technically was also last millenium

>The argument about biological sex is that it's a social classification (a group of scientists deciding on a definition is social classification), but that doesn't mean there's no reality behind it.

If they're not trying to deny the reality behind it why dismiss it as A social classification that can be replaced with a different social classification? Especially when they go on to dismiss everything that an underlying reality to that classification would lead to ? The entire point of science is to get your description of reality so close that there's functionally no difference. We don't have a description of a theoretical model of the solar system we have a description of where the planets are.

Biology is not perfectly predictive for every individual and hasn't tried to since at least Darwin. It would be far easier to push for the idea that there are individual exceptions to the trends where we can clearly see the exception than to deny the trend which is even more obvious. Boy and girl are imperfectly descriptive of an existing underlying reality, they do not create a platonic reality separate from this one.

The social justice oddity is when presented with a true thing followed by a BS argument that leads to a bad thing it to try some way of arguing the true thing is false rather than attacking the BS argument.

Boys like football. Girls don't. Jane is a girl. Therefore she shouldn't be playing football.

Why not just argue hey, fallacy of composition. A trend isn't deterministic for every individual, Jane's different than the other girls ... and would probably be the first one to tell you that.

When social justice circles try to argue things they can see are clearly false (boys are girls aren't born different, its all in how you raise them) it makes it MUCH harder to argue cases where they have a point.

Blackshirt, you're not disagreeing with me. Try reading it again.

I think this is bullshit is not the same as I don't understand it.

It might in fact, be bullshit.

And if you have to ad hom like that, I have even less reason to believe you have any other substance.

Humans haven't changed much

Generally good ideas, but hard disagree on number 7.

I mean, you can largely decide how you react or not. You can walk away, blow them off, or punch them in the face. But peoples control over their thoughts is kind of limited.

WOoooooo season 2!!!!!!!!

So thats a yes from me.

Imagine you had cartoonists drawing you..erm.. I mean. your friend that played dungeons and dragons *wink wink* campaign and.. thats what you've got.

Eyup. You could probably drink the resulting mix but increasing your supply of drinkable water by 1% isn't much of a solution. Literally.

Our usual solution to clean anything is to dilute it. IE add more water to it so the parts per million of the dirty thing drops. If you're trying to do anything else the processes are a LOT more energy/resource intensive.

"You're going to do all the work for me and I'm going to claim all the money and credit" - Thomas Edison, to the army of geeks he employed

He's at least going to get on the phone with the actual expert and get the pointers.

Ysoki Operative!

So your energy is the orange one?

Timber tartigrade with a top hat

No but it is forestry, which when it comes to legislating gets complicated.

No one can cut down any trees is... not practical. You've got a tree about to fall on your house, people need some firewood etc.

You can't cut down a forest.. well lets define a forest. Then someone divides 100 acres up into 5 acre "development plots" and cuts those all down.

You put in a reasonable forestry program. Your neighbor clear-cuts the mountain above you and you get washed out in a mudslide.

no

No, its already too late. If we do it will be from a technological solution, social solutions have already failed.

Democracy is only synonymous with good if people are good. We're not. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner is a democratic decision.

Yes, through SCIENCE> Philosophy is irrelevant.

No. It is not. We are walking around with the genetic baggage of 200,000 years of evolution. That will not change quickly enough

Philosophy doesn't do credibly very well. It finds everything insufficient.

Mind control

Well.

It won't.

I don't know but I know the philosophers won't figure it out

If you don't know by now you're not going to.

The US has never been a functioning democracy. In execution it's an oligarchy, as the founders intended.

Happy little Z's.....

meanwhile the philosophy department has pretended to be relevant for 131 years

Look to your left. Then look to your right. In four years one of you will not be getting a degree. Not because they dropped out, but because they've pretended to enroll because they're homeless...

Its just like for dogs, but for people.

If you get bitten while vaccinated you get two shots.

If you get bitten and not its 4.

I don't think we know how often those two extra shots are NECESSARY but we do not want to find out.

The pre exposure was just a regular shot. No side effects for me (got it in africa for the peace corps. But they wouldn't give me a dog tag...)

From which end?

that's an ifwinkibwitmwytwongue