Clearly she's a woman

[Drunkenwarrior]

Look at her pantsuit

[Hornshire]

Clearly. But wait.

Do men's suits not come with pants?

[Drunkenwarrior]

8 minutes ago, Kweerie said:

Clearly. But wait.

Do men's suits not come with pants?

Pantsuit is a word here which means ''An item of clothing made for women consisting of pants and a matching or coordinating coat or jacket.''

 

While men also wear suits of pants and jackets with matching patterns, a ''pantsuit'' is generally designed for women. I could see where this would be confusing, if say, you've never seen Hillary Clinton.

[Hornshire]

So it's like when boys play with dolls, we don't call them dolls, even though that's exactly what they are.

Your assertion, then, is invalid. Because you are claiming the pantsuit verifies her womanhood; but it would only be a pantsuit because she is a woman, and therefore you are simply begging the question.

[Drunkenwarrior]

4 minutes ago, Kweerie said:

So it's like when boys play with dolls, we don't call them dolls, even though that's exactly what they are.

Your assertion, then, is invalid. Because you are claiming the pantsuit verifies her womanhood; but it would only be a pantsuit because she is a woman, and therefore you are simply begging the question.

No,it's more like a hen and rooster

 

Both technically the same animal with varying astheticts to distinguish them....or maybe this is just a thread on the internet quoting a tv show and you're making it more than that

[Hornshire]

No, that would be the entirety of what We are attempting to make it. See, a thread implies that there is a series of posts wherein people respond to previous posts- generally by addressing the content within said previous posts that interest them.

If you find such responses an affront to your delicate sensibilities, then perhaps this is not the appropriate forum for you to be sharing them?

[Drunkenwarrior]

4 minutes ago, Kweerie said:

No, that would be the entirety of what We are attempting to make it. See, a thread implies that there is a series of posts wherein people respond to previous posts- generally by addressing the content within said previous posts that interest them.

If you find such responses an affront to your delicate sensibilities, then perhaps this is not the appropriate forum for you to be sharing them?

you're trying so hard....

[RainyDayJizz#35]

1 hour ago, Kweerie said:

So it's like when boys play with dolls, we don't call them dolls, even though that's exactly what they are.

Your assertion, then, is invalid. Because you are claiming the pantsuit verifies her womanhood; but it would only be a pantsuit because she is a woman, and therefore you are simply begging the question.

First, they're action figures.

Second, they are referred to as a pantsuit because when women entered the workplace their suits came with a dress or a skirt. Still do. So when they came with pants they started to refer to them as a pantsuit. This reminds me of how I wanted to make a thread discussing the possible evolution of the word faggot, because I have used the word my whole life and it never referred to homosexuals, and there was a time in the 80's when the gay community adopted the word as theirs. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." But if I say the bar is just past that bunch of queers over there, someone might be offended these days.

Not that I would do that because I rarely use people as reference points, unless a crowd is focused on the point of interest. But anyway, I'm not gonna go through the research necessary to justify my language. I will say the words I want and everyone bothered by it can lick my balls.

[Drunkenwarrior]

14 minutes ago, GreatBallsOfJizz said:

First, they're action figures.

Second, they are referred to as a pantsuit because when women entered the workplace their suits came with a dress or a skirt. Still do. So when they came with pants they started to refer to them as a pantsuit. This reminds me of how I wanted to make a thread discussing the possible evolution of the word faggot, because I have used the word my whole life and it never referred to homosexuals, and there was a time in the 80's when the gay community adopted the word as theirs. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." But if I say the bar is just past that bunch of queers over there, someone might be offended these days.

Not that I would do that because I rarely use people as reference points, unless a crowd is focused on the point of interest. But anyway, I'm not gonna go through the research necessary to justify my language. I will say the words I want and everyone bothered by it can lick my balls.

HOLY SHIT I WAS JUST QUOTING THAT UNFORTUNATE EVENTS SHOW

 

why do you people feel the need to debate the usage of words....like go outside or something

Edited April 22, 2018 by Drunkenwarrior

[Hornshire]

8 minutes ago, GreatBallsOfJizz said:

First, they're action figures.

Second, they are referred to as a pantsuit because when women entered the workplace their suits came with a dress or a skirt. Still do. So when they came with pants they started to refer to them as a pantsuit. This reminds me of how I wanted to make a thread discussing the possible evolution of the word faggot, because I have used the word my whole life and it never referred to homosexuals, and there was a time in the 80's when the gay community adopted the word as theirs. "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." But if I say the bar is just past that bunch of queers over there, someone might be offended these days.

Not that I would do that because I rarely use people as reference points, unless a crowd is focused on the point of interest. But anyway, I'm not gonna go through the research necessary to justify my language. I will say the words I want and everyone bothered by it can lick my balls.

Yes, We recognize that is the standardly accepted name for boys' dolls. And while We don't typically find Ourselves conversing on the subject, that is the word We use should the topic arise. But it doesn't change the fact that they are functionally equivalent.

We kind of figured this to be the case, but it still strikes Us as odd that the modifier is used in the instance of what should be standard. Meaning that suit implies pants, and that when women started wearing suit-like attire that did not include pants, it would seem more logical to refer to that as a skirt-suit or the like.

But alas, language is dictated by the whims of the populace that uses it, and logic is not a priority among that populace all too often. The days where literally meant not figuratively are soon to be behind us.

[enad]

 

[RainyDayJizz#35]

7 minutes ago, Kweerie said:

Yes, We recognize that is the standardly accepted name for boys' dolls. And while We don't typically find Ourselves conversing on the subject, that is the word We use should the topic arise. But it doesn't change the fact that they are functionally equivalent.

We kind of figured this to be the case, but it still strikes Us as odd that the modifier is used in the instance of what should be standard. Meaning that suit implies pants, and that when women started wearing suit-like attire that did not include pants, it would seem more logical to refer to that as a skirt-suit or the like.

But alas, language is dictated by the whims of the populace that uses it, and logic is not a priority among that populace all too often. The days where literally meant not figuratively are soon to be behind us.

I would guess it has to do with sexual dimorphism and the environment of the workplace. Suits were what was worn to work, and suits are men's attire. I don't think whether it came from the attitude that women were taking on the man's role or a form of unconscious pandering by marketers can be said. "The little girls want to give our world a shot, we'll make their own suits for them." If the suit was for a woman, a skirt was simply implied. So pantsuit provided differentiation from what was typical.

It could just as easily be an artifact of the times. Back in the sixties and seventies mom was wearing dresses and the young women were starting to wear jeans and t-shirts. In the end, no one cares. We'll all be wearing unisex leotards soon enough.

[bnmjy]

45 minutes ago, Drunkenwarrior said:

HOLY SHIT I WAS JUST QUOTING THAT UNFORTUNATE EVENTS SHOW

 

why do you people feel the need to debate the usage of words....like go outside or something

CAKESNIFFING ORPHANS IN THE ORPHAN SHACK!

[nameraka]