Gender Disobedience

[HydrogenBond]

Buffy Said;

 

Thank you for demonstrating sexism, chauvinism, and prejudice! Another example of a form which persists in spite of the fact that its function is actually something that should be selected against!  :cheer:

:cheer:

 

From the Huffington Post, which is a liberal source that was used for this sexism and prejudice. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/beauty-products_n_3975209.html

 

We found that 35 percent of women use one or two products daily, while 17 percent use three or four products a day. 

Meanwhile, the majority of men (54 percent) don't use a single productwhen getting ready in the morning.

Our results did show a little bit of parallelism when it comes to the more "low maintenance" range, with 33 percent of men admitting to using one to two products each day, just like that 35 percent of women. 

But 7 percent of women use up to 6 items compared to a mere 1 percent of men -- turns out guys really aren't so high-maintenance.

 

This is due to form and function. Women do not marry men for looks, as the first criterion, as often as men might marry women for her looks; form. Women are more likely to prefer function, such as a sense of humor, stability and a good job. Men do not have to be pretty, if key functions are there. These don't need creme or lotions to make you laugh. Men often choose form, so if form is enhanced, function is also enhanced; more social access. 

 

The difference has to do with male desire, and female need for security. Form will satisfy desire but not necessarily security.   A handsome man may appeal to women but if he is only a face this can lead to insecurity in marriage. Function is better for security, but it may not satisfy desire. The female scientist, at the party will not dress overly sexy, but rather maintains her form closer to what is expected of a professional.Einstein does not need to fix his wild hair with moose, since that wild form shows his function; so smart he can;'t be bothered. 

 

If we come back to the original topic of dress up and cross dressing, since people instinctively connected form and function, dress up will lead to assumptions of function. A professional women who shows up to a party dressed super sexy, will find some attitudes may change toward her, since some will assume a new function. This is not a judgment but human nature. It is human to react to form a certain way; form=function, with some cross dressing inducing a reaction that might hurt feelings. 

 

The solution is not a dual standard, where you tell people ignore form and function in these situations, but accept it here and here. Rather if someone chooses to depart from the norm, be prepared for human nature. Stay in the range on your skin thickness, until you toughen up. 

 

Buffy has been painting me in the form of a bigot, so my function will be assumed to be a biased hate mongering that has no valid POV. But I took off that makeup, with a quote to show I try to stick to the facts, while making observation of human nature. I prefer my function be that of a wise man who has pondered these things and found some truth. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffy]

Hmmm. I think you are confused:

 

From the Huffington Post, which is a liberal source that was used for this sexism and prejudice. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/beauty-products_n_3975209.html 

 

We found that 35 percent of women use one or two products daily, while 17 percent use three or four products a day. 

Meanwhile, the majority of men (54 percent) don't use a single productwhen getting ready in the morning.

Our results did show a little bit of parallelism when it comes to the more "low maintenance" range, with 33 percent of men admitting to using one to two products each day, just like that 35 percent of women. 

But 7 percent of women use up to 6 items compared to a mere 1 percent of men -- turns out guys really aren't so high-maintenance.

 

I don't believe you'll find anything I said that had anything to do with indicating that women did not differ from men in their consumption of beauty products. But thanks for the interesting data! :cheer:

 

Moreover pointing out this fact is not at all sexist or prejudiced.

 

Now at the same time saying "guys really aren't so high maintenance" is actually a joke having to do with a pun on the multiple meanings of the word "maintenance," however I have indeed noticed that a common conceit among conservatives is to try to "prove" some sort of hypocrisy that requires pretending that such turns of phrase can only be interpreted one way and that humor is in no way involved.

 

That's kinda transparent and boring though. I hope you are not succumbing to such sophomoric rhetorical devices.

 

As an aside if you're looking for differences between the sexes, it's definitely true that we make lots more jokes about the "maintenance" required by our lady parts and the mechanics (OB-GYN) we have to hire to do the work, than men do about their need for substances to make their man parts work properly (Viagra, Flomax etc.).

 

This is due to form and function. Women do not marry men for looks, as the first criterion, as often as men might marry women for her looks; form. Women are more likely to prefer function, such as a sense of humor, stability and a good job. Men do not have to be pretty, if key functions are there. These don't need creme or lotions to make you laugh. Men often choose form, so if form is enhanced, function is also enhanced; more social access. 

 

Now this is not only sexist but just plain wrong. And in this case I'm saying sexist to cover the fact that it's actually a statement that is a tremendous oversimplification of BOTH sexes and how they choose their mates. It's really only offensive though because you're actually serious about it! :o

 

But the oddest thing about your argument is that you're actually proving my point if you take your statement at face value: yes, men are so vacuous that all they care about is form without any function whatsoever.

 

I'm not even sure you're listening to what you yourself are saying here, let alone what I'm saying (for which there's lots of evidence that you're in deep denial about the vast majority of points I've been making because you refuse to even try to address any of them).

 

But of course in proving my point you do bring up the fact that in terms of behavior, people are affected by both form and function, even if men only really care about looking at big boobs (which by the way are not just useless, but a real pain in numerous respects: I am glad I only had to deal with them while nursing my kid). 

 

If we come back to the original topic of dress up and cross dressing, since people instinctively connected form and function, dress up will lead to assumptions of function. A professional women who shows up to a party dressed super sexy, will find some attitudes may change toward her, since some will assume a new function. This is not a judgment but human nature. It is human to react to form a certain way; form=function, with some cross dressing inducing a reaction that might hurt feelings. 

 

Wow. If there ever was a good explanation for the disconnect between form and function, this is it. Thank you for presenting it.

 

Now Albert Einstein didn't care what his hair looked like, and quite frankly no one felt any different about him when he walked into a room with it (and by the way, some women find Einstein hair to be a real turn on). What if he'd dressed up as a little girl? Would there have been negative reactions? Well, of course there would because in our culture we jump to conclusions about people based on what they look like, and this particular behavior has traditionally been associated with deviancy despite the lack of any scientific studies proving it. 

 

Are ALL people with "Einstein hair" brilliant? No. Are all women who show up in short skirts that show some decolletage loose, brainless sluts incapable of being a CEO? No. Are all men who dress as little girls child molesters? Not at all.

 

So what conclusion can one draw from this?

 

Oh my, it's  [math](function \rightarrow form) \neq (form \rightarrow function)[/math]

 

In all these cases, people's prejudices, bigotry and phobias keep them from seeing the actual function because they're so wedded to implications of their preconceived notions about certain forms "meaning" one and only one thing.

 

You're unfortunately so tied up in your own very limiting and downright misleading "laws" of what form implies in terms of function that it's amazing you can actually function in the real world.

 

Or maybe you don't very well.

 

The solution is not a dual standard, where you tell people ignore form and function in these situations, but accept it here and here. Rather if someone chooses to depart from the norm, be prepared for human nature. Stay in the range on your skin thickness, until you toughen up. 

 

This right'cheer is what'cha call a Straw Man. No one is establishing a "dual standard," nor telling people to "ignore form and function." No what I'm saying is if you've got a really stupid and insane law about what conclusions to draw between a specific "form" and a specific "function" stop using them because they don't even work.

 

I happen to love to observe (and often make fun of) the silly things that men do that women are too smart to do (making up crap out of whole cloth to protect their fragile egos being one of them), but to call every old sexist and chauvinistic dead horse something that is sacred and should not be questioned gets beyond amusing and into worthy of being called on the carpet.

 

So, 

 

Buffy has been painting me in the form of a bigot, so my function will be assumed to be a biased hate mongering that has no valid POV. But I took off that makeup, with a quote to show I try to stick to the facts, while making observation of human nature. I prefer my function be that of a wise man who has pondered these things and found some truth. 

 

if you think I'm calling you a bigot, well maybe that's because you are dear.

 

And your quote was not only silly but actually helped prove how wrong your so called "theory" of "form always implies function" is. You're not "sticking to facts" at all, you're just pulling them out of thin air and calling them obvious. 

 

And be careful with that "truth" ya got there. It may come back to bite you.

 

 

 

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Gender Disobedience is where one changes their form and therefore changes the perception of function in the minds of others. The natural reaction will be predictable as people equate the new form with a new function. Knowing that, one needs to have a thick skin, if the new form means that much to you. It is easier to change one person's subjectivity, than change the subjectivity of the world to accommodate the one. The latter requires tyrants, force and loss of liberties like free speech.The former only requires one person understanding a natural cause and effect. 

 

My theory for this differences in perception, comes from the form and function differences between male and female; women are from venus and men from mar. Women have more pronounced hormonal cycles due to the needs of the female body; form. These changes will impact mood and therefore can impact perception. Men tend to be more linear in terms of perception, because their hormonal cycles are not as complicated, due to a narrower reproductive role; form and function. I don't mean this next thing in a negative way, but only as an observation of fact. Some women have PMS, that can impact mood. Men don't have this biologically, all though some will emulate this; software not hardware. 

 

In the old days, there was an unwritten law, called a women's prerogative. This was the right for a women to change her mind. This is actually the foundation for the liberal dual standard. The reason men accepted this unwritten rule, was female hormonal changes could impact the cause and effect  outcome the same situation. If the wife was in a good mood, one set of actions could lead to a given result. If her mood was suddenly different, the same situation had a different outcome. Men had to wait to see which wife would show up; it was a woman's prerogative to change the cause and effect to suit her mood. Today, buying her chocolates might be romantic, tomorrow are you trying to make me fat? This was a woman's prerogative and men had to guess what was SC; spouse correct. Now this is called PC; collective social wife. 

 

Not all women are impacted by the female hormonal changes, the same way and to the same extent. I had a girlfriend who was super steady. Even if she was not feeling well, she would be the same nice and up person. This is more common during dating. 

 

What she and dating in general demonstrated is a woman does not need a woman's prerogative, if she uses enough will power. However, she may not wish to give up this tool. A male will not be allowed this same freedom implicit of the dual standard, since his form and function do not add that way; linear hormonal changes. This is why only men can be sexist, and only whites can be racist. Women cannot be sexist due to a woman's prerogative. 

 

Liberalism is based on this feminine foundation, where a women's prerogative will define PC. It does not have to be rational, but only has to suit the ambience of the mood(s) being created. 

 

In this topic, I am suggesting cause and effect connection of form and function when it comes to gender disobedience, with this term subjective. This path is more from the mind of a male who lacks the women's prerogative to change natural cause and effect  

Edited March 23, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

My theory for this differences in perception, comes from the form and function... 

 

Yah, we kinda get that. It's the issue that your theory is based solely on your bizarre personal world view, not any facts you're willing to present.

 

You don't get to continue to pontificate around here without presenting any. Sorry!

 

If I'm not overcome with ennui, I will come back and make more fun of this silly last post again later.

 

Or maybe not.

 

 

hoping toward havoc, neither pleas nor prizes shall coax from doom’s blank door lady or tiger, :phones:

Buffy

[CraigD]

What i don't understand is, why liberal culture prefers that everyone diverge from a natural reaction, in favor of appeasing social divergence.

What I understand you to be saying here, HBond is that you don’t understand why people who identify as liberal (as I do) don’t like to show “natural” reactions such as shock, revulsion, and perhaps reactive aggression, when we see something potentially disturbing, like SissyReedBarrow’s picture of himself wearing frilly girl child’s cloths.

 

I don’t, of course, represent all liberals, but I can explain why I don’t.

 

Despite having public cross-dressed myself on occasion (not as an expression of gender dysphoria, but because I liked to shock people and defy social conventions), I do experience surprise when I see people of either gender wearing stereotypical cloths of the other gender, and usually show a reaction. Because I’ve had long experience with cross-dressers, and don’t feel threatened or offended by them, my natural reaction is not disapproving, but similar to the reaction I have to seeing unusual cloths on people of any gender. So I wouldn’t say I diverge from a natural reaction, but that my natural reaction is not disapproving.

 

“Appeasing” means meeting demands to avoid attack, or satisfying a desire to relieve it. As I see myself as one making demands that other accept unconventional social behavior, but don’t feel an compulsive desire to do so, I don’t think it’s correct to say I react as I do to socially deviant behavior in order to appease others people or my own desires.

 

A better question than the one your statement implies is, I think “why are liberals not offended by social deviation?” or, more strongly “why do liberals like social deviation?”

 

To answer this, it’s necessary to define liberalism. Though the term has many meanings, I think the appropriate meaning in this context is that liberalism is a moral position that places the highest value on liberty, in this context a synonym for personal freedom. This position holds that a person should be allowed to do what they want, not be compelled by others to do what they want.

 

As a liberal, I like seeing social deviation, such as SissyReed’s dressing like a sissy little girl, and more, like seeing no negative repercussions befall him (such as police dragging him off or outraged people attacking him) because it makes me feel that liberalism is winning a contest with opposing moral positions that hold that people should be restricted to doing what others, such as religious or legal authorities, approve.

 

This opposing morality is, I think, better termed authoritarianism than the term now commonly considered the opposite of liberalism, conservatism.

 

Many professional philosophers and sociologists have thought and written more deeply and longer than I have on the subject of liberalism, authoritarianism, conservatism, and similar moral and political terms. My favorite among them for defining the concept of liberty is the present-day legal scholar Lawrence Lessig. Although intended primarily to apply primarily to the copyright law, In his 2004 book Free Culture, Lessig used the terms “free culture” and “permission culture” to describe opposite ends of a continuum I find very analogous to the liberalism – authoritarianism continuum.

 

Despite their common present-day status as opposites, I don’t think liberalism and conservatism belong on the same conceptual axis. Liberalism is the position that individual freedom is supreme. Conservatism, in my present context, is the position that traditional social institutions are supreme. Thus, conservatism is neutral with regards to liberalism and authoritarianism: if ones traditional social institutions are liberal, it holds them supreme; if they are authoritarian, it holds them supreme. Thus a conservative in this sense of the term in the 19th – 21st Century US holds supreme the liberal ideals expressed in the 18th-19th Century US political writing and law, such as the US Constitution, while a conservative in England in 1660 held supreme authoritarian ideal such as monarchy, and sought the abolishment of the short-lived republic formed after the elimination of the British monarchy in 1649.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't have a problem with a person choosing to deviate, because this is a creative expression. I am creative and can appreciate those who dare leave the box of convention. The problem I have is, the PC push to force others to accept deviation, at the expense of free speech. The feelings of the few mean more than the feelings of the majority thereby limiting free speech to deviation. This is more appropriate to the dynamics of a family encouraging babies and small children, to explore with play. The adults of culture have to shut up via a maternal family PC, and just smile at the odd child. 

 

My very first post did not agree with the PC ambience, so I was ripped a new one.  I should be allowed to dress up my opinion in conservative clothes, to shock the shockers, right? 

 

Feminism supplies the maternal instinct to protect the deviation; protects the odd child only a mother could love. Maybe the conservative is considered the adult, who the mother sees as a threat to the free spirit of her child.

 

I am an odd child; in the context of this analogy, in the sense my ideas are very often dressed differently than the status quo. This will make me a target of misunderstanding; my odd form implies my function must be deviant. I don't have PC protection, only tough skin.

 

The women's prerogative of feminism has a dual standard in that all the odd children are not being protected, just her own. The atheists consider the religious to be odd children at play, but feminism will not protect these children, because they are not hers. This is why you need a rational standard that applies to all; free speech and freedom of expression tempered with patience and protected with tough skin.

Edited March 25, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

...The problem I have is, the PC push to force others to accept deviation, at the expense of free speech. The feelings of the few mean more than the feelings of the majority thereby limiting free speech to deviation. This is more appropriate to the dynamics of a family encouraging babies and small children, to explore with play. The adults of culture have to shut up via a maternal family PC, and just smile at the odd child.

 

Oh the "politically correct" complaint gets rather tiresome. 

 

No seriously, your free speech rights are intact (although we being a private institution rather than the government do not actually have to guarantee you any kind of free speech here). What you are (probably intentionally) misunderstanding is that "freedom of speech" is not at all the same thing as "freedom from ridicule." 

 

If you're going to exercise your freedom of speech, you'd better be prepared to defend it with actual facts, or face ridicule because your arguments do not withstand uh, "criticism."

 

 

My very first post did not agree with the PC ambience, so I was ripped a new one.  I should be allowed to dress up my opinion in conservative clothes, to shock the shockers, right? 

 

Oh no! You got ripped a new one not because of the actual implication of your argument (that some behavior is deviant), but rather because of your silly argument that form ALWAYS has a function or it will not persist. There's no politics involved in that one, although the use of the argument to advance a political position does indeed consequently invalidate the particular political stance.

 

But the problem has solely to do with the LOGIC of your argument and nothing at all to do with Political Correctness.

 

The fact that you don't address any of the underpinnings of the logical argument and scream that your speech is being repressed by political correctness.

 

That's not only petty but ineffective to boot.

 

Now certainly a lot of what you have to say is actually apparently intending to offend (AKA "trolling"):

 

 

Feminism supplies the maternal instinct to protect the deviation; protects the odd child only a mother could love. Maybe the conservative is considered the adult, who the mother sees as a threat to the free spirit of her child.

 

Yah, modern "feminism" is solely responsible for promoting "deviation," and conservatives are the only "adult" whom waifish "mother's" are so threatened by. Got a scientific study that backs that up?

 

Actually, of course you don't since the whole thing is just dripping with hatred, which is really the point, not the statement of any "fact."

 

But anyway, back to my key point, your problem is indeed your logic and you keep providing proof points:

 

I am an odd child; in the context of this analogy, in the sense my ideas are very often dressed differently than the status quo. This will make me a target of misunderstanding; my odd form implies my function must be deviant. I don't have PC protection, only tough skin.

 

So, basically you're saying that if one was to treat you as you should without those horrible PC glasses, that your function would NOT follow your form.

 

Please keep this up. It's a wonderful example of the scientific method which allows me to identify proof points without having to go do any research. It's all right here.

 

Thank you! :cheer:

 

The women's prerogative of feminism has a dual standard.... 

 

No, dear, I have no prerogative. You're surely not willing to give it to me and I've never gotten it at work. Gotta earn your prerogatives in the real world.

 

... in that all the odd children are not being protected, just her own. The atheists consider the religious to be odd children at play, but feminism will not protect these children, because they are not hers.

 

Uh, okay. So, feminists don't protect religious children? Really? My daughter is Jewish: you saying I don't protect her? You saying all feminists are militant atheists who won't lift a finger for a religious child? 

 

Great example of why the function you insist on doesn't follow it's "defined" relationship to it's properly associated (God-defined?) form!

 

This is why you need a rational standard that applies to all; free speech and freedom of expression tempered with patience and protected with tough skin.

 

Honestly, you really only need a tough skin if you're unwilling to look at the same reality everyone else sees.

 

You insist that your views are merely "odd" opinions, but you insist on others accepting those opinions not as opinions but as facts.

 

The reason you get ridiculed is not because they are "odd" but because they simply don't bear any relationship to the real world.

 

One of your defining characteristics is you see everything in the world as being an outgrowth of a conflict between "conservative" and "liberal" and it really gets in your way. You might want to try to stop yourself the next time you think that some part of nature is "aligning itself with liberals." That you don't like it may well cause you to use your favorite pejorative to explain it away, but that keeps you from actually investigating the phenomenon and understanding how it works.

 

It can be quite enlightening. You should try it! :cheer:

 

 

Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed! :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Oh no! You got ripped a new one not because of the actual implication of your argument (that some behavior is deviant), but rather because of your silly argument that form ALWAYS has a function or it will not persist. There's no politics involved in that one, although the use of the argument to advance a political position does indeed consequently invalidate the particular political stance.

 

Form and function follow in the natural and rational world. This may not be true in a subjective or irrational world. My original example was thinking I can fly like a bird, but my form as a human does not contain the proper form; wings. The function in my mind is I am a bird, but my form says I am a human, without wings. There is a disconnect that would not be viewed as rational. 

 

However, in the fantasy world of a child, he/she can run around the house flying like a bird. People can accept this from a child, because some of the functions of childhood are imagination, play and make believe. The function of make believe, can even create the form of an invisible friend, so the child can exist outside themselves, offering a mirror to reflect back. 

 

Culture is not set up to allow this in all the adults. The invisible friend becomes taboo after a certain age. While thinking I can fly will raise eye brows. The adult has to remain more in reality, and less in the land of make believe, to survive within reality. The function of make believe is no longer considered an adult function, unless you are an entertainer, an artist or con artist. 

 

Culture could not survive in a world of total adult make-up. If we all wanted to play make believe, who pays the bills and what is real; might or power defines right? The majority have to maintain a rational reality connection and pay the bills. It might work if half of the population agrees to maintain mostly adult function, to support the adult children who use the fantasy function of irrationality. Adult function will push back because only the adults will see the reality of the situation, if it goes too far. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

Form and function follow in the natural and rational world. This may not be true in a subjective or irrational world. My original example was thinking I can fly like a bird, but my form as a human does not contain the proper form; wings. The function in my mind is I am a bird, but my form says I am a human, without wings. There is a disconnect that would not be viewed as rational. 

 

We're talking about selection, which despite it's name is simply the result of the question: "when the meteor came, did you survive?"

 

So, there's absolutely, positively nothing rational about selection.

 

You are quite obsessed with this notion of the "natural world" being "rational," which would indicate you think it operates with conscious decisionmaking based on some sort of absolute, unchanging morals.

 

Kinda looks like you're trying to back-door a meddling God, who causes things to happen that violate of natural laws. Is that what you're trying to do? Just wondering. It does seem like it's the only justification you've got for your argument in this thread so far.

 

However, in the fantasy world of a child, he/she can run around the house flying like a bird. People can accept this from a child, because some of the functions of childhood are imagination, play and make believe. The function of make believe, can even create the form of an invisible friend, so the child can exist outside themselves, offering a mirror to reflect back. 

 

In other words, there can be a "rational" function for an "irrational" form. I'd absolutely agree with that, but gee, that kinda blows up your argument that rationality is the reason a useful and survival-related function must come from all forms. We sure know that that useless flapping of arms might someday produce brain functions for creativity that advance the culture. 

 

Indeed such irrationality is what drives many of the outcomes of selection, even those in the "natural world."

 

You've been quite studious in avoiding the example I posed above because it counters your argument quite effectively. So let's go back to that and consider the bear.

 

Bears as we know are black or brown in North America. Imagine how shocked and horrified that bear couple was who had the first white bear. 

 

"How illogical" said Mama Bear!

 

"Ungodly and unnatural" screamed Papa Bear!

 

Then Global Cooling (aka The Ice Age) starts with huge blizzards. 

 

Since Baby Bear is white, she has a much easier time catching squirrels and foxes and other nummy animals than the brown bears who stick out in the winter white snow like a sore thumb.

 

Baby Bear survives winter fat and happy while other bears starve.

 

Oh my! That ungodly, unnatural--and most important for your argument useless and without function--adaptation is Selected.

 

Note that this is occurring entirely in the "natural world" without pesky human "culture" to poison the whole thing with it's liberalism.

 

Culture is not set up to allow this in all the adults. The invisible friend becomes taboo after a certain age. While thinking I can fly will raise eye brows. The adult has to remain more in reality, and less in the land of make believe, to survive within reality. The function of make believe is no longer considered an adult function, unless you are an entertainer, an artist or con artist.

 

Well, cultural disdain is certainly part of it. You go around flapping your wings saying you can fly, yes, most people will consider you to be a nut case, but oddly enough also "mostly harmless" and if anything very likely to eliminate your genes from the gene pool by virtue of winning a Darwin Award when you jump of your roof.

 

But clearly your attempt is to associate "people who think they can jump off their roof and fly" with "people who like to dress funny" but kind of like your odd insistence that the natural world is rational, group mores about "rational behavior and tolerance of the irrational" doesn't follow any absolute unchanging "laws" beyond the well-established irrationality of Selection.

 

Seriously, go to Scotland. All the guys there wear short skirts and no underwear (at least to formal occasions).

 

Is that "rational" of them to wear short skirts? Scottish "culture" accepts it just fine, you know how it goes down in Redneck Southern culture in Alabama? Notice how malleable the "reality" is based on the Environment in which Selection is taking place?

 

Culture could not survive in a world of total adult make-up. If we all wanted to play make believe, who pays the bills and what is real; might or power defines right? The majority have to maintain a rational reality connection and pay the bills. It might work if half of the population agrees to maintain mostly adult function, to support the adult children who use the fantasy function of irrationality. Adult function will push back because only the adults will see the reality of the situation, if it goes too far. 

 

Your argument here relies completely on there being a black and white difference between "rational" and "irrational" when just about every example you can name is a shade of grey, and any particular shade can be viewed (even from Selection's purely statistical/mathematical viewpoint) as "acceptable" ("statistically more likely to survive") based primarily on the unique environment it exists in at a specific point in time.

 

The opinions of the "adults" in a culture do put pressure on norms, but quite frankly it is the individuals who stretch those norms (aka "liberals") who are responsible for creating "useless" genes that prove to be the reason the group as a whole survives.

 

Again, I have no intent to try to convince you about any of this: this is ammunition for folks who run into similarly silly arguments--and the form of this argument is actually quite common on conservative media (and having no function except to confuse and misinform!)--so that they can more easily refute them. 

