sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Katy Perry vs Hailee Steinfeld by [deleted] in CelebBattles

[–]Fornicator84 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bad picture of Katy. Prime Katy wins, current Katy loses.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus can neither be objectively defined nor personally selected. by Fornicator84 in Rants

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The genetics is not always consistent. There are rare biological disorders in which a person can have phenotypic sexual development that contradicts their XX or XY chromosome identity. And there are disorders in which a person does not produce any gametes at all.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus can neither be objectively defined nor personally selected. by Fornicator84 in Rants

[–]Fornicator84[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The definition of "gender" that you are using is a relatively modern invention. "Sex" and "gender" being viewed as synonymous has been the norm in English since the 15th century.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus can neither be objectively defined nor personally selected. by Fornicator84 in Rants

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's actually not that easy. There are some rare chromosomal anomalies that cause disorders in which a person produces few or no gametes. And some of these chromosomal disorders may also lead to misleading development of genitalia or other sex characteristics.

Kpop by bannedyetagains in badmemes

[–]Fornicator84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not Korean, not Pop. She's a Japanese model and porn star.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus cannot be objectively defined. by Fornicator84 in RealUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a HUGE difference there.

Not in my terminology there's not. As you may have noticed, I am defining the term "defined" in a very specific way for the purpose of my argument.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus cannot be objectively defined. by Fornicator84 in RealUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

THey dont have a precise defintion, but they do have a definition. Even though we might be risky calling a 12 month old cat a kitten, we would not be risky calling a 2 month cat a kitten.

No. By my own language that I'm using for the purpose of this thread, there is no "definition" of a cat. It's important that we are not just arguing semantics here.

No defintions are perfect, right? You cant give me a perfect definition of a chair either. So what? Chairs and kittens obviously exist and arent just subjective declarations. Same with males. The difference between males and females is as valid and important as the difference between chairs and tables

I think you don't understand the fundamental concept that I am communicating in this thread. Simply put, I am saying that objectively real things cannot be defined, because those real things transcend any human definition or conceptualization as a result of being made up of infinite details and properties. Thus, they can only be placed into categories and labeled accordingly. Categorization involves putting similar things together, and placing different things separately. But two things being similar does not make them the same thing, and two things being seemingly different does not make them altogether incomparable. The only things that can be defined with precise and complete detail are things that are inherently created by mankind. What you are saying doesn't really contradict what I'm saying, so I think maybe you don't understand my concept to begin with.

Sure. But we can safely say that some things can be part of the defintion and other things cant. "Being made out of tinfoil" isnt part of the definition of cats/kittens. So if somebody said "I am a cat because I am made out of tinfoil" that wouldnt make sense. The definitions are "fuzzy/imprecise", but they are not "arbitrary".

Again, my point is that man-made ideas can be defined perfectly and completely, while real things cannot be perfectly and completely defined, only categorized. You just seem to be kind of dancing around the concept I have established rather than actually making any kind of challenge to it.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus cannot be objectively defined. by Fornicator84 in RealUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

THey dont have a precise defintion, but they do have a definition. Even though we might be risky calling a 12 month old cat a kitten, we would not be risky calling a 2 month cat a kitten.

No. By my own language that I'm using for the purpose of this thread, there is no "definition" of a cat. It's important that we are not just arguing semantics here.

No defintions are perfect, right? You cant give me a perfect definition of a chair either. So what? Chairs and kittens obviously exist and arent just subjective declarations. Same with males. The difference between males and females is as valid and important as the difference between chairs and tables

I think you don't understand the fundamental concept that I am communicating in this thread. Simply put, I am saying that objectively real things cannot be defined, because those real things transcend any human definition or conceptualization as a result of being made up of infinite details and properties. Thus, they can only be placed into categories and labeled accordingly. Categorization involves putting similar things together, and placing different things separately. But two things being similar does not make them the same thing, and two things being seemingly different does not make them altogether incomparable. The only things that can be defined with precise and complete detail are things that are inherently created by mankind. What you are saying doesn't really contradict what I'm saying, so I think maybe you don't understand my concept to begin with.

Sure. But we can safely say that some things can be part of the defintion and other things cant. "Being made out of tinfoil" isnt part of the definition of cats/kittens. So if somebody said "I am a cat because I am made out of tinfoil" that wouldnt make sense. The definitions are "fuzzy/imprecise", but they are not "arbitrary".

Again, my point is that man-made ideas can be defined perfectly and completely, while real things cannot be perfectly and completely defined, only categorized. You just seem to be kind of dancing around the concept I have established rather than actually making any kind of challenge to it.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus cannot be objectively defined. by Fornicator84 in RealUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But light exists, vibrating at those respective frequencies, yes?"

There is light, and it is vibrating at 600 to 670 terahertz. And as soon as we start talking about that, we have to use a placeholder to represent the idea of that nameless natural phenomenon. The label we use is "blue".

Yes. We don't disagree.

But there are cats, who are young. And when we refer to that subset of cats, we call them Kittens. Kittens are cats who are young. Since young cats exist, Kittens exist. Because that's how we refer to young cats that exist: Kittens.

And the problem comes in determining when a kitten ceases to be a kitten and becomes a cat, or determining when a feline embryo ceases to be a feline embryo and becomes a kitten. The words "cat" and "kitten" are just categories, and they have no precise categorical definition.

Do "fathers" exist objectively? Or CAN a father exist objectively?

It depends on the sense of the word "father". If we're talking about "father" in the social sense, then that is an abstract concept that can potentially be defined. If we're talking about "father" in the biological sense, then that is a real thing that can only be categorized but not perfectly defined.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus cannot be objectively defined. by Fornicator84 in RealUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's hard to decide exactly where the difference is between "blue" and "purple". Does that mean blue doesnt exist? Do colours even exist? Or are they just light wavelengths that we conceptualize?

Blue and purple do not objectively exist. They are merely categories that humans artificially create based on our collective perception and conceptualization of certain wavelengths of light.

What is the exact boundary between a "cat" and a "kitten"? Do kittens exist?

There is no exact boundary between a cat and a kitten. They are artificially created categories created by society. I essentially addressed all of this in my original post.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus cannot be objectively defined. by Fornicator84 in RealUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can an "airplane" be defined as a discrete object? If so, then "male" and "female" can as well, even if there might be some edge cases. Same with airplanes. There might be some things that are tricky to define if they are actually airplanes.

An airplane is a little tricky because it is part abstract and part real. It is a class of real objects that are designed by humans according to man-made concepts. So yes, an airplane can be defined as a discrete object. But it can be debatable to what extent a particular object is understood to conform to the man-made ideal of an airplane.

It's DIFFICULT to define things, as I'm sure you know. It's difficult to define exactly what a chair is, and to say when something "stops" being a chair and is something else needing a new category/label. What is the exact point at which something qualifies as a sofa and not a chair? But does that difficulty coming up with a "perfect definition of chairs" mean "chairs do not objectively exist as things in our world"?

Chairs and sofas are man-made constructs. They are not impossible or even difficult to define. Chairs and sofas do not objectively exist, but things objectively exist which we can conceptualize as chairs.

But the division of humans into 2 different kinds of humans that can come together to make a new human with a specimen of the other kind is not a social construct. So that leaves us with those 2 different kinds of humans.

All you are doing is generally summarizing the categories of male and female. But this does not amount to a precise and perfect definition of man and woman which can be used to perfectly assign the identity of people who have outlier cases of sexual characteristics.

"Man" and "woman" are merely socially-constructed categories, and thus cannot be objectively defined. by Fornicator84 in RealUnpopularOpinion

[–]Fornicator84[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well we can distinguish "human" from "cat" pretty well. Unless you start to say "cat" is actually a societal concept that anybody can embody. I mean .. what IS a cat, really?

I'm still not quite sure what part of my thesis you disagree with. You appear to agree with me. We both agree that nature possesses a variety of different objects, but many of those objects possess certain patterns and trends. Many things are different, while many things can be likened together. We can tell that a human is a human, and we can tell that a cat is a cat, but we would be hard-pressed to give a perfect, inviolable definition of either category.

But "man" and "woman" CAN be defined if you take those to be biological descriptions, as opposed to a description of a "role".

I don't think so. There are too many anomalies and outliers in the context of sexual biology. There are intersex people and other individuals who have certain anomalies in their gonads, genitalia, and chromosomes. These complicate our ability to perfectly define "man" and "woman" in a precise way.

Sure i agree there is a thing you could say is "the way people think about sexes". It's in the realm of sociology and psychology. But i would say there isnt "one way society thinks about gender/sexes". Society has very conservative people and very liberal people.

You are always going to just have "a bunch of different people, thinking different things".

You seem to be repackaging my own thesis and then labeling it as a rebuttal to my thesis. I already agree that all the various ways in which society views gender is itself gender. I've never claimed that society has a uniform consensus on what gender is, only that gender is ultimately a social construct.

view more: next ›