Deep thoughts thread

>Reproductive parts and chromosomes define the biology of your gender, not your gender
>Regardless [of] the biological makeup of the trans woman- she remains a woman with her biology, therefore defining her as a biological woman
>Don’t use science to justify your bigotry
>The world is way too weird for that shit
>The definition of biological literally has nothing to do with gender
>It just defines who we’re related to
I like the one where it says genitals and chromosomes define the biology of your gender, not your gender. Flawless thinking.

Fucking idiot.

Pic related is framed poorly and not actually accurate.

>a sane person will accept evidence even if it contradicts their world view

Sane? Not necessarily. An insane person is capable of this too. More like an -open- person. Most people who are sane operate with a significant amount of Confirmation Bias, which is defined by:

>will discard evidence especially if it contradicts their worldview

this is a sane, normal, "healthy" behavior for human beings, and is part of our evolutionary wiring. Is it rational? No. Is it fair? No. Is it scientific? No. But it *is* sane in the sense that most normal, healthy, functioning human beings operate this way. (please lets not get into a semantics debate about what "sane" is)

So sanity is the wrong metric here. But let's revise the idea because it *is* a good one.

Intelligent, optimally functioning people will accept evidence even if it contradicts their world view.

But rant aside, I agree with your point. SJW's have gone confirmation bias crazy and do not think critically. They are rigid, dogmatic, and very closed-- while pretending to be radically open.

Attached: 1542278857977.jpg (500x497, 56K)

Cat is dog

>An insane person is capable of this too
>Most people who are sane operate with a significant amount of Confirmation Bias
>it *is* sane in the sense that most normal, healthy, functioning human beings operate this way
>lets not get into a semantics debate about what "sane" is
>But let's revise the idea because it *is* a good one
>Intelligent, optimally functioning people will accept evidence even if it contradicts their world view
Firstly, you've said that an insane person is capable of doing what a sane person can do. This doesn't make any sense, because there are 2 labels that imply the direct opposite of one another, even in a general sense. Secondly, we'd have to get into the semantics, because of the above, and because you simultaneously decided that we shouldn't get into the semantics while stating that sanity is the wrong metric. You said that the bias was sane in a particular sense. How would we know if it were the wrong metric, how would we know the particular sense, if you used it to define what behavior is acceptable or "sane", while also failing to further allow explanation that could clarify what is exactly meant by "sane"?

Thirdly, an optimally functioning person sounds a lot like a normal, healthy, functioning human being. Confirmation bias is a "healthy" behavior, a functional one not lost in pretty much any human being, per your testimony. So, surely, an intelligent, optimally functioning person is more than likely also rife with that behavior, otherwise, they can't be "healthy".

I could not, however, consider an intelligent, optimally functioning person, generally insane. Insanity and optimal function don't sound like they mix.

Wot

The left has really gone south

This is some deep Freudian shit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy#Freud's_theory

The only thing deep I'm thinking about is how far a dagger can go into that mentally ill faggots chest.

Dimensional shift.

Let people live life how they want.
You fucking Arabic faggots are truly retarded. Fuck off

why do you post weak bait trash like this? who gives a shit what some random retard believes? why do you read this trash? Are you retarded?

why do you post weak bait trash like this? who gives a shit what some random retard believes? why do you read this trash? Are you retarded?

>An insane person is capable of this too
Correct. Obviously there is some overlap in functionality between sane and insane people. To be accurate, this boils down to the behavior, and the specific people in question.

>Firstly, you've said that an insane person is capable of doing what a sane person can do
Yes. If you've ever met someone with mental illness, you'll know that it's not a black and white dichotomy. Insanity comes in shades of dysfunction. Someone with a moderate phobia is not necessarily as dysfunctional as an extreme case of Schizophrenia, for example. In many cases, "insane" people function just as normal people in some parts of their lives, and then have other parts of their lives where they are not as functional.

>This doesn't make any sense, because there are 2 labels that imply the direct opposite of one another
See above. Sanity & Insanity are truly a spectrum (not at all in the SJW sense of the term) and not necessarily black and white. Another example are Autistic Savants who are extremely high functioning at one thing, while otherwise being completely dysfucntional. They are both at the same time hyper-functional and hyper-dysfunctional. It's rare that a person is wholly ALL sane or ALL insane. Hence, most normal people have "issues", and most mental health patients are functional enough to be not be locked up.

All that being said, many of the thinking patterns that people use are universal, and will be used by both sane and insane people. Confirmation Bias, along with most cognitive biases, falls into this category. Your use of the term "sane" in the meme is inaccurate because:

1- sane people are capable of rigid, dogmatic, confirmation bias laden thought
2- insane people are also capable of rigid, dogmatic, confirmation bias laden thought

aka: Confirmation Bias is universal.

Therefore, the use of confirmation bias as a means of defining "insane" is not an accurate metric.

(1/2)

(2/2)

>So, surely, an intelligent, optimally functioning person is more than likely also rife with that behavior, otherwise, they can't be "healthy".

No, I'm not saying that a person without Confirmation Bias is not healthy. That's your own twisting of my point. I'm saying that confirmation bias is a universal pattern of thinking among both the sane and the insane. It's "healthy" in the sense that it's part of how human beings evolved to operate, and is a somewhat natural, normal behavior for a human being. Look up the brain science of decision making. Human beings are not rational decision makers.

Is wide scale application of confirmation bias "healthy" for society? I don't think so, and I think that's closer to the point you were making. But it doesn't necessarily indicate an insane individual.

>I could not, however, consider an intelligent, optimally functioning person, generally insane
again, this is your own twisting of my point to suit your own logic (confirmation bias???). I'm not saying that optimally functioning people are generally insane. Clearly there's a significant difference most of the time between the two. I'm saying that any pattern of thought that is shared between both categories (sane and insane) *cannot* be a marker of just one category.

>Insanity and optimal function don't sound like they mix.
please stop with the autistic twisting of what I'm saying. It just makes you look bad

Thank you for making sense and for being patient enough to write all that down. Especially taking this place's attention span into account.

No problem, user. Have a nice day

>To be accurate, this boils down to the behavior, and the specific people in question
So we can't deem sanity or insanity the improper metric due to specific behaviors that drive specific people.

>If you've ever met someone with mental illness, you'll know that it's not a black and white dichotomy
>Sanity & Insanity are truly a spectrum
So... you would know that mental illness varies, if you are saying that insanity comes in shades of dysfunction. That alone invalidates the idea that you'd be able to declare what is sane or normal, if there's a gradient of... what? What kinds of sane or insane are there? Do you see the issue? Do you want 1/6ths insane, or 3/4ths sane? 2/16ths sane?

Yet somehow we're able to point to a person who is, without air quotes, sane. And you are somehow able to point to a person who is, normal. That means something. "Insanity", as you've just described it, is when a person has parts of their lives where they are not as functional in comparison to another person considered to be the average individual. There is no ambiguity there.

>most mental health patients are functional enough to be not be locked up
So are they not of some kind of mental health? What do we call that? What could we call that?
>insane people are also
What have you called that?

>It's rare that a person is wholly ALL sane or ALL insane
I don't know what sane or insane is. It's not some black and white dichotomy.

>most normal people have "issues"
If you put it in air quotes, I don't think I know what you mean by that word. Or even mean that word. So, I don't think most normal people have issues, unambiguously, if it's "issues". You'd said earlier that normal people are "healthy" and functional, so... what "issues" are there?

>Your use of the term "sane" in the meme is inaccurate because
I am not that poster. And seriously, there are too many air quotes. I don't know what you're actually referring to anymore.

>1- sane people are capable of rigid, dogmatic, confirmation bias laden thought
>2- insane people are also capable of rigid, dogmatic, confirmation bias laden thought
Which one is more predisposed to commit such behavior? I don't think the answer is 2. Hence you calling them insane, unambiguously.

>I'm not saying that a person without Confirmation Bias is not healthy
>That's your own twisting of my point
It's what logically followed the following:
>But it *is* sane in the sense that most normal, healthy, functioning human beings operate this way
>Intelligent, optimally functioning people will
Intelligent, optimally functioning people are... functioning human beings, correct? Optimal function is not something I imagine to contrast the quality of being healthy or functioning. Functioning tends to be functioning. Unless, I'm wrong, and functioning actually means something else entirely, but functioning actually means functioning. But not that functioning? Functioning?

>I'm saying that confirmation bias is a universal pattern of thinking among both the sane and the insane
But you're missing what else you're saying, inadvertently at best. A lot. It's "healthy", you said. So when is it ever not something that also exists in an optimally functioning person? Those are words that mean things. Do you contrast function with health? Define health if you do, you might find that you have to use the word function in some capacity to explain just what health is for a human being. And for crying out loud, you just stated that the bias is healthy because it's a part of how human beings evolved to operate. Evolved to operate? That's exactly what you just said, and I'm not at all twisting it. A somewhat natural, normal behavior for a human being. No "normal". Just normal. So what is normal?

>Look up the brain science
I can assure you that everything you're going to ask me to look up, I have years ago. I'm not kidding you. I could've given you 6 whole paragraphs of how illogical the human brain can be, complete with the idea that we were built to fall fast, not play chess.

>Is wide scale application of confirmation bias "healthy" for society
"Healthy"? I don't know. But since the behavior is fallacious, I'd think not. However, since you've beat me over the head with the point of it being natural, borne from evolution, and sane, it must be that the widespread application of confirmation bias, over human society, is the next step forwards. Why? Well, it never got phased out during our evolution, and therefore must be advantageous somehow... right? Or is that not it?

Probably not why. And I would imagine one would call that insane, necessarily. It's implied, because it's an absurd and otherwise fallacious leap of several things, logic included.

>this is your own twisting of my point to suit your own logic
Dear God, no. I genuinely cannot reconcile the idea, the exact idea, of an intelligent, optimally functional human being with a generally, unambiguously insane person. Function and dysfunction do not mix. Seriously. Apple and banana. I don't understand how that is me twisting something.

>I'm not saying that optimally functioning people are generally insane
Not explicitly. I explained why it'd be implicated in what you did say, however.

>Clearly there's a significant difference most of the time between the two
So there is a general difference, generally, generally speaking. When you don't get incredibly specious or secular with semantics. This is different than saying that any pattern of thought that is shared between two...

However, if any pattern of thought is shared between both categories (sane and insane), it can't be used to simultaneously separate things that are labelled in such a way that they must become the opposites of one another. You can't have "insane behavior" be analogous to "sane behavior". You shouldn't be able to make sanity and insanity redundant labels, where you could interchange them and have the meaning stay identical. A sane person is not an insane person, and vice versa. Behavior shared between them then cannot be strictly sane or insane behavior- meaning that one of these things can't embody something such as health. If it does, then the other cannot share that behavior while retaining a distinct sense of itself, say, a healthy insane person. That's hard to reconcile unless you mean that they are physically healthy, but mentally deranged.

>please stop with the autistic twisting of what I'm saying
Well, now you're calling me autistic.

"Normal" is a quantifier. It's that simple.

Of?

Not of anything - the word "normal" is a quantifier.
Originally it wouldn't have any qualitative connotations. Everything that occurs often enough is normal. If any large quantity of people do the same thing, it's also normal.

we live in a society!!!!!!!

So what is that something that occurs often enough? That's the
>of
I'm asking for. I don't hock out normal when I want to count something, I say normal when I want to signify that something that, like you'd just explained, occurs often enough. Enough that you wouldn't expect otherwise on average.

So, what is it that occurs often enough that I wouldn't expect otherwise on average?

So If I take a biopsy its gonna come back XX? dont fucking think so, who the fuck is rewriting biology?

I have the same number of neck vertabrae as a Girafe, so biologically I must be a girafe

If something happens often enough, it's normal - but not necessarily healthy, or sane.

You're not telling me what's normal. You're telling me things can be normal.

