x
Click to expand

bobbysnobby

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/20/2010
Last Login:4/19/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3212
Highest Content Rank:#25533
Highest Comment Rank:#1679
Content Thumbs: 16 total,  21 ,  5
Comment Thumbs: 5506 total,  6755 ,  1249
Content Level Progress: 33.89% (20/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 16% (16/100)
Level 246 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 247 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:0
Content Views:5033
Total Comments Made:1177
FJ Points:4614

latest user's comments

#19 - I study biological Anthropology here at the school of human ev…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/07/2014 on Has science gone too far? +2
#76 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
Who the hell would think modern people are healthier?
We play video games and have pizza delivered to our door
lel
#7 - annnnddddd its ******** . our bodies are ****** …  [+] (19 new replies) 12/07/2014 on Has science gone too far? +75
User avatar #95 - frizzyo (12/07/2014) [-]
Unless atmospheric pressure was higher at some point. Extremely unlikely, but a variable nonetheless.
User avatar #88 - pronphisherman (12/07/2014) [-]
It's a result of what's called the square cube law basically when you scale something up its surface area increases at the rate of expansion squared where as the volume(mass) goes up at the rate of expansion cubed.
User avatar #69 - angelious (12/07/2014) [-]
who knows. there have been some weird shit in the history of everything.

and maybe this thing wasnt a human but rather a close relative of ours. like really close.


dunno if the finger has really been found and has not been proven a hoax then there has to be some sort of explination for it...tho that being said. op has provided no citation for this claim.
#46 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
what if it was the last remains of an astronaut from mars, the one who seeded earth with the first humans...and since mars is smaller than earth maybe martians were much taller before their planet got hit by a massive asteroid, so big it caused half the planet to go molten and smoothed it out
#56 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
Mars is smooth because it doesnt have very much volcanic activity its ground is very old.
The earth was hit by a massive asteroid I dont think Mars was.
The post says ancient Egypt as in political Egypt, my cultural anthro and world history is shotty but i think the oldest we put Egypt as a country was like 12-17kya 10-15 bce? We have human remains significantly older than that.
Lower gravity would be less weight on the body so if you could live on mars it would be reasonable to say you could grow taller.

There is a lot of stuff which reads as a troll and some stuff which science does talk about so i answered but still feels like b8.

Planet seeding is a line of scientific research though not for macro forms of life like an "astronaut" but microbial that could survive entry through the atmosphere in an asteroid. Its an interesting line of inquiry which has lead to the ID of some new extremophiles which is cool.
#62 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
explain the missing link to me then, and lucy not the movie , or explain your theory of god. that anon is just going off of a youtube vid that makes as much sense as most religions (not a whole lot of sense). it talks about humans becoming massive in size based off of their connections with themselves and the UNIVERSE. So like our big old Egyptian statues are of actual size, and that finger would supposedly come from one of those people, i guess.
#96 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
Science in general and Anthropology in particular are agnostic. Agnostic is a statement of knowledge rather than belief, agnostic means you think the question "Does God(s) exist?" is a question which is impossible to answer. Its not the job of science to say if there is or is not a God our job is to describe the world. Personally I dont see how Evolution is not a perfectly valid method of Creation.

"Missing links" Are what we call "transitional fossils" That is they show us predicted stages between two forms. Lucy its very interesting because her brain size is very low but her feet, pelvis, and most importantly her knee suggest she walked on two feet. There was debate in Anthropology about which came first large brain size or bipedality, Lucy seemed to suggest Brain Size came second.

Anthropologists dont like the term "missing link" because it implies that there was nothing until those fossils existed. Typically they are predicted which is how they are found at all. The other issue is that people always demand a missing link between x-y specimen. The best illustration of evolution for myself is the fallowing:

Imagine that throughout your life there are photos taken of you and then hidden through the world. We need to recreate your life off these photos. We find one of you as a child and one as a old man and predict that between them we should find you with xyz traits as a young man. We find a picture of you in your 40s, then predict and find one in your 20s, then your 30s. At every stage there can be demands to show the exact moment you say hit puberty, or the exact moment you became a young man. Its hard to do because its not stages its all one process. The best we try to do is find those snapshots as an example of those stages.

Yes there is some creationism arguments about radiation killing us off younger than ancient peoples who lived to be like 700 or something its just not possible its not how our bodies or the sun really works.
User avatar #21 - galaxyguy (12/07/2014) [-]
"[...] Human beings really cant live very well at above 9 feet [...]"

Well, he's clearly dead. bobbysnobby 0, giant mummy 1.
#87 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
Why are you the Stronghold bookholder?
#92 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
Because bitches love it when granary stocks are growing.
User avatar #17 - tacolishous (12/07/2014) [-]
Also, considering a guy only 9 feet tall died of heart failure makes me kinda skeptical of someone being 16 feet tall. But who knows? Maybe it was Sasquatch.
User avatar #16 - hellspawner (12/07/2014) [-]
OP is implying aliens.
User avatar #8 - kyleassante (12/07/2014) [-]
I would believe this because it seems like facts, but I love things that go above limitations. So in my mind I will continue to believe things that are out of the ordinary because it's fun for me. never know, at one point everything was deemed impossible, eventually it can become commonplace
#31 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
The thing about human physical limitations is that we're so accustomed to them we are incapable of usually spotting them. Like walking, we are not great at bipedal walking. You know who was? Our ancestors with smaller brains. Smaller brains means smaller heads means less space required in the hips to successfully give birth. Modern humans have heads that would be fatal for our ancestors to have given birth to, however as it turns out developing a better brain makes you more likely to survive (better does not always imply larger but that's a climate and energy issue) in a hostile area, leading to the development of wider hips and a much larger pelvis. The trade off is that humans can not walk using completely straight motions, you have to sort of swing your leg (maybe a little, maybe a lot, looking at you whales) or otherwise tilt your hips, causing less efficient running and walking.
#52 - popeflatus (12/07/2014) [-]
Bipedal walking is actually a very efficient form of locomotion.
#98 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
He said nothing about the efficiency of walking on two legs...he did say that we as a race are less efficient now than at previous points in time. Two entirely different things mate.
#55 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
Its interesting actually bipedality is actually two form. Our walking is somewhat eficent but actually its our long distance running which is really remarkable. If you think about it it makes sense which is for a quadruped they always have two legs on the ground, they have a very high level of balance and not much wasted energy in maintaining balance. However its not nearly as efficient when they run. Human beings use a ton of energy when they walk in maintaining balance if you see muscles on the human leg some of the biggest are what we call stabilizing muscles they dont perform anything for locomotion but they stabilize the leg and knee, this cost is reduced when your running extensive distances as per given weight we have much more range in our stride than other animals.

What human beings are the best in the world at in terms of locomotion in mammals is long distance running. We can run for an insane period of time if a dog tired to run the way we can they would quite literally die and dogs are one of the best long distance runners of all mammals.

Its one of the debates in anthropology how bipedality evolved because its not super efficent when just walking, even less so when you look at more imperfect or "transitional" forms of bipedalism. The leading hypothosis is about us being whats called Persistence hunting. That is our method of hunting would have been to literally run our prey into the ground chasing them for hours and hours till they collapsed from exhaustion. Its a practice which is still done in a few parts of the world and its terrifying to think of it from the point of view of the animal.

So in short your right, and wrong. Our walking is efficient but not very, our running is extremely efficient when the distance is long. There is a lot of debate in the field about what is called the biological economic argument for bipedality Energy efficiency doesnt seem to be the primary reason for people using bipedial locomotion strategies its still debated
#19 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
I study biological Anthropology here at the school of human evolution at ASU. Its talked about a lot human growth rate and development.

The Major issue with growing people is that we stand on two feet, and not every well at it., this causes a ton of pressure in two places, our pelvis and our knees. Thats a lot of load on those two spots and they are not great when you increase weight.

There are lots of cool miss conceptions about health and fitness which are cool if you want to look into it. For example its widely believed that the people who were in the best shape in history are not modern people but actually Greek war rowers. Like the oarsmen on a warship, the amount of manual work for the hours we have records on are insane.

There are some really cool feats of humans and their bodies throughout history 16 foot tall giants unfortunately isnt one of them.
#76 - anonymous (12/07/2014) [-]
Who the hell would think modern people are healthier?
We play video games and have pizza delivered to our door
lel
#14 - every time i see that image i think of the "your movie su… 12/07/2014 on Australia 0
#15 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 12/07/2014 on I Am Bread +2
#22 - egosumproxi Comment deleted by bobbysnobby
#250 - Hue i7 12/06/2014 on This is Cum 0
#51 - The girls are way more cut throat than the guys. Jesus Katie, …  [+] (1 new reply) 12/05/2014 on oh snap +1
User avatar #93 - ljxjlos (12/05/2014) [-]
I dunno, "pls go away u arent cute" is pretty damn harsh. Gasper seems like a straight up killer to me.
#29 - Picture 12/05/2014 on Star Wars 0
#23 - Its not oc though. You didnt make it its all over the internet. 12/04/2014 on sasuke sama +2
#129 - They are just attempts to cleverly write out of this cycle tha…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/04/2014 on he lost his way. 0
User avatar #132 - authvin (12/04/2014) [-]
It's a weird number, I'll give you that. Did some research on the subject and found this article, it's a decent read if you haven't seen it before: scifi.about.com/od/starwarsglossaryandfaq/a/Star-Wars-Faq-How-Many-Clone-Troopers-Are-There.htm
#76 - The idea of having things be canon or non-canon is to keep the…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/04/2014 on he lost his way. 0
#116 - authvin (12/04/2014) [-]
From the wookiepedia
User avatar #117 - authvin (12/04/2014) [-]
In addition, the star destroyers were part of the Imperial Navy, and while Stormtroopers did serve as marines on the ships, and there might have been a division of Stormtroopers stationed there permanently, Stormtroopers were independent from the Imperial Army and the Imperial Navy, and as such wouldn't be able to become officers on Star Destroyers and Death Stars. They answered to Palpatine, not Tarkin.
#129 - bobbysnobby (12/04/2014) [-]
They are just attempts to cleverly write out of this cycle that makes no sense. Ill bring up the biggest issue rather than these minor pedantic points.

There is no reason for him to form a clone army. The only reason he would form a clone army is if he didnt think he could raise a military from the galactic republic. 3 million troops is laughably small. "but in 21 BBY it was a little less than 1.3 million planets" The republic had 1.3 million planets to pull resources from, even if those planets only had 10% of 2014 earths population density on average that leaves them with a population of 910,000,000,000,000 or 910 trillion people people to draw on, 3.5 mil is like 3x10^-9% of the republic population. We can even fuck with those numbers to even hurt this argument and it still stands tall. Even if 80% of the planets dont have people on them its something like 1x10^-8%


The whole premise of the prequels was about making the republic into a military state build around the Sith Palatine. He creates a threat, the separatists, who somehow only controlling a few ten thousand systems can wage war on the whole republic and are such an exponential threat that the republic gives up being a republic and elects a war time dictator? How fucking powerful are the separatists?

I was not joking when I said the engineering/building team on the deathstar would out number the grand republic military. If you can get that many builders, why not that many soldiers?

The prequels are not thought through. This could have been easily changed you make the threat come from another galaxy, Some massive military who have exhausted their resources. They pose such a threat that the Republic needs to become a war state through conscription. Make the clones the Invaders. This also sets the ground work for someone like Thrawn and explains why Palpie would value the edge of the empire so much as to put the best tactician on the edge of the empire.
User avatar #132 - authvin (12/04/2014) [-]
It's a weird number, I'll give you that. Did some research on the subject and found this article, it's a decent read if you haven't seen it before: scifi.about.com/od/starwarsglossaryandfaq/a/Star-Wars-Faq-How-Many-Clone-Troopers-Are-There.htm
#64 - The Prequels are also not cannon. Its easier to explain them a…  [+] (6 new replies) 12/04/2014 on he lost his way. 0
#74 - anonymous (12/04/2014) [-]
Like the movies or not, they are cannon. Saying they're not is fucking idiotic.
#76 - bobbysnobby (12/04/2014) [-]
The idea of having things be canon or non-canon is to keep the story straight and concise. If you dont codify a canon then the series loses focus and things start to not make sense and you start to have continuity errors and all sorts of other stuff.

The prequels dont just displease me on a personal level, they also contradict both the original three films and the EU which was ok'd by Lucas and written more than a decade before the prequels were released.

The reason I cant take the prequels seriously is that not only do they not set up the original series they dont even make sense internally. If all we had of the starwards was the prequels they wouldnt make sense, its only made worse that they are ostensibly about setting up the groundwork to the original series but instead create contractions.

If there was ever a series to make outside of the original it would be the adaptation of the Timothy Zan books "The Thrawn Trilogy" they take the story directly after the events of Return of the Jedi and take the characters further. It was the first series of books given the right to use the Starwars Universe written by a major award winning science fiction writer.

Im not saying its an objective truth that they are "not canon" but the amount of explaining you need to do to make them "canon" and fit in the story even just between the prequels and the original series is so labor intensive you might as well rewrite them.

We dont even need to try to find errors. The senior officers in the Imperial Storm trooper army are clearly not clones, yet we are told that the whole clone army are clones of basically an ideal soldier. At what point did you recruit old men who were not part of the military to become your senior officers? What happened to all of the clones? Did none of them become officers? Did they all die? Were they all removed? Did the military go from a clone army to a purely recruited army? Why did they use clones at all if they were going to recruit?
#116 - authvin (12/04/2014) [-]
From the wookiepedia
User avatar #117 - authvin (12/04/2014) [-]
In addition, the star destroyers were part of the Imperial Navy, and while Stormtroopers did serve as marines on the ships, and there might have been a division of Stormtroopers stationed there permanently, Stormtroopers were independent from the Imperial Army and the Imperial Navy, and as such wouldn't be able to become officers on Star Destroyers and Death Stars. They answered to Palpatine, not Tarkin.
#129 - bobbysnobby (12/04/2014) [-]
They are just attempts to cleverly write out of this cycle that makes no sense. Ill bring up the biggest issue rather than these minor pedantic points.

There is no reason for him to form a clone army. The only reason he would form a clone army is if he didnt think he could raise a military from the galactic republic. 3 million troops is laughably small. "but in 21 BBY it was a little less than 1.3 million planets" The republic had 1.3 million planets to pull resources from, even if those planets only had 10% of 2014 earths population density on average that leaves them with a population of 910,000,000,000,000 or 910 trillion people people to draw on, 3.5 mil is like 3x10^-9% of the republic population. We can even fuck with those numbers to even hurt this argument and it still stands tall. Even if 80% of the planets dont have people on them its something like 1x10^-8%


The whole premise of the prequels was about making the republic into a military state build around the Sith Palatine. He creates a threat, the separatists, who somehow only controlling a few ten thousand systems can wage war on the whole republic and are such an exponential threat that the republic gives up being a republic and elects a war time dictator? How fucking powerful are the separatists?

I was not joking when I said the engineering/building team on the deathstar would out number the grand republic military. If you can get that many builders, why not that many soldiers?

The prequels are not thought through. This could have been easily changed you make the threat come from another galaxy, Some massive military who have exhausted their resources. They pose such a threat that the Republic needs to become a war state through conscription. Make the clones the Invaders. This also sets the ground work for someone like Thrawn and explains why Palpie would value the edge of the empire so much as to put the best tactician on the edge of the empire.
User avatar #132 - authvin (12/04/2014) [-]
It's a weird number, I'll give you that. Did some research on the subject and found this article, it's a decent read if you haven't seen it before: scifi.about.com/od/starwarsglossaryandfaq/a/Star-Wars-Faq-How-Many-Clone-Troopers-Are-There.htm
#63 - People in normal sword fighting dont hit their wrists or arms … 12/04/2014 on he lost his way. +1
#140 - Stick your head under a sink and breath in, after all there ar… 12/04/2014 on Hide and seek 0
#135 - Picture  [+] (2 new replies) 12/04/2014 on Hide and seek 0
#137 - funnygiggles (12/04/2014) [-]
lmgtfy.com/?q=Diffusion+of+gases

Displacement by a more gas denser than air will only occur in a closed container. Not only is he in a kitchen, there are tons of places for it to leak out.
#140 - bobbysnobby (12/04/2014) [-]
Stick your head under a sink and breath in, after all there are lots of places for that water to go.

Position and proximity matter. If you stand directly below a source of something producing an abundance of CO2 you really risk asphyxiation.
#368 - I dont think your grasping the point. There is no argument ...…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/03/2014 on Tumblr tard +1
User avatar #370 - infinitereaper (12/03/2014) [-]
Your sex and gender categories make sense, however the gender categories are still a little contrived, I've mentioned the science behind behavior, and how that's tied to psychology. What gets me however is the fact that few seem to acknowledge the scientific, hell the biological reasons men and women have certain expectations. Like men (hunters) and women (caregivers) but if you look at it from the perspective of evolutionary biology it all makes much more sense. Like I said, my gripe with the concept of gender is that it's plastic and much less of an actual science than it is about human behavior. For sake of clarity I simply state things how they are.

This whole issue of identity is what I find so unscientific. This idea of Ethnicity instead of simple of cultural heritage is what I find preposterous. While I understand where this comes from, I have my own criticism, perhaps my viewpoints stem from that.

Perhaps what bothers me most is that there is no middle ground, like normative and nominative economics, I believe that there is a middle ground that takes the best of both into a superior science. I probably feel the same way about gender and sex.

Meaning I can only agree with you half the time, and the other half have problems with those statements and ideas. I find the science far superior however, and I believe lots of people misuse the concept of "gender", or forget entirely that gender is the concept, not sex. I don't believe gender is a social construct, I believe it's a psychological construct that people try to make a social one, one that may or may not have basis in reality depending on person(s).

Which is why I call it a word game. Get lost in the definitions and the "sciences" to much and you won't truly understand humanity. Truth is derived from breaking free from human illusions and acknowledging them for what they are.

Much in the same way you are trying to explain, technically correct and correct aren't the same things either
#84 - I bet you kiss girls.... faggot. 12/03/2014 on Chris Pratt Best Pratt 0
#360 - This just shows that you haven't through about the nuances. …  [+] (3 new replies) 12/03/2014 on Tumblr tard +1
#367 - infinitereaper (12/03/2014) [-]
1) Male. Go by chromosomes, not biochemistry. Anything else means your biochemistry isn't function properly. This is a defect, not a claim to "sex".
2) You are both, though usually it leans one way or the other. At this point a person can be either or. They have that right.
3)Identity is an issue of psychology, not an issue of sociology. Making it one is when this becomes nonsense.
4) There are scientific differences and reasons males and females have different expectations. Example; estrogen and behavior, testosterone and behavior, women have thinner skin so are more sensitive to touch and violence because of concentrated nerve endings, females are generally physically weaker but have a higher tolerance for pain. Different centers of gravity, etc. All of these play a role from a sociological perspective.

Listen I'm all about the science. I think the problem is that you aren't as about it as you think you are. I don't care for nuances or making people feel good or justifying anything. There are answers to everything, and while people may not like them that doesn't mean they can corrupt perception just to make themselves feel better. It's a fallacy. Sex isn't a construct,

the only construct here is this idea of gender identity, an as I've stated time and time again; it's illogical
#368 - bobbysnobby (12/03/2014) [-]
I dont think your grasping the point. There is no argument ...well maybe a little, but by in large no argument about definitions of sex.

Ill say it one time as clearly as I can. To scientists who study people Identity matters. That is the reason studies often look at Race and Ethnicity. They are not the same. Sex and gender when your talking to mom and dad or your friends is not important. To scientists the distinction is important.

For example if you have like my siblings Native American Heritage through their father they are more prone to diabetes than I am. That's a health concern related to Race. Ethnically Mexican families in New Mexico are prone to obesity and heart related heath problems due to dietary practices. This is a problem from Ethnic dietary practices not from differential race genetics.

"Identity is an issue of psychology, not an issue of sociology" This is a very strange claim im not sure how its an "Issue" and anthropologists dont speak about it as an issue. Society creates roles for genders they are not some absolute, we know this because different cultures have different gender roles than we do.

The easy way to explain it is this.
You are a boy, you are a girl, you are both, you are neither. These are Sex categories.
This is masculine, this is feminine, this is neither, this is both. Those are Gender Categories.

An example of it in practice. Women on the average, across the world do more housework then men. This is a characteristic of gender, not of sex.
User avatar #370 - infinitereaper (12/03/2014) [-]
Your sex and gender categories make sense, however the gender categories are still a little contrived, I've mentioned the science behind behavior, and how that's tied to psychology. What gets me however is the fact that few seem to acknowledge the scientific, hell the biological reasons men and women have certain expectations. Like men (hunters) and women (caregivers) but if you look at it from the perspective of evolutionary biology it all makes much more sense. Like I said, my gripe with the concept of gender is that it's plastic and much less of an actual science than it is about human behavior. For sake of clarity I simply state things how they are.

This whole issue of identity is what I find so unscientific. This idea of Ethnicity instead of simple of cultural heritage is what I find preposterous. While I understand where this comes from, I have my own criticism, perhaps my viewpoints stem from that.

Perhaps what bothers me most is that there is no middle ground, like normative and nominative economics, I believe that there is a middle ground that takes the best of both into a superior science. I probably feel the same way about gender and sex.

Meaning I can only agree with you half the time, and the other half have problems with those statements and ideas. I find the science far superior however, and I believe lots of people misuse the concept of "gender", or forget entirely that gender is the concept, not sex. I don't believe gender is a social construct, I believe it's a psychological construct that people try to make a social one, one that may or may not have basis in reality depending on person(s).

Which is why I call it a word game. Get lost in the definitions and the "sciences" to much and you won't truly understand humanity. Truth is derived from breaking free from human illusions and acknowledging them for what they are.

Much in the same way you are trying to explain, technically correct and correct aren't the same things either
#311 - The arguments in summery are that for the scientific literatur… 12/03/2014 on Tumblr tard +4
#306 - I study biological anthropology and I can tell you thats about…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/03/2014 on Tumblr tard +2
User avatar #356 - infinitereaper (12/03/2014) [-]
The only thing dumb here is the retarded delusional use of "identify". As a man of science I believe your so called "gender" as per this argument, should be called what it actually is. Confusion, delusion, and a mental disorder. You are what you are. It doesn't matter what you think you are. It doesn't matter what you identify as.

A cup of orange juice is a cup of orange juice, no matter how much it wants to be it will never be a cup of tomato juice. This entire issue is so fucking retarded. Gender shouldn't even be used at all then if it's that fucking stupid.
#360 - bobbysnobby (12/03/2014) [-]
This just shows that you haven't through about the nuances.
For example lets say your born as a boy. But you have the biochemistry of a girl. What are you? This has nothing to do with identity or how we "feel". They have a penis but none of the hormones or hormonal production of a male. They can even have biochemical clocks like they are going through period cycles. If we conclude that all that is important is that they were born with a penis, ok lets carry that to its logical place.

What if your born with both male and female reproductive organs. Now do we consider biochemistry? Do we say they are sexless? Do we say they are both?

The concept of Identity is an important one for study because it impacts peoples choices and the structure of their values which are important when looking at people and group decision making. For example there are cultures were gender roles are reversed. Males wear makeup and go to great lengths for physical beauty and women do not. And many other examples we dont need to go into.

Gender is a short hand for societies expectations for a sex and for the individuals sense of place in a community. The reason it comes up is there are many people who dont really belong to either sex and that creates massive problem in gender identity.

The way SJWs abuse the notion of "The typical is wrong we embrace the Atypical no matter how infrequent, and you being insensitive about .00001% of the population makes you a monster XYZ" Obviously its an abuse of this fact, but its not because the science is wrong. Its the application of a judgement, a set of values on the science.

They are wrong a lot of the time, and the way they try to make themselves heard makes us all flinch and want to make them shut their fucking stupid mouths. But arguing over the use of the Terms Sex and Gender when they have codified definitions in the scientific literature is just as pointless.
#367 - infinitereaper (12/03/2014) [-]
1) Male. Go by chromosomes, not biochemistry. Anything else means your biochemistry isn't function properly. This is a defect, not a claim to "sex".
2) You are both, though usually it leans one way or the other. At this point a person can be either or. They have that right.
3)Identity is an issue of psychology, not an issue of sociology. Making it one is when this becomes nonsense.
4) There are scientific differences and reasons males and females have different expectations. Example; estrogen and behavior, testosterone and behavior, women have thinner skin so are more sensitive to touch and violence because of concentrated nerve endings, females are generally physically weaker but have a higher tolerance for pain. Different centers of gravity, etc. All of these play a role from a sociological perspective.

Listen I'm all about the science. I think the problem is that you aren't as about it as you think you are. I don't care for nuances or making people feel good or justifying anything. There are answers to everything, and while people may not like them that doesn't mean they can corrupt perception just to make themselves feel better. It's a fallacy. Sex isn't a construct,

the only construct here is this idea of gender identity, an as I've stated time and time again; it's illogical
#368 - bobbysnobby (12/03/2014) [-]
I dont think your grasping the point. There is no argument ...well maybe a little, but by in large no argument about definitions of sex.

Ill say it one time as clearly as I can. To scientists who study people Identity matters. That is the reason studies often look at Race and Ethnicity. They are not the same. Sex and gender when your talking to mom and dad or your friends is not important. To scientists the distinction is important.

For example if you have like my siblings Native American Heritage through their father they are more prone to diabetes than I am. That's a health concern related to Race. Ethnically Mexican families in New Mexico are prone to obesity and heart related heath problems due to dietary practices. This is a problem from Ethnic dietary practices not from differential race genetics.

"Identity is an issue of psychology, not an issue of sociology" This is a very strange claim im not sure how its an "Issue" and anthropologists dont speak about it as an issue. Society creates roles for genders they are not some absolute, we know this because different cultures have different gender roles than we do.

The easy way to explain it is this.
You are a boy, you are a girl, you are both, you are neither. These are Sex categories.
This is masculine, this is feminine, this is neither, this is both. Those are Gender Categories.

An example of it in practice. Women on the average, across the world do more housework then men. This is a characteristic of gender, not of sex.
User avatar #370 - infinitereaper (12/03/2014) [-]
Your sex and gender categories make sense, however the gender categories are still a little contrived, I've mentioned the science behind behavior, and how that's tied to psychology. What gets me however is the fact that few seem to acknowledge the scientific, hell the biological reasons men and women have certain expectations. Like men (hunters) and women (caregivers) but if you look at it from the perspective of evolutionary biology it all makes much more sense. Like I said, my gripe with the concept of gender is that it's plastic and much less of an actual science than it is about human behavior. For sake of clarity I simply state things how they are.

This whole issue of identity is what I find so unscientific. This idea of Ethnicity instead of simple of cultural heritage is what I find preposterous. While I understand where this comes from, I have my own criticism, perhaps my viewpoints stem from that.

Perhaps what bothers me most is that there is no middle ground, like normative and nominative economics, I believe that there is a middle ground that takes the best of both into a superior science. I probably feel the same way about gender and sex.

Meaning I can only agree with you half the time, and the other half have problems with those statements and ideas. I find the science far superior however, and I believe lots of people misuse the concept of "gender", or forget entirely that gender is the concept, not sex. I don't believe gender is a social construct, I believe it's a psychological construct that people try to make a social one, one that may or may not have basis in reality depending on person(s).

Which is why I call it a word game. Get lost in the definitions and the "sciences" to much and you won't truly understand humanity. Truth is derived from breaking free from human illusions and acknowledging them for what they are.

Much in the same way you are trying to explain, technically correct and correct aren't the same things either
#304 - Comment deleted 12/03/2014 on Tumblr tard 0
#4 - When the internet is motivated **** gets done. There wa…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/02/2014 on Star wars the horse awaken +8
User avatar #13 - sphincterface (12/02/2014) [-]
There was also Rule 34 of Splatoon within minutes of the game being announced...now that is impressive.
#8 - digitalmasterx (12/02/2014) [-]
thats the catch, you get more attention that way. its very common for nsfw artists
#35 - Sometimes teams do it for notoriety. By taking down big public… 11/30/2014 on DDOS 0
#68 - RETURNING FIRE At least we aren't dumb enough to say Maths… 11/30/2014 on Happy Christmas -1
#2171 - **bobbysnobby rolls 765,555,312** 11/29/2014 on FireFuel Gives Thanks 2 0
#22 - That was what I was referencing yes. 11/28/2014 on omg! got sum pillz!! 0

items

Total unique items point value: 160 / Total items point value: 1820

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)