Bar fights tips:

[Xant]

Same goes for you.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Henry_Broodsonson]

Imbibe the culture.

[Logen]

I don't call dickheads "buddies"

[Sniger]

this thread amuse me.

[Xant]

Sorry, we got onto the culture-agency debate, i win, it's my subject.

Nope, my subject, I win. Whew, that was easy!

Unfortunately if you want to pursue an internet bitch-fight in this field i can physically counter any half-baked unsubstantiated musings with the prominent authors and dates of their publications on the subject lol. Your lack of self assessment and firm belief in a concept that is provably wrong in academic terms (total agency where culture is not a factor) reflects badly on the rest of your argument because it reveals your lack of objective self-evaluation in general, and makes abundantly clear that everything you've said up to this point has been 100% opinion with no objective fact.

Yada yada yada. I see nothing relevant. I can make similar claims just as easily. Therefore, I'll just say "nope."

Casimir is dead right about culture, and before you say that's just my opinion or his i can prove we aren't bullshitting. My area of knowledge i'm afraid, i can include a bibliography (overkill) if you truly want to read up in regards to modern scholars perceptions of the pervasiveness of our culture in all things we do, but you won't bother to check it. However you may want to read up on Foucault and 'social discourse' and 'agency', and also Bourdieu and the role of 'habitus' in a society, a simple Wiki search will prove i'm not talking out of my ass. I wouldn't advise pursuing this debate any further lol. The internet is a minefield, you never know when you'll stumble into someone's subject area by mistake lol, i've seen on previous threads that Casimir knows his shit about sociology too.

Cool, provide some quotes that prove me wrong then. As something of an authority on myself, I believe this here discussion is something of a "subject area" of mine, not yours.

I assure you that I'd have reached the same conclusion if I lived in another country. Even yours. And that my reaction wouldn't be considered "okay" in my country.

[Leesin]

Well where I live it's quite normal for people to be dickheads even when they aren't drunk and it's quite normal to punch dickheads when you're not drunk, it's the culture of my town.

[zagibu]

Sorry, we got onto the culture-agency debate, i win, it's my subject. Unfortunately if you want to pursue an internet bitch-fight in this field i can physically counter any half-baked unsubstantiated musings with the prominent authors and dates of their publications on the subject lol. Your lack of self assessment and firm belief in a concept that is provably wrong in academic terms (total agency where culture is not a factor) reflects badly on the rest of your argument because it reveals your lack of objective self-evaluation in general, and makes abundantly clear that everything you've said up to this point has been 100% opinion with no objective fact.

Casimir is dead right about culture, and before you say that's just my opinion or his i can prove we aren't bullshitting. My area of knowledge i'm afraid, i can include a bibliography (overkill) if you truly want to read up in regards to modern scholars perceptions of the pervasiveness of our culture in all things we do, but you won't bother to check it. However you may want to read up on Foucault and 'social discourse' and 'agency', and also Bourdieu and the role of 'habitus' in a society, a simple Wiki search will prove i'm not talking out of my ass. I wouldn't advise pursuing this debate any further lol. The internet is a minefield, you never know when you'll stumble into someone's subject area by mistake lol, i've seen on previous threads that Casimir knows his shit about sociology too.

It seems a bit strange that an expert on sociology would assume outside influences have equally strong effects on all human beings.

[Xant]

It seems a bit strange that an expert on sociology would assume outside influences have equally strong effects on all human beings.

Even stranger that an expert on sociology would initiate the conversation by implying that I have the views I have because of where I live and because it's considered "Right" here -- and then when I deny that, he goes on to talk about human culture as a whole and how it affects people. Two entirely unrelated things and just proves that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Indeed, his whole argument is proven false just by the simple fact that my view on this is NOT "politically correct" where I come from. Clearly, then, my "local culture" has not utterly and inescapably brainwashed me. I'd love to see him try and disprove that with his expert authors. These authors must also, by necessity, be of the opinion that humanity is divided into hive minds with no individual thought based on their geographical location.

[Osiris]

I'd say your uni teachers have more to do with your outlooks than where you grew up. Nearly everyone i know who went to uni came back a lefty pacifist who act like your opinions are invalid unless you also went and that your some kind of moron if your views differ :-P

Back on topic however me my family and most of the people I've worked with drink a lot in London and never seem to get hit stabbed or shot, the ones that do get into bar fights are usually arseholes who look for trouble when drunk.

Now if i was stupid and went to drink in bars full of "gangs" and other scum then i would probably have your problems too.

[Xant]

Nothing relevant, only names of prominent theorists and their ideologies on this exact subject :/

Yes, you name dropped. Impressive. Not. I'm not going to read the works of those people, so you're going to have to quote their exact words if you want it to be relevant.

Loving the maturity of your 'i'm right cos i say i am' attitude, puts your argument into perspective for everyone. Arguing with a brick wall gets tedious after some time

That's funny, because I was doing it to show you just how ridiculous it is. You're the one doing it. I mean, shit, you even start one of your posts with "I win."

If you distort and misunderstand my argument by refusing to type 'social discourse' or 'habitus' into google then yes, you can pretend i'm wrong. The concept is not that everyone within a culture is the same, but all opinions and veiwpoints within a culture are the product of your culture- eg. rebellious teens dress and act and listen to different music to others, yet they do so in a standardised way that conforms with each other, as such their behavior is defined by their culture. If you misunderstand the concept that isn't my fault, you can claim i'm 'provably wrong' without facts, but to actually do so you'd need to disprove the entire modern study of anthropology that is based on the concept i have expressed.

Yawn. I'm not going to read boring-ass books by people I don't care about just because a random nerd on the Internets tell me to do so. Or how about I do it after you read five books I tell you to read? I don't disagree with that concept per se, but it only works when talking generally. If the author you're loosely quoting claims something else, he's full of shit. But hey, like I said. You're free to, you know, actually quote these things you claim back you up, instead of telling me to "Google it."

Search Marcel Mauss, Bourdieu or Foucault, they're founding fathers of modern anthropology, the Wiki pages are a bit thin but explain their concepts in a relatively accessible way. Anyone who reads this thread can see i've provided facts and current social theory that they can search to verify, they can see the maturity of your argument (if you can't win, troll), i don't think i need to say anything more.

You have provided zero facts. Zero social theory. All you've done is name dropped and told me to do research. I refer to my earlier offer to you.

[SixThumbs]

This is the type of bar I frequent and I act like this everytime I walk in:

[Oberyn]

Lol Foucault, Levi-Strauss and Bourdieu, seriously? Not that their conclusions are completely erroneous, but dude, you couldn't get more post-modernist if you tried. Founding fathers of "modern" anthropology, eh. No, they're the founding fathers of a particular faction of modern anthropology. In the age old nature/nurture debate, they are the ones who completely dismiss nature and pretend that nurture is the most important (or even only) factor. You are aware that sociology is not a science, despite the name right?

[Rumblood]

Well where I live it's quite normal for people to be dickheads even when they aren't drunk and it's quite normal to punch dickheads when you're not drunk, it's the culture of my town.

Sounds like a fantasy to me. I'm quite certain you just dream about this happening. After all, anything you couldn't do yourself must be in your imagination

[Oberyn]

Oops I read Marcel Mauss as Levi-Strauss for some reason. And just to nitpick again, none of their works are used in any scientific discipline as far as I know. Psychology is not a scientific discipline, no more than sociology is. They have had a huge impact on the humanities, that's for sure though.

[Xant]

Says it all doesn't it. My 'name dropping' is called referencing, it's what people do when they back up an argument. The fact you can't be bothered to scan a brief Wiki page to see that i'm infact speaking current academic fact is hardly my fault. It's like me claiming the world is flat, telling everyone else it's their opinion when they tell me otherwise then yawning when i get redirected to all the facts that prove me wrong, that's some real good reasoning.

I provided facts and social theory, you can't refute that since you werent bothered to check, anyone else here can check what i've said by googling the names i listed. Laziness and arrogance aren't legit counters to facts.


Didn't mention Strauss xD and yeah, they're a particular sect, and i wouldn't agree with them in every instance, but their theories on social discourse are hugely influential today and widely used and accepted in psychology and other more scientific disciplines. Tbh, i don't mind what conclusions you draw as long as you can back them up with knowledge like you've just done, not pigheaded dismissal.

No, that's not called referencing, you retard. You reference after you quote something, which you haven't done. Please go ahead and edumacate me on how, for example, Marcel Mauss' wikipage adds anything to this discussion?

Okay, since you're clearly very thick, let me say this all simple-like.

What are the facts and social theory you have provided?

Please state the theories you're supporting plainly, and then provide the sources. Preferably with direct quotes.

Google "Heskey is wrong." There's me disproving you. It's all there, man. Just go and google it. What's that, you're too lazy and arrogant to check all the pages?