White is the New Black

[Institutional Control]

Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.

it's completely true.  you may not understand what is meant by culture.  go try and survive a year without access to human culture.

Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?

Your stupidity knows no bounds. 

[SdK]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.

Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.

Tell it to the bees

Worker bees have a disorder, obvs

[sys]

Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?

correct.  the amount of non-genetic information passed on from generation to generation among humans is much greater than occurs in any other species.

[sys]

Now you're quibling over semantics.

no, not really.  it may be tangential to the discussions in this thread, but it's a very fundamental distinction.

[Mr Bread]

Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.

it's completely true.  you may not understand what is meant by culture.  go try and survive a year without access to human culture.

Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?

here you go, bud:

The word is used in a general sense as the evolved ability to categorize and represent experiences with symbols and to act imaginatively and creatively. This ability arose with the evolution of behavioral modernity in humans around 50,000 years ago. This capacity is often thought to be unique to humans, although some other species have demonstrated similar, though much less complex abilities for social learning.

Behavioral modernity is a suite of behavioral and cognitive traits that distinguishes current H. sapiens from anatomically modern humans, hominins, and other primates. Although often debated, most scholars agree that modern human behavior can be characterized by abstract thinking, planning depth, symbolic behavior (e.g. art, ornamentation, music), exploitation of large game, blade technology, among others.

Some of these human universal patterns are cumulative cultural adaptation, social norms, language, cooperative breeding, and extensive help and cooperation beyond close kin. These traits have been viewed as largely responsible for the human replacement of Neanderthals in Western Europe and the peopling of the rest of the world.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?

A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.

This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse others of being "anti-science."

[star seed 7]

Might want to check your source bread, the earth is only 6000 years old

[Rage Against the McKee]

Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?

A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.

This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."

Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference, but books have allowed for far more people to populate the earth than any one person plopping out a few kids ever has.

[star seed 7]

Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?

A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.

This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."

You consistently have a very special ability to miss very simple points

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?

A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.

This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."

Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference, but books have allowed for far more people to populate the earth than any one person plopping out a few kids ever has.

And yet, other species thrive without books. Or air jordans or wine. What's the common denominator? Oh right - they make more of themselves. One might say that reproduction is paramount to survival of a species.

[Jabeez]

The species goes extinct without it. But otherwise, I totally agree. So in other words, I totally disagree.

the species does not care if it goes extinct.  the individual (the gene) does.  that's the difference.

So a species does not develop for the advantage of reproduction?  Someone brought up bees...  the entire purpose of worker bees is the survival of the young, protection of and ensuring the survival of their species.  Humans evolved to live in groups to make populations more diverse and... survival of the species through the young. Evolution was very altruistic, individuals behaving outside the bounds of this is exactly the discussion, is it not? 

Are you trying to give a nature vs nurture argument with the whole culture and information passed from generation to generation is greater than other species?  I dont understand why it seems people are arguing against even looking at behavior from a scientific standpoint? as if its completely invalid to understand  specific behaviors since they're  protected?  Humans try to understand all sorts of behavior, why not people compelled to believe they're not the person they were born? 

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

Q: What's the most important thing for a species to do in order to not go extinct?

A: Invent books, wine, and air jordans.

This is a pretty hilarious debate to be having with people who continually accuse people of being "anti-science."

Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference, but books have allowed for far more people to populate the earth than any one person plopping out a few kids ever has.

And yet, other species thrive without books. Or air jordans or wine. What's the common denominator? Oh right - they make more of themselves. One might say that reproduction is paramount to survival of a species.

Not like humans, they don't.

[sys]

Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference.

before modern sanitation techniques made safe drinking water widely available, alcohol kept an enormous number of people alive long enough to reproduce and rear offspring.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It really is amazing the mental gymnsatics on display here in an attempt to disprove the basic point that reproduction is the most important thing to continuation of a species. Bear in mind, I never said "only" - I said "most important" and "paramount" - but even this is disputed. From the "pro-science" crowd.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference.

before modern sanitation techniques made safe drinking water widely available, alcohol kept an enormous number of people alive long enough to reproduce and rear offspring.

Well, that's a good point. I thought I might have been underselling wine.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It really is amazing the mental gymnsatics on display here in an attempt to disprove the basic point that reproduction is the most important thing to continuation of a species. Bear in mind, I never said "only" - I said "most important" and "paramount" - but even this is disputed. From the "pro-science" crowd.

In the absence of farming techniques, modern medicine, and other technologies, the earth can only support about 15 people per square mile. They can have all of the babies they want, but most of them are just going to die if they get over than 15 person threshold.

[michigancat]

Wine and Air Jordans haven't made much difference.

before modern sanitation techniques made safe drinking water widely available, alcohol kept an enormous number of people alive long enough to reproduce and rear offspring.

