Marriage = overrated today

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

Finding a good man/woman is becoming increasingly difficult it seems. Also, if a divorce happens, you can lose quite a bit as a man.

[crunchyfrog]

WarHeRo の投稿を引用：

it's true, i dont have 20 years of exp in publishing, but I'm in this for 2 years now and there is a vast amount of publications who have been reviewed purely with the nepotism principle

Yes it can happen, but that's not the point here.

We're talking about peer reivew across the board.

The thing what people like him don't get is that peer reivew applies to ANYONE.

If someone gives me an electronic circuit or a paper with one on, I can test it. It will indeed get peer reviewed but part of it IS testing. If it doesn't come out as claimed then it's rejected.

You can't fake reality. That's the point.

And again he offers nothing to back up his claims, and nothing to show what's better. This is just him trying to dodge burden of proof.

[crunchyfrog]

King of Gaming の投稿を引用：

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

And again still nothing to do with the claim.

Let's assume that some sort of major war broke out tomorrow, and certain major countries went all in.

How does any of that mean that societies are going to magically change overnight - you still need to demosntrate that too, and we do have evidence of previous serious wars around the world that don't seem to show as you claim.

Sure you do sometimes get more reproductivity in certain situations during conflict but not always.

But again thsi sounds like just a dodge.

2030 is still 6 years away. I have no doubt that 45% of women could be single and childless by that time. The rise of toxic masculinity, the manosphere and Andrew Tate has made a lot of men turn on women and feminism. A lot of young men have just exited the dating market completely, many are doomers, blackpill/redpill, incels, MGTOW.

If you believe what you see on the internet is reality, sure.

But reality don't work like that.

Which again shows that viewing things through a narrow lens like this shows you don't understand how things work. You think the vast majority of people around the world who don't follow these people or don't care about them are simply going to magically do the same?

So again, this isn't sudden;y a new thing. It's been a trend going for some years, so we'd ALREADY see signs and we just don't.

[WarHeRo]

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

WarHeRo の投稿を引用：

as I said, a simple google search would suffice in this instance, but here u go:
Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Review[doi.org]

And again you haven't demonstrated what's better. I already said it wasn't perfect, but you need to show two things.

One, which system is better.

And then show the evidence for the claim still.

Again you don't get to dodge.

Relax. I never said there's a better way. This is just how things are. Universities like to print degrees to maintain their reputation, and they're not keen on sharing their internal workings with outsiders. So, it's very unlikely to be replaced anytime soon.

I claimed that peer reviews can be fake and I've shown proof that there are fake peer reviews. nd ironically, even that paper went through peer review.

What more do I need to demonstrate?

[WarHeRo]

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

WarHeRo の投稿を引用：

it's true, i dont have 20 years of exp in publishing, but I'm in this for 2 years now and there is a vast amount of publications who have been reviewed purely with the nepotism principle

Yes it can happen, but that's not the point here.

We're talking about peer reivew across the board.

The thing what people like him don't get is that peer reivew applies to ANYONE.

If someone gives me an electronic circuit or a paper with one on, I can test it. It will indeed get peer reviewed but part of it IS testing. If it doesn't come out as claimed then it's rejected.

You can't fake reality. That's the point.

And again he offers nothing to back up his claims, and nothing to show what's better. This is just him trying to dodge burden of proof.

yeah, u can only test it if u get the data. to ur surprise, u wont get the data and will have to believe his results are correct. so u already start by assuming his work is legit, and there is barely anything u can read out of most of the STEM publications

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

King of Gaming の投稿を引用：

2030 is still 6 years away. I have no doubt that 45% of women could be single and childless by that time. The rise of toxic masculinity, the manosphere and Andrew Tate has made a lot of men turn on women and feminism. A lot of young men have just exited the dating market completely, many are doomers, blackpill/redpill, incels, MGTOW.

If you believe what you see on the internet is reality, sure.

But reality don't work like that.

Which again shows that viewing things through a narrow lens like this shows you don't understand how things work. You think the vast majority of people around the world who don't follow these people or don't care about them are simply going to magically do the same?

So again, this isn't sudden;y a new thing. It's been a trend going for some years, so we'd ALREADY see signs and we just don't.

The masculinity trend is spreading though through social media and the internet. Soon it will be a battle of the sexes. We'll see in 6 years what society is like.

[crunchyfrog]

WarHeRo の投稿を引用：

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

And again you haven't demonstrated what's better. I already said it wasn't perfect, but you need to show two things.

One, which system is better.

And then show the evidence for the claim still.

Again you don't get to dodge.

Relax. I never said there's a better way. This is just how things are. Universities like to print degrees to maintain their reputation, and they're not keen on sharing their internal workings with outsiders. So, it's very unlikely to be replaced anytime soon.

I claimed that peer reviews can be fake and I've shown proof that there are fake peer reviews. nd ironically, even that paper went through peer review.

What more do I need to demonstrate?

Depends on what you're claiming.

The point here is this is an ongoing discussion where someone keeps asserting that marriage and productivity is going to collapse due to the rise of feminism.

