BigNorseWolf t1_j7wyc15 wrote

>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.


BigNorseWolf t1_j2bxwb7 wrote

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.


BigNorseWolf t1_ixdlqs3 wrote

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.


BigNorseWolf t1_iwvbga7 wrote


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


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.