Remember when we were going to have debates and then no one took charge and actually organized them? Remember when we were going to have debates and then no one took charge and actually organized them?

2009-11-18T07:21:06-08:00

true

1473601

65236

2009-11-18T07:21:06-08:00

52098

After looking at some umbrella plants in books and discussing it with my mother, our advice is interestingly exactly what you guys came up with: It's a perfectly healthy plant right now, but it's not growing very big because you keep moving it around, and probably have it in a pot that is too small for its roots or watering cycles. Try transplanting it to a pot with a lot more girth, and water it so it has about the same consistency as it does now. If the leaves start to discolor, water it more or less depending on the soil. If you keep it in one spot, it should flourish in a short amount of time. After looking at some umbrella plants in books and discussing it with my mother, our advice is interestingly exactly what you guys came up with: It’s a perfectly healthy plant right now, but it’s not growing very big because you keep moving it around, and probably have it in a pot that is too small for its roots or watering cycles. Try transplanting it to a pot with a lot more girth, and water it so it has about the same consistency as it does now. If the leaves start to discolor, water it more or less depending on the soil. If you keep it in one spot, it should flourish in a short amount of time.

2009-11-15T12:04:31-08:00

true

1464608

64636

2009-11-15T12:04:31-08:00

52098

My problem is not with asking others to use different language, it's with supposed "outrage." And elitism isn't a condition of actually intelligent people by any stretch, it's just an arrogant assumption about ones own language. To your point regarding direct insults: Is it the words used to insult, or the fact that the person is trying to insult you that makes you outraged? I personally think maturity and intelligence comes from recognizing why a person is angry enough to insult you, where it seems SaintAjora is more concerned with their lack of diction. My problem is not with asking others to use different language, it’s with supposed “outrage.” And elitism isn’t a condition of actually intelligent people by any stretch, it’s just an arrogant assumption about ones own language. To your point regarding direct insults: Is it the words used to insult, or the fact that the person is trying to insult you that makes you outraged? I personally think maturity and intelligence comes from recognizing why a person is angry enough to insult you, where it seems SaintAjora is more concerned with their lack of diction.

2009-11-15T02:25:04-08:00

true

1462950

122

41004

2009-11-15T02:25:04-08:00

52098

Exactly my argument. The reason a person is usually offended is because of the context, the person's intentions which may need to be clarified, and history. A 4th modern option is "adherence to popular culture" and I'm criticizing that one, and the inherent rudeness in the arrogance of people's imposed offense. I consider this rude and elite, which is ironic since you're trying to convince the person that _they're_ the ones being rude for using language without harmful intentions. And yes, it is intellectual elitism. Swearing has not been directly correlated to intelligence. The assumption is unfounded. If you base it on your experience, I still think that's elitism. It's no different than someone growing up in DC thinking all black people steal and smoke crack. Maybe you've only experienced offensive ignorant idiots who swear, but in my intellectual circles, swearing is completely passive and unnoticed until a stranger forces themselves to be outraged and offended, or one of us casually mentions that we prefer to use different words. I think it's easier that way, and a lot more genuine. Exactly my argument. The reason a person is usually offended is because of the context, the person’s intentions which may need to be clarified, and history. A 4th modern option is “adherence to popular culture” and I’m criticizing that one, and the inherent rudeness in the arrogance of people’s imposed offense. I consider this rude and elite, which is ironic since you’re trying to convince the person that they’re the ones being rude for using language without harmful intentions. And yes, it is intellectual elitism. Swearing has not been directly correlated to intelligence. The assumption is unfounded. If you base it on your experience, I still think that’s elitism. It’s no different than someone growing up in DC thinking all black people steal and smoke crack. Maybe you’ve only experienced offensive ignorant idiots who swear, but in my intellectual circles, swearing is completely passive and unnoticed until a stranger forces themselves to be outraged and offended, or one of us casually mentions that we prefer to use different words. I think it’s easier that way, and a lot more genuine.

