From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Dec 1 08:28:15 1995 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id IAA20179 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:28:14 -0500 Message-Id: <199512011328.IAA20179@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 31F91560 ; Fri, 1 Dec 1995 8:15:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 22:12:48 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: fuzzy models To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Status: OR >> I've indicated >> above that I think this is demeaning and insulting to women, as such >> scoring implies that the chief value of women lies in their physical >> attractiveness. But that's a different soapbox. >There are male models too, why should the scale apply to women only? >So you would not use numbers with the predicate {melbi}. How can we >tell which predicates are suitable for number ranking? We definitely should not selectively apply a notion like this to some scales and not others. Rating beauty is clearly a controversial subject, and even within the US, never mind other places, some subcultures like to do it and some are appalled by it. The lojbanic thing to do, pe'i, is to allow everything and let cultures use the parts they like. Personally I won't be holding up signs in Lojban that rate the pretty boys; maybe rowdy students at Lojbo U. will. A real language should be able to express anything, including crap. ____ Chris Bogart \ / http://www.quetzal.com Boulder, CO \/ cbogart@quetzal.com