Southern California - Why Don't More Women in L.A. Ride Bikes?

Well, again, who is the author to suggest that more women should ride?

How many times do you need to be told that a question is not a suggestion? And assuming for the sake of argument that it were a suggestion, who are you to say who gets to suggest stuff?

Again, the question presumes that biking in L.A. is an inherently good thing.

The question "presumes" no such thing.

It's not.

Poppycock. To the extent that anything in an imperfect, risk-filled universe can be inherently good, biking in Los Angeles is inherently good.

Just because the question is phrased a certain way doesn't mean the individual asking wants the phrasing to apply. It may, or it may not.

It's up to the author of the question to be crystal-clear in their intent. If any ambiguity in their writing creates confusion and bias (as is the case here), they've done a piss-poor job in their task. Clear thinking == clear writing. Not my job, as the reader, to struggle with the may/may not questions. If the author doesn't want us to make assumptions, then s/he shouldn't write so sloppily.

Back to the original question: Why Don't More Women in L.A. Ride Bikes?

My rejoinder: How Many Women SHOULD Ride Bikes in L.A.?

My question in quantifiable. Let's see some answers!

How many times do you need to be told that a question is not a suggestion? And assuming for the sake of argument that it were a suggestion, who are you to say who gets to suggest stuff?


How many times do I need to state that a question, by its very nature, constrains and defines its possible answer-set?

Anyone can suggest "stuff"...and any one of us can question it. i.e. You can suggest stuff. I can suggest stuff. We can discuss it.

Show me, point by point, where my logic is flawed, and I will change my thinking.

It's up to the author of the question to be crystal-clear in their intent. If any ambiguity in their writing creates confusion and bias (as is the case here), they've done a piss-poor job in their task. Clear thinking == clear writing. Not my job, as the reader, to struggle with the may/may not questions. If the author doesn't want us to make assumptions, then s/he shouldn't write so sloppily.

I'm really sorry to have to say it this way, but this is utter nonsense. The question (and need I remind you for what must be the tenth time that it was a question?) was written clearly and concisely. It is the job of the author to write with clarity and concision; it is the job of the reader to read what is written.

No need to apologize, Placid.

The question was written clearly and concisely, but from a grossly biased point of view. That point of view being: that more women should ride bikes in SoCal. I question the author's assumptions.

I would like to know:

How many women in SoCal do ride?
How many women in SoCal does s/he (the author) think should be riding?
How is that number derived?

Arguing the merits of the original question, not knowing those stats, is utter nonsense. I could write any number of questions clearly, concisely, and inaccurately.

Again, show me the stats, and the reasoning, and I'll change my thinking. I've not seen anything yet to sway me, but I'm open to it.

How many times do I need to state that a question, by its very nature, constrains and defines its possible answer-set?

How many times am I going to have to point out to you that this is a truism? We're not talking about the answer-set at all. We're talking about whether the question suggests something about what ought to be. The set of possible answers to the question can only describe the reason why something is.

It's up to the author of the question to be crystal-clear in their intent. If any ambiguity in their writing creates confusion and bias (as is the case here), they've done a piss-poor job in their task. Clear thinking == clear writing. Not my job, as the reader, to struggle with the may/may not questions. If the author doesn't want us to make assumptions, then s/he shouldn't write so sloppily.I think you're asking the unpossible. There's no way to structure a question such that everything about is crystal clear because everything means something different, even if it's just slightly different, to different people. There are things we know by virtue of their existence, and things we can assume, but not know unless explicitly stated. I suppose the only way to insure there is no intent would be to ask the question and state specifically there is no reason for the question related to it's structure. But how many people are really gonna go into that much detail when asking a question? Besides... If it's not your job as the reader to struggle with may/may not questions, don't make assumptions. There are no may/may not questions wrt the motives of the individual asking if we as readers don't make assumptions. Then, all we can say is what we know, and what we don't know.

My rejoinder: How Many Women SHOULD Ride Bikes in L.A.?

My question in quantifiable. Let's see some answers!There should be as many women riding bikes in L.A. as there are women who ride bikes in L.A. That's a quantity. I don't know what that quantity is, but it's still quantified. ;)

How many times am I going to have to point out to you that this is a truism? We're not talking about the answer-set at all. We're talking about whether the question suggests something about what ought to be. The set of possible answers to the question can only describe the reason why something is.

How many times? Well, I reckon you're going to have to point it out to me (your endurance willing) until I understand it. Duh.

The question DOES suggest something. It suggests that MORE women should be riding than currently are, and by implication, that the women who have chosen not to ride are doing so for reasons that the question's author disagrees with...never mind if the women themselves have made that decision within the logical structure of their own lives.

"Why don't more women ride in SoCal"?

Because, using the best information available to them, given their individual circumstances, they don't want to.

Double-duh.

Eh? WTH r ya to/w/o doing up at 2am!? :D

There should be as many women riding bikes in L.A. as there are women who ride bikes in L.A. That's a quantity. I don't know what that quantity is, but it's still quantified. ;)

Q.E.D.

Thank you!

Eh? WTH r ya to/w/o doing up at 2am!? :D

Rock star lifestyle, baby. Up all night, sleep all day.

;)

And you?

No need to apologize, Placid.

The question was written clearly and concisely

That's not what you said a minute ago. You accused the author of thinking and writing unclearly. Which is it? Would it be inappropriate to ask for a little clarity here?

but from a grossly biased point of view.

In your opinion, which, being an opinion, is inherently biased.

That point of view being: that more women should ride bikes in SoCal. I question the author's assumptions.

You mean, you question what you assume are the author's assumptions.

I would like to know:

How many women in SoCal do ride?

So would I. But because cycling isn't licensed like driving, there's no way to know for sure. We can only go on surveys and anecdotal or observational evidence, all of which are imperfect but none of which are entirely without value.

How many women in SoCal does s/he (the author) think should be riding?

Now here's something that you can find out for sure. Simply ask Sean Bonner how many women he thinks should be riding. He's not a hard guy to get in contact with. I'm sure he would be happy to give you, at the least, a rough number expressed in terms of a percentage of the total number of cyclists in Southern California.

Arguing the merits of the original question, not knowing those stats, is utter nonsense.

Well, no. That's just silly, and on some level I suspect that you know how silly it is. I don't have to know precisely how many people drive Hummers in Berkeley to know that there aren't very many of them, or to speculate as to why there aren't more of them. To insist on precise statistics as a condition of discussing a subject like this is useful only as a ploy to avoid discussing it.

Q.E.D.

Thank you!*sigh*
Nothing about anything in this thread has been a proof yo! :p

Rock star lifestyle, baby. Up all night, sleep all day.

;)

And you?Episodes of Naruto. But not really cuz I would never admit to being that much of a not rock star. :D

Also, I think another reasonable assumption is not that the author thinks more women should ride in L.A. But that conditions in L.A. should be better for women cyclists... Kind of a round about way of saying that there's more misogynist crap in L.A. than the other cities.

In your opinion, which, being an opinion, is inherently biased.


As is yours.

Duh.



That's just silly...



Mmm, yah.

Now, when you're willing and able to have a reasonable, rational discussion, without hiding behind name-calling, I'll be all ears.

How many times? Well, I reckon you're going to have to point it out to me (your endurance willing) until I understand it. Duh.

Well, all righty. I have to warn you that I have near-superhuman endurance for hairsplitting arguments, so you might want to get comfortable here.

A question, by its nature, constrains its own answer-set. If I ask you why you like apples, I've ruled out any answer that concerns why your neighbor likes pears. This is, as I said, a truism, meaning something so patently obvious as not to be worth bringing up. It has no probative value whatsoever as to the question of whether my asking "why do you like apples?" contains an intrinsic suggestion about the desirability of your liking apples.

The question DOES suggest something.

To YOU. Not to everybody, not by its nature, and not by virtue of the fact that it intrinsically constrains its own set of answers.

It suggests that MORE women should be riding than currently are, and by implication, that the women who have chosen not to ride are doing so for reasons that the question's author disagrees with...never mind if the women themselves have made that decision within the logical structure of their own lives.

These are all things that you have inferred from the question, or perhaps (in fact, probably) from the context in which the question was asked and/or your prior knowledge, if any, of Mr. Bonner's opinions. None of them arise inherently from the question, and they may or may or may not have any truth to them. You're just making assumptions--which is precisely what you are so indignantly accusing the questioner of doing.

"Why don't more women ride in SoCal"?

Because, using the best information available to them, given their individual circumstances, they don't want to.

Very likely true. Since you were able to answer it so elegantly, I guess it's not such an invalid question after all, eh?

Very likely true. Since you were able to answer it so elegantly, I guess it's not such an invalid question after all, eh?

And, so, I guess we are in violent agreement on this point.

Eh?

Sweet dreams...

In your opinion, which, being an opinion, is inherently biased.As is yours.

Duh.

Of course. I never said it wasn't, nor did I try to apply it universally. The only things I have attempted to apply universally are facts.


That's just silly...Mmm, yah.

Now, when you're willing and able to have a reasonable, rational discussion, without hiding behind name-calling, I'll be all ears.

Calling a statement silly is hardly name-calling--certainly no more so than punctuating every other assertion with "duh," the implication of which is pretty self-evident. I didn't call you any names, and you well know it. If you don't want to discuss this anymore, just say so, but don't try to cop out with a fatuous accusation like that.

Well, all righty. I have to warn you that I have near-superhuman endurance for hairsplitting arguments, so you might want to get comfortable here.

Now, THAT is funny! :)

Ok, if as you suggest, the author is essentially asking why L.A. isn't the same as other cities, then, I hate to be rude, but: Duh! It is its own beast. Geography; climate; politics; history.