2009-11-15T01:39:01-08:00

true

1462905

119

41004

2009-11-15T01:42:29-08:00

52098

Is it truly possible to communicate without offending _someone_? How do you react when something you've said offends someone, Darkruler, SaintAjora? Your expectation of morality pivot on individually subjective personal definitions of obscene. How do we identify an objective grounds for offense as a moral imperative would require? Wouldn't rules about language degrade those offended by non-objective hateful words or other people's lack of offense at the defined list of obscenities? In reality, terms are offensive in their context, intent, and history. I'm not suggesting we insult each other with racial slurs, but I ask that we be less intellectually hostile towards non-professional use of this pop-culture's list of offenses. It's both boorish and comes from intellectual elitism. Name-calling is stupid and sometimes funny, but the word "Shithead" is just a word. Obscenity about pleasant things can be ironic or uncalled-for, depending on the context. People can't always be blamed for their lack of context either. Is it truly possible to communicate without offending someone? How do you react when something you’ve said offends someone, Darkruler, SaintAjora? Your expectation of morality pivot on individually subjective personal definitions of obscene. How do we identify an objective grounds for offense as a moral imperative would require? Wouldn’t rules about language degrade those offended by non-objective hateful words or other people’s lack of offense at the defined list of obscenities? In reality, terms are offensive in their context, intent, and history. I’m not suggesting we insult each other with racial slurs, but I ask that we be less intellectually hostile towards non-professional use of this pop-culture’s list of offenses. It’s both boorish and comes from intellectual elitism. Name-calling is stupid and sometimes funny, but the word “Shithead” is just a word. Obscenity about pleasant things can be ironic or uncalled-for, depending on the context. People can’t always be blamed for their lack of context either.

2009-11-14T17:13:42-08:00

true

1461368

116

41004

2009-11-14T17:16:49-08:00

52098

I agree, sounds like a moisture problem, however it's difficult to tell which way. 2 cups sounds a bit much though. How do the leaves look? I agree, sounds like a moisture problem, however it’s difficult to tell which way. 2 cups sounds a bit much though. How do the leaves look?

2009-11-13T15:00:18-08:00

true

1456983

64636

2009-11-13T15:00:30-08:00

52098

Internet is serious business and someone is wrong on it. Real Answer: Arrogance. Internet is serious business and someone is wrong on it. Real Answer: Arrogance.

2009-11-13T09:24:28-08:00

true

1456281

64545

2009-11-13T09:24:28-08:00

52098

Rereading my post I can see how you'd think that, but I wasn't really advocating swearing in front of people who don't like it. In past threads, I've explained that offense should work in a way where people mention that something offends them, and gives the offender a chance to redeem their intentions. I think poor intentions should be frowned upon, not poor language. But I do think that, in some instances, swearing for the fun of it can be useful to make social change. Particularly why I didn't edit out the word "shit" as I was typing in my last post. Can we also talk about comparative language too? Because shit is really a common word in my family, culture, and I know it's even more common in the UK. It's the word I most often slip up with when I'm talking because it is the adult word for feces/poop. I guess it's such a normal word that I don't have any censorship against it. The vast majority of the US does not, however. Rereading my post I can see how you’d think that, but I wasn’t really advocating swearing in front of people who don’t like it. In past threads, I’ve explained that offense should work in a way where people mention that something offends them, and gives the offender a chance to redeem their intentions. I think poor intentions should be frowned upon, not poor language. But I do think that, in some instances, swearing for the fun of it can be useful to make social change. Particularly why I didn’t edit out the word “shit” as I was typing in my last post. Can we also talk about comparative language too? Because shit is really a common word in my family, culture, and I know it’s even more common in the UK. It’s the word I most often slip up with when I’m talking because it is the adult word for feces/poop. I guess it’s such a normal word that I don’t have any censorship against it. The vast majority of the US does not, however.

2009-11-13T09:16:18-08:00

true

1456265

64487

2009-11-13T09:20:15-08:00

52098

Let. It. Die. Make a new thread if you want to add something new to the gender/sexuality debates. Bumping an obvious troll makes it less likely new users are going to visit SD. Let. It. Die. Make a new thread if you want to add something new to the gender/sexuality debates. Bumping an obvious troll makes it less likely new users are going to visit SD.

2009-11-13T08:47:45-08:00

true

1456215

63451

2009-11-13T08:48:35-08:00

52098

I don't think Stephen Fry or myself are asking people to not be offended, or to not disregard our arguments because we swore. I think we're explaining why we still swear despite the hostility of people. Aside from that, I would argue there are very few words where you don't have to consciously decide how you feel about it before you react. That is, besides hot button words associated with something a bully called you when you were a kid (including the N word, or even the Midget word some of my dwarf brethren hate), you honestly have to make up your offense. I agree with Fry on that respect: Everyone always seems offended for others, or they've arbitrated their own opinion. Good for them, but I choose to use all of my vocabulary, not a portion of it that makes others happy. I don’t think Stephen Fry or myself are asking people to not be offended, or to not disregard our arguments because we swore. I think we’re explaining why we still swear despite the hostility of people. Aside from that, I would argue there are very few words where you don’t have to consciously decide how you feel about it before you react. That is, besides hot button words associated with something a bully called you when you were a kid (including the N word, or even the Midget word some of my dwarf brethren hate), you honestly have to make up your offense. I agree with Fry on that respect: Everyone always seems offended for others, or they’ve arbitrated their own opinion. Good for them, but I choose to use all of my vocabulary, not a portion of it that makes others happy.

