Harrisonized Wrote:I like to answer sentence by sentence for ease so that the reader may see what portion of the post that I am replying to. However, since you asked, I'll make it one block.
Again, it's not about rights, it's about legitimacy, but whatever, let's drop that point.
You're right that your logic "should" not be extended to animals, but it "can" be, and if so, that's what it would turn out as. What I was pointing out is that a language without a method of distinguishing between two clearly different kinds of people is inefficient.
So why do you assume that polygamy is created by men who wanted to fuuck more than one person? Why must polygamy revolve around sex? What if polygamy was created by women? We will never know. There are many things we simply cannot assume because there is no evidence for such and such cannot be proven either.
I don't see how "all humans" is really less powerful than "all men". Can you please explain this to me?
Polygamy requires a man to have a calendar schedule by which he's screwing his 30 wives. They all bicker amongst themselves and do weird crap to get his attention. I am sorry, but having 30 wives and 150 children is no longer familial love.
If you make two speeches, one with "all men" and the other "all humans" and similar stuff, you will see the difference when actually speaking it. Words sound different when spoken than when are written, so speechmaking is different than prose writing. "Men" is shorter in itself, and it also cuts down on the exceptions/inclusions, which makes the speech more powerful and effective. Charisma is blazing through the highway at 120 miles an hour, whereas "humans" and "and/or" and "African Americans" is more like a grandma driving 25 in a 40 zone. I know this doesn't sound logical, but to anybody with speech experience or writing experience it makes sense. Go and download speeches of Churchill, FDR, JFK or even Hitler. These guys all wrote their own speeches, and they are considered the greatest charismatics of their age. In Hitler's case, his completely illogical, warped, evil nihilism was accepted as truth by a whole country precisely because his speeches were THAT good. Unlike me, Hitler believed in incinerating all the gays, and keeping the women in the kitchen, and at home breeding 15 Aryan babies each. Churchill, FDR and JFK were more ethical, but their speeches followed the same principles.
tl;dr: at its most basic level, write one piece with only masculine, (he, his,) and then rewrite the same piece to be inclusive, (his or hers, humans, men and women.) You will immediately notice that the second piece is longer and more awkward.