Once I pointed out this is bunkum and reality doesn't gel with what you see on the internet, they doubled down and started putting out youtube videos of idiots like Jordan Peterson asserting things.

I kept pointing out that wasn't good evidence and kept asking for peer reviewed evidence.

After they clearly then google peer review they tried to dispute it as a dodge, so that's why I asked for what's better and the evidence for the claim still.

The fact remains that obviously we don't see a collapse in marraige and so on across the globe. We do see some regional problems in certain areas down to other societal things, but nothing like they claim.

In short they keep dodging.

[crunchyfrog]

WarHeRo の投稿を引用：

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

Yes it can happen, but that's not the point here.

We're talking about peer reivew across the board.

The thing what people like him don't get is that peer reivew applies to ANYONE.

If someone gives me an electronic circuit or a paper with one on, I can test it. It will indeed get peer reviewed but part of it IS testing. If it doesn't come out as claimed then it's rejected.

You can't fake reality. That's the point.

And again he offers nothing to back up his claims, and nothing to show what's better. This is just him trying to dodge burden of proof.

yeah, u can only test it if u get the data. to ur surprise, u wont get the data and will have to believe his results are correct. so u already start by assuming his work is legit, and there is barely anything u can read out of most of the STEM publications

Nope that's not how it works.

You NEVER start with assuming it's correct. You still test. You clearly don't understand how this works at all.

[WarHeRo]

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

WarHeRo の投稿を引用：

Relax. I never said there's a better way. This is just how things are. Universities like to print degrees to maintain their reputation, and they're not keen on sharing their internal workings with outsiders. So, it's very unlikely to be replaced anytime soon.

I claimed that peer reviews can be fake and I've shown proof that there are fake peer reviews. nd ironically, even that paper went through peer review.

What more do I need to demonstrate?

Depends on what you're claiming.

The point here is this is an ongoing discussion where someone keeps asserting that marriage and productivity is going to collapse due to the rise of feminism.

Once I pointed out this is bunkum and reality doesn't gel with what you see on the internet, they doubled down and started putting out youtube videos of idiots like Jordan Peterson asserting things.

I kept pointing out that wasn't good evidence and kept asking for peer reviewed evidence.

After they clearly then google peer review they tried to dispute it as a dodge, so that's why I asked for what's better and the evidence for the claim still.

The fact remains that obviously we don't see a collapse in marraige and so on across the globe. We do see some regional problems in certain areas down to other societal things, but nothing like they claim.

In short they keep dodging.

Alright, I believe I've been misunderstanding. What I meant was simply discussing how science operates and that relying solely on peer reviews isn't always enough to confirm the accuracy of a publication.
But I think his ideas correlate with the following publication mostly:
'These boots are made for walking': why most divorce filers are women[dx.doi.org]

[Fumo Bnnuy n Frends]

ironically turning in favor for men in terms of divorce

since recently a lot of college educated women and women are topping the charts on several fields.

So now THEY have to pay alimony if they make more than their husbands. They wanna divorce it's on them now.



it has been biased towards men a lot of marriage and family laws but now women are getting the receiving end of the kick in the teeth.


Not too too hard with social media and dem dum dums literally posting all their ♥♥♥♥ and dirty laundry on full blast.

[RRW359]

King of Gaming の投稿を引用：

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

Jordan Peterson asserting crap is not peer reviewed evidence.

Let's wait until 2030 to see if 45% of women are single and childless. Just by how modern dating is in today's world, I wouldn't be too surprised when it happens. Women are choosing to be single by choice.

What exactally is wrong for chosing to be single, either for men or women?

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

RRW359 の投稿を引用：

King of Gaming の投稿を引用：

Let's wait until 2030 to see if 45% of women are single and childless. Just by how modern dating is in today's world, I wouldn't be too surprised when it happens. Women are choosing to be single by choice.

What exactally is wrong for chosing to be single, either for men or women?

There's nothing wrong with it; I'm just saying it's likely to be a reality in 2030.

[RRW359]

King of Gaming の投稿を引用：

RRW359 の投稿を引用：

What exactally is wrong for chosing to be single, either for men or women?

There's nothing wrong with it; I'm just saying it's likely to be a reality in 2030.

Sounds like everyone is getting what they want then and the job market is also going to be more healthy.

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

RRW359 の投稿を引用：

King of Gaming の投稿を引用：

There's nothing wrong with it; I'm just saying it's likely to be a reality in 2030.

Sounds like everyone is getting what they want then and the job market is also going to be more healthy.

But are people going to be happy? There's a growing loneliness epidemic. Why?

[RRW359]

King of Gaming の投稿を引用：

RRW359 の投稿を引用：

Sounds like everyone is getting what they want then and the job market is also going to be more healthy.

But are people going to be happy? There's a growing loneliness epidemic. Why?

Because people don't seek mental help when they need to and the design of Cities makes it difficult to socialise.

[swillfly]

Whenever anyone considers getting married to another person they should invite the judge to join them in the sack . . . for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death us do part