Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.

  • 353 Replies
  • 77777 Views
?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #300 on: July 15, 2010, 06:12:03 PM »
- Fewer species of plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole. Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Tom Bishop cannot post for more than a few weeks without trying to insult the people of the Southern Hemisphere.

Since there is twice as much landmass in the Northern hemisphere, compared with the Southern hemisphere, there should only be about half the number of species. It is quite idiotic to expect the same amount of plant or animal species in half the landmass.

And the two most severe overpopulation problems on Earth occur in India and China in the Northern hemisphere, with more than 2.5 billion people in just those two countries, so you would expect much less than one third of the population in the Southern hemisphere.

The real problem with the Southern hemisphere, as far as Tom Bishop is concerned, is that we should see easily the many errors of the "RET", even in everyday life, but we do not. (Care to guess why?).

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #301 on: July 16, 2010, 02:29:59 AM »
- Fewer species of plant life in the southern hemisphere does suggest that the earth is a plane, the sun circling around the North Pole. Indeed, it is said that less than 10% of the human population even lives in the southern hemisphere, the majority of life taking place above the equator.
Tom Bishop cannot post for more than a few weeks without trying to insult the people of the Southern Hemisphere.

Since there is twice as much landmass in the Northern hemisphere, compared with the Southern hemisphere, there should only be about half the number of species. It is quite idiotic to expect the same amount of plant or animal species in half the landmass.

And the two most severe overpopulation problems on Earth occur in India and China in the Northern hemisphere, with more than 2.5 billion people in just those two countries, so you would expect much less than one third of the population in the Southern hemisphere.

The real problem with the Southern hemisphere, as far as Tom Bishop is concerned, is that we should see easily the many errors of the "RET", even in everyday life, but we do not. (Care to guess why?).

Its also a wonder that traveling in the southern hemisphere doesn't take twice as long. and fish nudging/bird tugging doesn't count

?

eartheater

  • 35
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #302 on: September 01, 2010, 10:50:26 AM »
lol once again silly Flat Earthers, there is no data, only speculation.  twist theories to fit facts not facts to fit theories.

@PP-i read through this whole post, and you did the same thing you did the first time i ever responded to your post, you started arguing semantics. CT makes his point in the OP and PP jumps on sematics......" you used that word wrong" you then took up almost a page of post to argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?

me lmao @ u


 How do you explain Eclipses, half moons, full moons, and things of the sort?

Sky magic. One might very well ask "what is an egg yolk?"

 
You can't exceed the speed of ligh

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #303 on: September 01, 2010, 11:17:17 AM »
lol once again silly Flat Earthers, there is no data, only speculation.  twist theories to fit facts not facts to fit theories.

@PP-i read through this whole post, and you did the same thing you did the first time i ever responded to your post, you started arguing semantics. CT makes his point in the OP and PP jumps on sematics......" you used that word wrong" you then took up almost a page of post to argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?

me lmao @ u
It was a classic PP fail.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #304 on: September 01, 2010, 02:55:30 PM »
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.

*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #305 on: September 01, 2010, 03:02:36 PM »
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.

*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"
Please show where ANY part of my point was based on the misuse of the word "aeronaut". "Aeronaut" is a perfectly good word and I never claimed otherwise. I claimed that he did not talk to every aeronaut as a proof would require, for example. I based my critique of Carpenter's proof based on that and other issues, not "nothing else" as you inaccurately claim.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #306 on: September 01, 2010, 03:06:33 PM »
argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.

*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"

Aeronaut is a term for balloon pilots and/or travelers.  What issue do you have with the word?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #307 on: September 01, 2010, 03:07:55 PM »
I claimed that he did not talk to every aeronaut as a proof would require
Here, you're doing it again. You're focusing on one word. As said before, it can easily be replaced with a more fortunate one. All you're proving here is that Carpenter's English wasn't perfect, which is entirely irrelevant to his argument.

argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.

*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"

Aeronaut is a term for balloon pilots and/or travelers.  What issue do you have with the word?
I'm not the one who has an issue with the word. It is ClockTower who claims we have to talk to each and every aeronaut if we want to use the word in this context. Ergo, I suggest replacing it with "one", which would shut his mouth on this subject.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #308 on: September 01, 2010, 03:13:20 PM »
I claimed that he did not talk to every aeronaut as a proof would require
Here, you're doing it again. You're focusing on one word. As said before, it can easily be replaced with a more fortunate one. All you're proving here is that Carpenter's English wasn't perfect, which is entirely irrelevant to his argument.

argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.

*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"

Aeronaut is a term for balloon pilots and/or travelers.  What issue do you have with the word?
I'm not the one who has an issue with the word. It is ClockTower who claims we have to talk to each and every aeronaut if we want to use the word in this context. Ergo, I suggest replacing it with "one", which would shut his mouth on this subject.
It's Carpenter you'd have to talk to about changing the word he used, not me. I simply have not in anyway argued about the semantics of the word. Requring that Carpenter talk to each and every aeronaut before claiming that not a single aeronaut has seen something is logic, not semantics.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #309 on: September 01, 2010, 03:16:56 PM »
It's Carpenter you'd have to talk to about changing the word he used, not me. I simply have not in anyway argued about the semantics of the word. Requring that Carpenter talk to each and every aeronaut before claiming that not a single aeronaut has seen something is logic, not semantics.
And this is where you fail ultimately. How is this logic?
It has been established that there are two biological sexes amongst mankind: male and female. OH WAIT. According to logic, I have to talk to every single person on Earth to verify that. Since I can't possibly accomplish that, I conclude that there is a different number of sexes.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #310 on: September 01, 2010, 03:21:21 PM »
I claimed that he did not talk to every aeronaut as a proof would require
Here, you're doing it again. You're focusing on one word. As said before, it can easily be replaced with a more fortunate one. All you're proving here is that Carpenter's English wasn't perfect, which is entirely irrelevant to his argument.

argue with him about a aeronaut?!?!?
ClockTower's "point" was based upon the misuse of the word "aeronaut", and, sadly, nothing else. Therefore, my response couldn't have possibly regarded anything else. As we can clearly see, ClockTower gave up at this point, and just carried on spamming, ignoring further remarks regarding his wild claims.

*-inb4 "this is not a disproof"

Aeronaut is a term for balloon pilots and/or travelers.  What issue do you have with the word?
I'm not the one who has an issue with the word. It is ClockTower who claims we have to talk to each and every aeronaut if we want to use the word in this context. Ergo, I suggest replacing it with "one", which would shut his mouth on this subject.

But an aeronaut is someone with a very specific experience. In 1885, very few people have had the experience of riding in a hot air balloon.  Even today, a relatively small percentage of the human population has traveled in an airplane.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #311 on: September 01, 2010, 03:25:40 PM »
It's Carpenter you'd have to talk to about changing the word he used, not me. I simply have not in anyway argued about the semantics of the word. Requring that Carpenter talk to each and every aeronaut before claiming that not a single aeronaut has seen something is logic, not semantics.
And this is where you fail ultimately. How is this logic?
It has been established that there are two biological sexes amongst mankind: male and female. OH WAIT. According to logic, I have to talk to every single person on Earth to verify that. Since I can't possibly accomplish that, I conclude that there is a different number of sexes.
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.

Again, where did I say anything about the semantics of the first proof?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #312 on: September 01, 2010, 03:34:07 PM »
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #313 on: September 01, 2010, 03:38:06 PM »
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
I did not question the definitions of those words. Reread my post. Then you might want to read through a basic reasoning text and emphasize the chapters on generalization and induction.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #314 on: September 01, 2010, 03:40:00 PM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #315 on: September 01, 2010, 03:52:34 PM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!

But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
Quote
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.

So the Earth is round.

[/FES]
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #316 on: September 01, 2010, 04:00:06 PM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
It is an extension of your own logic. Since it's logic, it should apply to this case. Unless you're saying it's not logic and you just made something up on the way.

But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
Quote
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.

So the Earth is round.

[/FES]
Following my technique you are either wrong about the definition, or the definition is not reasonable. Since I am convinced that you got the def right, the latter point stands. Thank you for participating.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #317 on: September 01, 2010, 04:21:32 PM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
It is an extension of your own logic. Since it's logic, it should apply to this case. Unless you're saying it's not logic and you just made something up on the way.

But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
Quote
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.

So the Earth is round.

[/FES]
Following my technique you are either wrong about the definition, or the definition is not reasonable. Since I am convinced that you got the def right, the latter point stands. Thank you for participating.
Wow! PP is smarter than the dictionay. It's amazing. More at 11.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #318 on: September 01, 2010, 04:37:02 PM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
It is an extension of your own logic. Since it's logic, it should apply to this case. Unless you're saying it's not logic and you just made something up on the way.

But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
Quote
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.

So the Earth is round.

[/FES]
Following my technique you are either wrong about the definition, or the definition is not reasonable. Since I am convinced that you got the def right, the latter point stands. Thank you for participating.
Wow! PP is smarter than the dictionay. It's amazing. More at 11.
You did exactly the same regarding genders, remember? Of course you don't. Why did I even expect you to understand this?
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #319 on: September 01, 2010, 04:58:05 PM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.
Again, I never used the word 'gender', nor do I have a problem with its definition. You're stalking a straw horse. Good hunting, though!
No, you fail to understand basic reasoning. You cannot generalize in such manner. You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction. That's reasoning. Go learn it.
Ah, so the modern definition of "gender" is unreasonable. And so is the definition of "alcohol consumption". And "planet". Your argument is basically wrong, again.
It is an extension of your own logic. Since it's logic, it should apply to this case. Unless you're saying it's not logic and you just made something up on the way.

But let's try your technique on the word: Earth:
Quote
( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.

So the Earth is round.

[/FES]
Following my technique you are either wrong about the definition, or the definition is not reasonable. Since I am convinced that you got the def right, the latter point stands. Thank you for participating.
Wow! PP is smarter than the dictionay. It's amazing. More at 11.
You did exactly the same regarding genders, remember? Of course you don't. Why did I even expect you to understand this?
Please show where I said that the definition of gender was wrong.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #320 on: September 01, 2010, 05:03:13 PM »
"You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction."
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #321 on: September 01, 2010, 05:05:12 PM »
"You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction."
Just to remind you of the challenge: Where did I disagree with the definition of "gender". I didn't even use that word in that quote.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #322 on: September 01, 2010, 05:08:11 PM »
And so you resort to semantics again.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #323 on: September 01, 2010, 05:12:09 PM »
And so you resort to semantics again.
How did I resort to semantics again. I used only straight-forward logic. Can you answer the challenge or not?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12204
  • +0/-2
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #324 on: September 01, 2010, 05:14:12 PM »
And so you resort to semantics again.
How did I resort to semantics again. I used only straight-forward logic. Can you answer the challenge or not?
"You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction."
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #325 on: September 01, 2010, 05:35:27 PM »
And so you resort to semantics again.
How did I resort to semantics again. I used only straight-forward logic. Can you answer the challenge or not?
"You can say we've encountered only two sexes in mankind. You don't know yet if there are more, but you can't conclude that there are only two. You can conclude that based on history and current knowledge there are only two sexes. But until you survey all individuals in the population, you cannot conclude that everyone is either male or female without restriction."
How does that answer the challenge? Where did I say the definition of "gender" was wrong. We know you think you know more than the dictionary, but I don't see where I need to claim that. I have insisted on better definition of terms when used in a rigorous way, but I don't think that I've ever done that here.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #326 on: September 01, 2010, 07:28:59 PM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.

Or that gender is not as absolute as one might think.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #327 on: September 01, 2010, 08:22:02 PM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.

Or that gender is not as absolute as one might think.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).
Thank you, markjo. I was hoping that PP might learn that on his own, but sometimes we have to spoon feed.

I suspect that we'll have to deal with the differences between lay and scientific definitions and PP all too soon.

Here's a reference for generalization fallacies for PP: http://english2.byu.edu/writingcenter/handouts/revision/logicalfallacies.htm.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45169
  • +98/-138
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #328 on: September 01, 2010, 08:33:12 PM »
Thank you, markjo. I was hoping that PP might learn that on his own, but sometimes we have to spoon feed.

Just as long as we don't have to burp him and lay him down for a nap afterwards.

I suspect that we'll have to deal with the differences between lay and scientific definitions and PP all too soon.

Yes, it can get frustrating when some people keep switching back and forth between the two arbitrarily or decide to start a semantic fight over which is the correct definition to use.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: Carpenter's 100 Proofs, one at a time.
« Reply #329 on: September 02, 2010, 12:35:15 AM »
By definition, "gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female.". There are two genders, according to the word's definition. According to what you (for some reason) call reasoning, we can't possibly know if there are two of them. The possible conclusions are: a) you're wrong, b) the word's definition is unreasonable.

Or that gender is not as absolute as one might think.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Third gender or third sex refer to a gender category, of people who are considered neither completely male, nor completely female. It is a gender identity separate from 'men' and 'women,' of people considered to be the intermediate sex; in-betweens (like the androgynes) or neutrals (like the agendered).
  Who knows what you just did to PP. Maybe it was to soon to expose him to the peculiarities of the sex world and now he is shocked and damaged goods for life...
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.