Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#477 Mar 21 2013 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,893 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
****
9,507 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
******
49,893 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
**
496 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
****
6,471 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.
#483 Mar 21 2013 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
****
9,507 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
****
9,507 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!
*****
16,934 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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
*****
13,230 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.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#490 Mar 21 2013 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 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.
____________________________
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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
******
35,008 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 *** 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 ******. Rhetoric doesn't drive understanding. Denying the word "should" in no way reduces the importance or provenance of "brain gender" over *** 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 *** 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 ***.

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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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
******
35,008 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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 *** 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.
#497 Mar 21 2013 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 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:
I lost my post
#498 Mar 21 2013 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
496 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 *** 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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 *** 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 *** by their genitalia. So, I guess you really don't have a problem with that either. So, what again is your problem?
#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
******
49,893 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: 45 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (45)