>>5679822 Same, even though I gave myself above average intelligence. I just rate it on my ability to comprehend, explain, and discuss things in comparison to how others are able to do so. Then again this is just my verbal IQ, not sure how I fair with visual-spacial stuff, since I don't want to pay money to take an official MENSA test.
1) You can't draw any conclusions from the external appearance of someone's genitalia (see: people with CAIS). 2) I've never had a karyotype done, so while it's likely I have XY sex chromosomes, I don't think anyone actually knows for sure. 3) We determine someone's apparent sex in different ways depending on context, first and primarily by secondary sex characteristics. 4) Genitals are real and exist, obviously, but the labeling and grouping of people based on their genitalia is arbitrary. Which isn't to say that it isn't ever useful or that it isn't approximately correct, but in the context of trans people it doesn't work very well.
>>5680172 >You can't draw any conclusions from the external appearance of someone's genitalia (see: people with CAIS). In other words: let's use this extremely fringe fragment of the population to excuse throwing a very reliable method of sexual identification out the window.
We "threw out" Newtonian mechanics in favor of quantum mechanics and general relativity despite classical mechanics being incredibly useful and by and large correct in the context of our everyday lives. Saying something is useful and that something is an approximation that is not always correct and needs revision in the face of evidence are not in any way contradictory.
>>5680172 >1) You can't draw any conclusions from the external appearance of someone's genitalia (see: people with CAIS). Like >>5680190 said, this is a rare occurrence. People's genitalia are determined by the chromosomes in 99% of cases (exact percentage may vary) >2) I've never had a karyotype done, so while it's likely I have XY sex chromosomes, I don't think anyone actually knows for sure. That doesn't mean that your sex was assigned at a random guess, >3) We determine someone's apparent sex in different ways depending on context, first and primarily by secondary sex characteristics. And then by karyotype of the gender-determining chromosomes. Whether or not you have had one yourself they are still valid ways of determining someone's sex. >4) Genitals are real and exist, obviously, but the labeling and grouping of people based on their genitalia is arbitrary. Which isn't to say that it isn't ever useful or that it isn't approximately correct, but in the context of trans people it doesn't work very well. Sex is basically defined by what sexual organs and functions you have. Penis, testes, vagina, ovaries, uterus etc. While it's true that some people have differences in this, these are not the norm and to try and invalidate this method of defining sexes because of what are essentially genetic defects is just silly. Also, in the case of trans people, sex and gender are two different things. What you identify as does not affect your biological sex.
I've probably missed something as it's late but that should be everything.
>What you identify as does not affect your biological sex.
Yeah, but taking sex hormones does. Anyway, you still haven't really given me a reason why the evidence I provided doesn't show that sex determination based on genital inspection isn't a flawed hypothesis that's at best a good approximation. Why is it that people who appeal to science are so quick to say that evidence to the contrary doesn't matter? I'll never understand this.
>>5680430 That's the same as saying "I don't like being white so I decide I'm black now" I don't have anything wrong with gays, but pretending you're a woman when you're born a male, is just delusional
Newtonian mechanics are an excellent approximation and very, very useful, but ultimately fail at the far reaches of scale. Similarly, a system of binary sex is a pretty good approximation with medical utility, but there are obvious flaws in the system given certain conditions that make it an incomplete description of human bodies.
>>5680503 Every map is an approximation. If it wasn't it wouldn't be useful. Every description is false in some capacity. You don't start talking about general relativity when you're talking about the physics of basketball. Likewise, unless you specifically are intersex then there is no reason for you to go Captain Autismo and start talking "assigned male". If that is the case, fine, but otherwise you're a gigantic tumblr faggot.
>>5680542 Normal is also an approximation. I'm missing at least three organs from my body that a normal person should have but I generally consider myself normal. I'd also generally consider you a man.
>>5680592 >Still waiting on that argument over here What argument? You posed a question and then got offended. You have to pose an argument for me respond with an argument.
>>5680592 >Also, tell me how your missing organs affect your sexed characteristics cancer. young. had to remove shit that makes hormones during puberty. Cut puberty short. Never developed. Didn't really effect anything too much but still technically did.
The physics of a basketball obey the Newtonian mechanics which are models of models of quantum behavior. The Newtonian mechanics themselves don't exist. An easy example of this would be water; there is no Newtonian mechanic that water follows when it evaporates into water vapor. That is 100% a quantum mechanic - "temperature" is a misleading reading, the same way that gender is. What the temperature of something means is that the AKE (average kinetic energy) is a certain reading. Within that object, there could be a 100 degree water molecule and a 0 degree water molecule, and then the AKE would be 50 degrees. This is really simplified and if you want to know more you'll have to look it up.
Anyway, so the sun puts energy into the water. Rather than boiling the way a pot of water would, the water heats up individual molecules into their gaseous state and they transform into water vapor, which condenses into clouds later on when it comes into contact with particulate matter in the atmosphere and clumps into big fluffy clouds.
Sure, you can argue that boiling a pot of water to nothing is a Newtonian mechanic. But leaving a glass of water out on the counter is pure quantum mechanics, since the water absorbs energy from its surroundings to evaporate a little of its water at a time until it's all gone.
But it's perfectly okay to talk about Newtonian physics when you're discussing what happens to a glass of water, right?
I've restated my argument multiple times already (see >>5680503, >>5680362, >>5680208, >>5680172). Also, if you weren't particularly affected by having whatever glands you had removed, then that's clearly not comparable to hormone replacement therapy. Like I can't find any data on male breast size, but my breasts, which aren't particularly big, are probably many standard deviations above the male average. My body fat distribution resembles an average woman of my height/weight, and a number of the secondary sex characteristics from the first time I went through puberty have either been reversed (my testes no longer produce sperm nor do they produce testosterone in any significant quantity) or removed (I blasted all the hair off my face with a laser). My body is pretty obviously not "generally male".
>>5680657 >I've restated my argument multiple times already The only one that was directed to me I responded to. I'm not going to go respond to your arguments with other people.
>Also, if you weren't particularly affected by having whatever glands you had removed, then that's clearly not comparable to hormone replacement therapy Never claimed it did why would you think that's what I implied? But actually it did very much fucked my body up entirely.
>Like I can't find any data on male breast size, but my breasts, which aren't particularly big, are probably many standard deviations above the male average Same here. I had to get a breast reduction surgery because my actual breast tissue was way too big for a dude.
>My body is pretty obviously not "generally male" It sounds like most of that was done through artificial hormone replacement and not as a result of your physical birth.
No single characteristic makes someone a man or a woman. But since you're alluding to it, if/when I get bottom surgery, I'll end up having a) no penis, b) no testes, and c) an anatomically accurate vagina/vulva, constructed from the same tissue that makes up a typical vagina (genitalia differ in structure, not the tissue that they're made of, because they differentiate from the same protogenitals in utero). So by my count, no penis, no testes, no uterus, no ovaries, but yes vagina is closer to the average "biological female" than the average "biological male".
>>5680766 >So by my count, no penis, no testes, no uterus, no ovaries, but yes vagina is closer to the average "biological female" than the average "biological male". >this level of denial You're still just a mutilated male. Nothing will change your little x.
You're not actually making a counterargument here, you realize that, right? Feel free to save face and duck out of this chat at any point, I won't blame you for not thinking things through enough because most people don't.
And by the way, chromosomes don't actually manifest meaningfully in your phenotype, proteins do, and my body clearly understands how to process and respond to estrogen to develop female sex characteristics. So that's not a very convincing argument either.
>>5680813 >You're not actually making a counterargument here, you realize that, right You haven't shown any reason why fucking up your genitals makes you less of a man. Making your face look like a cat doesn't make you any less human.
>proteins do, and my body clearly understands how to process and respond to estrogen to develop female sex characteristics Everyone has estrogen and test in their bodies. That doesn't make you special
>You haven't shown any reason why fucking up your genitals makes you less of a man.
>if/when I get bottom surgery, I'll end up having a) no penis, b) no testes, and c) an anatomically accurate vagina/vulva, constructed from the same tissue that makes up a typical vagina (genitalia differ in structure, not the tissue that they're made of, because they differentiate from the same protogenitals in utero). (>>5680766)
>Everyone has estrogen and test in their bodies. That doesn't make you special
>Like I can't find any data on male breast size, but my breasts, which aren't particularly big, are probably many standard deviations above the male average. (>>5680657)
The distinction between male and female is by and large statistical in nature. We both have T and E, but I have estrogen levels that are typical of the average female. So no, it doesn't make me special, it makes me thoroughly average.
>>5681075 >Explain why this matters Nothing matters if you're autistic enough
It matters because your gametes are male and your entire biological makeup was coded for a biological male. You still have to mark "m" on the sex category on your doctor's forms, you're still at risk for prostate cancer, every cell in your body is still marked with the instructions to make a perfectly healthy male.
You are still a human male no matter what. Not a wolf, not a cloud, not a women. You are a biological male human.
>>5681418 how would i not know the name of my favorite movies if i just put the names of my favorite movies? the only really fuck up is me accidentally adding my favorite vidya in the movie section? >wolf on wallstreet >howls moving castle >wolf children >lilo and stitch
>>5680126 >Old jazz = YES! >New pop = No... Other than that, all taste pretty good desu.
>>5680179 That's an... interesting mix of tastes you have there... Nice to see some LBP; I thought that game almost died.
>>5680660 You seem very cynical; I could imagine us getting along.
>>5681102 >Content with sexuality >Still questioning Pick one. No comments about other stuff; pretty standard.
>>5681380 Your future looks like it would make my eyes set on fire and cause me to projectile vomit. Then again: >Likes rock. >Likes the utter mess of noise that is Shostakovitch music. >>Actually knows who Shostakovitch is. >Horror AND Sci-fi movies! Taste is on point for the most part.
>>5681930 Not sure what's going on with your music taste there. The rest is ok.
>>5682425 >Outdoor activities. >Food. >Fair mix of movies and TV shows. >Reads enough to forget what has been read. It was all great, and then >Doesn't listen to music...
Apologies if my critical side and/or misanthropy are showing.
>>5683583 this >>5683558 Rick and Morty is shit too. It's lazy, scatological humor with no effort or real value besides "look how silly we got in a sound booth", unlikable characters, and sense an air of unearned self-importance and random poorly written drama. There are no visual gags, there's nothing really decent thats done with the animation or visuals. It's a shitty improve duo who got people to draw pictures over their terrible skits.
>>5683577 That sounds awesome; if nothing else, it would at least open up some viable, long-term dating options. Unfortunately, since the vast majority of STEM students at my school are ultra-homophobic religious (mainly Muslim) types, they'd probably never do this in my area.
>tfw getting straight A*s (yes, with the *) and top grades in whole school, and on the outside it seems that nothing could be better for me. >tfw get hit on by girls that want their soon-to-be doctor husbando lined up and ready before we depart for uni literally every day. >tfw no nerdy bf with whom I can rejoice at good grades and do maths homework. It's a very mixed feel...
>>5683689 The animation's quality is fine but nothing interesting is done with it. I'm not even sure how you could fuck up animation in the modern age when everything is just shipped off to China. All of the lines are the same weight and there's about 10 lines for each character, there's nothing really fluid or dynamic they're doing, it looks like it was made with a dozen of vectors in flash. The style certainly irks me but I can ignore that. All of that is forgivable for a shitty comedy show but when the comedy is bad then you don't have anything. The animation simply serves as a vehicle for the shitty humor and has no value beyond that.
I just don't understand how you could dislike the animation of Rick and Morty. Like, even if you don't particularly like the art style or character design, the production value is through the roof, the animation is varied and super fluid, the backgrounds are incredibly detailed and there's always a ton going on in frame, that there are no visual gags is just outright false, and the characters are so incredibly expressive in their body language and facial expressions. I've heard a lot of things about Rick and Morty, but that the animation isn't very good is a first.
