shokwave comments on The Truth about Scotsmen, or: Dissolving Fallacies - Less Wrong

27 Post author: Tesseract 05 December 2010 09:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (36)

Comments (36)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shokwave 06 December 2010 02:56:29PM 2 points [-]

despite your exclusively heterosexual wording.

Eh,

I've heard that the easiest way to do this

seems like enough qualifiers to avoid being called 'exclusively heterosexual wording'.

I was just the final straw between his humps.

Sounds suspiciously like exactly the kind of behaviour being banned ;)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 06 December 2010 04:06:45PM 1 point [-]

seems like enough qualifiers to avoid being called 'exclusively heterosexual wording'.

Mm? That's interesting.

Just to be clear:

I've heard that the easiest way to do this is to be very attractive, and then pick a member of the opposite sex and then ... well you get the idea. We'd have to ban that.

You understand that to be proposing banning picking members of the same sex as well? Neat... I don't think I've ever run into that convention before.

I'm not trying to get up on a queer-inclusivity soapbox or anything: you're perfectly free to use "member of the opposite sex" to refer to a person who might find one sexually attractive if you wish.

But yeah, I often interpret "member of the opposite sex" to refer instead to a member of the opposite sex.

Comment author: shokwave 06 December 2010 05:00:45PM 3 points [-]

Oh, there's no doubt it's heterosexual. He is informally quoting someone; "I've heard". I don't think it's fair to accuse him of being 'exclusively heterosexual' in his wording. I mean, true on point of fact, but the phrase connotes negatively, it implies the author is deliberate in his use of heterosexual wording. I think he put enough qualifiers in front of the sentence to not deserve that implication.

As for the idea: I got "be attractive, find someone who is attracted to you, get involved in an intense physical relationship, then make the relationship conditional on them deconverting".

Comment author: TheOtherDave 06 December 2010 05:28:02PM 2 points [-]

It's clear from the very fact of this conversation that I came off, at least to some of my audience, as more accusatory than I'd meant to be, and I apologize for that.

I'll try to be more aware of my connotations in the future.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit