Chefelf.com Night Life: Geography Failure - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Crappy News Forum

This is a REPLY ONLY form. Only Crappy News Moderators can post news topics here. Anyone is free to reply to the news topics. It's the Crappy News Forum, where everyone's a winner!

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Geography Failure part 1485993830928

#121 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 27 October 2007 - 01:08 AM

Speaking of Hebrews. http://www.shmaltz.com/

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 27 October 2007 - 01:09 AM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#122 User is offline   azerty Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 22-September 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Valencia VLC
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 October 2007 - 08:14 AM

I'll say again that none of the quotes were out of context. There was no secondary qualifier (Like "No not really") that I conveniently left out. The quotes were the theme of the paragraph which followed. Later sentences made an effort to back up the supposition. Slade, you seem to be the champion of Spoon Poetic. Pick any quote (and the sentences around it) and point out where the "No not really" qualifier is.

But if you think I have twisted these quotes and made them opposite of what they were meant to be, then let's twist a few of them back again...

"Black" IS a race. "American" IS really a race.

White people that were born in, lived in, raised in, have background in, whatever in Africa are NOT Africans.

I DID say that what continent you are on determines your race. ALWAYS did I equate the words "race" and "continent."

Go on down the list and reverse everything and see if the result is less twisted, or at least makes more sense. It doesn't.

* * *

Here's another isloated quote (taken out of context of course)

QUOTE
"I know white people that are darker than some black people."

This makes no sense. How do you know which people to describe as the white ones and which are the black ones, if you state that "Black is not a race", and your colour scheme categorization is all fucked up cause the darkies are lighter than the whities. Obviously you could tell the whites from the blacks, so how did you do it? Not the race and not the color... the answer to this question should be the crux of your arguments!




QUOTE
"How is race biological? How can race be biological, when the "Hispanic" race is really a mix
of the "Native American" race and the "White" European race?"

(I don't understand the premise of this quote, to be honest. Biology by definition is the mixing of eggs and sperm to produce new life.)




QUOTE
"Biology can predict the physical characteristics of a child between two parents, yes, but it doesn't depend on race. A child's skin colour will generally be a blend of both parents' skin colours, kinda like paint. I don't see black + black = black so much as I see colour + colour = blend of colours. The formula works whether the parents are of the same race or different ones. Same with height. Tall + tall generally equals tall Short + tall generally equals medium height."

(This one is difficult to argue as well, but a quick review of Gregor Mendel and his dominat and recessive genes might be time well spent.)




QUOTE
"Only 5% of genetic differences occur between races, with 95% occurring within the same race,"

This is hard to believe. There has to be more than a 5 % genetic variation between and Australian Aborigine and and Innuit if the variation between 2 Aborigines is expected to be 95%. It doesn't stand up to reason that 2 people living on the same smallish contininet are more different than with a third person living 10 thousand miles away arcross oceans and mountains and who probably havent been interbreeding for thousands of years. I mean if both Aborigines are 95 % different from each other, how can each one be 5% similiar with the third guy?

I know Spoon Poetic believes that race exists, but that it isn't important, or shouldn't be. I just don't know how Spoon Poetic defines race, and I wonder if she knows herself.

* * *

I'm going to pick on somebody else now...

As to Evolution, the "theory" part is the possible mechanism of natural selection. Evolution itself is a fact, just as heredity, genetics, and the existence of DNA are facts.

Animal camoflage can be a direct result of evolution (by natural selection) and this has been observed in action with the colorization of moths living in industrialized areas. (The ones that are soot coloured don't get eaten by birds, the lighter ones do. So Moth colloectors see a change in colors from when before the factory was built to afterwards - and the Natuaral Selection theorists claim a point.) The other theories of the mechanism of evolution are mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow.

In Darwin's Theory of Evolution, the "Theory" part is his contribution of "Natural Selection", to the process of evolution. That's why it is called "Darwin's Theory" of evolution, so as to differentiate it from the evolutionary theories of Maupertuis, Lamarck, etc.

I think, in the end, race or ethnicity is based on isolated groups of humans breeding amongst themselves and developing certain similar traits. I also think that as travel around the world becomes easier and cheaper, (which it obviously already has) racial differences will dissapear and become homogenized as different groups interbreed. One day the last "Full Blooded Cherokee" or "Full blooded Khoi Khoi" will no longer exist. And, like when the last speaker of Chicomuceltec or Euskadi, or Punjabi dies, humanity will realise that they have lost something.
0

#123 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 October 2007 - 03:10 PM

Just because I don't think "race" is 100% biological, don't think it's an adequate method of categorization, and think it's a mostly sociological construction, does not mean I'm going to be confusing by using some other method that no one in the world would know what I'm talking about. Of course I use the race words. Unfortunately, society has conditioned me to use them. Just like because of living in the south, I had to break myself of saying "y'all," and there are certain colloquialisms that I avoid because they mean one thing to some people and another to other people.

As far as the genetics goes, look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Just because you think it's unlikely doesn't mean that it's not true. I'm not a geneticist so I can't offer up any more numbers than that, but those are the percentages I found on several different articles.
I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#124 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 27 October 2007 - 05:55 PM

First you asked "how can race be biological" now you're saying it's sort of biological but not entirely.

You must be smoking rocks if you think sociology influences what colour things will be.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#125 User is offline   Spoon Poetic Icon

  • Pimpin'
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 2,876
  • Joined: 27-September 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 October 2007 - 07:05 PM

It's influenced by biology since physical characteristics is part of what people decided would confine people to one grouping. However, it is not a biological categorization such as species.

P.S. I quit this thread, hooray for you all

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 27 October 2007 - 07:06 PM

I am writing about Jm in my signature because apparently it's an effective method of ignoring him.
0

#126 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 27 October 2007 - 10:38 PM

Right, black people are lumped together as black because it has nothing to do with their characteristics and genetic make up.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#127 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 28 October 2007 - 06:16 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 26 2007, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Barend:
Exactly. For a slightly more biased, but entirely typical scientific definition of the word, try wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Wikipedia? Are you kidding? One of the hosts of 'Chasers War On Everything' (an Australian program) found the entry about him to have incorrect details, so he signed on and fixed them. A few days later they were altered back to their incorrect details and he was sent an email asking him not alter the entry.

I think I'll stick with the dictionary.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 26 2007, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
See, it's the "imagination applied to facts" (read: theory is the part of the discipline that is apart from the facts. hence facts plus theory equals science, not facts plus supposition are part of theory) and "still subject to being wrong completely and utterly wrong in every respect" that irks me and wins the approval of the religious right.


Wins the approval of the religious right? I can tell you right now, they hate me more than 'Evolution is concrete' crowd.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 26 2007, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's taking a single word, as used by the scientists themselves, and without any independent science, using that word to belittle the entire discipline. And as any scientist will tell you, it's a misapplication of the word as it is used by science.


Talk to any Bioengineer and Physicist about each others use of the word 'plasma', and I think you'll find the "disciplined" scientific community are not all that united on definitions.


QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 26 2007, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Now why did I go further in connecting him to the religious naysayers? Why, because he brought up carbon dating, which isn't a part of evolutionary theory. You see, since it's only good to about 60000 years,


Directly more like 800 years, then estimated projection to 60000, which for all intents and purposes 'should' be accurate assuming no drastic climate changes or other circumstances took place. People tend to use it as a defence (to an attack never made) and excuse to not think about it. People who assume EVERYTHING has been carbon dated. So it was worth bringing up.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 26 2007, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
it's useless in determining the ages of primate fossils, which are the ones that bother the creationists so much. However it's apparently quite useful in convincing religious folks not to worry about evolution. After all, carbon dating is inaccurate and evolution is only a theory. So, it's possible that it is "completely and utterly wrong in every respect." So when guys go tossing that stuff around, the "theory" attack as well as the carbon dating thing, it doesn't sound, as you suggest, like they're saying "evolution is fact, but the details need sorting." It sounds like they're saying "science has no foothold here and may be completely and utterly wrong." He can backpedal all he likes, but he went that way in that post. Maybe that's not what he really believes, but he used it, and I retorted. Capish?


"evolution is fact, but the details need sorting." No my opinion is more along the lines if "evolution is possibly/probably fact, but the details need refinement and several gaps need to be filled with more than conjecture."

Was Lucy the missing link, or just an ugly woman with bad posture? If all trace our underdeveloped ancestors has been seemingly excluded from archaeological preservation, who knows what else we're missing out on?

To me evolution is like an unfinished horse race. 'Darwin’s theory' is leading by a clear 20 feet but there's still 40 feet of the race left.

My problem isn't with science, it's with people who treat science as a religion and defend it the same way Christians do when they're not even under attack. I have an open mind, and that offends some people.

In the house of science assumption is a closed door to room no one can be bothered exploring. A real scientist closes no door, only people who follow it without question or curiosity. And curiosity is the driving force behind science; without it you cannot seriously call yourself a man of science.

This post has been edited by barend: 28 October 2007 - 06:37 PM

0

#128 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 28 October 2007 - 06:36 PM

Ultimatley though, we've stumbled far too far from the topic. And I think I've indulged being branded and trialed as a science-heretic far too long.

I have an open and inquisitive mind. I close no doors in house of science. If anyone has a problem with that, they can just fuck off because I tire of this bullshit.
0

#129 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 28 October 2007 - 07:12 PM

QUOTE (barend @ Oct 28 2007, 06:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wikipedia? Are you kidding? One of the hosts of 'Chasers War On Everything' (an Australian program) found the entry about him to have incorrect details, so he signed on and fixed them. A few days later they were altered back to their incorrect details and he was sent an email asking him not alter the entry.

I think I'll stick with the dictionary.

Predictable response: I won't read anything on that page, because I know of another page that had problems with it. Like I don't trust ANY news because they got my friend's name wrong once on the tv. I sorta saw that coming, but oh well. I thought I'd go with a source everyone could easily access. If you'd rather, try the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If you want a nice capsuled and incomplete definition of a word, try dictionary.reference.com, which is what you did.
QUOTE
Wins the approval of the religious right? I can tell you right now, they hate me more than 'Evolution is concrete' crowd.

The clause "wins the approval of the religious right" was used to apply to your argument posture, not you yourself. I'm sure you can find loads of reasons that religious folks might not approve of you, but I wasn't discussing any of these. I was talking about how you doubt the validity of evolutionary science and as your backup you use a dictionary definition of the word "theory." The religious right love that argument, regardless of what they might think of you.
QUOTE
Talk to any Bioengineer and Physicist about each others use of the word 'plasma', and I think you'll find the "disciplined" scientific community are not all that united on definitions.

You're really going out on a limb if you think that dissent on one topic means that all scientific ideas are in staes of dissent. But more on that later.
QUOTE
Directly more like 800 years, then estimated projection to 60000, which for all intents and purposes 'should' be accurate assuming no drastic climate changes or other circumstances took place. People tend to use it as a defence (to an attack never made) and excuse to not think about it. People who assume EVERYTHING has been carbon dated. So it was worth bringing up.

The environmental variances in carbon 14 are taken into account, and projections are improving. Remember this is a discipline that is less than 60 years old. As for "some people think carbon dating is used for everything," well yeah. Those people are creation scientists, and they use "carbon dating" as a catch-all for the inaccuracies of science. Since you cite them, even while apparently knowing that carbon dating has nothing to do with the study of evolution, as a refutation or danger to the science of evolution, then you are in their company.
QUOTE
My problem isn't with science, it's with people who treat science as a religion and defend it the same way Christians do when they're not even under attack. I have an open mind, and that offends some people.

