Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
In the context used (Carrot changing her direction midair, yes it was). The word used was "floating", so in this case, "floating" meant "flying" :)
It is. Still is.
And this ^ is wrong. It was not a double jump, but change of direction. Not AT ALL created by anything related to a moon walk but by a SPECIFIC (and still unexplained) characteristic of Carrot.
That seems to by explained easily by Oda willingness to portray the legend of the flying rabbit he talked about here:
Thus once again proving that it was not a "floating" but really "a flying" action.
I I just proved you once again that you were wrong :)
Usuing literally the same argumentation. without even having to read the rest of your quotes.
-
Thus showing that your assertion "I don't understand english", is in reality not me not understanding English, but you not understanding a simple manga panel.
We can go on for ages if you want. You will still be wrong.
It is. Still is.
And this ^ is wrong. It was not a double jump, but change of direction. Not AT ALL created by anything related to a moon walk but by a SPECIFIC (and still unexplained) characteristic of Carrot.
That seems to by explained easily by Oda willingness to portray the legend of the flying rabbit he talked about here:
Thus once again proving that it was not a "floating" but really "a flying" action.
I I just proved you once again that you were wrong :)
Usuing literally the same argumentation. without even having to read the rest of your quotes.
-
Thus showing that your assertion "I don't understand english", is in reality not me not understanding English, but you not understanding a simple manga panel.
We can go on for ages if you want. You will still be wrong.
In the context used (Carrot changing her direction midair, yes it was). The word used was "floating", so in this case, "floating" meant "flying" :)
It is. Still is.
And this ^ is wrong. It was not a double jump, but change of direction. Not AT ALL created by anything related to a moon walk but by a SPECIFIC (and still unexplained) characteristic of Carrot.
That seems to by explained easily by Oda willingness to portray the legend of the flying rabbit he talked about here:
Thus once again proving that it was not a "floating" but really "a flying" action.
I I just proved you once again that you were wrong :)
Usuing literally the same argumentation. without even having to read the rest of your quotes.
-
Thus showing that your assertion "I don't understand english", is in reality not me not understanding English, but you not understanding a simple manga panel.
It is. Still is.
And this ^ is wrong. It was not a double jump, but change of direction. Not AT ALL created by anything related to a moon walk but by a SPECIFIC (and still unexplained) characteristic of Carrot.
That seems to by explained easily by Oda willingness to portray the legend of the flying rabbit he talked about here:
Thus once again proving that it was not a "floating" but really "a flying" action.
I I just proved you once again that you were wrong :)
Usuing literally the same argumentation. without even having to read the rest of your quotes.
-
Thus showing that your assertion "I don't understand english", is in reality not me not understanding English, but you not understanding a simple manga panel.
I know only me and probably @AL sama remember this, but the funniest convo I saw here was Logiko claiming anyone who owned a building is an oppressor. Al's family owns an apartment building and the back and forth was fucking priceless 
I consider that searching to make a point with a dictionnary definition is a rethorical failure.
Dictionnaries are here to register words.
Problem: Languages constantly evolves. So dictionnaries have two major blind spots:
- They are usually slow at reproducting the realities of languages and sometimes the mere fact of updating a dictionnaries become a struggle or even the testimony of a class contempt.
- They can be used to reduce the complexity of a word, concept or element.
The second case is something that I face a LOT on this thread. Dictionnary definition used to reduce the complexity of a concept and sometimes, definition that are not even really updated to the reality of the world and the common usage.
Dictionnaries are here to register words.
Problem: Languages constantly evolves. So dictionnaries have two major blind spots:
- They are usually slow at reproducting the realities of languages and sometimes the mere fact of updating a dictionnaries become a struggle or even the testimony of a class contempt.
- They can be used to reduce the complexity of a word, concept or element.
The second case is something that I face a LOT on this thread. Dictionnary definition used to reduce the complexity of a concept and sometimes, definition that are not even really updated to the reality of the world and the common usage.
Do as you wish mate
Technically, it can be true yes. Althought it's not a really volontary process, but more of a simple evolution of language.
But what Zenos doesn't understand is that I in fact never get a definition wrong. In reality I mostly get it right, but my definition extends BEYOND the definition of the dictionnaries to the boundaries of the encyclopedias.
When - for example - Zenos tells me that "man" means "sex", while it can be true for dictionnaries with unedited or non updated version. It's not true for the encyclopedic and scientific observations of realities that goes far beyond what dictionnaries know.
If you want a metaphore, when I says that science and encyclopedia are superior to dictionnaries
Its me saying that it is MUCH more efficiant and reliable to study a planet through a Giant telescope with collections of datas and informations rather than through the science book of an highschool studient.
Technically, it can be true yes. Althought it's not a really volontary process, but more of a simple evolution of language.
But what Zenos doesn't understand is that I in fact never get a definition wrong. In reality I mostly get it right, but my definition extends BEYOND the definition of the dictionnaries to the boundaries of the encyclopedias.
When - for example - Zenos tells me that "man" means "sex", while it can be true for dictionnaries with unedited or non updated version. It's not true for the encyclopedic and scientific observations of realities that goes far beyond what dictionnaries know.
If you want a metaphore, when I says that science and encyclopedia are superior to dictionnaries
Its me saying that it is MUCH more efficiant and reliable to study a planet through a Giant telescope with collections of datas and informations rather than through the science book of an highschool studient.
"man" means "sex"?
nah bro, i just say man/woman are defined by sex, because they are. adult human male/female respectively.
a gender identity based definition is utterly meaningless, which is why no one except a very vocal minority uses these terms the way you do.
apples and oranges
nah bro, i just say man/woman are defined by sex, because they are. adult human male/female respectively.
a gender identity based definition is utterly meaningless, which is why no one except a very vocal minority uses these terms the way you do.
Post automatically merged:
apples and oranges
And that's why I say that you are wrong, since you are looking at the definition of dictionnaries that don't take the scientific consensus into account.
And this consensus will always be superior in reliability and value to dictionnaries. No matter the context.
And no, that's not apples and oranges.
And this consensus will always be superior in reliability and value to dictionnaries. No matter the context.
And no, that's not apples and oranges.