Scientests creates sperm in a lab

[JizzInMyPants]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iUmnyg8RMJrHIIG450g2_y-nn3Sw

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/09/sperm-laboratory-men



ok wdf.....

[Meatplow]

/resisting joke about how I could probably make sperm in a lab as well

but yeah, crazy stuff

[gregulus]

did the scientist spill it in your pants?

[gregulus]

ok wdf..... they are tampering with nature to damn much now
Why do you say this?

[Iskandar]

Old news but interesting.

[guitarded_chuck]

So men really aren't needed on Earth anymore

[Benzum]

wouldn't the artificial sperm be identical hence eliminating the gene pool and / or unique appearance of individuals? I'll wait for someone to post who actually knows about this stuff because I don't tbh. Interesting story though.

[guitarded_chuck]

Yes and no. The sperm would be the same but the individuals would all look different depending on the mother.

[Smokey D]

Can the sperm be developed from a female's stem cells?

[Berner]

wouldn't the artificial sperm be identical hence eliminating the gene pool and / or unique appearance of individuals? I'll wait for someone to post who actually knows about this stuff because I don't tbh. Interesting story though.


Sperm only has 1/2 of the genetic material required for the formation of the embryo. Like chuck said it'd be depend on the females half as well as the artificial sperm.

[Benzum]

Yes and no. The sperm would be the same but the individuals would all look different depending on the mother.

Yeah good point. But surely this would mean that all individuals who were born (mostly males) would have predominantly similar features to one another?

[Light Flantastic]

So men really aren't needed on Earth anymore

ya if you dont count the fact that they run everything and contribute far more to human progress

[Berner]

Yeah good point. But surely this would mean that all individuals who were born (mostly males) would have predominantly similar features to one another?


Probably but it probably also depends on where they get the starting material for the artificial sperm.

[Pop music sucks]

How about your avatar.

This isn't really surprising, the rate of artificial biologic constructs are rising in complexity. Last year a group recreated a bacteria strain.

[1338 h4x0r]

And I jizzed! In my pants!

[Iskandar]

It's supposed to help couples with infertility issues, not replace men.
ya if you dont count the fact that they run everything and contribute far more to human progressBecause we're better.

[Light Flantastic]

i know you're being sarcastic but if women truly were equal they wouldnt have been oppressed in the first place

[Iskandar]

They are less physically powerful, which is now irrelevant in most situations.

PS the mud races must be inherently inferior by your logic.

[Light Flantastic]

if all other things are equal and physical strength is the only advantage men has then that would still make them superior but i disagree with that because women have ostensibly been free for a long time and they're still not doing very well

and i dont know about the muds thats not really the same thing since women are present in all societies, even the privileged ones that took advantage of the poor ones so they dont really have that excuse

[Raayl]

itt iskandar cites history correctly

societies run on energy

up until the industrial revolution, that energy was muscle power predominantly

women have less muscle power

they are less important

not difficult.

[Mr. Ron]

there is no such thing as difference guys men and women are just different when it comes to oopsie parts i mean come on

[Raayl]

well, i should say "were" less important. muscle power isn't really needed in the post-modern world anymore, and look at that, suddenly women come into the picture as equals.

see guys, history is easy

[Light Flantastic]

itt iskandar cites history correctly

societies run on energy

up until the industrial revolution, that energy was muscle power predominantly

women have less muscle power

they are less important

not difficult.

so what you're saying is that women havent had an excuse since the start of the 19th century

[Mr. Ron]

well, i should say "were" less important. muscle power isn't really needed in the post-modern world anymore, and look at that, suddenly women come into the picture as equals.

see guys, history is easy
are you saying there is zero difference between men and women other than physical strength?

[Raayl]

are you saying there is zero difference between men and women other than physical strength?

yes thats exactly what im saying :confused:

no of course not but that was the reason women were second-class citizens and often times merely property

[Light Flantastic]

no of course not but that was the reason women were second-class citizens and often times merely propertyso what you're saying is that women havent had an excuse since the start of the 19th century

[Raayl]

so what you're saying is that women havent had an excuse since the start of the 19th century

compared to the greater scope of history, women have acquired rights and social status at beyond exponential rates. their social progress is astounding. a mere 200 years of progress to be almost completely equal socially, politically, and psychologically as men compared to over 10,000 years of oppression? thats incredible by the standards of history.

im talking in the west now, btw. i don't consider places like iran to be relevant to the actual status of women historically. because not only are women oppressed there but also men, and it has to do with religious doctrine, not the natural flow of technology.

[Light Flantastic]

well that was pretty irrelevant

[Mr. Ron]

idk most women I have talked to prefer men to be in charge. Words from their mouths, not mine. Also, most girls hate other women and actively express their disdain for modern feminism which is basically just an excuse to attack men.

[Raayl]

well that was pretty irrelevant

pretty irrelevant?

i wish i was cool enough to just ignore facts to justify my hatred of a gender that wants nothing to do with me

[Light Flantastic]

im not even gonna say all women are bad

im just saying that if i have a hypothetical line above which i respect people then statistically men are going to reach it more when the criteria are staying the same

[Light Flantastic]

i wish i was cool enough to just ignore facts to justify my hatred of a gender that wants nothing to do with me
i think you're upset lets calm down

[guitarded_chuck]

yeah cause they're the one's really in charge waving that fine slightly confuzzled sea lion over our heads and making us do all the work and letting us be "in charge"

can't blame them

[Light Flantastic]

what

[Mr. Ron]

no its biology that makes them want men to be a little more dominant.

[Raayl]

idk most women I have talked to prefer men to be in charge. Words from their mouths, not mine. Also, most girls hate other women and actively express their disdain for modern feminism which is basically just an excuse to attack men.

your close circle of female interactions = an accurate cross-section and geo-social sample of the globe's women ty for that valuable input

and no, feminism is not an "excuse to attack men."

the next time a woman tells you feminism sucks, ask them if they like having a job, making their own choices, getting paid to do work, being able to pick a husband, being able to say no to sex, or being able to be involved politically and legally in matters of community. These are all direct results of feminism

Now if they prefer corsets, having absolutely no human rights at all, and being beaten by a stick no larger than their husband's thumb, then I can see why they'd hate feminism. Otherwise? Your friends are idiots. Get new ones.

[guitarded_chuck]

no its biology that makes them want men to be a little more dominant.

k sources plz

[Light Flantastic]

ron shut up all people are born equal SCIENCE IS RACISM

[Light Flantastic]

the next time a woman tells you feminism sucks, ask them if they like having a job, making their own choices, getting paid to do work, being able to pick a husband, being able to say no to sex, or being able to be involved politically and legally in matters of community. These are all direct results of feminism

Now if they prefer corsets, having absolutely no human rights at all, and being beaten by a stick no larger than their husband's thumb, then I can see why they'd hate feminism. Otherwise? Your friends are idiots. Get new ones.
sup fallacy time

[Raayl]

im not even gonna say all women are bad

im just saying that if i have a hypothetical line above which i respect people then statistically men are going to reach it more when the criteria are staying the same

most women are generally worse at the social tasks you're considering because they simply don't have to be good at them to attract men and lets face it in the end all anybody wants is to get ****ed

[guitarded_chuck]

i am a biology/environmental science student

and so give me sources or lies

it isn't science if you just make a statement without some backup

[Raayl]

sup fallacy time

Right because feminism isn't important or relevant to post-modern society or anything :confused:

[Mr. Ron]

your close circle of female interactions = an accurate cross-section and geo-social sample of the globe's women ty for that valuable input

and no, feminism is not an "excuse to attack men."

the next time a woman tells you feminism sucks, ask them if they like having a job, making their own choices, getting paid to do work, being able to pick a husband, being able to say no to sex, or being able to be involved politically and legally in matters of community. These are all direct results of feminism

Now if they prefer corsets, having absolutely no human rights at all, and being beaten by a stick no larger than their husband's thumb, then I can see why they'd hate feminism. Otherwise? Your friends are idiots. Get new ones.
i'm talking about modern feminism, not historical feminism. Walk into any women's studies course that teaches about modern feminism and it is mostly about vicitmology and that men are the problem. Again, I'm talking about newer forms of feminism, not the original aims, which were good. You completely missed my point.

[Light Flantastic]

are you ****ing me you actually think men and women are biologically the same

[guitarded_chuck]

are you ****ing me you actually think men and women are biologically the same

did you see somebody say that cause i didn't

[Mr. Ron]

i am a biology/environmental science student

and so give me sources or lies

it isn't science if you just make a statement without some backup
women prefer men who take charge in situations where it usually involves males taking a more assertive role. idk if you've ever been in relationships but thats how it is. I don't need to be in a class room to know that.

[Raayl]

i'm talking about modern feminism, not historical feminism. Walk into any women's studies course that teaches about modern feminism and it is mostly about vicitmology and that men are the problem. Again, I'm talking about newer forms of feminism, not the original aims, which were good. You completely missed my point.

I know what you're talking about - and I have a degree in human studies. I've taken many sociology, sex, gender, and feminism classes, and have never once encountered this scenario. I think you're making it up based on "myths." Because every professor I've had addressed that myth the first day of class.

"Who thinks feminism is for lesbians only."

/90% of class raises hand

"K you're all retarded, and here is why: etc etc"

[guitarded_chuck]

women prefer men who take charge in situations where it usually involves males taking a more assertive role. idk if you've ever been in relationships but thats how it is. I don't need to be in a class room to know that.

yeah you're right, that's just how it is

i believe you now

[Light Flantastic]

Right because feminism isn't important or relevant to post-modern society or anything :confused:

if a rapist gave you an ice cream would you then say hes an awesome guy

no you can say the ice cream was a nice gesture

but you wouldnt say he's a good guy

in fact you might even say he sucks

!

[Light Flantastic]

raayl every time you post you change your degree stop making up stories

[Mr. Ron]

I know what you're talking about - and I have a degree in human studies. I've taken many sociology, sex, gender, and feminism classes, and have never once encountered this scenario. I think you're making it up based on "myths." Because every professor I've had addressed that myth the first day of class.

"Who thinks feminism is for lesbians only."

/90% of class raises hand

"K you're all retarded, and here is why: etc etc"
why would you waste your money going to college/uni for those courses

why do you think 90% of the class raised their hands? I'm going to bet money on it being because men are portrayed now as dumb/violent characters.

[Light Flantastic]

and every time you post you use horrible fallacies iskandar come back this is upsetting

[Raayl]

if a rapist gave you an ice cream would you then say hes an awesome guy

no you can say the ice cream was a nice gesture

but you wouldnt say he's a good guy

in fact you might even say he sucks

!

umm you're trying a little too hard for that one

[Mr. Ron]

yeah you're right, that's just how it is

i believe you now
idk date girls or something that is more valuable than classes

[Light Flantastic]

umm you're trying a little too hard for that one

no you're just retarded

like seriously bro

srs

[Raayl]

why would you waste your money going to college/uni for those courses

why do you think 90% of the class raised their hands? I'm going to bet money on it being because men are portrayed now as dumb/violent characters.

Well, in my defense...I have since switched my major. But they also directly tie into my history classes so it's easy credit for the most part.

And how can you say this if you just admitted you've never even, yourself, been in a sociology classroom? You're just making stuff up.

[guitarded_chuck]

idk date girls or something that is more valuable than classes

i do date women and i am a science student at uni and i can tell you it isn't just the way it is it's because of social norms. it's the way western society is currently set up, not because of "biological reasons". and like i said, you won't find sources that agree with you.

[Light Flantastic]

raayl we can know about things without trying them

like you know not to huff raid

well maybe not judging by your posts but ya

[Raayl]

i do date women and i am a science student at uni and i can tell you it isn't just the way it is it's because of social norms. it's the way western society is currently set up, not because of "biological reasons". and like i said, you won't find sources that agree with you.

^this and this

Most men think this way, I find. Until of course, they actually academically study the issue, only to find that none of their perceptions of the world are accurate or even close, for that matter.

[Light Flantastic]

sociology is applied biology where do you think it comes from

[Raayl]

raayl we can know about things without trying them

like you know not to huff raid

well maybe not judging by your posts but ya

I've never been in a sociology classroom. Therefore, I am the resident authority on what goes on inside all of them.

Yeah, and you want to talk about fallacies? K.

[Light Flantastic]

he wasnt making a logical statement

can you like stop posting in this forum you are ruining it for other people thats not very considerate

[Raayl]

he wasnt making a logical statement

can you like stop posting in this forum you are ruining it for other people thats not very considerate

while you're here, that proposition isn't difficult to accept.

"you disagree with my backwards, misogynistic, unsubstantiated nonsense! you're retarded! get out now!"

k bai.

[Light Flantastic]

no you're retarded because you cant make make a post without being dumb

feminism gave you some nice things so you should like everything feminism stands for

see rapist analogy for more details

[guitarded_chuck]

i already won the thread so the discussion is going no where sorry guys it's my fault don't blame raayl

[Benzum]

while you're here, that proposition isn't difficult to accept.

"you disagree with my backwards, misogynistic, unsubstantiated nonsense! you're retarded! get out now!"

k bai.

Raayl I love you man but sometimes you just have to back off, you know?

[Light Flantastic]

i can call raayl out on being dumb regardless of thread winning status

[Iskandar]

there is no such thing as difference guys men and women are just different when it comes to oopsie parts i mean come onPretty much.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization
women prefer men who take charge in situations where it usually involves males taking a more assertive role. idk if you've ever been in relationships but thats how it is.
Your anecdotes don't mean anything dude.

[sweboy]

so what you're saying is that women havent had an excuse since the start of the 19th century

It's not so much physical strength as it is the roles of people in society - i.e, men work women stay home. That norm didn't die right away after the de-physicalization of the work place.

women prefer men who take charge in situations where it usually involves males taking a more assertive role. idk if you've ever been in relationships but thats how it is. I don't need to be in a class room to know that.

Ron bro I'm not digging that attitude, you sound almost like a creationist, "thats how it is. I don't need to be in a class room to know that". The thing is that just because women are in a certain way, does not prove it's genetic. Just like how the fact that women are in a certain way does not prove it's environmental/social. It's not easy to tell the factors apart.

i do date women and i am a science student at uni and i can tell you it isn't just the way it is it's because of social norms. it's the way western society is currently set up, not because of "biological reasons". and like i said, you won't find sources that agree with you.

The evidence for the "it's because of social norms"-hypothesis is actually pretty weak, it has just been assumed throughout history. It's not easy to tell the factors apart.

sociology is applied biology where do you think it comes from

Actually, no... Sociology is not "applied biology". Its a very seperate field of science.

[Benzum]

after reading that sweboy is my bitch

Any artifcial sperm will end up with repetitive results. Although seeing as this involes human life I don't see any need to debate because anything is possible. This only proves that females are needed even more.

So we should treat them better and buy them shoes whenever possible.

[sweboy]

Pretty much.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization


The problem is too much pretty arm chair theorizing and not enough actual experiments.

Because when you actually go out and do experiments you find that twins reared apart are similar to each other, that adopted babies are more similar to their biological parents than their adoption-parents, that parents have almost no effect on how their children turn out, that girls who are exposed to higher levels of testosterone during pregnancy turn out more boy-like etc.

[Iskandar]

Hey I'm a twin.

[sweboy]

Iskandar you should read The Blank Slate by Pinker, it will change your life: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/

[Light Flantastic]

if sociology isnt just a real world application of biology where do sociological concepts come from

[sweboy]

if sociology isnt just a real world application of biology where do sociological concepts come from

they made 'em up

made 'em up, got 'em from old school psychology, got 'em from philosophy, made 'em up

[Iskandar]

I hate Stephen Pinker.

[Light Flantastic]

they made up the terms but the concepts are natural they're biological

psychology is also applied biology

everything is applied something

[Iskandar]

Not libertarianism.

[Light Flantastic]

libertarianism is applied being right

[Iskandar]

right-wing

[Light Flantastic]

there is no right and left, only liberty and nazi

[Light Flantastic]

the political compass should just be that one line

[Iskandar]

That's the vertical line.

[Light Flantastic]

no.

the idea that we should have an extra axis that distinguishes certain kinds of authoritarianism as somehow on a different level of justification is stupid

[sweboy]

I hate Stephen Pinker.

This should be highly alarming to you, if you hold strong emotional dislike towards a scientist. It might mean that you are emotionally attached to certain ideas of how-you-want-the-world-to-be, which might make you biased in your evaluation of data (i.e. you think that data that conflicts your desired view is incorrect)=. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
they made up the terms but the concepts are natural they're biological

psychology is also applied biology

everything is applied something

No, psychology is not applied biology. It should be, but isn't. Psychology has traditionally been a completely seperate science from biology, where people have developed their own methods and not applied the methods developed in biology.

Not everything is applied something. If I make up a whole new theory of chemistry (based on unicorns) without ever looking at a physics textbook, it doesn't make sense to say "oh look, sweboy is just applying physics - because I mean, the things he studies are physical things right!". "Physics" is different from the physical world - "biology" is different from biological organisms - "psychology" is different from the human mind. I'm not "applying biology" unless I'm applying methods developed in "biology".

[Iskandar]

There are different kinds of authoritarianism and libertarianism. Your reductionism is a stupid ism.

[Benzum]

because sociology is an overused, bastardised form of psychology

[Light Flantastic]

Not everything is applied something. If I make up a whole new theory of chemistry (based on unicorns) without ever looking at a physics textbook, it doesn't make sense to say "oh look, sweboy is just applying physics - because I mean, the things he studies are physical things right!". "Physics" is different from the physical world - "biology" is different from biological organisms - "psychology" is different from the human mind. I'm not "applying biology" unless I'm applying methods developed in "biology".

whether you know about biology or not your new theories would be a result of applied biological processes that we know exist even if you dont

assuming unicorns are just horses with horns and not magical

[sweboy]

whether you know about biology or not your new theories would be a result of applied biological processes that we know exist even if you dont

assuming unicorns are just horses with horns and not magical

"your new theories would be a result of applied biological processes"

Huh? "Apply" is something humans do; i.e we apply scientific methods. "Biological processes" are things that exist outside our minds, out there in the world. What the hell is an "applied biological process"?

[Light Flantastic]

There are different kinds of authoritarianism and libertarianism. Your reductionism is a stupid ism.

no.

if i tax to give to the poor, the political compass will say im a leftist

if i tax to give to the aristocracy, the political compass will say im authoritarian

defining the former as legitimate is a leftist idea, its not appropriate to assume that it is legitimate for a political compass then

[1338 h4x0r]

This should be highly alarming to you, if you hold strong emotional dislike towards a scientist. It might mean that you are emotionally attached to certain ideas of how-you-want-the-world-to-be, which might make you biased in your evaluation of data (i.e. you think that data that conflicts your desired view is incorrect)=. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

He also says he doesn't give a **** about transhumanism, despite the fact that it's kind of a big deal.

As if ignoring something you don't like ever made it go away

No, psychology is not applied biology. It should be, but isn't. Psychology has traditionally been a completely seperate science from biology, where people have developed their own methods and not applied the methods developed in biology.

An analogy seems appropriate

Traditional psychology is a lot like the traditional programmatic approach to artificial intelligence

It has some useful abstractions but it doesn't really reflect on what happens in our heads

It's only partly applied biology

[Benzum]

Biology is natural; sociology is a natural progression of biology. Creating sperm in a lab doesn't tell us anything about how potential beings / creations will react.

[Light Flantastic]

"your new theories would be a result of applied biological processes"

Huh? "Apply" is something humans do; i.e we apply scientific methods. "Biological processes" are things that exist outside our minds, out there in the world. What the hell is an "applied biological process"?

well its not exclusively something humans do, it can be circumstantial and whatnot

the application of biological processes in a society of biological entities leads to sociological processes

or the application of biological processes in an individual leads to psychological processes

or the application of psychological processes in a society leads to sociological processes again

[Iskandar]

no.

if i tax to give to the poor, the political compass will say im a leftist

if i tax to give to the aristocracy, the political compass will say im authoritarian

defining the former as legitimate is a leftist idea, its not appropriate to assume that it is legitimate for a political compass thenRedistributing wealth fundamentally alters the traditional power relations of a given society whereas keeping wealth in the hands of established elites only reinforces them. Your argument is predicated on the idea that the natural distribution of wealth is equitable, which is a rightist idea. This is why it's dumb to reduce politics to simplistic assertions of authority/liberty when there are so many competing interpretations of those two very basic ideas.

[Light Flantastic]

Redistributing wealth fundamentally alters the traditional power relations of a given society whereas keeping wealth in the hands of established elites only reinforces them. Your argument is predicated on the idea that the natural distribution of wealth is equitable, which is a rightist idea. This is why it's dumb to reduce politics to simplistic assertions of authority/liberty when there are so many competing interpretations of those two very basic ideas.
but thats just one particular argument of many possible arguments, in this case its a leftist one

the current political compass assumes the legitimacy of that argument by giving it its own axis

the fact that there are many competing interpretations means its dumb to select just one and give it more importance

[1338 h4x0r]

There should probably be more than two axes tbh

[Iskandar]

but thats just one particular argument of many possible arguments, in this case its a leftist one

the current political compass assumes the legitimacy of that argument by giving it its own axisThe left is just as legitimate as the right silly.
the fact that there are many competing interpretations means its dumb to select just one and give it more importanceThat's exactly what you just wanted to do.

[Benzum]

is it just me or are we talking about potential embryos not the cultural / symbolic status they may or may not one day take

[Light Flantastic]

There should probably be more than two axes tbhprobably but then it becomes overly complex

The left is just as legitimate as the right silly.
thats not what i meant

That's exactly what you just wanted to do.
liberty is a constant, though

you're either free from government interference or you're not, its not the same as a subjective 'justification' axis

[Iskandar]

liberty is a constant, though

you're either free from government interference or you're not, its not the same as a subjective 'justification' axisYour selective interpretation of liberty is not the only one, nor is it objective enough to warrant placing as the sole determinant of political activity.

Sorry to burst your libertarian bubble.

[sweboy]

well its not exclusively something humans do, it can be circumstantial and whatnot

the application of biological processes in a society of biological entities leads to sociological processes

or the application of biological processes in an individual leads to psychological processes

or the application of psychological processes in a society leads to sociological processes again


We have to make a sharp distinction between the map and the territory, the study of reality and reality itself - "biology" is the map, it is the study of living things. Biology uses a number of methods; experimental, theoretical and statistical to learn about living things. "Applied biology" is meant to mean the application of these methods. When you say

"the application of biological processes in a society of biological entities leads to sociological processes"

you are using a completely different definition of "apply", where it is not us as map-makers who do the application, but living things - "biological entities apply biology". This is a major distortion of our language. "Applied biology" means applying methods from biology to study the world.

sociological processes = biological processes
sociology =/= biology

[Light Flantastic]

Your selective interpretation of liberty is not the only one, nor is it objective enough to warrant placing as the sole determinant of political activity.

Sorry to burst your libertarian bubble.

no im afraid thats what liberty means its freedom from interference

[Light Flantastic]

We have to make a sharp distinction between the map and the territory, the study of reality and reality itself - "biology" is the map, it is the study of living things. Biology uses a number of methods; experimental, theoretical and statistical to learn about living things. "Applied biology" is meant to mean the application of these methods. When you say

"the application of biological processes in a society of biological entities leads to sociological processes"

you are using a completely different definition of "apply", where it is not us as map-makers who do the application, but living things - "biological entities apply biology". This is a major distortion of our language. "Applied biology" means applying methods from biology to study the world.

sociological processes = biological processes
sociology =/= biology
idk i dont think its a distortion

you can say does circumstance x apply

circumstance x doesnt need to be applied by a human actor

do biological processes apply? sociological processes will result

[Iskandar]

no im afraid thats what liberty means its freedom from interferenceThat's a very good definition of negative liberty. Now try this other theory. It's called positive liberty.

[Light Flantastic]

That's a very good definition of negative liberty. Now try this other theory. It's called positive liberty.

iskandar why are you trying to get into a semantical argument with me you're just being intellectually dishonest now im sure you can work dictionary.com i know you want to be at the cool end of my political compass but your statist ways arent compatible with that dream

[Iskandar]

I am at the cool end. "I am a left-libertarian." Our quadrant is green.

[Light Flantastic]

that political compass was designed by leftist college students you're only deluding yourself you're just a closet authoritarian who thinks hes doing the right thing for society do you know who else was like that ill tell you who, hitler

[Iskandar]

http://politicalcompass.org/faq

Numbers 16, 18 and 29 will answer all your questions better than I could.

[Light Flantastic]

no im saying hitler was a leftist im saying hitler thought his bad ideas were for the good of society and so do you

[Stig Caraveo]

let's talk about sperm

[Light Flantastic]

hitler had sperm and so does iskandar

[Iskandar]

no im saying hitler was a leftist im saying hitler thought his bad ideas were for the good of society and so do youHitler was not a leftist and my ideas are not bad.

[Light Flantastic]

there was a not after that first im but it disappeared

he totally was a leftist though i just wasnt saying it in that post but now i am

[sweboy]

idk i dont think its a distortion

you can say does circumstance x apply

circumstance x doesnt need to be applied by a human actor

do biological processes apply? sociological processes will result

But you said "sociology is applied biology". To make your system of words fly, you also have to re-define "biology" as "biological processes" and "sociology" as "sociological processes" - thus blurring a distinction that is absolutely crucial. Mixing up the world with the study of the world, mixing up the map with the territory.

With the definitions used by pretty much everyone, sociology is not applied biology.

[Light Flantastic]

biology is biological processes thats not really a re-definition you're talking about biology the science im talking about biology

the biology of humans directly affects the sociology of humans

sociology is the biology of humans applied to social situations

sociology is applied biology

[1338 h4x0r]

Anders, don't bother, Chad doesn't understand science at all

[Iskandar]

That's okay. He doesn't understand politics either but we let him argue here.

[kitsch]

Can the sperm be developed from a female's stem cells?

that would be soo trippy.

[griftadan]

Pretty much.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization
Your anecdotes don't mean anything dude.

do you really think that biological differences play no part in this? why do the the social norms exist in the first place?

[Iskandar]

do you really think that biological differences play no part in this? why do the the social norms exist in the first place?Patriarchy silly.

We define women as the Other of ourselves.

Any biological differences are trivial in shaping gender roles.

[griftadan]

ok why is there patriarchy?

i think most biologists/psychologists/sociologists or whatever would agree that males are not only more physical, but the more assertive/aggressive of the sexes. see how this might possibly shape our societies and gender roles?

and jesus people really like to argue about the political spectrum on this board

[1338 h4x0r]

i think most biologists/psychologists/sociologists or whatever would agree that males are not only more physical, but the more assertive/aggressive of the sexes

:lol:

[Iskandar]

ok why is there patriarchy?Men, duh.
i think most biologists/psychologists/sociologists or whatever would agree that males are not only more physical, but the more assertive/aggressive of the sexes. see how this might possibly shape our societies and gender roles?You've got it backwards. Gender roles are socially constructed. Men are aggressive because they're expected to be. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In rural China, I doubt there is anything manly about grilling burgers, nor anything girly about playing with plastic dolls.
and jesus people really like to argue about the political spectrum on this boardCause libertarians have a wacky idea of it which places them in the favourable position as the sole defenders of freedom and limited government while everyone else is an evil statist.

[1338 h4x0r]

Straight guys in Shanghai, or at least huaren, are said to look and act really faggoty

[griftadan]

Men, duh.
You've got it backwards. Gender roles are socially constructed. Men are aggressive because they're expected to be. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

if you ever taken a psychology course you'll probably be told that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that socialization can't adequately explain all of human development and behavior. someone else brought this up earlier.

certain hormones like testosterone are linked to more aggressive behavior if i'm not mistaken. men naturally have more. my knowledge is limited, but this can't be the only potentially key biological difference.

In rural China, I doubt there is anything manly about grilling burgers, nor anything girly about playing with plastic dolls.


dude give me a little credibility in being able to judge what is socially contrived and what is not

[Iskandar]

if you ever taken a psychology course you'll probably be told that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that socialization can't adequately explain all of human development and behavior. someone else brought this up earlier.

certain hormones like testosterone are linked to more aggressive behavior if i'm not mistaken. men naturally have more. my knowledge is limited, but this can't be the only potentially key biological difference.I have in fact taken a psychology course, but that's not relevant. My point is not that biological differences between the sexes don't exist (they obviously do, or I'd have child-bearing hips) but that these differences are trivial as determinants of social behaviour as compared to socialization.
dude give me a little credibility in being able to judge what is socially contrived and what is notGender roles are and you only have to look at the vast diversity of interpretations of these roles (if any can be said to exist at all) to conclude this.

Now, would you like chicken or fish with your salad.

[griftadan]

I have in fact taken a psychology course, but that's not relevant. My point is not that biological differences between the sexes don't exist (they obviously do, or I'd have child-bearing hips) but that these differences are trivial as determinants of social behaviour as compared to socialization.

i don't think this is a given, and i think the simple difference in hormone levels is enough to to greatly effect behavior and thus social order

Gender roles are and you only have to look at the vast diversity of interpretations of these roles (if any can be said to exist at all) to conclude this.

i think maybe theres some tribe in new guinea or something that isn't male dominated, but for the vast majority of the world that isn't the case. it may come in different forms, but it's still there. why the prevalence?

[Pop music sucks]

Proto human civilization was completely dependant upon hunter-gatherer society, and with hunter-gatherer, usually the stronger, larger, and more aggressive sex would be the one doing the killing. That just happened to be the human male. There just wasn't enough distribution and production to completely end a hunter-gatherer society within the world at that time. It's only been (historically) recent that comparatively most of the world don't need to kill animals on a daily basis to feed their own families. There's distributive points one could enter and get what they need. Society is now evolving to accept that with giving women (at least in the West) marginally equal status. There's still an underlying divide as an equaly qualified woman will make less than an equally qualified man.

[griftadan]

i dunno if males are inherently more assertive by nature it's somewhat hard to see women ever gaining a true equal footing, regardless of the mode of production

[1338 h4x0r]

transhumanism

[Light Flantastic]

nobody has told me where sociological processes come from if not biological ones

tia

[1338 h4x0r]

nobody has told me where sociological processes come from if not biological ones

tia

I believe what Anders is saying is that sociology is based partly on assumptions which may not be biologically tenable

An appropriate analogy is how psychology started out with beliefs in id, ego, and superego which only kind-of sort-of correspond to actual brain activities

[Light Flantastic]

sociology as a science maybe but the actual processes must be directly or indirectly attributed to our biology

the point being that women are biologically different thus their position in society

or men are different thus their position in society if that makes you feel better

[1338 h4x0r]

sociology as a science maybe but the actual processes must be directly or indirectly attributed to our biology

Ok, then economics is "applied biology"

[Light Flantastic]

indirectly sure

[1338 h4x0r]

Actually economics just studies decision making under scarcity

It says nothing about the biological or non-biological character of agents in an economy

In fact the kind of person assumed by economics, Homo economicus is an extraordinary person, for better or worse

(Think of chad, but actually smart)

[Light Flantastic]

the decisions we make are indirectly tied to our biology you cant escape that

and theres nobody else here idk why you're referring to me in the third person

[1338 h4x0r]

the decisions we make are indirectly tied to our biology you cant escape that

There is no reason economics could not apply to nonbiological rational agents

Even if you assume that a nonbiological agent could not be conscious, economics is concerned only with behavior, so regardless it could still apply

In fact a number of economic models would apply more to simple forms of such agents than humans

Well ... you could say that neuroeconomics is applied biology but in general the whole of economics is based on utility theory, which is not really "applied biology"

But regardless arguing with you is like arguing with a goddamn brick wall because you are too ****ing stupid to understand anything that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, like "VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS"

So I'm going to take a different tack this time:

This message has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your brain:

"ECONOMICS ISN'T APPLIED BIOLOGY"

and theres nobody else here idk why you're referring to me in the third person

chad's pretty dumb, wait til he sees this

[Light Flantastic]

There is no reason economics could not apply to nonbiological rational agents
i wasnt insulting your robot fantasy or saying that it couldnt

human economics is indirectly applied biology

happy?

[Light Flantastic]

just like biology is applied chemistry which is applied physics which is applied mathematics which ostensibly would apply to your robot economics

[1338 h4x0r]

i wasnt insulting your robot fantasy or saying that it couldnt

Come to think of it, nonhuman biological agents with rationality could be studied in economics

Also "fantasy" is a bit of an iffy word to use here; just ask the folks at DARPA

human economics is indirectly applied biology

happy?

Yes

But not because you started making sense

You haven't

The only part of economics you could call "applied biology" is neuroeconomics

The rest isn't


just like biology is applied chemistry which is applied physics which is applied mathematics which ostensibly would apply to your robot economics

Too much xkcd for you

Also your analogy is untenable

Stop making untenable analogies

[Light Flantastic]

all of the quips on xkcd are stolen

that idea is quite old

The only part of economics you could call "applied biology" is neuroeconomics
what leads humans to make decisions other than biology

even if we go to psychology and sociology those are also the result of biological processes

[1338 h4x0r]

what leads humans to make decisions other than biology

External factors, but that's besides the point

ECONOMICS, as a whole field, does not really study biological processes

It generally deals in abstractions based on utility theory that sometimes correspond to biological processes

As Anders pointed out, you are confusing the map with the territory

Now show me where economics actually invokes biology in a significant sense outside of neuroeconomics

[Light Flantastic]

External factors, but that's besides the point

yes but the way that external factors influence humans is attributable to our biology


As Anders pointed out, you are confusing the map with the territory

im not confusing anything you're both assuming that im talking about the science of economics or biology instead of the processes involved

but why would i be when i was only making the claim that women are different because of their biology and nothing to do with the study of those differences

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

it does seem a bit tenuous to require that chad say "the stuff we observe in biology affects the stuff we observe in sociology"

it's worth noting that you've only refuted what he said, not what he meant

[Mr. Ron]

Pretty much.

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization
Your anecdotes don't mean anything dude.
so women don't think differently, create relationships differently, respond to certain things in certain ways....?


Men and women are different in PLENTY of ways that span over numerous cultures with pretty much the same results. I don't but this "everyone is the same" stuff.


PS sociology is worthless.

[SugarCoatedSour]

everything is the same everything is different.

[iamtherobots]

this is stupid scientists should be in labs making vaginas for me to have sex with

[Mr. Ron]

exactly

[1338 h4x0r]

it does seem a bit tenuous to require that chad say "the stuff we observe in biology affects the stuff we observe in sociology"

it's worth noting that you've only refuted what he said, not what he meant

He's sloppy then, shame on him

[Smokey D]

so women don't think differently, create relationships differently, respond to certain things in certain ways....?


Men and women are different in PLENTY of ways that span over numerous cultures with pretty much the same results. I don't but this "everyone is the same" stuff.

Um, no the whole point of socialisation is that people do think differently. It's just because it's of how your particular society enculturates you rather than your genes.

In actual fact it's probably a little bit of both, although how your genetic/sexual differences manifest is an entirely cultural phenomenon.


PS sociology is worthless.

Lol no.

[Virus278]

how your genetic/sexual differences manifest is an entirely cultural phenomenon.


I've always seen that as an interesting topic to think about. Your stance is arguable.

[Mr. Ron]

no you see genetics, higher levels of certain chemicals or how your brain is wired mean nothing, it all depends on if you're in a dress or pants

[Iskandar]

More like if you've been told what it means to wear a dress or pants your whole life.

PS. how exactly is the female brain wired differently from the male brain.

[Light Flantastic]

well its simple

the female brain likes dolls and makeup

the male brain likes cars and trucks

[suspect device]

well its simple

the female brain likes dolls and makeup

the male brain likes cars and trucks

thats not wiring, wiring is physical.


you're talking about programming

[Light Flantastic]

no im not

[Smokey D]

I've always seen that as an interesting topic to think about. Your stance is arguable.

If genetics and brain architecture were the only things that mattered, all men and women everywhere would act the same and there would be no different cultures.

no you see genetics, higher levels of certain chemicals or how your brain is wired mean nothing, it all depends on if you're in a dress or pants

No, I didn't say they mean nothing. I said they didn't determine anything.

[Mr. Ron]

Differences in biology determine things

[Iskandar]

Ron you keep stating this but not offering any evidence.

[Mr. Ron]

I seriously need to give you a link before you agree that genetics determine things?

[Iskandar]

You definitely need more than "girls like to go shopping."

But I want to read your own arguments, not some stuffy academic's.

[Mr. Ron]

You definitely need more than "girls like to go shopping."

But I want to read your own arguments, not some stuffy academic's.
no, girls liking to shop is probably more of a socially determined thing. I'm not denying that society can make people act in certain ways. However, I think most of what we do and who we are has biological backing.

[Iskandar]

Most? Why most? Compare what we know when we're born to what we learn throughout our formative years.

Well, what most of us learn.

[Mr. Ron]

Most? Why most? Compare what we know when we're born to what we learn throughout our formative years.

Well, what most of us learn.
everything we do is a result of chemical reactions. these chemical reactions are guided by biology and the differences in biology among men and women

[Iskandar]

Why are you denying neural development.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't deny it. Like I said before, social determinates will shape us, but I think our genetics largely effect us as well.

[Iskandar]

Why do you say they have more of an effect than our development?

[Smokey D]

Differences in biology determine things

Perhaps some differences do.

But the behavioural differences between men and women are governed by culture not genes.


everything we do is a result of chemical reactions. these chemical reactions are guided by biology and the differences in biology among men and women

The chemical reactions which govern us are not pre-determined but shaped by culture.

[Mr. Ron]

So the higher levels of estrogen in women mean nothing?

[Smokey D]

Are you dense?

"No, I didn't say they mean nothing. I said they didn't determine anything."

[Mr. Ron]

I just disagree. Higher levels of a certain chemical will determine how they will feel in certain situations.

[Smokey D]

Begging the question.

Behaviour influences when, how and why neural chemicals are released, and even then people respond differently depending on their conditioning.

PS determine means govern 100%, not influence.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

Genetics play a pretty important role in shaping who you are.

[Iskandar]

So the higher levels of estrogen in women mean nothing?Women aren't slaves to their uteri any more than I have to shoot clay pigeons and drive a pickup because I have testicles.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

Women aren't slaves to their uteri any more than I have to shoot clay pigeons and drive a pickup because I have testicles.

Are you suggesting that high levels of estrogen have no effect on how a female acts?

[Iskandar]

Are you suggesting that high levels of estrogen have no effect on how a female acts?If you'd read my post you'd see I did not in fact suggest that.

What I did suggest is that the behaviour of neither men nor women is determined by their biology, ie. rational thought supersedes hormones.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

What I did suggest is that the behaviour of neither men nor women is determined by their biology, ie. rational thought supersedes hormones.

Proof?

[Iskandar]

What I did suggest is that the behaviour of neither men nor women is determined by their biology, ie. rational thought supersedes hormones.

Proof?[/QUOTE]The vast complexity of socially constructed gender roles, which vary enormously both between cultures and within them.

Why is that I have to offer proof but the biological determinists don't.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

Because common sense would tell you that an animal's behavior is determined by their genetics. Humans seem to feel like they're special and that the rules of nature don't apply to them.

[Iskandar]

Humans are more intelligent than other animals (a contentious claim given the very different nature of animal intelligences, but whatever).

What I'm suggesting isn't that biology is irrelevant but rather that humans have developed to the point where biological impulses alone don't rule us.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

I agree that we have the mental capacity to deny certain impulses, but most of the time, I doubt we do, which is why we have laws - to ensure we don't do certain things that we may have the biological impulses to do.

[Iskandar]

Well, I'm not sure how when we break the law we do it purely on impulse (see premeditated crime) but then there are crimes of passion and such.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

What?

[Iskandar]

What do you want me to clarify?

I mean that breaking the law may be very much intentional as well as impulsive.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

That's true. But for example, say someone steals 100 dollars from you, and perhaps your first instinct is to get revenge on that person. This is prevented by the law because physical assault is illegal. Do people intentionally break the law because of impulses like this? Obviously sometimes there is no biological explanation, and that the criminal is just doing something for the thrill of it, like stealing a car for joy ride.

[Iskandar]

I would qualify that as biological, but I don't think that's necessarily why people break the law. People can act in antisocial ways, quite rationally, which we decide aren't acceptable.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

What makes us decide what is and what isn't acceptable in society?

[Iskandar]

Ideally, by reasoning.

[Elitist Douche Bag]

Can you figure out what I'm going to ask next?

[Iskandar]

Um, no.

[Smokey D]

PS animal behaviour isn't determined by genetics either.

Well, maybe earthworms.

[McP3000]

genetics determines animal behavior for unconscious species

[Smokey D]

Well, like plants maybe.

But the behaviour of dogs for example can only be explained by the combination of cultural and genetic factors. Same with lions and monkeys and cows and whatever else is capable of learning.

[McP3000]

uh most life is unconcious

[Smokey D]

Okay but the point is that genetics alone do not determine the behaviour of even relatively simple mammals.

[McP3000]

indeed.

[Iskandar]

uh most life is unconciousDo you mean not self-aware.

[griftadan]

What I'm suggesting isn't that biology is irrelevant but rather that humans have developed to the point where biological impulses alone don't rule us.

i guess that depends on what one might consider a biological impulse

[Light Flantastic]

im still waiting for someone to suggest where human behavior comes from if not ultimately from biology

why do you think our culture is how it is

[siva_chair]

im still waiting for someone to suggest where human behavior comes from if not ultimately from biology

why do you think our culture is how it is

TV imo.

[Nadinus]

If you go back a few million years in time, yeah it's biological. Pretty much all our behaviour is learned from the previous generation which is learned from the previous generation etc etc etc. It doesn't matter what actual biological function they serve. I cba finding the link/reference but if you want proof there was some study done about how humans learn - whereas for animals, if they were shown something they would simply learn the association between x and y - eg tree log=lifted; food=present. They wouldn't copy the method of lifting the log: they would discover their own way of doing it.

In humans babies, they were shown methods of doing a certain thing (it was something like a button had to be pressed to get a toy). They found that they would copy the way of pressing it, even if it was less efficient (such as using their forehead or their elbow). The important thing was that they weren't just learning an association; they understood that they were being taught something and thus should copy that method.

ie biological/practical function was of far less importance than social.

If everything was purely functional, we would have no need to copy other humans, we'd find our own more practical methods of doing whatever.

It's completely circular to answer the question, Why do we do this and that in such and such way with Because it's socially acceptable, humans biologically need human social contact because that still leaves the question open of, why the hell does [such and such way of doing something] entail social relations as opposed to any other way?

[Light Flantastic]

what

[Nadinus]

If you honestly didn't understand a word that I was saying:

You said, everything has a purely biological function; I'm saying it doesn't - humans learn methods/customs from the previous generations for the sake of learning - the actual function is (almost irrelevant). Ie human behaviour is learned from human behaviour which is learned from human behaviour etc etc.

I also suggest you read my previous post properly.

[Light Flantastic]

i said human behavior is a result of human biology

a) why do humans learn from other humans (hint: b______)
b) all of the behaviors they are learning ultimately came from biology

[Nadinus]

No because you're confusing why humans learn from other humans with what they learn from other humans.

Protip: They're different things.

[Light Flantastic]

did you miss b)

[Nadinus]

Yes, the biology of humans millions of years ago. I don't think it's really relevant to be talking about that with regards to modern society any more though.

[Light Flantastic]

humans havent been around for millions of years

not even half a million

not even a quarter of a million

and im afraid we havent changed biologically in that time nadinus so its entirely relevant

[siva_chair]

Oh we have changed Chad we have TV now.

[Light Flantastic]

and pop tarts

[siva_chair]

and pop tarts

tru dat

[Nadinus]

humans havent been around for millions of years

not even half a million

not even a quarter of a million

and im afraid we havent changed biologically in that time nadinus so its entirely relevant

Yes that's my whole point, human behaviour has changed so immensely since then and still is immensely varied despite our biology being the same.

You're still ignoring the point that now, currently, our behaviour is almost entirely determined by the society in which we live.

If you really wanted to trace the origins of a particular behaviour you'd have to go back to a 'point zero' of culture (if such a point exists) at which behaviour was still purely functional.

But human behaviour has elaborated so much since then, the original biology fading into the background, which is why ~culture~ is something we like to study in its own right; thus are born

The Social Sciences

[Light Flantastic]

where do you think these incremental changes came from nadine

magic?

