Rape and Incest - justification for Abortion? - Page 36

On June 22 2013 23:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:



I think people have this illusion where real war was like playing Starcraft where you slaughtered everything in sight.

On June 22 2013 22:18 DoubleReed wrote:


???

Your statement makes no sense. Obviously genes drive evolution 100% of the time, because that's what evolution refers to. I'm confused about what you're actually trying to say. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that we assume for the sake of argument that something is biologically deterministic when it probably isn't. That couldn't possibly be your line of thinking so please explain.

Women oppress other women all the time. It has been debated in this very thread, because we were trying to explain that sunprince and the idea of conditioning. It's one of the principle arguments AGAINST biological determinism, actually.

Perhaps you aren't understanding what Biological Determinism refers to? I'm completely lost.

if men did not control the environment, then women evolved by themselves, without any or very little oppression.

fixed/stable/controlled/imposed environment = stagnated/steered evolution = biodeterminism rules. so during those times, women were at most getting better at being oppressed.

Holy massive leap. The period of time you're talking about (when man started controlling the environment) also started a massive amount of rapid change, where societies were growing and falling and warring and changing constantly. Not to mention the nomadic nature of many cultures. What's to say that we didn't get better at intelligent adaption and problem-solving?

On June 24 2013 00:38 xM(Z wrote:
by themselves was not meant to mean physically separated from (the males in this case); was meant to mean - driven by their own internal processes/mechanisms and environmental needs (suvrival of the species/of themselves wise).
we were apes for millions of years then we were homoXYZ for another couple of millions. you can't shrug that off just because we eventually became humans. the gender separation was present/started from there.
you are talking about a few millennia of modern human evolution as if it's representative of something. sure there were behavioral changes but those can be viewed as fads when looking at the bigger picture, at those other millions of years of evolution.

biodeterminism = because you have to, because you do. it has nothing to do with thinking/reasoning (that comes later but only if you can afford it/if you're allowed to exercise it or if you need justification for something). sure you'll have some rebels once in a while but those are insignifiant to the bigger picture and are by no means "lots and lots".
biodeterminism is the immediate adaptation to an environment, (roughly) of any kind, a do or die kind of thing. punctuated/gradual evolution comes later as an adaptation/efficientization to a different environment (derived from the initial environment).

how is that exclussive with oppression of any kind or with gender separation/role?.

On June 24 2013 02:38 DoubleReed wrote:


I feel like we're talking past each other.

It's not as other homo species don't have societies and social adaptation. They do. It fact, early hominids did have cultural variation and things. That's why the Less Wrong article applies, which talks about Baboons. Things seemed like they were innate and genetic but then seemed largely circumstantial. So how exactly do you tell the difference between innateness and circumstance? The whole point is that just because something happens for a long time doesn't mean it isn't purely circumstantial.

"Because you have to, because you do"??? What does that mean? I have no idea how to parse that. But yes, rebels are lots and lots. They are by no means insignificant.

Biological Determinism says that "women are like this because there's something about being a woman that makes them like this" as if it is inherent in being a woman rather than culturally focused. The fact is that not only are women like that because of social and cultural differences, but women aren't actually like that to begin with.

Nomadic cultures are exclusive with your assumption of a stable environment.

The fact is that Sunprince is wrong that women haven't been constantly fighting gender norms. They have. But unlike ethnic groups and socioeconomic groups which can be confined in ghettos and such, women (along with homosexuals) must work within the system for rights. And that is a system that is already stacked against them. So of course it's going to be a slow process.

Feminism has always been a remarkably pacifistic movement. The idea that women would "rise up against the men" is about as preposterous as homosexuals "rising up against the heterosexuals."

Edit: And this phrasing "was meant to mean - driven by their own internal processes/mechanisms and environmental needs (suvrival of the species/of themselves wise)" again is completely wrong. There is no internal process and mechanisms. Men and women cannot change independently of one another. That is impossible. We're one species. Men and women are not even different tribes or anything. I don't understand what you're not getting about this.

On June 24 2013 13:17 Dark_Chill wrote:


If I'm right, he's saying that things developed like that in nomadic times because it was efficient. Women were better at this, men were better at that. They formed social structures to accompany that. Because things developed past that, this wasn't as relevant as before, but the social aspects stayed and developed as well. From what I can tell, he's not saying that biological determinism explains everything, but I don't think it's right to say that it doesn't determine everything.

also, there are some genetic differences between men and women so seeing them as different groups of the same species is logical.

using the nature vs nurture theory in a men vs women argument is at least dishonest/deceitfull. one needs to take into account the children, the women and children as a group. there is a specific altruism between them that is not present between men and children.

"This tells us that neighborhoods matter," Carrel said. "Genes on the X chromosome evolved in five sequential segments or layers. The older segments have fewer genes that escape inactivation than those that developed later in the chromosome's evolutionary path. This suggests that, as the human species continues to evolve, more and more of the genes that are escaping inactivation may lose their ability to do so."

"The data also suggests that the female genome now differs from the male genome in at least four ways. First, previous studies had shown that the Y chromosome gives males several genes that are absent in the female. Second, this study shows the fact that some genes on the inactive X are expressed means that about 15 percent of the genes are expressed at higher levels in females than in males. Third, this study also shows an additional 10 percent of genes on the inactive X show variable expression levels in females, whereas men have only a single copy of these genes. And finally, scientists had already known that random nature of X-inactivation shows that females, but not males, are mosaics of two cell populations with respect to X-linked gene expression."

"Although we've shown sex-specific differences, the clinical implications remain unexplored," Carrel said. "We can, however, conclude that these differences should be recognized as potential factors for explaining normal differences between the sexes but also gender differences in how certain diseases are manifested, progress and respond to treatment. Further studies will be required to establish such a role for these genes."

Scientists decoding the human genome have discovered that just 78 genes separate men from women. But what are they?

On June 27 2013 22:29 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhm. That says the same thing as what I said. There are a minor amount of differences on the Y chromosome and other differences are due the genes being expressed differently in the different sexes. But we have the same genes.

So what you're saying is that you lack reading comprehension? All right, I'm ending this conversation. You're just not paying attention.

On June 27 2013 22:48 Sokrates wrote:



You are also dismissing the impact of hormones on human behavior and development. Before a certain point of the pregnancy all phoeti are female until the to be males ones are flodded with testosterone, forming the genitalia and brainstructure.

Also the hormones have an impact later in life esp. in/after puberty.

Let us assume the share the same genes the outcome of behaviour would also be altered by hormones.

On June 28 2013 01:04 DoubleReed wrote:


I'm not dismissing anything. I was talking about the genetic differences between men and women. I didn't bring up other differences because that's not what I was talking about.

I am arguing against biological determinism. The idea that men and women can be considered separate groups that evolve independently makes no sense. This is an important distinction, because people have both a mother and father that they get their genes from. Saying "women are like this socially because of evolution" becomes incredibly unlikely because men would be that way too. Because you know, that's the way biology works.

Testosterone is not your genes and is not passed on that way. You would have to come with a drastically different explanation why it would be actively repressed in men. And once these are factored in, suddenly you realize how minor such biological pressures would become and drift would dominate it.

The fact is that men and women are extraordinarily similar and culture acts as a significant enabler and repressor of how we act. One needs extraordinary evidence to suggest something would be biologically deterministic based on sex.

But of course, humans don't particularly care if the evidence is total BS if it confirms their preconceived notions.

On June 28 2013 01:22 Reason wrote:
Not really sure what the hell is going on here, super disappointed sunprince just vanished though =/