I think I know what you're saying about "investigation is something that needs to be done before science can close the door on a subject." I mean, I guess you're saying that because we don't know all of the mechanics of evolution, maybe all of the animals on earth appeared spontaneously or were placed here by an intelligent designer, and that evolution didn't happen in any way whatsoever. I assume you got to that conclusion by studying the sicence of evolution, and not just from some pub talk and a dictionary definiton? I ask because the scientists who agree that evolution is fact but not all the details are in have actually studied their field and have enjoyed success and suffered reversal for about 150 years.

I agree that there's a problem with the way people treat science as though it were a religion, unchangeable and not subject to any scpeculation. They assume that scientists are not open-minded and constantly reinvestigation their conclusions. They generally say that they don't believe in any of such-and-such a discipline because 100% of the discipline hasn't been worked out. So even if we can map 95% of a strand of DNA, they'll say "well genetics is just a theory" and suggest that it may be ENTIRELY wrong. The thing is, religions are closed-minded and not open to investigation. Changes that do occur are donctrinal, and not based on study but on politics. Changes in sciences are the result of new investigation and conclusions that don't meet previous assumptions. Ideas are challenged, and conclusions are open to peer review. But there aren't any assumptions that scientists won't investigate, or ever insist be taken on "faith." So yeah, I don't like people who think science is a religion, or who think they can refute an entire field they've never studied with no more than a 0.08 second search of an online dictionary.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#130 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 29 October 2007 - 06:37 PM

One last time... I did NOT refute. I used carbon dating AND evolution as examples of fields of science that study events we don't have footage of.
Much like 'everyone came from africa' cause anthipology says we did.

GEnetics is a poor example becuase they have the genes right infront of them under the microsope. We can see the dna strands, we have the equipment and footage to say "allthough we don't know it all... THERE IT IS LIKE WE SAYS IT IS!"

Where as evolution devotees tend to say "here's proof of A, here's proof of C so we aint gonna take shit from anyone who questions what we believe to be B."

Those people can go to hell, or at least could if I believed such a place existed.

Fuck man, honestly. You are now going out of your way to wilfully misunderstand my point and intention. MY nutshell point was people should NOT go ape shit about something they're not 100% about the way those stupid fucking black people did about king muthafucking tut not being black.

Why is that so hard for you?
0

#131 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 29 October 2007 - 07:04 PM

I think he was just trying to point out that the same argument used by christians is the same as the example you used. I don't think he actually meant it when he said you were trying to turn this into a religious debate on evolution being a weak theory. I don't know the word to describe what he did but I know there is a word for it.

All in all maybe we should let king tut be black. No harm done and black scholars can feel important.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#132 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 29 October 2007 - 08:37 PM

Well, more or less you're right, Jordan. But I think more can be taken from Barend's use of the phrase "Evolution DEVOTEES." You see, again he's acting on the assumption that evolution may be completely anmd utterly wrong, that at some point in the future cosmologists will have a different story about where species came from. That scientists now have little to go on apart from faith in what sounds like a good idea, that they have never observed inherited differences over time. This is not the case. There aren't any scientists considering species origin theories that don't have some evolution in them. It's not a world of devotees and detractors. It's a world of scientists and non-scientists. And in this argument, the scientists are going to hell, which the non-scientists pretty much all believe in. Using a word like "devotees," Barend is treating science like a religion, all based on faith and with no reason or experiment behind it. It's not an uncommon argment. Like you say, Jordan, Christians use it all the time.

As for this whole "nutshell point," I thought it was that jazz about how all people from Africa are "African," that race and continent should not share names, that Americans are stupid, and that "African-American" was the dumbest thing you'd ever heard. I don't remember anything until now about how King Tut might not be black. At least not from Barend.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#133 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 30 October 2007 - 12:15 AM

to clarify, only because you're so close now I'd hate to give up.