>>5683922 >the animation is varied and super fluid Are you fucking kidding me? EVERYTHING stays the same between the frames. They draw the characters once or twice then translate the shapes while copying and pasting their mouth frames. There is NOTHING fluid in their movements. It is all 1D translations
>the backgrounds are incredibly detailed and there's always a ton going on in frame cluttered backgrounds, check. The thing about backgrounds is that you only have to draw them a few times compared to animation. In traditional animation you wouldn't put a lot of thought into the backgrounds because it was the characters that were important
>that there are no visual gags is just outright false It is 100% true. Watch an episode of R&M and count the number of actual visual gags. The writers aren't animators and it shows. They put all their jokes into the script and have no idea how to execute proper visual humor
> and the characters are so incredibly expressive in their body language and facial expressions THEY DON'T FUCKING MOVE! They don't scale, they don't change. There is no value in their expression or body language
Take a look at something like Ed Ed n Eddy and compare it to R&M. You can tell that one is actually drawn frame by frame and one is using flash vectors and tweens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lD7zvg1reM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EepTHJSteDY Two completely random long clips. You can see in R&M that the movement is always isolated to a few sections and they are almost always simply rotated or translate. That or it's copied and pasted facial animations. They almost always face the same direction in the same stance for incredibly long amounts of time. When they do change stances it's incredibly fast. It clicks between different movements not flows. It's clear that it isn't frame by frame drawn. The faces don't bulge or change. The body, the arms, nothing changes nothing is dynamic or fluid in the movements
>>5685737 Yes, most modern music is roughly as complicated as music that was being made in the 14th century. If you don't know any better than it won't bother you which is fine but once you learn, it's hard to find anything to appreciate about non-art music
>>5685835 Well I could say Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, 19th century, 20th century, and Contemporary music. 'art-music' is just a technical way to refer to those things. Doesn't imply anything bad about other forms of music.
>>5685910 for real tho, i dont get how you can fap your heart out to classical music forever ofcourse its good, as i mentioned, i pretty much like all music the composer you mentioned are delightfull but heres my beef with classic its not new its not unique its basically always the same (also reasons i kinda dislike rock nowadays) compared to forever evolving electronic music for example that explore new sounds and beats all the time
maybe its just me, i cant listen to the same song 100 times
>>5685958 Well this is the same argument people on my side tend to use. Nowadays, to me all modern music sounds the same, roughly the same way that all Marvel and Disney movies seem the same. It's the same chord progressions, it's unappealing sounds; it isn't beautiful or elegant, it's artistically unsatisfying. The repertoire of classical music is incredibly vast and it takes years to even become remotely 'well-listened', I guarantee you you'd be able to find more there than in whatever the latest swans album may be (or whatever it is you listen to)
>>5686023 Well then listen to the other ones more often. I get into a phase where I only listen to a few songs at a time but after they grow old I throw them in a giant playlist of others like it and only return to it once in a while
>>5685996 marvel and didney movies do actually seem the same they all follow the same structure
ofcourse i dislike generic pop music that has the same sound, but i think classic music does this a lot too you pretty much have the same instruments used again and again >omg he sweeped that violin in a totally different way in this kickass track theres nothing genious about it imo
let me go back to the rock, "slayer" for example they have some kickass very unique tracks, but as you keep listening, it just sounds so monotone and they stick too much to their "style"
heres my current favourite song, its pretty unique: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRyMoyRPrr8
>>5686058 1. a. the instruments argument could be applied to any form of music b. orchestral instrumentation is incredibly complex and all combinations (when there's over 50 options) create new and unique feelings c. there's symphonic literature, choral, piano, stress on individual instruments, string groups, etc.
2. artistry is primarily present in "art-music" a. "art-music in all forms can come to symbolize more complex things than most music is capable of b. Prokofiev's 1st violin concerto (to me) very clearly symbolizes a storm and the picture is very detailed and beautiful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic-EIknhVHM (skip to about 8:30 and listen for maybe 3 minutes for the most clear portions [notice at ~9:55 how it appears to be the calm after the storm, rainbows, etc]) c. "art-music" is capable of having a more complex "plot" (ergo fuller story) and can travel a longer path giving it closer resemblance to literature which is the highest art form
I listened to your song and it wasn't particularly bad. I might even listen to it again but it's not satisfying on a deeper level, even the lyrics don't seem overly dense to me. Sure it's catchy and easy to listen to, but it's not amazing by any means
>>5685527 I've heard good and bad music of that type also I couldn't find anything else to write in cons. I'd put movies there but you watch bad films knowingly and that's not exactly bad. You generally seem like a bit of a nice person.
>>5686220 no it's just that i met someone off this board a few days ago and we were talking about classical and i sent her the file copy i saved of that recording before it was removed. i just assumed it was you because you knew it was removed, had the file, and only recently got it.
>>5679189 I've actually thought about getting butt implants, to be honest. Not breast implants - those are very obvious and I'm basically happy with my boobs but my butt is awfully flat and I feel like it makes me feel to flat to look feminine. so some subtle butt implants might work very nicely.
>>5687389 I love it. Specially the wood of suicides. It's just such a perfect work of art that everything has another half and nothing is misplaced. It's the pinnacle of literature in my opinion. Every single time I open Inferno I can't resist, but admire what perfection is like.
