|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Member (Idle past 7607 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: English, gender and God | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:quote: So you're saying that when you said that "science leads great men behind" (or words to that effect...I'm too lazy to go look it up), you were actually thinking of males and not of all scientists including the likes of Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin? I don't deny your wish to be as clear as possible in your speech that you do mean everybody who works in science regardless of sex, but my personal default opinion of you is that you have internalized that attitude (scientists come in all sexes) and thus your use of "men" in the above statement was a use of it in the neuter, which is a recognized definition, though one that is falling out of favor.
quote: Even though you meant such a neuter meaning and I picked that meaning up without even considering the possibility that you meant something else?
quote: But I'm saying you don't need an excuse. You understood what you meant, I understood what you meant. How can there be a claim of sexism when you and I both had an image of all scientists regardless of sex?
quote:quote: No. Not when it comes to something that he thinks he knows for certain. By this logic, it is "reasonable...to at the ery least entertain" intelligent design in a science class simply because there are people who think it's science. Well, no, it isn't reasonable. It is reasonable to talk about it in a different kind of discussion (What is science? Do the processes involved in intelligent design meet the criteria of science?), but given a premise as to what science is, it is insufficient to accept intelligent design as equivalent to evolution just because somebody says so. If you want to debate the relation of god and gender and the process by which Paul concluded that god is male, go right ahead. But to insist that Paul accept your conclusion simply because you have a conclusion that differs from his is beyond the pale. Instead, the onus is on you to recognize the fact that Paul's opinion differs from yours and react accordingly. And that means not fling charges of sexism at the language simply because Paul is insisting on "he" to refer to god. As I mentioned elsewhere: When you do an indirect proof, you start with a premise that you are eventually going to show to be false. When you reach the contradiction, you don't fault any of the intervening steps between the premise and the conclusion. Why? Because all the intervening steps are logical. Instead, it is the premise that is considered at fault. You don't whine about how the intervening steps should have considered this other premise. They shouldn't have because that other premise is irrelevant. Paul seems to think that god is male. While we might wish that he be polite about his reactions to people who disagree with him, it is unreasonable to insist he change his manner of expression in order to accomodate those other opinions, especially when his manner of expression is perfectly logical given his personal opinion.
quote: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you've misplaced the argument. The problem is not that Paul is being sexist by using "he" to refer to god. And it certainly isn't a problem with the language that Paul used "he" to refer to god. If there is a problem, it has to do with the conclusion Paul has made that god is male. Given that Paul thinks god is male, we should expect him to use "he" to refer to god and to react in some manner to those who use "she" to refer to god. I am not defending the specifics of Paul's reaction. I am simply saying there is no evidence that it was sexist. If someone were to use "she" to refer to Mr. Einstein, would it be inappropriate to react to it? Should we defer to that person's opinion and simply accept that "all opinions are valid"? Or is it possible that some opinions are simply wrong?
quote: In other words, Paul is a lazy thinker. Paul doesn't know what he really thinks about god. Rather than engage him in a discussion about why he is concluding that god is male, simply jump to the end and refuse to listen to his justification since you know he has none. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mister Pamboli responds to me:
quote:quote: And what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein? I don't recall seeing anywhere in any of the responses to Paul any sort of theological commentary about the nature of god, why Paul's specific path toward theological knowledge is flawed, and how that specifically resulted in a flawed conclusion that god is male. It was simply asserted that there was sexism involved. And not only that, but that the sexism was in the language...as if to refer to males as "he" is a sexist thing to do.
quote:quote: Only because you don't like where the question leads. If it isn't sexist to refer to Mr. Einstein as "he," how can it be sexist to refer to Mr. God as "he"?
quote: There is some ambiguity in "Mr. Einstein" being something other than male?
quote: And where does sexism enter into it? Are you saying that it is impossible to have a theological argument that concludes that god is male? Every single theology no matter what necessarily results in the conclusion that god is something other than strictly male? Again, this isn't saying Paul wasn't rude in rolling his eyes. This is questioning the determination of sexism given absolutely no investigation into Paul's theology.
quote: By accusing sexism? You really can't seem to understand the concept of "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" in this instance, can you? Did you think it was rude of Paul to roll his eyes? Why? What sort of signals were you inferring from his action? I gave one possible one: He thought you were playing games. But rather than do some sort of investigation as to your motives behind using "she" to refer to god, he jumped to a conclusion and ended up behaving poorly. Now then, what did you think would be the response to an accusation of sexism in return? Again, there is no investigaton as to Paul's motives behind rolling his eyes. Schrafinator merely jumped to a conclusion and she, too, ended up behaving poorly. Paul made an assumption about your motives. Schraf made an assumption about Paul's motives. Is there any wonder that there is a problem here? And even more importantly, isn't schraf's mistake just as inappropriate as Paul's? Paul can't possibly have a logical reason to conclude that god is, indeed, male...it must be sexism, right?
quote: No, the problem is not a simplistic attitude on my part. Instead, it is a hypocritical attitude on your part. Schraf bears no responsibility for her assumption into Paul's motives, but Paul is completely guilty for his assumption into yours. And why? Because you disagree with Paul's conclusion. Not that you have provided any indication as to why Paul is wrong, he just is and therefore he deserves to be chastised. But Paul and schraf both screwed up in precisely the same way. Paul owes you an apology and schraf owes Paul one, too.
quote:quote: So why the charge of sexism? What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?
quote: It's sexist to refer to males as "he"? Really? Then what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?
quote: What effect is there in referring to males as "he"? Be specific. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mister Pamboli responds to me:
quote:quote: Why? God is male, right? Remember, Paul thinks god is male. Therefore, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein? Since when is it sexist to point out that "she" is the wrong pronoun to use to refer to males?
quote:quote: Why? If something is male, how can it be sexist to correct people who refer to the male as "she"? Oh, I handily admit that one can be rude in that correction, but if something actually is male, by what criteria is there a claim of sexism? You haven't offered any reasoning as to why Paul's theological conclusion is wrong. Therefore, why on earth should he accomodate you when you are, in his mind, so clearly wrong? We don't accept intelligent design as science, correct? Those who advocate for intelligent design haven't shown us any justification as to why ID should be considered a science, correct? Then why on earth should we accomodate it as a science when, in our minds, it is so clearly wrong to do so? Oh, we might be rude in our explanation as to why ID isn't a science, but if our justification is specifically grounded in argumentation such as "Science is defined by traits a, b, and c, processes x, y, and z, etc. and ID fails to have trait b and processes x and z, ergo it is not a science," then our response is valid and we do not have to entertain those who simply retort, "You atheist." They need to do more than that. They either need to show how our definition of science is insufficient or they need to show how our analysis of ID as not meeting the criteria of science is flawed. Simply accusing us of being atheists doesn't cut it.
quote: So you're saying the problem isn't that Paul was being sexist. It's that he was being rude. Do I need to remind you yet again that I'm not defending Paul's behaviour?
quote: Actually, it appears just as reasonable. It is not sexist to refer to what you believe to be male as "he" nor is it sexist to react negatively when others refer to what you believe to be male as "she." What else would you have one do? If you truly, without a shadow of a doubt, know that it's male and someone else comes along and calls it "she," where is the sexism in pointing out the error? Oh, one can be rude in pointing out the error, such as by assuming the person calling it "she" is playing some sort of game, but where is the sexism in it?
quote: That's being rude. How is it being sexist?
quote: But does that necessarily indicate it to be sexist? Are you saying it is impossible to have a theological certainty that god is male?
quote:quote: SPECIFIC That's the problem that we're having. You're hung up on the fact that I gave you two. I'm hung up on the fact that you haven't given me anything specific. I'm looking for a specific word. You responded with a "whatever is preferred," but that doesn't tell us what is preferred. I gave you specifics. Please do me the courtesy of responding in kind. Be specific. What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?
quote: As I mentioned in my response, it is because I am of the opinion that the question lies in the person's perception and without a clear indication as to what that perception is, there will be multiple answers. However, you will note that my answers resulted in a single pronoun for each perception and actually included the actual pronoun. I didn't wimp out with "whatever is preferred." I took a stand and named names. I used the actual words I had in mind. Now, will you please do me the favor and respond in kind? What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein. No, not "Einstein." "Mr. Einstein."
quote: That last one. But seeing as my example is quite simple, or so I seem to think, perhaps you could do me the favor of answering it. Be specific. If you think that more than one pronoun is being used, then by all means explain why, but I want to know what the pronouns are...unless you are of the opinion that it is ok to use any combination of syllables, including what would generally be considered nonsense by most speakers of English. For example, you would suggest one use "beetaratagang" as the pronoun if one so desired.
quote: And you are still refusing to answer the question. Why not let me drive and see where we go?
quote: No, you and crashfrog lack the integrity to answer an honest question sincerely asked. Is there a question you have asked that I didn't answer? If there is, please let me know what it is so that I can rectify the situation. I have no problems letting you direct your points. Why do you refuse to extend me the same courtesy? Why not let me drive and see where we go? What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein? No, not "Einstein." "Mr. Einstein."
quote:quote: Would you agree or disagree that Paul is certain in his beliefs about god? If it is agreed that Paul is certain in his beliefs, would that not necessarily mean that, in Paul's mind, it is a reality that god is male? Therefore, Paul should sublimate reality to your potential for being offended? Two and two equals four, not five. You can whine and moan all you want about it, claim that you have an alternative mathematics that allows it to be five, but you know what, you're wrong. You're simply wrong. Reality trumps your opinion and in reality, two and two are four. If you're going to make a claim otherwise, you had better show it in reality rather than just assert it because reality is not beholden to your whim. That is the respect that I am giving to Paul: He is sincere in his beliefs and knows precisely what they are. Therefore, it is insufficient to simply declare him to be wrong without evidence. And it is extremely rude to make a claim of sexism simply because he is sincere in those beliefs. Similarly, I have the same respect for you: You are sincere in your beliefs and know precisely what they are. Therefore, it is insufficient to simply declare you to be wrong without evidence. And it is extremely rude to make a claim of game-playing simply because you are sincere in those beliefs. Why? Because nobody has actually given any justification as to why the other is wrong. It's simply been declared to be so as if it were obvious.
quote: That god is male. Where is your evidence that Paul is wrong? No, not that you are right...that Paul is wrong.
quote: Einstein is male, is he not? If not, why not? God is male, is he not? If not, why not? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mister Pamboli responds to me:
quote:quote: Yes, I am sure I meant to say that. Are you simply being obstinate? You see, a premise is something that has a path coming off it, otherwise it is simply a statement. That path goes somewhere. Therefore, since the premise is at the lead, it "leads" to where the path goes. It is the metaphor that is used to describe the process of going from premise to conclusion: The premise "leads" the way. If you're going to be saying that the logic process by which one walks the path from the premise to the conclusion is not the same as the premise, itself, I will agree with you, but I will wonder if you are playing games. Are you?
quote:quote: Ad in a sense, they do.
quote: Logical error: Equivocation. We seem to have switched from "nurse" meaning "one who gives care, especially one who does so under the supervision of a physician" to "nurse" meaning "one who breastfeeds." I agree that I did not specifically mention the former definition, but it seemed clear from context as the word "nurse" was contrasted with "surgeon" rather than "absent parent." Therefore, it would seem to be that the contrast was of various positions in a medical facility rather than the ability to lactate. Again, I am wondering if you are simply playing games.
quote: No, "nurse" still means breastfeeding and one will still hear references to a "wet nurse." But seeing as how the context in my statement was not in reference to lactation but rather to social concepts such as "Men are doctors, women are nurses," I am wondering if you are deliberately being obtuse.
quote:quote: You mean people don't go to dictionaries to look up the meaning of words as if they were proscriptive? It is never appropriate to say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"? After all, how could one possibly justify that statement? Obviously the person using the word thinks it means what he thinks it means. We go to dictionaries to verify spelling all the time. They're/their/there are commonly interchanged and it is an error to do so. "Look it up," as many people say, and you'll see why.
quote: Oh, I agree that other languages are much more formal about the process, but let us not forget how people actually use dictionaries. Like it or not, linguists are not the only ones who look up words in a dictionary. People who actally use the dictionary will often consider it a proscriptive text. The reason why we so often say that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, is precisely because people actually use dictionaries as proscriptive texts. You may have made a screwdriver and sincerely intended it to be a screwdriver, but it's an awl when I start punching holes in leather with it. At the very least, I am using it as an awl.
quote: I never said they did. But just because the Oxford doesn't want to be more than description doesn't mean it won't get used as more than description. And haven't we all agreed that the actual users wield tremendous power? Take, as an example, the word "brung" as the past and past participle of the verb "bring." Lots of people use it. But I'm looking in the dictionary and I can't seem to find it. Instead, it says the word is "brought." A very significant number of people who speak English will take this as indicative that "'brung' isn't a word," as they might say, and that "brung" is wrong. No matter how much the publishers of the dictionary want the book to be a description, not a proscription, people are using it as a proscription.
quote:quote: So? We're back to my question that is seemingly so difficult to answer: What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein? I would dare say that the overwhelming majority of speakers of English would agree on the specific pronoun.
quote:quote: Hmmm...seems like you got the "derivative in there somewhere." It's an implication...negation of pleasure from s**t, ergo the equivalence of pleasure between anchovies and s**t results in the negation of pleasure from s**t.
quote:quote: In the same places, modes, and methods of manifestation that other abstract notions like mathematics exist. In essence, the language acquires a life of its own. How many times have we heard the old saw, "'Ain't' ain't a word and I ain't gonna use it"? It sums it all up: There is a recognition that there is some sort of abstract, official, "The Way Things Are Supposed to Be" (C) attitude and a realization that it doesn't mean diddly since the language is a tool of the users. Doublethink, I know, but I don't have a problem with that.
quote:quote: Yes. So? In the original rules of Monopoly, there is no rule that all the fines imposed from Chance, Community Chest, Property Tax, and Luxury Tax get put on the Free Parking space and whoever lands there gets whatever money happens to be there at the time. However, so many people play the game this way that it's made it into the rules as an "alternative." Rules change, but while they exist, they are rules.
quote: I seem to be saying that it is inappropriate to jump to accusations as a first response.
quote: All sorts of ways. Ask the speaker to clarify, look the words up in a dictionary, compare your reaction to others who hear the same thing, all of the above, other possibilities, too.
quote: Nah. Vizzini just keeps underestimating the Man in Black. It's foreshadowing, after all. A battle of wits to the death.
quote: Context helps. What is the apparent meaning behind Vizzini's outburst? It appears to be emotion and incredulity. Somehow the Man in Black is doing something that cannot be done. And yet, since he can do it, the problem would seem to be that Vizzini is misspeaking. Perhaps he should say, "Inconceivable to me." Ah, but to do that would indicate that there is someone who can outthink him and that, too, is inconceivable. And the final straw that Vizzini is the one making the mistake? His "inconceivable" notion is the death of him. If he were right, he'd still be alive.
quote:quote: No. I'm pointing out that there is a reality involved: The word is not derived that way. And there is a reality to usage, too, including definition. If dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, then the definitions we find in there must mean that there are people out there, and a not insignificant number at that, who use the word in that way. Therefore, to complain that a word is being used in that way when we can see from the descriptive source that plenty of people do use it that way is to be a bit disingenuous. And on the flip side, just because a single person uses a word in a certain way doesn't mean the word really means that. For a significant number of people, you could get them to agree with you that it doesn't mean that by showing them the dictionary and pointing out that the definition isn't there. Whether that will change their speech patterns or not is something to be seen...depending on the person, the context, and other factors, the person may decide to shift his speech to match the dictionary or he may continue to use it because he happens to like it (I'm thinking of words like "absotively" and "posilutely"...people know those "aren't real words," but they use them anyway because they like them.)
quote: I think in certain contexts, it does. As a contrasting word to "surgeon," most likely not. But in a phrase such as, "She was my wet nurse," then it most likely does.
quote:quote: No, that's make a distinction between singular and plural as well as throwing in accent. I mean a distinction between the general case and the specific case. Those times when you have to clarify, "When I say 'you,' I don't mean you, specifically."
quote:quote: But similarly, schraf should have done exactly that, too: Sought clarification rather and we could have moved on. Instead, she cried sexism. If Paul's eye-rolling was wrong, then schraf's accusation was wrong, too. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: Yes, but not because you used "he" to refer to god. In other words, the language had nothing to do with it. It's sexist because there is the attitude that being female is somehow less than being male and god, as this wonderful being, couldn't possibly be female because that would make him all icky poo or something. But remember schrafintor's statement: The language was sexist if one referred to god as male. Remember, I am not defending Paul. His eyeroll may very well be rooted in a sexist attitude, but nothing schraf said justified it. She went on about the language rather than theological attitude. If you want to argue with Paul about why he thinks god is male and possibly expose some sexist trains of thought, be my guest. But the fact that Paul refers to god as "he" and "corrects" those who call god "she" is not sufficient to justify a claim of sexism. All it means is that it appears that Paul is sincere...at the very least he's consistent and insistent.
quote: God can't be male? It is impossible to have a theology where god just happens to be male not because there is anything better about being male but just that he is? Or is it sufficient to conclude, Christian -> male god -> sexist?
quote: And you know Paul's mind well enough to justify that? Christian -> male god -> sexist? No matter what?
quote: Yes: You refuse to grant Paul the respect of being sincere.
quote: According to the New Testament, which is supposed to have some sort of direct connection to god somehow, god is constantly referred to as male.
quote: Agreed. But I don't think I ever attempted to say that Mr. Einstein was male because of his occupation. Nor do I think you can find anything in the New Testament that says god is male because of his righteousness.
quote: Why? What evidence do you have of this? Have you asked him? Has he said something of which I am not aware? I don't deny to you that many people have precisely that history: They've always been taught that god is male, especially in an atmosphere that there is something better about being male, and thus have internalized that sexism. But until you specifically ask Paul or show a specific statement from him that indicates such, it is inappropriate and simply rude to make accusations of sexism. Paul shouldn't have rolled his eyes. It was indicative of him jumping to a conclusion. But by the same token, schraf shouldn't have cried sexism. It was indicative of her jumping to a conclusion. She might be right, but nothing she said justified it.
quote: Is there some indication that I am asking you to infer sex from anything other than sex? Let's remember the context in which the question is asked, for if you remove the context, the question becomes ambiguous. Paul, coming from a premise that god is male, uses "he" to refer to god and rolls his eyes when MP refers to god as "she." Schrafinator then makes a claim of sexism in the language inherent in Paul's comments. Oh really? Well, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein? Since nobody mentioned anything about the occupation of Mr. Einstein, one has to wonder what that has to do with anything. Wouldn't the answer to the question of why that pronoun be something like, "It's Mr. Einstein, which is a reasonable indicator that Mr. Einstein is male and thus, the appropriate pronoun to use is 'he'"? Yes, it's an assumption that the Mr. honorific is valid, but that's my point: Paul is coming from that assumption. If you want to question the results, the problem is not the logic that got to the results but the leading assumption. It may absolutely be a sexist attitude that fed us the statement of "Mr. Einstein," but given that all we have at the moment is the simple statement of "Mr. Einstein," why the jump to sexism? Surely it is inappropriate to say that we should treat Einstein as some sort of transcendant-gendered being simply because so many people use Einstein as a model of what being a scientist is and we don't want to discourage the idea of women in science, isn't it? Again, it could very well be sexism that leads Paul to conclude that god is male, but it is not his use of "he" to refer to god nor his insistence that god be referred to as "he" instead of "she" that is sexist. If we grant Paul the respect of being sincere in his beliefs, then that is what we should expect (though we would prefer he not be rude about it). For example, if you were to refer to god as "she" and I were to respond, "You're an idiot. Of course god is male because it says so here in the Bible in this particular verse where Jesus refers to god as his father and Mary as his mother, this other verse where it talks about the spirit of god moving over Mary and causing her to conceive, and all these other verses, etc., etc." then we can't really claim I'm being sexist. I'm certainly being rude as there was no call for me to say, "You're an idiot," but seeing as how I am using a theological source of people who supposedly have a direct line to god describing god as male, it isn't sexism. And for me to "correct" you on your terminology isn't sexism in and of itself. For sexism, we need something like what you had indicated: "Only males should be in authority." As far as I know, Paul didn't say that. Has he said something elsewhere that I am unaware of? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John responds to me:
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) Well, if you don't like the armchair psychoanalysis being reflected back, perhaps you shouldnt engage in it in the first place. Though don't get me wrong...I always learn the most interesting things when people try.
quote:quote: Because if it is biased, it can't be used in an unbiased way except by those who don't know what the word means.
quote:quote: Or perhaps it is naught but an invention of your own desire to have me take it personally. Let me disabuse you of this notion as strongly as possible. I've been online in discussion groups back when BITNET was still around and the internet was something only places like universities and research labs had access to. I don't take anything personally. Not even the person who called me the Anti-Christ. Do I argue passionately? Yes. I wouldn't be here if I didn't actually take an interest in the subject. But "personally"? Please. That would require me having an emotional investment in you. I don't even know you.
quote:quote: No, I'd say I'm the one that is recognizing them. You are the one that is refusing to accept certain definitions
quote: I didn't say they did. However, they are intelligent and understand what the language means.
quote: I think that's my point! Thank you! One of those associations is "generic person."
quote:quote: How? You're going to need to provide more context.
quote:quote: Strange. You're the one that is removing all context. You respond to single words without providing any context for what prompted the word. Hack, hack, hack. How can we keep up the thread if you keep removing the context?
quote:quote: Just like I said in the very beginning: Just because you think something doesn't mean it really is. I'm reminded of an exchange in the remake of D.O.A. "What I say? That's 'imply.' The way you take it? That's 'infer.'" I'm also reminded of the flap not so long ago when David Howard referred to the budget as "niggardly" in a speech and everybody thought he had just defecated on the Pope. I don't deny they took offense, but I do deny that they had any reason to do so. The word "niggardly" has no connection at all to the word they all thought he was using and yet, because of everybody else's ignorance, he was forced to resign. All because he used a common word with no racist sentiments correctly in a sentence. Just because a bunch of people think something doesn't mean it's true.
quote:quote: But if everybody around understands, then is it really biased? If I get it and you get and she gets it and it technically is correct, why do we all suddenly go ape because some other person doesn't get it? And by the way: I understand when the first and second person are being used rhetorically and when they are being used personally. Like I said, I don't take this personally. Please stop behaving as if I am.
quote:quote: I wasn't. I asked you a direct question. If everybody gets it, where is the justification that it wasn't really what happened? If what I imply is the same thing as what you infer, how is there any claim that there is actually something different going on?
quote:quote: Um, what is "a partiality that prevents objective consideration" if not a moral judgement? And surely you're not about to engage in equivocation as if what we were all talking about in this conversation about "bias" was "a line diagonal to the grain of the fabric," are you?
quote:quote: No, I didn't. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Try it again: Just because many people find it difficult...that doesn't mean the language is forcing you.... Get it? There is a difference between the people and the language. Just because the people are having a hard time in their heads with a concept doesn't mean the language is making them think that way. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is weak, not strong.
quote: Because that's what people are saying. Schraf even posted studies showing that when masculine terms are used in the neuter, people think of males. She was using them to justify a claim of sexism. I.e., "forced."
quote: So if I'm not using that usage, who are you to tell me that I am? The problem is not that a word has definitions A and B but A is more common. It's that people are saying that a word has definition A and only sexists would attempt to give it definition B...in fact, the language, itself, is sexist for having a definition B. "Niggardly" has nothing to do with race...no matter how many people want it to. It does not mean what they think it means and for them to be offended is for them to show their ignorance. This is easily solvable by them learning what the word means. A charge of racism can't be undone.
quote: Strange...I was going to say the same thing about you.
quote: Strange...I was going to say the same thing about you. You're arguing the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
quote:quote: Why? Are you saying that there is no internal logic to language? We've got computer programs that are pretty efficient at parsing language.
quote:quote: You're being too literal. A language is bigger than any individual speaker. I can't be "two." Neither can you. But together, we become "two" and will remain so as long as we're together. That two-ness disappears as soon as we separate and so is dependent upon us, but it is not us, individually.
quote:quote: Not just the dictionary...the people who use the dictionary do it. If I say to you, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," you will probably agree with me if I pull out the dictionary and show you that what you think it means does not appear in any of the definitions. You, yourself, tried to do just that with "bias" not a moment ago.