 

 

 

Too much sanity may be madness and the maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

I know the concept of form leading to function and function leading to form was moved, but I think I understand the basis for your POV. If you look at statistical analysis and the assumption of universal randomness, the form of the data set determines the function. This is why today coffee can be bad for you, but tomorrow it can be good for you. The form of the data changed between each study, allowing  the function of coffee to change.

 

Random has much in common with subjectivity, where one person can like coffee and other does not. It is a throw of the dice, not governed by logic, but unconscious black boxes. If you assume a random universe, then form will lead function, with function indefinite and often arbitrary due to nature of odds. Subjective works the same way, with one person's trash another person's treasure. It is arbitrary and random. A random universe is a subjective universe. 

 

If you believe in a more ordered universe, then function is less reflexible, because there are potentials at work, removing the subjectivity of random. For example, say instead of a statistical study of coffee, we upped the game with the premise; no black boxes will be allowed. Instead we have a computer program that can trace the impact of coffee through the entire biochemistry of the body, extrapolating secondary and tertiary effects. Instead of a group stereo-type; good to bad for you, that can change each day, each person is treated separately, so we can determine who is who; good or bad. This is not longer subjective, with the individual function following individual form. 

 

If we go back to gender disobedience, if we treat this variety of form as part of a random universe, which is statistical, since anything has odds, then function does become arbitrary. But if one lives in an ordered universe, then cause and effect would apply due to the potentials inside black boxes. We need to look at natural selection, since this is how nature deals with this. 

 

Natural selection is based on applying external pressures to a random set of form; genetic. The external pressures, defines the selective function, because it funnels the variety of form into what best satisfies the needs of those particular potentials. For example, we had very fast land predictors, two types of form, that can survive, without further changes of form, would be climbing and flying animals. This is not random, but these forms follow the potential, because the pressures imply certain needed functionality. 

 

In a random POV universe, to get the turtle to selected; form is relative, in a world of fast predictors, we will need to handicap the predators with PC rules. We will add specific order and potential, via rules, so form can appear to be relative in our assumed random universe.

 

Social prosthesis is often needed by the turtle, so random can still rule in the universe of subjectivity. The human selection of a random universe, requires putting function before form; strategy. We add social prosthesis and PC potentials, to natural potential, so form can appear relative.

 

It takes a lot of resources to support the subjectivity of the random universe. If we are willing to pay the price through choice and political pressure, we might be able to keep the universe random. 

Edited April 6, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[SissyReedBarrow]

Hi Beautiful,

 

That would be Buffy Hellooooo, and to Hydrogenbond or Bomb ( don't really care bigot ) please allow me to explain.

 

1. This is not Australia, please learn to read the details before piping off.

 

2. This is not a crime nor is this Gender disobedience other than in your hateful little mind.

 

3. Also I'm full aware of the many! cowardly total Chicken - -its groups lurking in my own backyard who are bigger Sissies and Pussies than I could ever strive to  become in 100 life times nor would I ever desire to become such a vile creature as these filthy  little .Government and community backed murderous Psychopaths.

 

4. The pitiful shame of societies hate mongering voyeuristic mannerisms very likely bestowed upon them by there Deliverance in bred parents and so shall they carry on the Neanderthal learning of hate anyone who looks out of line from themselves teachings to their children to maintain this barbaric extreme mental and physical hatred on those who belong within the LGBTG community, to continue the horrendous verbal assaults and the many!! physical assaults and senseless   murders every year WHY!! Because people like you who are afraid of there own shadows always maintain these kinds of horrors through history. Small narrow minded easily led to follow the wrong descent caring path in life. Worst of all people much like yourself probably fall into the sociopath arena and are always eager to go out of their way to recruit others for this destructive anti-community anti-compassion society.

 

5 I'm sorry for you disliking yourself and having to hate others to make your own pitiful life look interesting and important. Unlike yourself I feel overly blessed to have been born with my very sweet, caring, loyal, compassionate and rich life as I'm constantly being reminded by my numerous friends, mostly of the straight community by the way and of all who are 100% aware of my true face and non destructive personality.

 

6. Hey before stepping out your door tomorrow maybe take one last look in the mirror and see if you can't maybe spot that person you really are. Just like everyone else with just as many flaws and secrets as my neighbors, but most importantly no rights to criticize or hate others because I think I', so special God gave me the right to be a hater.

 

7. Bummer for you if that is your true desire and calling in life, all I can say is better you than me. Life's to short to be a SNOT!.