Trivia I identified as what?

[plhbg1]

The point is on the picture itself.

ahaha as usual mga requirements na naman binibigay instead of ibigay yung point mismo haha "nasa google yung sagot" "nasa bible yung sagot" just search just study conduct your own research haha ala pa ring kupas talaga ang mga linyang ito

 

[GildartsTale]

ahaha as usual mga requirements na naman binibigay instead of ibigay yung point mismo haha "nasa google yung sagot" "nasa bible yung sagot" just search just study conduct your own research haha ala pa ring kupas talaga ang mga linyang ito

I already give someone a simple explaination. Basa2 kasi pag may time.

Wag nmn tayo mag tangá-tangáhan kung ano ang tunay na iniimply nito. At oo misrepresentation yan dahil you are looking at the extremes. Diba misrepresentation din para sayo kung ikukumpol ko ang relihiyon mo sa mga tulad ng Heavens gate cult?

How about we cut the BS and go straight kung ano ang intensyong sabihin ng meme na ito? Is it overreaching kung dalhin natin ang usapan sa kung ano conclusion na tinutumbok nito?

Hahahahah.. What do you expect, extremist naman talaga yung mga pa woke ngayon.

It's overreaching because you've taken a complicated approach when it is so simple.

Sus napaka simple ginagawang kumplikado ng mga pa woke dami nyo arte

True

 

[plhbg1]

I already give someone a simple explaination. Basa2 kasi pag may time.

ay sorry boss di ko nabasa

The meme is so simple, basically, you just cannot decide whether one day you will identify yourself as this and that, and expect people to believe your delusions.

how on earth the picture shows someone not able to identify himself when in fact the fox was able to provide identity for himself (which is chicken)?

 

[GildartsTale]

ay sorry boss di ko nabasa

how on earth the picture shows someone not able to identify himself when in fact the fox was able to provide identity for himself (which is chicken)?

Basta, yun na yun. Hirap e tagalog yung sentence na binagay ko na english.

 

[plhbg1]

Basta, yun na yun. Hirap e tagalog yung sentence na binagay ko na english.

ahaha how on earth the fox cannot decide about his own identity when in fact he is very clear on identifying himself, so fail haha

 

[GildartsTale]

ahaha how on earth the fox cannot decide about his own identity when in fact he is very clear on identifying himself, so fail haha

Di mo rin na gets eh. di naman yung point ng comment ko.

 

[renz_uchiha]

identify as chicken fox

 

[plhbg1]

Di mo rin na gets eh. di naman yung point ng comment ko.

so what exactly is the point? bakit ba lagi kang hasitant mag present ng point mo directly? bakit palagi na lang "di yan yung point" "di mo gets" "na-explain ko na" "andun ang sagot" ang mga replies mo?

 

[jayendecastro]

You're overreaching.

The meme is so simple, basically, you just cannot decide whether one day you will identify yourself as this and that, and expect people to believe your delusions.

That's not even a gross misrepresentation, kasi meron sa mga woke idiologue identify themselves as a wolf, dog, etc..

Ahhh.. so basically about identity… i agree with u somewhat, but “to identify” into something else eh prerogative nung person doing so. Identifying though, does not make them the very thing they are identifying as, so yeah i agree sa part na expecting people to believe or participate sa ganong delusions.

Today I feel like advocaring for the other side.

If you observe sa picture, the fox is claiming to be something of a different species, and with the very obvious predatory intention. Kaya mukha itong compelling argument to the issue it is referring to..

Pero it is a gross misrepresentation. Kasi if we want to be more accurately depicting it, dapat rooster ang nasa character nung fox.
Now kung rooster yan, this will mostly, if not totally diminish illusion of being a witty comic.

Ngayon, what makes it interesting is why do we have a different feeling if the story was about a rooster and hens in the coop, than a guy and girls in a "safe space"?

Yes, biology says there is a different between a rooster and a hen, but does the science say a rooster having to be kept separately from hens?

Lumampas na sguro kay TS ung ibang iniimply ng meme nea… kaya sabi ko lets wait kung ano sBihin nea.. sabi nman nea ata its just about one’s identity.

Un nga lang.. loaded kasi ung meme for interpretations kung ano ang nature ng isang fox at intent nya for choosing his identity, as another specie or even as another gender.

Sus napaka simple ginagawang kumplikado ng mga pa woke dami nyo arte

Simple intindi kung simple lang magisip.

 

[dummy01]

A fox in chicken's clothing. A reality where men (all people in general) have predatory tendencies. We may draw lines between our human and animal nature, but there are certain situations that those intersect to one another. What's more interesting is our unique ability as a species to go beyond what other species cannot. This is not a surprise anymore to an ãdül† grounded in reality.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

A reality where men (all people in general) have predatory tendencies.

Natural nga ba.. or rather biological, ang tendency ng male human maging predatory?
Hindi ba ang predatory tendency na ito ay kasing artificial lang din ng social construct ng gender roles and relations na binuo ng tao?
Maybe I am wrong, pero mukhang mas sexually violent ang mga lalaki sa mga society kung saan mas "set in stone" ang traditions sa gender roles.. I mean sa mga mas conservative na society.

Kung may correlation ang conservatism sa tendency to SA, why are we still acting as if more conservatism will solve it?

 

[dummy01]

Natural nga ba.. or rather biological, ang tendency ng male human maging predatory?
Hindi ba ang predatory tendency na ito ay kasing artificial lang din ng social construct ng gender roles and relations na binuo ng tao?
Maybe I am wrong, pero mukhang mas sexually violent ang mga lalaki sa mga society kung saan mas "set in stone" ang traditions sa gender roles.. I mean sa mga mas conservative na society.

Kung may correlation ang conservatism sa tendency to SA, why are we still acting as if more conservatism will solve it?

Oh yes, our predatory tendencies are natural as a species. Our predatory nature is embedded in our DNA itself. This is supposed to be irrefutable since it is backed by Science and our primitive history. What I think is socially manufactured though is our universal concensus to deny our natural instinct to pleasure. It somehow defies our evolutionary success as a species that stand on the top of the food chain.

I recognized sexual predatory in many conservative communities. The embarrasing part is that even religious communites, which are known to value moral good the most, are not immune to this at all. I have no data to defend conservatism nor prove that that's not the case. I just do not want to view it one-sidedly because liberal societies have issues too. For instance, if we look at societies that enable sexual activities, we would get issues on women who feel being used/rape after the activity which raise a question on the validity of consent. Then, we would get ridiculous suggestions like make a contract in case of any legal issues when asking for consent before performing the act which is against the norm of romance. When things get out of hand, we get MeToo movement which creates friction on the relationship between men and women. There is a strong case to reject conservatism to be enforced in any free society, but we should not ignore the attack on the important traditional values coming from other side who want to get the upperhand in order to enforce their own ideology. The conservatives may point out that too open to everything is bad and leads to undesired outcome and the liberals may point out that too much rigidity on rules are suffocating and harsh.

 

[N E G A N]

Wala ako problema sa mga ganyan sana di lang forceful yung pag accept sa kanila, if you think you're a woman okay, karapatan mo yan pero pag sinabi mong dapat tingin mo sakin babae instead of a man, jan talaga may dipagkakaintindahang magaganap haha.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Oh yes, our predatory tendencies are natural as a species. Our predatory nature is embedded in our DNA itself. This is supposed to be irrefutable since it is backed by Science and our primitive history. What I think is socially manufactured though is our universal concensus to deny our natural instinct to pleasure. It somehow defies our evolutionary success as a species that stand on the top of the food chain.

I recognized sexual predatory in many conservative communities. The embarrasing part is that even religious communites, which are known to value moral good the most, are not immune to this at all. I have no data to defend conservatism nor prove that that's not the case. I just do not want to view it one-sidedly because liberal societies have issues too. For instance, if we look at societies that enable sexual activities, we would get issues on women who feel being used/rape after the activity which raise a question on the validity of consent. Then, we would get ridiculous suggestions like make a contract in case of any legal issues when asking for consent before performing the act which is against the norm of romance. When things get out of hand, we get MeToo movement which creates friction on the relationship between men and women. There is a strong case to reject conservatism to be enforced in any free society, but we should not ignore the attack on the important traditional values coming from other side who want to get the upperhand in order to enforce their own ideology. The conservatives may point out that too open to everything is bad and leads to undesired outcome and the liberals may point out that too much rigidity on rules are suffocating and harsh.

Linawin ko lng ha.. yung predation na pinaguusapan natin ay Sexual Violence.

Wala ako nakitang material na nagcoconfirm nung sinabi mong nasa DNA ito, or backed ito ng science. First thing I found actually says the opposite.

 

[dummy01]

Linawin ko lng ha.. yung predation na pinaguusapan natin ay Sexual Violence.

Wala ako nakitang material na nagcoconfirm nung sinabi mong nasa DNA ito, or backed ito ng science. First thing I found actually says the opposite.
View attachment 2723760

Oh, I see why you failed to see my point. You are looking it in a purely sociological perspective. Of course, environment is a factor for men's aggressiveness to s3x that could result to violence. If one day we decided to tear down the social contract that restricts our sexual proclivity, males' predatory instincts could instantly turned on and almost certain that the targets are women. Primitive people made tribes in order to guard their females for their future generation against sexually aggressive males. The biological explanation for sexual predatory is that males have evolutionary motivation to pass their genes to future generation which is distinct to other species. This also explains why men are more sexually active than women. Whether it is done with or without violence is trivial to nature as long as its reproductive goal is achieved.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Oh, I see why you failed to see my point. You are looking it in a purely sociological perspective. Of course, environment is a factor for men's aggressiveness to s3x that could result to violence. If one day we decided to tear down the social contract that restricts our sexual proclivity, males' predatory instincts could instantly turned on and almost certain that the targets are women. Primitive people made tribes in order to guard their females for their future generation against sexually aggressive males. The biological explanation for sexual predatory is that males have evolutionary motivation to pass their genes to future generation which is distinct to other species. This also explains why men are more sexually active than women. Whether it is done with or without violence is trivial to nature as long as its reproductive goal is achieved.

Actually I totally see your point. And by default, i would have the same arguments.

The thing is, I am trying to question what part of our pre-existing assumption are really by nature, and what part of it is a result of the social constructs.

Yes I agree sa example mo na pag nawala lahat ng existing social contracts in a snap, we will certainly see men being predators to women. But this is because this hypothetical men are a product of these social constructs that,(for a lack of a better term in my frame of mind,) corrupted them. Even the assumptions that you said is "scientific" might be a byproduct of beliefs in these social contructs. Especially the interpretation that sëx is more a function of procreation.. but in reality it is more about social acceptance. (Almost none of the people I know, including myself, performs these with procreation as motivation.)

Imagine If we were to start with a culturally blank slate humans And plop them down to an environment, would men be more likely or less likely to be sexually abusive? Because if the answer is less likely which I think it is, or at the least, we are not sure, deconstructing this existing cultures that we have which produces "corruption" is the more logical path.

 

[dummy01]

Actually I totally see your point. And by default, i would have the same arguments.

The thing is, I am trying to question what part of our pre-existing assumption are really by nature, and what part of it is a result of the social constructs.

Yes I agree sa example mo na pag nawala lahat ng existing social contracts in a snap, we will certainly see men being predators to women. But this is because this hypothetical men are a product of these social constructs that,(for a lack of a better term in my frame of mind,) corrupted them. Even the assumptions that you said is "scientific" might be a byproduct of beliefs in these social contructs. Especially the interpretation that sëx is more a function of procreation.. but in reality it is more about social acceptance. (Almost none of the people I know, including myself, performs these with procreation as motivation.)

Imagine If we were to start with a culturally blank slate humans And plop them down to an environment, would men be more likely or less likely to be sexually abusive? Because if the answer is less likely which I think it is, or at the least, we are not sure, deconstructing this existing cultures that we have which produces "corruption" is the more logical path.

If you are talking about moral implication of sexual violence to female as socially constructed then yes, I agree. It is why I said before we are all bounded by contracts not to exercise our proclivity to be aggressive. However, the biological nature of male to mate with female, whether it would result to violence or against her will, is not socially constructed because nature is dettached to any human concept of violence or corruption of a species. It does not exist. To put it in simple words, we may be able to train a lion to treat us well, but as soon as it gets hungry, you better stay away or you will end up its meal.

I like the idea of a hypothetical world where humanity will restart in a blank slate. Though, I am skeptical that it would result to the ideal outcome you thought because that is not how we are design in a darwinian sense (survive and reproduce). Humanity has invented religion with its moral authority as the judge for the purpose of controlling our beastly desires. You can make up a case that we as a species are the exception because of our ability to make rational thoughts, but when push comes to shove, some would still prefer the path of irrationality. We have no shortages in history where human nature manifested its own madness, yet it is hard to ignore that some had transcended it in manner that it defies logic and rationality. Our attachment to nature with a mechanism to evolve as a species is quite difficult to resist.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

To put it in simple words, we may be able to train a lion to treat us well, but as soon as it gets hungry, you better stay away or you will end up its meal.

Although this sounds compelling at first glance, mating is not the same as a lions beastly instinct to kill. But i will accept that for the sake of argument. Mating does not have the same life-threatening result as food have when lacking.

What drives both animals and human towards violence is really the scarcity, not the stimuli. A lions agression towards it's own species out of hunger is due to the scarcity of the food and not the desire for food.

Isn't it plausible that sexual violence is a result of the artificial scarcity we make out of it which results in violence? And if that is the case, does it not make sense if undo this cultures that produces artificial scarcity, then this violent behavior might be drastically reduced? Probably not totally eliminated, but you get the jist.

Darwinian evolution is very easy to interpret to justify violence, but we can assume that this simplistic interpretations could be wrong. The Nazi even used it to justify racism. But Darwins' theory only describes what "is", and people tend to interpret what "should" out of it.

 

[kEWPIE]

Bakit kailangan i complicate pa ng iba?

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Bakit kailangan i complicate pa ng iba?

Oo nga e.. mas madali tlga sana tanggalan nlng natin ng karapatan mangatwiran ang salungat satin diba?