QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology

submitted by Chronicity from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So if I start telling my clients that I will white-glove clean and disinfect their home, then go splash some water around and say my personal definition of cleaning and disinfecting is making things damp, have I lied to them or not?

Do words have definitions all speakers share, or do words have no meanings other than the ones we personally assign?

If you paid me twenty grand to paint your house white, and I painted it neon green would you tell me I did a great job and pay up?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

If you genuinely believed this then it's not a lie, no.

Do words have definitions all speakers share? No, they don't. How could they?

If you paid me twenty grand to paint your house white, and I painted it neon green would you tell me I did a great job and pay up?

This would be a case where our different understanding of words has caused a problem in our communication (an extreme example, but this happens all the time!). As to how I would actually react in that scenario, I would not believe that you in good faith misunderstood what I meant by "white", and furthermore would expect that a professional house painter would, as part of their role, have an understanding of how people communicate their desire regarding the colour of their house. I would consider that a person who claims this misunderstanding is therefore either being dishonest or is not sufficiently good at their job, so it's not my responsibility to pay.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

So white and yellow have meanings that are shared. We can agree on this, at least.

Why do some words have shared meaning amongst speakers of English and some don’t?

What is the deciding factor in which words are defined personally and which are defined for the purpose of communication. Who is deciding this for all English speakers?

Can you explain why this is?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So white and yellow have meanings that are shared

I'm not sure how you got this from what I said. I would argue that no word has a shared meaning between any two people, but there can be more or less overlap between people's understanding.

Words are neither defined "personally", nor for the purpose of communication. Definitions simply do their best to describe the prevailing trends in how a word is used.

What is the alternative that you are suggesting? Where do words get their meaning if not from the people who use them?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Lmao so nobody shares a meaning of the word dog, or yellow, or knife, we just all sort of overlap in opinions? That’s the biggest steamiest pile of shit I’ve seen this week.

Words are mere suggestions of ideas lmao, I beg you to reconsider this silliness.

Imagine what would happen in a hospital if clear definitions weren’t something humans have. Saline probably suggests some amount of salt in water never mind if it’s a cup of table salt dissolved in a bucket of mop water.

150milligrams and 150 grams are similar and often mixed up by those who rarely use such measurements. Sure everyone died on the icu cause morphine prefers precision but that’s just how words are.

“No, no, I didn’t hit your dog with my car I define that as nudging him gently.”

If this isn’t a joke you’ve made, I think the divide in your cognitive dissonance must make the Mariana’s trench look like a crack in a plate.

Think about this critically for a few minutes, what would the world look like if things other than gender identity were defined this way.

How would the legal system work? Medicine? Money? Food service, mining, production floors?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What way do you think language works if not this way?

You asking what the world would look like if this is the case is a bit baffling to me. So far as I'm concerned this is the case, and the world is how it is.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Because I’m allowing myself to think about the scenario instead of trying to make language conform to a modern invention like gender identity.

If words have no definition and merely refer to any object, phenomena, or idea that any individual might apply a word to, how the fuck are you reading this?

Do you really think that amoxicillin is not a definitively defined chemical? That bovines are categorised by opinions had by people who have never seen a cow irl?

I doubt that very much. Claiming the world actually totally does follow your preferred model without giving any example, whilst using the language to communicate specific ideas using specific words to do so just looks beyond daft.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Can you please answer my question? How do you think language works if what I have suggested is "beyond daft"?

If words have no definition

I did not say that words have no definition. Definitions are what we use to describe the way that words are used.

how the fuck are you reading this?

I have no problem reading this because you and I have understanding's of most words that overlap to the extent that, in almost all cases, the differences that do exist don't matter.

Do you really think that amoxicillin is not a definitively defined chemical?

No, I'm sure it is definitively defined. That definition just does not (and cannot) account for the fact that there will be nuance in the meaning that each person takes away from the word.

That bovines are categorised by opinions had by people who have never seen a cow irl?

Why do you think that I would think this? I'm curious how you're interpreting what I'm saying here if it seems so strange and outlandish to you.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Words are specific noises we make to communicate a specific idea, object, or phenomena.

The word kangaroo would not mean wallaby to taxonomists even if every tourist and cityboy in australia thought it did. Those people would simply be incorrect.

The word kangaroo refers to one animal. Incorrect use did not turn the wallabies into kangaroos, it did not reorganise how they are taxonomically catalogued, a bunch of people are just wrong.

I think that’s what you think because that is what you’ve described and that is how you have claimed woman can refer to anyone except exclusively adult human females. I think you think that because the words you use communicate that idea.

Why is amoxicillin defined according to something other than feelings but the adult human female has no name?

What nuance do you claim to see in the word Amoxicillin?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The word kangaroo would not mean wallaby to taxonomists even if every tourist and cityboy in australia thought it did. Those people would simply be incorrect.

How are you deciding who is correct here? Where did the "correct" definition come from if not how the word is used?

I think that’s what you think because that is what you’ve described

I've not described thinking that things are categorised by people with no knowledge of the thing. I don't know where that came from tbh

that is how you have claimed woman can refer to anyone except exclusively adult human females

That is not a claim I ever made. I have both provided a description of the word "woman" which is not in any way exclusive of adult human females and acknowledged the alternate usage of the word which uses it to refer solely to members of that group.

Like... How am I supposed to engage with you if you're going to completely make up nonsense like this?

Why is amoxicillin defined according to something other than feelings but the adult human female has no name?

I don't know, I don't decide how words are defined any more than you do.