|
United States15536 Posts
On October 17 2013 00:58 Slayer91 wrote:
this is an absurd strawman argument, im aware some people don't identify with being a man or woman but that doesn't mean you can tell a lot (STATISTICALLY HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT) depending on if you were born a male or female
If you say 'statistically' show statistics.
And you originally said, "you're either a 1 or a 0" and that's not true.
|
I believe the appropriate terms are 'male' and 'female'.
|
United States23745 Posts
On October 17 2013 00:56 ComaDose wrote:
It was not my intention to start a new argument. You said everyone is either a man or a woman and i disagree.
I think its important to know the difference between gender and sex to have that conversation.
I think he meant everyone is male or female (sex, not gender).
|
On October 17 2013 00:58 Slayer91 wrote:
this is an absurd strawman argument, im aware some people don't identify with being a man or woman but that doesn't mean you can tell a lot (STATISTICALLY HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT) depending on if you were born a male or female
What is the strawman?
You responded to me saying that you cant lump people into binary groups by saying
yes you can
binary categories
woman 0
man 1
woman and man are genders. I said gender is not binary. Pretty linear argument. Now you admit that people do not nessasarily fit into man or woman disproving the original statement you made with the "amagerd"
|
Hearthstone Open on TL? Don't mind if I do.....
|
when i say man or woman i mean male or female (as in what you were born as) but saying male and female makes you sound like some kind of basement dweller who only knows the difference in theoretical terms.
you are aruging semantics with me and completely ignoring the main point which is you CAN categorize people and it HAS been shown to be effective for a number of purposes
also even though not everyone might fit into man or woman as gender it is such a small amount that you should ignore it anyway when it comes to categorizing which means your argument is doubly non relevant/strawman
and im not going to dig up statistics but i think its a very reasonable assumption that AT LEAST people advertise based on "sex/gender" and also things like movies e.g rom coms aimed at "women", cartoons aimed at "kids+parents" etc.
|
On October 17 2013 00:58 Slayer91 wrote:this is an absurd strawman argument, im aware some people don't identify with being a man or woman but that doesn't mean you can tell a lot (STATISTICALLY HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT) depending on if you were born a male or female Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 00:56 ComaDose wrote:
It was not my intention to start a new argument. You said everyone is either a man or a woman and i disagree.
I think its important to know the difference between gender and sex to have that conversation. If you did not intend to start an argument why would you start to argue semantics with me when we both knew exactly what i was talking about im aware people love to think that gender doesn't exist and its all nuture or maybe just mostly nuture but it's just completely not relevant posts
Talkin about strawmans up in here hue.
I did intend to continue the argument you started by quoting me and saying something incorrect.
Talking about some completely not relevant posts (that are not present here) as part of your argument is quite the strawman
|
Today I learned I sound like a basement dweller for using the correct terms when talking about sex.
|
United States15536 Posts
On October 17 2013 01:04 Slayer91 wrote:
when i say man or woman i mean male or female (as in what you were born as) but saying male and female makes you sound like some kind of basement dweller who only knows the difference in theoretical terms.
you are aruging semantics with me and completely ignoring the main point which is you CAN categorize people and it HAS been shown to be effective for a number of purposes
also even though not everyone might fit into man or woman as gender it is such a small amount that you should ignore it anyway when it comes to categorizing which means your argument is doubly non relevant/strawman
It's not sematics and it's narrow-minded to label it as such.
These are important differences and acknowledging them is essential.
If you want to use categories, fine, consider your point valid. But your casual example of men/women is flawed and that's my problem.
Arguing that small percentages don't matter especially in this case devalues the people and perspectives that make up those percentages.
I'm sorry if you wanted to make one point and we looked at a different one, but this is the one that matters to me.
|
this discussion is based around the claim that categorizing people is useless because you can't lump people into categories.
my argument is that you clearly can and people have done so for good reasons for a long long time.
you just derailed the argument and then claim that the original argument is whether gender is STRICTLY binary (it is perfectly acceptable to have a small error% in a binary category) which i never once intended to claim at all
|
On October 17 2013 01:04 Slayer91 wrote:
when i say man or woman i mean male or female (as in what you were born as) but saying male and female makes you sound like some kind of basement dweller who only knows the difference in theoretical terms.
you are aruging semantics with me and completely ignoring the main point which is you CAN categorize people and it HAS been shown to be effective for a number of purposes
also even though not everyone might fit into man or woman as gender it is such a small amount that you should ignore it anyway when it comes to categorizing which means your argument is doubly non relevant/strawman
well now we are just argueing about what we are arguing about.
you quoted me and said everyone is a man or woman.
I responded and said no they are not.
Your point was its binary and now your saying well its not but outliers don't matter.
I don't think we should ignore people because they don't fit into our pre-approved genders.
Your other point that wasn't what we were talking about how you can make broad generalizations about groups of people effectively... i will leave alone.
|
that's not my "other" point.
that's my ONLY point
if I had said "male or female" instead of "man or woman" (as an example of useful categorization)
you would have started this whole discussion
thus my claim that you are arguing semantics and derailing the argument.
|
It was binary categories I was discussing when you quoted me.
