36 ms·

Your argument comes across really wrong when you use "man" instead of "person".

by Llamamoe 4y ago

mdp2021 4y ago
[flagged]
- niek_pas 4y ago
  Why not just use 'person' rather than 'man'?
  - mikrotikker 4y ago
    Man is not being used in a gendered manner.
    - niek_pas 4y ago
      Eh. You can _say_ that, but it's clearly no coincidence that the word for 'male' and for 'person' were the same for a long time. 'Person' seems like the obviously neutral choice to make, hence my question: why not just use 'person'?
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        > seems like the obviously neutral choice It seems very wrongly - because it just «seems» ignorant. Because where you read 'person' the normal and correct action is to search where the reference to the personality is. And in that case, _there is not_, and such lack was clearly expressed. Again: no, you cannot use 'person' where you do not mean "a collection of special traits". You can go on annoyingly inventing language, but it was already there. And you cannot demand that others adopt your code, which has no real foundation. Edit: > seems like the obviously neutral choice I missed that detail. «Neutral»? Neutral to what?! Gender? We should be obsessed by that?! We should introduce that in salads, in geometry, in this very page?!
      - mikrotikker 4y ago
        Omg. Get a life.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    You must have not read my text, to which you just replied: you cannot use 'person' instead of 'man', because they mean two very different things! The meanings of each are written right there where you replied - how can you see them overlapping? 'Man' has the same root of "mind", it means "having a mind", but so many things have it, so it must be a special one, must it not? 'Person' is a mask - that thing in which the voice "per-sonat". It means the mask, the specific one - crying, laughing, irate, whatever. No, you cannot use 'person' if you do not mean "that with a personality" - because that is what it means.
mdp2021 4y ago
Somebody flagged my former reply to the above, for reasons unknown: here is a copy. Yes, the content remains important, in terms of the above reply to the original. ==== Which language are you speaking? Before something "«comes across»" to you, do you have your duly interposed cold-minded understanding modules on? -- A "Man" is that entity which has a mind superior to that of e.g. monkeys. (In the context, the nuance is that of Dignity.) -- A "person" is that entity which expresses a particular side of the possible expressions of being. ...Your proposal would be translated as "People with their own special ideas and leaning would etc." - it is not only hardly relevant to what was communicated, but possibly even stating the opposite. The original post, like in general the rest we post, was not meant to be written in demotic. ==== And again to another reply, now hidden, if the above still needed: 'Man' has the same root of "mind", it means "having a mind", but so many things have it, so it must be a special one, must it not? 'Person' is a mask - that thing in which the voice "per-sonat". It means the mask, the specific one - crying, laughing, irate, whatever. No, you cannot use 'person' if you do not mean "that with a personality" - because that is what it means. ==== Edit: Oh, and incidentally - "why not just sticking to invented groupspeak?" Well, paradoxically, also because it is not inclusive, is it, if some demand the normalcy of speaking actual Language, or maybe just when dealing with individuals from other groups! A convention is limited to convention adherents; this public is varied!

Your argument comes across really wrong when you use "man" instead of "person".

mdp2021 4y ago

[flagged]

niek_pas 4y ago
Why not just use 'person' rather than 'man'?
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  Man is not being used in a gendered manner.
  - niek_pas 4y ago
    Eh. You can _say_ that, but it's clearly no coincidence that the word for 'male' and for 'person' were the same for a long time. 'Person' seems like the obviously neutral choice to make, hence my question: why not just use 'person'?
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > seems like the obviously neutral choice It seems very wrongly - because it just «seems» ignorant. Because where you read 'person' the normal and correct action is to search where the reference to the personality is. And in that case, _there is not_, and such lack was clearly expressed. Again: no, you cannot use 'person' where you do not mean "a collection of special traits". You can go on annoyingly inventing language, but it was already there. And you cannot demand that others adopt your code, which has no real foundation. Edit: > seems like the obviously neutral choice I missed that detail. «Neutral»? Neutral to what?! Gender? We should be obsessed by that?! We should introduce that in salads, in geometry, in this very page?!
    - mikrotikker 4y ago
      Omg. Get a life.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  You must have not read my text, to which you just replied: you cannot use 'person' instead of 'man', because they mean two very different things! The meanings of each are written right there where you replied - how can you see them overlapping? 'Man' has the same root of "mind", it means "having a mind", but so many things have it, so it must be a special one, must it not? 'Person' is a mask - that thing in which the voice "per-sonat". It means the mask, the specific one - crying, laughing, irate, whatever. No, you cannot use 'person' if you do not mean "that with a personality" - because that is what it means.

mdp2021 4y ago

Somebody flagged my former reply to the above, for reasons unknown: here is a copy. Yes, the content remains important, in terms of the above reply to the original. ==== Which language are you speaking? Before something "«comes across»" to you, do you have your duly interposed cold-minded understanding modules on? -- A "Man" is that entity which has a mind superior to that of e.g. monkeys. (In the context, the nuance is that of Dignity.) -- A "person" is that entity which expresses a particular side of the possible expressions of being. ...Your proposal would be translated as "People with their own special ideas and leaning would etc." - it is not only hardly relevant to what was communicated, but possibly even stating the opposite. The original post, like in general the rest we post, was not meant to be written in demotic. ==== And again to another reply, now hidden, if the above still needed: 'Man' has the same root of "mind", it means "having a mind", but so many things have it, so it must be a special one, must it not? 'Person' is a mask - that thing in which the voice "per-sonat". It means the mask, the specific one - crying, laughing, irate, whatever. No, you cannot use 'person' if you do not mean "that with a personality" - because that is what it means. ==== Edit: Oh, and incidentally - "why not just sticking to invented groupspeak?" Well, paradoxically, also because it is not inclusive, is it, if some demand the normalcy of speaking actual Language, or maybe just when dealing with individuals from other groups! A convention is limited to convention adherents; this public is varied!