J actually argued that calling someone "it" isn't dehumanizing?
I gotta hear the story behind this
It was exactly what you would think. Exactly. _J_ pulls out a dictionary and claims that because the dictionary doesn't mention any negative connotations for calling a person "it" then it's perfectly valid and everyone else (and not a single person agreed with him) is wrong.
It's actually a perfect example of why _J_ is probably going to be a Mormon tomorrow.
Look say whatever else about the mormon religion, their jesus went out like a gangster (joseph smith was killed in a shoot out after he was accused of being a horse thief if I remember right).
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I've seen the kind of thing you post in the philosophy thread _J_. You gonna' get trounced.
Most importantly, you are not going to be able to argue historical facts with them. That is what they are most prepared against. Anything you claim, no matter how good the source, will be ignored as just anti-Mormon propaganda. They have their own alternate history of their religion that would put Dr. Who to shame.
Will all of their positions come back to a foundation of "The Book of Mormon / Joseph Smith says so"?
Essentially yes. They are at core arguing from a position of revealed truth. Though they do have an impressive amount of pseudoscience and falsified history from various Mormom professors to try and gloss over a lot of their unsavory past.
J actually argued that calling someone "it" isn't dehumanizing?
I gotta hear the story behind this
It was exactly what you would think. Exactly. _J_ pulls out a dictionary and claims that because the dictionary doesn't mention any negative connotations for calling a person "it" then it's perfectly valid and everyone else (and not a single person agreed with him) is wrong.
It's actually a perfect example of why _J_ is probably going to be a Mormon tomorrow.
There's a distinction between "the word has a negative connotation when used in this manner" and "it is incorrect to use the word in this manner". It is gramatically correct to use "it" when referring to an individual whose gender is not known or acknowledged. Is there a negative connotation? Sure. But that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the word can be properly utilized in that manner.
If I referred to Oboro as "chair" that would be entirely incorrect. "It" is entirely correct. Is there a negative connotation? Sure. But that does not make the use incorrect.
_J_ on
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
Which reminds me, I need to get my El Ray DVD back.
Aye, going to the Bulmers Comedy Festival to catch him at a really small venue (Probably about 1000 capacity). I'm in the 7th row and the show sold out in about three days.
Very cool. You'll have to bring back photos, if you can.
I'm showing up hella early to see if I can nab an autograph or something. I absolutely love him and would kill to get some sort of memento from the show.
I've seen the kind of thing you post in the philosophy thread _J_. You gonna' get trounced.
Most importantly, you are not going to be able to argue historical facts with them. That is what they are most prepared against. Anything you claim, no matter how good the source, will be ignored as just anti-Mormon propaganda. They have their own alternate history of their religion that would put Dr. Who to shame.
Will all of their positions come back to a foundation of "The Book of Mormon / Joseph Smith says so"?
Essentially yes. They are at core arguing from a position of revealed truth. Though they do have an impressive amount of pseudoscience and falsified history from various Mormom professors to try and gloss over a lot of their unsavory past.
If I try to compare their revealed truth with other revealed truth will they give an account of how the other revealed truth is incorrect other than "that is not what our revealed truth says"?
I'm showing up hella early to see if I can nab an autograph or something. I absolutely love him and would kill to get some sort of memento from the show.
J actually argued that calling someone "it" isn't dehumanizing?
I gotta hear the story behind this
It was exactly what you would think. Exactly. _J_ pulls out a dictionary and claims that because the dictionary doesn't mention any negative connotations for calling a person "it" then it's perfectly valid and everyone else (and not a single person agreed with him) is wrong.
It's actually a perfect example of why _J_ is probably going to be a Mormon tomorrow.
There's a distinction between "the word has a negative connotation when used in this manner" and "it is incorrect to use the word in this manner". It is gramatically correct to use "it" when referring to an individual whose gender is not known or acknowledged. Is there a negative connotation? Sure. But that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the word can be properly utilized in that manner.
If I referred to Oboro as "chair" that would be entirely incorrect. "It" is entirely correct. Is there a negative connotation? Sure. But that does not make the use incorrect.
Bloody hell _J_. It is incorrect in exactly the same way that refering to a stranger as "anata" in Japanese is incorrect. The dictionary definition of the word is simply "you" (as in "do you have a pen?"). But the connotation is oddly enough either 1) that the person is very intimitaly close to you (though strangely not gender specific) or 2) that the person is your inferior and you are generally not pleased with them. There is no correct way to say something equivalent to "you". It has to be done with context and general verbal clumsiness.
Languages are not complete. English has no correct way to use a gender neutral pronoun in a single word. Hence all the clumsy ways we work around it.
Honestly I bet like 5 people got it from the show and they were all fucking each other in the ass. I feel safe since Kakos is over his illness and senj is canadian.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I've seen the kind of thing you post in the philosophy thread _J_. You gonna' get trounced.
Most importantly, you are not going to be able to argue historical facts with them. That is what they are most prepared against. Anything you claim, no matter how good the source, will be ignored as just anti-Mormon propaganda. They have their own alternate history of their religion that would put Dr. Who to shame.
Will all of their positions come back to a foundation of "The Book of Mormon / Joseph Smith says so"?
Essentially yes. They are at core arguing from a position of revealed truth. Though they do have an impressive amount of pseudoscience and falsified history from various Mormom professors to try and gloss over a lot of their unsavory past.
If I try to compare their revealed truth with other revealed truth will they give an account of how the other revealed truth is incorrect other than "that is not what our revealed truth says"?
They might. It's essentially the same argument that many religions (at the least anything Abrahamic) boils down to: we're the correct ones and everyone else isn't.
Mormons are just a bit unusual because they are so recent and relatively well documented. Joseph Smith was a fraud of course. But then so was the nameless person or persons who wrote the Gospel of Matthew or Luke + Acts or Revelations.
