I would have predicted that, due to the mysterious ways of the universe, Russ would be posting a lot less and Moyessa would be posting a lot more. Kind of funny, like how you never see Santa and Satan in the same picture at the same time. They probably have nothing to do with each other.
I would have predicted that, due to the mysterious ways of the universe, Russ would be posting a lot less and Moyessa would be posting a lot more. Kind of funny, like how you never see Santa and Satan in the same picture at the same time. They probably have nothing to do with each other.
I don't know about that. I think they probably used the same lobotomist.
We don't overhost or plank or ban people we don't like. If we did, there would be several blessed deletions around here.
Not about like or don’t. The behaviour he was called for on the White Supremacy thread is the behaviour he has exhibited for years.
I understand things change, I’m just saying he was always a troll.
You either did not notice or noticed but thought it was within bounds.
There are, IMO, multiple reasons for why that is the case. Some are my fault, some are not. Some are a mix. Not sure about the current state of that thread, because I haven't looked at it after my last post. And this is my last post about that thread on this thread.
Russ deserves his own, I'll not cheat him of that.
Oh, where did you learn about those? Did "Bigot Monthly" have an article?
For those reading along at home, I think we've just caught a glimpse of Schrodinger's Bigot - he (and the male of the species is sighted far more often) decides whether or not his bigotry was a joke depending on the reaction.
For those reading along at home, I think we've just caught a glimpse of Schrodinger's Bigot - he (and the male of the species is sighted far more often) decides whether or not his bigotry was a joke depending on the reaction.
The yellow-bellied troll-arse Schrodinger's Bigot is the most common kind in temperate discussion boards.
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls a manuscript of Genesis has been discovered that reads, Genesis 4:8, And it came to pass that Cain rose up against his brother, and said, Don't you have a sense of humour, and slew him.
I appreciate the sealion reference. I have actually learned something today.
I don't read Russ enough to discern if he is this kind of troll. I don't read him at all. But SusanDoris seems to interact in this sealioning way. Although I've never thought she was trolling, just incapable of understanding how wrong she is. But she is always unfailingly polite, and yet completely dismissive of points of view she doesn't comprehend.
Anyway, not meaning to derail. Let's continue giving Russ a reach-around by discussing what a prick he is.
1) everyone has some notion of what "sin" means, and no-one doubts that some acts are sinful (even if they wouldn't use the word). But different people mean different-but-related things by the word(e.g for some sin is defined by the revealed will of an inscrutable God, whereas an atheist might deny God but still believe that sin in the sense of moral wrongdoing exists)
Racism isn't well-defined. It's a word that people use in different senses.
For some it's little more than an expression of political disapproval on behalf of ethnic minorities. If on balance you're in favour of something (such as a quota system) then you won't describe it as racist (whether or not it fits someone else's definition).
For some it means a belief in racial superiority and actions motivated by such a belief.
For some it's actions motivated by racial antagonism.
There are many variations in usage.
I'd put it to you that unless there is some attribute that all racist acts possess and all non-racist acts do not possess then there is no such thing as racism.
That's huge. According to @Russ because "different people mean different-but-related things by the word" sin therefore there is no such thing as sin!!! That seems to be pretty huge, theologically speaking.
Either that or @Russ will insincerely advance bad faith arguments he doesn't really believe in order to sow confusion, but how likely is that?
1) everyone has some notion of what "sin" means, and no-one doubts that some acts are sinful (even if they wouldn't use the word). But different people mean different-but-related things by the word(e.g for some sin is defined by the revealed will of an inscrutable God, whereas an atheist might deny God but still believe that sin in the sense of moral wrongdoing exists)
Racism isn't well-defined. It's a word that people use in different senses.
For some it's little more than an expression of political disapproval on behalf of ethnic minorities. If on balance you're in favour of something (such as a quota system) then you won't describe it as racist (whether or not it fits someone else's definition).
For some it means a belief in racial superiority and actions motivated by such a belief.
For some it's actions motivated by racial antagonism.
There are many variations in usage.
I'd put it to you that unless there is some attribute that all racist acts possess and all non-racist acts do not possess then there is no such thing as racism.
