Ends justifying the means

[Umbran]

A
Underwear is also pretty sexist. As are different trianing regimines at the gym for women vs. men. And nutritional requirements for women vs. men. Different recommendations for sungliht exposure for Irish vs. Nigerians is racist.

Yes, and no. Beware of committing the logical fallacy of Equivocation - switching the meaning of a word mid-stream.

Sexism has two definitions: 1) Prejudice or discrimination between sexes and 2) placing a value judgement on one sex or the other.

Now, with underwear, one may "discriminate" (technically meaning "differentiate") between the sexes because the bodies are demonstrably physically different - the clothing may need to be cut differently to fit. Most men simply don't need brassier, but many women do for their comfort. There is no judgement of value attached to this.

However, if most of the underwear for sale for women is designed for sex appeal rather than comfort, and the men's stuff is designed purely for function, there are value judgements being implied.

You really need to understand that just because something is an *ism or *ist doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

This is where the equivocation steps in. You're sticking to outmoded language use. In current use, the -ism really is about the bad forms of differentiation. Don't expect others to stick by your use, when it isn't the common one at this time. Sorry, but you don't get to swap the meaning out from under them, just because it is one you can technically get from a dictionary.

 

[EscherEnigma]

... if you think I changed definitions mid-stream, that's projection on your part, no error on mine.

 

[Kramodlog]

In your case, yes. And, maybe loosen the helmet a bit.

This is funny.

Increasing mating chances is where my whole point goes. As I said before, it's not about chivalry per se. Bu you wanted to argue that male animals have no protective instinct, and I'm done talking to you about it.

I'm arguing that human males wanting to maximize the dissemination of genetic material is probably genetic, it is less clear if the strategy used (e.g. rape, courtship) is genetic or not. I do not hold the Truth(TM).

 

[Umbran]

... if you think I changed definitions mid-stream, that's projection on your part, no error on mine.

Dude, relax. I merely suggested you made an error.

If everyone else is already using a word, and you try to change to using a different definition in the middle of the conversation, that's not projection on my part.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Dude, relax. I merely suggested you made an error.

If everyone else is already using a word, and you try to change to using a different definition in the middle of the conversation, that's not projection on my part.

Seems you don't understand what he means when he says that it's protecting in your part.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Seems you don't understand what he means when he says that it's protecting in your part.

He isn't projecting. EE is in fact equivocating by using the term sexism differently than how it is meant by posters here, but also different from how the broader public uses the term.

 

[Robin Hoodlum]

Where's the EN World dictionary?
Perhaps if we had a link to that, we could all use the definitions that are approved.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

He isn't projecting. EE is in fact equivocating by using the term sexism differently than how it is meant by posters here, but also different from how the broader public uses the term.

You're making an assumption about how every person here is using the word sexism. Umbran have two definitions. Some members may be using one or the other. Side members maybe using both.

Don't assume you know how someone else is using a word. It leads to you making completely incorrect statements about others.

Also, I thought you had stopped participating? Does your post mean we can continue our discussion?

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're making an assumption about how every person here is using the word sexism. Umbran have two definitions. Some members may be using one or the other. Side members maybe using both.

Don't assume you know how someone else is using a word. It leads to you making completely incorrect statements about others.

Also, I thought you had stopped participating? Does your post mean we can continue our discussion?

your right, i bowed out because you and I had reached a point where we couldn't just agree to disagree. That is because we both got a light warning from Umbran, i have no interest in getting an official warning or ban, so would rather you and I not continue our discussion.

needless to say, it seems we also disagree over the semantics if the debate at hand.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

your right, i bowed out because you and I had reached a point where we couldn't just agree to disagree. That is because we both got a light warning from Umbran, i have no interest in getting an official warning or ban, so would rather you and I not continue our discussion.

It wasn't just our conversation you retreated from. You also refused to respond to bone_naga. In any case, meh, whatever.

needless to say, it seems we also disagree over the semantics if the debate at hand.

I get the feeling you didn't read my post. I said that making assumptions about what definition a particular person is wrong. Don't make assumptions and then argue against those assumptions, which are more than likely wrong. Go back and read the post. Reread it if you have to. Don't assume I disagree with your on "semantics." Instead, you might find it useful to ask questions.