[RobbL]

thisispain posted:

well it's not harmonious and it's not each part, if you were to design a human body with the science and technology today (transhumanist porn) you'd probably do a lot of overhauls.

i'd start with the appendix, running joke of the medical world.

The ecosystem is an example of one of these systems btw

[mobrockers2]

Atlascore posted:

I said basically worthless, the first types of eyes were incredibly weak and didn't even see properly compared to later types of eyes living things evolved.

They still gave the species an advantage over species that didn't have eyes, thus they were not worthless.

[thisispain]

Atlascore posted:

I said basically worthless, the first types of eyes were incredibly weak and didn't even see properly compared to later types of eyes living things evolved.

which was sufficient function for unicellular organisms.

[SigmaLambda]

Atlascore posted:

Plenty of things? Okay that doesn't change the fact that our limbs and genitals serve a purpose.

no, they don't. they don't have a purpose in a teleological sense, they are the result of millions of years of natural selection. that's all evolution is; a result.

Edited:

Atlascore posted:

They have a purpose, how well would a human survive ten thousand years ago if they lost their eyesight or limbs?

purpose and function are two different things.

[mobrockers2]

Atlascore posted:

They have a purpose, how well would a human survive ten thousand years ago if they lost their eyesight or limbs?

The reason we have eyesight and limbs is not because they help us see or because they help us walk/grab things, but because being able to see and being able to walk/grab things is an advantage over other species and has helped us survive, and the species that did not have these things died off. They do not have a purpose because they were not created, they just are there. They have a function, not a purpose. Purpose implies they were created for a reason, function implies that they are used for something.

[SigmaLambda]

yeah this is getting sort of semantic but parts of biological organisms don't have purposes because that implies a design and evolution cannot "design" anything because, as said, evolution is a result of natural forces, not a force of it's own.

[thisispain]

RobbL posted:

That's not how evolution works...

yes it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

you might not be aware of this but the notion of developing in order for a species to progress was abandoned many years ago.
only the genes that do not impede survival get carried on, and things like genetic drift and mutation work in addition to adaptation.

(i wrote adaptation instead of addition oh dear)

RobbL posted:

Vestigial organs are 'leftovers', organs that once did have a function but became useless as the organism evolved
It's not any creature in the past has just sprouted some random appendages that don't do anything

yeah duh the point is though that we didn't evolve legs just because our common ancestors decided they felt like walking the other day.

Edited:

SigmaLambda posted:

yeah this is getting sort of semantic but parts of biological organisms don't have purposes because that implies a design and evolution cannot "design" anything because, as said, evolution is a result of natural forces, not a force of it's own.

well in the end we can say Platinumcs is wrong and a bad person, that's what counts

[Atlascore]

Guess I was wrong then, sorry for derailing the thread.

[Smug Bastard]

Honestly, as long as he has a penis I consider Gabel a him.

Now that's all out of the way, I wish him the very best of luck.

[RobbL]

You all realise that this whole argument stemmed from Sanius claiming that this comment was completely wrong:

Platinumcs posted:

we are designed to try to seek out a partner of the opposite sex to reproduce and pass on our genes.

So even if function and purpose don't mean the same thing, what everyone is saying here still supports the fact that humans function so that males mate with females to pass on genes and produce offspring, and that the functions of the human body work around this.
This still disproves Sanius' opinion which I thought was so obviously dumb anyway

[thisispain]

you might think it was "obviously dumb" but it wasn't, we are not designed to do any of that stuff and we are different from other animals.

[RobbL]

thisispain posted:

you might think it was "obviously dumb" but it wasn't, we are not designed to do any of that stuff and we are different from other animals.

Your logic confuses me

Edited:

Basically what it comes down to is that the human body is meant to function in a certain way, and if you argue with that you're an idiot. Sorry.

[Boba_Fett]

SigmaLambda posted:

maybe you should get that checked.

people all over the internet keep making posts like "I personally find it disgusting but it's their right to..." wrt to transsexuals and homosexuals and while it's nice and all that they're still trying to leave them be in a political sense that's also a really really crazy thing to be disgusted by.

like it's yeah it's your personal belief, but your personal belief is bananas

You don't have to be an ass about it. I'm supportive of their rights and that should be all that matters.

[Dori]

Smug Bastard posted:

Honestly, as long as he has a penis I consider Gabel a him.

Now that's all out of the way, I wish him the very best of luck.

lol

"now that announcing my bigotry is out of the way..."

[thisispain]

RobbL posted:

if you argue with that you're an idiot. Sorry.

yeah i guess evolutionary research is really comprised of idiots
good catch there mate really exposed those dickheads!

[SigmaLambda]

Boba_Fett posted:

You don't have to be an ass about it. I'm supportive of their rights and that should be all that matters.

i'm not trying to be rude I'm just saying it's really really weird and I dunno, it seems like an undesirable state of affairs? like wouldn't you want to try to work through that so, instead of feeling that way, you don't feel that way?

[Boba_Fett]

SigmaLambda posted:

i'm not trying to be rude I'm just saying it's really really weird and I dunno, it seems like an undesirable state of affairs? like wouldn't you want to try to work through that so, instead of feeling that way, you don't feel that way?

Of course I'm trying to get over it. I mean, don't you remember what I was like two years ago?

[mobrockers2]

RobbL posted:

Your logic confuses me

Edited:

Basically what it comes down to is that the human body is meant to function in a certain way, and if you argue with that you're an idiot. Sorry.

The human body isn't meant to do anything, it just is as it is, and does what it does. That's it. Simple as that.

[QueenSasha24]

Smug Bastard posted:

Honestly, as long as he has a penis I consider Gabel a him.

Now that's all out of the way, I wish him the very best of luck.

I really hope you're aware of how much of dickhead thing it is to misgender her like that.

She's a she regardless of her genitalia. It's about identity not what's between your legs.

Edited:

Sanius posted:

lol

"now that announcing my bigotry is out of the way..."

Good summary.

[Crimor]

People need to understand that there's a difference between gender and sex.

[Elecbullet]

Sanius posted:

I'm not trans or cis anything

But by not being trans, are you not by definition cis?

[Dori]

Elecbullet posted:

But by not being trans, are you not by definition cis?

I don't associate with any gender

[Skelmech]

mac338 posted:

I wonder - as a straight man - if I could fall in love with someone transgendered.
Which really shakes the foundations of 'what is straight?'
Hell I'm guessing I could probably fall in love with a man if they looked and sounded convincingly female enough.

It doesn't "shake the foundations of what is straight?" to be honest. Only if you believe that the genitals of your partner make your sexuality or that one singular expierence you may have hac makes you one or the other rather then it being a feeling within you.

Being straight and male is really just being attracted to the secondary sex characteristics of a female. Or vice versa. It doesn't matter what they "used to be" or have in their pants.

Smug Bastard posted:

Honestly, as long as he has a penis I consider Gabel a him.


Now that's all out of the way, I wish him the very best of luck.

"Hi, I'm a bigot. Heres my insincere compliment so people dont get too mad at me!"

[T-Sonar.0]

Smug Bastard posted:

Honestly, as long as he has a penis I consider Gabel a him.

Now that's all out of the way, I wish him the very best of luck.

No.

Transgirl GENDER is always female, no matter what you say.

Their legal SEX remains male until sex reassignment surgery. But they are and will always be a female. You do not consider her a he. That's ignorant.

[Pal13]

I read all nine pages - wow.

[Smug Bastard]

I take back what I said, it was extremely ignorant and bigoted of me to say that. I'm sorry for being such an arrogant asshat.

[QueenSasha24]

Smug Bastard posted:

I take back what I said, it was extremely ignorant and bigoted of me to say that. I'm sorry for being such an arrogant asshat.

It's ok, all is forgiven. (Atleast with me now)

It's not very often you see someone apologize for being offensive to us trans people, so thank you c:

[Platinumcs]

Hey guys I'm back

thisispain posted:

we are not and never were designed for anything

I used the wrong word, ok.

[bunnyspy1]

Platinumcs posted:

Hey guys I'm back



I used the wrong word, ok.

mind explaining why you decided to call sanius a retard after that little debate
cause that was really dickish of you

[Platinumcs]

bunnyspy1 posted:

mind explaining why you decided to call sanius a retard after that little debate
cause that was really dickish of you

For this particular post:


Although 'designed' was not the word I should have used, anyone who has done even high school science knows what I'm getting at. He didn't even back up his argument, instead just went back through the thread rating all my posts dumb.

[thisispain]

i've done college level biology and what you're getting at was wrong and ignorant.

[Platinumcs]

Oh and this

thisispain posted:

i've done college level biology and what you're getting at was wrong and ignorant.

Mate don't even start unless you're going to back up your claims. It's natural selection or more specifically sexual selection so if you're ready to disprove it go right ahead
It seems that all logic in this thread has gone out the window in favour of political correctness in order to not offend anyone.
Basically you're going to have to argue that males don't seek to reproduce and pass on their genes, and that 150+ years of research was wrong

Honestly I'd like to see you try

[thisispain]

Platinumcs posted:

Mate don't even start unless you're going to back up your claims. It's natural selection or more specifically sexual selection so if you're ready to disprove it go right ahead
It seems that all logic in this thread has gone out the window in favour of political correctness in order to not offend anyone.
Basically you're going to have to argue that males don't seek to reproduce and pass on their genes, and that 150+ years of research was wrong

"back up your claims"
why don't you back up your claims, you're the one who's been claiming an awful lot.
natural selection has absolutely zero to do with the tosh you've been saying through out this thread, and using evolution to smear homosexuality is insane.

[Platinumcs]

thisispain posted:

"back up your claims"
why don't you back up your claims, you're the one who's been claiming an awful lot.
natural selection has absolutely zero to do with the tosh you've been saying through out this thread, and using evolution to smear homosexuality is insane.

Oh and don't bother pointing out the fact it's referring to species, because the point is still there

Also, smearing homosexuality? Let's see a link to a post. There is a huge difference in me having to prove natural selection to a self proclaimed "college biology student", and smearing homosexuals.

[thisispain]

what point? do you even understand what you are quoting?

[Platinumcs]

thisispain posted:

what point? do you even understand what you are quoting?

Are you even serious? Did you download your degree from a website?

Reproduction is necessary for creating genetic variation and increasing the rate of evolution.
You can argue all you want that other animals reproduce asexually, but the fact is we don't.

Edit:
Oh wow someone who actually understands basic biology holy shit

RobbL posted:

You're sort of right. The male reproductive system evolved to work with and only with the female reproductive system and vice versa. That's how living organisms minus plants, fungi, and protozoa have evolved to reproduce. If you're homosexual or asexual you're not going to naturally pass on your genes and produce offspring because you're not attracted to mate with the opposite sex. The sole purpose of sex is to reproduce.
Scientifically speaking homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality and transgenderism are biologically anomalous because of what I just explained and the fact they're caused by hormone imbalances in the womb (at least that's what I think is the general consensus) Now that doesn't mean they're 'wrong' in anyway, in the same way that going bald at 20 isn't wrong, it's just not what's meant to happen


It just seems obvious to me and I feel silly having to explain it when it's basic science

[thisispain]

Platinumcs posted:

Are you even serious? Did you download your degree from a website?

Reproduction is necessary for creating genetic variation and increasing the rate of evolution.
You can argue all you want that other animals reproduce asexually, but the fact is we don't.

i didn't even say i had a degree lol

evolution is driven by environment and circumstance not reproduction, hence why humans have not genetically evolved into any classifiable new species.

A large interbreeding population in an unchanging environment (IE humans) faces little need for the acquisition of new adaptations yet we continue to reproduce, therefor your argument based on reproductive evolution is not applicable.

[Platinumcs]

thisispain posted:

A large interbreeding population in an unchanging environment (IE humans) faces little need for the acquisition of new adaptations yet we continue to reproduce

So why do we continue to reproduce? it sure aint for shits and giggles. We would die out as a species very quickly if there wasn't a biological urge for us to pass on our genes.

Thanks for proving my point, guess I won't need to buy you a big red title after all

[SigmaLambda]

Platinumcs posted:

So why do we continue to reproduce? it sure aint for shits and giggles. We would die out as a species very quickly if there wasn't a biological urge for us to pass on our genes.

Thanks for proving my point, guess I won't need to buy you a big red title after all

buy me a big red title that says "this guy here, he's a cool guy, and I like him " and i promise not to post about just how gosh darned wrong you're being

[N0 WAR]

Platinumcs posted:

So why do we continue to reproduce? it sure aint for shits and giggles. We would die out as a species very quickly if there wasn't a biological urge for us to pass on our genes.

Thanks for proving my point, guess I won't need to buy you a big red title after all

Oh man, it's funny reading your posts. You post as if you think you're right, but you're soooo wrong haha