[Nadinus]

Culture changes because we have an almost infinite capacity for learning so there's inevitably going to be variation. They don't have to come from anywhere, they just evolve over time chad.

It doesn't even matter, they're still cultural changes as opposed to biological ones.

[Light Flantastic]

you're not making sense, nadinus

do you think females of the species just randomly decided to stay in the cave one day because they have an almost infinite capacity for learning (we dont, but ok)

no its because males were biologically more suited to hunting for food

[Nadinus]

Stop changing the topic and avoiding the main point.

You're going back a step in the argument, talking about the way humans were thousands of years ago. We don't need to hunt for our food any more.

But that tradition has stayed. Why? Oh yeah, because humans are more influenced by their social conditions than biological ones.

[Light Flantastic]

im giving you an example of a change and how it came from biology because you dont seem to know how they occur

like all the changes that led to society today

and being influenced by culture is a biological thing too

[Nadinus]

Now you're talking about biological differences between humans. It's not an example of how biology dictates behaviour since the change of men stepping out of the cave actually had a social function. That, arguably, could have been a step into culture from a point zero.

As soon as humans start to rely on learning rather than instincts culture can change to pretty much anything. Since we have virtually no instincts it's about utilising biology rather than being dictated by it. Again, I emphasise the current variation. Why is that some cultures fulfil a biological need in x way, while others do it y way?

and being influenced by culture is a biological thing too

We've already established this. As I pointed out earlier, it's the what not the why that is important.

[Light Flantastic]

nadinus you're being intellectually dishonest now, people hunt(ed) because they have the biological impulse to eat, not because there was a social reason to do so. women didnt hunt because they were less able. if biology dictates sociology then everything is still based on biology.

and of course the why is important the propensity to stick to what culture tells you is a biological disadvantage

or not a disadvantage but that depends how you view making sandwiches. some people enjoy making sandwiches.

[Nadinus]

Light Flantastic you're still not being distinguishing. If women were unable to hunt, maybe. But they were able, it was just more practical for the men to, as a collective interest. Ie, it was how the society (if you can call it that) appropriated biology. It was not a biological impulse for women not to but a social one.

Being influenced by isn't the same as being dictated by. The very fact that we appropriate biology shows that humans can step outside it, you can separate the social side of humans from their biological one. Again, this was thousands of years ago. That's my whole point. It's the current situation that we're interested in.

And what, sticking to what culture tells you is a disadvantage? Except one tiny point: even biological activities are culturally learned such as walking, eating, sleeping.

Anyway I'm going out, continue this argument later.

[Light Flantastic]

i dont think you know what biology means.

[Nadinus]

Great way to avoid my point but okay.

[Light Flantastic]

no i dont think it necessary to debate someone who thinks our biology is only what our physical bodies enable us to do and not what hormones and chemicals influence us to do

[Nadinus]

If you left a baby to grow up on its own (presuming that it was fed and safe etc) it wouldn't DO anything. It probably wouldn't even survive. Humans don't just have the capacity to learn from others; they must inherently in order to exist as a human being. Ever heard of feral children? They live and act as animals, because they will adapt to whatever situation they are put into.

Sure, you can say, that's still because of our hormones and chemicals, but yet again we go back to the issue of capability versus the result. Biology doesn't dictate us to live as a wolf; wolves do.

And you can talk about the origins of culture as much as you want but presently, at this point of social evolution, the original biological/social motivation is no longer relevant. We currently learn culture for the sake of learning culture - nothing else.

[Light Flantastic]

Biology doesn't dictate us to live as a wolf; wolves do.
no seriously what are you saying

[Nadinus]

Do you know what a feral child is? If not I suggest you look it up and then address my post.

You're doing a good job of avoiding the key point though keep it up.

[Light Flantastic]

nadinus i cant address things that arent even coherent i know im brilliant and stuff but thats a little much to be asking

[Nadinus]

I think you're just pretending to not understand my point because you know it's valid, Light Flantastic.

I know you're brilliant but even those people have to admit they are wrong sometimes.

[Light Flantastic]

you're trying to pretend that biology isnt the root of everything humans do because its a nice and fluffy idea to believe that all people are born equal

[Angmar]

ur racist chad

[Light Flantastic]

well idk even within races some people are born inferior

like nadinus

born a ginger

[Nadinus]

you're trying to pretend that biology isnt the root of everything humans do because its a nice and fluffy idea to believe that all people are born equal

Chad's argument technique #1:

When you can't argue against something, invent an ulterior motivation for the other person to attempt to invalidate their argument.

NEXT

[Light Flantastic]

ulterior motive is the term

and you used it incorrectly

[Nadinus]

So I'm right, basically.

[Angmar]

Yes that is Chads way of admitting defeat.

[Light Flantastic]

if you want to think so, nadinus

im comfortable not arguing with you when you're wrong ever since you said you only dispute things because its me

[Nadinus]

Now you're just clutching at straws. I never intended to imply that and I do believe I clarified myself at the time but you are very egocentric so I can understand that you might have ignored that part.

Angmar idk whether you're being sarcastic or not.

[Light Flantastic]

i know you didnt mean to blurt it out but it came out nonetheless

[Light Flantastic]

and angmar is trying to troll me or something idk what hes doing just ignore him

[Nadinus]

It's not really possible to blurt stuff out on a forum. I can't even remember what exactly I said, care to jog my memory ?

[Light Flantastic]

well sure it is you've blurted out many things before but i think we shouldnt spam this thread this is the serious forum

[Nadinus]

Yeah, you should probably gtfo now. Although I appreciate that it diverts the fact that you were wrong. Diddums :{

[Light Flantastic]

well if you want to tell me where human society comes from if not biology then that would be good but you cant because thats where it comes from

i think its flattering that you want to argue with me for no reason though

[Nadinus]

I'm arguing with you on this particular matter because it's something I'm particularly interested in and have a fairly good knowledge of. If you want to embellish it with other reasons I can't stop you.

I quite clearly addressed the argument, I suggest you reread the posts and ask me if you're unclear on anything and I'll happily clarify.

[Light Flantastic]

no you went on about something else nadinus you still havent told me what ultimately makes humans do anything if not their biology

[Nadinus]

How about you start here

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17377499&postcount=202

and then read onwards from there.

[Light Flantastic]

because

you went on about something else

[Nadinus]

No it was entirely necessary since you were relating completely irrelevant things. I illustrated that they were irrelevant. You have yet to provide an argument as to how I am wrong.

[Light Flantastic]

no you still havent told me where these magical cultural changes come from if not human biology

the guiding hand of god, perhaps