Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ...
9
17
18
19
20
LastLast
  1. #361
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    Might want to read the Nature article I linked. You are incorrect.
    First thing I read when I opened it: The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.

    So, no consensus yet? Yet you act like there is?

  2. #362
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    Might want to read the Nature article I linked. You are incorrect.
    That nature article isn't a whitepaper, nor is it conclusive. There's quite a lot of speculation however. You can argue that in some cases, a person can be both biological sexes at once, which doesn't contradict what I've stated (and I did have that in mind when I posted.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    No, I mean literally whatever biological metric you use for sex, there are more than two variations. There are multiple nonstandard chromosomal pairings and multiple nonstandard genital configurations. You might sit there and go "But those are nonstandard! They don't count!" but it doesn't change the fact that whether you want to base sex on genitals or chromosomes, the traditional XX-XY binary is merely a simplification of reality meant to be generally applicable and not the most accurate or thorough description of what is. The question, whatever you take "gender" to mean, is going to lead to an answer that amounts to "Because you, the person who asked the question, has no fucking idea what you're talking about."
    This is getting way off topic, but I'm not arguing that at all, nor did I say even one thing about chromosomes. Biological sex comes down strictly to gametes. In some rare cases, somebody produces both, and thus this person is both male and female at the same time. There are also cases where a person has no gametes at all, and thus is biologically neuter, and thus doesn't have a sex. Gender obviously falls a little further from that tree.

    Nonetheless, all of this still falls perfectly within what I said.

    EDIT: In fact, look at Masark's nature article. Notice the table halfway down the page. How many choices does it offer for gonads? Notice its all testes and ovaries. There's your answer.
    Last edited by ArmoredDragoon; 2017-04-24 at 12:46 AM.

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredDragoon View Post
    This is getting way off topic, but I'm not arguing that at all, nor did I say even one thing about chromosomes. Biological sex comes down strictly to gametes. In some rare cases, somebody produces both, and thus this person is both male and female at the same time. There are also cases where a person has no gametes at all, and thus is biologically neuter, and thus doesn't have a sex. Gender obviously falls a little further from that tree.

    Nonetheless, all of this still falls perfectly within what I said.
    On a more philosophical level - when you reduce and simplify a concept this much, what meaning and usefulness does it have left? Okay, on a strict binary level if you have characteristic 1 you're "a", with characteristic 2 you're "b", now what? There's a whole world of content on the discussion you seem to be avoiding (and not for moderation purposes). What does being "a" mean and how much variance is there within that group and between it and "b"? This is when you get into more nuance and have to admit there's something more than just 2 categories and that's the end of discussion.

  4. #364
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Then your initial response seems pretty pointless.
    How so? Keep in mind, I'm not the one who is arguing about chromosomes; you are.

  5. #365
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Your own chosen standard was an affirmation of my point.
    What was your point? That there are more than two types of gametes?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    On a more philosophical level - when you reduce and simplify a concept this much, what meaning and usefulness does it have left? Okay, on a strict binary level if you have characteristic 1 you're "a", with characteristic 2 you're "b", now what? There's a whole world of content on the discussion you seem to be avoiding (and not for moderation purposes). What does being "a" mean and how much variance is there within that group and between it and "b"? This is when you get into more nuance and have to admit there's something more than just 2 categories and that's the end of discussion.
    At that point it becomes gender rather than sex.

  6. #366
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredDragoon View Post
    At that point it becomes gender rather than sex.
    edit: my bad, mistook people!

    Point still stands I think. What's the usefulness and purpose of being so conceptually restrictive and simplistic?

  7. #367
    Scarab Lord Mister Cheese's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,620
    Stop talking about gender and talk about Antifa please. I fail to see the relevance.

  8. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Cheese View Post
    Stop talking about gender and talk about Antifa please. I fail to see the relevance.
    I honestly don't either. I brought up that the central premise of fascism is community before individuality, and somehow Zython came up with the idea that a rejection of more than two genders represents communal thought. This just doesn't make any sense.

  9. #369
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredDragoon View Post
    I think that has more to do with them not liking that particular identity. Think sega kids vs nintendo kids: They don't like each other's camps, but they all want to hog the controller.
    Right. Because they demand that everyone conform to a singular identity. Like collectivists.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Dracula View Post
    If Liberals are such Scientific people, how come they think there is more than 2 genders?
    Because that's what the science says.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I think you just don't really know what capitalism is. Someone somewhere making a profit doesn't actually make something capitalism. You don't really have the minimum required knowledge to have a conversation about this.
    Ok, then explain what capitalism is for the class.

    No, pretty much no one is starving in any modern, capitalist economy. This is basically a non-problem.
    That's not what the facts says.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Cheese View Post
    Stop talking about gender and talk about Antifa please. I fail to see the relevance.
    That's because someone tried to own me and failed miserably, as they always do. *Sigh*
    Banned from Twitter by Elon, so now I'm your problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brexitexit View Post
    I am the total opposite of a cuck.

  10. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post



    That's because you're applying ideas of individual culpability to an economic system, which makes no sense.

    How does it not make sense? Are Capitalists not responsible for Capitalism? Are Communists not responsible for Communism? On whose head is the 60 million dead under Communist China? Who bears the weight of those crimes?

  11. #371
    Elemental Lord callipygoustp's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    8,659
    Holy shit, I can't tell what this thread was supposed to be about.

  12. #372
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Right. Because they demand that everyone conform to a singular identity. Like collectivists.
    I don't think US conservatives have demanded a single identity. If you want an example of that, see France.

    What you're getting into (and it's quite off topic I'll add) is arguing against rejecting the idea that somebody can just say "I'm this" and that just makes it so. If you are a skeptic, as you claim to be, you'd also have an issue with the idea that somebody was born in the wrong body, (my perspective on this is that there is no wrong body, there's just your body) or that gender is assigned at birth (when I hear this question I ask "assigned by whom?") or that gender can be "reassigned".

    But more to the point, and a point that is on topic at that, are you also arguing that your rejection of those who reject transgender issues makes you a fascist?

  13. #373
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Ok, then explain what capitalism is for the class.
    Try Wikipedia out. A government profiting from something isn't capitalism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Moving the goalposts from "starving" to "food insecure" is basically just lying again.

  14. #374
    Banned The Penguin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The Loyal Opposition
    Posts
    2,849
    If the Mayor told the Police to stand down as the OP says, then he should be arrested for endangering lives and for abetting domestic terrorists. Trash like that has no place in higher office, regardless of political view and any behavior that abuses public office to push and silence any political view save your own, is the text book definition of a Fascist.

    Next they'll be murdering people in their homes and writing the words "Pig" on their walls in blood like the Manson girls.
    Last edited by The Penguin; 2017-04-25 at 03:35 AM.

  15. #375
    And why do you think a facebook page, a twitter handle and Wikipedia with just swedish news sources is more credible then a reddit page?

    Credible involves something like reuters and the BBC

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurcus View Post
    You have the resources to join the police force, but you're not doing it. You're just trying to re-frame the question in a way that absolves you of guilt, but all you're doing is arguing semantics. The crux of your argument is that Capitalism has the means to help people but does not, therefore murder. I am asserting that can be applied to anyone that does not give everything they have of their time, energy and resources, to helping other people.

    It's absurd to hold an economic system to a higher standard than we do real people, because that economic system was made and run by real people.

    - - - Updated - - -



    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=antifa

    There's like a million videos on youtube of Antifa doing shit in the real world. Here's one of my personal favorites. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpSmW_wTaPM

    Also, you could always try going to their reddit page and asking them if they're real. It takes like 2 minutes to make a reddit account.
    Don't think I ask to much when I say give me something credible and not a random Reddit page or, in you're case, youtube cellphone video's.

    Give me the BBC or Reuters, news agencies that have proven to know what journalism means (so no Breitbart and Fox news).

    The only people that are actually complaining about this ''group'' are right-wing extremist who's main argument is ''we know that we want to do bad shit but those people that are against us are the real villains ''

  16. #376
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    And why do you think a facebook page, a twitter handle and Wikipedia with just swedish news sources is more credible then a reddit page?

    Credible involves something like reuters and the BBC

    - - - Updated - - -



    Don't think I ask to much when I say give me something credible and not a random Reddit page or, in you're case, youtube cellphone video's.

    Give me the BBC or Reuters, news agencies that have proven to know what journalism means (so no Breitbart and Fox news).

    The only people that are actually complaining about this ''group'' are right-wing extremist who's main argument is ''we know that we want to do bad shit but those people that are against us are the real villains ''
    Reality isn't biased. Video evidence is the most credible type of evidence that can possibly exist.

    If you want to deny facts because of where they come from, that's not really my problem.

    Also, it's not a random reddit page. If you have a basic understanding of how to sign up for a website, you can actually go and talk to Antifa members. Like, stop talking to me and go tell THEM that they don't exist. Fuck me, get it from the horse's mouth.

  17. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurcus View Post
    Reality isn't biased. Video evidence is the most credible type of evidence that can possibly exist.

    If you want to deny facts because of where they come from, that's not really my problem.

    Also, it's not a random reddit page. If you have a basic understanding of how to sign up for a website, you can actually go and talk to Antifa members. Like, stop talking to me and go tell THEM that they don't exist. Fuck me, get it from the horse's mouth.
    Video evidance is the most credible?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/u...-indicted.html

    I trust in certain source's that have proven to follow journalism ethics and standards, a silly cellphone video found on youtube is anything but credible.

    I can disagree with certain articles (especially the way they write) and conclusions but at least I know that those journalist have followed a certain guidelines. Lets take the BBC for example and how they write about Israel and the Palestinians

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journal...30702112133696

    When writing a story about settlements, BBC journalists can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that ‘all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this’.
    I don't agree with how this is portrayed because they never specifically tell on what basis they dispute they are open about it and I can respect the reason behind it.

    A stupid youtube video or reddit pages you lot are linking can be nothing more then a Halloween event or a troll page.

  18. #378
    Quote Originally Posted by ati87 View Post
    Video evidance is the most credible?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/u...-indicted.html

    I trust in certain source's that have proven to follow journalism ethics and standards, a silly cellphone video found on youtube is anything but credible.

    I can disagree with certain articles (especially the way they write) and conclusions but at least I know that those journalist have followed a certain guidelines. Lets take the BBC for example and how they write about Israel and the Palestinians

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journal...30702112133696



    I don't agree with how this is portrayed because they never specifically tell on what basis they dispute they are open about it and I can respect the reason behind it.

    A stupid youtube video or reddit pages you lot are linking can be nothing more then a Halloween event or a troll page.
    The article you linked does not say that the Planned Parenthood video is fake, just that is was made rather unethically. The video itself is still real. Did you even read what you linked?

    You do understand that reality is not partisan, yes? It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation, you can physically watch recordings of what happened. You're acting like one of those flat earthers when you show them a video from the ISS. It's not just one video either. There's fuck tons of videos of the Berkeley riots. Take your pick. https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...berkeley+riots

    It is kind of funny though that you're linking the nytimes to support your argument, when it was a nytimes journalist that was filming Antifa members in one of the videos I linked.

  19. #379
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    OK, but there's also XXX and XYY and XXY.
    Those would be disorders.
    Also, the definition is; Male, Anyone expressing the SRY gene, Female; Anyone else.

  20. #380
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurcus View Post
    The article you linked does not say that the Planned Parenthood video is fake, just that is was made rather unethically. The video itself is still real. Did you even read what you linked?

    You do understand that reality is not partisan, yes? It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation, you can physically watch recordings of what happened. You're acting like one of those flat earthers when you show them a video from the ISS. It's not just one video either. There's fuck tons of videos of the Berkeley riots. Take your pick. https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...berkeley+riots

    It is kind of funny though that you're linking the nytimes to support your argument, when it was a nytimes journalist that was filming Antifa members in one of the videos I linked.
    Planned Parenthood is a doctored video plus I didn't use the word fake you did and the reason why these people are having legal troubles.

    I said a standalone video isn't a credible evidence of anything not that's fake. Fake video doesn't exist since that recording will always be real no mater what.

    So please use something credible instead of a random youtube page from god knows who, hell given that on the first page I google I get results from websites like Infowars and Breitbart I'm still not convinced that this isn't some sort of elaborate trolling by the alt-right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •