do I understand the definition of a man?

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 1865
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by honorentheos »

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 3:02 am
I am making a point that a women, when treated as an object in your set theory of constructs and definitions, may reject your construct and set theory and objectification. Isn't that the point of honor's flip comment? It may not be clear to you or to honor that objectification into sets is not any less demeaning to a person than objectification of breasts and butts. In fact, to many women, such set-based objectification is MORE offensive and quickly dismissed or rejected.
Actually, Cultellus, it is one of my past points to markk. When individuals are told they must conform to certain cultural ideas about what it means to be a man or woman, and they fail to see themselves in those those "sets", the broader culture pushes to have them confirm and "get in the set" so to speak.

So you may not be able to see this, but you are a tool of a past defined set with your argument just as much as you think others are and somehow wrong for that.

So like I said, some people need to learn how set theory works.
Last edited by honorentheos on Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 4543
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by canpakes »

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:30 am
canpakes wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:23 am

Correction: it may not be clear to you that others have, for a very long time, been well aware of a reality that you believe you’re introducing to others.

You might go back and read the few threads on this subject that preceded yours, and note who is asking to define what a woman - or a man - is. Finish up here.
Oh, so the entirety of your post is about me, as usual. I take that you do acknowledge then the the objectification of women, by applying a set theory to their existence, is problematic for some of the subjects of this method of objectification.

It’s probably best not to then co-opt the identity of any person to satisfy how you wish to define ‘woman’ while simultaneously attempting to speak for them.

You would, after all, claim that “there are probably many women that find it demeaning” … as you mentioned upstream.

You’re correct about one thing … you made this about you.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Binger »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:49 am
Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:30 am


Oh, so the entirety of your post is about me, as usual. I take that you do acknowledge then the the objectification of women, by applying a set theory to their existence, is problematic for some of the subjects of this method of objectification.

It’s probably best not to then co-opt the identity of any person to satisfy how you wish to define ‘woman’ while simultaneously attempting to speak for them.

You
would, after all, claim that “there are probably many women that find it demeaning” … as you mentioned upstream.

You’re correct about one thing … you made this about you.
Hey, thanks again for posting three lines about me, panny. You are good like that little puppy.

Pretending that I said something, or did something, that I did not say or do does not make it true, despite an insane repetitive effort on your part. (That was about your conversation about me)

I am not co-opting anyone's identity. And I am not stopping anyone from having a rabid rant and twist of logic and words until the concept of a woman is changed, reformed, pretzeled, bastardized and bred with other definitions to make the teenage Gen-Z mutant ninja definition of "women." I am not co-opting or getting in the way of someone making the gender equivalent of a Liger out of what used to be a man and what is currently a man. I don't give a **** what people want their definition or construct to be or what they can prove that the new construct is. They can call a man whatever they want, and they can call a woman whatever they want. I am not getting in the way, nor am I jumping on anyone and accusing them of failing to apply mathematic theories to the process. You and anyone else can objectify men and women until you are content as can be.

And, the rest of us, can shrug and reject whatever is being foisted. That's all. Ain't no big deal. Doesn't make me or anyone else bad at math or theories or anything else. It is just a shrug and a hhhrrrmmmph and whatever, buddy.

The world can and does respect men, women and children. The world can and does respect sexuality. The world can and will respect transgender people. And they can do all that without reclassifying women, birthing persons, bleeders, puberty and children on ideological and non-sensical terms.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 4543
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by canpakes »

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:58 pm
canpakes wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:49 am



It’s probably best not to then co-opt the identity of any person to satisfy how you wish to define ‘woman’ while simultaneously attempting to speak for them.

You
would, after all, claim that “there are probably many women that find it demeaning” … as you mentioned upstream.

You’re correct about one thing … you made this about you.
Hey, thanks again for posting three lines about me, panny. You are good like that little puppy.

Pretending that I said something, or did something, that I did not say or do does not make it true, despite an insane repetitive effort on your part. (That was about your conversation about me)

I am not co-opting anyone's identity. And I am not stopping anyone from having a rabid rant and twist of logic and words until the concept of a woman is changed, reformed, pretzeled, bastardized and bred with other definitions to make the teenage Gen-Z mutant ninja definition of "women." I am not co-opting or getting in the way of someone making the gender equivalent of a Liger out of what used to be a man and what is currently a man. I don't give a **** what people want their definition or construct to be or what they can prove that the new construct is. They can call a man whatever they want, and they can call a woman whatever they want. I am not getting in the way, nor am I jumping on anyone and accusing them of failing to apply mathematic theories to the process. You and anyone else can objectify men and women until you are content as can be.

:evil: And, the rest of us, can shrug and reject whatever is being foisted. That's all. Ain't no big deal. Doesn't make me or anyone else bad at math or theories or anything else. It is just a shrug and a hhhrrrmmmph and whatever, buddy.

The world can and does respect men, women and children. The world can and does respect sexuality. The world can and will respect transgender people. And they can do all that without reclassifying women, birthing persons, bleeders, puberty and children on ideological and non-sensical terms.

That bolded part is the key. In other words, you can sort yourself out, and others will do the same for themselves.

I’m not convinced that any woman in particular - or menstruating person - needs to be co-opted by you or anyone else, to serve as proxy for an opinion that you have about something that you disagree with. I’m betting that they can handle that on their own as needed.

The conversation of definitions reminds me of the issue of gay marriage. Such a thing ‘redefines marriage’ for who, exactly? Your own marriage is what it is regardless, just as your mother remains however she defines herself in the face of honor’s friend’s refusal to adhere to whatever standard definition of woman that you demand of them.

And life goes on.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Binger »

canpakes wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:38 pm
Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:58 pm


Hey, thanks again for posting three lines about me, panny. You are good like that little puppy.

Pretending that I said something, or did something, that I did not say or do does not make it true, despite an insane repetitive effort on your part. (That was about your conversation about me)

I am not co-opting anyone's identity. And I am not stopping anyone from having a rabid rant and twist of logic and words until the concept of a woman is changed, reformed, pretzeled, bastardized and bred with other definitions to make the teenage Gen-Z mutant ninja definition of "women." I am not co-opting or getting in the way of someone making the gender equivalent of a Liger out of what used to be a man and what is currently a man. I don't give a **** what people want their definition or construct to be or what they can prove that the new construct is. They can call a man whatever they want, and they can call a woman whatever they want. I am not getting in the way, nor am I jumping on anyone and accusing them of failing to apply mathematic theories to the process. You and anyone else can objectify men and women until you are content as can be.

:evil: And, the rest of us, can shrug and reject whatever is being foisted. That's all. Ain't no big deal. Doesn't make me or anyone else bad at math or theories or anything else. It is just a shrug and a hhhrrrmmmph and whatever, buddy.

The world can and does respect men, women and children. The world can and does respect sexuality. The world can and will respect transgender people. And they can do all that without reclassifying women, birthing persons, bleeders, puberty and children on ideological and non-sensical terms.

That bolded part is the key. In other words, you can sort yourself out, and others will do the same for themselves.

I’m not convinced that any woman in particular - or menstruating person - needs to be co-opted by you or anyone else, to serve as proxy for an opinion that you have about something that you disagree with. I’m betting that they can handle that on their own as needed.

The conversation of definitions reminds me of the issue of gay marriage. Such a thing ‘redefines marriage’ for who, exactly? Your own marriage is what it is regardless, just as your mother remains however she defines herself in the face of honor’s friend’s refusal to adhere to whatever standard definition of woman that you demand of them.

And life goes on.
Thanks panny. Three more paragraphs about me.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 4543
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by canpakes »

Binger wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:42 pm
Thanks panny. Three more paragraphs about me.

That’s what happens when you make the conversation about yourself. : D

Chat with your gay cousin about it later.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 1865
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by honorentheos »

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:58 pm
And, the rest of us, can shrug and reject whatever is being foisted. That's all. Ain't no big deal. Doesn't make me or anyone else bad at math or theories or anything else. It is just a shrug and a hhhrrrmmmph and whatever, buddy.

The world can and does respect men, women and children. The world can and does respect sexuality. The world can and will respect transgender people. And they can do all that without reclassifying women, birthing persons, bleeders, puberty and children on ideological and non-sensical terms.
Cultellus' white flag. All the good people are with me so I don't need to engage in discussion. And someday, if you keep doing what you do to me, and by extension all the good people who are with me, well.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Binger »

honorentheos wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 4:19 pm
Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:58 pm
And, the rest of us, can shrug and reject whatever is being foisted. That's all. Ain't no big deal. Doesn't make me or anyone else bad at math or theories or anything else. It is just a shrug and a hhhrrrmmmph and whatever, buddy.

The world can and does respect men, women and children. The world can and does respect sexuality. The world can and will respect transgender people. And they can do all that without reclassifying women, birthing persons, bleeders, puberty and children on ideological and non-sensical terms.
Cultellus' white flag. All the good people are with me so I don't need to engage in discussion. And someday, if you keep doing what you do to me, and by extension all the good people who are with me, well.
Except for the part where I am engaging in the discussion while you and panny are talking about me, right?
honorentheos
God
Posts: 1865
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by honorentheos »

Binger wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 4:22 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 4:19 pm


Cultellus' white flag. All the good people are with me so I don't need to engage in discussion. And someday, if you keep doing what you do to me, and by extension all the good people who are with me, well.
Except for the part where I am engaging in the discussion while you and panny are talking about me, right?
Sure. Dismissing the discussion as irrelevant to your opinion on the grounds you imagine the sum of humanity shares your opinion is a form of engagement. Low effort and presumptive but whatever.

You should try revisiting a topic from the perspective of being an outlier who needs to defend your view. You might surprise yourself. Arguing that cultural gendered norms are essentially set and happen to align with your view of what they include is really missing more than an aspect of the topic. It's dismissing it.
User avatar
Morley
First Presidency
Posts: 818
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait (1434)

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Morley »

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:22 am

As usual, you miss the entire point while playing the man and not the ball.

It doesn't matter what I think or why I think it. It does not matter what you think.
And yet here you are, telling us what you think. And asking us what we think.

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:22 am

What matters is that this so-called construct is just the equivalent of mansplaining to women of who and what they are.
As is yours. As are you.

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:22 am
And, many women are rejecting your conditions and the conditions of this new construct. They don't give two pieces of damnit whether you, or honor, or anyone else has collected them into a set of objects for your soothing and logic. They just dismiss the notion outright, as is their wont. And they are not wrong.
And many women aren’t. And they are not wrong, either.


You seem to be saying that some people and some women are upset about the evolving definition of what it means to be a woman——that some women feel offended when classed as people rather than the narrower definition of ‘women’.

I don’t see anyone saying that that isn’t so, or that those feelings are invalid.


It might also be true that there folks who are happy to nudge the definition a little. And that their feelings might also have value.

What do you think?
Post Reply