• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Coke creates advert that causes conservatives to go nuts

mijopaalmc said:
It think you mean "double the cube"–√2 is a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructible_number]constructible number[/url]; ∛2 is not.
Click to expand...

No, it's "Double the Square". It was the Liarouchies intellectual come-on. It was based on Socrates' Meno dialogue. It's designed to get you questioning your own perceptions because us normal dummies are supposed to think "well, gawly, if'n you just double the sides, you'll double the square, obviously". No, I'm not kidding.
 
Do people really think of english as some purity that must be protected? Personally I find it rather suiting to the US as a language that just incorporates elements from others when it needs them, but I'm totally cool with people speaking whatever the hell they want (other than jealousy since I don't have any talent with languages and have never been able to learn another).
 
Border Reiver said:
How is it relevant?
Click to expand...
It's not. It's a LaRouche tactic.

elbe said:
Do people really think of english as some purity that must be protected? Personally I find it rather suiting to the US as a language that just incorporates elements from others when it needs them, but I'm totally cool with people speaking whatever the hell they want (other than jealousy since I don't have any talent with languages and have never been able to learn another).
Click to expand...

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nicoll#cite_note-5
 
catsmate1 said:
And in the world of the sane the lunatic convicted felon with a messiah complex (and cult to match) is well, a lunatic. There's precious little "sane" in his Giant Satanic Conspiracy ravings (what's he got against the World Wildlife Fund anyway?), his Leibniz obsession, his rants about The Beatles being a British Plot, Pokémon being a child murder cult or the nascent environmental movement causing the 1979 Iranian revolutions.......
Click to expand...

Oh, my. I don't know who this guy is, but I'm starting to like him.
 
catsmate1 said:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nicoll#cite_note-5
Click to expand...

English is a bit of an artificial language. IIRC 50% of its vocabulary comes from Latin, mostly through French. That's how I was able to learn it so easily.
 
Belz... said:
English is a bit of an artificial language. IIRC 50% of its vocabulary comes from Latin, mostly through French. That's how I was able to learn it so easily.
Click to expand...

I think artificial is not really the right word. Like all natural languages it has undergone and continues to undergo the type of changes that has "purists" spluttering with rage.

For example, some pedantic old duffer who used to edit the Daily Telegraph called Simon Heffer has written a book called Strictly English in which he constantly admonishes his readers that they are to use "correct English" in a logical manner and with good style. For instance, he writes "If a sentiment can be expressed using a positive rather than a negative, always do so." and in the very next sentence he writes '"No-one was likely to fail the examination" is not so direct as "everyone was likely to pass".'

His book is either a hilarious compendium of idiotic pratfalls, or a depressingly irritating and pompous harangue by a supercilious ignoramus, depending upon one's mood.
 
Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies, evil furriner propaganda at the Superbowl! Oh my God! Lyndon LaRouche was right!
 
elbe said:
Do people really think of english as some purity that must be protected? Personally I find it rather suiting to the US as a language that just incorporates elements from others when it needs them, but I'm totally cool with people speaking whatever the hell they want (other than jealousy since I don't have any talent with languages and have never been able to learn another).
Click to expand...

catsmate1 said:
It's not. It's a LaRouche tactic.


The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nicoll#cite_note-5
Click to expand...

Very true. The dangers of English being overtaken in the US are slim and none. It's the other languages in the world that better watch their backs. English has risen in less than a hundred years to lingua franca for international travel. And just adding in every school kid in China and India, and you've got nearly half the world with English language speaking/writing capability - to varying degrees, of course.

I don't think this whole concern is really "all about English". That's just the banner it's moving forward behind. This is fear. Bobby Dylan told 'em their old road was rapidly changin', but they prefer to think they can maneuver along in their Conestoga wagons over the pot holes and steep downhills and everything will just go back to some idyllic time that never really existed.
 
catsmate1 said:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nicoll#cite_note-5
Click to expand...

This quote has always made me laugh - especially as I picture the English language being anthropomorphized as a stereotypical Victorian footpad passsing the words off to his higher class fence at the local dogfight.
 
CplFerro said:
Dear Reiver,

Not Classical culture meaning the culture of Classical Greece, but the Classical art that existed from the Renaissance onward, in terms of art holding ideas as referenced by the LaRoucheans. That is the higher level of universality that defeats the arbitrary pluralism of contemporary national cultures.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "higher level of universality" - if something is universal it already is just that - one cannot become "more universal".

National cultures are not arbitrarily pluralistic - cultures are different because different groups of people have individual histories, languages, etc that shape them and their experiences.
 
The thing that always worries me about the right's incessant invoking of the "founding fathers" is this:

The founding fathers considered blacks to be sub-human. Women were not permitted to vote. No people of color had any rights a white man had to respect. Child labor was allowed.

The Glenn Becks have managed to manipulate the conversation so that when people express what is basically hate speech they tell you in advance, "If you call it hate speech you're the hater!" So when a bunch of right-wingers rant about non-whites being featured in a commercial about America and being labeled "Americans," they've preempted the idea that it is bigotry. They've taken that off the table so to speak.

Only if it's not hate what is it? This is the manipulation of language that Orwell was getting at in 1984. He probably should've named the book, 2024.

But let's be realistic. The Glenn Becks are dying out and they know it. Their time is just about over. What we're hearing is the anguished cries of a group of dinosaurs on the brink of extinction.

Or so I hope!
 
CplFerro said:
Dear Dr.,

This doesn't seem promising, so I'll skip to the end.
Click to expand...

Thank you for quoting all my work, if not actually responding to any of it.

If you can't see the absurdity in the idea that the globalist melting pot is not going to run out of its precious diversity once everything has slid in all directions and there's nothing you can measure any more, what can I say? We want to live in very different universes.
Click to expand...

And you can't see the absurdity in the idea that the conservation of an idealized classical culture is not going to destroy the creativity and innovation that lead to the best element of that classical culture. We really do want to live in very different universes.

ETA: You want to live in a museum, while I want to live in the artists colony that visits the museum for inspiration every now and again.

And Wagner is not Classical.
Click to expand...

I don't think I mentioned Wagner, but what about Van Halen? Surely that is classical, right?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
CplFerro said:
Dear Foolmewunz,....
Click to expand...
Dear CplFerro,

This is an open discussion with many people involved which means many people are reading your posts. We know who you are responding to when you quote your post so your additional, flowery verbiage is superfluous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom