Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 971
    MEMBERS
  • 55322
    MESSAGES
  • 43
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Catholicism vs Change   Religion

Started 2/13/20 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 8471 views.
RGoss99

From: RGoss99

3/15/20

As usual, a misquote. You claimed to know the rules regarding use of "..." when things are omitted, that the ommission does not alter the meating. However what you left out is

"... 5- Au èp`ñe imoted bu cpmmon history, language, cultural traits" which nullifies your message. 

You are defining "scottish" as only residents of Scotland, which omits those who whare a common history, language, and cultural traits living outside of Scotland, who are "scottish".

Conviently you still have not provided your definition of a race, why is that. 

Put inother way if there are 5 valid definitions of Scotish as a race, posting one does not nullify the others. 

Had you read and understood the definition I posted you would know that your socalled exceptions are using that of race that is no longer accepted. What you have done, is passively limited race to white, black, yellow, which is simplyThe concept that is anthropologicly bogus. Yes, it is popular and traditional, but not scientificly accepted. It is a tradition of Biblical origins, and does nothing to nullify the definition that I gave.

If a Scottish resident is Black or Asian, if he is of the langauge and culture, he can still be a member of the Scottish race, and at the same time asian and black, as the two do not cancel each other.

G=G+1 for having to repeat myself, to remind you what you are dishonestly omitting.

For example I am Scottish by birth, language, and culture, but my ADN is Germanic primarily because, as with the Majority of residents of Scotland, I am not a Celt..

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

3/15/20

No, Knox is a schollar using the term "race" as defined in the dictionary, essentially a "type" in the language of his day. Your B/W/Y are also not scientific, as I posted with a source which you are ignoring. G=G+1

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

3/15/20

What you are basicly doing is denying what you have already agreed with. A Word becomes such when it is used in a context that another person understands the meaning of, whether in a dictionary or not. In this discussion, without providing your definition you have decided without any backing that your choice of meaning is absolute, therefore anyother establishe definition must be wrong. Which is not logical or the way a language Works.

Here is a definition of a definition from Aristotle who says a valid definition has two parts. Part 1 - assign a thing to a class, part 2. show how that thing differes from other members of that class. I have done this by 1 defining race as a class of people in this context, and 2. showing difference by culture and language. The race of Nigerians or Dutch are not defined by the same culture or lanjguage as the Scottish. The same goes for the Dutch. E.G. while both are ethnicities by one definition, and nationalities by another, they must also be races in that context. Australians, of whatever ethnic group are also a race because of a language, address, and culture they share different from the others of the English Race.

G=G+1

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

3/15/20

RGoss99 said:

"... 5- Au èp`ñe imoted bu cpmmon history, language, cultural traits" which nullifies your message.

I'll have to take your word for it, as the sentence makes no sense to me.

RGoss99 said:

Conviently you still have not provided your definition of a race, why is that.

I have endeavoured to explain that the concept of race is an outdated one.

RGoss99 said:

Put inother way if there are 5 valid definitions of Scotish as a race, posting one does not nullify the others.

Just because you gave five examples of what you think a race is, does not make you right.

Simply put, you are confusing race with ethnicity.

That is the only point that has any relevance.

RGoss99 said:

G=G+1 for having to repeat myself, to remind you what you are dishonestly omitting.

Fuck you, you insufferable twunt.

RGoss99 said:

For example I am Scottish by birth, language, and culture, but my ADN is Germanic primarily because, as with the Majority of residents of Scotland, I am not a Celt..

I'm not saying you are not Scottish.

I'm saying that you are just another person who loves to scream "racist!" whenever someone says something you don't like.  It's a lazy catch-all word.


You like dictionary definitions.  Here are some dictionary definitions of "Scottish".

Scottish - Collins

(sk?t?? )
adjective
Scottish means belonging or relating to Scotland, its people, language, or culture.
...Scottish football.
...the Scottish Highlands.

Scottish - Cambridge

adjective
uk
/'sk?t.??/ us
/'sk??.t???/
Scottish dancing/music
the Scottish Highlands
Scottish law

Scottish - Merriam Webster

: of, relating to, or characteristic of Scotland, Scots, or the Scots

Scottish - Dictionary.com

adjective

Also Scots. of or relating to Scotland, its people, or their language.

noun

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

3/15/20

I don't care that you posted a quote from some old fart with a source.

It's just a quote from an old fart.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

3/15/20

RGoss99 said:

A Word becomes such when it is used in a context that another person understands the meaning of, whether in a dictionary or not.

That is the case for new words, yes.

However, this is a word that is losing credibility in academic circles, given the dubious, and bigoted, nature of its creation.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

3/15/20

RGoss99 said:

Had you read and understood the definition I posted you would know that your socalled exceptions are using that of race that is no longer accepted.

Extreme racism is making a comeback.

I almost envy you for living in a society where there are some differences but none of the extremism you see here.

RGoss99

From: RGoss99

3/16/20

simple physics, action of any type cause an equal and opposite reaction. 

As the U.S. keepe escalating their aggression, and incourages Israel to do likewise, it is normal and predictable that the victims Will also escalate. The problema with the currently misused catchall term "terrorism" ignores the fact that the states with Powers tend to make the rules, so when weaker peoples react with the weapons that remain to them, they are accused of being terrorists because they don´t play by the "rules" imposed by the aggressors.

bml00

From: bml00

3/16/20

stupid defintion - terrorists attack soft targets such as buses or bars or supermarkets where innocent people collect , funerals , weddings etc

BM

Msg 1213.159 deleted
TOP