Interesting read but Estradiol levels of 367 pg/ml sound incredibly high to me

Be mercury! be eevvil!! poison people!!! :D

Most of the time i’m even too uncomfortable to have him touch me so it’s gonna take me really being horny for me being ok with that…

But thanks for the advice, i’ll at least talk with him about it :3

For me it was as soon as I got together with my boyfriend, i turned into a massive slut for him. Just… Bottom surgery is missing. We talk so often about what we want to but actually doing stuff is always kinda meh because i’m still pretty uncomfortable with so many things. And we both don’t like butt stuff so that isn’t an option either qwq

Sooo I’m with you. And i’m not even on prog yet xD

Compensating the lack of flight with a butterfly knife :D

Just like me ;v;

You can observe them, you can build models to predict them, you can test that these models work, but you cannot prove that they do.

What do you define as proof then?

If scientist 1 can do an experiment the scientist 2, 3, 4, … can do the same experiment under the same circumstances, then that means that it is true that the experiment will always result in x data.

And now i’m confused too because I never suggested using a scientific way to essentially replace philosophy for a definition of a human… It’s just two different ways of coming up with a definition. For ease of humanity, we have come up with a black and white definition of things. This is a human, this is a monkey, this is male and this is female. We just break this kind of definition and it can be pretty hurtful to us.

Also you don’t have to be a philosopher to philosophize about things. Everybody’s philosophy of what is human, what is x, what is y and so on is extremely individual.

My intent with all of this was to express how in my view, science is objective and not subjective.

And that’s exactly why we use subjective philosophy to define a human instead

But we have to, no? Because we don’t want to include the featherless chicken, right? They even have one (or sometimes multiple) livers.

Then they share that trait with a human and are therefore x% similar to humans. perfectly acceptable. I’m not saying “liver = human”, i’m saying that a liver usually is one of many traits of the average modern societal human.

Choosing a dataset should be done in regards to what it is more relevant for.

If your dataset is good then drawing the circle smaller or bigger won’t effect the result too much.

Edit: even better than drawing a circle, weighting for the relevance of xzy in your data

…what? Those lizard people suck at science then. Doing research requires you to get a sample size that broadly encompasses everything. Specifically choosing your sample doesn’t hold up to modern scientific standards.

But what do we mean by “everybody”? That already depends on what the study tries to achieve in the first place. Let’s take your example of “can humans lick their eyeballs” and add the extra issue in there of human/lizard crossbreeds being a thing. In this case, you would have to take a sample of humans, lizards and everything in between. With that, you could create a dataset of who can and can’t, and would probably come to the conclusion that the more lizard-like someone is, the more likely they are to be able to lick their eyeballs.

Following along that, assuming that lizards count as human, it would mean that there is no clear average of eyeball licking capability and would therefore not factor in to if it is human or not. Just like there also isn’t an average skin color. Maybe a majority but it’s a distribution.

People, on average though, do have a working liver.

Edit: my point still stands but fuck I can’t read

I never said that i’d be free :3

But no, i’m always open for a little snipedy snapedy for my sisters <3

We can make objective measurements of temperatures, but do you think these measurements would hold any objective meaning over how human something is⸮

Yes absolutely. The scientific human is the current average. In a sense, how scientifically close to one is could be better described as how close to the average human one is. And in that sense, nobody is the scientific human. Nobody actually is the average.

Our definition of humans was entirely subjective and flawed on top. There is no way to objectively define humans, it would all be based on your subjective perception.

Yep, there’s where philosophy starts.

I fucking wish ;-;

I think what you’re describing isn’t science being subjective (imo it is the most objective thing humans have made - if done right), it’s that a full definition of something just isn’t possible because the world isn’t black and white. The subjective thing is where science intersects with philosophy. For example:

• science: how humans have evolved over time
• philosophy: what defines being human

In that sense, it scientifically very much is possible and plausible for something to be scientifically more and less human on a scale in comparison to what philosophy says a human is.

The exact same way how gender isn’t M or F, a living being doesn’t have to be exclusively Human or non-human.

Yes but you’re ignoring the biggest issue of all:

Dick theft.

Just imagine what lengths people would go to to steal the biggest dick for themselves for no real reason.

From me being too lazy to remove them

GENITALS. ATTACHED. WITH. VELCRO! :D

I will so wait with prog until I have bottom surgery and I have moved in with my partner. Gonna be the beat years of my life 🥰

Being on adderall (or any amphetamine) in comparison to Cocaine is far less noticeable for your colleagues. Don’t ask me how I know :)

No :D