3 ms·

There’s an amazing number of “but people are primates” comments. Correctness here includes specificity. If person and primate are both candidates, then primate

There’s an amazing number of “but people are primates” comments. Correctness here includes specificity. If person and primate are both candidates, then primate isn’t a correct answer to what this is trying to do. You wouldn’t react to the phrase ‘treating women as objects’ by saying people are objects, right?

ekabod 5y ago
people are primates is proven whereas women are objects is unproven. So your analogy doesn't work.
- drdeca 5y ago
  Huh? What do you mean?
  - jklein11 5y ago
    I think they are saying that women are figments of your imagination.
Y_Y 5y ago
You make a good point, and I'd agree that it's implicit that they mean "non-human primates". Otherwise they could solve this by labelling lots of humans as "primates" in the dataset. On the other hand, I think there's a semantic difference between your two cases. I'd argue that treating a woman as an "object" is a different sense of the word to how women (and men and teapots) are literally "objects".