I like how languages are static. I also remember 10 years ago when "fishes" wasn't a word too.
Fishes is a word, its just not the normal plural of singular fish. Its a plural of plural fish in the same way peoples is the plural of people.
That's still improper and it appears the dictionary disagrees with peoples being a thing. Edit: Apparently it is, derp. That's what I get for not checking merriam.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Chu, for what it is worth, I share your position as well. Every time a girl has been like, "oh, no, just like...come in this napkin" it's like "If I wanted to feel gross and lonely I would have just jerked it into a napkin on my own, thanks"
Though the one and only time I have came on a persons face it was 100% a dominance thing.
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Having someone cum in your mouth is about a thousand times grosser than kissing someone who blew you. It's not really a great comparison.
Also gogo introduction!
In this paper I seek to examine the epistemological consequences of ethical disagreement: how does the possibility of deep, irresolvable disagreement over ethical matters effect our ability to claim ethical knowledge? I will argue that such a possibility would be toxic to our ability to claim knowledge in the realm of ethics; as such, ethical knowledge cannot be preserved against a background where possible disagreement is unlimited. This, in turn, motivates us to look for a conception of ethics on which our basic access to ethical truth is not subject to unlimited disagreement.
The structure of the paper will be as follows: in section 2, I will sketch three broad possible views of the epistemology of ethics: the empirical model, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology. I will then give reasons to think that the empirical model and the pure coherence views cannot be correct. These classifications, as well as the objections there rehearsed, are entirely borrowed from Setiya (ms).
In section 3, I will then turn to reductive epistemology. I will argue that it also cannot be correct. Unlike the previous section, these objections are not borrowed from elsewhere; they are original to this paper, and they will constitute the bulk of this paper. What will emerge is a conception of non-accidental reliability which privileges first-person access: non-accidental reliability is reliability which the subject understands.
With this concept of reliability in hand, in section 4 I will then return to the empirical model. I will then show how the empirical model can be amended such that it satisfies the demand for non-accidental reliability; it will be crucial that in doing so we limit the scope of possible disagreement. We should carry out this amendment, and believe the subsequent theory. My argument here is simply everything that has come before: since the non-amended version, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology all fail, we ought to believe the amended empirical model.
I will then conclude by discussing, extremely briefly, the implications of the amended empirical model for normative ethics.
0
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
Anyone have any history of biometric time clocks? Something so someone can clock in/out and for lunches/breaks just by using their fingerprint/hand without needing to punch cards that I can pull data from (even if it's just a csv or something).
I imagine you could easily do it with RFID cards, biometrics would probably be a lot more work. The badges we use to get through doors at my office could easily be used for time tracking, you'd just have to make people sign out instead of just signing in.
Got any hardware links? We use little RFID chips for opening the door, not sure if they're IDed or not.
Not really sure, just know they're Indala cards, and there's a big fancy computer system in a closet that manages permissions and logs all the time stuff.
I like how languages are static. I also remember 10 years ago when "fishes" wasn't a word too.
Fishes is a word, its just not the normal plural of singular fish. Its a plural of plural fish in the same way peoples is the plural of people.
That's still improper and it appears the dictionary disagrees with peoples being a thing. Edit: Apparently it is, derp. That's what I get for not checking merriam.
Peoples I get - we have these people and those people and that people. We have all the peoples here.
I like how languages are static. I also remember 10 years ago when "fishes" wasn't a word too.
Fishes is a word, its just not the normal plural of singular fish. Its a plural of plural fish in the same way peoples is the plural of people.
That's still improper and it appears the dictionary disagrees with peoples being a thing. Edit: Apparently it is, derp. That's what I get for not checking merriam.
Peoples I get - we have these people and those people and that people. We have all the peoples here.
Fishes I can't really think of the same use for
People would still be fine I would say, I honestly can't find a use for either, it sounds funny.
Fish is fish, whether it's a big fish or a little fish, together they're still a bunch of fish.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I like how languages are static. I also remember 10 years ago when "fishes" wasn't a word too.
Fishes is a word, its just not the normal plural of singular fish. Its a plural of plural fish in the same way peoples is the plural of people.
That's still improper and it appears the dictionary disagrees with peoples being a thing. Edit: Apparently it is, derp. That's what I get for not checking merriam.
Peoples I get - we have these people and those people and that people. We have all the peoples here.
Fishes I can't really think of the same use for
People would still be fine I would say, I honestly can't find a use for either, it sounds funny.
Fish is fish, whether it's a big fish or a little fish, together they're still a bunch of fish.
I like how languages are static. I also remember 10 years ago when "fishes" wasn't a word too.
Fishes is a word, its just not the normal plural of singular fish. Its a plural of plural fish in the same way peoples is the plural of people.
That's still improper and it appears the dictionary disagrees with peoples being a thing. Edit: Apparently it is, derp. That's what I get for not checking merriam.
Peoples I get - we have these people and those people and that people. We have all the peoples here.
Fishes I can't really think of the same use for
People would still be fine I would say, I honestly can't find a use for either, it sounds funny.
Fish is fish, whether it's a big fish or a little fish, together they're still a bunch of fish.
have you seriously not seen the way "peoples" is used? that's really surprising. it's got a very specific use with a meaning distinct from "people", i.e. "people" refers to individuals within a group, and "peoples" refers to the groups themselves
Having someone cum in your mouth is about a thousand times grosser than kissing someone who blew you. It's not really a great comparison.
Also gogo introduction!
In this paper I seek to examine the epistemological consequences of ethical disagreement: how does the possibility of deep, irresolvable disagreement over ethical matters effect our ability to claim ethical knowledge? I will argue that such a possibility would be toxic to our ability to claim knowledge in the realm of ethics; as such, ethical knowledge cannot be preserved against a background where possible disagreement is unlimited. This, in turn, motivates us to look for a conception of ethics on which our basic access to ethical truth is not subject to unlimited disagreement.
The structure of the paper will be as follows: in section 2, I will sketch three broad possible views of the epistemology of ethics: the empirical model, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology. I will then give reasons to think that the empirical model and the pure coherence views cannot be correct. These classifications, as well as the objections there rehearsed, are entirely borrowed from Setiya (ms).
In section 3, I will then turn to reductive epistemology. I will argue that it also cannot be correct. Unlike the previous section, these objections are not borrowed from elsewhere; they are original to this paper, and they will constitute the bulk of this paper. What will emerge is a conception of non-accidental reliability which privileges first-person access: non-accidental reliability is reliability which the subject understands.
With this concept of reliability in hand, in section 4 I will then return to the empirical model. I will then show how the empirical model can be amended such that it satisfies the demand for non-accidental reliability; it will be crucial that in doing so we limit the scope of possible disagreement. We should carry out this amendment, and believe the subsequent theory. My argument here is simply everything that has come before: since the non-amended version, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology all fail, we ought to believe the amended empirical model.
I will then conclude by discussing, extremely briefly, the implications of the amended empirical model for normative ethics.
they were arguing against any amount of sperm touching your lips, and we were arguing against that again. There wasn't no comparison.
I like how languages are static. I also remember 10 years ago when "fishes" wasn't a word too.
Fishes is a word, its just not the normal plural of singular fish. Its a plural of plural fish in the same way peoples is the plural of people.
That's still improper and it appears the dictionary disagrees with peoples being a thing. Edit: Apparently it is, derp. That's what I get for not checking merriam.
Peoples I get - we have these people and those people and that people. We have all the peoples here.
Fishes I can't really think of the same use for
If you had, for instance, one species of bony fish and one of cartilaginous fish in the same water, you would have multiple fish and two fishes.
And if this population spread into another geographic region then they would also exist in the same waters as well as the same water.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Fishes is for multiple types of fish.
So if you have some cod and some carp, those be fishes, yo.
Or it's how the word is most often used.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
If bitches don't like the taste of my jizz they should just learn to take it deep while I bust a nut. Feels better for me and the load is already mostly past their tongue.
Who pays a minimum of $3,700 for a computer and isn't going to build it themselves?
I'm trying to determine how Falcon Northwest is still in business.
People who want a really sweet computer and don't have the interest in building it. It's not really that uncommon, and Falcon Northwest does at least do some pretty good airbrush work on their cases if I'm remembering correctly. If having the coolest looking computer was something I actually cared about and I had enormous disposable wealth I'd probably get a big badass watercooled voodoo because I can't be assed with origami like cable folding and management anymore.
It seems like voodoo doesn't actually do big badass water cooled stuff anymore so I guess I'd have to look elsewhere.
I wish I had that kind of disposable income
I didn't really see how that kinda stuff could be popular until I went to a LAN with a bunch of dudes I work with. Lots of youngish professionals in their late 20s/early 30s with a great deal of disposable cash and not quite enough time to really stay on top of that stuff because they're starting to have families. They just wanna be able to have something that does everything without much fuss and flashyness is a nice perk. As hobbies go dropping 3-5 grand every year or two on a computer isn't that bad. About on par with going out and golfing twice a month.
I like how languages are static. I also remember 10 years ago when "fishes" wasn't a word too.
Fishes is a word, its just not the normal plural of singular fish. Its a plural of plural fish in the same way peoples is the plural of people.
That's still improper and it appears the dictionary disagrees with peoples being a thing. Edit: Apparently it is, derp. That's what I get for not checking merriam.
Peoples I get - we have these people and those people and that people. We have all the peoples here.
Fishes I can't really think of the same use for
People would still be fine I would say, I honestly can't find a use for either, it sounds funny.
Fish is fish, whether it's a big fish or a little fish, together they're still a bunch of fish.
Its more like:
"There are three variety of fishes that could eat your head before you realized they were there. The Super Ninja Shark will eat up to 200 fish a day..."
and
"The Super Inclusive Happy Time celebrates the culture of many peoples of the world. Sixteen people will enjoy Nepalese checkers while eating...."
