by non_trias_theos 35 Replies latest jw friends
Declensions, cases, modal logic, foreign languages, liberatory epistemology, psychology, conjugations and lexemes, for starters. But I try to be modest.
Hahahahaaaaha ha ha ha ha...
foreign languages can be useful, yes... what do you speak ?
but a profound knowledge of all these things doesn't make you bright or sane or lovable
It just makes you a snobish, haughty, full of himself brat.
and nobody loves those...
Non prefers not to say what languages he speaks. The reasons are self-evident.
and you asked non what he knows that Farkel does not. Now that he told you, you now say, o well--it does not make you "bright or sane or lovable." While non can understand why you make statements about being "sane or lovable" he cannot figure out what definition of "bright" you are workin wit.
: In case you do not know--and you don't--every rational substance has principles.
Right, and for that very reason, I rest my case.
Farkel
$$$Right, and for that very reason, I rest my case.$$$
Looky like somebody is now tacking. At first you say non has no principles. Now you say he is right when he insists that all rational substances have principles. Which is it, bro? Yo ain't wafflin on moi now are you?
And if you mean to imply that non is not a rational substance, don't even try it. For he will really take you to the cleaners.
Non prefers not to say what languages he speaks. The reasons are self-evident.
No --- the reasons are not self-evident !
I speak French, English and some German. I understand some Spanish and Italian and Latin...
duns,
$$$Let's assume you're talking to a non-philosopher, and you could only answer with 'yes' or 'no'. On second thought, never mind.$$$Non never said he was a philosopher, did he? Be careful how you read the text. It can be deceptive. Non just does not like to answer questions that are not properly nuanced.
In your efforts to weasel out, you impose a lack of reading comprehension on yourself. I must say that all those years of dumbing yourself down for the Watchtower have paid off.
I didn't say you were a philosopher. In your watchtoweresque attempt to backpedal, you asked for 'guidance', shall we say, in answering the original question I posed. I said answer as if you were not talking to a philosopher. I never said you were a philosopher. Yet you answer as if that is what I said.
I credit you with too much intelligence to believe that you don't see the difference. Therefore, one can only assume that you intentionally suspend said intelligence in the face of a question you'd rather not answer.
BTW, you're doing the same with Farkel, now. You suspend reasoning ability and take a too-literal understanding of his statement, because it allows you to ignore the actual message. I wonder what position you hold in the congregation. I suspect that the brothers in your circuit don't know how good a lackey they have at their disposal. (And never doubt how quickly and thoughtlessly you will be disposed of if you ever stop suspending your doubts.)
Hmmm
No offense, but I think I'm done interacting with you, dunscot. My last few months here have been spent as a wise-cracking fluff poster, and I just don't have the attention span to debate line-by-line with you. I used to sit around with a friend and engage in the kind of mental masturbatory debates that you enjoy; each person taking a side regardless of their true convictions, and arguing 'till the cows come home. Alas, that friend is no longer around, and I find that I can't capture those magical days of yesteryear with you.
The days ahead will be filled with reactions to the Dateline airing. I know you'll do your level best to draw as much attention away to yourself as humanly possible, but do try to sit back from time to time and actually think about the issues.
Are you stupid, or something?
You said:
: In case you do not know--and you don't--every rational substance has principles.
I replied:
: Right, and for that very reason, I rest my case.
: Looky like somebody is now tacking. At first you say non has no principles.
Right.
: Now you say he is right when he insists that all rational substances have principles.
Right again.
: Which is it, bro? Yo ain't wafflin on moi now are you?
Not at all. All rational "substances" DO have principles. You still don't get it, do you?
Farkel
<<Case---a particular form of a nominal, pronominal or modifier that expresses a syntactical relationship between other morpho-phonic forms found in a sentence.>>
Wrong-"case" as used in grammar, is a particular form of nouns, pronouns or adjectives showing a syntactical relationship. The only part of this one that is, maybe, correct is that an adjective could be considered a modifier.
<<Adjective---a part of speech that modifies a substantive by means of suffixes such as -er and -est or by functioning syntactically in a predicative or attributive way.>>
Wrong-and adjective is used to describe (therefore, perhaps modify) a noun or pronoun. There are thousands of adjectives that do not use -er or -est, though "lamer" and "lamest" come to mind in the currect discussion.
<<Declension---a class of words belonging to one language with the same or a similar system of inflections.>>
Not sure about this one-you've got some of the right words, but they don't seem to be in the right order...a declension is a group of nouns, pronouns and adjectives with a particular inflection and used to indicate the case of the words. For instance, in Latin, the inflection of a word tells if it is a subject or direct object.
puella, serva, columba, pictura, terra, pupa, and bulla are all nominative and therefore would be subjects.
puellam, servam, columban, picturam, terram, pupam, and bullam are all in the accusative case and would indicate that the words are being used as direct objects.
Declension also indicates gender. All of the words in the lists above are in the First Declension in Latin and therefore are feminine.
The following lists of words are in the Second Declension and are therefore masculine.
architectus, humanus, publicus, fungus
<<Gender---a grammatical category used to classify nouns, pronouns, adjectives and sometimes verbs. Grammatical gender is not necessarily associated with actual gender.>>
Just like the use of big words is not necessarily associated with intelligence.
Darn it, I know I've said not bait this "rational substantive", but it IS kinda fun....
Jewel-off to conjugate a few verbs
There is more than one way to show a brother love. Ain't you ever heard of agape love? You obviously do not know what time it is. - - non-trias-theos
I may not know what time it is, but I have to laugh at someone who criticizes the grammar of others when their own grammar doesn't meet 8th grade standards. Did you drop out of school to pioneer?
Apparently, you are also unable to recognize when someone is joking with you. You must be quite a social dud. Is the computer the sole source of your social interaction?
