|
On June 05 2017 22:38 fluidrone wrote:Stop using your computer.. find a medical professional and ask him what they are TAUGHT to do. Sorry but your own typing makes my point for me: Show nested quote +Insofar as I know, intersex falls under the general umbrella of LBTQ rights, which is gaining increasing attention. you know nothing about it (nor do i, much really i admit) .. you assume ... .. you even end on Any study on the matter takes an irrelevant sample and is a sham 65000 is a meaningless number in a world where data is suited to not address their existence... Go find the medical manual (as if there was a unique one in this case ..  ) it will i think clearly confirm that medicine treats having both sexual organs as something to be treated.. hence the HUGE number of both sex people that go unknown from anyone but people legally bound to shut up about it... Don't mind me, i'm addressing the issue head on (nothing against you personally.. you are after all in the majority who does not think this "third" sex stuff exists.. hopefully me typing will change that)  ps: i'm not being honest enough.. i did the leg work when i heard about it 10 years ago (my wife and i were trying to make a baby) and trust me, we are (10 years later) at the time where this issue has to be showcased so that there is recognition .. not the time to downplay it! Let me give you my "not safe for work" not even "safe for home" example: + Show Spoiler [NSFW] +Again, this is disturbing so if you are too young, seek counsel/advice about what you will read (with a friend/relative/parent/whoever) or just don't read it  + Show Spoiler +It could be your kid, and the doctor would say.. well.. it will be a girl .. i will take out the penis you will have to use a "x" on your now daughter so that her organ / + Show Spoiler + / body survives this change that we will make meaning you will have to do it .. + Show Spoiler +technically raping your own kid for years maybe, .. Yeah, i agree this is horror incarnated .. something i would have fought the doctor and the rest of the world on if it happened to my (then upcoming) kid.. AND NO!!! this is not "gaining attention" whatsoever! 
I don't really see why what you spoilered was nsfa. You just wanted to use excessive spoilers.
But clearly this has nothing to do anymore work the original point, which was that hermaphroditism in mammals was somehow relevant to reproductive rates of males/females.
If you want a discussion about how intersex babies should be treated, make a question. I don't think your assertion that a medical intervention seems horrible means the medical intervention is wrong. It may be better than the alternative, and clearly the medical experts seem to think so. If this is based on outdated moral principles on sexuality and not sound medical reasoning, then that should be changed. But is it? Or is there a good reason to "fix" babies' bodies at birth, thereby avoiding complications at a later age, when it is more difficult?
|
On June 05 2017 21:03 Simberto wrote:Ok, in that case, how do you explain that in most mammals, the ratio between males and females is 1:1? Because that is the caseI am honestly lost at what you are trying to argue? Is it: The sex ratio is (Mostly) 1:1, but your explanation sucks The sex ratio is not 1:1 Other things: You are constantly looking at way too short timeframes. 1-3 generations are not enough to change fundamental traits of a species. There is no such thing as "bad for evolution". The only "bad" something can be is "bad for your chances to pass on your genes", which ends up being selected against naturally. Evolution is not a fickle god that needs to be protected against heretics, it is a natural process that just happens, no matter what you or i think about it. Also, i am pretty sure that you would not be capable of inventing maths to fit a purpose. You have this annoying tendency to assume that just because you don't understand an argument, it must be wrong. PAINT TIME:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MFsrgWU.jpg) so there you have it, males and females living their lives, going about their business, careless and free, oscillating their ratios (observed in humans in a 60yr span time was 0.6 to 1.14, so will just have to skip over those other 200.000 years of 'modern' human evolution for which we have no data) based on <needs(fitness, environmental, choice, whathaveyou)>.
then you come and define the tendency, the average, the 1:1(1.05 observed), as optimal and start pulling people towards it. in that process you kill life; but who cares?, you have your equilibrium, your uniformity ...
my issue in general, is when humans ascribe prescriptive values to descriptive concepts then try to enforce them(it's why i believe time doesn't actually exist).
these days, you have people looking at the skewed sex ratios for China or India then panic: WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE ... THE WINTER IS COMING!. i'd tell those people to chill the fuck up, there is nothing 'wrong'; 1:1 is not a rule, a law, god.
(the you in there might not be the you irl, but that's the way the cookie crumbled)
|
On June 06 2017 21:58 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 21:03 Simberto wrote:Ok, in that case, how do you explain that in most mammals, the ratio between males and females is 1:1? Because that is the caseI am honestly lost at what you are trying to argue? Is it: The sex ratio is (Mostly) 1:1, but your explanation sucks The sex ratio is not 1:1 Other things: You are constantly looking at way too short timeframes. 1-3 generations are not enough to change fundamental traits of a species. There is no such thing as "bad for evolution". The only "bad" something can be is "bad for your chances to pass on your genes", which ends up being selected against naturally. Evolution is not a fickle god that needs to be protected against heretics, it is a natural process that just happens, no matter what you or i think about it. Also, i am pretty sure that you would not be capable of inventing maths to fit a purpose. You have this annoying tendency to assume that just because you don't understand an argument, it must be wrong. PAINT TIME: so there you have it, males and females living their lives, going about their business, careless and free, oscillating their ratios (observed in humans in a 60yr span time was 0.6 to 1.14, so will just have to skip over those other 200.000 years of 'modern' human evolution for which we have no data) based on <needs(fitness, environmental, choice, whathaveyou)>. then you come and define the tendency, the average, the 1:1(1.05 observed), as optimal and start pulling people towards it. in that process you kill life; but who cares?, you have your equilibrium, your uniformity ... my issue in general, is when humans ascribe prescriptive values to descriptive concepts then try to enforce them (it's why i believe time doesn't actually exist).these days, you have people looking at the skewed sex ratios for China or India then panic: WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE ... THE WINTER IS COMING!. i'd tell those people to chill the fuck up, there is nothing 'wrong'; 1:1 is not a rule, a law, god. (the you in there might not be the you irl, but that's the way the cookie crumbled)
Can you elaborate on why you don't think time exists? What is your definition of time?
|
On June 06 2017 16:17 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2017 20:36 xM(Z wrote:
read up, the voodoo is that the ratio is 'made' on a per-individual basis; it has nothing to do with groups so even with 60% no breeders(even at skewed ratios 60%male, 40%female), it doesn't matter. the group numbers do not matter, they just fit. almost, if you're trying.
i'm guessing it's a clock somewhere; a circadian clock that just counts things based on contexts. This is from a very established dude and at least two people have already explained how it makes sense to you in this thread. So I suggest you do the reading up. But as it seems like you're trolling, feel free to type up more random sentences about things you don't understand instead. Seems to be the fashion these days.
You had to ask for it!
|
On June 06 2017 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2017 21:58 xM(Z wrote:On June 05 2017 21:03 Simberto wrote:Ok, in that case, how do you explain that in most mammals, the ratio between males and females is 1:1? Because that is the caseI am honestly lost at what you are trying to argue? Is it: The sex ratio is (Mostly) 1:1, but your explanation sucks The sex ratio is not 1:1 Other things: You are constantly looking at way too short timeframes. 1-3 generations are not enough to change fundamental traits of a species. There is no such thing as "bad for evolution". The only "bad" something can be is "bad for your chances to pass on your genes", which ends up being selected against naturally. Evolution is not a fickle god that needs to be protected against heretics, it is a natural process that just happens, no matter what you or i think about it. Also, i am pretty sure that you would not be capable of inventing maths to fit a purpose. You have this annoying tendency to assume that just because you don't understand an argument, it must be wrong. PAINT TIME: so there you have it, males and females living their lives, going about their business, careless and free, oscillating their ratios (observed in humans in a 60yr span time was 0.6 to 1.14, so will just have to skip over those other 200.000 years of 'modern' human evolution for which we have no data) based on <needs(fitness, environmental, choice, whathaveyou)>. then you come and define the tendency, the average, the 1:1(1.05 observed), as optimal and start pulling people towards it. in that process you kill life; but who cares?, you have your equilibrium, your uniformity ... my issue in general, is when humans ascribe prescriptive values to descriptive concepts then try to enforce them (it's why i believe time doesn't actually exist).these days, you have people looking at the skewed sex ratios for China or India then panic: WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE ... THE WINTER IS COMING!. i'd tell those people to chill the fuck up, there is nothing 'wrong'; 1:1 is not a rule, a law, god. (the you in there might not be the you irl, but that's the way the cookie crumbled) Can you elaborate on why you don't think time exists? What is your definition of time?
maybe heidegger would help? what does it mean "to exist"? to be in time? how can time be in itself?
|
On June 07 2017 02:03 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2017 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 06 2017 21:58 xM(Z wrote:On June 05 2017 21:03 Simberto wrote:Ok, in that case, how do you explain that in most mammals, the ratio between males and females is 1:1? Because that is the caseI am honestly lost at what you are trying to argue? Is it: The sex ratio is (Mostly) 1:1, but your explanation sucks The sex ratio is not 1:1 Other things: You are constantly looking at way too short timeframes. 1-3 generations are not enough to change fundamental traits of a species. There is no such thing as "bad for evolution". The only "bad" something can be is "bad for your chances to pass on your genes", which ends up being selected against naturally. Evolution is not a fickle god that needs to be protected against heretics, it is a natural process that just happens, no matter what you or i think about it. Also, i am pretty sure that you would not be capable of inventing maths to fit a purpose. You have this annoying tendency to assume that just because you don't understand an argument, it must be wrong. PAINT TIME: so there you have it, males and females living their lives, going about their business, careless and free, oscillating their ratios (observed in humans in a 60yr span time was 0.6 to 1.14, so will just have to skip over those other 200.000 years of 'modern' human evolution for which we have no data) based on <needs(fitness, environmental, choice, whathaveyou)>. then you come and define the tendency, the average, the 1:1(1.05 observed), as optimal and start pulling people towards it. in that process you kill life; but who cares?, you have your equilibrium, your uniformity ... my issue in general, is when humans ascribe prescriptive values to descriptive concepts then try to enforce them (it's why i believe time doesn't actually exist).these days, you have people looking at the skewed sex ratios for China or India then panic: WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE ... THE WINTER IS COMING!. i'd tell those people to chill the fuck up, there is nothing 'wrong'; 1:1 is not a rule, a law, god. (the you in there might not be the you irl, but that's the way the cookie crumbled) Can you elaborate on why you don't think time exists? What is your definition of time? maybe heidegger would help? what does it mean "to exist"? to be in time? how can time be in itself?
I never managed to get further than a few pages into Heidegger's texts, but given that it is one of the principal concepts in one of his greatest works, you'd think he'd have quite a lot to say about what time is... and insofar as I recall, Dasein is a specific form of situatedness that takes temporality into account, so whether time exists as a separate concept, I don't know, but I think he treats it as a primary concept from which other things are derived. So if anything exists at all (according to him), time does 
I seem to recall his main beef wasn't with the X in "does X exist", but with our understanding of what existence even means.
|
you cant have an X independent of its existence, no?
what is the difference between Presence and Time? I don't think that xmz is doubting the present as he is doubting time's past-present-future
|
On June 07 2017 02:52 IgnE wrote:
you cant have an X independent of its existence, no?
what is the difference between Presence and Time? I don't think that xmz is doubting the present as he is doubting time's past-present-future
I thought the issue is more basic than that--ie are we simply perceiving that we exist or do we actually exist. Time. Wing used as a talking point for the overarching narrative of the relative importance of things being literally here or things simply seeming like they're here.
|
On June 07 2017 04:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 02:52 IgnE wrote:
you cant have an X independent of its existence, no?
what is the difference between Presence and Time? I don't think that xmz is doubting the present as he is doubting time's past-present-future I thought the issue is more basic than that--ie are we simply perceiving that we exist or do we actually exist. Time. Wing used as a talking point for the overarching narrative of the relative importance of things being literally here or things simply seeming like they're here.
Personally I'm making it easy for myself by sticking to an empirical physicist's view of the world. If it can be measured it exists. If it can't be measured, who knows and who cares.
From that angle, time exists because there are clocks.
|
On June 07 2017 11:12 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 04:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 07 2017 02:52 IgnE wrote:
you cant have an X independent of its existence, no?
what is the difference between Presence and Time? I don't think that xmz is doubting the present as he is doubting time's past-present-future I thought the issue is more basic than that--ie are we simply perceiving that we exist or do we actually exist. Time. Wing used as a talking point for the overarching narrative of the relative importance of things being literally here or things simply seeming like they're here. Personally I'm making it easy for myself by sticking to an empirical physicist's view of the world. If it can be measured it exists. If it can't be measured, who knows and who cares. From that angle, time exists because there are clocks.
That's exactly what I said: You either believe the things you experience are real "I can measure this" or you believe that you are simply perceiving things that seem real to you; usually this is more of an afterlife type phenomena, not necessarily religious afterlife as brain in a jar theories matches this as well.
For example; just because you can correlate something, does that mean it is real?
|
I can make up fake numbers that correlate with whatever you want.
|
Time exists because it can be measured. What's time? That which can be measured. Oh.
|
On June 07 2017 13:29 IgnE wrote:
Time exists because it can be measured. What's time? That which can be measured. Oh.
Exactly.
From that point of view, time is defined as what we measure with a clock. We say nothing of what time might be otherwise. But it's incredible how what we measure with a clock seems to fit with what we measure for how far the ball traveled every time.
|
On June 07 2017 11:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2017 11:12 Cascade wrote:On June 07 2017 04:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 07 2017 02:52 IgnE wrote:
you cant have an X independent of its existence, no?
what is the difference between Presence and Time? I don't think that xmz is doubting the present as he is doubting time's past-present-future I thought the issue is more basic than that--ie are we simply perceiving that we exist or do we actually exist. Time. Wing used as a talking point for the overarching narrative of the relative importance of things being literally here or things simply seeming like they're here. Personally I'm making it easy for myself by sticking to an empirical physicist's view of the world. If it can be measured it exists. If it can't be measured, who knows and who cares. From that angle, time exists because there are clocks. That's exactly what I said: You either believe the things you experience are real "I can measure this" or you believe that you are simply perceiving things that seem real to you; usually this is more of an afterlife type phenomena, not necessarily religious afterlife as brain in a jar theories matches this as well. For example; just because you can correlate something, does that mean it is real?
Yes sorry I didn't mean it aimed at you, I just quoted the last post on the subject.
|
On June 06 2017 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2017 21:58 xM(Z wrote:On June 05 2017 21:03 Simberto wrote:Ok, in that case, how do you explain that in most mammals, the ratio between males and females is 1:1? Because that is the caseI am honestly lost at what you are trying to argue? Is it: The sex ratio is (Mostly) 1:1, but your explanation sucks The sex ratio is not 1:1 Other things: You are constantly looking at way too short timeframes. 1-3 generations are not enough to change fundamental traits of a species. There is no such thing as "bad for evolution". The only "bad" something can be is "bad for your chances to pass on your genes", which ends up being selected against naturally. Evolution is not a fickle god that needs to be protected against heretics, it is a natural process that just happens, no matter what you or i think about it. Also, i am pretty sure that you would not be capable of inventing maths to fit a purpose. You have this annoying tendency to assume that just because you don't understand an argument, it must be wrong. PAINT TIME: so there you have it, males and females living their lives, going about their business, careless and free, oscillating their ratios (observed in humans in a 60yr span time was 0.6 to 1.14, so will just have to skip over those other 200.000 years of 'modern' human evolution for which we have no data) based on <needs(fitness, environmental, choice, whathaveyou)>. then you come and define the tendency, the average, the 1:1(1.05 observed), as optimal and start pulling people towards it. in that process you kill life; but who cares?, you have your equilibrium, your uniformity ... my issue in general, is when humans ascribe prescriptive values to descriptive concepts then try to enforce them (it's why i believe time doesn't actually exist).these days, you have people looking at the skewed sex ratios for China or India then panic: WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE ... THE WINTER IS COMING!. i'd tell those people to chill the fuck up, there is nothing 'wrong'; 1:1 is not a rule, a law, god. (the you in there might not be the you irl, but that's the way the cookie crumbled) Can you elaborate on why you don't think time exists? What is your definition of time? i see time as a unit of measure for a clock, clock based on an oscillation, a wavelength. the opposite of: ... time is defined as what we measure with a clock
everything on this earth from cyanobacteria to animals have developed a clock. the human clock for a day amounts to 24.5 hours.
Ex:Summary
A circadian clock, with physiological characteristics similar to those of eukaryotes, functions in the photosynthetic prokaryote, cyanobacteria. The molecular mechanism of this clock has been efficiently dissected using a luciferase reporter gene that reports the status of the clock. A circadian clock gene cluster, kaiABC, has been cloned via rhythm mutants of cyanobacterium, Synechococcus, and many clock mutations mapped to the three kai genes. Although kai genes do not share any homology with clock genes so far identified in eukaryotes, analysis of their ex- pression suggests that a negative feedback control of kaiC expression by KaiC generates the circadian oscillation and that KaiA functions as a positive factor to sustain this oscillation. BioEssays 22:10–15, 2000. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. from .pdf i have: The circadian clock of cyanobacteria Takao Kondo* and Masahiro Ishiura the clock is real because its based on physiological processes and time isn't because it's based on imagination. sure you could use it as a unit of measure but that's about it; it's descriptive of a clock.
|
|
|
Without time you don't have any processes, though.
|
see, that's what i call giving prescriptive value to imaginary concepts.
to translate what you said: because i can't measure it(a process), it doesn't exist, it doesn't happen, right?.
|
Time is the thing that things happen in. Without time, nothing happens, because there are no changes, because there is no dimension for those changes to happen in.
That does not require me to be able to measure it. (It does, however, imply that i should be able to find a way to measure time by observing how processes happen)
I am quite certain that some things that are theoretically impossible to measure still exist. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle clearly demonstrates that. Just because you can't measure the position and the momentum of an electron simulatneously does not mean that one of those does not exist, that makes no sense whatsoever.
But without time, i can't measure anything, because nothing ever changes, everything is stationary and eternal without time. (Eternal isn't a really good word here, because eternity implies the existence of time, but i can't find a better one to describe what i want to say. Thinking of a world without time is hard, and the results are kind of absurd. Which makes me wonder how you would come to believe that time doesn't exist)
|
Time exists because of general relativity and experiments with satellites and atomic clocks have shown it passes differently near objects of mass, such as planets, because of the gravitational field. That's the basis on how the GPS in your car works.
But then again when Einstein first published his paper back in 1915, only three people in the world understood it. So I'm not going to pretend to fully understand what's going on. You can be a skeptic and say somebody hit the clock one too many times on its' way to space *shrug
All I know is that it's something that always goes forward, never back. Ever wish you could've gone back in time and changed the outcome of something, but you can't? As a practical person, our 2016 presidential election is proof enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
