>>6938
>I assumed that someone on h8chan would be more comfortable with the colloquial definition than the clinical definition.
the colloquial definition is wrong. if i (colloquially) call you a douche bag, that does not actually turn into the physical device we know under said name.
if you use the term "autistic" colloquially, then that does not make people autistic. if you want to say that people who identify as a zoosexual are
crazy, weird, stupid, fucked up, etc. then please say it that way, instead of bringing in autism and using the term as if it were an insult.
>furrydom is an identity
>Everyone knows what furries are. People dislike them for that reason.
almost no one knows what furries really are. there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding furrydom. THAT is why (some) people dislike them.
people don't dislike furries because they know what furies are, they dislike them because they don't understand them and are weirded out.
to be fair, many people aren't bothered by them at all and those who are, are either slope-headed buffoons who are incapable of progress and tolerance
of those who aren't like them, or are just looking for a scape goat to use.
>Bullshit. Half the time they fit the clinical definition as well as the slang.
it does not matter to what percentage those different aspects overlap. assuming one causes the other,
or assuming all furs/zoos/trans are autistic is inherently fallacious
>More bullshit... gender identities are social constructs...
not bullshit. a social construct is something that only exists because society agrees to act as if it were to exist.
perfect examples are god, money, citizenship, class, politics, etc. what i am sexually attracted to is NOT a social construct.
if someone born a male, internally feels as they he were female, then said individual might be mentally ill, but thats far from
gender identity being a social construct. gender roles (woman wear pink/skirts, mean wear blue/pants) on the other hand are social constructs.
something that does exist such as the earth being a sphere is NOT a social construct as it is real/fact. just because it took humanity ages
to realize that the earth is round or that gender identities are REAL, doesn't make a difference.
>They are wholely and completely in people's minds.
everything that you are, ranging from emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories are "completely in your mind". an "identity" is most certainly a product of a mind.
being solely in the mind however does not make it false, a fantasy, or metaphysical.
everything that is a social construct will be in your mind, but not everything in your mind will be a social construct.
>Absolutely no school of thought disputes that.
a school of thought is in and of itself "in the mind", and can't dispute this, as it would be paradox.
>anyone who creates an identity around what god they wish would exist is (according to your logic) massively autistic.
>Absolutely. Made up bullshit is made up bullshit.
yeah, but just because you believe in made up bullshit does not make you an autist. besides, autists have a harder time believing in "made up bullshit".
>A lack of love is not ruining the planet. Resource extraction is
indirectly it is.
its not the resource extraction that is the problem. technically there is an overabundance in this world. the problem is how we deal with nature.
we treat nature as if we are on top of it. we exploit nature in very cruel ways. if we would all love nature and our planet a bit more, then by
definition we would care more about the suffering of other animals we are causing. it is heartbreaking for a zoo to see what the world/society
does to the animals they love oh so much. and if more people loved or cared for animals, or at least gave them a bit more respect, then we would
not be ruining this world.
>You do not need to look for metaphysical explanations for things that have real and glaringly obvious material causes.
love isn't metaphysical. it a biochemical process.