Suppose we switched from Patriarchy to Matriarchy?

Post Reply New Topic

Iceland.


Finland is also very much a female dominated society but Iceland takes the cake for being the most feminist nation on Earth. Norway? Not so much.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tone
Scroll down for quite a few definitions that have nothing to do with voice, from muscle strength to paint to musical notes to, yes, literature.

Last edited by LKL on 03 Nov 2012, 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

http://eng.velferdarraduneyti.is/depart ... -equality/
82% of Icelandic women work (compared to 58% of American women - look at that! women, granted more rights, choose to work more!http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm#.UJTkSZG9KK0) hardly the something-for-nothing situation described by black elk.

Eeeyeahhh, if we're going to accuse the people we disagree with of lying because we're on the Internet, there's really no point to debating each other, is there?

consensus expressed in multiple college biology text books > a few careless words in a few papers.

But, hey, maybe I just made all of that up instead of actually spending the time looking through the glossaries and indexes, eh? And maybe you're really a dog. Because on the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog (/sarcasm).

I'm not suggesting that those other definitions don't exist, but the primary definition has to do with sound, and since I used a word that has many meanings, I CLARIFIED which definition to which I was referring. I didn't redefine s**t.

Darlin,' you have been trying to claim that tone cannot, by definition, exist outside of speech; in particular, you have been claiming that it cannot, by definition, exist in text. You are incorrect. If you don't want to call it 'redefinition,' fine: you're still wrong.

...and now, back to our regularly scheduled derailing of a thread.

I do not recall having accused you of lying. You have - on the other hand - most definitely accused me of posting BS while representing it as science.



You seem to forget that your claim about the universal use of the words "dominance" and "superiority" in biology doesn't need to be refuted by multiple college biology text books claiming otherwise (or equivalent collections of evidence) to be rejected. It only needs to be refuted by a *single* source. Also known as the logic of falsification.

And what basis do you have for considering the words in a peer-reviewed work "careless"? Did the use of these words diminish the scientific content of the work? Did it lead to bias in the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests in that particular article?

Or perhaps - oh, the horror! - the words weren't careless at all because the authors simply used the definitions of "superior" and "dominant" in ways that were falsifiable and thus subject to empirical tests? (evidently obvious, as they couldn't perform the above tests if they weren't).

Oh, and since the article I posted is a peer-reviewed work, these inarticulate incompetent insane inferior ignoramuses are apparently careless as well. If not, why did they accept the article?
http://www.int-res.com/journals/meps/editors/



Irrelevant due to my statement above.

already addressed all of that, Viper. Not going to repeat myself.

What blackelk described certainly does exist, and right here in the USofA. Women married to wealthy, chivalrous men who live off of their husbands money and can afford to hire a maid and a housekeeper. There are men who are willing to provide for women so long as they get sex from these women on a regular basis. And no, it is not prostitution! It is MARRIAGE. Anyone who is married and honest will attest that sex is a big part of marriage.

This thread is practically a battlefield at this point.

Oh, I don't deny that it exists - just that it has anything to do with feminism, equality of the sexes, what women in general want, and that it's as common as he suggests.

Someone just wanted to sound smart, and it isn't working. And it's not my fault you can't understand simple things. I also find it funny how someone uses a word, and then you scroll WAY PAST the first definition to find some obscure one and assume that's the one he must've meant. Then when he tries to clarify, you call it 'redefining' a word, despite the fact that such a definition already existed.

YOU'RE the one who's wrong.

Also, I never said "cannot exist outside of speech." I said "cannot exist WITHIN TEXT." there's a big difference there because "within text" specifically excludes ALL SOUND. Last time I checked, text doesn't create sound. If I'm so wrong, then prove it. You can't, unless you apply a definition other than the one I intended, which is exactly what you've done.

*sigh*
It's not obscure, Stadschutz. It's well-known by anyone who's ever taken freshman comp. You are simply, factually incorrect that tone cannot exist "within text," as has been demonstrated by dictionary entries.
As I already said, I'm not attached to the word 'redefining,' and am perfectly willing to say that you are artificially limiting the definition of tone to suit your purposes rather than that you are redefining tone.

No I'm NOT incorrect, because I was referring to tone of voice, as in, changes in pitch... You know, like the difference between the musical notes A and B, god damnit. How hard is that to understand? I'm not limiting s**t, and I'm not redefining s**t either. THAT is what I meant by "tone," whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. The fact of the matter is ton OF VOICE does NOT exist in writing because there's no voice; only text. And the fact that a word has multiple definitions does NOT mean that they ALL apply when the word is used. Just like gay means happy, but it's also used to mean homosexual. Are all homosexuals happy? In the context of the song about the kookaburra, when it says "kookaburra gay your life must be," is it saying the bird is homosexual? No, it's not... If I say "It's a cold night," does it mean I think the night is heartless/uncaring? No, it doesn't. When I said "in the context of sound," I figured that should be enough to clarify what the hell I meant, but instead, I'm accused of redefining words, DESPITE the fact that the first like 8 definitions refer to SOUND.

I'll admit "obscure" wasn't the right choice of word to use to describe the definition, but it doesn't change the fact that tone's primary definition has to do with sound, and that's what I meant... But because someone else made the mistake of assuming I meant a different type of tone, we're having this stupid argument. ENOUGH already. Just accept that what I said I meant is what I friggin' meant already. Jesus Tapdancing Christ...

OK: writing, although it does convey tone, which can be (and is designed to be) interpreted as tone of voice when read, does not intrinsically contain tone of voice.
Happy?

Also: since you were Aspie-checking us earlier, I will remind you that perseveration is another trait of Aspergers.