you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

When new Australians are born, they see kangaroos and get told “that’s a kangaroo”.

So if a kid was born today and saw a wallaby and was told "that's a kangaroo", they would then be right to call wallabies kangaroos?

I'm not particularly invested in this discussion of whether a particular word is "useful". If a word is not useful it will fall out of use. If it doesn't, then it must be useful.

The sex of the adult human is what is being defined by use of man or woman for the majority of English speakers and has historically done so right up until a few adult human males took umbrage at this.

On this point I disagree. I don't think that people use the word "woman" to refer to sex in most contexts. Sex just isn't relevant to most situations that the word is used in.

You have just claimed that the English language works as you described

I've said that that's how I understand it, in perfectly aware that I may be wrong

so idk why you’re now saying you don’t know why the rules you claimed exist are applied?

Why would I?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, because that’s wrong. Just like when someone says an adult human male is a woman, they are wrong.

Language exists to facilitate communication. A word that is not useful is just a noise. It refers to nothing in particular. If you think the usefulness of language is irrelevant then perhaps you shouldn’t be arguing about how and why words are defined.

Why would you be consistent and be claiming that words are in fact defined how you understand them to be? Gee, idk.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, because that’s wrong.

But why is it wrong? That was my original question to which you said that's what Australians are taught. If this isn't the answer then what is?

I am being consistent. Nothing in what I've said requires that I know why language has taken the path that it has. That's an entirely different topic of conversation.

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

Children are taught that because it is taxonomic rank of the respective animals.

The taxonomic rank is the set of definitions agreed upon by experts in the field.

Woman is the taxonomic rank given to adult human females.

It’s inconsistent to claim something and then not operate according to the claim made.

Why should one single taxonomic rank change because a few people who do not belong to that exact rank feel badly about that?

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

None of this is an answer to why that is the correct definition for the word. Is it because experts said so? Why should what they say be valued above what other people say?

It’s inconsistent to claim something and then not operate according to the claim made.

Can you please explain where you think I did this