From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.pagan
Subject: This is getting so funny that I had to cross post it to alt.pagan (Was: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?)
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:00:04 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

Can you say "clueless"?

In article <1992Sep30.165254.27930@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep21.175841.23392@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>In  <1992Sep19.214344.20834@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep19.153927.24145@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
>>> >In  <1992Sep19.032748.12188@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darc
>>> >> In article <1992Sep17.113835.19549@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Vi

>>> >> >To say something is a "subset" specifically implies that all (entire,
>>> >> >the whole enchilada, etc.) is included.  There is no need to include
>>> >> >the word "all":  it is redundant.
>>> >>
>>> >> It is only "redundant" if one PRESUMES that Nyikos was referring to all
>>> >> Wiccans, as opposed to just the Feminist ones. My point is that there is no
>>> >> justification for that presumption, and I challenge you to justify it.
>>> >
>>> >When he says "Wicca", he *is* referring to the entire Wiccan membership.
>>> >Wicca is the movement as a whole.

>>> There is no antecedent reason to think so. If I said "subset of Republicans,
>>> like Pro-choice" would you take that as implying that all pro-choicers were
>>> Republican? Somehow I doubt it.

>>Different case, since "Pro-choice" is an adjective.

>Poppycock! In the first place, an adjective would be ungrammatical in that 
>context. In the second place, the capitalization of the "P" strongly marks it
>as a proper noun. Yes, Larry, "pro-choice" is _usually_ an adjective, but 
>not in the sentence above.

>Try again?

>>> >> >is to say exactly that each and every element of Wicca is contained in
>>> >> >Feminism.
>>> >>
>>> >> Circular reasoning. You are basing your premise (i.e. that by "Wicca", in
>>> >> this context, Nyikos meant ALL Wiccans) on your conclusion (i.e. that the
>>> >> "subset" being referred to comprises ALL Wiccans).
>>> >
>>> >But "Wicca" does refer to all Wiccans.

>>> Not necessarily, given the context of Nyikos' statement ("subset of Feminism").

>>He gave no indication that we was referring to a subset of *Wicca*, though.

>Nor did he exclude the possibility, although YOU did. The sentence is 
>ambiguous, Larry, and we usually give authors the benefit of the doubt in 
>cases of ambiguity. You failed to give that benefit of the doubt.

>>> >> First, you need to give an independent justification for WHY we should presum
>>> >> that when Nyikos said "Wicca", he meant "all Wiccans". Certainly the context
>>> >> of the term implies that he was only referring to the Feminist ones.
>>> >
>>> >But he didn't say Wiccans, which might be ambiguous; he said Wicca, which
>>> >refers to the entire group.

>>> Standing by itself, or as the lead subject of the sentence, I would agree with
>>> you, Larry. If Nyikos had simply said "Wicca is a subset of Feminism", then it
>>> would have been far less ambiguous. But he didn't. He said "a subset of it,
>>> like Wicca" (where "it" refers to Feminism, of course). In that sentence,
>>> "subset of Feminism" is the lead subject, and "like Wicca" is an appendage.
>>> Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that "Wicca" merely modifies "subset of
>>> Feminism". I see no strict equivalence in the sentence between "Wicca" (the
>>> movement) and "subset of Feminism". I see instead a LOOSE equivalence between
>>> "subset of Feminism" and "Wicca", which could just as easily refer to the
>>> INTERSECTION of the two, as imply that one is a completely-contained subset
>>> of the other.

>>What I see is an example of "a subset of Feminism" being given, namely,
>>Wicca - with a clear implication that Wicca is a subset of Feminism.  I
>>see absolutely nothing to indicate that a *subset* of Wicca was being
>>referred to.

>Nor do you see anything to indicate that ALL of Wicca was being referred to,
>Larry. That's my point. The single word "Wicca" is not self-quantifying, nor 
>should universal quantification -- "all Wiccans" -- be the default.

>Take the cliche` "gentlemen prefer blondes" (please :-). Does this imply that
>ALL gentlemen prefer blondes, Larry? Take a simple declaration "birds are
>singing". Does this imply that ALL birds are singing, Larry? "People are like
>that". The list goes on and on. Universal quantification is not the default 
>quantification in all instances. I already argued this point with Eric wrt
>the "Humans value human life above animal life" statement and he conceded the
>point. Do you wish to pick up where he left off?

>>> >> If I were to say "women engineers are a subset of engineers", would this not
>>> >> be a true statement?
>>> >
>>> >Yes, but if you were to say "women are a subset of engineers", that would be
>>> >incorrect.

>>> Now you start to see the light. The phrasing DOES make a difference.

>>> For your next lesson, try "a subset of engineers are women".

>>> The lesson after that is "a subset of engineers, like women" (be careful not
>>> to omit the comma in that one :-).

>>Then, for extra credit, try "a subset of engineers, like womankind".  Then
>>compare:
>>   A subset of engineers, like women  |  A subset of engineers, like womankind
>>   A subset of Feminism, like Wiccans |  A subset of Feminism, like Wicca

>Wrong, Larry. "Womankind" isn't parallel to "Wicca", it's parallel to 
>"Wiccadom" (or whatever the correct term is for the totality of all Wiccans,
>as "Christendom" is for all Christians). The -kind and -dom formations have an
>automatic universal quantification: in fact, the only reason these formations
>exist is exactly BECAUSE the root terms are ambiguous, in terms of 
>quantification.

>Larry, I think you're confusing what linguists call "intension" and 
>"extension". The intension of a term is the defining characteristics of that
>term, whereas the extension is merely the set of concrete instances. Some 
>terms have intension, but not extension, e.g. "unicorn". Other terms have
>extension, but no particular intension, e.g. "Larry Margolis", which is just
>a label for a concrete instance of a person. When you read "Wicca", you appear 
>to have understood it purely in an INtensional way, i.e. as referring strictly 
>to the Wiccan belief or organizational structure. Certainly, if Nyikos had 
>said that the Wiccan belief or organizational structure was a subset of 
>Feminism, he would have deserved the criticism he received. But he didn't. He 
>just said "Wicca", which, like "Christianity", or "women", can be understood 
>in EXtensional ways, i.e. as referring to some indefinite set of concrete 
>instances of Wiccans, or Christians or women, respectively. Given the 
>EXtensional interpretation, it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that he was 
>denoting an _intersection_ between Wicca (the belief or organizational 
>structure) and Feminism.

>>> >> If so, then, by your "logic" above, that statement would
>>> >> imply that ALL women were engineers: in Set Theory terms, "the female subset
>>> >> of engineers" is no different than "the Wicca subset of Feminism".
>>> >
>>> >Wrong.  The equivalent would be "the Wiccan subset of feminism".

>>> Get real. To replace "Wicca" with "Wiccan" in Nyikos' sentence would have
>>> been ungrammatical ("...a subset of it, like Wiccan").

>>Get real yourself.  I was correcting *your* equivalence.  

>In the equivalence you allegedly "corrected", you just changed "Wicca" to
>"Wiccan", Larry. My only point was that such a simple-minded transformation
>could not have been performed on Nyikos' sentence without rendering it
>ungrammatical. Do you deny this?

>>In his sentence,
>>he could have said "a subset of Feminism, like the Wiccan subset" to be
>>clear, ...

>It also would have been awkward (repeating the word "subset"). Besides,
>there's a subtle semantic difference between "Wiccan subset" and "subset 
>composed of Wiccans", just as there's a difference between "Russian spy"
>(who might not be Russian at all) and "a spy who is a Russian" (who might be 
>spying for France, or England, or Spain, or ...). So, your suggested phrasing 
>would STILL have been problematic, albeit in a different way.

>>...or "a subset of Feminism, like Wiccans" (which would have been
>>ambiguous, as you have been arguing).

>Why is that significantly _more_ ambiguous, Larry, bearing in mind that 
>"Wicca" can mean _either_ "the Wiccan belief" or "Wiccans"? I agree that the
>sentence above is more ambiguous than what Nyikos actually said, but I don't
>think what he said was sufficiently UNambiguous that we should withhold our
>benefit of the doubt. The existence of a more ambiguous alternative does not
>disambiguate what he actually said.

>>> Besides, it's rather optional whether proper nouns (or noun phrases) need to
>>> be "adjectivized" when they are incorporated into larger proper noun phrases.
>>> Cf. "Stanley Cup", "Commonwealth Games", "Camp David Accords", "Supreme Court
>>> Building", ...

>>What larger noun phrase?

>Time for another clue. "Supreme Court" is a noun phrase. "Supreme Court 
>Building" is a larger noun phrase, incorporating the previous noun phrase. By 
>your "rule", we should always adjectivize proper nouns or noun phrases when 
>incorporating them in larger proper noun phrases. In other words, by your 
>"rule", the above should read "Stanleyite Cup", "Commonwealthy Games", "Camp 
>Davidian Accords" and "Supreme Courtly Building", respectively. Somehow I 
>doubt it...

>I see nothing wrong with referring to "the Wicca subset of Feminism". It
>seems every bit as correct as "the Stanley Cup", IMO. Nor do I think that,
>as per your "logic", the term "Stanley Cup" implies that all cups are named 
>"Stanley" :-)

>								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.politics.misc