Subject:
|
Re: Couldn't resist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:27:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
194 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.space, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.space, Chris Maddison writes:
> > > I assure you, my boy, Shiri *is* a woman. I should know. ;-)
> >
> > I think that unless we can find a specific point at which Shiri is not a
> > man, then we cannot demonstrate conclusively that she is a woman. Either
> > Shiri occupies a spectrum of man-ness and woman-ness with no distinction, or
> > a distinction exists, even if we can't define it precisely. DaveE and I
> > have been bandying around exactly this sort of thing for days.
>
> Obviously according to our preset definitions, one would grade according to
> a sexual scale, rather than percentages of spectrum occupation. Person A
> being said to have a male rating of 36 could condusively be called female
> were the female/male midpoint sufficiently below such a rating, likewise
> assuming negativity for the scale biased for maleness. However, due to the
> multitude of factors involved in sexual determination, such a precise rating
> could not hoped to be calculated, nor could the aforesaid threshhold. And as
> negativity were associated with maleness and the maximum rating being named
> "female", ratings respectively above the negative extrema are able to be
> deemed female, as per the inconsistancy of both the midpoint and rating values.
>
> Hence, quite clearly, we're *all* female.
>
> And of course, this very neatly solves all our problems, since Shiri's
> initial debate question was "Is this sexist?". Now that we're all women, it
> is quite clearly no longer an issue.
Any theorem fails if taken to its logical extreme, eh?
> > I think that unless we can find a specific point at which Shiri is not a
> > man, then we cannot demonstrate conclusively that she is a woman.
Look, er that is, listen... *I* could tell you the specific point at which
women are not men, and exactly where it is located. But this being a family
forum I have no intention of doing so, thankyouverymuch.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | RE: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) a (...) When did Elvis become Canadian? Thanx, Mark Millère LUGnet # 525 Visit Milissa's LEGO store, Millère's Spares (URL) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Not to push the point, I'd say there _is_ a gradient between "female" and "male". As always, the exceptional cases demonstrate the fluid boundaries of the majority. Take homosexuals, transexuals and hermaphrodites. Or heterosexual nancy-boys (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) Obviously according to our preset definitions, one would grade according to a sexual scale, rather than percentages of spectrum occupation. Person A being said to have a male rating of 36 could condusively be called female were the female/male (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
