Layout Options
Which layout option do you want to use?
Wide
Boxed
Color Schemes
Which theme color do you want to use? Select from here.
Reset color
Reset Background
Forums
New posts
Trending
Random
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Rules
Libraries
New Audios
New Comments
Search Profile Audios
Clubs
Public Events
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Trending
Random
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Forums
General
Tartarus
Why did he leave me
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wait whattt? :o" data-source="post: 74978" data-attributes="member: 564"><p>Ooooh. I think I get it now. So, "it's chicken" is just, well, chicken, whereas "it's essentially chicken" is like saying "Well, it's not <em>exactly</em> chicken but you might as well say it is".</p><p>If this is how it is understood, then I get it. Thanks!</p><p>Yeh I can see how saying "essentially male" did not represent your view fairly because it implied I was saying there's a caveat. Gotcha!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Ykw? That does make sense. There are indeed exceptions to humans being "bipedal" but I suppose it would not matter when scientists are saying that. Fair enough.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Hmm, but I feel like something is missing here. Or at least I feel like it contradicts my perspective.</p><p>Let me be specific: I find "male" to be a descriptor in biological sex, while "man" is more of a "social manifestation" of said "maleness" in the sense that a man embodies all that we associate to the male sex (notice this does not exclude false associations like "blue" being tied to man).</p><p></p><p>What you say ("they are the same") implies you don't consider the social aspect of "maleness" and/or "manhood" but you just said "feminine" so I imagine you DO acknowledge the social aspect, is that not the case?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wait whattt? :o, post: 74978, member: 564"] Ooooh. I think I get it now. So, "it's chicken" is just, well, chicken, whereas "it's essentially chicken" is like saying "Well, it's not [I]exactly[/I] chicken but you might as well say it is". If this is how it is understood, then I get it. Thanks! Yeh I can see how saying "essentially male" did not represent your view fairly because it implied I was saying there's a caveat. Gotcha! Ykw? That does make sense. There are indeed exceptions to humans being "bipedal" but I suppose it would not matter when scientists are saying that. Fair enough. Hmm, but I feel like something is missing here. Or at least I feel like it contradicts my perspective. Let me be specific: I find "male" to be a descriptor in biological sex, while "man" is more of a "social manifestation" of said "maleness" in the sense that a man embodies all that we associate to the male sex (notice this does not exclude false associations like "blue" being tied to man). What you say ("they are the same") implies you don't consider the social aspect of "maleness" and/or "manhood" but you just said "feminine" so I imagine you DO acknowledge the social aspect, is that not the case? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General
Tartarus
Why did he leave me
Top
