Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You know what "Sex sense" means right? As in the definition associated with sex? Which is literally in the fucking definition? I'm sorry but do you actually lack 4th grade reading comprehension, I'll admit I was playing around a little before, but you seem to be seriously this incredual
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well first off the word ret*rd has been used to subjugate several disabled people to oppression, so I'd rather "fucking moron" or "most stupid idiotic fuckbag I've ever seen" you know, one of those
Second off, just as detectives do with murder cases, you can use these two awe-inspiring tactics called deduction and induction, where you look at what is most likely the case. Somebody who has dishonestly framed things in the past, can read, and likes to troll around? Yup, so I either assume your lying, unable to read, or so lazy you didn't read... I'm sorry I called you a liar over being a lazed crazed republican.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"1a: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms"
Do you mean the subclass talking about how the word is used in language? ON top of lying can you not comprehend basic sentence structure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No it doesn't... it says, and I quote: " the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" as the second definition, but again, I really don't see any authority in the OED or the MW for what sex or gender means, what about the people who actually study sex and gender, hm?
"the condition of being male, female, or neuter. In a human context, the distinction between gender and sex reflects the usage of these terms: Sex usually refers to the biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity)."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wow... Greyparrot lying, I thought I'd never see the day
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Renewable and Non-renewable resources refer to how quickly or slowly a resource is "refueled by the earth", the sun, or solar energy, for example; is called a renewable resource. That isn't quite accurate is it? The sun is losing energy, and more isn't being made, so then.. why call it a renewable resource? For a really simple reason really, because whether a thing is renewable or not isn't why it's actually called renewable. You see, yes, petroleum is remade at extremely slow rates, oil starting to be made millions of years ago, so the relative amount developed compared to the amount used is not sustainable.
The formation of oil takes a significant amount of time with oil beginning to form millions of years ago. 70% of oil deposits existing today were formed in the Mesozoic age (252 to 66 million years ago), 20% were formed in the Cenozoic age (65 million years ago), and only 10% were formed in the Paleozoic age (541 to 252 million years ago). This is likely because the Mesozoic age was marked by a tropical climate, with large amounts of plankton in the ocean.[2]
This is a fairly basic principle, one I learned in 8th grade, funny how you seem to misunderstand it. Furthermore, would you like to support any of your claims with evidence, any kind of citation? Considering the fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between renewable and nonrenewable resources I have a hard time believing your claims. In case you still don't believe me, I have a source that should explain it again, just in case you don't accept the other sources. For whatever reason, you seem to have a hard time accepting sources which disagree with you, regardless of their validity.
Nonrenewable energy resources, like coal, nuclear, oil, and natural gas, are available in limited supplies. This is usually due to the long time it takes for them to be replenished. Renewable resources are replenished naturally and over relatively short periods of time. The five major renewable energy resources are solar, wind, water (hydro), biomass, and geothermal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You do realize that psychology is a sort of science right? You do realize that psychologists are also scientists? Right? Its you with the clear bias here.
Created:
Posted in:
No, in fact, "subject to" is nothing I've ever used in a definition, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make things up Tarik.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What? That seems a tad too conspiratory for me, whenever somebody says objective in regards to being it, it is understood that they mean to mitigate biases or to make a decision in spite of it, it is simply easier and more succinct to say "objective", and because most people aren't this pedantic, they understand what the mods mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Not necessarily - the big bang occurred before time came into existence, therefore there was no demonstrated causal factor there. Unless you could demonstrate otherwise I would have to add a caveat or just not accept the premise
2. The universe began to exist
In its current state? Yes, but evidence points to the fact that there was something before the big bang, it is not our current universe but it is still a universe.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Your syllogism isn't a non-sequitur as it is valid, but it is unsound, as not all your premises are true.
Stage 2
1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.
Yes, but remember that before the big bang there was something, we just don't know what that thing is
2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.
No, immaterial isn't valid there, furthermore, there could still be "space" there, as the big bang had to exist in something. Therefore there was obviously space before the big bang. That thing could be material and take up space.
3. Therefore something immaterial, timeless, and spaceless caused the universe, and these properties are said of God.
Those properties of one supposed god.
4. Therefore we conclude God exists.
That is a non-sequitur - the cause having properties does not logically lead to a specific cause with those properties, it assumes that to be the only thing with those properties, and it also assumes that thing: exists, and actually did the making. Just because something with the properties necessary to cause the big bang, that does not mean that that thing actually did cause the big bang.
