LogFAQs > #882358083

Kenri posted...

i'm not arguing whatever the fuck you're talking about but keep on knockin' those strawmen down, buddy!

Your words:

Yep. In kinda different ways though. Obviously sexual characteristics exist, but the way we classify them and the implications we draw from that classification are social constructions.

If the exception is more common than the disease you're checking for, it seems like the rule might be less than useful.

Bold is mine because this is important. You say the rule (rule system) 'might be less than useful'. I'm saying 'prove it'. You've said you can't. So basically, what I am saying as a follow-up is you should recant your statement until you have an argument worth entertaining, because you look like a fool arguing in favor of something you don't even understand. >_>
---

Shine on, you crazy diamond.