Thanks, I'll add that to the list.


So far, then, we have:

1. Safety issues
2. Fashion conflicts
3. Embarrassment, Fear and Laziness
4. Fear of suffering
5. Alternative, preferred exercise options (gyms, pools, pilates, etc)
6. Smaller pool of racing women to hook up with
7. Training too intense
8. Indolent absence
9. Racing/training is not fun/social enough
10. ovoleg
11. Innate aggressiveness differences
12. Indifference to the technical/mechanical pleasures
13. big john has captured them all for his harem
14. Child birthing/rearing duties
15. Lack of cultural support/acceptance
16. ovoleg
17. "sandwich making"
18. They're afraid of M.E.

and

19. There's no difference.
20. Why ask why?
21. If you must ask why, it's because they want to.
22. Geography; climate; politics; history (of the city).

<eating popcorn>

<eating popcorn>



Sh*t. The existential nihilists are here.

Thanks, I'll add that to the list.


So far, then, we have:


18. They're afraid of M.E.
.

I appreciate the debating and all (although I don't have time today to read all of it), but how did I end up on the list? :rolleyes:

I appreciate the debating and all (although I don't have time today to read all of it), but how did I end up on the list? :rolleyes:

Everyone is afraid of M.E., both men and women.

Good morning. The "day shift" is here...and I still want answers :D...so...

* Why Don't More Women in L.A. Ride Bikes? *


notice that there is no mention of the 's' (should) word here...:)

Is 22 reasons it then?:D

Why? How much time and energy has Alice wasted on this thread? How much time and energy has she used attending a forum ride? Do the math and there is your answer!:D

But thanx, after reading some of this stuff last night, I slept like a baby!:p

Is 22 reasons it then?:D

Just make sure you counted ovoleg twice.

Why? How much time and energy has Alice wasted on this thread? How much time and energy has she used attending a forum ride? Do the math and there is your answer!:D


I spent about 2 minutes with the original post...:D Reading posts? Yes I read alot I'm a speed reader but a REALLY slow typist.

Hey I ride everyday, Dude! And I spent Sunday repacking the hubs and bottom bracket on one of my bikes myself... so there!!

Are you saying that I have a "forum problem", huh? Huh?

My therapist suggested that I might spend too much time online so I got a new therapist...:D

My therapist suggested that I might spend too much time online so I got a new therapist...:D

An online therapist? :D:p;)

Are you saying that I have a "forum problem", huh? Huh?

My therapist suggested that I might spend too much time online so I got a new therapist...:D

Alice, get an online therapist, they understand.

[edit, happytime beat me]

Sean Connery: It looks like this is my lucky day! I'll take "The Rapists" for $200.

Alex Trebek: That's "Therapists." That's "Therapists," not "The Rapists." Let's skip "Therapists" and try "Household Objects", for $400. And the answer is, "You usually drink water out of one of these." [ Sean Connery buzzes in ] Sean Connery.

Turd Furgeson

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/99/99cjeopardy.phtml

Hey I ride everyday, Dude! And I spent Sunday repacking the hubs and bottom bracket on one of my bikes myself... so there!!


Well heck, I'm bringin' my hubs. You can teach me!:D

"I can read, Trebek. That says Anal bum cover. I've spent five years of my life trying to invent an anal bum cover, failing to do so is my greatest regret."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Celebrity_Jeopardy_-_Jap_Anus_Relations.png

Alice, you are busted! You with the SNL link derailed your own thread, reducing it to the topic of anal bum covers.

So, now I want to know, Why Are There No Anal Bum Covers in LA? :p:D

EDIT: Okay, Henry had something to do with it, too...

Post that question at bumcovers.net, please...

...and is Henry someone I should know? :D

...and is Henry someone I should know? :D

Well, if we can ever get you on one of our rides, yes! ;) Henry is Psydotek. :D

Well, if we can ever get you on one of our rides, yes! ;) Henry is Psydotek. :D

I can't ride with you. Then you will know that I'm really a 12 year old boy who lives in Superior, Arizona.

this thread has had some of the most ridiculous(and totally pointless) back and forths ive seen in a long time....that and someone quoted a Slaughter song..unacceptable.

this thread has had some of the most ridiculous(and totally pointless) back and forths ive seen in a long time....

You say that like it's a bad thing! :)

just silly...so much energy wasted....enough to light a small town methinks....oh well...the power of the internets.

I'm glad I missed most of it ...

just silly...so much energy wasted....enough to light a small town methinks....oh well...the power of the internets.

Why do you hate the internets?

Itz spelled with a z.

You guys want some popcorn? Showtime is in a couple of hours

You guys want some popcorn? Showtime is in a couple of hours

Hey...take a risk. Venture a serious answer. Or pick one from the list.

I'll give you a donut... :)

you too, Scootcore...:)