Is rain normal for coastal climates near or on the equator of the Earth? Yes or no question.

I feel I need to make something clear, because it seems you assume I'm someone I'm not.
I just said "Normal" is a quantifyer. It's that simple"
I'm not the user you discussed with earlier.

Also, climate, don't know mate, I need to read up on geography and weather patterns.
Is it?

Normal is the majority anything that deviates from the norm is deviant, left handed people are natural but also a deviation from the norm, so being a deviant isnt always bad but just try telling people their sexual preferences are deviant and see what happens

Yep, I agree.

people who ignore basic science are retarded

kill them all

fucking faggots they are all sick

Attached: 14b45a8e-1433-4d4d-8e0e-e458ddca6fb2.jpg (900x1600, 121K)

>it seems you assume
No need. I posit what I do, because it applies to anyone who takes up the charge of replying as they have. You can still answer that question, it's not exclusive to anyone else. Especially not if we're having that exchange in the midst of the above.

Context, correct? We're talking about normalcy. I'm seeking an answer that isn't a deflection. I want an unambiguous answer. I have been told, in response to seeking an answer to
>what is normal
with respect to the discussion above
>context
that normal is a quantifier. When I asked
>a quantifier of what
because the immediate reply is an immediate reply to
>context
I received a reply that explained that the word is a quantifier. So, I asked again
>what is normal
and received another explanation of the word, and not something that possesses the quality of being normal. Which would be
>everything that occurs often enough
and I'm still getting
>"Normal" is a quantifyer

Tell me. Don't describe normalcy. Give me a specific example of something that occurs often enough. I've given you no trick questions. What is normal? Desperately seeking a straightforwards answer here.
>I need to read up on geography and weather patterns
>Is it
Do you know why it rains? Let's start there. Actually, let's not start there at all. Here's a better question.

Do you breathe?

only an a delusional idiot would not understand what "normal" means

please kill yourself, seriously, right now

take the razor blade, run it along your wrist lengthwise, and let all your blood spill on the floor

you are a worthless, pathetic excuse for a human being

die now

no wait don't do that its wrong

your beautiful and wonderful and the most specialist person in the universe

As a cis people i am indeed threatened, by the stupidity they constantly spout.

>god I hate women

Thats not a woman fag that's a dude.

they really should kill themself, fuck you nigger

>only an a delusional idiot would not understand what "normal" means
>Give me a specific example of something that occurs often enough

Attached: 1548006500664.png (527x409, 27K)

Yep.only real men are now in mother Russia

nice self bump you communist typical italian stereotype

adjective: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected

noun: the usual, average, or typical state or condition

trannies are NOT NORMAL

kill them all

The bait is the only thing giving an unambiguous answer as to what is
>not
normal, after 1 reply.

It takes that long, and that many words, to answer the question.

This is now a womynz dating/hate deep thought thread

Attached: 10985049_10203325994269324_8817730014759567552_n.jpg (719x710, 44K)

>Do you breathe?
Yes.
I'm partial to oxygen, in fact I'm sure I'd die without it. I will wager that breathing is normal amongst us homo sapiens.

I don't really care about the discussion previous to my own arrival - I just pointed at the word "normal" - but you went all rhetoric-overdrive and ladden with academical bluff.

All Trannies are Mentally ill.

Good look finding a biologist who agrees, unlike "experts" in the fields of Gender studies, prenology, astrology and astral projection, biologist are actual scientists

Attached: 12063703_1020828657975529_455334305017652495_n.jpg (599x601, 36K)

More women for the rest of us then! Cheers man.

Attached: 12032277_1031171853607876_7053192328041116682_n.jpg (720x792, 29K)

>Yes
That's all I needed to know-
>I will wager that breathing is normal amongst us homo sapiens
Why?

>I don't really care about the discussion previous to my own arrival
That's okay... I was looking for an example of something that is normal. Without air quotes. And I was using the previous conversation as a foundation for establishing what I was and wasn't looking for. Which, unironically, is an example of something
>that humans do
but really only needed to be an example of something that is, per definition, exactly, normal. Rain is normal. Rain isn't at all related to the previous conversation except for it's actual regularity, but since you chose to dance around the straightforwards, simple answer of whether water falls from the sky near a body of water like the ocean, I elected to ask you a question you'd obviously be able to answer- whether you breathe or not.

And you went ahead and did more than that, so instead of just asking another, simpler, unambiguous question, I have to ask you why breathing is normal amongst us human beings.

>but you went all rhetoric-overdrive and ladden with academical bluff
Not quite. You're free to show me where the rhetoric was, though. Not sure why we want to debase
>academical bluff
or whatever that means, if we're going to repeat the definition of normal and restate it's status as a quantifier several times over in response to a very simple question that could be answered by bait.

Attached: 560187_370302746361460_874669699_n.jpg (500x375, 41K)

Attached: 17458192_10154864659690266_3499005593028313904_n.jpg (540x689, 60K)

>>I will wager that breathing is normal amongst us homo sapiens
>Why?
Because our lives depend on it. Try not breathing, just for... say, ten minutes.
If you don't value life, well... no breathing necessary.
You're being a bit dumb right now.

Someone's very insecure.

Attached: 2018-11-23_07-34-00.jpg (1078x1081, 247K)

>Because our lives depend on it
Why? Remember that this is all because I asked for an example of something that is normal, let that guide your answer seeking process.

Eating is normal.
Breathing is normal.
Sleeping is normal.
Fucking is normal.
Being able to see is normal.
Being able to walk is normal.
You know what normal is. It's a quantifier.
I don't know why you're being this dense.

>You know what normal is
Yes, but if I'm the one who starts declaring what is normal, the excuse will be that I am cherry-picking, or being biased, or deliberately tailoring my responses to suit my argument, or...

Since I don't think someone like you would do any of that, I'm asking you. You provide the answers for me. And then I establish my argument with your words... so if you find something wrong with it, the only fault that could be attributed to me stems from how I would've constructed said argument with said words. Since I'm not in that business...

I'm asking you very simple questions to prove a very simple point. I asked you why we breathe. You're only now giving me examples of what is normal for human beings to do... but not answering why we breathe.

Do you see why I'm saying some of the things I'm saying? I'm not dense... I'm wondering why you chose now to give all those examples. And not answering the previous question posed earlier to you. And, now, wondering why all those examples are human-focused when it was said earlier that you didn't care about the previous conversation, and would be happy to have a discussion about normalcy without routing back to whatever was being talked about earlier- and then elected to confound that by not choosing to answer a question about rain on Earth, forcing a question that deals with the personal experience of being alive, something impeccably intrinsic and subjectively unmistakable- only then to seem confident about actions performed by living things, humans included by nature of them being living, mobile bipeds who have been proven to normally breathe.

>You know what
I do, yes. I said as much earlier too. Even after you chose to define normal right after I'd clarified that I understood and was asking something else. You're doing it again, too.

Normal is a quantifier. It quantifies things. Things get quantified. Things can be normal.
>Breathing is normal
Why do our lives depend on breathing?

Now you're being an idiot.
Enjoy the rest of the thread.

wonderopolis.org/wonder/why-do-we-need-to-breathe

I guess we will never know why human lives depend on breathing. What we do know, is that normal is a quantifier. Normal is a quantifier, and the word normal is a quantifier. So, normal is a quantifier, and it's true that normal is a quantifier. Things can be quantified. Normal things happen often enough. Normal is a quantifier.

Normal is a quantifier-

>lungs
>keep your body's cells supplied with necessary oxygen
>Your cells need oxygen to convert the nutrients you eat into energy for your body
>In the process of making that energy, some waste products are produced
>One of the main waste products is a gas called carbon dioxide
>Your body needs to get rid of carbon dioxide, so what does it do
>It breathes it out!
Whoa! So some user gave us something that explains why we breathe. And breathing is normal, for user at least, if not all living things like user said.

So our lives depend on breathing because our cells need oxygen to live. If I didn't know any better, that sounds like it's integral to being alive. Something something, health and the normalcy of breathing.