The Glade 4.0

Not as much fun though.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

No man holds sway over my thoughts, respect and reverence for the ability of human beings to communicate intellegently does.

Whatever makes you feel better. Quite frankly the fact that Monty was all **** up does not mean that you weren't int he crowd constantly trying to use "specificity of language" to beat him instead of beating him on the actual issues.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Whatever. You just got done ***** about how Locke, Jefferson and Smith might not exist if they got voted out of existance.

This is just a matter of it being "ok" when those guys "hold sway" over your thoughts (you could just say influence instead of trying to talk like you're from their era) but "not ok" when anyone you don't like influences anyone else.

By the way I can hit reply faster than you can!!

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

HOGWASH! (Brilliant?!?)

No, it just demonstrates that your brain functions differently, and reports to what you are told, opposed to what you can discover.

Doesn't matter. I can still hit reply faster.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

I was enjoying the exchange until you cheapened it.

Because you're an expert in neurophysiology, psychology, or something like that?

This is just you trying to pretend you think independantly while anyone who disagrees with you doesn't. Hubris.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Reality has that affect. That's not my fault.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Be sure to remit your taxes to England.

Wait - I thought YOU were the one caught up in the 18th century?

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

/escape
/escape
/evade

Your twitch-gameplay skill is impressive.

It is becomming observable.

DE:

Pure concepts, because they have no tangible representitive in reality, are utterly dependant on the specificity of language; much moreso, in fact, than an idea that translates into something perceptible by touch, and who's characteristics can be easily defined by the senses.

This statement is entirely untrue given any historical context. Rights are, and have always been, protected, or not, by those who are more powerful. They have never had licence over language, and it's meaning. If they did, then there would be no words in existance such as "oppression", "plight", or "subjugation".

No, it just demonstrates that your brain functions differently, and reports to what you are told, opposed to what you can discover.

Well, "we" should stop claiming "I've shown may times in the past" and assertions to that same effect unless we can actually craft our position without recourse to logical fallacy, I'd say.

oh, and false dichotomy

No one. Long story short, I don't think the concept of ownership works when we're talking about people, whether it's "owning" oneself or owning someone else.

Voting people into slavery is an extreme example (not to mention nearly impossible under our current government dynamic) However the point I was trying to make is what governments do is protect some of your rights by limiting others. Do they always make the right call? probably not. However it's impossible for a government to protect all of everyone's rights in every case, because rights overlap.

Certainly the mark of a good government and the crux of all political debate is where to draw these lines. Personally I put life first, followed by freedom from bonadge, equal treatment under the law (that includes racial discrimination by those holding business licenses and zoning easements from the government) and freedom of worship/conscience. Property and such follow close after.

This is not an issue of specificity of language.

For one thing, "specificity of language" is frequently used on this board to turn the issue into one of semantics, then claim one's opponent is wrong because he's using the wrong word. This claim suspiciously occurs when no word with the precise meaning a person wants to convey exists, but another word is commonly used that way even if it doesn't have that precise definition. It also occurs when one term or the other has connotations or predjudices attached to it that are convenient.

For another thing, we are talking about a concept. A concept goes beyond the definition of a word. The word for the concept could have a number of dictionary definitions, each equating to a different concept of rights. Trying to claim only one of them is correct becuas eof "spcificity of language" is essentially saying that a semantic nitpick is more important than the issue, and the semantic nitpick is decided by appealing to one's own authority in any case.

No false dichotomy was presented.

Now that you've shown all communication to be a logical fallacy what shall we do?

I would really like to see you logically present your argument without all the crap you ordinarily interject, just to see if you can do it. Not that I expect you to, you understand; yours is an indefensible position, after all. Still, it would be interesting.

Haynes said the person who filed the initial complaint saw the ad on the church bulletin board and contacted the local fair housing organization.