Obviously, a lot to unpack and defend,
We would agree
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The one arguing against the literal field of experts about this matter? I would say that that person is biased, you are biased towards the OED, its a pretty simply thing that you have the intelligence to comprehend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You made a specific claim, yes it is my burden to prove that we should defund the police, but you were the one who asserted that the police were the ones upholding law and order, and that is your claim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
American Psychologist Association's Dictionary, I've already shown you. Your incredulity reveals your bias here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Furthermore, asking me to prove the opposite does not fulfill your burden, that is a tu quoque. Please provide evidence of your claim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Every society before the 1800s or so yeah, even empires didn't have regular police forces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Which dictionary has a figurative army of specialists in the field?
Which dictionary is specialized for a particular subject?
Which dictionary is up to date in terms of modern science?
Which dictionary has supplementary studies supporting their definitions?
These all have a clear answer, and its not the OED.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I wouldn't look at this economically, I would look at in civil terms, with a one-world government we could actually improve the quality of life for so many people! We could more easily address poverty, and starvation in countries without sufficient infrastructure, we could actually have consequences for regions who would violate human rights without, "Im going to threaten to blow you up" and all that. Of course there are blockades and things of that nature as well, but those are typically less effective in stopping these sorts of violations. Furthermore, I believe that such a paradigm would dramatically reduce xenophobia, of course not completely, but at least help reduce it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I mean.. keep on thinking you're right here, I've yet to see you "debunk the dictionary" so...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well.. to be fair, havng had conversation with this fellow before, they have an aversion to presenting evidence or accepting it, so that doesn't surprise me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Or... you know, I can just use the dictionary.... which is what defines words. Considering your refusal to actually engage in argument here I don't see a need to "challenge" you to anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Dude... here's the thing, I have given you the dictionary definition of a word. I have not twisted it or anything, I copy and pasted the definition from the dictionary site. I am using it in precisely the same way I have ever heard anybody use it. I have argued against your points, each and everyone one of them, and here is what you respond with? "No, you're wrong, go ask your teacher?"
How about, instead of being an arrogant jerk about this, you just argue back? If you can't find a valid objection, I don't think you're quite mature enough to have access here. This isn't a youtube comment section
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I mean... words do and have changed meanings before... scientifically speaking gender means something different from what you think it does. If you simply refuse to believe that, well... its exactly ad hoc, you don't really have a justification beyond, "Trust me, this book was written by people with degrees, and I think this one is right.." and then I go, "And this one was written by a bunch of people who specialize in the field of this word... so you know, your definition is kind of inept.
Again, its like a mechanical engineer describing abortion instead of a medical doctor, of course you completely ignored that comparison before so I don't see you addressing it this time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
In other words.... ad hoc, I spent money on this thing, and I'm upset its been outdated this quickly? Mm mm, don't worry laptop users feel your pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I mean... do you think there is no science or history to the word gender being used in this context? Because there is... and again, the experts who write your precious articles and are specially qualified to do it, wrote these ones... so you're either begging the question... or you just aren't aware of that. I'm inclined to think you are the former.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
And they used to mean similar things, and then people discovered that there was a difference (we call it science), and then they had to distinguish it, and sure they could have made a new word up, but instead, they used a word that was associated and actually didn't mean the same thing as sex... you know about gender roles? Yeah? that is what gender is more associated with, so actually.... yeah, please stop being transphobic, its bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
don't believe in god, and that still wouldn't be objective, even if a god did exist because, and say it with me now, you cannot derive an ought from an is, no matter how is that is is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Um... they are.. also - no retard is just " a meaner way of saying the same medical condition" the term "retard" is not a medical condition, do you mean retardation? Because colloquially they mean different things, and the word was used to oppress disabled people of all stripes... so no, again don't be so arrogant if you don't get it. If you are saying something to avoid calling it something else, then it is naturally deceptive. Calling a toilet a john isn't a euphemism, because your not calling it a john to not call it a toilet, your calling it a john because that is a colloquial name for it... this is not hard to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
you do realize that the people who define words... are the people with specialities in that thing, right? If a mechanical; engineer defined "abortion" would you trust that over a medical doctor's definition? No! OF course you wouldn't that would be stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please explain yourself beyond repeating your assertion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
What.... there is no difference between them, they are all deceptive...if you are hiding or omitting the truth you are being deceptive... that's how that works. It doesn't matter how obvious that seems to you, IF you use a different phrase or word for another word, to avoid saying something else, THEN it is a euphemism, such as the definition says. You can disagree with the dictionary, but... I see no reason to take your word for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Um... even if he provided "context" morality cannot be objective. You cannot derive an ought from an is.... no matter how is the is is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Okay.. well, dictionaries give you the definition of a word, you can add in stuff... but that would take something to support your interpretation or it would just be you... inserting things. So, what did it not include, because as I've seen I applied the definition perfectly fine, please explain exactly where I messed up oh great interpreter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Well... yes it would be. You're assuming they're bad, I'm simply pointing out that it can be bad. Do you disagree with the Cambridge dictionary? I mean you can, but... I'm good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
So... how?
A person said one thing... to avoid saying something else.... so.... what else would you call that? Oh, the literal definition of euphemism? I don't even know where you're going at this point, did you ignore the other half of my post? Why am I even asking, you apparently didn't read the OP either, first, you weren't correct, second, let's say you were, why does it matter? Explain it to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I literally... I gave you an exact definition, and then I provided an example of how it was being used... do you... I feel you're being stubborn at this point, like, does that example not satisfy your super-specific term radar? Lets say I was using these incredibly similar phrases incorrectly?... so what? They can be and have been used interchangeably. I really don't get all of your rants here...
also you are just... wrong.. so have fun with that.
I'll just stay with my dictionaries over here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I mean... in your opinion I'm using it wrong, but... you see I trust my political science teachers over you here. Those were some classical historic euphemisms, one used by long ago Goldwater (a contender for president), they used a shield of "States rights" to stop immigration, a racist "dog whistle" which isn't really one... that's more of a call to action, this is saying one thing in order to avoid saying something else, does that sound familiar?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Please stop with your arrogance without actually providing a definition. To replace a word to avoid saying it inherently deceptive, whether that deceptiveness is bad or good is up to debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... couple things, gender and sex are different... that's what psychologist and gender specialist (you know, they get degrees in this sort of thing) say about it. You can refuse to accept modern science, but that's your issue, not a euphemism. Um... most leftists actually don't like abortion, but they prefer it over the woman bodily autonomy being ripped from them.soo..... it literally is all of those things, I'm an exception in that regard. Its about women choosing if they want their fetus or not.... sure bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
From a subjective human perspective, yes we have similar morals. The thing is - we are all similarly biased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I know what steel manning is, and again, euphemisms are definitionally deceptive. Furthermore, no, religious people do not have a right to curb other people's civil liberties because it suits their fancy, that's not how civil liberties work. Again, you are ignoring the bulk of the talk about euphamisums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Perhaps people are being honest now, that's not really what I was talking about - I'm saying the defense, "religious freedom" is so obviously wrong and unsound that politicians are using it purposely as a euphemism. It is a purposely bad argument. If your religion told you to kill, the government wouldn't let you kill because of religious freedom, they use it to appeal to more people. This is... very typical, and yes, whenever I am arguing with somebody, I try for the benefit of the doubt. I am right now talking about euphemisms right now, which is by definition deceptive.
Created:
Um... I have seen very few examples of PE classes that score based on performance, most of the time, and any time I've ever seen has always been graded on participation and behavior towards others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I am not arguing that every case of someone saying "religious freedom" is, as you say, "malevolent" I am saying that someone claiming "religious freedom" as a rebuttal from gay couples being allowed to marry was typically a euphemism. Similar to the entire "states rights" thing for a long time. I'm only giving examples of some phrases that have been used as euphemisms, nothing about the frequency of the phrase being used as one, nor the current activity. You seem to be assuming a lot of things, I know what a euphamisum. It's interesting that you haven't yet directly interacted with me explaining what a euphemism is, nor my original post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
No... I'm sorry but euphemisms mean to disguise something else as politically tolerable, its not "good for politicians" to be so publically homophobic, so they appeal to the over-religious population of the US. Again, I don't think you quite know the distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
I am saying - that political correctness is euphemisms.. like necessarily - they are the same thing. Second, I was giving you an example of a dog whistle... I didn't say anything about the whole of religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Were... you just straight up not paying attention? The term "religious freedom" is a euphemism, or a pc term for being homophobic, not wanting them to be married. That was the point. Just pay attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Well no... you see it was a whole thing about 5 years ago or so, whenever Obama made gay marriage legal - there was an entire thing about, "Priests not having to marry gay couples because of religious freedom." so, I was simply providing an actual example - no - that isn't how that works, I mean if a religion said, "You get free xboxes" you wouldn't actually get free xboxes as a part of "religious freedom" Ironic how you assumed to know what I was talking about and turned out to not know.
Created: