• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Synonyms, homophones and language

JoeMorgue

Self Employed , Remittance Man
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
48,325
Location
Florida
This derail into the use of synonyms and language has been split from Humans are minimally capable gods. Please use this thread to discuss language, and ignore the odd reference to theism/atheism which has unavoidably been carried over in some moved posts.
Posted By: Agatha


I probably know how to science.

I science good. I science very good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“When I use a*word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it*means*just what I choose it to*mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make*words mean*so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
 
.......
Atheists tend to despise the concept of God.
And so, they have emotional bias betwixt Gods.

Beautifully demonstrating that you don't even understand the meaning of the words you type. This is just dribble.

-


Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beautifully demonstrating that you don't even understand the meaning of the words you type. This is just dribble.

-


Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 0
.

What errors do you detect in the statement of mine you criticize above?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You say that atheists despise the concept of god, and therefore they feel differently about some gods than they do about others.

ETA: have you redefined the word "betwixt" as well?

(1)
No, the I utilized the default public definition of betwixt.
Merely 'God' is redefined.

(2)
You are yet to display the 'non-sequitor' you supposedly detected.
 
(1)
No, the I utilized the default public definition of betwixt.
Merely 'God' is redefined.


Then what you posted is a non sequitur, unless you redefined "god" betwixt the first and second sentence.

[/quote](2)
You are yet to display the 'non-sequitor' you supposedly detected.[/QUOTE]


Only if you have now redefined "display" and/or "non sequitur".
 
Then what you posted is a non sequitur, unless you redefined "god" betwixt the first and second sentence.



Your thought cycles bore me, as do the others that have responded thus far.

Have you not any valid sequence to express?

Note: If I had detected an error (amidst my expressions) based on our criticism, I would have long made that publicly known here. (The human brain is a trial/error construct anyway) However, you are yet to display any such error.

Such is your embarrassment's design.
 
We know what the word means PGJ, it just doesn't make sense in the sentence you wrote.

A prior quote of mine:

Here is its usage in a sentence via yourdictionary.com:

"After the murder of Tiberius by Naevius Sertorius Macro, the prefect of the praetorian guards, which was probably due to his instigation, Caligula ascended the throne amidst the rejoicings of the people."

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/amidst
 
Your thought cycles bore me, as do the others that have responded thus far.

Have you not any valid sequence to express?

Note: If I had detected an error (amidst my expressions) based on our criticism, I would have long made that publicly known here. (The human brain is a trial/error construct anyway) However, you are yet to display any such error.

Such is your embarrassment's design.
The embarrassment is all yours. your posts make no sense at all and you continue to torture the language.
 
Nope, what you posted still makes no sense whatsoever.

Let us break it down:

(1) My initial sentence:
...and so, they have emotional bias betwixt Gods.

(2) My initial sentence, modified with the synonym I suggested:
...and so, they have emotional bias amidst Gods.

(3) A sample sentence, from yourdictionary.com with usage of the synonym 'amidst'
...Caligula ascended the throne amidst the rejoicings of the people.

In the above sequence, I have highlighted equivalent component structures, as it relates to the sentences presented.

You will probably notice that they all align in English, absent error.
 
Last edited:
Your thought cycles bore me, as do the others that have responded thus far.

Have you not any valid sequence to express?

Note: If I had detected an error (amidst my expressions) based on our criticism, I would have long made that publicly known here. (The human brain is a trial/error construct anyway) However, you are yet to display any such error.

Such is your embarrassment's design.

Does assuming Godhood always come with affecting the speech patterns of Star Trek TOS energy beings, or dr. Who villains?
Being deliberately obtuse does not make you appear any more intelligent.

You have redefined the concept of gods to something nobody but you accepts as a good definition, and proceed to argue from there.
If you can't get anyone to accept your definition, it's useless to speculate on the implications of your definition.
An ultra logical superbeing should be able to understand something as simple as that.

EAT:
Let us break it down:

(1) My initial sentence:
...and so, they have emotional bias betwixt Gods.

(2) My initial sentence, modified with the synonym I suggested:
...and so, they have emotional bias amidst Gods.

(3) A sample sentence, from yourdictionary.com with usage of the synonym 'amidst'
...Caligula ascended the throne amidst the rejoicings of the people.

In the above sequence, I have highlighted equivalent component structures, as it relates to the sentences presented.

You will probably notice that they all align in English, absent error.
Yes, it's gramatically and syntactically correct, but not semantically. It does not mean anything to 'have bias betwixt' something.
 
Last edited:
Does assuming Godhood always come with affecting the speech patterns of Star Trek TOS energy beings, or dr. Who villains?
Being deliberately obtuse does not make you appear any more intelligent.

You have redefined the concept of gods to something nobody but you accepts as a good definition, and proceed to argue from there.
If you can't get anyone to accept your definition, it's useless to speculate on the implications of your definition.
An ultra logical superbeing should be able to understand something as simple as that.

You are not neglecting 'my re-definition'.

You are neglecting science, for the definition compounds on science.
 
Yes, it's gramatically and syntactically correct, but not semantically. It does not mean anything to 'have bias betwixt' something.

You are yet to describe how it satisfies grammatical and syntactic validity, while failing "semantically".

Edit: Your comments are irrelevant, betwixt the topic at hand..
 
Last edited:
Note: If I had detected an error (amidst my expressions) based on our criticism, I would have long made that publicly known here. (The human brain is a trial/error construct anyway) However, you are yet to display any such error.


Tell me, do you know the meaning of the word 'hubris'?
 
...Yes, it's gramatically and syntactically correct, but not semantically. It does not mean anything to 'have bias betwixt' something.

Sometimes I have to adjudicate between my children at home, sometimes I have to mediate between employees at work. In those locations I try to remain neutral, but I do allow myself to have bias betwixt the two.
 
Last edited:
Some time I have to adjudicate between my children at home, sometimes I have to mediate between employees at work. In those locations I try to remain neutral, do I do allow myself to have bias betwixt the two.

I doubt he meant it as you use it, indicating a preference for one over the other. He said this:
Atheists tend to despise the concept of God.
And so, they have emotional bias betwixt Gods.
An emotional preference for certain gods over others does not follow from the premise that atheists despise gods.

Perhaps he could have meant that atheists are biased when they are among (actual) gods, because they do not like the concept. But that only makes sense if those atheists accept his definition where normal people are redefined as gods. But that premise is precisely what we're objecting to, so it's a non sequitur to look for reasons why might reject what follows from it.
 
Last edited:
I doubt he meant it as you use it, indicating a preference for one over the other. He said this:

An emotional preference for certain gods over others does not follow from the premise that atheists despise gods.

PGJ's made it quite clear that he's using the standard definition of 'betwixt'. The problem is the "And so", not the "bias betwixt".
 
Back
Top Bottom