605. * cowsTo: sam@rinkworks.com Subject: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 01:41:38 -0600 What about bull trivia? A cow is any mammal that gives birth to a calf, ie. moose, elephant, giraffe, manatee, whale, seal, sea lion, elk, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, wildebeest, buffalo, bovine, etc. and the males are bulls and there is no such thing as a male cow. What are you teaching people? Are you referring to cattle of the oxen family? Female dairy cattle are cow bovine and males are bull bovine. Go to Google images and type in bovine and then look up the meaning of the word "cow" and then fix your inaccurate "cow trivia" game. A heard of female elephants are cows. From: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:26:47 -0500 LOL. Dude. Calm down. Have you heard of words with multiple meanings? Try looking up ANY word in the dictionary. Chances are more likely than not that the word you randomly choose will have at least two definitions. On a whim, I took your advice and actually looked up the word "cow." In the Random House Dictionary, the word "cow" has six (not including the verb "to cow," which has a separate etymology). The zoological definition of "cow" is indeed as you say. But in common, informal English, it is perfectly acceptable to use the word "cow" to refer to "a domestic bovine of either sex and any age." The dictionary bears this out, but I didn't need a dictionary to tell me what English speakers understand when the word is used. Disagree? Then you'd better stop referring to strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, cranberries, boysenberries, and mulberries as "berries," because, by the botanical definition of the word, they are NOT berries. (Currants, gooseberries, tomatoes, eggplant, guava, grapes, chili peppers, and pomegranates, however, are.) For good measure, you'd better email the owners of the 14 million web sites that employ the word "berries" for its common usage definition. In the meantime, on my non-zoological web site, I'm gonna keep calling cows cows, thanks. -- Sam. To: sam@rinkworks.com Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:45:32 -0600 I saw someone lose lots of money for choosing "cow" on Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Why are all other animals called by their proper names? At state fairs the barn with the "cows" reads bovine. Why is corn, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, peppers, and beans called vegetables when they are fruits? I am trying to curtail the dumbing down of America. From: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:39:45 -0500 If I'm ever on that show, I'll be sure not to use informal definitions of terms. > Why are all other animals called by their proper names? Because the "proper name" for cows is unclear. It's not "bovine," as you seem to think it is, because the word "bovine" also refers to buffalo and oxen and yaks, too. Probably "cattle" is nearest, but you have to say "domesticated cattle" to be precise, because "cattle" can also refer to these other animals. Additionally, "cattle" has the irritating property of not having a singular form, making it unusable in many contexts. But "cows" has been used for HUNDREDS OF YEARS to refer to all members of the domesticated cattle species, in addition to its more specific meaning of females of the species, and it's never really been a problem except to zealous devotees to linguistic pedantry, such as yourself. As I said earlier, words almost always have multiple meanings (usually related meanings, at that), and yet we still normally understand what we mean. It's just how language works. > Why is corn, > tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, peppers, and beans called vegetables when > they are fruits? I am trying to curtail the dumbing down of America. You talk like common language and scientific terminology were once the same, but people became stupid and just up and started using imprecise terminology because they didn't know better. But a lot of these common definitions predate the scientific terminology. Common berries were berries long before botanists started realizing that the physiological properties of gooseberries had more in common with pomegranates than with strawberries. Whatever crusade you think you're on, it's not the "dumbing down" of America. Why didn't common usage change to conform to newer scientific terminology? Easy. The common use definitions are MORE USEFUL in common discourse than the scientific terms. Of course in scientific pursuits, it would be foolhardy to use common definitions. By doing so -- calling tomatoes vegetables, for example -- you would create ambiguity and confusion. LIKEWISE, using scientific terminology in other forms of discourse, you would create that exact same ambiguity and confusion! For example, in cooking, where one cares not a whit what the reproductive functions of a live tomato plant are but cares everything about how different types of tastes blend together in complex and subtle ways, tomatoes may be more usefully categorized as vegetables. And if that gets the job done, is that so wrong? You treat language like a collection of facts. It is not. Language is a tool. A tool rich with its own aesthetic power and pleasure, yes, but a tool nonetheless. When using tools, you use the tools best suited to your purpose. If scientific terminology best suits your purpose, then you use it. If scientific terminology is not as useful as some other standard, then you use that other standard instead. (Interestingly, your preferred definition for "cow" -- adult females of not just domesticated cattle but elephants, whales, and seals -- is easily the LEAST useful definition of all: not only is there no scientific basis whatsoever behind grouping these particular animals together, there is little to no informal basis for it either.) By forcing people to use a single standard in all situations, as you would apparently like to, you might as well be telling people to pound in nails with screwdrivers. If you told a carpenter to pound in nails with a screwdriver, he'd tell you -- quite correctly -- to go fly a kite. Not a literal kite, you understand. It's a common usage thing. -- Sam. To: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 18:33:00 -0500 A bull cannot be a cow and vice versa. Either is has a penis or vagina. How many legs does an octopus have. The answer may surprise you. What if I told you that a beam of light knows when it is being observed? What if I told you that water is sensitive to emotion? Take the MENSA warmup quiz. Good luck. We hava a president that knows more about climate than a climatologist and knows more about contageous diseases than Fauci. Where are his degrees? Cows come and go but the bull goes on forever. The human race is basically worthless. From: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:52:00 -0500 It took you 11 years to respond and you still missed the point? -- Sam. To: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:26:00 -0500 No, you missed the point. 11 Years? It takes me hours to get online with high speed internet and shuts down in the process. What if I taught a child from birth that red is green and green is red? Why are most people the same faith as their parents? Where are the free thinkers? EDUCATE YOURSELF! To: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 18:36:00 -0500 There is no such breed as a pit bull and what is a semi? Doesn't that mean part of something? It is a tractor trailer. Semi means there is no front axle, that is supported by the plate called the 5th wheel but that only applies to a box. A tractor pulling a tank or flatbed is not a semi. Semi's park here. Where does the tractor park? WOW, you are ignorant. From: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 12:18:00 -0500 I have to hand it to you, you've perfected your art in the years since this thread started. I'm not being snide or sarcastic when I say this: I'm delighted that you dug this thread up and replied to it again. But we both know you're a troll, right? The thing is, I like feeding trolls, so you came to the right place. I know full well I'll never win the tiniest concession from you, but engaging keeps my mental faculties exercised and limber. So against all conventional wisdom, let's dive into this bizarre stream of consciousness, shall we? > A bull cannot be a cow and vice versa. You restate your original point of contention without addressing at all my own arguments, which were not that a bull could be a cow or vice versa (do you really need vice versa here?) but that words have multiple definitions. You yourself already know this and helpfully illustrated this fact when you listed a number of different animal species to which the term "cow" can refer. Since you have not addressed my argument but merely restated an independent fact on which we both agree, I will assume you have conceded the point. > Either is has a penis or vagina. Well, actually this isn't true. There exist many rare intersex conditions in which both or neither can be present in a single animal. In a momentary lapse of judgment I googled "intersex cows" and to my great relief saw nothing I regretted seeing but rather found a number of helpful academic references on the subject. Still, I would advise caution when attempting this search yourself. (I know you will explore this subject, given how interested you are in self-education.) > How many legs does an octopus have. The answer may surprise you. I guessed zero, then looked it up. Seems an octopus has two legs and six arms. Score one for you. I mean, you don't get to count it unless I get all mine, but it's on offer. > What if I told you that a beam of light knows when it is being observed? This is a not all that obscure finding of relativity which leads to the downright famous Schrodinger's Cat paradox. Amusingly Schrodinger invented this thought experiment as a way to illustrate the absurdity of the underlying idea, but since then physicists have warmed to its legitimacy. The cat might indeed be both alive and dead until observed. Given how much of a stickler you are for precise and unambiguous definitions of words, though, I would avoid expressing this fact by saying that the beam of light "knows" when it is being observed. It does not have a brain. It does not know things. But I know what you mean. > What if I told you that water is sensitive to emotion? Then I'd say you are wrong. Water is not sensitive to emotion. This is one of those wingnut ideas espoused by believers in homeopathy, but it is unsubstantiated by science. Now, I'll be the first one to admit that science is not the only viable and reasonable foundation to believe in something. Science won't tell you about God, or love, or honor, or trust, or morality any number of other things that people have good and sound convictions about. But science is perfectly well-equipped to confirm if water has physical properties that are altered or affected by emotions. It does not. Moreover, this quack science has led to the deaths of children when morons treat them with homeopathic remedies (aka "water") instead of actual medicine. I think you lose more than just one point here. Let's move on. > What if I taught a child from birth that red is green and green is red? Then you'd be a bad parent. Sooner or later the child would figure out the truth and adapt. You'd risk incurring resentment in the child, but that's about it. Unless the child had red-green colorblindness. Then you'd get away with it but still not accomplish anything. This idea, however, is very close to an idea that eventually occurs to and fascinates every teenager at some point in their intellectual development. "What if different people see the color red differently, but we don't know, because we all learned it was called 'red'?" It's a perfectly fine question to ask. The trouble is that nobody has come up with an answer that's half as interesting as the question, and in any case it's highly unlikely that that people see colors all that differently anyhow. > Where are the free thinkers? EDUCATE YOURSELF! Look around you. We're all free thinkers. We're also all shaped by those around us and who have come before us. These two statements are not mutually exclusive. There have been rare instances of human beings growing up without other human influences to aid in their development (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron ). These case studies serve as great examples of what happens when a human mind is free to learn without outside influences or "groupthink," but it never goes well. People who think they are freer thinkers than those around them are basically always deluding themselves. They are not as free as they think they are, and nor are those they look down on mindless followers. We are all vulnerable to intentional and unintentional biases and persuasive techniques. We all have the same susceptibility to many different types of logical fallacies, because our brains have ingrained psychological properties that impose a subjective view on our objective world, even when we're aware of these biases and psychological phenomena and try to compensate for them. People who call themselves "free thinkers" are usually just people who want to think themselves smarter than others by adopting minority views on things. The world is full of people who want to present themselves as superior to others, but I don't know why anybody else would indulge them. Collectively I think we generally do an okay job at identifying the gifted among us by looking at what they do, create, inspire, and contribute. Dazzling each other with facts memorized from Wikipedia and calling it free thinking, diverting as that is, doesn't need to come into it. > There is no such breed as a pit bull Right, "pit bull" refers to a few different breeds, kind of like how the term "bovine" refers to a few different species. > and what is a semi? Doesn't that mean part of something? It is a > tractor trailer. No, it means part of something. Informally, yes, it also means tractor trailer, but in that case it's a shortened form of "semi-trailer." Shouldn't you be ranting at all the stupid people saying "semi" instead of "semi-trailer"? That side of the argument seems more your style. Well, there you have it. I caught up. I don't know if you're going to engage with anything I said or just fire a few more non sequiturs my way, but I know where my money is. If I don't hear from you right away, I won't give up hope. 2031 is right around the corner. Have a good one. -- Sam. To: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:41:00 -0500 Not a troll. I hate trolls. I am, however a genius. We don't perceive things the way average IQ dingbats do. If we did things like E=Mc2, time dilation, black holes would never have been discovered. I am a retired cosmologist and have worked with Hawking, Lamb and Guth. I am confused. Maybe you can help me. I have received documents that say this page intentionally left blank but if that is on there it is not blank. Can you rip or tear one page? No! a page is only one side of a Pade (leaf). I have won many a bet from dingbats. What if I told you that a beam of light knows when it is being watched. It acts like a wave when unobserved and like a particle when observed. How does it know? How can it be in two places at the same time and interfere with its self. Search Dr. Quantum and choose the longest animation. How can water be sensitive to emotion? How can two particles created at the same time react oppositely to each other instantly regardless of distance or the speed of light? To: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:47:00 -0500 Why do people have problems with there their and they're. Why do people have problems with compound words? Website is the internet. Web site is the location of a spider web. To: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 17:57:00 -0500 Why do people always choose the wrong teminology at a 50/50 shot? Why do people buy antibiotics to fight a virus? From: Samuel Stoddard <sam@rinkworks.com> Subject: Re: Cow trivia? A cow what? Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:05:00 -0500 DEAR DOUGLAS, THANKS FOR THE INFO ON SAD WATER. YOU SAID THAT BEFORE AND I FOOLISHLY REPLIED WITH FACTS. NOW I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT! IT TOLD ME TO STOP LEERING AT IT! WHY DO PEOPLE DRIVE ON PARKWAYS AND PARK ON DRIVEWAYS? I CAN'T REMEMBER MYSELF. Sincerely, Sam. We looked into this guy. He appears to be a retired teacher. The association he claims to have had with Stephen Hawking seems to have been that he once attended a lecture by Hawking and bought some of his books. |
|