Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#452 Mar 20 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Rachel wrote:
I'm sorry, i will spell this out for you: No, i don't actually agree with gbaji's main point. I do agree with him that should is not the correct word, but not for the same reason he does.

By the way, i said gender, not sex. I understand if you don't really know what that means. Most people don't, it seems.


Let me clarify the obvious to you. I'm full aware of the two stances, hence the preface of my post. However, your last statement insinuated that the proper grammatical usage would favor your point. Ironically, that usage would benefit Gbaji's point more than your point, hence the reason why he mentioned it in the first place.

By the way, I know the difference between gender/sex, as I know how to use a dictionary. 'Tis you that believes sex laws should be affected by one's gender choice.

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 1:11am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#453 Mar 20 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
I'm sorry, i will spell this out for you: No, i don't actually agree with gbaji's main point. I do agree with him that should is not the correct word, but not for the same reason he does.

By the way, i said gender, not sex. I understand if you don't really know what that means. Most people don't, it seems.


Let me clarify the obvious to you. I'm full aware of the two stances, hence the preface of my post. However, your last statement insinuated that the proper grammatical usage would favor your point. Ironically, that usage would benefit Gbaji's point more than your point, hence the reason why he mentioned it in the first place.

By the way, I know the difference between gender/sex, as I know how to use a dictionary. 'Tis you that believes sex laws should be affected by one's gender choice.


CRIPPLE FIGHT!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#454 Mar 20 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm sorry, i will spell this out for you: No, i don't actually agree with gbaji's main point. I do agree with him that should is not the correct word, but not for the same reason he does.

By the way, i said gender, not sex. I understand if you don't really know what that means. Most people don't, it seems.


Let me clarify the obvious to you. I'm full aware of the two stances, hence the preface of my post. However, your last statement insinuated that the proper grammatical usage would favor your point. Ironically, that usage would benefit Gbaji's point more than your point, hence the reason why he mentioned it in the first place.

By the way, I know the difference between gender/sex, as I know how to use a dictionary. 'Tis you that believes sex laws should be affected by one's gender choice.


CRIPPLE FIGHT!


Who exactly are you fighting? I don't take too kindly to false advertisement.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#455 Mar 20 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
By the way, I know the difference between gender/sex, as I know how to use a dictionary.
Lol, a dictionary isn't going to properly explain such a complex thing. That's not even what a dictionary is for.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 8:20pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#456 Mar 20 2013 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,736 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
CRIPPLE FIGHT!
Can't we get an actual cripple fight instead? I bet that's more entertaining.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#457 Mar 20 2013 at 6:34 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
By the way, I know the difference between gender/sex, as I know how to use a dictionary.
Lol, a dictionary isn't going to properly explain such a complex thing. That's not even what a dictionary is for.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 8:20pm by Rachel9


Dictionaries aren't for explanations, but for definitions. Your "complex" explanation contains words that are properly defined in dictionaries. Those definitions cannot change just because you choose to bolster your point. Further proof of your nescience.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#458 Mar 20 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
Your "complex" explanation contains words that are properly defined in dictionaries.
What?
____________________________
#459 Mar 20 2013 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
******
43,191 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
]Can't we get an actual cripple fight instead?
Remember that scene in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, where Elizabeth is eating and Barbossa is talking, and suddenly she freaks out and tries to escape? Right about where he says "You best start believing in ghost stories Miss Turner. You're in one. " Yeah, kind of like that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#460 Mar 20 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Your "complex" explanation contains words that are properly defined in dictionaries.
What?


...Smiley: rolleyes Dios Mio...


Your explanation of your point contains words, does it not? Those words have definitions. Those definitions are defined in dictionaries. Your explanation can only be valid if those words are used as defined in the dictionary.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#461 Mar 20 2013 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,736 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
]Can't we get an actual cripple fight instead?
Remember that scene in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, where Elizabeth is eating and Barbossa is talking, and suddenly she freaks out and tries to escape? Right about where he says "You best start believing in ghost stories Miss Turner. You're in one. " Yeah, kind of like that.
Sure seems like a hell of a lot more fun than what we've got going on here.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#462 Mar 20 2013 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Your "complex" explanation contains words that are properly defined in dictionaries.
What?


...Smiley: rolleyes Dios Mio...


Your explanation of your point contains words, does it not? Those words have definitions. Those definitions are defined in dictionaries. Your explanation can only be valid if those words are used as defined in the dictionary.
Sure, but there's more to a word/concept than the definition a dictionary gives it.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 9:04pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#463 Mar 20 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
Sure, but there's more to a word/concept than the definition a dictionary gives it.

Kitten: people understand. Let it go. Really.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#464 Mar 20 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Your "complex" explanation contains words that are properly defined in dictionaries.
What?


...Smiley: rolleyes Dios Mio...


Your explanation of your point contains words, does it not? Those words have definitions. Those definitions are defined in dictionaries. Your explanation can only be valid if those words are used as defined in the dictionary.
Sure, but there's more to a word/concept than the definition a dictionary gives it.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 9:04pm by Rachel9


Are you implying that we are able to capriciously alter any definition with validation, even if it's contrary to the dictionary?

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 4:24am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#465 Mar 20 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Rachel, if you value your sanity, let it go. Don't follow him into that dark, scary, empty mind of his.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#466 Mar 20 2013 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Listen to Belkira. Avoid intelligence at all cost. Don't clog your current thinking with proper usage of words. Just think what people will think of you... using words correctly and all. What next? Proper grammar?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#467 Mar 20 2013 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
OK. Not sure what that has to do with a statement about what someone "should be". If she'd said someone was born a male but felt like a female, I'd have had no issue with it. My beef was with the phase "should be" in reference to being male or female. As I said, it implies that there was some kind of intent. I suppose it also implies that there's some proper configuration, but again that becomes purely subjective. Who gets to decide what gender someone "should be"?

The person, moron. Where's the confusion. You get to decide what gender you should be. I get to decide what gender I should be. Which word about "gender is probably more than sex organs" confused you so? Was it "probably"?


At the risk of beating this into the ground. Given that the use of the word gender here assumes we're talking about "gender vs sex", then gender always refers to what someone believes/feels they are. Not what they "should be". Since gender in this context is always about current self perception, it can never (or should never) be expressed as a future condition or potential condition, which are the two interpretations of the phrase "should be".

The phrase only makes sense in the context of something that isn't currently in its proper configuration. If we were talking about biological sex, you could use the phrase to describe how a pre-op transexual feels their sex "should be" in order to match what their gender identity *is*, but it's absurd to say it the other way around. Gender identity always is what it is right now. It can't be anything else. It's what it means in this context.


Again, you don't get to decide what gender you "should be", but what gender you "are". You can then decide that this doesn't match your sex and try to change your sex to what you think it "should be". It just doesn't make any sense to use that phrase in reference to gender. And no Alma, this has nothing to do with my disagreement's with Rachel regarding other aspects of transgender issues. Some of us are capable of disagreeing on one thing, but agreeing on something else. I just think that if we're going to use sex and gender in very specific and distinct ways when discussing a subject like this (cause we kinda have to), we should be consistent with how we treat those differences. And in this context, gender is always what you identify it as right now. It's axiomatic to the use of the word itself. Saying it "should be" something implies that gender identity can be wrong, but by definition it's always what you think it is at the moment. It just can't "should be" anything. It "is" something.


Yeah, yeah, grammar nazi, whatever.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#468 Mar 20 2013 at 8:31 PM Rating: Decent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
My use of the phrase "should be" was in the context of what their outward body should reflect to mirror the way they feel. It was an appropriate usage of the phrase, I apologize if the context wasn't conveyed correctly. I was trying to phrase the question in a way that would keep moron over there from trying to delve into definitions. (Which didn't matter anyway, since he refuses to answer a simple @#%^ing question.) Instead, I have this moron dissecting it.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 9:37pm by Belkira
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#469 Mar 20 2013 at 9:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
After reading this, I'm not sure who I hate more: Alma or Rachel.
Why choose?

Good point.
#470 Mar 20 2013 at 9:38 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Are you implying that we are able to capriciously alter any definition with validation, even if it's contrary to the dictionary?
No, i'm explicitly stating that a dictionary only gives a brief overview of the meaning of a word. It does not, should not, and never will perfectly explain everything about a word, such as minor differences between similar words, why one seemingly identical word is used instead of another in some situations, but not others, etc. A dictionary is meant to allow people who do not understand a word to more or less understand it. If you read a dictionary entry, and think there's nothing more to the word, then you're missing the entire point.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 11:43pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#471 Mar 20 2013 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Are you implying that we are able to capriciously alter any definition with validation, even if it's contrary to the dictionary?
No, i'm explicitly stating that a dictionary only gives a brief overview of the meaning of a word. It does not, should not, and never will perfectly explain everything about a word, such as minor differences between similar words, why one seemingly identical word is used instead of another in some situations, but not others, etc. A dictionary is meant to allow people who do not understand a word to more or less understand it. If you read a dictionary entry, and think there's nothing more to the word, then you're missing the entire point.
The OED begs to differ.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#472 Mar 20 2013 at 10:33 PM Rating: Decent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
For instance, different intellectual professions like medicine, philosophy and others have technical languages and words that have very specific meanings that are different to how they are used in common vernacular. For instance, when a civilian uses the word shock*, they usually use it in a different way to the very precise and wide-ranging physilogical way that medical staff mean when they use the term shock. Shock to a doctor means that the person is no longer digesting food very well, that their blood has withdrawn to their internal organs away from their limbs and brain, that the patient is in a critical condition. Similar with panic** Panic to a medical professional means that the patient is in a state when they are convinced that their body is dying, and that death is imminent. Any lesser mental state to a mental professional is called anxiety. So if you've just witnessed a horrific car smash that your spouse and children are in, and you think that they have probably just died in front of you? The emotional state you're in right then? It's called anxiety by the medical profession.

* "I was shocked by Obama's new bill" "I got a shock when I saw him recently" "I got a shock from touching the door handle."
** "I panicked when I saw my electricity bill" "When I realised I was lost in the woods, I panicked".
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#473 Mar 21 2013 at 5:53 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Are you implying that we are able to capriciously alter any definition with validation, even if it's contrary to the dictionary?
No, i'm explicitly stating that a dictionary only gives a brief overview of the meaning of a word. It does not, should not, and never will perfectly explain everything about a word, such as minor differences between similar words, why one seemingly identical word is used instead of another in some situations, but not others, etc. A dictionary is meant to allow people who do not understand a word to more or less understand it. If you read a dictionary entry, and think there's nothing more to the word, then you're missing the entire point.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 11:43pm by Rachel9


That is utterly false. I'm not sure where you received that nonsense, but the point of a dictionary is to set the standard of the meaning of a word. Else, you are capable of making false definitions. How is one to validate a meaning if you can't use the dictionary as a constant?

What if the definition that you're giving isn't in the dictionary? Does it make it true? Who validates that?

Aripyanfar wrote:
For instance, different intellectual professions like medicine, philosophy and others have technical languages and words that have very specific meanings that are different to how they are used in common vernacular. For instance, when a civilian uses the word shock*, they usually use it in a different way to the very precise and wide-ranging physilogical way that medical staff mean when they use the term shock. Shock to a doctor means that the person is no longer digesting food very well, that their blood has withdrawn to their internal organs away from their limbs and brain, that the patient is in a critical condition. Similar with panic** Panic to a medical professional means that the patient is in a state when they are convinced that their body is dying, and that death is imminent. Any lesser mental state to a mental professional is called anxiety. So if you've just witnessed a horrific car smash that your spouse and children are in, and you think that they have probably just died in front of you? The emotional state you're in right then? It's called anxiety by the medical profession.

* "I was shocked by Obama's new bill" "I got a shock when I saw him recently" "I got a shock from touching the door handle."
** "I panicked when I saw my electricity bill" "When I realised I was lost in the woods, I panicked".


All jargon is defined in specific dictionaries. All of your medical terms may not appear in your common dictionary, but are defined else where. Regardless of how the words are used, the words have specific meanings. As stated before, in casual talk, slightly misusing a word isn't a problem; however, you cannot make arguments based on false definitions.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#474 Mar 21 2013 at 6:05 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
Language both evolves, and is context specific. For example, a metaphysician using the word "whole" is most likely using it to mean "the entire universe". Often they will help you out by capitalizing Whole so you know we are talking about the universe. But not just the entire material universe. Whole refers to EVERYTHING. Which basically means God-including-the-physical-universe. In light of this, you might consider the etymology of the word "holy". It seems to have lost a w and an e.

If we are talking about a serious contextual problem, theory, solution, etc, often in an academic or professional setting, it's time to make language work for the situation, if the requisite language is not already in place. In the West, gender fluidity was a taboo issue. It's no longer taboo, and thanks to Endocrine Disrupters, it's a growing phenomenon. Definitely time to talk conceptually in a good-faith way, instead of pretending that language defines reality, and not the other way around.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#475 Mar 21 2013 at 6:08 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,610 posts
It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#476 Mar 21 2013 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
At the risk of beating this into the ground. Given that the use of the word gender here assumes we're talking about "gender vs sex", then gender always refers to what someone believes/feels they are. Not what they "should be".

Please forever stop "explaining" things to me. There has never, once, been an instance where I was confused about the substance of what you were trying to communicate. I mean you're possibly the worst communicator in the world, so there IS that, but obviously you trying to "clarify" something inevitably just makes it worse.

I get it. I understand your idiotic point that there's no authority derived from the brain's insistence that one is a gender that doesn't match one's sex organ. The distinction is UTTERLY meaningless. There's no functional difference in the terminology. None. If someone is the female gender then they should have been born with a vagina. Rhetoric doesn't drive understanding. Denying the word "should" in no way reduces the importance or provenance of "brain gender" over sex organ gender. At all. So stop. What you seem to think is a clever tactic of having someone admit that the word "should" doesn't apply to we can get to "nothing says the sex organs are wrong, bleah bleah" is a game most of us were bored with as children. It's transparent and foolish.

Have I cleared it up for you now?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#477 Mar 21 2013 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,191 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Have I cleared it up for you now?
Hardly the time to be asking stupid questions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#478 Mar 21 2013 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
****
9,499 posts
Nadenu wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
After reading this, I'm not sure who I hate more: Alma or Rachel.
Why choose?

Good point.

Yeah, good point.Religious bigotry should be given as much weight in any argument as anything else.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#479 Mar 21 2013 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,191 posts
Because only one side of an argument can be idiotic?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#480 Mar 21 2013 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
That is utterly false. I'm not sure where you received that nonsense, but the point of a dictionary is to set the standard of the meaning of a word. Else, you are capable of making false definitions. How is one to validate a meaning if you can't use the dictionary as a constant?

What if the definition that you're giving isn't in the dictionary? Does it make it true? Who validates that?
Yes, anyone can make up new words, or new meanings for words. If they become common usage, then that validates the meaning. Usually dictionaries authors then add the word to their dictionaries. but this doesn't actually change anything.

Dictionaries are not written by gods. They are written by people. And as i've previously explained, no one has the authority to set meanings of a word, so a dictionary can certainly be wrong. And they absolutely fail to include words all the time. That doens't mean they aren't words, and have no meaning. It just means dictionaries aren't perfect (and only you expect them to be).
____________________________
#481 Mar 21 2013 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rachel9 wrote:
Dictionaries are not written by gods.

The good ones are.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#482 Mar 21 2013 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
That is utterly false. I'm not sure where you received that nonsense, but the point of a dictionary is to set the standard of the meaning of a word. Else, you are capable of making false definitions. How is one to validate a meaning if you can't use the dictionary as a constant?

What if the definition that you're giving isn't in the dictionary? Does it make it true? Who validates that?
Yes, anyone can make up new words, or new meanings for words. If they become common usage, then that validates the meaning. Usually dictionaries authors then add the word to their dictionaries. but this doesn't actually change anything.

Dictionaries are not written by gods. They are written by people. And as i've previously explained, no one has the authority to set meanings of a word, so a dictionary can certainly be wrong. And they absolutely fail to include words all the time. That doens't mean they aren't words, and have no meaning. It just means dictionaries aren't perfect (and only you expect them to be).


"Nonplussed" is a good example of this.

Note the totally contradictory definitions. The first is the "correct" meaning of the word. In a dozen years though, we'll probably all know it as the second one, a definition that stems from people wrongly assuming that the word means "unphased". The word's structure (the negativity of the "non" part, combined with the "sonicky" nature of "plussed" that calls to mind "fussed" or some other state of disturbance) makes the second definition seem more appropriate, so it will probably win out through usage over time.

Study the history of words, and you'll come to appreciate just how common an occurrence this is.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#483 Mar 21 2013 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
****
9,499 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Because only one side of an argument can be idiotic?
No, normally both sides can be, when you visit the extremes.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#484 Mar 21 2013 at 8:44 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,499 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Dictionaries are not written by gods.

The good ones are.
What does that even mean?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#485 Mar 21 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,610 posts
Lubriderm wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Dictionaries are not written by gods.

The good ones are.
What does that even mean?

It means "Pay attention to these threads dammit!"
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#486 Mar 21 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lubriderm wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Dictionaries are not written by gods.
The good ones are.
What does that even mean?

Do you need a dictionary?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#487 Mar 21 2013 at 8:56 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
Do you need a dictionary?

I'm kind of nonplussed you'd ask. Or AM I?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#488 Mar 21 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Do you need a dictionary?

I'm kind of nonplussed you'd ask. Or AM I?

Literally nonplussed?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#489 Mar 21 2013 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,879 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Listen to Belkira. Avoid intelligence at all cost. Don't clog your current thinking with proper usage of words. Just think what people will think of you... using words correctly and all. What next? Proper grammar?


It's not avoiding intelligence.

I will give you credit for trying to better yourself, though. Eventually you'll learn context for your new vocabulary, keep working on it.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#490 Mar 21 2013 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,879 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Are you implying that we are able to capriciously alter any definition with validation, even if it's contrary to the dictionary?
No, i'm explicitly stating that a dictionary only gives a brief overview of the meaning of a word. It does not, should not, and never will perfectly explain everything about a word, such as minor differences between similar words, why one seemingly identical word is used instead of another in some situations, but not others, etc. A dictionary is meant to allow people who do not understand a word to more or less understand it. If you read a dictionary entry, and think there's nothing more to the word, then you're missing the entire point.

Edited, Mar 20th 2013 11:43pm by Rachel9


Today, your word of the day is "Context". This way, I never have to read that Gbaji-ism again.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#491 Mar 21 2013 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Timelordwho wrote:


Today, your word of the day is "Context". This way, I never have to read that Gbaji-ism again.


Speaking of word of the day and Gbaji, I was pleasantly surprised when I turned on a conservative radio program yesterday and heard the word "enumerated" no fewer than four times in a six minute period. They didn't use it correctly, either. Made me smile. I might continue to listen to that program.
#492 Mar 21 2013 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
What next?

Using verbs when required, maybe? "'What next?'" is only correct if it's rhetorical. If you follow it with something, it should be "'What's next?'" since you've articulated an answer.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#493 Mar 21 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There has never, once, been an instance where I was confused about the substance of what you were trying to communicate.


Which is ironic given that the paragraph below assumes I said more or less the exact opposite of what I actually said:

Quote:
I get it. I understand your idiotic point that there's no authority derived from the brain's insistence that one is a gender that doesn't match one's sex organ. The distinction is UTTERLY meaningless. There's no functional difference in the terminology. None. If someone is the female gender then they should have been born with a vagina. Rhetoric doesn't drive understanding. Denying the word "should" in no way reduces the importance or provenance of "brain gender" over sex organ gender. At all. So stop. What you seem to think is a clever tactic of having someone admit that the word "should" doesn't apply to we can get to "nothing says the sex organs are wrong, bleah bleah" is a game most of us were bored with as children. It's transparent and foolish.


*cough* I was saying (repeatedly, because you seem to keep missing it) that it's gender that we shouldn't apply a "should be" to, not sex.

Quote:
Have I cleared it up for you now?


Sure. Crystal clear. You can't drop your assumptions about what you think I must be saying because of your own insistence on rigid stereotypical sociopolitical roles long enough to actually bother to read what I wrote. I figured that out about you years ago. Now can you bother to actually read what I'm writing and recognize that it's not what you think it is?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#494 Mar 21 2013 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,167 posts
Sure. Crystal clear. You can't drop your assumptions about what you think I must be saying because of your own insistence on rigid stereotypical sociopolitical roles long enough to actually bother to read what I wrote. I figured that out about you years ago. Now can you bother to actually read what I'm writing and recognize that it's not what you think it is?

No. :)
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#495 Mar 21 2013 at 12:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Sure. Crystal clear. You can't drop your assumptions about what you think I must be saying because of your own insistence on rigid stereotypical sociopolitical roles long enough to actually bother to read what I wrote. I figured that out about you years ago. Now can you bother to actually read what I'm writing and recognize that it's not what you think it is?

No. :)


Lol. Well, that's at least an honest answer. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#496 Mar 21 2013 at 3:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Language both evolves, and is context specific.


I never denied the evolution of natural language and how it occurs. Once a word evolves through society, it becomes "official" when defined in a dictionary.

If I decide to call every gaming system an "xbox, Nintendo or playstation", then that's my prerogative. However, I can't sue you for the price of a "playstation 3" for anything other than a PlayStation3.

That's the difference. As stated, you can label anything you want in casual conversation, but you can't argue/define rules, laws and regulations by simply changing the definitions of words in order to support your argument.

Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
That is utterly false. I'm not sure where you received that nonsense, but the point of a dictionary is to set the standard of the meaning of a word. Else, you are capable of making false definitions. How is one to validate a meaning if you can't use the dictionary as a constant?

What if the definition that you're giving isn't in the dictionary? Does it make it true? Who validates that?
Yes, anyone can make up new words, or new meanings for words. If they become common usage, then that validates the meaning. Usually dictionaries authors then add the word to their dictionaries. but this doesn't actually change anything.

Dictionaries are not written by gods. They are written by people. And as i've previously explained, no one has the authority to set meanings of a word, so a dictionary can certainly be wrong. And they absolutely fail to include words all the time. That doens't mean they aren't words, and have no meaning. It just means dictionaries aren't perfect (and only you expect them to be).


Read above.

If you really believe the nonsense that you are spewing, then you have no objection to my definition of a man being a male who have had sex with 10 women or more.

Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Listen to Belkira. Avoid intelligence at all cost. Don't clog your current thinking with proper usage of words. Just think what people will think of you... using words correctly and all. What next? Proper grammar?


It's not avoiding intelligence.

I will give you credit for trying to better yourself, though. Eventually you'll learn context for your new vocabulary, keep working on it.


If you feel like that I'm protruding a "smarter than thou" image, then that is a personal problem. Unlike other posters on this forum, I realize that one's overall intelligence isn't defined by personal view points on subjective topics. I fully acknowledge the intelligence that posters have in various fields of study; however, I do openly ridicule the opinions presented.
Smasharoo wrote:
What next?

Using verbs when required, maybe? "'What next?'" is only correct if it's rhetorical. If you follow it with something, it should be "'What's next?'" since you've articulated an answer.


According to you (along with others), I can make up my own grammar, because there are no standards.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#497 Mar 21 2013 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,537 posts
Almalieque wrote:

According to you (along with others), I can make up my own grammar, because there are no standards.
I'm pretty sure you already do that.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#498 Mar 21 2013 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
485 posts
Quote:
If you really believe the nonsense that you are spewing, then you have no objection to my definition of a man being a male who have had sex with 10 women or more.
I have a problem with it for as long as you're the only one using the word to mean such a thing. If it becomes widespread, then sure, i will accept it.
____________________________
#499 Mar 21 2013 at 4:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm pretty sure you already do that.


I suck at grammar.

Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
If you really believe the nonsense that you are spewing, then you have no objection to my definition of a man being a male who have had sex with 10 women or more.
I have a problem with it for as long as you're the only one using the word to mean such a thing. If it becomes widespread, then sure, i will accept it.


The measurement of a man's manhood by the number of women he sleeps with is widespread. You, my friend are a tool to accept such definition. Furthermore, it is also widespread to define a person's sex by their genitalia. So, I guess you really don't have a problem with that either. So, what again is your problem?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#500 Mar 21 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The measurement of a man's manhood by the number of women he sleeps with is widespread.

Widespread women cause my manhood to increase in measurement.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#501 Mar 21 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
******
43,191 posts
Joph likes big butts and cannot lie.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CDT
feelz, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (48)