Author Topic: I'm a woman and you're all scientists  (Read 8645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6275
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #180 on: January 10, 2017, 01:17:07 AM »
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hysteria

glad you picked up on that. thanks for explaining it for the rest of the class.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were ignorant about it rather than it just being another example of you edgelording all over this thread. But congrats; it's only the 9th of January but you are well on your way to edgiest teen pop idol of the year.

But by your own logic, shouldn't you concede that the colloquial definition of "hysteria" has evolved into one that isn't sexist and drop your objection?
Evolving a new meaning doesn't necessarily absolve the old meaning, regardless of how good you thought that episode of South Park was.

But that's sort of the crux of this entire thread. "Woman" is not a specific word with a singular meaning because English is not a language of singular definition. In a medical sense it would refer to a biological woman. In a social sense, it would refer to someone who identifies as a woman. Previously it would have referred to someone who was identified by their society as a woman. Socially, it refers to the entire bundle baggage that encompasses the societal expectations of women, girls, femininity, feminism, and female stereotyping.

Expecting a single trait or list of traits that identifies a "woman" is ridiculous unless you're specifying the context, and even then the fundamental conceit of science is that "[TBD]" is an adequate answer when a thing is still being explored and debated, and especially where social sciences are concerned. It is never the correct answer in that if there is not a unified theory and universal understanding, then the concept is invalid and nobody discussing it is being honest. In fact, that is the structure of the arguments of Ken Ham and the like.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Drunken Idaho

  • Natural Blonde
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9678
  • Comrade Questions
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #181 on: January 10, 2017, 01:25:30 AM »
I agree with some of your points, but is the outdated definition for "hysterical" relevant enough to dismiss the word's current usage? I think not.
Strange women lying in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government.

Online wastrel

  • Great poster... or greatest poster?
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 12453
  • Science: A cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #182 on: January 10, 2017, 01:34:12 AM »
I agree with some of your points, but is the outdated definition for "hysterical" relevant enough to dismiss the word's current usage? I think not.

Please.  It was an aside, and Godslayer is being an obvious dick. 

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6275
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #183 on: January 10, 2017, 01:42:17 AM »
I agree with some of your points, but is the outdated definition for "hysterical" relevant enough to dismiss the word's current usage? I think not.
That's a case that needs it's own line of discussion. I wouldn't personally jump on someone over it, but I wouldn't use the word myself because the useage of "woman not acting the way she should" prevailed on into last century. 
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13145
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #184 on: January 10, 2017, 11:59:16 AM »
no-one wants to talk to him about transgender issues.

I just meant people here. no one seemed willing to give it a shot, well before any of the ridiculous interjections were made by people who didn't bother to respond on the actual topic.

I'm only assuming people elsewhere, people invested in one particular theory, would be less capable of discussing it. but I guess I'll have to go find out if the effect of this thread wears off and I start to wonder again if they actually have an explanation to offer. No point asking when the consensus seems to be they're talking a load of nonsense round in circles contradicting themselves at the rare moments where they do actually offer actual ideas.
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13145
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #185 on: January 10, 2017, 12:08:01 PM »
But that's sort of the crux of this entire thread. "Woman" is not a specific word with a singular meaning because English is not a language of singular definition. In a medical sense it would refer to a biological woman. In a social sense, it would refer to someone who identifies as a woman. Previously it would have referred to someone who was identified by their society as a woman. Socially, it refers to the entire bundle baggage that encompasses the societal expectations of women, girls, femininity, feminism, and female stereotyping.

Expecting a single trait or list of traits that identifies a "woman" is ridiculous unless you're specifying the context,

and that's fine.
I don't mind if the second or third definition of pretzel is 'someone who identifies as a pretzel', as long as someone can explain what identifying as a pretzel means.

you can specify whatever contexts you like, you can list all the contexts you can think of off the top of your head to start with, and worry about being systematic later on.

as suggested with the word 'god', maybe we want more than one word. if there are different "women" why not a different word for each, just as there are different lesbians from bull dyke* to pillow princess*, maybe there are 50 different kinds of woman. that's fine by me, all that matters is that we know what we're referring to/imposing/alleging/presuming with our words.


*both sound like slurs to me, but I can find sources if someone wants to tangent/cry about it.
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11172
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #186 on: January 10, 2017, 03:10:24 PM »
So anyone who would take issue with those terms would be "crying about it".
Great to see that you are now genuinely interested in the positions of other people.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13145
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #187 on: January 10, 2017, 05:53:11 PM »
So anyone who would take issue with those terms would be "crying about it".

no, anyone who wants to go 'oh you're so mean because words you used' would be crying about it. because even gays/bis/etc. use these terms, so don't start the drama with me, just because _your_ gays or the gays you _imagine_ you're standing up for don't use them. I'm preempting that nonsense, least someone be not so slick and sweep in to the rescue with a pointed remark about my using words he doesn't like, as if I borrowed them from the local neo-nazi group instead of a lesbian friend. that would only get us off topic, when he could instead say something on topic, if he had anything to say on it.

Great to see that you are now genuinely interested in the positions of other people.

I never claimed to be interested in what categories of gay people you like or what words you like for them.
I also don't care about your atheism vocabulary. I've done that to death.
I don't care about your position on hawaiian pizza, for that matter. nor anyone else's.
There are lots of positions I'm not genuinely interested in that aren't anything to do with the topic I started. but I appreciate the sarcasm so I could at least see and correct your misjudgment (namely a false generalization 'you don't care what I think about pizza, therefore you can't care about what I think about Stalin's purges like you said you did')
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 05:59:12 PM by GodSlayer »
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6275
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #188 on: January 10, 2017, 06:03:47 PM »
To reiterate, you're not interested in any answer unless it's the one you want.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13145
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #189 on: January 10, 2017, 09:36:42 PM »
I don't think you know what reiterate means.

or you're unable to be sincere. if that's so, you know how to avoid this thread.
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11990
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #190 on: January 10, 2017, 10:08:11 PM »
Pot, meet kettle.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13145
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #191 on: January 12, 2017, 01:49:29 AM »
Pot, meet kettle.

when am I not sincere?
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11990
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #192 on: January 12, 2017, 05:57:38 AM »
This entire thread, for one.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline gmalivuk

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2109
    • http://gmalivuk.livejournal.com
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #193 on: January 12, 2017, 08:46:23 AM »
It's appropriate that I learned the expression "JAQing off" right around when I startedrreading this thread.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better...is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Offline GodSlayer

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13145
Re: I'm a woman and you're all scientists
« Reply #194 on: January 12, 2017, 10:39:14 AM »
It's appropriate that I learned the expression "JAQing off" right around when I startedrreading this thread.

I've asserted hypotheses several times and no one has attempted to refute them.

at least I'm not "RAPing kids" like you guys are. Regurgitating A Partyline, with no cognition behind it except 'say this so you don't make the plebs angry'.
Quote from: Thomas Carlyle
In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain