|
Human behavior is in part a function of the societies that they live in. It's impossible to conceive of a human being's behavior who does not live in some kind of society. Anyway how do you observe something that only exists when it's being unobserved? I remember a funny monster description I ran into once with friends in D&D: the monster is invisible until seen. What?
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:That's a reasonable definition of some form of insanity. I guess that would depend on the reasons for why they are not "living in" society. Those reasons could be related to the societies themselves, or they could be "natural" or physical reasons (brain tumor?).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it isn't? Hermits do exist. They're certainly rare but human beings living with close to zero social contact is a thing that has happened, even from a young age. Yeah but that's what I mean, their human society is defined by the lack of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What? Yeah that's true. I was wrong when I said it was impossible to conceive it. But it's impossible to create a person who has never interacted with society. I'm going to start by claiming that all human beings that have ever lived, were contained inside of a uterus at one point in their lives. This might be untrue, but if it is, then I would also claim that such an instance would be impossible without a society.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're going to say that it is impossible to create a human that has not had another human involved with it at some point, then yes, that's true. What you're talking about is a person who is influenced by a specific society. What I'm talking about is the idea of what a society is in a general sense. It's like "negative space" in art. The lack of substance defines its relationship to the rest of the material. I did say that human behavior is only in part a function of their society. I'm not trying to assert that it's the absolute, most important thing to consider about any person (though I believe in most cases it is). I just don't think you can extricate the idea of society from a person entirely. It's always going to be there in some way acting as a force on their behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Because it performs better than your system, taking self declaration as authoritative. Do you dispute that? You don't even seem to have a system. You said "a person's true nature is that which is their default". And when asked what the hell the default was, there isn't anything.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well you probably could if you just dunked someone in a forest somewhere and built a big wall around them. Yeah... and that's how society affects them. It's a 'negative structure' of society.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:My favourite part of all this progressive triumphalism is the assumption that society will advance in a way catered to them. I have a nagging feeling that instead of society casting down gender, changing language, sexuality and the 'cotton ceiling' being ripped asunder - a medication will come along to treat gender dysmorphia or a more effective They, them, their, etc. are pretty problematic words in the English language since they (poo poo) represent plural and singular pronouns. It might be tidier to create a new word, rather than add on to an existing word. But I definitely think there's a good argument either way. OwlFancier posted:I'm really having trouble understanding this concept. If a thing doesn't affect another thing, it doesn't affect it. There's no "negative effect" of that thing. Ok, I understand. We can agree to disagree if you like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Society is not based around everyone doing what feels right for them. That doesn't even make sense. Why does "xir" feel better than "they". What differentiates the two? What informs those feelings? Why should people indulge them? The pronoun thing is really just one aspect of the marginalization of certain minorities. And by this I mean they are deprived of power in society, and therefore are oppressed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
"shut up and accommodate" would be ok if these conflicts about identity weren't a representation of a struggle against oppression. I mean like, not everyone is treated by society-at-large the way you are. You're arguing as if everyone was you. But that's not the case!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
So in other words, there are no male eggs/sperm or female eggs/sperm. They're all the same. Is that right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
sidviscous posted:No. It's that foetally we have both sets of ducts that differentiate into the male and female reproductive tracts. Sexual differentiation is initiated by a single gene (usually) on the Y chromosome, which causes a cascade of hormones which do everything else. Oh right, I forgot about the X and Y chromosomes. Also that genetic inheritance has a bit of randomness to it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
If we have an innate identity, then I'd say it influences our gender by some factor. But I don't believe that it's likely that whatever innate thing this is would be nicely split down the middle. There are different gender norms throughout history and throughout different cultures, it doesn't make sense to me to say that there's a natural man identity/woman identity based on any contemporary social norms.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:It could just be possible that things that break rocks, make loud, destructive noises, and move a lot of dirt, and set fire to stuff, appeal to a more primitive side of masculinity or aggressive behavior. The backhoe itself is not the important part of such a concept. All those things are the same thing as the backhoe within the framework of the discussion. Those are ideas that we use to construct an idea like masculinity.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Without complex machinery in the picture, you could still swing a stick or make loud noises and it would appeal to more primitive and possibly masculine traits. Ok why is swinging a stick and loud noises primitive and possibly masculine traits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 23:57
|
|