The voters have decided that B3CKVH is right!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also about massive amount
+59Individuals are way too complex to describe properly without a massive amount of depth, amirite?
Also about correct and massive amount
+546Assuming the theory that when we die we come back as another human being is correct, we must have, at some point, ran out of souls because our population is constantly growing. Which would explain the massive amount of stupid, unimaginative, decorous and soul-lacking people walking around. amirite?
Also about time learning
-104It seems pointless to waste time learning when ignorance is instantaneous. amirite?
I'm not sure I understand. Do you have an example?
If you have to say, what I meant by that was, "... Blah blah blah..." and "blah blah blah" is not what you said- The person who takes you Litterally is not wrong just because you and a large minority of people accept that the new definition of "blah blah blah" is "La tee da". Blah blah blah means blah blah blah- so if that is what you mean, then don't argue how La ti da is also correct- la to da is la to da and blah blah Blah is Blah Blah blah. Instead of trying to assert new definitions for old words already defined, find the right word to convey what you mean instead of trying to force wrong words to mean what you are trying to say.
The younger generation is really bad about trying to force their own subjective Deffinition instead of using the words they should.
Hope that made sense.
Let me see... Sometimes people, while arguing a point, misuse a word, and then the argument switches over to which definition of the word is correct?
In order to communicate, we must agree upon the definition of words. I guess it would be hard for me to choose a side when I don't know the context. I probably misuse words all the time. Still though, I would want to get to the meat of the original argument. I personally am not as interested in the words themselves as the ideas behind them.
See I think words hold power and every word has root and other grammatical parts to give it meaning and definition.
An example of the original argument would be- "Phil hates midgets because he is a midgetphobe" a passerby points out that just because Phil is afraid of midgets doesn't mean that he hates them- just that he is uncomfortable in his own skin when surrounded by a re-enactment of the lolipop guild, and would rather be somewhere else.
Does this mean that Phil hates the people dancing around him? No, it means he is uncomfortable.
Trying to say phobia has the same meaning as biggotry/hate by assuming ammendment rights to the ACTUAL definition does not prove that Phil hates any person who is a midget. That's almost like saying a person who has a fear if flying hates pilots.
It is possible to fear without hate or malice.
Got it! Thanks.