Well, that's a good point. I thought I might have been underselling wine.

don't forget about farming grapes

but how would farming help a species?

[sys]

So a species does not develop for the advantage of reproduction?  Someone brought up bees...  the entire purpose of worker bees is the survival of the young, protection of and ensuring the survival of their species.

colonial insects are an interesting case.  people have argued that the colony is (can be thought of) as a single organism.  in such a model, the workers are like the body, caring for the reproductive insects, which are like the gametes.

regardless of whether you like such a model, the workers share genes with the queen and drones.  they work to perpetuate those genes.

Humans evolved to live in groups to make populations more diverse and... survival of the species through the young. Evolution was very altruistic, individuals behaving outside the bounds of this is exactly the discussion, is it not?

altruism in animals like humans is generally thought to have evolved because humans evolved in small social groups with whom they shared genes.  it can benefit an individual to behave altruistically among related individuals because the benefits help those related individuals pass along copies of shared genes (this is an extremely simplified synopsis, books have been written on the subject).

Are you trying to give a nature vs nurture argument with the whole culture and information passed from generation to generation is greater than other species?  I dont understand why it seems people are arguing against even looking at behavior from a scientific standpoint? as if its completely invalid to understand  specific behaviors since they're  protected?  Humans try to understand all sorts of behavior, why not people compelled to believe they're not the person they were born?

i don't understand this part.

[Institutional Control]

If reproduction was the most important factor the world would be ruled by rabbits.   

[Jabeez]

So a species does not develop for the advantage of reproduction?  Someone brought up bees...  the entire purpose of worker bees is the survival of the young, protection of and ensuring the survival of their species.

colonial insects are an interesting case.  people have argued that the colony is (can be thought of) as a single organism.  in such a model, the workers are like the body, caring for the reproductive insects, which are like the gametes.

regardless of whether you like such a model, the workers share genes with the queen and drones.  they work to perpetuate those genes.

Those people would be rough ridin' idiots:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130617111341.htm

The researchers found that colonies where the queen had mated at least seven times were 2.86 times more likely to survive the 10-month working season. Specifically, 48 percent of colonies with queens who had mated at least seven times were still alive at the end of the season. Only 17 percent of the less genetically diverse colonies survived. "48 percent survival is still an alarmingly low survival rate, but it's far better than 17 percent," Tarpy says.

"This study confirms that genetic diversity is enormously important in honey bee populations," Tarpy says. "And it also offers some guidance to beekeepers about breeding strategies that will help their colonies survive."

Humans evolved to live in groups to make populations more diverse and... survival of the species through the young. Evolution was very altruistic, individuals behaving outside the bounds of this is exactly the discussion, is it not?

altruism in animals like humans is generally thought to have evolved because humans evolved in small social groups with whom they shared genes.  it can benefit an individual to behave altruistically among related individuals because the benefits help those related individuals pass along copies of shared genes (this is an extremely simplified synopsis, books have been written on the subject).
 

This whole argument is on point with reproduction, yes, groups act to ensure the survival of the group and young.  We try to pass our genes on, but we also search out more genetically diverse partners. I am assuming those books you mention also discussed genetic diversity within a group as a key factor in their survival.  Otherwise, these books ignored the fact humans would have died out long ago. 

Are you trying to give a nature vs nurture argument with the whole culture and information passed from generation to generation is greater than other species?  I dont understand why it seems people are arguing against even looking at behavior from a scientific standpoint? as if its completely invalid to understand  specific behaviors since they're  protected?  Humans try to understand all sorts of behavior, why not people compelled to believe they're not the person they were born?

i don't understand this part.

Yes, ignore the first sentence not really relevant.  the rest was more a commentary on the general tone of others in the thread.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It really is amazing the mental gymnsatics on display here in an attempt to disprove the basic point that reproduction is the most important thing to continuation of a species. Bear in mind, I never said "only" - I said "most important" and "paramount" - but even this is disputed. From the "pro-science" crowd.

In the absence of farming techniques, modern medicine, and other technologies, the earth can only support about 15 people per square mile. They can have all of the babies they want, but most of them are just going to die if they get over than 15 person threshold.

And without reproduction, the earth can only support 0 people per square mile. This seems to indicate that reproduction is the single most important thing to continuation of a species.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So a species does not develop for the advantage of reproduction?  Someone brought up bees...  the entire purpose of worker bees is the survival of the young, protection of and ensuring the survival of their species.

colonial insects are an interesting case.  people have argued that the colony is (can be thought of) as a single organism.  in such a model, the workers are like the body, caring for the reproductive insects, which are like the gametes.

regardless of whether you like such a model, the workers share genes with the queen and drones.  they work to perpetuate those genes.

Those people would be rough ridin' idiots:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130617111341.htm

The researchers found that colonies where the queen had mated at least seven times were 2.86 times more likely to survive the 10-month working season. Specifically, 48 percent of colonies with queens who had mated at least seven times were still alive at the end of the season. Only 17 percent of the less genetically diverse colonies survived. "48 percent survival is still an alarmingly low survival rate, but it's far better than 17 percent," Tarpy says.

"This study confirms that genetic diversity is enormously important in honey bee populations," Tarpy says. "And it also offers some guidance to beekeepers about breeding strategies that will help their colonies survive."

Humans evolved to live in groups to make populations more diverse and... survival of the species through the young. Evolution was very altruistic, individuals behaving outside the bounds of this is exactly the discussion, is it not?

altruism in animals like humans is generally thought to have evolved because humans evolved in small social groups with whom they shared genes.  it can benefit an individual to behave altruistically among related individuals because the benefits help those related individuals pass along copies of shared genes (this is an extremely simplified synopsis, books have been written on the subject).
 

This whole argument is on point with reproduction, yes, groups act to ensure the survival of the group and young.  We try to pass our genes on, but we also search out more genetically diverse partners. I am assuming those books you mention also discussed genetic diversity within a group as a key factor in their survival.  Otherwise, these books ignored the fact humans would have died out long ago. 

Are you trying to give a nature vs nurture argument with the whole culture and information passed from generation to generation is greater than other species?  I dont understand why it seems people are arguing against even looking at behavior from a scientific standpoint? as if its completely invalid to understand  specific behaviors since they're  protected?  Humans try to understand all sorts of behavior, why not people compelled to believe they're not the person they were born?

i don't understand this part.

Yes, ignore the first sentence not really relevant.  the rest was more a commentary on the general tone of others in the thread.

Somebody needs to teach those bees how to farm or read. Then they wouldn't have to worry about reproducing.

[MakeItRain]

i'll start with the fairly broad - both situations involve a person claiming an identity (identity, essentially meaning the person that they would prefer other people to see and treat them as) which does not correspond to reality.  to me, that pretty much starts and ends the discussion.  if you feel there are nuances that distinguish one situation from the other, feel free to highlight them.

I did, in pretty great length, I even said "As many parallels that Jenner and Dolezal have this isn't one of them and this is the most important one to this conversation" within the post.

and jenner is not a woman.  if you sincerely wished to be thought of and treated as a polar bear, i'd agree that your case could be added to the discussion as another parallel.

Right, I'm not a polar bear, Jenner is not a woman, and Dolezal isn't black. I'm not telling people I'm a polar bear, Jenner isn't telling people he's a woman, bur Dolezal was telling people she was black. Jenner was a man, now he's transgendered because he identifies with being a woman more so than being a man. Dolezal has absolutely not at any point portended to a white person who better identified with black people. Jenner is open and honest about being born a man but identifying better with women. Dolezal went to great lengths to hide the fact that she is/was a white woman. When you don't acknowledge what you were/is you by definition cannot be trans___. She isn't transracial because she tried to scrub any and every sign that she was born white. If someone was TRANSITIONED from a male to a female but never acknowledged that they were ever a male they would be equally fraudulent.

i considered it more fair that considering external opinions, since anything i looked for outside of this board would be subject to selection bias.  furthermore, the population of interest to me is the posters on this board.  i'm already aware that there are people in the world that believe all manner of idiocies.  for the most part, this board is used by reasonable people that, in very broad terms, see the world similarly to how i do.  their opinions interest me far more than the opinions of a broader population.

We're having a conversation about global issues, you are choosing to look at this in a vacuum because you think it suits your point better.

go ahead and list those reasons.

Not doing it again

we are not evaluating the quality of person of either dolezal or jenner.  i don't recall anyone making the argument that only people of acceptable character can claim to be transgender.

Well in a way I am absolutely evaluating the quality of a person that Dolezal is. I explicitly said that she can't be transracial because she is a liar that perpetuated a fraud. I have no idea about Jenner. He very well may have been a liar that perpetuated a fraud when he married those women, although he claimed he was honest with Kris, I do know when he publicly decided to come to terms with who he is he did it as someone that is transgendered and not someone who has always been a woman. Dolezal telling people that that old black man that she knew for about 10 minutes was her dad is the same thing as Caitlin Jenner telling people that she was born with a vagina and she is a natural b cup. Dolezal was credited for doing things for the black people in Spokane, so kudos for being selfless; that doesn't mean that she can't be a lying clownfraud.

[michigancat]

I'd say bees are actually pretty good farmers.

[Institutional Control]

I'd say bees are actually pretty good farmers.

But how many air jordans have they made?