That's huge. According to @Russ because "different people mean different-but-related things by the word" sin therefore there is no such thing as sin!!! That seems to be pretty huge, theologically speaking.
Either that or @Russ will insincerely advance bad faith arguments he doesn't really believe in order to sow confusion, but how likely is that?
Or he's too fucking dumb to experience the cognitive dissonance.
IAccording to @Russ because "different people mean different-but-related things by the word" sin therefore there is no such thing as sin!!!
I refer you to premise 1) of the OP. "No-one doubts that some acts are sinful".
Reality is. Nothing about the way that the word "sin" is used changes the reality that those using the word are aiming to describe.
That people fall short is pretty much a fact. I do, you do.
I'm trying to talk about use of language. Arguing that the idea of a one:one correspondence between some aspect of the reality of human behaviour and the usage of the word "sin" is not true. Although that model might be adequate for a word like "dog"...
When is a dog a wolf?
Are foxes dogs? (Are lions cats?)
The problem is Russ is trying to argue that language ought to work with a 1:1 correspondence between word and aspect of reality which is just not true.
(Aristotle's example is the word 'healthy', which does not mean the same quality as applied to people and as applied to diets or climates.)
When is a dog a wolf?
Are foxes dogs? (Are lions cats?)
The problem is Russ is trying to argue that language ought to work with a 1:1 correspondence between word and aspect of reality which is just not true.
Seems to me that most of us know the word "dog" from an early age (? 2 ? 3 ?). And that we learn it by establishing just such a correspondence between the sound of the word "dog" and the sight of or picture of a dog. Learning a further correspondence with the letters D-O-G usually comes a little later (? 4 ? 5 ?).
You're right that later we learn other related meanings. "Dog" for a male canine and "bitch" for a female. The "family" of all dog-like animals. And to draw analogies between human and canine behaviour. He persisted, doggedly.
In a way that possibly wouldn't apply to a word like "giraffe"...
But where a word like "dog" has multiple meanings, normally it's clear from context which sense is intended.
we learn it by establishing.. ..a correspondence between the sound of the word "dog" and the sight of or picture of a dog.
When we're older, ISTM that we learn the meanings of words either by encountering a definition. Or by a process of picking up meaning from context.
So no @Dafyd, what I'm expecting is a definition. It is Doc Tor who seems to think racism is a thing that corresponds with the word.
I have, in fact, picked up from context the meaning of the word "racist" as it is commonly used on these boards. It's a term of condemnation for those who disagree with one's views on a matter that has some connection to race. With that meaning, Doc Tor is entirely correct. I am indeed a racist in his eyes and he in mine. He thinks people's moral rights depend on their skin colour; I don't. We disagree. So he's a racist.
You may think that's a pretty stupid meaning. I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But that's how the word is used.
The question you should be asking is why Doc Tor doesn't want to give me his definition.
Why won't he tell me what he means ? Well, Doc ?
The answer's pretty obvious. In many circles, racism - in the sense of bullying people about their skin colour, the sense that Commandment 1 rightly prohibits - is not unreasonably seen as a Bad Thing.
I am not, never have been, and hope never to be a racist in that sense.
But Doc Tor wants to take all the negative emotional weight that belongs to that meaning and apply it to a different meaning of the same word.
It's a dishonest use of language, an abusive usage, of the type that I'm (not coincidentally) trying and failing to get people to think about in a different context. And he doesn't want to admit he's doing it.
It took me years to cotton on to this particular bullying trick.
Comments
I don't know about that. I think they probably used the same lobotomist.
I understand things change, I’m just saying he was always a troll.
You either did not notice or noticed but thought it was within bounds.
We're not blind, and we're not stupid. Make of that what you will.
Russ deserves his own, I'll not cheat him of that.
A sense of humour ?
You went through a bad patch, old rodent, where your style became one of snarky one-liners that weren't worth responding to. You're getting better...
The fact that we’ve created a new board with different posting rules. I would have thought you’d have noticed that, but apparently not.
Fuck right off.
Oh, where did you learn about those? Did "Bigot Monthly" have an article?
For those reading along at home, I think we've just caught a glimpse of Schrodinger's Bigot - he (and the male of the species is sighted far more often) decides whether or not his bigotry was a joke depending on the reaction.