1. I don't treat science as a religion, I am accusing others of doing so. I couldn't have been clearer.

2. "African-American" is the SECOND dumbest thing ever. "Asian" being a subcategory of "Asian" is THE dumbest.

3. I don't think I actually said 'Americans are stupid' but then nelsons ratings tend to support the theory a little.

4. I'm sorry if my use of the word 'devotee' made science sound too much like a religion, but your excessive use of the word 'discipline' made it sound like a Tibetan monastery of kung-fu monks.
0

#134 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 30 October 2007 - 04:12 AM

1. You're making claims 100% similar to "even science is just a belief system; it's no different from religion." Science changes. Religion does not change. You're using carbon dating to doubt evolution (I know, I know, just because that's what Creation Scientists do and just because you did it, you really meant something else). And while you've spun around on selective dictionary definitions and

2. "Asian" is an adjective. You could use it to describe anything from Asia if you liked. But that doesn't meant that the thing is uniformly distributed across all of Asia, or even that it's esclusive to things found in Asia. Words can and do have more than one use. You yourself do not use each word in your vocabulary exclusively for one purpose.

You can't assume that all French people speack French, nor even that all French people are from France. Nor that all French-speaking countries are France. "Asian" is legitimate as a set of peoples, many of whom live in Asia. But it's not applied to all groups of peoples living in Asia. It's not applied to Turks.

3. Yes you did.

4. I'm really not used to these online arguments that rely so heavily on selective dictionary dfefinitions of common words. Could you tell me what's wrong with using the word "discipline" when referring to a branch of biology? And is there some way that my use of it proves that all the species on the Earth arrived spontaneously in their present forms?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#135 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 30 October 2007 - 05:48 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 30 2007, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1. You're making claims 100% similar to "even science is just a belief system; it's no different from religion." Science changes. Religion does not change. You're using carbon dating to doubt evolution (I know, I know, just because that's what Creation Scientists do and just because you did it, you really meant something else). And while you've spun around on selective dictionary definitions and


100% similar? So, "the same" is what you're saying?

NO, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Many People treat science as a religion and I am outraged at that" does not equal "science is religion, man."

Fuck, seriously.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 30 2007, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
2. "Asian" is an adjective. You could use it to describe anything from Asia if you liked. But that doesn't meant that the thing is uniformly distributed across all of Asia, or even that it's esclusive to things found in Asia. Words can and do have more than one use. You yourself do not use each word in your vocabulary exclusively for one purpose.


I've made my point as clear as possible there's no point defending it any longer. I'm just right.
"Asian"=Asian not 'from one part of Asia'

You're not talking about multiple uses. You're caliming it has one use. An incorrect use that should be adopted by the world because North America want's it that way.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 30 2007, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You can't assume that all French people speack French, nor even that all French people are from France. Nor that all French-speaking countries are France. "Asian" is legitimate as a set of peoples, many of whom live in Asia. But it's not applied to all groups of peoples living in Asia. It's not applied to Turks.


Charles Tittyfucking Darwin!!!

NO!

That's so wrong. What's worse is that you used an example that only defends my point. Viva Quebec!


It IS applied to ALL groups in Asia, because that's what it means. It's what it fucking means. I-T I-S W-H-A-T I-T M-E-A-N-S !-!-!

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 30 2007, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
3. Yes you did.


If you say so. But if I did, you're not really making a strong case against.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 30 2007, 04:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
4. I'm really not used to these online arguments that rely so heavily on selective dictionary dfefinitions of common words. Could you tell me what's wrong with using the word "discipline" when referring to a branch of biology? And is there some way that my use of it proves that all the species on the Earth arrived spontaneously in their present forms?


Oh sorry. Yeah... that was a just a funny observation. You don't don't need to defend it, I was just having fun. I realize you take this all very seriously and that you're very proud of your convictions in the cult of 'Misuse of continental termonology and Everyone but you is a religious nut'

Selective definitions?

There is nothing selective about THE (note: not MY) definition of ASIA
0

  • (10 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size