Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[tabzer]

In both examples, you are trying to redefine X into existence

By saying this you are doing both of us a disservice. I haven't redefined "soul" or "dinosaurs" and you know this. You call it "redefined" because it is homework you elected not to do. If you want to talk about deflection, this is a potent area.

Do you want to say that dinosaurs don't exist?

The non-avian dinosaurs went extinct approximately 65 million years ago.

It appears that you are the one that wants to say that dinosaurs still exist.

I always want to talk about dinosaurs, but this isn't the place to do so.

Half-good on you.

Somebody doesn't recognize a rhetorical joke when he sees one.

Usually jokes are funny and include the audience in on the joke. It was passive at best.

 

[urherenow]

Impeachment can be used on someone who is no longer in office. We have precedent for it happening, and virtually every legal scholar agrees. It was almost comical when Trump's legal defense misquoted a legal scholar in a desperate attempt to find someone who would agree with them that someone out of office cannot be impeached. Try again.

I didn't say he Cannot. I say it's a pointless waste of time and money. He isn't going to get a jail sentence. You afraid he'll get reelected in the future if not banned through impeachment? I don't see it. There's more important shit to worry about.

 

[Lacius]

I didn't say he Cannot.

You literally just argued it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president. Try again.

 

[urherenow]

You literally just argued it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president. Try again.

NO, I responded to an either/or question. Nowhere in my response did I say it was unconstitutional. Nor anywhere else in this thread. You try again.

 

[Lacius]

By saying this you are doing both of us a disservice. I haven't redefined "soul" or "dinosaurs" and you know this.

When you take what I meant when I used a particular word and redefine it so my statement is no longer true, that's redefinition, by definition. When I said soul, I meant the alleged immutable part of a human that lives on after death. When I said dinosaur, I meant the animals in the clade Dinosauria. These words are popularly used in this way. You're creating these semantic redefinition arguments to, what, get schooled again?

You call it "redefined" because it is homework you elected not to do. If you want to talk about deflection, this is a potent area.

I already told you that I don't disagree with anything you've said about etymology. The problem is the etymology of the word can be irrelevant to how I use it, and it can be irrelevant to how the word is popularly used. Forgive me, but these 101 lessons I'm giving you are getting a little boring.

Do you want to say that dinosaurs don't exist?

Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist.

It appears that you are the one that wants to say that dinosaurs still exist.

Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist.

NO, I responded to an either/or question. Nowhere in my response did I say it was unconstitutional. Nor anywhere else in this thread. You try again.

• Original post: "I don't see how someone could say this impeachment is unconstitutional."
• You: "Because impeachments are for people in office."

Try again.

 

[tabzer]

The problem is the etymology of the word can be irrelevant to how I use it, and it can be irrelevant to how the word is popularly used.

If you are looking for popularity, then maybe you should be supporting Trump? If you want to talk about facts, it is a fact that you assumed that @tthousand was using the word "soul" in a way that is erroneous, and perhaps popular in your experience. If you want to disenfranchise truth for whatever is "popular", then that is your prerogative. Henceforth, it is reasonable to suggest that you are applying that same logic to the way you use other words, like "truth", "evidence" and "fact". It doesn't appear that you have a consistent and relatable baseline other than "DNC forever!" which is dumb.

Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist.

Non-answer is still an answer. Don't be ashamed.

It is almost bedtime for me, so I hope you can give me something to think about for next time.

 

[chrisrlink]

I didn't say he Cannot. I say it's a pointless waste of time and money. He isn't going to get a jail sentence. You afraid he'll get reelected in the future if not banned through impeachment? I don't see it. There's more important shit to worry about.

what makes you think 2024 will be the last year of democracy if he gets reelected he'll most undoubtivly will try another seize of power plus to let that asshole off the hook for sicking his "Loyal Mutts" on congress just is not even fit the term "not right" it's worse than that if no criminal charges are filed for inciting a riot iirc a felony then i'm sorry but the US is an utter failure of a country

 

[urherenow]

• Original post: "I don't see how someone could say this impeachment is unconstitutional."
• You: "Because impeachments are for people in office."

Try again.

Lol... partial quotes. Just like a dumbass Democrat with the impeachments. “OR UNJUST”, nitwit. Let’s forget that, and the “I don’t see how” and the “think”. And the fact that I explained the “how” without expressing that view myself.

Try again. Then again, don’t. You’re spending too much time trying to project some type of superiority complex, when you’re actually showing your ignorance.

 

[Lacius]

If you are looking for popularity

I'm talking about the descriptive usage of words. Don't be disingenuous.

If you are looking for popularity, then maybe you should be supporting Trump?

Biden won more votes than Trump and has significantly higher net approval ratings than Trump.

it is a fact that you assumed that @tthousand was using the word "soul" in a way that is erroneous

The soul as defined as the immutable part of a human that lives on after death is the wildly popular usage of the world, particularly with people who pray for people's souls. There is nothing erroneous about the way we're using it. Whether you use the word differently has no bearing on my original point.

Wait, are you arguing you don't believe in the existence of the soul as I'm using the word?

If you want to disenfranchise truth for whatever is "popular", then that is your prerogative.

Words are descriptive, not prescriptive. This statement here proves that you still haven't grasped that concept, or you wouldn't be talking about the "truth" of what a word means. The closest you can come to the "truth" of what a word means is how people are using it, lol.

It doesn't appear that you have a consistent and relatable baseline other than "DNC forever!" which is dumb.

I've never said "DNC forever." Perhaps you're the one making assumptions that are erroneous? (that was a rhetorical question, because you are).

Non-answer is still an answer. Don't be ashamed.

I don't know what your point is here. I answered your question. Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist, and my dinosaur conversation example is perfectly analogous to what happened with the soul.

I feel no shame regarding anything I've said in this thread.

Lol... partial quotes.

• OP: I can't see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either unconstitutional or unjust.
• You: Um... the fact that impeachments are for someone in office, and he's no longer in office?

Try again, perhaps with fewer personal attacks like "dumbass Democrat" and "nitwit" that scream desperation. I'm sorry if I've gotten under your skin.

 

[tthousand]

There are 3 types of people: those who discus others, those who discuss events, and those who discuss ideas. I have always been the latter. I spend very little time discussing people or events, and always seem to get back to the big idea whenever I do.

I do not blame anyone for not being able to do the same, but do not take cheap personal shots and make claim like you care for civil discourse. To paraphrase some of the posters in this thread, "It makes you look unintelligent".

 

[urherenow]

I'm talking about the descriptive usage of words. Don't be disingenuous.


Biden won more votes than Trump and has significantly higher net approval ratings than Trump.


The soul as defined as the immutable part of a human that lives on after death is the wildly popular usage of the world, particularly with people who pray for people's souls. There is nothing erroneous about the way we're using it. Whether you use the word differently has no bearing on my original point.

Wait, are you arguing you don't believe in the existence of the soul as I'm using the word?


Words are descriptive, not prescriptive. This statement here proves that you still haven't grasped that concept, or you wouldn't be talking about the "truth" of what a word means. The closest you can come to the "truth" of what a word means is how people are using it, lol.


I've never said "DNC forever." Perhaps you're the one making assumptions that are erroneous? (that was a rhetorical question, because you are).


I don't know what your point is here. I answered your question. Non-avian dinosaurs no longer exist, and my dinosaur conversation example is perfectly analogous to what happened with the soul.

I feel no shame regarding anything I've said in this thread.

• OP: I can't see how any person without mental disorder can think this impeachment is either unconstitutional or unjust.
• You: Um... the fact that impeachments are for someone in office, and he's no longer in office?

Try again, perhaps with fewer personal attacks like "dumbass Democrat" and "nitwit" that scream desperation. I'm sorry if I've gotten under your skin.

Sorry if you don’t understand English. No more time to tutor you. But yea, nitwit was name calling. And much deserved. “LIKE a dumbass Democrat”, however, is not. Unless you have a guilty conscience.

 

[Lacius]

There are 3 types of people: those who discus others, those who discuss events, and those who discuss ideas.

Most people discuss all three. How absurd.

I do not blame anyone for not being able to do the same, but do not take cheap personal shots and make claim like you care for civil discourse. To paraphrase some of the posters in this thread, "It makes you look unintelligent".

Don't confuse facts and rebuttals for a lack of discourse. I'm sorry your arguments are bad, but the feelings you have when someone rightfully points out your nonsense is not a sign that someone is being uncivil or making things personal.

To paraphrase some of the posters in this thread, "It makes you look unintelligent".

It is not a personal attack to rightfully point out when a foolish post makes you look foolish, by definition.

 

[tthousand]

@Lacius, you definitely fall into the 1st category. You almost make it to the 2nd, but I have seen no proof of you reaching the 3rd.

 

[Lacius]

Sorry if you don’t understand English. No more time to tutor you. But yea, nitwit was name calling. And much deserved. “LIKE a dumbass Democrat”, however, is not. Unless you have a guilty conscience.

Hyperbolic statements like "you don't understand English" serve no purpose other than to make someone feel bad or deflect from your own bad arguments. In other words, a person who is hyperbolic like this is usually overcompensating.

Statements like "nitwit" and "just like a dumbass Democrat" are indeed name-calling, and they serve the same purposes I outlined above.

Try again.

@Lacius, you definitely fall into the 1st category. You almost make it to the 2nd, but I have seen no proof of you reaching the 3rd.

I talk about policy, my preferred political conversation topic, whenever possible. Your statement is laughably absurd and easily disproved by the record. Your overgeneralization, like most overgeneralizations, is without evidence.

 

[urherenow]

Hyperbolic statements like "you don't understand English" serve no purpose other than to make someone feel bad or deflect from your own bad arguments. In other words, a person who is hyperbolic like this is usually overcompensating.

Statements like "nitwit" and "just like a dumbass Democrat" are indeed name-calling, and they serve the same purposes I outlined above.

Try again.


I talk about policy, my preferred political conversation topic, whenever possible. Your statement is laughably absurd and easily disproved by the record. Your overgeneralization, like most overgeneralizations, is without evidence.

In English, the use of “like” is called a simile. Hyperbolic, describes every single one of your posts for the last several pages. You have yet to argue against a single one of my actual thoughts, except to INCORRECTLY state that I said the impeachment was unconstitutional. Still never said that.

 

[Lacius]

In English, the use of “like” is called a simile. Hyperbolic, describes every single one of your posts for the last several pages. You have yet to argue against a single one of my actual thoughts, except to INCORRECTLY state that I said the impeachment was unconstitutional. Still never said that.

The hyperbole refers to the "you don't understand English" part. That was clearly stated. I also substantively responded to your comment about the impeachment being for sitting presidents. Try again.

 

[Deleted member 546149]

Why does this thread keep getting suggested to me

 

[urherenow]

The hyperbole refers to the "you don't understand English" part. That was clearly stated. I also substantively responded to your comment about the impeachment being for sitting presidents. Try again.

This again...

That was an answer to “how” people “think”. It was not a statement. The statement, was the rest. The last paragraph, especially. I’d try again, but you’re a brick wall. <- and that’s called a metaphor

 

[Lacius]

Why does this thread keep getting suggested to me

I assume users are getting thread suggestions based on where I grace the world with my posts, and I post here a lot.

This again...

That was an answer to “how” people “think”. It was not a statement. I’d try again, but you’re a brick wall. <- and that’s called a metaphor

Why are you trying to teach me, someone who taught English for years, about figurative language when you misread what I did or didn't call hyperbole? I clearly and demonstrably wasn't the one who made the mistake. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Deleted member 546149]

I assume users are getting thread suggestions based on where I grace the world with my posts, and I post here a lot.

We already know Biden is the president, we don't need it on repeat