The yellow-bellied troll-arse Schrodinger's Bigot is the most common kind in temperate discussion boards.
Russ lives there.
I don't read Russ enough to discern if he is this kind of troll. I don't read him at all. But SusanDoris seems to interact in this sealioning way. Although I've never thought she was trolling, just incapable of understanding how wrong she is. But she is always unfailingly polite, and yet completely dismissive of points of view she doesn't comprehend.
Anyway, not meaning to derail. Let's continue giving Russ a reach-around by discussing what a prick he is.
Your view is an uninformed one, then ?
Russ said that your view is uninformed.
To be fair, it doesn't take much experience of dogshit to avoid it in an ongoing way afterwards.
I see what you did there ... and I like it! 😂
It starts with this:
And then gets paired with this:
That's huge. According to @Russ because "different people mean different-but-related things by the word" sin therefore there is no such thing as sin!!! That seems to be pretty huge, theologically speaking.
Either that or @Russ will insincerely advance bad faith arguments he doesn't really believe in order to sow confusion, but how likely is that?
Or he's too fucking dumb to experience the cognitive dissonance.
I refer you to premise 1) of the OP. "No-one doubts that some acts are sinful".
Reality is. Nothing about the way that the word "sin" is used changes the reality that those using the word are aiming to describe.
That people fall short is pretty much a fact. I do, you do.
I'm trying to talk about use of language. Arguing that the idea of a one:one correspondence between some aspect of the reality of human behaviour and the usage of the word "sin" is not true. Although that model might be adequate for a word like "dog"...
Are foxes dogs? (Are lions cats?)
The problem is Russ is trying to argue that language ought to work with a 1:1 correspondence between word and aspect of reality which is just not true.
(Aristotle's example is the word 'healthy', which does not mean the same quality as applied to people and as applied to diets or climates.)
Seems to me that most of us know the word "dog" from an early age (? 2 ? 3 ?). And that we learn it by establishing just such a correspondence between the sound of the word "dog" and the sight of or picture of a dog. Learning a further correspondence with the letters D-O-G usually comes a little later (? 4 ? 5 ?).
You're right that later we learn other related meanings. "Dog" for a male canine and "bitch" for a female. The "family" of all dog-like animals. And to draw analogies between human and canine behaviour. He persisted, doggedly.
In a way that possibly wouldn't apply to a word like "giraffe"...
But where a word like "dog" has multiple meanings, normally it's clear from context which sense is intended.
That's not the case where Doc Tor says
Which meaning of "racism" is intended here, Doc ? Or are you pretending that there's only one ?
Pfft. Nice try, Racist McRacistface.
When we're older, ISTM that we learn the meanings of words either by encountering a definition. Or by a process of picking up meaning from context.
So no @Dafyd, what I'm expecting is a definition. It is Doc Tor who seems to think racism is a thing that corresponds with the word.
I have, in fact, picked up from context the meaning of the word "racist" as it is commonly used on these boards. It's a term of condemnation for those who disagree with one's views on a matter that has some connection to race. With that meaning, Doc Tor is entirely correct. I am indeed a racist in his eyes and he in mine. He thinks people's moral rights depend on their skin colour; I don't. We disagree. So he's a racist.
You may think that's a pretty stupid meaning. I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But that's how the word is used.
The question you should be asking is why Doc Tor doesn't want to give me his definition.
Why won't he tell me what he means ? Well, Doc ?
The answer's pretty obvious. In many circles, racism - in the sense of bullying people about their skin colour, the sense that Commandment 1 rightly prohibits - is not unreasonably seen as a Bad Thing.
I am not, never have been, and hope never to be a racist in that sense.
But Doc Tor wants to take all the negative emotional weight that belongs to that meaning and apply it to a different meaning of the same word.
It's a dishonest use of language, an abusive usage, of the type that I'm (not coincidentally) trying and failing to get people to think about in a different context. And he doesn't want to admit he's doing it.
It took me years to cotton on to this particular bullying trick.
People use the word "racism" to mean different things, therefore racism doesn't exist!
Also people use the word "sin" to mean different things, therefore sin is a universally understood concept!
Possibly, but with more malevolence and less incompetence.