2009-11-13T08:46:40-08:00

true

1456214

64487

2009-11-13T08:46:40-08:00

52098

(Woah, Stephen Fry is over 50?) Did you just over analyze a casual interview? Stephen Fry was arguing that offense to swearing is often elitistic and arbitrary. "We must be offended by these words, why aren't you?" Your post looks quite a bit like that very whiney elitistic shit he was talking about. Forced personal taboo of a word is adorable. I can't figure out why an intelligent person would actually concern himself with the social implications of his word choice? Wouldn't an intelligent person instead prefer to hone the colors of his language to compel or offend when needed? (Woah, Stephen Fry is over 50?) Did you just over analyze a casual interview? Stephen Fry was arguing that offense to swearing is often elitistic and arbitrary. “We must be offended by these words, why aren’t you?” Your post looks quite a bit like that very whiney elitistic shit he was talking about. Forced personal taboo of a word is adorable. I can’t figure out why an intelligent person would actually concern himself with the social implications of his word choice? Wouldn’t an intelligent person instead prefer to hone the colors of his language to compel or offend when needed?

2009-11-13T08:33:34-08:00

true

1456192

64487

2009-11-13T08:35:53-08:00

52098

5 star thread. Voted Best New User 2009, despite the late arrival. Bookmarked, will reread. Can you make more of you? (I have terrible grammar and spelling when I leave my editor brain off. I have mild dyslexia that I've talked about before, and it is _rather difficult_ for me to focus all that hard on _those sorts of things_ when I'm letting the ideas spill out. You'll _often_ see my posts edited 4 or 5 times _simply_ because I'll notice 12 mistakes in later reads of the thread. I have _poor_ memory, so I _usually end up_ rereading a first page after a few pages and _subsequently_ see how _poorly_ worded _certain_ ideas were. In professional writing, I edit for a year or more before I read/publish/release anything. We all fall back on poor habits, though. I use _certain_ words too _often_, and it drives me insane. I've italicized them for you.) 5 star thread. Voted Best New User 2009, despite the late arrival. Bookmarked, will reread. Can you make more of you? (I have terrible grammar and spelling when I leave my editor brain off. I have mild dyslexia that I’ve talked about before, and it is rather difficult for me to focus all that hard on those sorts of things when I’m letting the ideas spill out. You’ll often see my posts edited 4 or 5 times simply because I’ll notice 12 mistakes in later reads of the thread. I have poor memory, so I usually end up rereading a first page after a few pages and subsequently see how poorly worded certain ideas were. In professional writing, I edit for a year or more before I read/publish/release anything. We all fall back on poor habits, though. I use certain words too often, and it drives me insane. I’ve italicized them for you.)

2009-11-12T05:58:32-08:00

true

1453132

64377

2009-11-12T06:15:01-08:00

52098

Language should change out of necessity, not laziness. Syntax also affords recognition of novel sentences. "Should of" is not formally recognizable. This is a major problem the ebonics crowd has. Language evolution happens out of logical necessity. Words that need to be made are made, and words that are too obscure will fall out of use. Their consistency of logic is still important for comprehension. There's no logic in poor grammar and spelling, and it makes reading ultimately difficult for anyone who is not culturally accustomed to vernaculars like "would of." Language should change out of necessity, not laziness. Syntax also affords recognition of novel sentences. “Should of” is not formally recognizable. This is a major problem the ebonics crowd has. Language evolution happens out of logical necessity. Words that need to be made are made, and words that are too obscure will fall out of use. Their consistency of logic is still important for comprehension. There’s no logic in poor grammar and spelling, and it makes reading ultimately difficult for anyone who is not culturally accustomed to vernaculars like “would of.”

2009-11-11T13:03:43-08:00

true

1451011

64362

2009-11-11T13:03:43-08:00

52098

These kinds of what-if problems are difficult. You've left me no choice, of course I'd kill him. Your premise doesn't allow any intelligent discussion of the concept. The real question is whether I'd feel bad about it. It would be a very difficult choice for me to make. He deserves life as much as I want to live. But ultimately, that is a good theory when our goals are mutual. The goals you've given us are entirely opposed, so our behaviors are an indication of that scenario. These kinds of what-if problems are difficult. You’ve left me no choice, of course I’d kill him. Your premise doesn’t allow any intelligent discussion of the concept. The real question is whether I’d feel bad about it. It would be a very difficult choice for me to make. He deserves life as much as I want to live. But ultimately, that is a good theory when our goals are mutual. The goals you’ve given us are entirely opposed, so our behaviors are an indication of that scenario.

