Total posts: 28,020
-->
@TWS1405_2
Fanchick approves.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Don't let Fanchick stalk ya
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A DA works for his local voters, period. If the DA is elected by MSNBC Fanchicks, then the DA is going to allow the city to become 3rd world.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
90 percent of every topic he posts here is straight from MSNBC, hence, a MSNBC Fanchick.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
His new nickname is Fanchick.
Created:
Lol, greatest Fanchick hits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
There's got to be more to that story,
I would suggest tuning into MSNBC for the official government sanctioned story.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Yes, you are my ashamed. I own you.
I'll bet Fanchick really hates the Yellow Supremacists in Japan.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Or look at Japan. Very few tribal conflicts there for some weird unfathomable reason...
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Also say you get your news from:
"not WIKIPEDIA"
Fanchicks gonna fan.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Just say you get your news from "not MSNBC"
That will cause an NPC system error.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Yes sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Maybe he is looking for a handout to support his addictions.
Or getting ready to start up a gofundme to install a detachable penis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I wonder what DA stands for...
Created:
MSNBC fanchick.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Yep. MSNBC fanchick.
MSNBC is truth and truth is MSNBC.
It's all he knows and all he needs to know, as in an ode to a Grecian urn.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It's time to turn off legacy news, regardless of your political alignment.
The guy is a die hard MSNBC fanchick.
Created:
redacted.
Created:
Posted in:
MSNBC is still a safe outlet for state propaganda despite a massive page of discretions.
You will be safely censored from stories like these.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Lol, this is what happens when you get your education from MSNBC alone.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Everyone knows you can only fight fascism with fascism.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You mean when humans become a prey species for micro organisms and the AI species?
Yup.
Predation, competition, and disease have all been common causes of extinction throughout the history of life on Earth. Predation is a natural process in ecosystems, but the introduction of new predators can have devastating effects on native species that are not adapted to deal with them. Competition for resources is also a common occurrence in ecosystems, but when a new species is introduced and outcompetes the native species, it can lead to the extinction of those species. Disease is another common cause of extinction, as it can spread rapidly through populations and cause significant mortality.
Humans have caused predation through the introduction of non-native species, overfishing, and hunting of wild animals. For example, the introduction of cats and rats to islands has caused the extinction of many bird species that were not adapted to deal with these predators. Similarly, overfishing has led to declines in populations of marine predators such as sharks and sea turtles, which can have cascading effects on entire ecosystems. In these cases, human activities have had a significant impact on the predation pressure experienced by other species, and have contributed to their extinction.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The thread is about leaving parts out of the story.
Did you even read the OP? or did you just immediately think of Trump when you saw the word Biden?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
no, Putin.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
lol no. The solution is demonizing one man for all the problems of the universe of course.
The ultimate hammer for the universal nail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Platypi
I call might refer to a man dressing like a girl as a crossdresser, or more likely not call them anything in particular. That doesn't benefit society, and its not an ideology. It is what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
This (new to me until this thread) repulsion from referring to the transgender movement as “ideology” made me think that they “protest too much.” To what end? I’m thinking it is to make it easier to smuggle the movement’s claims into lower education.
To admit it's an ideology is to also admit irreversible cosmetic surgery therapy is an experimental theory for treating dysphoria.
Which of course, it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
I like the part where binding yourself to authorities of the past prevents you from living in the present and bettering yourself.
This extends to much more than just language.
Created:
Posted in:
Objectively, lexicographers have consistently...
Not all definitional disputes progress as far as recognizing the notion of common usage. More often, I think, someone picks up a dictionary because they believe that words have meanings, and the dictionary faithfully records what this meaning is. Some people even seem to believe that the dictionary determines the meaning—that the dictionary editors are the Legislators of Language. Maybe because back in elementary school, their authority-teacher said that they had to obey the dictionary, that it was a mandatory rule rather than an optional one?
Dictionary editors read what other people write, and record what the words seem to mean; they are historians. The Oxford English Dictionary may be comprehensive, but never authoritative.
But surely there is a social imperative to use words in a commonly understood way? Does not our human telepathy, our valuable power of language, rely on mutual coordination to work? Perhaps we should voluntarily treat dictionary editors as supreme arbiters—even if they prefer to think of themselves as historians—in order to maintain the quiet cooperation on which all speech depends.
The phrase "authoritative dictionary" is almost never used correctly, an example of proper usage being the Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards. The IEEE is a body of voting members who have a professional need for exact agreement on terms and definitions, and so the Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards is actual, negotiated legislation, which exerts whatever authority one regards as residing in the IEEE.
In everyday life, shared language usually does not arise from a deliberate agreement, as of the IEEE. It's more a matter of infection, as words are invented and diffuse through the culture. (A "meme", one might say, following Richard Dawkins thirty years ago—but you already know what I mean, and if not, you can look it up on Google, and then you too will have been infected.)
Yet as the example of the IEEE shows, agreement on language can also be a cooperatively established public good. If you and I wish to undergo an exchange of thoughts via language, the human telepathy, then it is in our mutual interest that we use the same word for similar concepts—preferably, concepts similar to the limit of resolution in our brain's representation thereof—even though we have no obvious mutual interest in using any particular word for a concept.
We have no obvious mutual interest in using the word "oto" to mean sound, or "sound" to mean oto; but we have a mutual interest in using the same word, whichever word it happens to be. (Preferably, words we use frequently should be short, but let's not get into information theory just yet.)
But, while we have a mutual interest, it is not strictly necessary that you and I use the similar labels internally; it is only convenient. If I know that, to you, "oto" means sound—that is, you associate "oto" to a concept very similar to the one I associate to "sound"—then I can say "Paper crumpling makes a crackling oto." It requires extra thought, but I can do it if I want.
Similarly, if you say "What is the walking-stick of a bowling ball dropping on the floor?" and I know which concept you associate with the syllables "walking-stick", then I can figure out what you mean. It may require some thought, and give me pause, because I ordinarily associate "walking-stick" with a different concept. But I can do it just fine.
When humans really want to communicate with each other, we're hard to stop! If we're stuck on a deserted island with no common language, we'll take up sticks and draw pictures in sand.
Albert's appeal to the Argument from Common Usage assumes that agreement on language is a cooperatively established public good. Yet Albert assumes this for the sole purpose of rhetorically accusing Barry of breaking the agreement, and endangering the public good. Now the falling-tree argument has gone all the way from botany to semantics to politics; and so Barry responds by challenging Albert for the authority to define the word.
A rationalist, with the discipline of hugging the query active, would notice that the conversation had gone rather far astray.
Oh, dear reader, is it all really necessary? Albert knows what Barry means by "sound". Barry knows what Albert means by "sound". Both Albert and Barry have access to words, such as "acoustic vibrations" or "auditory experience", which they already associate to the same concepts, and which can describe events in the forest without ambiguity. If they were stuck on a deserted island, trying to communicate with each other, their work would be done.
When both sides know what the other side wants to say, and both sides accuse the other side of defecting from "common usage", then whatever it is they are about, it is clearly not working out a way to communicate with each other. But this is the whole benefit that common usage provides in the first place.
Why would you argue about the meaning of a word, two sides trying to wrest it back and forth? If it's just a namespace conflict that has gotten blown out of proportion, and nothing more is at stake, then the two sides need merely generate two new words and use them consistently.
Yet often categorizations function as hidden inferences and disguised queries. Is atheism a "religion"? If someone is arguing that the reasoning methods used in atheism are on a par with the reasoning methods used in Judaism, or that atheism is on a par with Islam in terms of causally engendering violence, then they have a clear argumentative stake in lumping it all together into an indistinct gray blur of "faith".
Or consider the fight to blend together blacks and whites as "people". This would not be a time to generate two words—what's at stake is exactly the idea that you shouldn't draw a moral distinction.
But once any empirical proposition is at stake, or any moral proposition, you can no longer appeal to common usage.
If the question is how to cluster together similar things for purposes of inference, empirical predictions will depend on the answer; which means that definitions can be wrong. A conflict of predictions cannot be settled by an opinion poll.
If you want to know whether atheism should be clustered with supernaturalist religions for purposes of some particular empirical inference, the dictionary can't answer you.
If everyone believes that the red light in the sky is Mars the God of War, the dictionary will define "Mars" as the God of War. If everyone believes that fire is the release of phlogiston, the dictionary will define "fire" as the release of phlogiston.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
@Kaitlyn
What we know about him is that he lies about himself daily, especially regarding his military experience and his education. He got caught in a bunch of slipups.
He seems to be sexually transfixed on children; not sure if he likes little boys or not though. His only source of world information is MSNBC and the Washington Post.
Our best guess is he works a decent job in the blue collar field of hard physical labor like construction or sanitation, perhaps baggage handling, and lives out his delusional fantasy fanfic alt-life here with jealous posts ranting at people with various white collar jobs.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Created:
-->
@ebuc
This guy has orange hair.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I hope you aren’t proposing we put transgender people in concentration camps
Inclusion of dysphoric people into society won't come from a knife.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Double checkmate.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
They say, ‘Scratch a liberal, you’ll find a fascist’.
But scratch a fascist, you’ll find a communist;
scratch a communist, you’ll find an anarchist;
scratch an anarchist, you’ll find a feudalist;
scratch a feudalist, you’ll find a Roman Republican;
scratch a Roman Republican, you’ll find a democrat,
though he will be incredibly tiny.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Did you know the head of Netflix was Greek?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
He is no liberal. He is a party propaganda sheep.
Created:
-->
@Slainte
I will point out that Tucker Carlson was the only MSM to interview RFK Jr. on. his Presidential Candidacy speech. Interesting no?
Well, that tells you who isn't part of the ruling class.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
They should actually apologize for failing to overthrow the government.
Checkmate,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Oh you engage in stupid appeal to authorities as well.
oof, didn't take you long either to find his Achilles Heel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Actually, like Trump, I pay Stormy to do it for me.
I had no idea Stormy did irreversible surgeries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, animals don't have their own plastic surgeons to perform genital reassignment surgeries
but if they did, I'm sure some would like it.
When you can lick your balls like a dog can, we can reassess this idea.
Created:
Posted in:
but biology includes many other variations
True as some species naturally have asexual reproduction, some species naturally have no herd instincts etc...
But none of that applies to the human species. Humans naturally have 2 sexes as a reproductive function.
While we can asexually reproduce in a lab by cloning, it isn't feasible yet, so the natural functions are still relevant and vital for survival.
Gender as a social construct to define natural attraction and the chemical processes that trigger attraction are only scientifically important as it pertains to the reproduction function. This includes homosexual brain chemistry in some cases that could also be used to help nurture the young or strengthen the herd. Any other observations beyond this simply can't be classified as "fit" from a purely scientific observation of adapting to the environment and promoting reproduction. Both of those criteria are essential for all life. Almost all of our morality stems from this construct of biological fitness.
Created: