Wearing socks *is* a social construct
-
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
Typically those are mammals with larger litters and shorter gestational periods. Human offspring are too resource intensive to be widely used as decoys.
This is a weird conversation.
-
Are homo sapiens one such mammal?
As long as one person in history has done it once, yes. Just because people around us doesn' do it, doesn't mean it's not "natural". I don't know how tribes with 11 disposable children behave.
We used to be night active but if you ask anyone nowadays they'd act like waking up to the sun is THE "natural" thing.
-
They said the child was using to "get out of anything and everything", including wearing socks, which implicitly argues it to be a bad thing.
The child is more or less saying that because something is a social construct, that means that they do not have to follow it.
I could see that, thanks.
I still don't understand why there's like a hundred comments saying the same thing slightly differently, looks a bit fake. I don't have the time to go through all of those, but it reminds me of account sellers trying to get some legitimate-looking history. Shame if that's the case -
Your feet are nasty. I don't need to see them.
Then don't look.
My dicks out. It needs to breath.
-
My dicks out. It needs to breath.
You should see a doctor about that.
-
Vegetables are a social construct too.
Afaik, botanically, there is no such thing as a "vegetable". Only fruits. What we perceive as "vegetable" differs between cultures worldwide.
Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian
-
everyone replying that socks have a practical use, as if social constructs arent practical???
my issue is that even though "clothing" is a social construct, the stuff that socks are made out of is not. calling that stuff a sock is a social construct, but choosing to put the fabric on your body is not. becoming "clothed" is a social construct, but the unspecified uncategorized state of having that fabric on your body is just a physical state, not a construct. the meaning we apply to it is the thing that wouldn't exist without socially constructed systems of meaning.
It's kinda sad, i guess. I'm usually the first one to champion XYZ is a social construct, and have to deal with morons not understanding it, but here? no one is willing to say it?
Socks are not a social construct.
Social constructs aren't practical.
-
My dicks out. It needs to breath.
I'd be cool with that.
-
Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian
those people are morons
-
As long as one person in history has done it once, yes. Just because people around us doesn' do it, doesn't mean it's not "natural". I don't know how tribes with 11 disposable children behave.
We used to be night active but if you ask anyone nowadays they'd act like waking up to the sun is THE "natural" thing.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Are you suggesting that if even one human lacks this biological impulse to protect their children, we can't say that humans generally have a biological impulse to protect their children? That's absurd. And isn't this point entirely moot with regards to people who do have that in-built instinct?
-
everyone replying that socks have a practical use, as if social constructs arent practical???
my issue is that even though "clothing" is a social construct, the stuff that socks are made out of is not. calling that stuff a sock is a social construct, but choosing to put the fabric on your body is not. becoming "clothed" is a social construct, but the unspecified uncategorized state of having that fabric on your body is just a physical state, not a construct. the meaning we apply to it is the thing that wouldn't exist without socially constructed systems of meaning.
It's kinda sad, i guess. I'm usually the first one to champion XYZ is a social construct, and have to deal with morons not understanding it, but here? no one is willing to say it?
Socks are not a social construct.
Social constructs are Social constructs
-
Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian
Fish is not meat, but it's also not vegetarian
-
Aren't hands much more nasty?
Only if you don't wash them and don't clip your nails, or if you paint your nails that's also nasty
-
Contract yes, as it pertains to laws, but I would argue construct no- since protecting one's offspring is a natural/biological impulse. It's non negotiable from a survival viewpoint, and some people have better survival instincts than others.
We as creatures behave certain ways because of a result of biology and circumstances. How can you say anything we do isn't a natural/biological impulse. When did we stop being a part of nature? And stop being controlled by biology?
-
Wait till you find out that some places around the world think fish meat does not count as meat and is vegetarian
Yeah I had a friend from Grenada that told me this one day and I had trouble understanding the reasoning.
-
You cannot invoke biology to generalize here. There are many mammals who use their offsprings as projectile decoys when they are in danger.
Let's not bring Elon into this.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Social constructs are real.things, so here you go
-
This post did not contain any content.
Guess we're all social constructs (tf that mean)
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Sure, but your feet would still get cold."
-
Fish is not meat, but it's also not vegetarian
The American Meat Science Association defines meat as red meat (beef, pork, and lamb), poultry, fish/seafood, and meat from other managed species (AMSA, 2017).
Fish, by definition, is meat.
Other simpler definitions around the world sinply say "flesh of an animal". At that point, you're arguing that fish isn't an animal.