quote:quote: How would you know? You removed the context. Are you seriously saying that a person who knows what he wants to say but accidentally misspeaks himself is not relevant in a discussion about meaning?
quote:quote: So you're saying that a good writer could make "black" really mean "white"? What were you saying about doublespeak?
quote: But what I am saying is that proper usage does not imply that at all. It is the improper use that does. It is what everybody did to David Howard and he lost his job over it. He used a common word properly and because a bunch of people didn't know the word, he was made out to be the bad guy. Rather than the proper response of the spotlight of shame being put on them for jumping to conclusions, for insisting that there is some sort of insidiousness involved, that he "should have known better" (and thus even more proof of the insidiousness inherent in Howard) that he was speaking to a bunch of poorly educated people and thus dumbed down his language to a fifth grade level, everybody jumps on him.
quote: But if I don't use those other meanings and context makes it clear that none of those other meanings are intended, why are you trying to shoehorn them in? Orneriness?
quote: I'm not denying it. In fact, that is my entire point: Context makes it clear. The reason why all those things work is because of the context. And if the context makes it clear that none of those other meanings are intended, where is the justification for trying to insert them? Take your "bias" example. It really does mean to cut diagonally across the grain of the fabric. Do you think anybody here meant that when using the word "bias" in this discussion up until this point?
quote:quote: Then why are you arguing the strong version?
quote: I know. But at any single moment, it isn't changing. So if I know what I mean when I say something and you know what I meant when you hear what I said, why the accusation that there was something else going on?
quote:quote: Only to those who are ignorant of the language. Again, someone lost his job because a bunch of poorly educated people were shocked at an innocuous word used correctly in a sentence. Does that make sense to you? Are you seriously saying that out of politeness, we should defer to the listener for meaning? A speaker is now required to psychically determine the vocabulary of all possible listeners and adjust his language accordingly? A listener has no responsibility? If a listener thinks something, then the speaker really meant that? It is never justified for a speaker to say, "You misunderstood" and have it really be because the listener made a mistake?
quote: I don't deny that. But you used the word correctly. Why are you taking responsibility for his lack of education?
quote:quote: Actually, I can.
quote: No, I don't. The context has usually made it clear long before we got to that word.
quote:quote: That doesn't answer the question. It does seem to be a problem. You yourself made quite a show of talking about "rhetorical you" above since you seemed to think I was having a problem distinguishing between "you" in the generic and "you" in the specific.
quote:quote: No. I do deny that every single meaning comes along for the ride just because a word gets used.
quote: No. I do deny that every single meaning comes along for the ride just because a word gets used.
quote: But that's my argument: A word's history does have an effect on its meaning. And the history of "he" is that it is used in the neuter. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mister Pamboli responds to me:
quote:quote: Since it's Paul's usage we're discussing, how is there a "but"?
quote:quote: But if Paul wasn't being sexist, how could there be any logical "contextualizing"? How could there be any "continuing history of bias" if the particular incident which brought it up wasn't an example of bias? Unless, of course, as I seem to have determined from schraf, her statement was a complete non sequitur. I think I might be pardoned for thinking that schraf was actually talking about Paul when she responded to him and used him as an example.
quote: No, it's the other way around. It appears that it is schraf's post that must be considered devoid of any context if she is to be excused for crying sexism. If Paul's comments weren't sexist, then what was the point of schraf using Paul's comments as a "contextualisation," an example of a "continuing history of bias"? Ah...I get it...schraf was simply making a non sequitur.
quote: Again, how does this not reflect upon Paul since he was the one who used the langauge?
quote:quote: So? The response to someone who is rude is to be rude in return? I fully agree that outrageous behaviour requires an outrageous response, but that doesn't mean you do something just as rude. And like it or not, rudeness is not the same as sexism. Paul's rolling his eyes, at the very least showing dismissal of your point of view without respecting that you have it, is not indicative of sexism. It might be, but we haven't managed to get that far.
quote: But how does a dismissive attitude lead to a charge of sexism? What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein? If I scoff at you for suggesting "she," is that indicative of me being sexist or is it indicative of me being certain that Mr. Einstein is male? Or is it sexist to conclude that a person is male by observation?
quote: Which I have been saying is wrong. The langauge isn't sexist. Paul wasn't being demonstrably sexist with that one statement. Ergo, schraf's cry of sexism is unjustified. If she were referring to Paul, she owes him an apology. And if she were making a non sequitur, then she should have spawned a new thread. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mister Pamboli responds to me:
quote:quote: Strange, in my training in logic, the truth of the premises are just as important. After all, the very point behind indirect proof is to show the premise to be false.
quote:quote: No, no, no! Reality trumps usage, yes. Is there something about "one who gives care, especially one who does so under the supervision of a physician" that would lead one to believe that the person is female? Is there something biological about being female that allows one to do this? Compare this to breastfeeding. There really is something about being female that allows one to do this. Without extreme medical intervention, males simply can't do this. The logical error of equivocation is to switch meanings of a word that has multiple meanings. Whether the word has those multiple meanings through extension or separate etymologies* is not relevant. The fact is that they have those multiple meanings and to switch definitions in the middle of a statement is illogical. Not what it "etymologically implies" but what it actually means. A word means what it actually means. * There's a word for that which escapes me at the moment...that is, "bank" meaning "place to put your money" and "bank" meaning "edge of a riverbed" are actually separate words with different etymologies that in English managed to get spelled and pronounced exactly the same.
quote:quote:quote:You mean people don't go to dictionaries to look up the meaning of words as if they were proscriptive?quote:Not in English. That's for spelling. I'm talking about meaning. Are you really telling me that people don't routinely turn to people and say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," and then back it up by going to the dictionary and showing that the apparent meaning is not listed? And that people don't accept this line of reasoning?
quote: Isn't that sufficient? Meaning comes from usage, but where does usage come from? Indeed, a signficant part of it comes from the day-to-day speaking and writing of the language, but another part of it comes from people looking to "authoritative sources" like dictionaries and things like Elements of Style.
quote: Can't say that I have. It'll have to wait, though...I have Small Gods to finish and then The Truth and Carpe Jugulum.
quote:quote: But once the Englishman learns that the Scot isn't misspeaking himself, does he still get to harbor resentment toward the Scot for persisting in that usage?
quote:quote: Too bad.
quote: You mean you do like s**t?
quote: I am.
quote: You shouldn't for I don't.
quote: There have been studies on this (alas, the subjects tend to be children who have suffered horrible abuse.) The answer seemingly is no, they don't. The way the brain works, language needs to be taught early. If a person gets beyond that point in brain development without acquiring language, he will never achieve any sort of mastery of language.
quote:quote: There's a process. They'll go through a period where they are recognized but considered informal or slang. Over time, they may acquire more mainstream usages.
quote: Beforehand. The loop has to start somewhere. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog:
quote: quote: Dunno. Do you mean the alias or the actual person behind the alias or something else? After all, since Ms. Evans created the persona, she will be the one to determine if "George Elliot" refers to a male, a female, or something else entirely. Ergo, poor analogy. Albert Einstein was not an alias. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: I am saying that in this particular instance, there is no bias. In order to make a comment about the whole language, I'd have to know everything about it, which I don't.
quote: Yes. Other languages have similar restrictions. When concepts get reflected back upon the speaker and the language is gendered, for example, it can lead to women saying one thing while men saying something else, even though they mean the same thing. Romance languages have a concept of "you, familiar" and "you, formal." Thus, a teacher will refer to students using the familiar while the students will refer to the teacher in the formal.
quote: At the very least, it is a sexist usage. The question is, is it deemed "linguistically correct" for a woman to use the familiar forms when talking to men? Cultural sexism is not the same as linguistic sexism.
quote: But correlation is not causation. I do not deny that there is a great deal of sexism in what is considered "typical" Japanese culture (at least from the Western perspective...not having been to Japan, myself...is that enough caveats?) and as such, I would very much expect that to be reflected in the way the language is used. But is it considered linguistically wrong for a woman to use the familiar with men? Or just rude?
quote: Like I said, dunno. Are you referring to the alias, the woman behind the alias, or something else? And since Ms. Evans created George Elliot, we'll have to make sure how she constructed the persona. But then again, since Albert Einstein isn't an alias, it is a false analogy. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: Only because George Elliot isn't a real person! Einstein was a real person.
quote: And by saying "Mr." that's a reasonable indication to use "he." But since "George Elliot" has dual targets, the alias and the author, the problem of which pronoun to use requires one to decide which target is required. Since "Albert Einstein" has only a single target, there's no confusion.
quote: But what is meant by "George Elliot"? The alias or the author? Einstein was a real person. "Albert Einstein" was not an alias. And please, let's not get disingenuous and start hashing out the difference between an object and its name.
quote: So the answer is "he."
quote: What makes you think we don't have access? I'd think Jesus would be a pretty good person to look to and he kept on calling god his "father" and Mary his "mother."
quote: Oh, stop playing games. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:quote: I didn't. Show me a single time where I referred to Paul as any of the above where it wasn't being used as a rhetorical device. Show me a single time where I said something to the effect of, "I, Rrhain, think that Paul is an idiot."
quote: Got my rocks right here. Show me where I sinned. I'll wait. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:quote: No, that was Mary Ann Evans writing under the pen name of George Elliot. Similarly, the person who wrote Thinner was Stephen King...it was merely published under the name of Richard Bachman.
quote: How old is "George Elliott"?
quote: Why does a persona have to be well-developed?
quote: Do they?
quote:quote: Do they?
quote: Both? No. Not really. There is Mary Ann Evans and there is the alias, George Elliot.
quote:quote: But you just said George Elliot is a man. Ergo, "he." Mary Ann Evans, on the other hand, being a woman, is "she."
quote: Indeed. But culturally, "George" is considered a man's name. If the owner of the name does not bother to fix the assumption...in fact, if the owner of the name is actively attempting to cultivate that perception, then we can hardly be blamed for referring to "George" as "he." But, we're not going off of someone attempting make you think something when it comes to Paul's perception of god.
quote:quote: You mean the Bible isn't the word of god? (*blink!*) You're determined to refuse to look at this from Paul's point of view, aren't you?
quote:quote: Yes, I did. But I also said that equivocation is a logical error and to switch definitions in the middle of a sentence is equivocation. You can't use any old definition you want. Many words have multiple meanings and context will make it clear which one it is...note, which one it is. And please, let's not get disingenuous and bring up double entendres. The game playing is not appreciated.
quote: That's because it would appear that you're more interested in playing games than discussing things. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:quote: How can an imaginary person die?
quote:quote: That doesn't answer my question. Why do you insist that a "persona" has to be a "well-developed" ideation of personality?
quote: As an actor, I've played many personas...including people who exist merely because the scene needs bodies. I'm very anti-method. It is a common practice among actors who follow the Method to fill in complete histories of their characters. For example, in the musical Marry Me a Litte, there are two characters, one male and one female. Though at one point she calls him "Ben" and he sings a song that could be interpreted to be a reference to her as "Harriet," that is simply an artifact of the fact that the songs are all interpolations. The script does not assign the characters names. A Method actor would create a name. I didn't. It wasn't important. The Method actor would say, "But if your character were asked his name, he'd know what it was!" And, indeed, that's true. Thankfully, my character is never asked what his name is in the entire production. It isn't like I run around actively concentrating on what my name is. I know what it is and I know so without having to give it any thought. But because nobody has asked me what it is in the last few hours, I haven't said it at any time. And thus, I won't waste my time worrying about it when I have other things to do. A persona can be as developed as it needs to be. If it's more, that's great, but sometimes all we need is existence.
quote:quote: Just returning the favor. I think we're at another fundamental impasse.
quote:quote: Then you were wrong to say "Mr. George Elliot."
quote:quote: Because when you are trying to understand something that someone else has said, it is helpful if you have some idea of where he is coming from as it will guide you in interpreting his statement.
quote: Even as a method of understanding why he's saying what he's saying? You refuse to consider somebody's point of view just for the sake of argument so that you can see where it goes and understand why he is saying what it is that he is saying? I didn't say you had to believe it heart and soul. I simply said you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that somebody has a different set of premises from which he's working and that his statements might make sense given those premises. Do you really not see that it can help you show why somebody has made a mistake by taking the time to see where he's coming from?
quote: It may be...but until you take the time to look at it from his point of view, you'll never know...it'll just be an assumption on your part.
quote: Because you have to demostrate the evidence! You've concluded that Paul is being sexist by his assertion that god is male, but you haven't demonstrated why.
quote: Is it sexist if it seems to be accurate? You may have contrary evidence, but what makes you think the person you're arguing with has that evidence? Have you asked him? Have you taken the time to figure out where he is coming from so that you can more easily demonstrate why you think he's wrong?
quote:quote: Until that last post, I haven't played a single game. Perhaps that's the problem. But if you truly don't want to continue this with integrity and intellectual honesty, then do everyone a favor and let it drop. We've reached an impasse. I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind and while I can see the value of trying to find out why you think the way you do, you apparently don't have the similar desire but would rather screw around. Shall we let it go? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Since this thread has seemingly petered out, I'll restrict my comments to a single point.
John responds to me:
quote:quote: Except it isn't archaic. Not in the slightest. I don't know where you live, but I hear the term often enough. And no, it was not foolish of him. He had no reason to think that the people to whom he was speaking wouldn't know a common word. I'm reminded of a time when a couple friends of mine and I were talking. One I had gone to college with and the other was a newer friend who, while quite intelligent, didn't have such a formal education. At any rate, my college friend used the word "ubiquitous" and my other friend exploded: "You keep doing that! Using those big words and making me feel stupid!" Now, I certainly understand the frustration of my friend, but over the word "ubiquitous"? I readily admit that I have a huge vocabulary, but I didn't think "ubiquitous" was such a high-falutin' word. Same thing here. Since when did "niggardly" become obsolete? When did we agree that everyone has a fifth-grade education? There is no "change" in the term "niggardly." It does not mean anything about race, never has, and still doesn't. Just because people think something is true doesn't mean it is.
quote: No, it doesn't. People heard "niggardly" and thought he said something spelled differently. It wasn't a question of "niggardly" picking up another meaning. It was a question of them thinking he said something he simply did not say. They simply did not know the word and because it rhymed with a something they didn't like, they jumped to a conclusion. And that, I think, is the crux of the argument. I'm willing to place miscommunication blame at the foot of the listener when it's appropriate.
quote: Not at all. What you're denying is that it hasn't happened in many instances. In Romance languages, there is the concept of "perfection." Is the action completed? I very much agree that the language is changing. But it hasn't finished this particular change. And since it hasn't, to ascribe ulterior motives to someone using the language in its still-generally-accepted manner is, at the very least, obnoxious. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
