Subject:
|
Re: Couldn't resist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2001 19:37:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
208 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.
>
> DaveE
The answer for our determination in gender is that there is a complicated
plan for all of the people that have ever existed in life to become either
male or female in their gender and I do not know what you mean by a rating
as I have never heard of this rating system but since you conclusively say
that we are all female, your observation is indeed incorrect, if you follow,
as I have in my life, the account of Creation in the Bible.
The Bible says that on the sixth day that man was created and that God knew
that man was alone on the earth and so He felt that man should have a
counterpart and so He caused man to fall asleep and when man awoke, he found
a new creature referred to as woman. The technical aspect of this story is
that Adam was the first man on earth and the Hebrew word for 'man' was
actually 'Adahm.' I know that this concept is most interesting in my mind
but what is most interesting is why are women known as women, or rather, why
are females of our human species known, at least in the individual sense, as
a woman? The answer to that question, in my opinion is that the word
'woman' literally means 'womb of man,' or a shortened, derivative form of
those words that has arrived in the English language. These are merely my
opinions and questions so if at the very least, please think of these
answers instead of criticizing my answers.
Jesse Long
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) An interesting suggestion, but not entirely accurate. The etymology of "woman" comes down to us through Old English, where the term "wif man" meant, basically "female person." The occasionally funny Bill Cosby once suggested that "woman" is so (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) You'll notice that this is off-topic.fun instead of off-topic.debate :) I was just playing off of Dave! who had been discussing with me whether or not distinct "lines" can be drawn in "grey" areas. We were being silly and suggesting that the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: Couldn't resist
|
| (...) That's a pretty cool story! Where'd you get it? Sometimes I have a dream like that, too, but I never wake up next to Shania... KDJ ___...___ LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
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
|
|
|
|
