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.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Binger »

canpakes wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:22 pm
Binger wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm


This is not a flip side to Morley's point. Not even close.

The construct is telling women who they are, what they are, how they are, and who else is in their construct. If you think this shaming and defining and pointing and redefining with a process of deciding who is included and excluded is morally superior to the respect that Rulon and Warren Jeffs had for women, you are out of your mind. It may not be as sickening, but it is the same damn thing.

Some women were offended by the Jeffs cult when they were redefined and reassigned. Some women are offended when they are reclassified as a person who menstruates. The point of it all is that someone is deciding who and what a woman is, and the woman is forced to just take it. That is all good and all fine. But, be careful what you wish for. Some women will just tell you to pound sand, dude.

None of that is happening in that tweet/image, but what you’re describing above is what you’re doing while complaining about it.
I know you are but what am I? Again?

Stick to being a crappy moderator, you are better at that than you are at substantive posting. Way better, buddy. Way better.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by canpakes »

Binger wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:33 pm
canpakes wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:22 pm



None of that is happening in that tweet/image, but what you’re describing above is what you’re doing while complaining about it.
I know you are but what am I? Again?

You seem to like playing that game. : )

Stick to being a crappy moderator, you are better at that than you are at substantive posting. Way better, buddy. Way better.

You should at least try to construct a better faux rage-fest, than setting up silly straw men* and then shooting yourself in the foot while trying to argue with ‘em.

*straw persons? Lol. : D
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by honorentheos »

Binger wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm
Some women are offended when they are reclassified as a person who menstruates.
Some people don't understand how set theory works.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Morley »

Binger wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm
canpakes wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 1:45 pm



Some might. But, the flip side of that is that not all people who can use a tampon are necessarily going to call themselves women, especially if they experience menarche at 12 years of age. Although, they’re still ‘a person who menstruates’, even as they might not want to be co-opted at such an early age for someone else’s cultural rage du jour.
This is not a flip side to Morley's point. Not even close.

The construct is telling women who they are, what they are, how they are, and who else is in their construct. If you think this shaming and defining and pointing and redefining with a process of deciding who is included and excluded is morally superior to the respect that Rulon and Warren Jeffs had for women, you are out of your mind. It may not be as sickening, but it is the same damn thing.

Some women were offended by the Jeffs cult when they were redefined and reassigned. Some women are offended when they are reclassified as a person who menstruates. The point of it all is that someone is deciding who and what a woman is, and the woman is forced to just take it. That is all good and all fine. But, be careful what you wish for. Some women will just tell you to pound sand, dude.
True story: My most excellent friend teaches studio art at a small rural university in a neighboring state--and goes by the nickname 'Welder' (the name has been changed but is similar). Welder has double x chromosomes, a son, is married to a man, sometimes wears a skirt, and until a recent bout with cancer, menstruated. Welder identifies as gender neutral and is unhappy when referred to as either a woman or a man. Welder would claim as much moral outrage at being called a woman as do your women who express disdain at being called merely people. Welder has had me personally pounding sand for my misuse of gendered pronouns.

Who should get to claim the greatest moral outrage? Folks who want tampons to be for people or those who think they should just be for women? What are Welder's rights vs your examples? And where does Canpakes' 12-year-old, who doesn't want to be categorized out of her childhood, fit in?
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by canpakes »

honorentheos wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:26 pm
Binger wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 4:44 pm
Some women are offended when they are reclassified as a person who menstruates.
Some people don't understand how set theory works.

I don’t know, honor. Where’s the fun of throwing a faux rage fit over telling women who they are, what they are, how they are, and who else is in their construct, if one can’t be telling women who they are, what they are, how they are, and who else is in their construct while throwing that fit?
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Binger »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:47 am
honorentheos wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 8:26 pm


Some people don't understand how set theory works.

I don’t know, honor. Where’s the fun of throwing a faux rage fit over telling women who they are, what they are, how they are, and who else is in their construct, if one can’t be telling women who they are, what they are, how they are, and who else is in their construct while throwing that fit?
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. What matters is that this so-called construct is just the equivalent of mansplaining to women of who and what they are. 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.

Further rationalizing this because of set theory, and how it applies is, frankly, awesome and perfect. It dehumanizes these women for your set theory, and frees them of association by merely checking out of your set of objects.

Feel free to play the man with insults here in paradise, panny. Your lack of substance on the matter was long ago noted.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
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 2:22 am
canpakes wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 1:47 am
I don’t know, honor. Where’s the fun of throwing a faux rage fit over telling women who they are, what they are, how they are, and who else is in their construct, if one can’t be telling women who they are, what they are, how they are, and who else is in their construct while throwing that fit?
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. What matters is that this so-called construct is just the equivalent of mansplaining to women of who and what they are. 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.

Further rationalizing this because of set theory, and how it applies is, frankly, awesome and perfect. It dehumanizes these women for your set theory, and frees them of association by merely checking out of your set of objects.

Yes, this is exactly what you’re doing. It’s an inescapable consequence of trying to define what a woman is or is not to people that you’re heckling who are not attempting the same thing in the face of your accusation that they’re doing what you are doing.

Feel free to play the man with insults here in paradise, panny. Your lack of substance on the matter was long ago noted.

Rather, I’ve ‘played the ball’. It’s the ball that you literally introduced here, in this thread about the ball. In doing so, it exposed your folly, and now you’ve defaulted to ‘playing the man’ in response. : D

It’s that projection and irony thing. You excel at it.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Binger »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:45 am
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. What matters is that this so-called construct is just the equivalent of mansplaining to women of who and what they are. 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.

Further rationalizing this because of set theory, and how it applies is, frankly, awesome and perfect. It dehumanizes these women for your set theory, and frees them of association by merely checking out of your set of objects.

Yes, this is exactly what you’re doing. It’s an inescapable consequence of trying to define what a woman is or is not to people that you’re heckling who are not attempting the same thing in the face of your accusation that they’re doing what you are doing.

Feel free to play the man with insults here in paradise, panny. Your lack of substance on the matter was long ago noted.

Rather, I’ve ‘played the ball’. It’s the ball that you literally introduced here, in this thread about the ball. In doing so, it exposed your folly, and now you’ve defaulted to ‘playing the man’ in response. : D

It’s that projection and irony thing. You excel at it.
So again, you played the man not the ball. As usual. And you played "I know you are but what am I?"

I am not heckling when I say that your take on the matter, or mine, is inconsequential and not relevant. 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.
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7062
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 3:02 am
So again, you played the man not the ball. As usual. And you played "I know you are but what am I?"

I am not heckling when I say that your take on the matter, or mine, is inconsequential and not relevant. 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.

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.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: do I understand the definition of a man?

Post by Binger »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 4:23 am
Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 3:02 am
So again, you played the man not the ball. As usual. And you played "I know you are but what am I?"

I am not heckling when I say that your take on the matter, or mine, is inconsequential and not relevant. 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.

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.
Post Reply