Ah, fair enough. If it wasn't clear from my earlier post, the length/style isn't a big deal; I just thought I'd offer suggestions.
As you say, better to get a nice free haircut than to be stuck with one you don't like.
(Original post by kerily)
I'm not naturally blond
It's dyed green at the moment anyway.
I would LOVE a haircut. Sadly, I have precisely no money, so I have to wait until I next get offered a free one. This last happened in late October, hence why it's getting overgrown as ****
I know you can get £10 haircuts, but... the last free haircut I got would have been worth £60 had I paid, and I'd rather get a really good cut for free than pay for a ****ty one.
My head is also a funny shape
It's massively disproportionate for my body, for one. I see what you mean, although my hair does a few things given on whether I've actually combed it or not. If we want a more recent photo:
It doesn't stick out as much at the back these days. It badly, badly needs trimming, but that's a function of lack of money for a haircut, again
The way I've heard another transguy describe it in terms of getting your "centre" right when walking is "women walk from their hips, whereas men walk from their dicks" (). I don't know whether or not you pack (nor is it any of my business!), but it could be something to consider whilst you're trying to perfect your walk.
But why thankyou! And the chest works wonders
My body language is very autistic and awkward - I don't have a better description sadly, but I've been told by a variety of people that I sort of walk funny. Never mind
I'm mastering the art of occupying lots of physical space at the moment (men seem to stretch out/sit with legs open/etc far more often) so hopefully that will help.
Fingers crossed for you.
I am aware that I look more androgynous than male (feminine face shape, I believe, although to be honest 'completely spherical' isn't necessarily gendered
) but hopefully this will change when I'm on testosterone, for one
Last edited by Tortious; 18-01-2012 at 22:07.
Unfortunately, that's not how object continuation works. That's not even close to how object continuation works.
(Original post by mau5)
I think it was the famous philosopher Simon Weston who said. 'If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck.'
That's saying if it looks like X, sounds like X, and walks like X then it must be X. However, it's entirely possible that it's using a camouflage and is actually Y. By the logic you've used, if I have say... a 3D representation of you that looks like just like you, sounds just like you, walks just like you then it must BE you. However, that's clearly not true; Rather, it is merely a 3D representation of you and is not, in fact, anywhere close to being the token you.
The premises you've presented are very weak premises and would not be considered anywhere close to valid or sound in argumentation on object continuation. In object continuation you have to first argue for what type of time you're dealing with, or rather what your view on time is; then you must establish what constitutes an object; how objects can change; and if and when an object will no longer be the same object.
Metaphysics is vastly more complex than you seem to think.
If you would like to go on, I can give you a full argument as to why your initial post was wrong; however since you seem to lack much formal education in metaphysics as well as well as an incorrect notion that metaphysics is simple, I don't think you'll be able to follow such an argument very well.
Also, let's look at your two (very poor) arguments:
(1) A fiat that looks like a ferrari is still a fiat
(2) A duck is a duck if it looks like it, walks like it and sounds like it.
Well... The fiat doesn't look like a fiat, so therefore, according to your second argument it cannot be a fiat because it doesn't look like a fiat on the outside. Please make up your mind as to what constitutes object continuation; because so far you've made contradictory claims!
Looks like it's back to drawing board for you.
And this of course is only dealing with the problem philosophically; you'd face even more problems with sociological/psychological arguments.
The argument you've presented in (2) doesn't even deal with object continuation! In fact, that's only an argument on object identification! So, again, you've completely missed with your presented arguments since they're horribly and fatally flawed as well as not even dealing with the right subject!
Last edited by NYU2012; 19-01-2012 at 05:10.