1
a : an aquatic animal —usually used in combination <starfish> <cuttlefish> b : any of numerous cold-blooded strictly aquatic craniate vertebrates that include the bony fishes and usually the cartilaginous and jawless fishes and that have typically an elongated somewhat spindle-shaped body terminating in a broad caudal fin, limbs in the form of fins when present at all, and a 2-chambered heart by which blood is sent through thoracic gills to be oxygenated
2
: the flesh of fish used as food
Posts
That's still improper and it appears the dictionary disagrees with peoples being a thing. Edit: Apparently it is, derp. That's what I get for not checking merriam.
like "fishes" or the "'s" after words ending with s
awesome
my paychecks are going to look like they did when i was a student
he's a grand dude
very much a... sexual being
so he gonna be touchy
but a cool dude
meeses
Though the one and only time I have came on a persons face it was 100% a dominance thing.
colored, for sure
Also gogo introduction!
The structure of the paper will be as follows: in section 2, I will sketch three broad possible views of the epistemology of ethics: the empirical model, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology. I will then give reasons to think that the empirical model and the pure coherence views cannot be correct. These classifications, as well as the objections there rehearsed, are entirely borrowed from Setiya (ms).
In section 3, I will then turn to reductive epistemology. I will argue that it also cannot be correct. Unlike the previous section, these objections are not borrowed from elsewhere; they are original to this paper, and they will constitute the bulk of this paper. What will emerge is a conception of non-accidental reliability which privileges first-person access: non-accidental reliability is reliability which the subject understands.
With this concept of reliability in hand, in section 4 I will then return to the empirical model. I will then show how the empirical model can be amended such that it satisfies the demand for non-accidental reliability; it will be crucial that in doing so we limit the scope of possible disagreement. We should carry out this amendment, and believe the subsequent theory. My argument here is simply everything that has come before: since the non-amended version, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology all fail, we ought to believe the amended empirical model.
I will then conclude by discussing, extremely briefly, the implications of the amended empirical model for normative ethics.
Not really sure, just know they're Indala cards, and there's a big fancy computer system in a closet that manages permissions and logs all the time stuff.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
you should go from the smallest unit to the largest, or vice versa
Peoples I get - we have these people and those people and that people. We have all the peoples here.
Fishes I can't really think of the same use for
no
also would just be strange - colored isn't even a thing in norway, plus, he wasn't the only dark-skinned person there.
Finally!
I was waiting on baited breath for this response.
You're a good guy, Gooey.
People would still be fine I would say, I honestly can't find a use for either, it sounds funny.
Fish is fish, whether it's a big fish or a little fish, together they're still a bunch of fish.
You could, if you were talking about fishes, but not if you were just talking about multiple fish, because then it would be wrong.
No, people would be wrong.
you can say "a people", you know
EDIT: Peoples is about multiple different people
EDITEDIT: People like israelites, not like john
if you're referencing me- instead of that disgusting, unwashed norwegian- the prime analog i used was cunnilingus during menstruation
Language in a conversation isn't about being right or wrong, it's about if what you were communicating was relayed successfully or not.
how do you say a date
have you seriously not seen the way "peoples" is used? that's really surprising. it's got a very specific use with a meaning distinct from "people", i.e. "people" refers to individuals within a group, and "peoples" refers to the groups themselves
This is assuredly the phrase of the day.
the month is necessary context and i don't understand why you'd put it second
they were arguing against any amount of sperm touching your lips, and we were arguing against that again. There wasn't no comparison.
the twelfth of january, two thousand and twelve :P
It was the 8th day of the 7th month in the 2010th year of our Lord.
You?
If you had, for instance, one species of bony fish and one of cartilaginous fish in the same water, you would have multiple fish and two fishes.
And if this population spread into another geographic region then they would also exist in the same waters as well as the same water.
So if you have some cod and some carp, those be fishes, yo.
Or it's how the word is most often used.
ss/mm/hh/dd/mm/yyyy
I was going off what you said about putting it in an essay.
...
Wut.
Oh, yes. Sorry, I misunderstood. We are in agreement then.
In related news.
I am sad no one took my Octopus, Octopuses bait :P
singular fish, plural fish vs singular person, plural people
"various peoples invented the wheel at the same time", sure
"various fishes evolved more efficient fins in the same epoch"?
nah, you'd say "fish"
just like how there is no call to use "sheeps" or "deers"
I didn't really see how that kinda stuff could be popular until I went to a LAN with a bunch of dudes I work with. Lots of youngish professionals in their late 20s/early 30s with a great deal of disposable cash and not quite enough time to really stay on top of that stuff because they're starting to have families. They just wanna be able to have something that does everything without much fuss and flashyness is a nice perk. As hobbies go dropping 3-5 grand every year or two on a computer isn't that bad. About on par with going out and golfing twice a month.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Its more like:
"There are three variety of fishes that could eat your head before you realized they were there. The Super Ninja Shark will eat up to 200 fish a day..."
and
"The Super Inclusive Happy Time celebrates the culture of many peoples of the world. Sixteen people will enjoy Nepalese checkers while eating...."
or from that http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fish link Both plural, but different kinds
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
when people from multiple regions are all willingly ignorant, sucking at the teat of the illuminati, i call them sheeples