English has no correct way to use a gender neutral pronoun in a single word.
IT!
1. (used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.
2. (used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.
Honestly I bet like 5 people got it from the show and they were all fucking each other in the ass. I feel safe since Kakos is over his illness and senj is canadian.
Don't feel too safe that I'm over my illness. My immune system is pretty fucking strong. This is the first time I've been sick beyond sniffles in about ten years and I attribute the compromise to the fact that I was exhausted from con-going and being exposed to pathogens my body isn't used to. Good luck!
I would give the mormons more credit if they carried around pistols or something to represent how gangster their founder went out. Christians have the cross, Mormons should have like a .45.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
I feel I am putting too much effort into this endeavor.
My desk is littered with burned CD and DVDs and I have my computer on its side with the side opened up.
Sarksus on
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
J, your whole argument is that no gender has been identified/confirmed for Oboro. I would say you are incorrect. Many times she has mentioned that while she is biologically male, she identifies as female. Thus calling her an 'it' is not only insulting, it is incorrect.
Even though oboro wasn't real or whatever, there was no question that she wanted to be known as a she
Wait wait wait
Not real
What
There are concerns Obo while truely mentally disturbed, was not truthful in any of the stories obo told.
Oh well duh
I thought it was revealed that it was a Toblerone Triangular-level troll, a masterstroke of planning and brilliance and insanity, one that they talk about on the internet for years to come
Posts
It was exactly what you would think. Exactly. _J_ pulls out a dictionary and claims that because the dictionary doesn't mention any negative connotations for calling a person "it" then it's perfectly valid and everyone else (and not a single person agreed with him) is wrong.
It's actually a perfect example of why _J_ is probably going to be a Mormon tomorrow.
You need to yell at Passerbye for voting for the pointless love story movie that never ends.
If you're going to watch a pearl harbor movie it should be Tora! Tora! Tora!
I founded my argument upon the definition of "it". So, yeah, I can understand why people would take issue with it.
o_O
It wasn't me. It was probably your crazy hummus.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wiggin, actually
PS referring to someone as a thing instead of a person is kind of the definition of dehumanizing you stupid bastard
Essentially yes. They are at core arguing from a position of revealed truth. Though they do have an impressive amount of pseudoscience and falsified history from various Mormom professors to try and gloss over a lot of their unsavory past.
There's a distinction between "the word has a negative connotation when used in this manner" and "it is incorrect to use the word in this manner". It is gramatically correct to use "it" when referring to an individual whose gender is not known or acknowledged. Is there a negative connotation? Sure. But that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the word can be properly utilized in that manner.
If I referred to Oboro as "chair" that would be entirely incorrect. "It" is entirely correct. Is there a negative connotation? Sure. But that does not make the use incorrect.
I'm showing up hella early to see if I can nab an autograph or something. I absolutely love him and would kill to get some sort of memento from the show.
Doing a semantics dance does not make you right
It makes you a cunt
As I explained to Jewcar, food poisoning comes up within the first 4-8 hours after eating. I didn't start feeling sick until yesterday morning.
And as I have had no nausea or diarrhea, this isn't food poisoning. :P
Face Twit Rav Gram
If I try to compare their revealed truth with other revealed truth will they give an account of how the other revealed truth is incorrect other than "that is not what our revealed truth says"?
You can't ask for the story from someone and not expect them to give you their side of the argument.
pleasepaypreacher.net
To make the explosions look better.
Yeah, that'd be pretty cool. Best of luck. :^:
Face Twit Rav Gram
He is still doing a semantics dance
If his argument was anything but that I would still call him a stupid bastard but I wouldn't call him a cunt
Alternate response; Sure I can I never asked for his interpretation of the events (this is a semantics dance)
Bloody hell _J_. It is incorrect in exactly the same way that refering to a stranger as "anata" in Japanese is incorrect. The dictionary definition of the word is simply "you" (as in "do you have a pen?"). But the connotation is oddly enough either 1) that the person is very intimitaly close to you (though strangely not gender specific) or 2) that the person is your inferior and you are generally not pleased with them. There is no correct way to say something equivalent to "you". It has to be done with context and general verbal clumsiness.
Languages are not complete. English has no correct way to use a gender neutral pronoun in a single word. Hence all the clumsy ways we work around it.
Still wish I could have made it.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy.
WHY GOD WHY
But the correct pronoun for Oboro is 'she'.
Honestly I bet like 5 people got it from the show and they were all fucking each other in the ass. I feel safe since Kakos is over his illness and senj is canadian.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wait wait wait
Not real
What
They might. It's essentially the same argument that many religions (at the least anything Abrahamic) boils down to: we're the correct ones and everyone else isn't.
Mormons are just a bit unusual because they are so recent and relatively well documented. Joseph Smith was a fraud of course. But then so was the nameless person or persons who wrote the Gospel of Matthew or Luke + Acts or Revelations.
IT!
1. (used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.
2. (used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.
Cause of the facts and coherence?
There are concerns Obo while truely mentally disturbed, was not truthful in any of the stories obo told.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Do you understand this difference y/n?
Using "it" to refer to a person is derogatory and rude.
Don't feel too safe that I'm over my illness. My immune system is pretty fucking strong. This is the first time I've been sick beyond sniffles in about ten years and I attribute the compromise to the fact that I was exhausted from con-going and being exposed to pathogens my body isn't used to. Good luck!
pleasepaypreacher.net
My desk is littered with burned CD and DVDs and I have my computer on its side with the side opened up.
Face Twit Rav Gram
hahahahahaah oh jesus christ
Oh well duh
I thought it was revealed that it was a Toblerone Triangular-level troll, a masterstroke of planning and brilliance and insanity, one that they talk about on the internet for years to come