Welcoem to posts!!
in the future - u will be able to do some more stuff here,,,!! like pat catgirl- i mean um yeah... for now u can only see others's posts :c
129 - 22
Thoughts on President Andrew Johnson?
35 - 22
The first sign you're dealing with a Chronic Midwit is if they use definitions as arguments.
'According to Merriam Webster-' SILENCE, MIDWIT!!
Definitions only serve to make sure both speakers use the term in the same way. Definitions cannot 'prove' anything. They cannot make statements about Things. They merely classify those Things. Changing the label on something does not change the Thing itself.
Even if your opponent is using a word completely 'wrong,' their argument could still be perfectly correct. Arguments are judged by the facts they refer to, not the terms they use to communicate those facts.
If your argument consists of a definition, you are stupid. You do not understand language.
'America is NOT a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic!'
If I (and everyone else) use 'democracy' to mean 'a system where people vote for their leaders,' then pedantic semantics are irrelevant to the question. Every argument I make against 'democracy' in the colloquial sense fully applies to 'constitutional republics,' because what I MEAN by 'democracy' INCLUDES your precious 'Constitutional Republic.'
'Life begins at conception, because life is defined scientifically as beginning at conception!'
Again, this is semantics. It's a tautology. You haven't proven anything by citing a 'scientific definition' of life, because we weren't actually talking about life in that scientific sense. We were talking about PERSONHOOD, which is a philosophical and NOT a scientific concept. You cannot empirically measure personhood, you cannot run experiments to test if a newly-formed fetus has a soul.
If we were talking about life in the scientific sense, then 'life begins at conception' just means 'conception begins at conception,' an utterly banal and useless statement which tells us nothing. It's equivocation- treating two distinct concepts as though they're equivalent, simply because we use the same word for both. It is intuition pumping, apply all the connotations of personhood that 'life' (in the philosophical sense) brings with it, to the mechanistic concept of 'scientific life,' which does not actually IMPLY any of those associations.
'Trangender women aren't women, because women have XX chromosomes!' Again, pure semantics. Trangenders never claimed to be women in the biological sense! They never claimed to be females. Rather, they were using the definition of 'woman' as 'someone who presents femininity.' I am NOT pro-Trans, but the correct argument against them is not 'muh biology,' the correct argument is 'transition surgeries are dangerous and no studies have demonstrated positive results.'
READ WITTGENSTEIN!
51 - 29
If you still don't understand why "Muh Merriam-Webster definition" is irrelevant pedantic midwittery, watch this.
24 - 15
Villagers of the world unite
175 - 40
> Notorious Drunkard
> Becomes President, immediately hires all his buddies
> Only President to be arrested in office (for speeding)
> Violently Antisemitic
Was Ulysses S. Grant our first Frat Guy President?
115 - 38
Unintelligent people are incapable of answering a 'why' question.
If you ask them WHY they believe something, they simply repeat what they believe. You ask for an argument, and they just explain the belief again, as though you didn't hear them the first time. They can only summarize, never justify.
Another example: If you ask WHY they liked a movie, they will simply list things that happened in the movie. 'When he jumped out of the plane! And then he ran up and shot that guy!' Yes, I also watched the movie. Just now. With you. I asked for analysis, not summary.
Deeply funny behavior.
164 - 61
Reject Nationalism, Embrace Microstates
88 - 57
New unscripted video dropped!
21 - 3
What's your META-ethical position?
23 - 29
Nuclear Power, World Peace, and a million tiny Liechtensteins in the stars 🇱🇮🚀✨