But they were. Why would I have written them otherwise?
They weren't edited in; you can see my post hasn't been edited.
Quotation marks are for, yes, quoting people. I was quoting you and your pal up there.
If people cared oh so much as they claim, they'd be out in Africa and the Middle East helping the poor and the refugees. But peoples definition of caring these days is tweeting about how awful it is. Cos I'm sure all the people suffering and oppressed really give a shit that they're in your thoughts.
If people cared oh so much as they claim, they'd be out in Africa and the Middle East helping the poor and the refugees. But peoples definit… moreion of caring these days is tweeting about how awful it is. Cos I'm sure all the people suffering and oppressed really give a shit that they're in your thoughts.
Inform myself of what? What JSTOR studies can you link me to? I coudl easily say the same to you: that you should educate yourself on linguistics. But I won't, because that implies you're stupid and you're not.
Sorry that I started from the end of your reply, but I dislike when people say that my reply is bullshit (you said "Um, but that's bullshit"). Especially when that person does not know who I am, doesn't know my opinion and doesn't know why I commented it. It's like if I said that your comment was terrible. I don't truly know you (besides being Flog), I don't know where you came from and I don't know your ideas.
So yeah... before you say something is bullshit, inform yourself before you speak.
[Equality] In security? What does that mean?
That we all are the same under authority such as police. If we are insecure, we are secured. Police attend anybody that is in need of help (and insecurity). That's the way I understand the definition of equality in security.
There aren't flaws in your opinion as it is a harmless opinion.
Thanks
But that's the same for literally every human in existence with abstract nouns, it is their nature.
and...
The facts are: there has never been one single definition of, for example, love, and as a result of that it is impossible for it's 'true' meaning to be lost, as there is no one 'true' meaning.
and...
the meaning of 'love' there hasn't been lost [...] Or, truly, it has 'evolved' which is the entire point of language.
and...
you're stating that the meaning of love has been lost, which makes no sense, because there was never one uniform meaning of love to lose in the first place.
and...
Your point is true: equality means different things to different people. That does not mean we have lost the 'point' of them, or forget their true meaning: their true meaning evolves. That's the nature of linguistics.
I must say that I agree with you, because I do.
But, isn't changing into something else mean a part of it (to not say all) is lost?
So, here we go with my example:
There's a normal and simple village. A couple of houses, a religious building and a market. But suddenly they destroyed a the whole village to build a city. Now, the city has tons of houses, tons of religious buildings and tons of supermarkets. It "evolved", it changed, but it isn't the same. Yeah, it's still a place where people can live in, but it isn't the village it was because it had been modified a lot (up to the point of destroying it). The village is lost because "now" and "before" changed it too much... it's a city.
I am no linguistic like you, so I used this humble example for you to understand me better.
I know the meaning and you too, but I'm sure your meaning of justice, love and equality is different from mine.
But that's the same … morefor literally every human in existence with abstract nouns, it is their nature.
Obviously we're more equal now then, let's say, the 700's or the late 1930's in Germany. But do you mean "equality" in security? In voting rights? In freedom of expression opinions and sexual orientation? Yes, but no. We're equal (legally, but maybe not morally) in all of what I asked previously. And I say we as in (some) First World countries. But, "equality" can be also for the same amount of wealth, happiness, respect and equal treatment in justice for all people (and we're not all equal in those things).
In security? What does that mean?
Your point is true: equality means different things to different people. That does not mean we have lost the 'point' of them, or forget their true meaning: their true mean… [view original content]
Oh, I see! Thanks for explaining it. Anywho, your example wasn't so awful.
Note: I'm not good at examples, but you should get the main point, you're a smart guy. Another thing: these do not necessarily reflect my personal beliefs, so no one grill me about it. (Not referring to you Fau, you're cool)
Like, believing people can change, and not just punishing them.
Note: I'm not good at examples, but you should get the main point, you're… more a smart guy. Another thing: these do not necessarily reflect my personal beliefs, so no one grill me about it. (Not referring to you Fau, you're cool)
Let's say there are two people on trial for.....I don't know, murder. The family of the dead are outraged, the court agrees, and 'justice', is given, in the form of death.
And there's another two people, and another family. Same charges, but this family openly forgives the people, and the court does as well, and they aren't give death.
It's just believing people should have a second chance, you know?
Comments
But they were. Why would I have written them otherwise?
They weren't edited in; you can see my post hasn't been edited.
Quotation marks are for, yes, quoting people. I was quoting you and your pal up there.
Not that Flog, the excuse that it's just opinions.
Oh, apologies.
How is that an excuse? It's true.
Except there are society rules of what is commonly rude...But whatever, I'm done fighting.
Which society rules say being open about one's laughter is rude?
Should I hide it? Laugh behind his back at him?
Yes.
Rule 1003, look in your handbook.
Yes, because I never would know. It's not like I would find out anything.
Heck, I wouldn't even know if you read the comment.
If people cared oh so much as they claim, they'd be out in Africa and the Middle East helping the poor and the refugees. But peoples definition of caring these days is tweeting about how awful it is. Cos I'm sure all the people suffering and oppressed really give a shit that they're in your thoughts.
Sorry that I started from the end of your reply, but I dislike when people say that my reply is bullshit (you said "Um, but that's bullshit"). Especially when that person does not know who I am, doesn't know my opinion and doesn't know why I commented it. It's like if I said that your comment was terrible. I don't truly know you (besides being Flog), I don't know where you came from and I don't know your ideas.
So yeah... before you say something is bullshit, inform yourself before you speak.
That we all are the same under authority such as police. If we are insecure, we are secured. Police attend anybody that is in need of help (and insecurity). That's the way I understand the definition of equality in security.
Thanks
and...
and...
and...
and...
I must say that I agree with you, because I do.
But, isn't changing into something else mean a part of it (to not say all) is lost?
So, here we go with my example:
There's a normal and simple village. A couple of houses, a religious building and a market. But suddenly they destroyed a the whole village to build a city. Now, the city has tons of houses, tons of religious buildings and tons of supermarkets. It "evolved", it changed, but it isn't the same. Yeah, it's still a place where people can live in, but it isn't the village it was because it had been modified a lot (up to the point of destroying it). The village is lost because "now" and "before" changed it too much... it's a city.
I am no linguistic like you, so I used this humble example for you to understand me better.
Oh, I see! Thanks for explaining it. Anywho, your example wasn't so awful.