They came up with a "new" definition of the word Woman.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 120
#91
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I added, two states in the definition, so no it doesn't count. 
A definition needs to include all that should be included and exclude all that should be excluded.  If the definition for Dakotas includes Nebraska, then you would have to call Nebraska one of the Dakotas.  Whatever definition you apply to the Dakotas should include North and South Dakota and exclude every other place.  My definition is, “Any state that is either North Dakota or South Dakota.”.  This is defining with a list, and I think it’s okay to do this.  It’s also better because most people don’t know what the northern Mississippi River valley is, and complex definitions need simplier terms.  I’m pretty sure the northern Mississippi River valley is more complex than state learned in elementary school.
#92
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
By that logic, if your American, you are African American even if you aren’t black.
#93
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
He posted this thread because of our current debate. 
#94
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,305
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yep, that's one way of looking at it.

Another way is to say that we are all primates of the species homo-sapiens, who evolved approximately 300000 years ago from somewhere in the continent of Africa.

The Americas were first named approximately 500 years ago. And people have been arriving there ever since.

And the first settlers to the continents known as the Americas arrived approximately 15000 years ago. And people have been arriving there ever since.

So, homo-sapiens are only indigenous to Africa.

And everywhere else variously coloured people are the descendants of variously coloured migrants.
Topic's author
#95
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
A definition needs to include all that should be included and exclude all that should be excluded.  If the definition for Dakotas includes Nebraska, then you would have to call Nebraska one of the Dakotas.  Whatever definition you apply to the Dakotas should include North and South Dakota and exclude every other place.  My definition is, “Any state that is either North Dakota or South Dakota.”.  This is defining with a list, and I think it’s okay to do this.  It’s also better because most people don’t know what the northern Mississippi River valley is, and complex definitions need simplier terms.  I’m pretty sure the northern Mississippi River valley is more complex than state learned in elementary school.
Dakotas:
Two states, in the USA, that are bordered by Canada, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota.

Now define a woman please. 
Topic's author
#96
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
He posted this thread because of our current debate. 
Which you have yet to reply to. 
#97
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
No such think as Native American.

Native implys birth place nation or continent etc. If i'm from Suffolk then I'm native of Suffolk Britain etc.
#98
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Finally, we come to an understanding.
No, we apparently haven’t.

You seem to just be zeroing in on trigger words and phrases and disregarding everything else you’d rather not deal with. So when I said there’s no correct way to interpret these terms all you heard was me saying “I’m not correct”.

You are the one who argued the opposite of what I just said and continue to do so. You are the one claiming that there is a correct way to use the terms and that is your way. I’m saying we aren’t limited to how previous generations spoke, so if we agree then that undercuts every argument you have made.

So, can we make up our own personal definitions of words, or should we just stick to the key to how society has run and thrived for hundreds of years?
This is not only a false dichotomy, it’s nonsensical.

I just explained to you that words change over time. Go back hundreds of years and you’d barely be understood by anyone you’re talking to. Dictionaries understand this full well, that’s why they update a definitions in the first place. This isn’t some new phenomenon spawned by the LGBTQ community, it’s what linguists have spent the past century or more studying.

Also, you seem incapable of understanding the difference between referring to “we” as individuals vs “we” as a society. Once again, no one is arguing that every individual can just run around making up their own words. Language is about communication, and we need other people to understand our terms if we want to convey thoughts and ideas. But if everyone is on the same page, we can all change terms to whatever we want because we will now be able to understand each other.

This is really basic stuff and is not controversial when it comes to any other topic. The fact that now, all of a sudden on this one topic right wingers need this very basic fact explained speaks volumes about how political ideology deludes the human brain.
#99
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now define a woman please. 
Define God.

And don’t give me some definition that other people out there disagree with otherwise we won’t be able to use it and all of our language will just dissolve into mess causing chaos within our society that will take us all down.
#100
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,904
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Who is they and who died and made they in charge of redefining words.
#101
Novice_II
Novice_II's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 174
2
6
6
Novice_II's avatar
Novice_II
2
6
6
-->
@Double_R
I am not sure why you in particular are fond of dodging questions. 
#102
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Novice_II
And I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. Please feel free to elaborate.
#103
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Novice_II
For a lot of people, that is how they concede points. This is a debate site, so it seems more productive to address points of contention rather than concessions.
#104
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Humans also thought slavery was ok for most of human history, until we realized it wasn’t. Our previous usage of gender is irrelevant to what makes sense now.
Much of slavery was justified through the use of very bad science, including phrenology (a thoroughly debunked theory)

You already asserted that today's positions on gender are not rooted in any real science, but rather psuedo-science, much like the science that justified slavery.

#105
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Dakotas:
Two states, in the USA, that are bordered by Canada, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota.
If you define the Dakotas in this way, you would also have to define Montana as a state that borders a bunch of states, including North and South Dakota to be consistent.  This is a circular definition, which you claim isn’t good.  I however, think circular definitions if you go far enough can be unavoidable.
#106
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 270
Posts: 7,774
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
And I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. Please feel free to elaborate.
I noticed that Novice doesnt do much activity in the forum, so you are probably not going to get much response from him. I could be wrong, but he has done similar things before.
Topic's author
#107
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
I just explained to you that words change over time.
They evolve. Some evolve more than others, but none have deliberately changed the definition entirely.
But I still bring up the point, that changing the definition isn't even the worst part. It is that the definition, that they used to describe a woman, has many flaws, and is not a valid definition.


Also, you seem incapable of understanding the difference between referring to “we” as individuals vs “we” as a society. Once again, no one is arguing that every individual can just run around making up their own words. Language is about communication, and we need other people to understand our terms if we want to convey thoughts and ideas. But if everyone is on the same page, we can all change terms to whatever we want because we will now be able to understand each other.
….did you reread what you just wrote?

This is really basic stuff and is not controversial when it comes to any other topic. The fact that now, all of a sudden on this one topic right wingers need this very basic fact explained speaks volumes about how political ideology deludes the human brain.
It's a little weird that biology is now controversial, and is a part of politics now. 
Biology is what we base a lot of our knowledge on. If we can't even agree on that, then we have already failed as a society.


Define God.

And don’t give me some definition that other people out there disagree with otherwise we won’t be able to use it and all of our language will just dissolve into mess causing chaos within our society that will take us all down.
My definition of God is based in faith. 
I never forced anyone to believe God is real. I just believe that myself. It is up to others to make that decision for themselves.

But with this new definition of woman, people are trying to force others to come to terms with this new definition, even though a lot of people don't agree with it. 
That's the major problem with the left. They want everyone to support and believe in what they believe, and they always preach equality. But then they go behind everyone's backs and try to censor and silence people who have a differing opinion, because it challenges theirs, and they know they won't win a debate on it. 

So my definition of God, is:
"in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."

This definition of a God isn't wrong. That literally is the definition of the concept of a God. 
The new definition of a woman isn't even right. It is flawed in every aspect. 
Topic's author
#108
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you define the Dakotas in this way, you would also have to define Montana as a state that borders a bunch of states, including North and South Dakota to be consistent.  This is a circular definition, which you claim isn’t good.
What? 

Please elaborate. 
#109
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
These are just names that describe states with real, geographic boundaries, which arguably are far more important than a simple name. especially for legal purposes.
#110
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If you’re going to define the Dakotas as being between various other piracies of land, I could define those other pieces of land as being bordered by the Dakotas, making the definition circular.  It would be like if I defined Montana as:

“A state bordered by Wyoming, Idaho, Canada, and the Dakotas”.  This makes a definition circular.
#111
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,038
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
this is a good read:
#112
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
It would be like if I defined Montana as:

“A state bordered by Wyoming, Idaho, Canada, and the Dakotas”.  This makes a definition circular.
How is that circular?
#113
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
This is the debate that inspired this thread.:

Topic's author
#114
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7

Yea, and in the debate you literally said the words:
Two genders are based in biology.
Therefore proving me right. 

Topic's author
#115
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
It would be like if I defined Montana as:

“A state bordered by Wyoming, Idaho, Canada, and the Dakotas”.  This makes a definition circular.
How is that circular?
I had the same question. 
#116
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
To define the Dakotas, you have to use the term Montana.  To define the term Montana, you have to use Dakota.  It’s circular.
#117
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,300
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Post 116.
Topic's author
#118
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
To define the Dakotas, you have to use the term Montana.  To define the term Montana, you have to use Dakota.  It’s circular.
But each time, your using different states, so it is not circular. 
Topic's author
#119
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 2,125
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Can you just please define a woman for me, it's really not that hard. 
#120
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,130
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Dakota is a proper noun (name) . They are capitalized and describe a particular place, person or organization.