[lit-ideas] Re: "Violent": An exercise in paronymy
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 11:53:06 -0500
This is precisely why drunks are preferable to philosophers. At Old
Zinnie's no one would question whether I meant aggression or violence,
there'd be no mention of amoebas or sexual dimorphism. They might get
violent, but they wouldn't question my terminology. Do men like violence?
"Hell, yes!" they'd say. A good fight, a good Nascar accident, Violence is
thrilling. Bring it on, Baby."
Mike Geary
Memphis
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 9:08 AM, <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 5/19/2010 10:47:16 P.M.,
> jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> Why do men like violence? Do women?
>
> Mike Geary
>
>
> -----
>
> There are five things to consider here:
>
> -- there is no mention of 'aggression'.
> -- it's all about 'violence'
> -- amoebas: were they gender-specific? They were not. So the philosophical
> point is to consider sexual dimorphism and provide, if possible, an
> evolutionary point about it.
> -- male/female work better than men and women. It's TOYS that 'soldier'
> boys like (vide Lyrics to "Little Man, You had a busy day", 'the war has
> been won, the enemy is out of sight, put away your soldiers...')
> -- what is the meaning of 'males LIKE violence'. What does 'violence' first
> apply to. What does 'violENT' first apply to? etc.
>
> J. L. S., Bordighera, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
