Reproductive organs exist and separate the behaviors and life cycles of the members of a species... whether or not human culture exists to assign them significance.

So if the argument is that sex characteristics, of which reproductive organs most certainly are one, have no meaning or power outside of that which society places on them, then it's obviously false. Because we see throughout the animal world that sexual characteristics drive and define behavior even in species with nothing we would recognize as a society.

There is significance to sex and sex organs/characteristics outside of what society places upon them. Because sex is how (many) species reproduce, and most individuals have a strong biological drive to reproduce (or at least to take part in the sex act which would normally risk reproduction). Whatever else society does or doesn't pile on top of this, this significance predates both it, and society itself.

From my understanding it's considered the equivalent of fingerprinting or mug shots, both of which can be compelled.

Does it even matter? Imagine if he wasn't medically disabled. If a fully healthy person told you their dream was to be an NFL player, and instead they had become a pro Madden player, would anyone say, "Yeah, that's the same thing"?... I mean, good on this dude if he's that good a gamer (and I'll just assume he is), but he definitely didn't achieve his dream.

And if anything, it cheapens his actual accomplishment to pretend he did. Any hint of dishonesty or bending the truth in a motivational message just highlights how full of shit so much motivational messaging is.

>>I can't think of anything more off-putting than a dessert being unveiled with a piece missing.

>You must have a terribly dull imagination

You must not understand obvious hyperbole.

Well, yes, it would be hard to see the difference in the full 1-10 range. But that would accurately reflect the small change in that full context. If you really think it's important to show that detail though, then I would say that you should include both graphs and indicate that one is a cropped and zoomed detail from the other.

Misleading graphs (Clipped Range) aren't beautiful.

I can't think of anything more off-putting than a dessert being unveiled with a piece missing. On the other hand, you're there. Just cut the first slice yourself when it's time for dessert.

Circumstances are temporary. Trauma is forever.

We are animals and hierarchy only becomes more important in large groups if merely for logistical purposes.

If we need 20 people to go pick the fruit today before it spoils, someone has to be responsible for, and capable of, getting 20 people to go do that. We can't just hope that 20 people feel like picking fruit today... And now you've got a management hierarchy... This issue only compounds the more specialized jobs you have and the more tightly they need to be coordinated.

Maybe he's thinking it's one of those anti-grav gates?

I can't even get behind that one. You can ask. Just respect if they say they'd rather not talk about it. Plenty of people are just fine with sharing their tragic backstories.

Not even. It's mostly people telling everyone not to do the one specific thing that someone did to annoy them today.

>Get over what? I don't fear being in pictures, I just don't want to.

Whatever weird personal issue makes avoiding being in pictures seem like a worthwhile pursuit to you. This advice isn't for people who just don't actively pose for pictures. It's for people who actively avoid being in any pictures at all. Your friends and family are trying to create keepsakes and reminders of the time they spent with you, actively avoiding that is a dick move.

LPT growth is uncomfortable, especially personal growth. Get over yourself and get in the pictures... Just in general, not even considering what OP is talking about.

Or... Do, because it probably is, and laugh it off if you're wrong.

Me not doing something you would find mildly annoying if I did is not an LPT.

>I of course, took after my mom.

To OP's point, this is how people usually refer to a son being like their mother. Though I think it's probably more likely than, "Like father, like daughter", as well.

>Woooow, so we have multiplied the mammal population on earth by ten respect the "natural" population.

We've also eliminated a lot of habitat so we can live there, and hunted several species into, or near, extinction on land and in the sea. So, all of that is biomass that would "naturally" exist without our interference. So, no, we haven't multiplied the biomass by 10x what it would "naturally" be.

>why would a quote need an image at all?

Need is a bit of a loaded word. But I think it's obvious how a picture (which is proverbially worth a thousand words) could reinforce the message of a quote.

>And if so, why not use an image of the person who wrote the quote?

Because what's to say that's the best image to reinforce the message of the quote? It's fair to say using a portrait of someone else is a bit odd. But considering it's a fictional character who's story almost perfectly reflects the message of the quote it makes a lot of sense.

The character of John Wick walked completely away from a life of violence, until violence randomly found him again. Then he fought back with everything he had. The arc of his story is an excellent match for the quote.

>How would you feel if someone put a picture of you behind this quote?

John Wick is a fictional character. It really doesn't matter how he feels, because he doesn't exist. And it doesn't matter how Keanu feels, because we're supposed to understand that this is John Wick as portrayed by Keanu, not Keanu himself.

You were an infant who didn't know anything and couldn't physically take care of or economically support yourself before "all of the cultural conditioning". This quote is pop psychology nonsense. You are your experiences, and how those experiences interact with your genetic predispositions towards certain personality traits. There is no more authentic past self to find, because every experience you have is part of the authentic you who exists right now.

The best you can hope for is to find a you that you can better live with, whether that involves unlearning something or learning a whole new set of things will vary from person to person. And that's a process that we're all going through all of the time anyway. All you can do is be mindful of process so that you can actively move towards things that seem to help you do that and away from things that don't.

Yes, it was meant as a critique of the quote, not a critique of the people who don't see losing everything and gaining true freedom as a positive. It's not. True freedom is dying in the woods somewhere, because you're all alone and life is incredibly hard without society (and all its limits on your freedom).

Turns out most people don't want true freedom.

Can't hurt!... Do the gambling equivalent of breaking a leg!

Facebook lets you connect to your family/friend group. Twitter is random people either quipping or yelling at each other. There's just less value there.

>You and some others are contradictory here. Who rationalizes what?

>If brain is just a matter interacting and produces output based on computations inside itself, who rationalizes that afterwards?

>There is no one out there. It is still the same dead matter interacting and nothing else. Lifeless atoms do not need to explain anything.

There is nothing contradictory here at all. If you want to insist that the conscious self is also an illusion, then that only makes it necessary that conscious choice be an illusion.

Our brains developed extra capacities that allowed us to be able to store new and complex, even second hand, experiential information to supplement our inborn instincts for processing during the subconscious decision process. Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of this additional storage and computational hardware. Apparently it tends to increase survivability, otherwise the pre-conscious step in human evolution would have won out.

>But then... how does anyone ever go on a diet? I think that is a massive hole in this theory. We don't always follow our body's instructions.

Your subconscious takes what you know about the dangers of obesity, or your lack of dating success, or the amount of stress that your mother calling you fat causes you, and decides that eating less would actually be better for whichever of those reasons. Then it tells says, "We're eating less for a while", and again, your conscious mind tries to guess why it got this order and come up with an explanation of why... I didn't say that we always follow our bodies' instructions. It was just one purposefully simple example.

Think of the subconscious as upper management and the conscious mind as the worker on the shop floor. Except the worker, for their own sanity, has to believe that management is competent. So directions come down from on high, and even though the worker has no understanding of what went into the deliberation process, they piece together the best explanation they can from what they have available.

Basically, it's exactly what you do any other time you have incomplete information. What do you genuinely know about what Pitun thought before he invaded Ukraine? Basically nothing. But if you have any interest in the story, you probably immediately had some strong guesses at what you thought he must be thinking. Well, it's exactly like that except you think you're making the decision, so you don't think your guesses about the real motivations are guesses.