Please provide example of your point.
|
On October 17 2013 01:09 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:04 Slayer91 wrote:
when i say man or woman i mean male or female (as in what you were born as) but saying male and female makes you sound like some kind of basement dweller who only knows the difference in theoretical terms.
you are aruging semantics with me and completely ignoring the main point which is you CAN categorize people and it HAS been shown to be effective for a number of purposes
also even though not everyone might fit into man or woman as gender it is such a small amount that you should ignore it anyway when it comes to categorizing which means your argument is doubly non relevant/strawman well now we are just argueing about what we are arguing about. you quoted me and said everyone is a man or woman. I responded and said no they are not. Your point was its binary and now your saying well its not but outliers don't matter. I don't think we should ignore people because they don't fit into our pre-approved genders. Your other point that wasn't what we were talking about how you can make broad generalizations about groups of people effectively... i will leave alone.
See, outliers don't actually matter.
They are far below the threshold for statistical significance.
People just act like that's not the case because that's oh-so-nice and look-how-PC-we're-being, but that doesn't make it factually correct. Only politically.
To metaphor it, if you've ever heard a politician talk, you know how little factual correctness can be in words that are completely politically correct.
|
binary categories
male = 1
female = 0
how many times do i have to repeat the same things over and over in the same page
dandle ion also just repeated what i have said like 3 times because you guys suddenly turn all feminazi once something like gender or making racist jokes or something comes up.
On October 17 2013 01:17 Dandel Ion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:09 ComaDose wrote:On October 17 2013 01:04 Slayer91 wrote:
when i say man or woman i mean male or female (as in what you were born as) but saying male and female makes you sound like some kind of basement dweller who only knows the difference in theoretical terms.
you are aruging semantics with me and completely ignoring the main point which is you CAN categorize people and it HAS been shown to be effective for a number of purposes
also even though not everyone might fit into man or woman as gender it is such a small amount that you should ignore it anyway when it comes to categorizing which means your argument is doubly non relevant/strawman well now we are just argueing about what we are arguing about. you quoted me and said everyone is a man or woman. I responded and said no they are not. Your point was its binary and now your saying well its not but outliers don't matter. I don't think we should ignore people because they don't fit into our pre-approved genders. Your other point that wasn't what we were talking about how you can make broad generalizations about groups of people effectively... i will leave alone. See, outliers don't actually matter. They are far below the threshold for statistical significance. People just act like that's not the case because that's oh-so-nice and look-how-PC-we're-being, but that doesn't make it factually correct. Only politically. To metaphor it, if you've ever heard a politician talk, you know how little factual correctness can be in words that are completely politically correct.
e.g you are not a special little snowflake (not even you scip)
you are the all singing all dancing crap of the world
|
On October 17 2013 01:17 Slayer91 wrote:
binary categories
male = 1
female = 0
how many times do i have to repeat the same things over and over in the same page
dandle ion also just repeated what i have said like 3 times because you guys suddenly turn all feminazi once something like gender or making racist jokes or something comes up.
Why are males worth more than females? First the offensive assumptions of transgenered, now this mysogynistic view that females are worth nothing, and males are worth something? Are you just trying to offend everybody today?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 17 2013 01:17 Slayer91 wrote:
binary categories
male = 1
female = 0
how many times do i have to repeat the same things over and over in the same page
dandle ion also just repeated what i have said like 3 times because you guys suddenly turn all feminazi once something like gender or making racist jokes or something comes up.
There are people born that are not female or male.
|
are you embarassed that your fellow countrymen in this thread make it necessary to use that spoiler tag
+ Show Spoiler +
yes i am trying to offend everyone
On October 17 2013 01:21 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:17 Slayer91 wrote:
binary categories
male = 1
female = 0
how many times do i have to repeat the same things over and over in the same page
dandle ion also just repeated what i have said like 3 times because you guys suddenly turn all feminazi once something like gender or making racist jokes or something comes up. There are people born that are not female or male.
return as 0 then and it will have no statisical affect therefore irrelevant
|
United States15536 Posts
God forbid we turn all "feminazi" about things and people and causes we care about.
But you've made it clear that that's not what matters to you and that's fine.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On October 17 2013 00:47 Slayer91 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 00:42 ComaDose wrote:
It's a worse gimmick than horoscopes because they ask you questions till they know what you expect to hear.
General statements based off of what you already told them about yourself. You can't just lump people into binary categories. yes you can whether its useful or not it up for debate but surely having more information isn't a bad thing? binary categories woman 0 man 1 amagerd you binary categories you can still judge a lot about a person and their interests statisically based on just those things. Look at % of male posters on teamliquid, compared to say, % of women on pintrest or something. you guys need to learn to statistics instead feeling like your individuality is threatened.
It is funny that y'all mention binary categories when MBTI subtypes all have normal distribution, rather than a bimodal one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