2009-11-11T12:59:32-08:00

true

1450991

64347

2009-11-11T12:59:32-08:00

52098

I think that's "normalization" Badgermole. Once you remove a taboo from a society, the thing usually becomes less practiced. I think that’s “normalization” Badgermole. Once you remove a taboo from a society, the thing usually becomes less practiced.

2009-11-11T12:04:27-08:00

true

1450787

64217

2009-11-11T12:04:27-08:00

52098

I have a hard time with this as well. I'm mostly bothered by ignorant uses of words. Saying "I am good" is word play if you know what you're saying. I have a hard time with this as well. I’m mostly bothered by ignorant uses of words. Saying “I am good” is word play if you know what you’re saying.

2009-11-11T11:23:23-08:00

true

1450655

64362

2009-11-11T11:23:23-08:00

52098

I liked my post too, especially the part where a usually logical poster admitted he enjoys Cigars despite their health risks. He justifies moderation for taste, social symbolism, distrust in the future, and variety. Also, a good drink and a cigar is better than any conversation I've ever had with any woman. I liked my post too, especially the part where a usually logical poster admitted he enjoys Cigars despite their health risks. He justifies moderation for taste, social symbolism, distrust in the future, and variety. Also, a good drink and a cigar is better than any conversation I’ve ever had with any woman.

2009-11-11T06:38:27-08:00

true

1450072

64217

2009-11-11T06:41:00-08:00

52098

I like cigars. I like cigars.

2009-11-10T17:42:10-08:00

true

1448913

64217

2009-11-10T17:42:10-08:00

52098

The Amazing Atheist has somehow discovered tact since I avoided having to see his face. I think it's a testiment that we came up with relatively identical arguments. He brings up everything I would've said about dogs not having souls because they're not godlike. Is it more likely that we made up a universal truth that centered around us and our individual ideals (IE Sun revolves around the earth) or that a once-active universal constant had human interactions at one point? Remember, the only reasoning you have is that someone told you when you were growing up that Jesus died for you and you took it as fact, and later read a bible telling you as much. The unexplainable things in your life would've been attested to whatever folk demons and gods in your culture, until you become civilized and understand the way the world works, and that we are mostly in control of our destiny, and we need to understand that all things are simply yet to be understood properly. There are ways to figure those things out, and we should start using a little logic instead of self-absorbed thinking and magic. The Amazing Atheist has somehow discovered tact since I avoided having to see his face. I think it’s a testiment that we came up with relatively identical arguments. He brings up everything I would’ve said about dogs not having souls because they’re not godlike. Is it more likely that we made up a universal truth that centered around us and our individual ideals (IE Sun revolves around the earth) or that a once-active universal constant had human interactions at one point? Remember, the only reasoning you have is that someone told you when you were growing up that Jesus died for you and you took it as fact, and later read a bible telling you as much. The unexplainable things in your life would’ve been attested to whatever folk demons and gods in your culture, until you become civilized and understand the way the world works, and that we are mostly in control of our destiny, and we need to understand that all things are simply yet to be understood properly. There are ways to figure those things out, and we should start using a little logic instead of self-absorbed thinking and magic.

2009-11-09T22:09:50-08:00

true

1447110

235

63175

2009-11-09T22:10:15-08:00

52098

-9 -9

2009-11-09T13:35:08-08:00

true

1445532

205

63175

2009-11-09T13:35:08-08:00

52098

Can we flag posts for bumping spam threads with flame bait? Can we flag posts for bumping spam threads with flame bait?

2009-11-09T13:25:12-08:00

true

1445492

64087

2009-11-09T13:25:25-08:00

52098

The "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God" Commandment has been only recently misinterpreted as saying the word "God" while swearing. The phrase specifically implied not doing ill in the name of God, or wishing/damning others in His name. Bad: "God damn you." Fine: "Jesus Christ that hurt!" Horrible: "God moves my sword." however this is ambiguous, since it's okay to do this if God really did command you to do it, and anyone can say that he told them to. Makes it really easy for war-believing Christians to break this one in general, which I think was the point. It basically turns out saying don't do ill things if you want to act in His name. People forget that Christ and his followers rewrote the violent religion to be more peaceful and tolerant while still adhering to then-modern society of law. They were very humble and didn't care if anyone made fun of Christ, as evident by several stories of shame that was ignored. Sometimes he's a little proud, but it seems those were all influenced by other writers to resemble other persons and images necessary to spread his word later. The “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God” Commandment has been only recently misinterpreted as saying the word “God” while swearing. The phrase specifically implied not doing ill in the name of God, or wishing/damning others in His name. Bad: “God damn you.” Fine: “Jesus Christ that hurt!” Horrible: “God moves my sword.” however this is ambiguous, since it’s okay to do this if God really did command you to do it, and anyone can say that he told them to. Makes it really easy for war-believing Christians to break this one in general, which I think was the point. It basically turns out saying don’t do ill things if you want to act in His name. People forget that Christ and his followers rewrote the violent religion to be more peaceful and tolerant while still adhering to then-modern society of law. They were very humble and didn’t care if anyone made fun of Christ, as evident by several stories of shame that was ignored. Sometimes he’s a little proud, but it seems those were all influenced by other writers to resemble other persons and images necessary to spread his word later.

2009-11-09T13:08:19-08:00

true

1445436

202

63175

2009-11-09T13:37:24-08:00

52098

Yeah, but I haven't committed any actual crimes, just arbitrary non-praise abomination stuff. I haven't killed, raped, stolen, or even slandered my neighbor or parents. I rarely eat shellfish and I don't have gay sex. I do not covet my neighbor's wife because that's his problem. I probably sin far less than the average person, yet I'm more "likely" to go to hell than any one person because I'm not willing to pay for the bad sins everyone else committed. That's not fair, it's just arbitration. Just because I am a human I have to pay all human debts. Who died for dogs' sins? They seem to be indifferent from humans except their obvious intelligence level: What is their existence, purpose, and validity in this world of sin and debt? Of course the bible says they're just animals we get to eat or keep, ask yourself if you really believe that you are more special than your dog. You're equally complex, just tailored for specific tasks. You cannot smell your way out of a paper bag, but the evolved dog can find a single smell among millions and tell you how old it is. You know that dog is just as important, useful, and world-contributing as you are, you can just think about it. Why is God interested in you and your problems, but your dog is, as far as God is concerned, just another "thing?" Human ego doesn't seem obvious and implied by world religions to anyone else here? Yeah, but I haven’t committed any actual crimes, just arbitrary non-praise abomination stuff. I haven’t killed, raped, stolen, or even slandered my neighbor or parents. I rarely eat shellfish and I don’t have gay sex. I do not covet my neighbor’s wife because that’s his problem. I probably sin far less than the average person, yet I’m more “likely” to go to hell than any one person because I’m not willing to pay for the bad sins everyone else committed. That’s not fair, it’s just arbitration. Just because I am a human I have to pay all human debts. Who died for dogs’ sins? They seem to be indifferent from humans except their obvious intelligence level: What is their existence, purpose, and validity in this world of sin and debt? Of course the bible says they’re just animals we get to eat or keep, ask yourself if you really believe that you are more special than your dog. You’re equally complex, just tailored for specific tasks. You cannot smell your way out of a paper bag, but the evolved dog can find a single smell among millions and tell you how old it is. You know that dog is just as important, useful, and world-contributing as you are, you can just think about it. Why is God interested in you and your problems, but your dog is, as far as God is concerned, just another “thing?” Human ego doesn’t seem obvious and implied by world religions to anyone else here?

2009-11-09T11:57:33-08:00

true

1445256

200

63175

2009-11-09T11:59:26-08:00

52098

I don't know how any of that payment method is fair to me. I don’t know how any of that payment method is fair to me.

2009-11-08T17:35:19-08:00

true

1443633

197

63175

2009-11-08T17:35:19-08:00

52098

We're talking about 2 different things now. I didn't commit any murders, and I never will. The major crimes I've committed against your God are the arbitrary childlike ones about jealousy and not believing in him since he hasn't proven anything to me. I am being punished as if the past is my fault. How am I at fault for those sins? Why should I love someone that does all of those things to me? Do you deny any of those points? We’re talking about 2 different things now. I didn’t commit any murders, and I never will. The major crimes I’ve committed against your God are the arbitrary childlike ones about jealousy and not believing in him since he hasn’t proven anything to me. I am being punished as if the past is my fault. How am I at fault for those sins? Why should I love someone that does all of those things to me? Do you deny any of those points?

2009-11-08T09:21:16-08:00

true

1442001

184

63175

2009-11-08T09:21:27-08:00

52098