God or Not?

Semantics is the last resort of the scoundrel

Posted on July 5th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.

Tell you what, Dev, I’ll make it even simpler for you. If you say “I
really want to blow up the Houses of Parliament and all those retarded
politicians in it” and I reply “Good Lord, man you’re a terrorist
asshole!”, does that make me a hypocrite?

On Jul 5, 12:27 pm, Dev wrote:
> Trying to distort the conversation again, huh fucktard? The issue was
> the hypocrisy of you calling me a “Nazi cunt” because of my “hostile
> rhetoric”. Every sentient human can see the hypocrisy of name-calling
> based on name-calling, so every sentient human being can see that you
> are not a sentient human being.
>
> On Jul 5, 9:39 am, Baz wrote:
>
> > Even if these accusations about my lack of sincerity, game playing,
> > trolling, etc are true, which they partly are, so what? What high and
> > noble purpose do all you pompous twits serve here?
>
> > As for poor little Dev being maligned by nasty me, I don’t actually
> > think he’s a extremist nazi cunt, I think he just writes like one on
> > too many occasions, and all you groupies give him a pass! If he
> > doesn’t like the name-calling, he should do less of it himself, and
> > tone down the rhetoric. If that makes me a troll, I take it as a
> > compliment
>
> > On Jul 4, 8:29 pm, LL wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 4, 11:25 am, “Trance Gemini” wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Dev wrote:
>
> > > > > By the way, two questions:
>
> > > > > (1) Is this thread about semantics?
> > > > > (2) What’s it called?
>
> > > > Why bother with this guy Dev?
>
> > > > He’s just playing games.
>
> > > LL: I don’t think he is. He believes this stuff, which, of course, is
> > > even worse than playing games.
>
> > > > > On Jul 4, 12:00 pm, Dev wrote:
> > > > > > Now, here’s what’s interesting: you could have defined the words you
> > > > > > used, or you could have taken the time to start this thread making an
> > > > > > excuse for not being able to define said words. It sure seems like the
> > > > > > latter would take more effort–that is, if you actually knew what the
> > > > > > fuck you were talking about.
>
> > > > > > On Jul 4, 11:53 am, Baz wrote:
>
> > > > > > > July 4th. Samuel Johnson’s quote comes to mind “Patriotism is the last
> > > > > > > resort of the scoundrel”. True enough. But in AvsC it seems like every
> > > > > > > time you want to say something, or get somebody on the ropes, or some
> > > > > > > grammarian thinks they score an easy point, it’s, “define this word
> > > > > > > or concept”, or, “you obviously don’t understand this word or that
> > > > > > > concept” (it’s always “obviously”, because they obviously know that
> > > > > > > you obviously DO understand it, but want to obfuscate the issue by
> > > > > > > pretending they know something you don’t). And I’m not talking about
> > > > > > > difficult concepts, I’m talking about commonly used words…. somebody
> > > > > > > asked me to define “extremism” recently. Somebody else attempted to
> > > > > > > invalidate my whole post because they objected to my of my use of the
> > > > > > > word “belief”, and it wasn’t even used in regard to religion!. Come
> > > > > > > on. It’s just too easy to sidestep discussion and criticism by
> > > > > > > challenging commonly used words.
>
> > > > > > > Back at uni they made me read W.O.V. Quine. Now if you ever read this
> > > > > > > stuff you will know that it is the most stultifying turgid stuff ever
> > > > > > > written. What I got from it is that you can’t say anything meaningful
> > > > > > > about anything because the meaning of a word or construct to you
> > > > > > > cannot be proven to be the same meaning of a word or construct to me.
> > > > > > > Empiricism, I think it was called, (I dunno, I’m probably
> > > > > > > misrepresenting… oh, well, some logical positivist will no doubt
> > > > > > > jump all over my ass for this post anyway). All this while using terms
> > > > > > > like “Confirmation holism and ontological relativity” (yes, yes, I
> > > > > > > ripped it off from his bio in Wikipee). Eventually you just disappear
> > > > > > > up your own semantic arsehole, and I think it’s fair to say that was
> > > > > > > the judgment of history upon him.
>
> > > > > > > So I believe (yes “believe”) that the appeal to semantics is crap.
> > > > > > > There are given and intuitive meanings for simple words and concepts
> > > > > > > in any given culture, and it’s not helpful and should not be
> > > > > > > acceptable for some twat to demand that you define the meaning of the
> > > > > > > word “meaning” (for example) just because he/she is out of other
> > > > > > > arguments.
>
> > > > > > > I exclude from my fulminations here the specific (and impossibly
> > > > > > > nerdy) discussions on AvsC that actually ARE about semantics. Have at
> > > > > > > it guys, have fun. I’ll be in the pub.
>
> > > > > > > So I make this proposition, this house believes (ommigod, can I use
> > > > > > > the word believe?) that the appeal to semantics is the last resort of
> > > > > > > the defeated (and of scoundrels, and grammarians), and that it should
> > > > > > > be pointed out and sneered at whenever it rears its ugly head. What
> > > > > > > say you, groupies?
>
> > > > > > >http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grammarian.htm-Hide
> > > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > –
> > > > ————————————————
> > > > Trance Gemini
> > > > Irrationally held “truths” may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
> > > > — Thomas Henry Huxley
>
> > > > Which God Do You Kill For? –Unknown
>
> > > > Love is friendship on fire — Unknown- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

0 comments.