fauxlaw

Sorry. Not familiar with the word, ablism. Do you mean ableism? No, I oppose the concept.

NY schools are sending the message of white abolition. The woke generation, which is transgenerational, unfortunately, is demonstrating that no generation [chronologically] is immune to ignorance and bigotry. They have distinguished "white" people [never saw anyone who is white in my life, not even an albino is white, nor are few Blacks actually black, which means all such labels are ignorance incarnate] into seven separate categories, demonstrating, once again, we are adept at segregating and criticising one another more than we are inclusive and celebratory of our differences.

Does anyone comprehend the attempt by the 15A to collect ourselves together? Apparently, the Constitution is not woke, and, thank God. Maybe the Census ought to have the mentality that it began with in 1790, because there were damn few demographics, then. Maybe we should not have any at all. Does the road care what I am? Should it? As for the census, I am a nose. Count it, and the rest be damned.

Best reason I've ever encountered  to plan ahead with stored food, water, energy resources, whatever can be planned as a contingency against disaster. Contingency planning was a thrust of my entire career, so, by now, it's second nature. No, I am not a survivalist; I'm merely practical to sufficient means to stick around, keeping my commitment to my family to be responsible for them.

I write historic fiction for the fun of blending fact and fiction, with the challenge of making the reader decide, by research if they're motivated, of discovering the difference, if need be. Some advise me that they cannot tell, and have to look it up. So, for some, at least, I'm achieving the goal.

> Stephen

No, that is not demonstrative of Satan not knowing who Jesus was, that is Satan attempting to plant doubt in Jesus that he was who he was. He said it twice to emphasize his effort of planting doubt. The interrupt in the whole affair was that at any time, Jesus could have succumbed to Satan, and would have therefore been the greatest failure in the history of man. Jesus was not perfect because he had no other choice; he was perfect because he chose to be perfect among all other choices.  He, like all of us, had free agency. He was better at it than the rest of us.

The temptation was not that Jesus could not turn stones into bread, but that Jesus would perform that service for his own benefit, which was not his mission. The same temptation was really repeated thrice: to serve Jesus, himself, rather than mankind. 

You are evidence that one can read while lacking full comprehension. As it happens, I've read the entire Bible on seven occasions, I believe [not sure anymore], and I'm still learning new things. When one has not read it completely at all, how can one expect full comprehension? Read, and read again, and then be critical if that's your schtick. But to be critical in ignorance is, well, it is just  that.

No, I don't agree with that, either. Emotion does not always overwhelm rational thinking. It can, but not necessarily. We are not purely and exclusively emotional beings.

The fact is, decisions are best made when both factors are involved, suggesting that the two, emotion and rationale, are not opposites, but merely paired contributors to decision-making.

I read your #5. Did you read and comprehend my #7. You bring up the examples of individuals who disobey policy, even in brutality, not just racism. Individuals are not the system. They violate the system. Do those who act badly act according to their policies. Most, yes. Some, no. Do not blame the system for the 'some.' If all acted badly, or if one acted badly, and their actions are contrary to the system policy, then the system is not at fault, those who act badly are.

Nothing is God's fault. And no, you do not see what I'm saying. You are obviously unaware that taking steroids has an effect on brain function and memory. Abuse it, it's even worse, which will also effect one's prowess with phys ed, while the guy in a wheel chair may exceed the steroid guy in all subjects, including phys ed.

If both physical and intellectual matters are equitable, why do some students excel in several subjects, some in all, and some in none? No, their endeavors in phys ed and physics are not necessarily equitable. And it isn't just me saying the OED is at the top of the heap. And, what other dictionary devotes over nearly 400 printed column inches to 'salt?' Hmmmm?

For fiction, I prefer Monty Python's "The Life of Brian"

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING, AND LEXICO, ITSELF, ADMITS IT. DID YOU READ THE LINK I GAVE? Read what Lexico says of itself..  It does not say it is the same as the OED. Whatever is in your mind is in it. Doesn't mean it is correct.

Did I ever say they were compatible? No. I said some excel in sports, and others, in other things.   Did Lexico tell you they were the same?

Even lexico does not say that of itself. Do not tell Lexico it is 'gender,' according to you.  https://www.lexico.com/about

lexico is powered by the Oxford University Press, which is NOT the OED.  Try to get that straight in your pointy little head.

Sorry, but obtusity sometimes get dulled with sharpness. Just because "Oxford" is mentioned does not mean it is the OED. The OED is a separate entity of itself. It is not schizophrenic. Try to separate the realities of the many references, all separate, to Oxford.

Fine for their generation. We live in the now.

>Stephen

You still don't get it, do you? The word "secret" is a mis-translation into English. But, off you go with you assumptions. They really do make people what they are.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain.

Yes, grading should be based on performance in any subject. That we are all different is just the way it is. Not everyone excels in sports, just as not every excels in language, or in any other discipline. We should each engage in that in which we excel. Participation trophies are for people who cannot find that in which they excel. Who's fault is that?

Nope. That's one of the advantages of the OED. It is updating, continually. Plus, I maintain an online subscription. No dust, my friend. You might do some research on what Lexico really is. Try it. Don't make assumptions. The OED is simply the most scholastic source of knowledge of then English lexicon, comprising over 21,000 pages of word information. Dusty? Maybe some people leave it on the shelf, wasting their money. I USE mine.

Yes, the OED does demonstrate that, over time, some words do change, and that others do not. To date, 'gender' remains as it was defined 800 years ago when first it entered the English lexicon. As I've said, sometimes people will alter what they mean by a word, and that is an unfortunate, dismissive and lazy attitude.

create a new word to men what you say.

Imma hit you back

If the universe is "the totality of all time space and matter," why is it not eternal, and can't it still have a cause? Most syllogisms just don't syllogize with any logic. It is not a matter of simply stringing phrases together, or else

Birds fly

Camels walk

Therefore, butterflies swim

would make sense. But it doesn't, does it? All the elements of a syllogism must actually add up. A+B = C is not a formula into which any values can be plugged.

And, what about energy in your sylloillogic?

Thus the problem [one of many] with public education today. Education just does not teach personal excellence, and, in fact, punishes it so that all can get along 'participating.' No wonder we've raised a generation of ninnies who have no competition in them. Too bad.

Clearly, the problem of policy brutality is not a systemic issue. Show me the city policy manual, from any city, that condones, and, in fact, stipulates bad police behavior. It's not there, and is, therefore, not a systemic problem. It is a problem of individuals who violate stanidng po,licy policy. That more than one do so still does not make it systemic, but just individuals who choose to disobey. So, you're going to defund the entire department for the actions of a small percentage? You invite chaos that is worse the the actions of a few bad individuals. That it nonsense and dangerous.

That's an interesting tactic.

> Stephen: As Bringer has already told you, Greek is far more contextual than English. For example, English has 'love,' which can, in Greek be said in six different words signifying what, in English, must have variant adjectives to describe what in Greek is said in one word. 'Deeper content' is what you insist is 'secret.' In other words, what Jesus told Nicodemus, not because it needed to be said in the dead of night, but because, as usual, the typical person would be too confused by what was said. Nicodemus was a scriptural scholar, and Jesus knew it. Therefore, what Jesus revealed would be understood by Nicodemus, but would just confuse the man in the street. As it was, after Jesus finished his Bread of Life sermon [John 6], in which some deep meaning was discussed, we are told that many who had listened to him said, "This is an hard saying. Who can hear it?" [John 6: 60] They left, confused. Read to the end of the chapter for what Peter and others realized by the "hard saying:" Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Oh, Blasphemy!! 

You make the mistake of trying to work backwards from English to Greek. Start in the Greek Septuagint. Oh, yeah, you have to understand Greek, don't you? And don't try online Greek translation. Understand the Greek without benefit of someone else's English version because you have no idea whether they know of what they speak, or not, which is the root of your problem, anyway. Sorry, I don't have a better suggestion than to educate yourself. Can't give you a crash course, myself, and wouldn't want to. You have to want it, and, apparently, you do not.

Mum wasn't so creative, now, was she?

Nope. Proprietary from a friend. Ask him. Find him, first.

All that, except you admit that 'transgender' is, itself, a new word, made such because 'gender' suddenly changes after 800 years. 'Gender' is what was needed to be a new word, for example, 'acis;' [not current a word at all, according to OED - and I'm sure you can figure out how I arrived at it] and, therefore, transacis. Now, why can't your holy APA dictionary and its experts do that? Uncreative? No bloody expertise, there.

By manipulating that word, gender, to bend to your satisfaction, yes, you have a word. So, shall we just reimagine what transgender means? [Which, itself, misuses 'gender']  Why not, by your argument?

Most syllogisms are erroneous, as is yours, and you admit it yourself. So, why post it?

Since 10% of TX power grid is green energy sourced, and they lost that power power source,  while oil/gas/coal are being used to greater capacity to overcome the loss, the grid is being replenished even as windmills continue to be frozen, and solar panels are not being shined upon. The last month, I paid over $100 dollars on my power bill when, even in typical winters, it is about $8. I was not being shined on, either. Face it, weather still has much to do with the success of green energy, and always will until y'all develop another source. But to cancel oil/nat gas/coal, as Biden wants, before you have that reliable additional source, online and producing to replace o/n/c, is utter madness. But, no one said Biden had all his gears greased.

As usual, Stephen is ignoring the issues of language translation, as Bringerofrain has adequately and correctly told us. I, too, am a student of Greek, and can confirm the Bringer's contextual argument is spot on, and Stephen is completely dismissing it, to his laughable credit.

And, as Soluminsanus has rightly pointed out, obviously Christ's interview with Nicodemus was not, after, in secret since we read of its existence.

I submit that BroT and Stephen are cut of similar cloth, and deserve one another's reading comprehension. Both need a come-to-Jesus meeting. It will happen, by and by. Justice prevails, always.

Sometimes, yes, but in the case of 'gender' and 'sex,' nope. Not in 800 years. Create a bloody new word, for God's sake! Is that so bloody, goddam hard?

Better to know what you're talking about than making broad, sweeping statements that don't hold water, let alone oil.  https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/05/investing/us-untapped-oil/index.html : "All told, the world has 2.1 trillion barrels of untapped oil, or 70 times the current global annual production rate, Rystad estimates. ... That's a big deal given the fact global oil demand continues to grow, even in today's sluggish economy."

That quoted 2.1T barrels is just what we know about. As Mark Twain once said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

M. King Hubbert, a Shell Oil geologist who likely never read Twain, predicted in the 50s that we would exhaust our oil reserve by the 70s. He was dead wrong, and he is also dead, period. Yes, oil/nat gas/coal take millions of years to produce, but that does not mean the process has been going on merely millions of years. The Earth is over 4 billion years old. That's 4,000 million years. And, once begun, the process of making continues, unabated for as long as there are living organisms on earth to make the stuff.

Your 8th grade experience notwithstanding, you were duped by an agenda that continues to this day. Teachers are not gods, and most of academia is led by the nose without applying much critical thinking to what they are taught and vomit to you.

The same problem occurred with teaching you about over-population. We do not have an over-population problem, we have a resource [including food and water] distribution problem that is fed mostly by greed. Why aren't we using more agricultural land to actually grow crops [we use about 14% of available land, worldwide, for that purpose]? Why aren't we desalinating ocean water? It's a grammar school tech level. Why haven't we built aqueducts from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers toward the southwest of the U.S. to provide water there, and to lessen the flooding further south? Why am I limited, by law, in my state, to having a fresh water cistern of underground storage of only 2,500 gallons [which I have], when I could triple and quadruple that storage amount, and more? Greed, my friend, is your problem, not over-population. There are resources in abundance available to us, even in a greater population, but politics trumps science.

And I do not place MW on the same critical level of understanding language as is the OED. MW is ordinary, and lazy, seldom consider the deep history of word etymology.

I do. What you, so far, fail to recognize is that, as a science, it is supposed to coin new words in keeping with their science & tech, and not to borrow from old words that have contrary definitions to their new theories. Consider what we have done in computer tech. A "mouse?" Cute, but lazy as all hell. THAT is my problem with science. Language [the root, after all, of beginning a civilization] should be respected more than by being so lazy.

I'm not a little concerned with a mod-word that has definitive creep: Borderline. In my DArt experience, which is, admittedly short [11 months], that word is used and applied too liberally to establish a clear border. My personal belief is that this is due to a similar phrase as "borderline" that is STILL allowed to be a voting criterium, and that phrase is to vote only on "at least the main points." If any voter, including a mod, is going to vote on only "the main points," whatever that means, it clearly misses what some may consider minor points, which are still valid argument points. They end up being ignored, and that has happened to me as a debater. Everyone has bias, and that bias includes making personal voting decisions, including what's major and what's minor. That bias may not align with a debater's intent. When I voter, I read all arguments word-for-word, and most sources, as well. Yes, I have the time to do that, and I appreciate that not all voters have that liberal time to devote, so it's not fair of me to impose on other voters. I just wish more members did include voting regularly. After all, it will improve debate skills.

Since when does psychology dictate word syntax and meaning when science is supposed to create new words to define what they mean for newly-developed conditions of biology, and not usurp old words as an agenda-driven theory. Bias? Not by the language as used for hundreds of years. I'm intelligent enough to understand that.

Congratulations, greenies. You've just had a setback of monumental proportion, by nothing more menacing than your own, misguided "science." Who knew that in Texas, and, likely elsewhere, anywhere in which the temperature goes south, that your holy GND has failed so miserably. You need... what? to bail you out?

Answer: That other renewable energy resource we have had for almost 200 years and is, contrary to your misguided claims, r-e-n-e-w-a-b-l-e. The Earth has been making it for more than a billion years, and likely two, or more, and still does to this day. Isn't that what renewable is? You do not countenance it, but I don't care what you countenance. You're wrong. Petroleum sourcing is renewable sourcing and it will continue as long as living things die and decompose on planet Earth, including your sorry flesh and bone, and mine, too. At least I recognize the source of the first renewable energy on Earth. You? Wind? Commercial wind and solar power? Sure, it has a place, but, as we have now seen, it is not entirely dependable, is it? So, what is it, again, that is saving your hide? Black gold.

Net zero, my ass!

The science of words has not changed, but the politics of them has. Not a valid position to take.

And I've already told you that their claimed authority to change word definition, particularly words that have existed as is for 800 years, is usurpation of definition. Let them create a new word for what they describe. I've told you that, too. Who is biased?

Well, it was bound to happen. The House is proposing a bill, HB-484 [sponsored by Rep Andre Carson [D-IN] to prohibit all twice-impeached Presidents from burial in Arlington. But the House does not hate Donald Trump, do they? Actually, they do, the name of the bill? "No Glory for Hate Act."

Just one problem because Mr. Carson doesn't bother to read and comprehend the Constitution: Article I, Sec. 9, to wit, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Ex post facto is the key:  A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier.

Oops. 

There's a positive spin on it. Have you heard that Pelostomy is angling a bill [HB 484] to prevent specifically all Presidents with two impeachments on their record to be denied burial at Arlington? I think that is a very selective group, and I don't think the measure is constitutional, anyway [Article I, sec 9 - ex post facto]. But her heart is not full of hate for the man, according to repeated statements.

All of which defines why I say Progs spell science starting with the 'p'

When did I say it does?

Says who?

Show me the better dictionary

Did I mention a generator?

You may conclude as you wish. I admire your wish balloon. We are speaking of a man who declared, “I will beat Joe Biden.”

I rest my case.

Which dictionary contains more English words than any other?

Which dictionary offers more word etymology than any other?

Which offers greater contextual syntax than any other?

Which offers more examples of historic use of words than any other?

The answer to each question points to one dictionary. I have offered it’s name before. Don’t bother throwing another at us. They’re a bit like our current President. Inadequate for the task.

blah, blah. I did read the article, and then researched the real numbers. 56M were served. That;'s still greater than none. But, I know Biden is confused on accuracy of numbers between 20 and 200M, so, he's excused for repeated misinterpretation. After all, he recently said 800 of us would be provided vaccines. Truly, a brilliant mind.

I am positively dazzled by the brilliance of that dumpy bulb.

Far from upset; it was a valuable investment, even monetarily. I use my OED daily, and, contrary to your opinion, as I've stated, official definitions have not changed. Sorry about yours.

Though opposed to the idea of the compass [questions are unnecessarily weighted in favor of a type], which makes for very poorly resulted surveys, I took the test, anyway. My results:

Now, you might understand why, as a late teen, I volunteered in Bobby Kennedy's pres. campaign, and was in the Ambassador ballroom in L.A. [my home town] when he was assassinated. The party left him behind, and I left the party. Disillusioned, and after living in France for a few years during and after undergraduate work, I returned to become conservative, and obtain PhDs, not for academia, and its ivory tower, where results are not required, but for private industry and personal investment, where results are everything.

I do not have to think about it. I can refer to my OED, which you likely do not have [over $1,000 minimum for its 20 volumes], and therefore cannot comment on, which offers 9 centuries [some centuries have multiple references of use] of use of the word, 13th to 21st, and in no century does it define gender as more than two types: male and female. Sorry, but that's the official etymology of the word, sociologists be damned. That there may by history of errant use, I do not dispute. I dispute the proper application of use per the English syntax word-use authority that is the OED. It is the ultimate master of the language, period. The citation of it cannot be refuted by any other pretended expert.

I am not transphobic, but I am opposed to wordsmithing on the fly, just because someone's nose is pushed out of shape and does not want to create a new word to define what they mean. Our arbitrary reimagination of a word meaning does not fly, in my book. Again, sociologists be damned. Let them create a new word for their new definition. But, they're lazy. That doesn't fly in wordsmithing, either.

Tell me, for example, why Canada has not created new gametes for their 15 so-called official genders? Why not? None of which, by the way, include Male and Female, even though gametes currently exist only by those designated names? Why?  P.C. is behind the 8-ball.