The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!

This claim gets leveled at people for several reasons. Sometimes it is wholly true. Sometimes it is a device to escape admitting one has been accurately called on a point, by shifting pesonal attention to the "accused". Sometimes it is not recognizing that one's opponent is looking forward, cutting off potential lines of argument the author or others MIGHT hold based off the stated argument.There have certainly been times I've been in error on your position. However my experience is that you (and crash) have used that excuse way too often, and usually for the latter two reasons.That third reason is particularly troubling. I have explained to both of you that I sometimes address other positions which connect to your arguments, in case you might be heading somewhere or other posters might head there. Yet somehow both of you manage to "forget" that. This is not to mention that you both manage to invent positions and arguments to complain that I am saying you hold, but I have no idea what you are talking about.In the end you and he both hold the double standard that when I make a mistake regarding your position, it is my fault. And when you make a mistake in my position it is my fault.The key to "mistaken positions" is this... if a person makes a mistake in your position, it should be easily handled and dismissed. I am perplexed how anyone can have such venom and emotion invested into a position which is not their own, such that when a person makes an argument against it, a rage ensues. Clarify and move on.When a person blows into a rage, then disappears or refuses to answer, that is usually a sign it was their position all along. I'll give you one right now. You and crash have entered into clearly offtopic discussions in more than one thread. All have been to attack me on a personal matter, when I am engaged in a debate on some topic. And indeed begin to defend each other through those threads. Okay that's not the problem, that's just the set up...You both then rail against me for off topic discussions! Never do you question each other's activities that have both been clearly offtopic, and came well before anything I could have said or done. Thus you gang up on someone else, hurling accusations of activities you yourselves are commiting at that time, while giving free pass to your "friend" because you are on the same "side"... which is apparently being the "defenders of science" (which is itself something that one should find disturbing)?This is to say you don't call each other on the BS (even when making directly conflicting statements of fact) or negative activity you are engaging in, as long as you are on the same "side", while going overboard in denunciating your "enemies" if they engage in the same behavior. Its as if EvC is your "turf" which others invade and must be fought in alliances, rather than looking at each discussion as a chance to work on sometimes quite complex issues, forgiving others of minor errors in communication.If you have something to say to this... OPEN UP YOUR OWN THREAD.If you have a position on the use of "man" as a word representing humanity or people in general, by all means post something.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Holmes and schraff,While I think if everyone is amiable to a discussion on this meta issues that it would be really cool to have a thread on it. I am sorry for dragging the thread off topic. I should not have taken crash's bait.I really would like to see eye-to-eye with everybody because I think that for the most part we all share quite common ground. I would like nothing more than to befriend crash among others. It seems like we have a lot in common such as Warcraft, etc. Ever since that Pat Robertson thread though, I feel like there is less debate about positions and more plain old poo slinging. I'll be the first to admit that I can sometimes try less than as hard as I could to see my opponents position but I feel that for some it does not even cross their mind. Maybe the proverbial banging of our heads against the wall of creationist illogic and dishonesty has hardened our hearts into giving other people the benefit of the doubt and really trying to listen to each other.I don't know if that is reasonable. I don't know if everybody would be willing to try on their opponents shoes. If they do they might find out that they fit quite well.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

His, please. Although I understand how it's hard for someone like you to imagine that a man (a straight one, even!) could be interested in promoting the inclusion of women.

I don't remember us not being friends, I guess. To the extent that any of us are "friends".Even among the creationists there's nobody that I really can't stand. A couple of really hard-core conservatives, like the guy who asserted that he would rather have his daughter be viciously raped than have his son be sodomized. People like that I can't stand, and wouldn't even consider speaking to outside this context.On the other side? Holmes and Rrhain are probably the only people I wouldn't talk to at the EvC barbeque; they're the only people I felt have really been dishonest in discussions, been motivated far more by a need to appear superior as opposed to the reaching of a consensus that everybody can agree with. And even then it took months of such behavior to sour my perception of them. Hell, I'd even buy Faith a beer and pass over the peanuts, and she drives people crazy.I don't even remember whatever falling out you think we had. I'm sorry for whatever I did that left you with such hurt feelings, I truly am. But I absolutely have no recollection of any time I felt you stopped being one of the "good guys", somebody that I would probably get along with just fine.I don't know if that makes you feel any better about me.

His then, beg your pardon.Must have been your skirt flying up in your face that had me confused.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

holmes wrote: Why hasn't someone suggested this before? That is cool.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

For whatever reason this commonality is found in virtually all civilizations both ancient and extant. Righ or wrong, its a custom and one that is engrained within us. Does it really matter? My wife wouldn't care and it appears that most women don't seem to be too terribly offended by this. It would be one thing if male's were once called Momen and females called Women, then all of a sudden, somebody dropped the "mo" prefix to establish male dominance and that females are some lesser derivatives of males. But that isn't what happened. So, really, what's the problem? I think the woman's sufferage movement was a legitimate cause and I'm pleased that women are allowed their given human rights. What I don't like is this feminist movement that at the core is ironically about as anti-feminine if not more than the very people they espouse are principle offenders. Modern feminism isn't about parity with its male counterpart, its become about female superiority which is hilarious because the most outspoken ones are about as effeminate as Jesse Ventura. A "progressive" school in Oakland is trying to abolish the demarcation from males and females by confusing little boys and little girls about their own sexuality, their own identity, their own selves with this gender norming movement. The idea is to make males and females infuse so that no one notices the differences between males and females, similar to their hopes of making a society that is color blind. This is just silly because its going to have the opposite effect and its going to have dire consequences. Under the tutelage of these California pop-psychologists these kids are going to be very confused when they enter society and see that men and women, including their own mommy's and daddy's, act differently because they are physically wired differently. I mean, from top to bottom this whole idea is just stupidity.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Mmm, no, I think you're wrong about that. Probably not. But I'm curious why people have such a hard-on about avoid the word "people". Like, it's a perfectly normal word, perfectly inclusive. Completely lacks any kind of gender loading at all."People." Perfectly servicable word that means exactly what you all proclaim "man" to mean, and it doesn't, under any definition or context, mean "males." Is there some reason why you all are so adverse to the use of this word? Ah, right. All feminists are feminazis who don't shave their pits. My guess? You have no idea what is being discussed when people say "feminism." Not what I was talking about, but do you have a link or something? Because this sounds like BS.

I do use people. I use lots of different words that are not "man". Like I said, I was taught that it means the same thing... and it does. So I have no aversion to use them all.In the other thread if I used "man" more than words like "people" it is more than likely I was typing very fast and grabbing the quickest word possible. Kind of like I resort to abbreviations all the time.The question I have, and it remains, is why certain people should have a "hard-on" for not using man? The reason to feel upset about it is a fictional creation. Not only is the historical account speculative at best it requires denying what people they are talking to are explicitly meaning. It also denies the fact that both men and women use it without the feelings that that smaller group claims.Thus it seems an artificial linguistic movement which is not necessary, and only designed to create division, rather than heal division. I agree that what he said sounds like BS, but so does the claims you have made regarding the use of man. Since that is on topic, how about YOU provide your evidence first.Side note: What you said to Jazz sounds almost exactly like what I would say to you. I certainly don't believe you are a bad person, and I don't know what sparked all your anger toward me. When I think you are mistaken I will tell you (just as I do anyone else). That I do not hand out accolades every time you are right does not suggest that I think you are never right. Though maybe that's the impression you get?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You being dishonest, being confronted with it, and refusing to make any kind of amends or even any sort of recognition of the behavior. Constantly having to muddle through your posts to pick out every place where you've completely distorted my meaning is infuriating and frustrating. That you won't even admit you're doing it is the last straw.I mean even Brad McFall knows a lot of us can't read his posts. But you seem to go right on ahead like you're not doing anything objectionable at all. Holmes the saint who can't figure out why people get so pissed at him.

I agree with jazz that I'd like to end this if we can. How about cutting the gordian knot together? I'm going to lay things out as I see them (not blame wise, just position wise) and offer a solution...Jazz explained what behavior of yours he did not like, and so did I. Your counter to both has been that you do not see yourself doing the behavior either of us has objected to.I am making the same point. I am saying to you I do not recognize what you are claiming I have done.If you do not have to admit to or make amends for behavior you don't believe you are doing when Jazz or I mention it, then I am not seeing why I should. For example that post in the GW thread listing your grievances mainly looks like you're completely misreading what I was saying. Obviously we disagree on that read. Okay, that leads us to a more complex issue... Well I don't think Brad would admit he is doing anything objectionable. I wholly admit my posts are not as clearly written as some of the better writers here, and I am striving to improve. For some I have even drawn parallels between Brad's posts and my own stating that it could be my posts are as opaque to them and Brad's are to me.So when people mistake my meaning I don't give them a real hard time about it. I don't really care, unless it is done by wholly rearranging my text, or insisted on after I have made a correction, because miscommunications happen in life. If someone makes an argument as if I am arguing something I am not, I usually just respond with "I agree", or "I agree and that is my point", the latter to stress cases where the poster clearly misread my intention and it is important to understand what they are saying is actually part of my argument.If the point is discussing the evidence regarding a subject, then I just don't see the need to belabor the point of where micommunications occur, and just fix the error. I hope you will agree. People have just expressed that they are unhappy with some of the behaviors they believe you engage in. So far two people have said they are angry with me, but at the same time people have also said they disagree with your charge and/or they are not pissed at me and like what I write.Thus as much as you and schraf claim that I am dishonest and hard to read, others do not seem to hold that opinion, and so you can't talk as if you speak for other people at EvC. The same cuts against me or anyone else talking about you and schraf. Or how about anyone at EvC?So what does that add up to? I dunno. We could say a draw.How about this? Given that we want to discuss evidence and conclusions, why don't we just discuss that and attempt to trim out any verbiage which addresses the other person. And if a point is raised which is not really against our position (thus showing a mistake was made in understanding a position), we just say "I agree with that". In that way we don't have to wrangle over who was responsible for the miscommunication, and at the same time it makes our positions clearer.If you have another viable solution I'm open to it.Edited by holmes, : little fixes

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't have a problem with using people. I only say differently when I use in its stead, "mankind," which is being inclusive to male and female. I think I normally state 'people' if I intend on being inclusive to both sexes. To me this just seems like a non-issue. I mean, males need females, and females need males. There is something bueatiful in that duality, so why are some people out to eradicate our subtle differences by trying to fuse them together into one androgenous lump? Femininity is bueatiful. Masculinity is bueatiful. So why converge them so that they lose all meaning? I'm not adverse to you or I using the word, 'people.' What I am adverse towards is you telling me that me using the word 'mankind' inclusively is somehow sexist. That's ridiculous to me. I didn't invent the rules and I didn't invent the words. It is what it is and the way I'm using it is in context with proper English. I see 'Feminism" as being anti-feminine. I see Feminism as trying to espouse a more masculine presence within feminity, which is horribly ironic to me. If I went around espousing "masculinity" I would be referred to as a sexist. Why? If the goal is really about equality, then why do they get to espouse feminism but I can't espouse maleism? Why does a black man get to espouse "black power" without anyone batting an eyelash, but a white guy can't espouse "white power?" If its all about equality, then make it equal across the board, no?That's what I'm talking about. Its not about equality, its about domination. Its about reversing the roles. That's why I don't like it. Affirmative Action tries to use racism in order to combat racism and feminsts use sexism to combat sexism. Those are obviously oxymorons and are completely counter-proudctive ways of achieving their stated goals.

quote:

---

A "progressive" school in Oakland is trying to abolish the demarcation from males and females by confusing little boys and little girls about their own sexuality, their own identity, their own selves with this gender norming movement.

---

Gender NeutralityEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : tried to put html tags. Oh well.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : tags

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Given the complete inability of most posters and readers here to actually manage to communicate a message without it getting garbled in the process; don't you think it's a bit rich to read such motivations - beyond what was even said - into such writers?I mean, if there's anything the internet can teach you, it's that people are largely incapable of making what they want to be understood, understood by means of textual communication. How then can you possibly claim to be able to read deep sub-textual levels of communication from someone else's text?

To reiterate what I've just stated in another thread, you can take your "olive branch" and cram it up your ass. You're a real pissant to distort my apology to Jazzns in the way that you have. That's absolutely bullshit. All I told Jazzns was that I had no particular memory of what he was referring to - not that I denied doing it. Why would I apologize for something I don't think I did?Take your so-called "olive branch" - nothing more than one more arrogant attempt to appear superior - and go fuck yourself. How dare you selfishly manipulate a sincere apology in that way. You've gone from dishonest to disgusting in one short post. And I'm taking the responsibility to make amends for that. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but shift the responsibility to everybody but yourself.Absolutely disgraceful. What could have gotten into you that you could possibly think that the way to reconcile after your abominable history of distortion would be to distort me even further?Fuck off, Holmes. I realize there's no possibility that you'll do the right thing and avoid any further interactions with me, so I won't even ask. But understand that there's absolutely nothing you could contribute here that I would bother to notice. I once might have made an exception for a sincere apology for your behavior. If this was your excuse for such an apology, then clearly that exception was unneccessary.

So, like I suspected, you don't know anything about feminism.Can you show me a single prominent feminist writer who has asserted that feminism means women being more like men? Any at all? "Black power" is about making it equal; i.e. rectifying a power disparity by "adding" to black power. Adding to white power, as you promote, makes it even more unequal.Pretend that one of your children has 3 apples, and the other has 4. The one with 3 might argue that's unfair, and you would be right to agree.So what's the fair solution? Give both children an apple? How does that make any sense? No, you give one apple to the child with less and nothing to the child with more. He might complain that's "unfair" but he's just being a brat; in failing to recognize the action as the correction of a disparity he's just using the language of "fairness" to preserve an unfairness that he finds advantageous - having more apples.Just like you'd be doing. Men have more power than women, so it isn't fair to argue for "male power." Males have power; women are the ones who need more of it for equality to be achieved.This is a simplistic calculus, to be sure, but it's just an illustration about why it isn't, in fact, fair for white men to demand more power in the name of "fairness." Nonsense. You're just like the idiot parent who tries to address the inequality between his children by giving them both the same amount of additional apples. But no matter how many times you give each child an additional apple, one child still has more, because you still haven't addressed the underlying inequality. Yeah, BS, just like I thought. You're talking about a one-class-period seminar on not beating up gay students in the locker room, not a concerted effort in the curriculum to convince boys they're all girls and girls they're all boys.I can't see what possible harm you think this stuff is going to cause, unless you're under the ludicrous misapprehension that boys can't grow up to be men unless they beat the shit out of as many fags as possible.