/lit/ - Literature

>>12071314
Brown can be appeasing. It's the colour matching a sort of calm and humility. Like the robes of friars.
The point stands if you simply replace it with ambrosia and shit. "how do you back your preference".

>>12071370
Nothing will satisfy you, so this is quite useless. Atoms sometime decay in a different manner than their typical elemental peers, so you'll claim that there is no clear distinction between "cesium" and "cadmium".
There is no, and will never be a "tenable concept" of clouds. You will always find as many counter-examples as you want to any trial in terms of density, humidity, compactness, etc...
In complex subjects, things are analyzed in terms of types that receive their justifications from their use (see exposition of Weber in sociology or Fabre in biology). What you are claiming is tantamount to saying that there are no such things as clouds, or Welshmen.

>>6967947
>No, since gender is a non-biological component by definition, gender is about behaviour and it's spooky as hell at that.
>unronically thinking that behavior cannot be "biological"

http://www.amazon.com/Sociobiology-Synthesis-Twenty-Fifth-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0674002350/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

>Skin color is certainly observable but the connection between skin color and other fenotypes is not yet clear.
>Unironically thinking that skin color is a main component of race and not simply the easiest to pick up at a glance
Also denying the linking of many haplotypes to usual races is not a smart move, including harmonal patterns which have absolutely-zero-effect-not-at-all on behavior.

>Intelligence is not biologically or otherwise observable, that is the spookiest of spooks.
This really is bait for a byzantine discussion about playing on words about what "intelligence" is.