>>5687473 All Dutch people do have the super gigantic mouths that look like they are perfectly capable of swallowing you. As a person of Persian descent with tiny mouth you're making me feel awfully inadequate about my size.
>>5687490 Why would you say that? I just enjoy the book with all my heart because I'm an imaginative person and I can picture the scenes and that's why I love Dante's allegories. I'm not narcissistic or egotistic and I know my place on this world. Funny that you are the one calling me that when you are so quick to paint a grim picture of me just because you read 2 posts. I could assume lots of things about you, but I'm not an asshole that judges people like you did to me.
>>5687539 "Judge not lest ye be judged" I'm fine with you judging me. I've judged myself enough that no new verdict could surprise me.
You've put yourself at the second highest rating in intelligence and you don't understand how someone could think you're egotistical. You seem to enjoy things because they're supposed to be smart things and that boosts your ego. To even begin to understand the divine comedy you need to read a painstaking amount of mythology and theology and even then you have to go over the text with a fine tooth comb to grasp it. And you say it's one of your favorite books? I seriously doubt it. You like it because you think it would make you look good.
>>5687608 >You've put yourself at the second highest rating in intelligence and you don't understand how someone could think you're egotistical
Did it based on what I already published and what I'm working on.I accomplished quite a lot for my age and I'm proud of it.
>You seem to enjoy things because they're supposed to be smart things and that boosts your ego
I can't enjoy things for what they are? I literally said I enjoy Star Wars on the same chart that I said The Divine Comedy is one of my favourite books.
>To even begin to understand the divine comedy you need to read a painstaking amount of mythology and theology and even then you have to go over the text with a fine tooth comb to grasp it.
I grew up reading mythology, I had to study Aquinas and the Church's stoics until I couldn't even hear their names, since I study in a catholic university and I have a hardon for Italian medieval history, so believe me, I get the book. It's complexity and many layers is one of the reasons I like it. It's like a puzzle I assembled with time and effort and it's rewarding.
>You like it because you think it would make you look good.
I like it because of Dante's descriptions are among the most colourful ones ever written and for the aesthetic perfection of the book. I also like Star War's expanded universe books and I don't care what people think about. tl;dr
I used to use the word genderfluid when it was just starting to get usage. Like 2011/12. Confused tranny in denial after all. Hey, we gotta cross some bridges to figure things out.
I'm cool with the "genderfluid" types that seem to be actually trans and simply really androgynous. The ones who are happy being their birth sex and are just trying labels on like a fad, or are a tomboy girl or fem male but still ok with being said gender (girl or guy), and somehow think their androgynous look makes them another gender, annoy me.
>>5681124 >your gametes are male No they aren't, I don't have gametes. >your entire biological makeup was coded for a biological male My biological makeup was coded to produce testosterone and androgens, which code for maleness. The testosterone prompting maleness is no longer present.
>You still have to mark "m" on the sex category on your doctor's forms Nope.
>you're still at risk for prostate cancer A risk so low that its comparable to the amount of people who are intersex women and develop prostate cancer, because estrogen massively affects and deactivates the prostate's cancer production abilities because it affects your biological sex.
>every cell in your body is still marked with the instructions to make a perfectly healthy male. Every cell is marked with the instructions to make androgens that make males.
What about XY males whose genes make them infertile? They literally are useless penis havers. They are just as "healthily male" as an XX person with a penis is "healthily male", they both have cocks and dont make sperm.
Genetics aren't some voodoo magic you dumb shit, sex steroids control fucking everything.
>>5682983 I have been living under a cultural rock for a while and I wasn't even aware this movie existed until I looked it up because of this thread. Thank you, based anon. I'm so excited to watch this.
>>5694398 I have, I just haven't finished it yet. I like how season 2 is different in the anime. But yeah the manga is superior. >recognising me Guess you're not the only one doing that 'cause I can recognise you from a mile away too :^)
>>5707157 >>5687361 hold up there's more. >cites failure of memory 3 times in short submission >consistently uses redundant descriptors >possibly Nietzsche's worst work who's an entry-tier philosopher in the first place >not great but forgivable music >shit movies and suicide-tier tv shows also, the drawing is possibly a euphemism for obese neckbeard
rereading this whole thing I realize this is definitely bait 8/10, thoroughly rustled my jimmies
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.