot the messenger because you do not like the message, no matter how much you insist to the contrary. Happens every time discussions such as these come up.
Click to expand...

lets think this through

what group in terms of the sexes was the biggest supporter of hillary

Single women

Married women were more likely to vote for Trump than single women

how would you rank people in terms of strong masculine feelings among these groups

Single Women, Married Women, Married Men, Single Men

now if we place single women as having the least ties to masculine feelings or values and they are the most likely to vote for clinton, doesn't that sort of undercut this hackish study you came up with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom