The Dilemma of Tom Sherman

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.

Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a
member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Oct 30, 6:45*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.
Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a

member of society make. * No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. * Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. *Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.

The sound you just heard was my point whizzing over your head. I
state the genetics has nothing to do with being a member of society.
How hard did you struggle to misconstrue what I wrote before
reiterating the concept which obviously escaped your poor powers of
perception? If being a member of society is about sharing culture and
hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Oct 30, 6:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.

Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a
member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The
term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.

The sound you just heard was my point whizzing over your head. I
state the genetics has nothing to do with being a member of society.
How hard did you struggle to misconstrue what I wrote before
reiterating the concept which obviously escaped your poor powers of
perception?

Then why mention "biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition"? I was always only talking about culture in relation to what
constitutes a society.

If being a member of society is about sharing culture and
hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 1, 5:38*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 30, 6:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message

....
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.

Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a
member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The
term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.
The sound you just heard was my point whizzing over your head. *I

state the genetics has nothing to do with being a member of society.
How hard did you struggle to misconstrue what I wrote before
reiterating the concept which obviously escaped your poor powers of
perception?

Then why mention "biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition"? I was always only talking about culture in relation to what
constitutes a society.

Man you are D E N S E !!! It is as if English were your second
language. Allow me to translate (English to dumbed down English) for
you. When I stated that biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition [in and of itself] does not a member of society make, it
should have been obvious that this is about all that a hermit has in
common with other members of a society that they choose not to
actively associate with. In effect, what I was saying is that it
takes more than biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition to be a card carrying member of society. Got it now
dunderhead?

If being a member of society is about sharing culture and

hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would we
even be able to communicate with one another.
I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture.

Classic logical fallacy (non sequitor) ... stating, as a conclusion,
something that does not strictly follow from the premise. Sharing a
language is not basically sharing everything. Just because we can
communicate in a common language and were born into the same culture,
ti doew not logically follow that we then must both be members of
society since one of us is a professed hermit . A hermit is estranged
from society, disenfranchised from the group as a whole ... a non-
participant by choice who embraces a life of solitude. The very
definition of hermit precludes grounds for debate and that's that on
that. No matter what kind of spin you put on this, it is what it is.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 1, 5:38*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Oct 30, 6:45 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message

....
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]

A hermit is still a member of the society in which resides if he shares
anything in common with such members.

Biomass of like genetic material and chemical composition do not a
member of society make. No matter what kind of spin you attempt put
on this, a hermit voluntarily lives in solitude disenfranchised from
society. Being a member of society inherently presupposes an
association with community. Troglodyes simply do not qualify!

It is all about a shared culture and has next to nothing to do with
genetics. It is why American Blacks are Americans and NOT Africans. The
term
African American is moronic. American Black or American Negro is much more
correct.
The sound you just heard was my point whizzing over your head. *I

state the genetics has nothing to do with being a member of society.
How hard did you struggle to misconstrue what I wrote before
reiterating the concept which obviously escaped your poor powers of
perception?

Then why mention "biomass of like genetic material and chemical
composition"? I was always only talking about culture in relation to what
constitutes a society.

If being a member of society is about sharing culture and

hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture
..
Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible
premise? OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society. A Turk, a Japanese, a
Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit. By choice, a hermit is
NOT a member of society!!! Enough said in the matter.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 5:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message
[...]
If being a member of society is about sharing culture and
hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would
we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture

Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible
premise? OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society.

Actually, those are the definitive factors. Everything else can be quite
minor and even irrelevant.

A Turk, a Japanese, a
Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit.

They are members of a particular society but not of society in general which
does not exist. They are also members of a particular culture, but not of
culture in general which again does not exist.

By choice, a hermit is
NOT a member of society!!! Enough said in the matter.

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of these terms.
Back to Soc 101 for you!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 4, 3:12*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 1, 5:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message
[...]
If being a member of society is about sharing culture and
hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would
we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a common
culture
Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible

premise? *OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. *Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society.

Actually, those are the definitive factors. Everything else can be quite
minor and even irrelevant.

A Turk, a Japanese, a

Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit.

They are members of a particular society but not of society in general which
does not exist. They are also members of a particular culture, but not of
culture in general which again does not exist.

By choice, a hermit is

NOT a member of society!!! *Enough said in the matter.

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of these terms.
Back to Soc 101 for you!

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of the
term hermit. Back to Soc 101 for you. If everyone in your
mythological concept of society were hermits, how would there possibly
be a society. You have to be one of the most stubbornly illogical
person I have ever encountered ... unwilling to concede a single point
no matter how wrongheaded you happen to be.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 1, 5:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message
[...]
If being a member of society is about sharing culture and
hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or
anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would
we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a
common
culture
Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible

premise? OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society.

Actually, those are the definitive factors. Everything else can be quite
minor and even irrelevant.

A Turk, a Japanese, a

Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit.

They are members of a particular society but not of society in general
which
does not exist. They are also members of a particular culture, but not of
culture in general which again does not exist.

By choice, a hermit is

NOT a member of society!!! Enough said in the matter.

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of these
terms.
Back to Soc 101 for you!

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of the
term hermit. Back to Soc 101 for you. If everyone in your
mythological concept of society were hermits, how would there possibly
be a society. You have to be one of the most stubbornly illogical
person I have ever encountered ... unwilling to concede a single point
no matter how wrongheaded you happen to be.

I am always delighted to be proven wrong as that means I can learn something
new. But you have got an awful long ways to go to find me wrong about
anything.

It is impossible to become a human being without being immersed in a
society. You will not even have language unless you belong to a society.
Without language you are not a human being. You are just another primate
animal. Read some histories of "wild boys" (children totally isolated from
birth without any human contact) if you can find any. They are very rare
cases, almost nonexistent.

A hermit is as much a member of society as the most social butterfly.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 6, 1:06*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"JimmyMac" wrote in message

...
On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:



"JimmyMac" wrote in message

....
On Nov 1, 5:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
[...]
If being a member of society is about sharing culture and
hermits do not participate in and/or share in communal culture,
preferring an insular lifestyle of solitude, they consciously reject
the very society that they allegedly are part of, but you just fail to
comprehend what is a very elementary concept.

Wow! Are you sure you ever took any courses in sociology or
anthropology.
For God's sakes, if you are even sharing a language you are basically
sharing everything. Hermits share culture just as much if not more than
those who are active socially. If that were not true, how the hell would
we
even be able to communicate with one another.

I understand you quite well and you me. That is because we share a
common
culture
Are you sadly incapable of formulating a reasonable, defensible

premise? OK. .. since you are obviously struggling with what is an
elementary concept, allow me to take one last cut at this. Sharing
language and/or a common culture are not definitive factors which
determine whether one is a member of society.

Actually, those are the definitive factors. Everything else can be quite
minor and even irrelevant.

A Turk, a Japanese, a

Swahilli, an Eskimo and an Egyptian speak vastly different languages
and are from vastly different cultures, but they are still members of
society ... that is unless they happen to choose the insular,
reclusive, cloistered lifestyle of the hermit.

They are members of a particular society but not of society in general
which
does not exist. They are also members of a particular culture, but not of
culture in general which again does not exist.

By choice, a hermit is

NOT a member of society!!! Enough said in the matter.

You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of these
terms.
Back to Soc 101 for you!
You obviously have no conception of the sociological meaning of the

term hermit. *Back to Soc 101 for you. *If everyone in your
mythological concept of society were hermits, how would there possibly
be a society. *You have to be one of the most stubbornly illogical
person I have ever encountered ... unwilling to concede a single point
no matter how wrongheaded you happen to be.

I am always delighted to be proven wrong as that means I can learn something
new. But you have got an awful long ways to go to find me wrong about
anything.

It is impossible to become a human being without being immersed in a
society. You will not even have language unless you belong to a society.
Without language you are not a human being. You are just another primate
animal. Read some histories of "wild boys" (children totally isolated from
birth without any human contact) if you can find any. They are very rare
cases, almost nonexistent.

A hermit is as much a member of society as the most social butterfly.

I am familiar with various instances of humans raised in isolation,
but that is much to do about nothing (more about this irrelevance
below).

As for the rest ... UTTER CRAP it is! First, you cannot be proved
wrong because you are unwilling to admit when you are wrong.
Consequently, by your own logic, you have apparently learned nothing
in quite a long time. FACT ... by etymological derivation, be it
French (société) or Latin (societas, from sociusu), the very
definition of the word hermit stands in contradiction of your
contention that a hermit is a member of society. A hermit is one who
has deliberately and consciously has withdrawn from social contact and
society as a whole. Now, granted (unlike a human raised in
isolation) you were once were immersed in society and learned a
language, but by conscious choice have now since chosen to reject
society and live the secluded live of a recluse disenfranchised from
society. The only significant difference between a human raised in
isolation and a hermit is that a hermit was not reared in isolation
and chose isolation later in life, voluntarily severing his or her
ties with society.. In fact a hermit is less a social animal than a
primate in the wild. Sorry Ed, but you are what you are ... a hermit
and you are what you are .... wrongheaded about this no matter what
spin you put on it. Enough said.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"JimmyMac" wrote in message
...
On Nov 6, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
[...]
It is impossible to become a human being without being immersed in a
society. You will not even have language unless you belong to a society.
Without language you are not a human being. You are just another primate
animal. Read some histories of "wild boys" (children totally isolated from
birth without any human contact) if you can find any. They are very rare
cases, almost nonexistent.

A hermit is as much a member of society as the most social butterfly.

I am familiar with various instances of humans raised in isolation,
but that is much to do about nothing (more about this irrelevance
below).

It is rare alright. It is the one experiment that all sociologists would
love to do, but it is the forbidden experiment. Such an experiment would
show just what is required for a human primate to become a human being.

As for the rest ... UTTER CRAP it is! First, you cannot be proved
wrong because you are unwilling to admit when you are wrong.
Consequently, by your own logic, you have apparently learned nothing
in quite a long time. FACT ... by etymological derivation, be it
French (société) or Latin (societas, from sociusu), the very
definition of the word hermit stands in contradiction of your
contention that a hermit is a member of society. A hermit is one who
has deliberately and consciously has withdrawn from social contact and
society as a whole. Now, granted (unlike a human raised in
isolation) you were once were immersed in society and learned a
language, but by conscious choice have now since chosen to reject
society and live the secluded live of a recluse disenfranchised from
society. The only significant difference between a human raised in
isolation and a hermit is that a hermit was not reared in isolation
and chose isolation later in life, voluntarily severing his or her
ties with society.. In fact a hermit is less a social animal than a
primate in the wild. Sorry Ed, but you are what you are ... a hermit
and you are what you are .... wrongheaded about this no matter what
spin you put on it. Enough said.

Poor JimmyMac has not an ounce of understanding of the sciences of sociology
or anthropology. He probably only took an elementary course in those
subjects whereas I majored in them. I can't be bothered with his education.
He can either learn it on his own or not.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota