>>2690538>it is imprinted during infancy Yeh that's the point
>what is the agenda Things seem to make sense to me when viewed through the lens of spite
>mug left wing vs mug right wingI just think that these 'social comstructs' that people are keen to battle against may be the only thing that is holding society together and one day you might realise that the nothing is all that stares back at you once you have won.
>>2690553>Yeh that's the pointan infant has already developed their personality before going to nursery. you seem to be promoting the outdated nonsense of a tabula rasa (blank slate), which is presumably the ideology of your nemesis, like the orwellian inner party that believes it can make you say 1+1=3, which i dont think is possible, due to our inherent faculties of reason.
>Things seem to make sense to me when viewed through the lens of spite but what is the agenda in concrete terms? if you provide evidence for a conspiracy i am compelled to believe it, but i substitute the larger conspiracy of medicalisation in its place. if you believe in mental illness as a fact of being, you have overdosed on blue pills. i am offering a more historical criticism of the systems of power we have.
>I just think that these 'social comstructs' that people are keen to battle against may be the only thing that is holding society together i believe in the social contract, so society is always substantive before it is politicised. thats why i believe in the common good more than partisanship.
>>2690560>an infant has already developed their personality All this stuff is nebulous at best, and a 4 year old is still an infant in my book
>what is the agendaWhy doesn't a cuckoo bird build its own nest? I suppose you could call it a biological niche.
>blade blah social contract changing the subject don't care >>2690567>le jewish feministsbut its the feminists who are transphobes…
youre all over the place, mate
give your head a wobble then get back to us
>>2690575It's called 'swinging the pendulum'
And perhaps a smidge of 'framing the debate'
>>2690578if the omnipotent jews control left and right, up and down. if they decide what you watch, eat, drink and breathe, then why do you even participate in public discourse? im a jew, youre a jew. we're all jews, surely? or are you the last honest aryan bandying about, eh? sort your head out.
>>2690581I never said any of that, you're just projecting
>>2690585>projectingoh, right, im the antisemitic one, not you. gotcha. 👌
thing i cant stand about you lot is how cowardly you all are. hating jews is mainstream now. let it all out.
>>2690586are you one of these "your brain doesnt stop developing til youre 40" people?
>>2690597the academy was literally created by paedo aristocrats like plato. no need to keep it going, especially when evidence suggests that its impossible to maintain full literacy in a population without reinforced discipline. guild systems seem more authentic, especially since the ends of school is a division of labour anyway.
If schools are turning kids gay that's in the bottom 10% of reasons to hate them. The damage our "education" system does to people both academically and personality wise is immeasurable. Being gay is nothing compared even to a lesser school sin like (say) nurturing credentialism.
To elaborate on why both the biological determinist and propagandistic reasonings for gender and sexuality are retarded undialectical:
If peoples skills were determined straight out of the womb, either every child would immediately get 1 + 1 = 2 or those that don't would never get it. We have reliable models for the broad strokes of child development and most of them rely on active engagement with people and the environment, a function of society. It sounds dubious to say, there are biological determinants for something as historically contingent as gender. I for one can confidently say, i am not the same person i was 5 years ago and my child-self was wildly different. If your life experiences never compelled you to change as a person, i pity you.
On the converse, the same society conditioning people into cisheterosexuality inevitably gives rise to its opposites, or anything else would have been eradicated by now. The norm is inherently pathological and where abolishing gender is the radical solution, the reformist approach is to inoculate kids against destructive ressentiments and lessen the self-hate some of them will inevitably have to face. Teaching children that the gays aren't icky plague bearers and that gender-nonconformity isn't automatically mental illness shouldn't be controversial. Neither "making the children gay", nor unquestionably reproducing every bumfuck tradishuun is inherently moral.
>>2690652>i am different than what i was 5 years agothen why arent you different to what you was 5 seconds ago? you are being arbitrary as to what a person is. the development of personality is teleological. you change, but only become what you always were, like a seed blooming into a flower. supposing radical contingency is materialist fluff that leads to no satisfaction. when you sleep, are you dead?
>abolishing gendernot-so-subtle trans erasure
go and march with the TERFs, namefag.
>>2690650And that's just the English people!
>>2690675>then why arent you different to what you was 5 seconds ago?Why aren't haven't you suffocating in all the shit that comes out of you? uygha has never heard of the transformation of quantity into quality.
>a seed blooming into a flower<What is natural adaption, what is growth, what is vernalization?>>abolishing genderI'm not advocating against "reformism" i.e. affording a modicum of decency to people. Given the current material conditions, this is a philosophical point more than anything. To reiterate, neither transhumanists nor cissiety are inherently moral
though you could make a case for the former on an situational basis.
>>2690699>quantity into qualityyour biological cells are constantly dying and being replaced - so why arent you always becoming new?
>affording a modicum of decency to peopleyou sound very condescending. i think trans women are women. you clearly see them as pitiful fools.
>inherently moralagain, i am being ontological, not ethical.
>>2690697aye!
>1 in 4 (26.7% / 931,000 people) adults in Scotland experience challenges due to their lack of literacy skills.<1 in 8 (12% / 216,000 people) adults in Wales lack basic literacy skills.https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/who would think that the welsh would be the most literate amongst us?
>>2690708>experience challengesYou can get by in Wales with a few phrases:
"well howbeya boi?"
"Ahh tidy, tidy"
>>2690704>your biological cells are constantly dying and being replaced - so why arent you always becoming new?Why do you assume the very concept of personhood is a factor of biologically is well. Obviously our external and self-image are socially mediated and personality changes the same way our perception of others does. Hell it can even be roughly approximated by training an LLM on a sufficiently long chat log. There is no deeper biological truth to this, than the fact our thought patterns are mutable and we identify by differentiation.
