The person who suggested it should be possible to casually propose a consistent definition of “woman,” and then proceeded by way of analogy to provide three entirely different and incompatible definitions of “cat,” none of which are particularly sufficient or thorough at the job, is certainly not someone who has a good grasp of either logic or semantics.
Your response reminded me of a comment on definitions in taxonomy (and I wish I could remember who wrote it): a taxonomic group is defined as all species that an expert on that taxonomic group says it is.
(If someone can remind me the exact quote and who wrote it, I will owe you a million Internet points.)
I like to interpret your argument thus: A woman is defined as whatever an expert on gender anthropology says is a woman.
I’m sure that’s too “circular” for BACONSQAUDgaming, and I hope that they’re annoyed by it if they manage to find my comment.
You would have to follow the link, John. I’m not sure whether or not it would be worth it for you, but it would answer your question.
John Moralessays
Um, I’ve been following that thread, I did click the link and read your comment there, I’m quite familiar with Ayn and with objectivism and its cultural significance.
What I don’t follow is the basis of your appellation.
John Moralessays
PS to clarify, I did read “It reminds me of the villains in Ayn Rand novels, who will put great effort into avoiding getting to the point.”. I don’t doubt you.
Randian means more than that, at least to me.
Is that the entirety of it?
The “Rand villain” bit comes from the troll’s own words:
So I think Matt is demonstrating something important when he asks the question, and people get evasive. I think Matt was intending on using the Socratic method, asking questions to see how well someone understands something, which I see nothing wrong with, but he couldn’t get past the first question. It reminds me of the villains in Ayn Rand novels, who will put great effort into avoiding getting to the point.
A few things about that…first, the fact that he uses Ayn Rand characters as reference points for good and evil behavior, is strike one. Second, this is typical fascist thinking from 1920s Italian ideologues up to now: good people find simple, straight (“final?”) answers to all problems and bad people complicate things and paralyze everyone with discussion, complexity, compromise, adding more than one issue or priority to the discussion, etc.; all of which fascists consider weak, paralyzing, corrupt, effete, and evil. And third, as CD already said, BACONS (WTF is with that ridiculous nym anyway?!) has been nothing but evasive, having ignored and avoided countless questions we’ve asked in response to his insistent quibbling over how we’re supposed to define “woman.”
Oh, and fourth, we really can’t trust this troll, or Matt Walsh, to really be honest about whether people are really being “evasive” in response to his silly bad-faith questions.
The person who suggested it should be possible to casually propose a consistent definition of “woman,” and then proceeded by way of analogy to provide three entirely different and incompatible definitions of “cat,” none of which are particularly sufficient or thorough at the job, is certainly not someone who has a good grasp of either logic or semantics.
Yeah…that was pointed out to them and all they had to say in response was, “I offered several different cat definitions, as the definition would depend on context as to whether I talking about common pets, or the cat family. I didn’t put a lot of thought into them, as I was just trying to give several possible definitions for basic contexts, to show how easy it us (sic) to provide my opinion on possible definitions.”
One thing they have right in that response is “I didn’t put a lot of thought into them.” And they still haven’t bothered to put in enough thought to realize their multiple definitions undermines their objection to multiple definitions of “woman.”
lanirsays
There are lots of ideas and concepts other people go for that I don’t really understand. I admit when I’m first learning about a particular concept it might seem especially weird until I acquire some familiarity with it. But I don’t tend to think my ignorance gives me a chance to tell people they’re wrong just because I’m not familiar with a concept yet.
People who buy into that idea and think ignorance magically gives them gatekeeping powers? That’s one of those concepts I don’t get.
Also, Randian villains is a term I don’t get either. I know John Galt is the hero because he somehow convinced a lot of useless chaff to f-off to Nowheresville and saved society. I think Rand meant him to be a hero for a different reason though. And frankly everything else about those stories is fanciful gibberish. It’s an adult Alice in Wonderland style story that forgot to go through the looking glass and never bothered with internal consistency. I guess I’m odd because I always expected it should be the adults who are less gullible and insist on a better story rather than children.
And what the divil is with that name, “BACONSQAUDgaming?” Did he misspell “squad” when he first entered it in his account info? Not that that makes it any better — “Bacon Squad Gaming?” That’s ridiculous, bordering on sad.
“Randian”? I don’t follow.
The person who suggested it should be possible to casually propose a consistent definition of “woman,” and then proceeded by way of analogy to provide three entirely different and incompatible definitions of “cat,” none of which are particularly sufficient or thorough at the job, is certainly not someone who has a good grasp of either logic or semantics.
Your response reminded me of a comment on definitions in taxonomy (and I wish I could remember who wrote it): a taxonomic group is defined as all species that an expert on that taxonomic group says it is.
(If someone can remind me the exact quote and who wrote it, I will owe you a million Internet points.)
I like to interpret your argument thus: A woman is defined as whatever an expert on gender anthropology says is a woman.
I’m sure that’s too “circular” for BACONSQAUDgaming, and I hope that they’re annoyed by it if they manage to find my comment.
You would have to follow the link, John. I’m not sure whether or not it would be worth it for you, but it would answer your question.
Um, I’ve been following that thread, I did click the link and read your comment there, I’m quite familiar with Ayn and with objectivism and its cultural significance.
What I don’t follow is the basis of your appellation.
PS to clarify, I did read “It reminds me of the villains in Ayn Rand novels, who will put great effort into avoiding getting to the point.”. I don’t doubt you.
Randian means more than that, at least to me.
Is that the entirety of it?
Yes, that was the entirety of it. BACONS was calling us akin to a Rand villain while demonstrating the characteristics they were ostensibly decrying.
Ah. Thanks.
The “Rand villain” bit comes from the troll’s own words:
So I think Matt is demonstrating something important when he asks the question, and people get evasive. I think Matt was intending on using the Socratic method, asking questions to see how well someone understands something, which I see nothing wrong with, but he couldn’t get past the first question. It reminds me of the villains in Ayn Rand novels, who will put great effort into avoiding getting to the point.
A few things about that…first, the fact that he uses Ayn Rand characters as reference points for good and evil behavior, is strike one. Second, this is typical fascist thinking from 1920s Italian ideologues up to now: good people find simple, straight (“final?”) answers to all problems and bad people complicate things and paralyze everyone with discussion, complexity, compromise, adding more than one issue or priority to the discussion, etc.; all of which fascists consider weak, paralyzing, corrupt, effete, and evil. And third, as CD already said, BACONS (WTF is with that ridiculous nym anyway?!) has been nothing but evasive, having ignored and avoided countless questions we’ve asked in response to his insistent quibbling over how we’re supposed to define “woman.”
Oh, and fourth, we really can’t trust this troll, or Matt Walsh, to really be honest about whether people are really being “evasive” in response to his silly bad-faith questions.
@invivoMark
Yeah…that was pointed out to them and all they had to say in response was, “I offered several different cat definitions, as the definition would depend on context as to whether I talking about common pets, or the cat family. I didn’t put a lot of thought into them, as I was just trying to give several possible definitions for basic contexts, to show how easy it us (sic) to provide my opinion on possible definitions.”
One thing they have right in that response is “I didn’t put a lot of thought into them.” And they still haven’t bothered to put in enough thought to realize their multiple definitions undermines their objection to multiple definitions of “woman.”
There are lots of ideas and concepts other people go for that I don’t really understand. I admit when I’m first learning about a particular concept it might seem especially weird until I acquire some familiarity with it. But I don’t tend to think my ignorance gives me a chance to tell people they’re wrong just because I’m not familiar with a concept yet.
People who buy into that idea and think ignorance magically gives them gatekeeping powers? That’s one of those concepts I don’t get.
Also, Randian villains is a term I don’t get either. I know John Galt is the hero because he somehow convinced a lot of useless chaff to f-off to Nowheresville and saved society. I think Rand meant him to be a hero for a different reason though. And frankly everything else about those stories is fanciful gibberish. It’s an adult Alice in Wonderland style story that forgot to go through the looking glass and never bothered with internal consistency. I guess I’m odd because I always expected it should be the adults who are less gullible and insist on a better story rather than children.
And what the divil is with that name, “BACONSQAUDgaming?” Did he misspell “squad” when he first entered it in his account info? Not that that makes it any better — “Bacon Squad Gaming?” That’s ridiculous, bordering on sad.