or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by DartagnanRed

Well normally the schoolkids don't go, isn't that the point?
No, this is incorrect. I can't believe I am referring to a dictionary, but this is the easiest way to demonstrate why this is not necessarily true. There are 6 different meanings here alone, and dictionaries don't capture the context of someone saying something. Hysteria CAN BE a pseudo-scientific diagnostic term popularised by the comprehensively discredited writings of one Sigmund Freud. Freud applied the term only to females. It also CAN BE a deeply sexist term. It can...
I'm not sure whether I agree with this. There are certain negative implications that come from condemning certain aspects or types of speech to private conversations only. In fact, this could be interpreted as a form of censorship. It's also a bit arbitrary, what speech is to be deemed of sufficient standard for public discourse? Maybe it should be up to the listener to decide what speech they deem "correct" or "high standard" rather than assume some sort of standard.This...
This forum is for pseudo-intellectual conversations about linguistics and political correctness, please post your clothing related pictures and posts elsewhere.
1) It is precisely because nothing is objective that it is the listener's responsibility to interpret the intent of the speaker when listening to their words. When Abbott says "no one is the suppository of all wisdom" he may look foolish, but you still know what he was trying to say because you know his intent. 2) This isn't how language works. When Obama gets up and speaks at a crowd, his intent isn't "worth" 1/20,000. I'm not suggesting that the speaker's view is...
I absolutely agree with your points on civility, but this is just manners or effectiveness, it doesn't have any real bearing on whether something or someone is right or wrong. It's like using a knife or fork at a dinner table, it's not required or objectively better than using hands or chopsticks, it's just something you kind of do. In the same way, I agree it wasn't the right time for Steve Price to say anything about McGuire, he should have just put up and shut up. But...
That's ok, the treehouse is already full with me, Oli and JimmyHoffa. But I would be interested in a response to the crux of my argument, immature profanity aside (I was a little high on codral whilst writing it).
How. Fucking. Dare. You.
What a complete shitstorm. My less than five cents: TBM asks a brave and difficult question, but in my (admittedly close to worthless opinion), it's based on the false assumption that language has no context in relation to the Mcguire shitstorm from a few weeks back. Regardless of how much an idiot McGuire and his cronies are, there is no reason to believe that they actually were threatening violence or having anything to do with violence by using certain words. Language...
This being scared of what you wear thing is getting old. Has anyone noticed how the people given a hard time about what they wear are generally big personalities/somewhat divisive to begin with? The clothing element is just something obvious and physical to give them a hard time about. How many times have you seen someone quiet, agreeable and timid be roasted behind their back because they are wearing a sock for a tie, or a handkerchief in their pocket, or worse, non-black...
New Posts  All Forums: