|
Post by Gerard on Dec 14, 2014 19:13:04 GMT -5
Professoress Davis has come out of her kitchen to remind us that “the proportion of black people in prison in Britain is larger than the proportion of black people in prison in the United States”. www.theguardian.com/global/2014/dec/14/angela-davis-there-is-an-unbroken-line-of-police-violence-in-the-us-that-takes-us-all-the-way-back-to-the-days-of-slaveryWell we have long known that the proportion of horrid people in Britain is larger than the proportion of horrid people in other places, China for instance. And that kind of regrettable thing will continue until government by individual mostly pink beings is replaced by government by inhuman robots. But to-day I want to comment on the word "black". It does not correspond to the truth. Nor does "coloured". Nor for that matter does "Negro". And should not words reflect reality?? The correct, accurate choice of word to draw for whatever reason attention to the distinction concerned is "chocolate-coloured" or "chocolate" for short. That way Mr. Cameron would be tested against empirical fact and never himself mistaken for a "black".
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 15, 2014 3:04:11 GMT -5
But does she compare this (assuming it to be true) with the proportion of US citizens currently in prison and that of British ones similarly incarcerated? In any case, even if she did, this would not of itself account for the equally important factor of the average and maximum lengths of prison sentences meted out to citizens in each of those countries or of whether and to what extent it could be demonstrated that skin colour is an influential factor in the length of sentences handed down in either country. Well we have long known that the proportion of horrid people in Britain is larger than the proportion of horrid people in other places, China for instance. It's this wretched "we" again! The last time that I raised the issue of this kind of use of the second person plural here I was advised that it is supposed to denote "all members of this forum". Given that, once again, the forum membership has no more been polled for its view on this than it has on other issues where "we" has been used in this manner, from what possible evidential source can you demonstrate the veracity of your claim here? Is there research that has arrived at such a conclusion and, if so, how has it been conducted? How in any case do you define "horrid"? I realise that you refer to proportions rathern than figures but, assuming that there are in the first place such things as "horrid people" whom the majority of other people would regard as such (as distinct from people who might do "horrid" things), there would almost certainly be far fewer, rather than more, "horrid people" in Britain than in China, but that would only be because the population of the former is less than 5% of that of the latter. And that kind of regrettable thing will continue until government by individual mostly pink beings is replaced by government by inhuman robots. Some might argue that "government by inhuman robots" is not so very different to what Britain has now... But to-day I want to comment on the word "black". It does not correspond to the truth. Nor does "coloured". Nor for that matter does "Negro". And should not words reflect reality?? The correct, accurate choice of word to draw for whatever reason attention to the distinction concerned is "chocolate-coloured" or "chocolate" for short. That way Mr. Cameron would be tested against empirical fact and never himself mistaken for a "black". Should one presume you never to have heard of white chocolate?... There are doubtless those who would assert that testing Mr. Cameron against something might - like Mohandas Gandhi once said of Western civilisation when asked - be a good idea. That said, what's wrong with the descriptor "non-white"? other, perhaps, than the fact that "white" is itself less than pigmentally correct in this context.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 15, 2014 23:30:07 GMT -5
. . . there would almost certainly be far less, rather than more, "horrid people" . . . Far fewer, rather than "far less", if you please. As the admirable Oxford Dictionary reminds us: "Less: A smaller number of; fewer. This originates from the OE. construction of læs adv. (quasi-n.) with a partitive genitive. Freq. found but generally regarded as incorrect." Remember many of our readers are as yet in their formative years and we have no wish to lead them astray. Mind you, the member is in good company because Terence Kilmartin not only did it but also regularly misplaced his "onlys". . . . what's wrong with the descriptor "non-white"? other, perhaps, than the fact that "white" is itself less than pigmentally correct in this context. What's wrong is that it takes "white" as the norm and sees the Negroes as a deviation therefrom. That is unbalanced and offends our principle of fairness ( égalité). Why not start with the assumption "non-Negroid" (or non-chocolate) and describe Mr. Cameron and his associates as "non-Negroid"?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 16, 2014 5:10:26 GMT -5
. . . there would almost certainly be far less, rather than more, "horrid people" . . . Far fewer, rather than "far less" I'm not usually so careless! Of course that is correct. . . . what's wrong with the descriptor "non-white"? other, perhaps, than the fact that "white" is itself less than pigmentally correct in this context. What's wrong is that it takes "white" as the norm and sees the Negroes as a deviation therefrom. That is unbalanced and offends our principle of fairness ( égalité). Why not start with the assumption "non-Negroid" (or non-chocolate) and describe Mr. Cameron and his associates as "non-Negroid"? You first comment is a fair one insofar as it my go, but the second one doesn't work at all because "Negroid" is not a term that would cover all people with a skin pigmentation like or similar to that which you would assume from the term "Negroid", since that term does not merely denote skin pigmentation. I could think of other terms with which to describe Mr. Carmeon and his colleagues, although they would not necessarily be based upon skin pigmentation and are far more likely to have been inspired by their signal lack of care for the "principle of fairness ( égalité)" that you mention. Whilst I accept that one should be wary of taking any skin pigmentation as a "norm", the problems that would remain associated with describing skin pigmentation are twofold; firstly, the sheer inaccuracy and imprecision to which most of us have become accustomed when it's being mentioned and, secondly, the fact that using skin pigmentation as a descriptor in order to distinguish between different people is unbalanced in that it emphasises one characteristic over and above others.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 16, 2014 9:56:57 GMT -5
Professoress Davis has come out of her kitchen "Professoress"? What an absurd and supererogatory term! It reminds me of the deliberately silly descriptor "composeress" applied by Donald Swann to his character Hilda Tablet many years ago. Where might such appellations stop? Stockbrokeress? Engineeress? Surgeoness? Chefess? Neuropsychopharmacologistess? What would Mrs Thatcher have thought of being called "Prime Ministeress"? In bygone days the terms "headmaster" and "headmistress" had currency in the field of education but these have fortunately long since been consigned to the scrapheap of history, to be replaced by "head teacher" (which again is somewhat unfortunate in cases where the head of the school is not or is no longer actually teaching), yet no one ever used even in those days to refer to "teachers" and "teacheresses"! I imagine that "professoresses" are attached only to universities that have vice-chancelloresses and donesses (or should that be donnas, prima or otherwise?) But in any case on what grounds have you concluded that Ms Davis emerged from her kitchen in order to remind us of what she has?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 16, 2014 11:52:08 GMT -5
a) "Professoress" is no more absurd than "waitress" and "actress" and "Negress". b) The correct spelling is "ministress" and not "ministeress", as a glance at the OED will reveal. c) The OED gives those who consult it several examples of how to use "teacheress", a word that is certainly not marked obsolete or even obsolescent as the member ignorantly claims. d) The true function, power and glory of language lies in its enabling a great many distinctions to be drawn. It is thus that we get to grips with reality. It is a mere perversion of language when the uneducated attempt to blur those distinctions and to mingle the many in an undifferentiated "too hard" pot. e) The combination "Ms" is not part of the English language. f) How low we have fallen when even some one as distinguished as Mr. H. is taken in by northern american hags! A propos, I just now looked at the r3opseud site, and find the frightful woman and her friends being buried by new members whom in their desperation they cannot delete quickly enough. A fitting end that would be. Pile it on! Feed the flames! Finally, in regard to head masters, here is a little list the member might profitably peruse: List of Head Masters at Eton College since 1442. 1442–1447 William Westbury 1447–1453 Richard Hopton 1453 Thomas Forster 1453–1458 Clement Smith 1458–1467 John Peyntor 1467–1470 Clement Smyth 1470–c.1479 Walter Barber c.1479–1484 David Haubroke 1484–1485/6 Thomas Mache 1485/6–1494/5 William Horman 1494/5–1496 Edward Powell 1496–1501 Nicholas Bradbryg 1501–1502/3 Robert Yong 1502/3–1507 John Smyth 1507–1510 John Goldyve 1510–1511 Thomas Phylips 1511–1515 Thomas Erlysman 1515–1521 Robert Aldrich 1521–1524 Thomas White 1524–1528 John Goldwyn 1528–1534 Richard Cox 1534–1541/2 Nicholas Udall 1541/2–1544/5 Smyth 1544/5–1547 Robert Cater 1547–1555 William Barker 1555–c.1560 ? Hugh Blythe c.1560–c.1563 William Malim c.1563–c.1571 William Smyth c.1571–1579 Reuben Sherwood 1579–1583 Thomas Ridley 1583–1594 John Hammond 1594–1611 Richard Langley 1611 Richard Wright 1611–1630 Matthew Bust 1630–1636 John Harrison 1636–c.1646 William Norris c.1646–1648 Nicholas Gray 1648 George Goad 1648–1654 Thomas Horne 1654–1655 John Boncle 1655–1660 Thomas Singleton 1660–1671 Thomas Mountague 1671–1682 John Rosewell 1682–1690 Charles Roderick 1690–1711 John Newborough 1711–1720 Andrew Snape 1720–1728 Henry Bland 1728–1743 William George 1743–1745 William Cooke 1745–1754 John Sumner 1754–1765 Edward Barnard 1765–1773 John Foster 1773–1792 Jonathan Davies 1792–1802 George Heath 1802–1809 Joseph Goodall 1809–1834 John Keate 1834–1853 Edward Craven Hawtrey 1853–1862 Charles Old Goodford 1862–1868 Edward Balston 1868–1884 James John Hornby 1884–1905 Edmond Warre 1905–1916 Edward Lyttelton 1916–1933 Cyril Alington 1933–1949 Claude Aurelius Elliott 1949–1964 Robert Birley 1964–1970 Anthony Chenevix-Trench 1970–1980 Michael McCrum 1980–1994 Eric Anderson 1994–2002 John Lewis 2002– Tony Little Read all about Anthony Richard Morell "Tony" Little here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Little_(headmaster)
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 16, 2014 17:58:27 GMT -5
a) "Professoress" is no more absurd than "waitress" and "actress" and "Negress". Quite. No more AND NO LESS! b) The correct spelling is "ministress" and not "ministeress", as a glance at the OED will reveal. Who cares wht the correct spelling might be when the term itself is never used nor needs to be? c) The OED gives those who consult it several examples of how to use "teacheress", a word that is certainly not marked obsolete or even obsolescent as the member ignorantly claims. But who ever actually uses it? I've never heard it used and would be far from alone in finding it utterly laughable if it were to be so. d) The true function, power and glory of language lies in its enabling a great many distinctions to be drawn. It is thus that we get to grips with reality. It is a mere perversion of language when the uneducated attempt to blur those distinctions and to mingle the many in an undifferentiated "too hard" pot. Whilst not disagreeing with you in principle here, anyone and everyone who respects language recognises that it is as malleable and subject to metamorphoses as life itself which language in part reflects; neither language nor life stands still! e) The combination "Ms" is not part of the English language. It is now; as I said, language moves on, just as do those who use it! f) How low we have fallen when even some one as distinguished as Mr. H. is taken in by northern american hags! I have no idea what if anything might be meant by that. A propos, I just now looked at the r3opseud site, and find the frightful woman and her friends being buried by new members whom in their desperation they cannot delete quickly enough. A fitting end that would be. Pile it on! Feed the flames! Again, I have no idea what you're on about (or even what you might be on)! Finally, in regard to head masters, here is a little list the member might profitably peruse: List of Head Masters at Eton College since 1442. 1442–1447 William Westbury 1447–1453 Richard Hopton 1453 Thomas Forster 1453–1458 Clement Smith 1458–1467 John Peyntor 1467–1470 Clement Smyth 1470–c.1479 Walter Barber c.1479–1484 David Haubroke 1484–1485/6 Thomas Mache 1485/6–1494/5 William Horman 1494/5–1496 Edward Powell 1496–1501 Nicholas Bradbryg 1501–1502/3 Robert Yong 1502/3–1507 John Smyth 1507–1510 John Goldyve 1510–1511 Thomas Phylips 1511–1515 Thomas Erlysman 1515–1521 Robert Aldrich 1521–1524 Thomas White 1524–1528 John Goldwyn 1528–1534 Richard Cox 1534–1541/2 Nicholas Udall 1541/2–1544/5 Smyth 1544/5–1547 Robert Cater 1547–1555 William Barker 1555–c.1560 ? Hugh Blythe c.1560–c.1563 William Malim c.1563–c.1571 William Smyth c.1571–1579 Reuben Sherwood 1579–1583 Thomas Ridley 1583–1594 John Hammond 1594–1611 Richard Langley 1611 Richard Wright 1611–1630 Matthew Bust 1630–1636 John Harrison 1636–c.1646 William Norris c.1646–1648 Nicholas Gray 1648 George Goad 1648–1654 Thomas Horne 1654–1655 John Boncle 1655–1660 Thomas Singleton 1660–1671 Thomas Mountague 1671–1682 John Rosewell 1682–1690 Charles Roderick 1690–1711 John Newborough 1711–1720 Andrew Snape 1720–1728 Henry Bland 1728–1743 William George 1743–1745 William Cooke 1745–1754 John Sumner 1754–1765 Edward Barnard 1765–1773 John Foster 1773–1792 Jonathan Davies 1792–1802 George Heath 1802–1809 Joseph Goodall 1809–1834 John Keate 1834–1853 Edward Craven Hawtrey 1853–1862 Charles Old Goodford 1862–1868 Edward Balston 1868–1884 James John Hornby 1884–1905 Edmond Warre 1905–1916 Edward Lyttelton 1916–1933 Cyril Alington 1933–1949 Claude Aurelius Elliott 1949–1964 Robert Birley 1964–1970 Anthony Chenevix-Trench 1970–1980 Michael McCrum 1980–1994 Eric Anderson 1994–2002 John Lewis 2002– Tony Little Read all about Anthony Richard Morell "Tony" Little here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Little_(headmaster)So what is your point here? I don't see the purpose of your list, however accurate it might be. Perhaps you could explain why you have gone to the trouble of putting it together. I cannot see for the life of me what profit I might derive from perusing this.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 17, 2014 6:44:26 GMT -5
Having devoted the best part of the week to an attempt to comprehend Mr. H's labyrinthine reasoning, we set out our conclusions here as follows:
1) Mr H wrote:
2) I provided a list of Eton headmasters and a link to further information about the current headmaster. My purpose was of course gently to enlighten Mr. H and rectify his wrong thinking by demonstrating that the term is not in any scrap-heap but as current as it ever was, and that at one of the best schools in England!
3) But Mr. H's response to that was:
4) Let us indeed attempt to explain that. One possibility is that Mr. H. has gone a little gaga and has forgotten the content of his second-last post, in which he invokes the scrap-heap. Short-term memory lapses what! Quite understandable, we all have them. BUT, on further thought, that explanation does not fit the facts. Because were it correct would not Mr. H - upon reading the term "headmaster" in my list again (see point 2 above), and having (we here assume) entirely forgotten his own post about the "scrap-book of history" (see point 1 above) - would he not have reacted to the use of the word "headmaster" in my list in the same way as before, and again told us that the word "headmaster" is no longer in use? But he did not do so, and that shows that he did indeed remember his post quoted at point 1. QED.
Therefore we are led to wonder about other explanations of his asking "what is the point". Three spring to mind. a) Either he did believe that the word "headmaster" is no longer in use when he told us that, and he subsequently, having been proved wrong by my list, pretended not to see the point, for inscrutable reasons of his own - misplaced pride perhaps. b) Or he has never believed that the word "headmaster" is no longer in use, and he told us that it was with the base intention of delighting in our confusion. c) Or he is being illogical through and through and does not know what he believes from one moment to the next.
My feeling and my suspicion are that b) is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 17, 2014 7:39:41 GMT -5
Having devoted the best part of the week to an attempt to comprehend Mr. H's labyrinthine reasoning, we set out our conclusions here as follows: "Labyrinthine"? Simple, surely?! And why someone of your intelligence would need to devote "the best part of a week" to figuring it out I have less than no idea (and in any case I might ask to what you devoted the worst part of the same week but will perhaps wisely refrain from so doing)... 1) Mr H wrote: 2) I provided a list of Eton headmasters and a link to further information about the current headmaster. My purpose was of course gently to enlighten Mr. H and rectify his wrong thinking by demonstrating that the term is not in any scrap-heap but as current as it ever was, and that at one of the best schools in England! 3) But Mr. H's response to that was: 4) Let us indeed attempt to explain that. One possibility is that Mr. H. has gone a little gaga and has forgotten the content of his second-last post, in which he invokes the scrap-heap. Short-term memory lapses what! Quite understandable, we all have them. BUT, on further thought, that explanation does not fit the facts. Because were it correct would not Mr. H - upon reading the term "headmaster" in my list again (see point 2 above), and having (we here assume) entirely forgotten his own post about the "scrap-book of history" (see point 1 above) - would he not have reacted to the use of the word "headmaster" in my list in the same way as before, and again told us that the word "headmaster" is no longer in use? But he did not do so, and that shows that he did indeed remember his post quoted at point 1. QED.Therefore we are led to wonder about other explanations of his asking "what is the point". Three spring to mind. a) Either he did believe that the word "headmaster" is no longer in use when he told us that, and he subsequently, having been proved wrong by my list, pretended not to see the point, for inscrutable reasons of his own - misplaced pride perhaps. b) Or he has never believed that the word "headmaster" is no longer in use, and he told us that it was with the base intention of delighting in our confusion. c) Or he is being illogical through and through and does not know what he believes from one moment to the next. My feeling and my suspicion are that b) is the truth. Good grief! If you want "labyrinthine", you provide it in ample measure yourself with no small degree of virtuosity. OK, I accept that it would have been more accurate for me to write of "common currency" rather than merely "currency" in terms of the use of the term "headmaster"; yes, it has not entirely died out, as your reference to Eton demonstrates (although you had no need to go to the trouble of presenting a list of the entire history of heads of Eton in order to make that point!) but its use is very rare nowadays in my experience; the term "head teacher" is the one that is by far the most frequently used to describe the head of a school and, as I mentioned, this is not always ideal because not all heads of schools still teach (for example, although this was quite a few years ago, the head of the UK grammar school that I attended found himself having to give up teaching French when appointed as its head because he then no longer had time to do it - and he always rather resented this, it seemed). Eton is hardly typical of UK schools, as I am sure you are well aware; very much the reverse, in fact. It has, of course, a longer history than most and may not be the only UK school to retain the term "headmaster", but it is very much in the minority among the 30,000 or so schools in UK, in most of which the term "headmaster" is no longer used. The term "headmistress" is likewise very rarely used today (perhaps also in part because of other connotations of the word "mistress"). It is therefore perfectly reasonable to conclude that each of these terms once had far wider curency than is now the case, not least because, in those bygone days when they did have it, hardly anyone ever referred to "head teachers" as now they do. But once again you're using this "we"! Who are "we" in this context? Not the remaining members of this forum, obviously, but please explain. Anyway, all of this is about whether I should have referred to very rare usage or to total obsolescence and, as the effective difference between the two remains vanishingly small, it is hard to figure out why you're trying to make so disproportionately large an issue of it! But I did not in any case mention only heads of schools; my post questioned a randomly selected series of dubious terms for female members of professions, beginning with "professoress" as used by you and then "composeress", "stockbrokeress", "engineeress", "surgeoness", "chefess" and neuropsychopharmacologistess" before asking what Mrs Thatcher might have thought of being called "Prime Ministeress", to which your permickety terminological correction made no more attempt to address the question itself than did the remainder of your text to address the other categories above. I then returned to schools and mentioned the term "teacheresses", which I have never heard used, your OED reference to which - regardless of its validity as such - cannot and does not influence whether or not it is used. I lastly alighted on the field of further education and referred to the terms "vice-chancelloresses" and "donesses (or should that be donnas, prima or otherwise?)", to which you have so far offered no response. Since this is a forum dedicated to "The Third" and one might therefore reaonably expect there to be a fair proportion of references to the composition and performance of music hereabouts, it is perhaps notable in the present context that one never hears about pianistes/ses, cellistes/ses, contrabass saxphonistes, bassoonistes and timpanistes and, of course, the already mentioned "composeress" was hatched by Donald Swann as part of a joke and "conductress" was already a joke of its own making. But to return to Ms Davis the professor, I note also that you ignored my question as to the grounds on which you concluded that she had "emerged from her kitchen" in order to remind us of what she has done? My reason for asking was that there would appear to be no obvious connection between those things of which she reminded us and the art of a professional chef (NOT "chefess", please note!). I cannot imagine that such omission arose from your having needed the best part of another week in order to provide such an answer! Anyway, I can't stop to write more about this now as I have to attend a doctor's appointment and later today I need to see my solicitor; each of these professionals happens to be female, but I imagine that I would be peremptorily removed from the patient list of the former and the client list of the latter in the event of my being heard to refer to them respectively as my "doctoress" and "solicitoress"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 23:22:12 GMT -5
Thank you Gerard and Ahinton for that stimulating discussion! Here our members in general and Mr. H. in particular - who is no doubt feeling more poor than poorly after his encounter with those "professionals" - may read a little about my great-aunt Maud, much-admired head mistress of the Methodist Ladies' College. She was born in 1869, the best year ever in which to be born. She it was who when well over eighty taught me everything I know about standards of behaviour and the use of language. How the world has declined since 1908! The motto she left the school was "Per Ardua Ad Alta" which seems to have been subsequently pinched by the R.A.F. I now remember she wrote something in my autograph book when I was a child and will attempt to dig it out. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Ladies%27_College%2C_PerthUpon looking at their current web-site I note that they no longer appear to have a head mistress. No doubt that is because it has now fallen under the control of some place in hag-ridden northern America. Here too is a link to the "Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference" of Britain. Plenty of them around what! We do observe there though that "In some schools other titles are used, such as 'High Master', 'Warden', 'Rector' and 'Principal' " - but no sign of the outlandish terms Mr. H. has so confusingly advocated. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headmasters%27_and_Headmistresses%27_ConferenceWhat do members think girls should be taught if they choose boldly to go to school and not to be educated at home? Household management? Riding? Music? Typing? A little botany? English literature? Refined conversation? Certainly it is essential that they be kept segregated. Don't want them getting in the way do we.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 18, 2014 10:57:42 GMT -5
Thank you Gerard and Ahinton for that stimulating discussion! Here our members in general and Mr. H. in particular - who is no doubt feeling more poor than poorly after his encounter with those "professionals" - may read a little about my great-aunt Maud, much-admired head mistress of the Methodist Ladies' College. She was born in 1869, the best year ever in which to be born. She it was who when well over eighty taught me everything I know about standards of behaviour and the use of language. How the world has declined since 1908! The motto she left the school was "Per Ardua Ad Alta" which seems to have been subsequently pinched by the R.A.F. I now remember she wrote something in my autograph book when I was a child and will attempt to dig it out. I'd thought that is was "per ardua ad astra" but maybe there's a different version. Here too is a link to the "Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference" of Britain. Plenty of them around what! We do observe there though that "In some schools other titles are used, such as 'High Master', 'Warden', 'Rector' and 'Principal' " - but no sign of the outlandish terms Mr. H. has so confusingly advocated. If you're referring here to all the others and not to "head teacher", I don't see what's "confusing" about them; "outlandish", indeed, but the sense in which I placed (and questioned) them is hardly "confusing"! The conference that you mention is participated in almost exclusively by heads of non-state schools - i.e. a very small minority of UK schools, hence what I had said about the paucity of reference to "headmasters" and "headmistresses" which appears largely to be confined to the field of private education; I note also from the last shown at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headmasters%27_and_Headmistresses%27_Conference that Eton College (which Gerard mentioned) is placed 17th in terms of age, the one nearest to where I am at present, Hereford Cathedral School, being much older and placed 4th. What do members think girls should be taught if they choose boldly to go to school and not to be educated at home? Household management? Riding? Music? Typing? A little botany? English literature? Refined conversation? Certainly it is essential that they be kept segregated. Don't want them getting in the way do we.[/quote] What a nonsensical question! Who on earth is "educated at home" today? - and by whom and with whose legal sanction? Why would girls go to school "boldly" when this is what the law expects of all of them? "Segregated" from and by whom, how and why? Whose "way"? Sometimes you do come up with the most bizarre notions!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 12:18:36 GMT -5
Out of interest, Sydney, do you reconcile equality between the sexes?
Edit: Thank you for the corrections below, ahinton.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 18, 2014 12:58:08 GMT -5
Out of interest, Sydney, how do reconcile equality between the sexes? Whilst your question needs the word "you" immediately before "reconcile", I cannot help but wonder if it really needs the word "how"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 18:22:15 GMT -5
Out of interest, Sydney, do you reconcile equality between the sexes? I do not think I do. It is not always realized that there is as much difference in the structure of their minds as there is in the structure of their bodies. Irreconcilable. Segregation and woolwork. Sooner or later facts will have to be faced up to. "Blacks" are not black at all! Ladies are not "equal" at all!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 12:37:01 GMT -5
I do not think that equality between the sexes is completely possible, Sydney! It is theoretically possible that I could give birth, for example, but it would require a major operation. As for race, you could argue that 'black' aborigines are best evolved to live in Australia? In evolutionary terms, if you accept the out of Africa hypothesis, we are all descended from Africans anyway, but in the cooler climates of northern Europe, we have lost most of our pigmentation over thousands of years. This might me pink rather than white, but how objective do we want to be about our colour? If the global warming hypothesis is true, it seems likely to me that we will witness mass migration from the tropics towards the poles.
|
|