>you clearly see them as pitiful fools.Everyone is and some of them a lot less so than cissoids. It is imperative to recognize the artificiality of these relations, even if we have yet to disrupt them.
>again, i am being ontological, not ethical.Your attitude towards nature reeks of moralism. I can concede as much as there being tendencies in newborns, yet there is nothing to say these tendencies ought not to be eliminated in service of something else. They have been for millenia and the way they have wasn't any worse for "going against nature", but for the internal contradictions they inevitably gave rise to.
>>2690723>Why do you assume the very concept of personhood is a factor of biologically is well.you invoked quality and quantity, which is a notion that things change with processes. i presume you to be a materialist (thus speaking in the heraclitean fashion about flux) so i invoke the fundamental processes of change which occur in the body to show you that personhood is permanent, not temporary, to experience.
>Obviously our external and self-image are socially mediatedso society is the medium, but what is it transmitting?
>Your attitude towards nature reeks of moralismit is good to be good. guilty as charged.
>going against natureyou cannot "go against" nature, you can only resist the inevitable. in libidinal terms, this is called "repression" which nonetheless remains subliminal.
>>2690745>i invoke the fundamental processes of change which occur in the body to show you that personhood is permanent, not temporary, to experience.So you claim personhood is altogether divorced from these processes, because otherwise it would be "too volatile" or is this some vulgar materialist deduction i don't get. What a load of crap!
>so society is the medium, but what is it transmitting?There is no Internet without an internet. The individual is interpellated by society and only then can personhood be constituted in relation. Naturally, a change in material relation engenders a change in consciousness.
>you cannot "go against" natureMan has done nothing but resist and subordinate the natural ghetto their species emerged in. You are no less delusional than the conservatoids you decry, yet curiously you project your "natural" society into the future.
>>2690779Name something that *hasn't* had a dick put in it. The only thing i can think of is the elephants foot in chernobyl, but thats probably how that first guy who found it died.
>>2690786>>So you claim personhood is altogether divorced from these processesin some sense, it must be. either we remain ourselves or we are constantly changing.
>The individual is interpellated by society and only then can personhood be constituted in relationif hypothetically, everyone in the world vanished, would you cease being a person?
>Man has done nothing but resist and subordinate the natural ghetto their species emerged indoes man not also possess a nature? you are supposing an inherent distinction which i see no need for.
>you project your "natural" society into the futurethink of it categorically. if i am not natural, then i am unnatural, but what does it mean to be unnatural?
>>2690650£122bn a year well spent :)
>>2690795>if hypothetically, everyone in the world vanished, would you cease being a person?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/feral_child?useskin=vector>muh human nature>what does it mean to be unnatural?Nature as a category is determined by the human point of view. It is constituted by those processes resisting human comprehension and utility. This is the dialectic Engels describes in his example for the thing-in-itself turning into a thing-for-us, that of Alizarin and other synthetic dyes, that man has wrested from the previous, more natural processes of extracting dyes from plants and animals.
>>2690809so man inherently occupies the place of the unnatural, and it is this subjectivity which determines nature? forgive me for my ignorance, but nature existed before man and will exist after him, and still, man has an inner nature himself, which is only part of a greater whole.
>>2690819i dont care about marxism, i care about the truth.
sorry you cant think for yourself.
>>2690821>In addition, there is yet a set of different philosophers — those who question the possibility of any cognition, or at least of an exhaustive cognition, of the world. To them, among the more modern ones, belong Hume and Kant, and they played a very important role in philosophical development. What is decisive in the refutation of this view has already been said by Hegel, in so far as this was possible from an idealist standpoint. The materialistic additions made by Feuerbach are more ingenious than profound. The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice — namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable “thing-in-itself”. The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained just such “things-in-themselves” until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the “thing-in-itself” became a thing for us — as, for instance, alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow in the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch02.htm >>2690831remember when people thought 100 men couldnt beat up this thing? 😂
>>2690876>i want to kill people because they disagree with my religionhow "materialist" of you… 😬
funny though - you literally cant think for yourself and only refer to your holy books for guidance. ever think that youre in a cult?
>>2690884No. The fact you are an idealist means we have nothing further to discuss. If you're denying material reality, i have no means to convince you of anything of substance, for the simple fact you positively cannot be reasoned with.
>>2690894>denying material realitywhat am i denying of reality? i am adding to it.
you are the one full of contradictions, claiming to be a person, yet to be a person constantly in flux. you claim that man is an unnatural being despite being born from nature. you make no sense, not even to yourself.
>>2690901This is the beauty of it. The natural world is reflected in our minds and it saddens me to see you grapple with it like a child flummoxed by Xenos paradox. You ridicule this definition of nature, yet contradiction comes with the territory of human thought and historically contingent verbal categories foremost. You must be blind to look at a flower blossoming and not see a part of the world destroyed and reborn.
>>2690921you deny the existence of the flower, and claim that there are only changing shapes of indiscernable entities. you lack the proper abstraction to locate the permanence of objects in the world. its in this way that materialists deny reality, because they deny the possibility of knowledge. you have no grounds for contention because you claim no belief in anything.
>>2690921Hate to be that guy, but you've become the one thing you stormed into this thread looking to deplore
>>2690927If i can make the flower bloom and wither, that is proof enough. Knowledge is undoubtedly the reflection of the natural world within our minds, which is the very thing you justify your solipsism with. Not only are your views infected with terminal idealism, they're also undialectical mechanism by such a degree, reading the preface to the Phenomenology alone would instantly sweep them aside. That is all.
Unique IPs: 11