Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

6 (20.7%)

No

18 (62.1%)

They're kinda the same but kinda aren't.

5 (17.2%)

Total Members Voted: 28

[Todttag]

Hey guys, long time lurker and first time poster here. I'm asking this because of an argument I had with a friend today. He says that these two statements mean completely different things and I think it's simply a matter of syntax.

[IronyOwl]

They're both kind of poetic and vague, so they can mean the same thing or something different. The former seems more passive and past-oriented than the latter, for instance, even though both convey the same basic information.

[Levi]

Seems the same too me.  Did he mention what the different meanings are?

[Megaman]

there seems to be... no reason for them to be different in meaning.

[Todttag]

Thanks... I guess I should add an option for sameness then XD He was a little tipsy, so he said that one means that you think but don't act and the other is you acting. I'll bring it up when he sobers and see if his answer is different.

[Dutchling]

To me, the first one makes it sound a man is a 'victim' of his own past while the second one makes it sound like he had shaped himself.

This made a lot more sense before I wrote it down.

[IronyOwl]

Thanks... I guess I should add an option for sameness then XD He was a little tipsy, so he said that one means that you think but don't act and the other is you acting. I'll bring it up when he sobers and see if his answer is different.

To me, the first one makes it sound a man is a 'victim' of his own past while the second one makes it sound like he had shaped himself.

This made a lot more sense before I wrote it down.

Both of these could be that past/passive vs presentfuture/active thing I was talking about- the first one says a man is defined by his actions, ie he gets rated on how he did, while the second says a man's actions define him, ie he goes out and does however well he's going to do.

Not necessarily in either case, of course. Language can get slippery and vague when it wants to.

[Dutchling]

The question is: How are women defined? Clearly not by their actions.

[penguinofhonor]

They're defined by their... reactions? Inaction?

Man, there are no funny opposites to "action".

[Megaman]

The question is: How are women defined? Clearly not by their actions.

Depends what they're doing.

Women in the entertainment industry are defined by sex appeal(by whoever be in charge, anyway), for example.

[kaenneth]

They're defined by their... reactions? Inaction?

Man, there are no funny opposites to "action".

Women are by definition lazy?

[penguinofhonor]

Thesaurus.com, I call upon thee! Tell me antonyms!

Women are defined by their cessation. Wait, that one sucks.
Women are defined by their inertia. That one's even worse.
Women are defined by their idleness. That's the best I've got. I give up.

[Dutchling]

Woman are defined by their stoppage.

Sound smexy. And plumberly.

[Virex]

The question is: How are women defined? Clearly not by their actions.

Who says men in the quote wasn't meant as a synonym for people? Also, please stop acting like women are a different species...

[kaijyuu]

I believe the sexist comments are the joke. No one here actually believes that silliness