"आदमी बच्चे होते हैं।"
अनुवाद:Men are children.
Use of the definitive article 'the' for children does not make sense here. That would mean that the specific men are the specific children.
This sounds like a somewhat sexist statement. I think it would be a good idea if the lessons do not have statements that make sweeping generalizations about either gender (or any other group of people for that matter), lest they should offend some people.
While I agree with your point about sentences being offending to some people, I think we should accept it as another Duolingoism. After all it gives us gems like "You are my horse" and "We did not eat him" among others. And the statement "Men are children" feels more forgiving than "Valar Morghulis" which is slapped all over the internet these days.
I'm not sure if terming things as Duolingoisms will make potentially offensive statements acceptable.
As for "You are my horse" and "We did not eat him", we are comparing apples to oranges here. They are obviously ludicrous sentences, that are not making sweeping generalizations about any large group(s) of people.
Also, this is a question of communication culture. In India, broad generalizations such as "Bengalis do this", or "Punjabis do that" or "Biharis are such and such", are far more common in our everyday speech, and are even considered somewhat acceptable (to my dismay). Use of similar generalizations is also common in speech in China.
But in other cultures (such as the US), where the communication style is more politically-correct, even a generalization such as "Indians eat rice" could be considered offensive. It is not because eating rice is something negative, but the act of making a broad generalization itself is often seen as offensive. So especially, if these phrases make their way into the reverse course, where a large number of learners will be from such cultures, I predict that more people will find such statements offensive.
By the way, I'm also aware of the irony here of me making generalizations about communication styles in different societies, but that is something that does happen to exist. :) I can provide citations about differences in communication cultures if you want.
Also, "Valar Morghulis" is different - as you know, it is a phrase from a work of fiction - (A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones). A work of fiction can have characters who say offensive things, but there is context around it (e.g. the character itself might be obnoxious) for the readers to interpret that statement, so they are accepted. DuoLingo does not have any context around a statement. Also, in some sense, "Valar Morghulis" is a fact of nature - "all men must die" some day or another. "Men are children" is not like that.
Also the fact that something is slapped all over the internet, does not make it less offensive, or makes it a good idea to use it within DuoLingo. For example if you google for either of these offensive generalizations - "Indians are dirty" or "Girls are bad at math", you will find them all over the internet. That does not mean that they can be used within DuoLingo.
if these phrases make their way into the reverse course...
Just to clarify, for this course, the words and the sentences have been provided to this team. We did not make any, but for most words we have had a choice to pick which three (or more) sentences we provide translation for.
I understand that the reverse courses have the flexibility of making up their own sentences to impart the best language learning.
I have studied about stereotyping and its adverse effects on decision making in a psychology course. I was not aware that stereotyping might be considered as offensive in any culture. I was under the impression that stereotyping might be used in general conversations worldwide. However I believe that one learns something everyday. Thank you for the insight into stereotyping among various cultures. I hope we get similar insights throughout the course.
I was not aware of the adverse effects of stereotyping on decision making. I learned something new today too. I will read up further on it. Thank you for this insight. :)
a man is a person who is above 18 years old so the above sentence is totally wrong.