|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Dec 14, 2023 3:08:18 GMT
It's Capiche. Nice try. Fail.
So Power Ranger can’t spell in Italian as well as English. How many languages do you plan on butchering? LOL So YOU Power Ranger have as main language English yet you can't even s+ell and use proper Grammar in English. You are too dumb to even normally express yourself. ROFLMAO!!!
|
|
|
Post by winterssuicide on Dec 14, 2023 3:18:02 GMT
A woman is an adult human who identifies as female
Lol, your own definition indicates that the only thing that qualifies a transwoman as a "woman" or "female" is the transwoman's belief. Welcome to faith, brother.
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on Dec 14, 2023 10:04:18 GMT
If you were as old as I am you might remember when "gender" referred to grammar only, not actual physical characteristics. I do remember. Words change over time.
language is constantly evolving, and meanings of words can shift significantly over time. Here are a few examples:
Awful: In the past, "awful" actually meant "awe-inspiring" or "worthy of respect or fear." Now, it typically means something unpleasant or terrible.
Egregious: Originally meant "distinguished" or "eminent," but now it means something remarkably bad or outstandingly bad in a negative sense.
Nice: Historically, "nice" meant "foolish" or "simple." Over time, it transitioned to denote something pleasant or agreeable.
Silly: It used to mean "blessed" or "happy," but it now refers to something that is frivolous or lacking in seriousness.
Girl: Centuries ago, "girl" referred to a young person of either sex. Nowadays, it predominantly refers to a female child.
Husband: Historically, it could mean a "master of the house," but today it refers specifically to a married man.
Meat: In older English, "meat" referred to any type of food. Today, it generally refers to animal flesh used as food.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Dec 14, 2023 12:11:33 GMT
If you were as old as I am you might remember when "gender" referred to grammar only, not actual physical characteristics. I do remember. Words change over time.
language is constantly evolving, and meanings of words can shift significantly over time. Here are a few examples:
Awful: In the past, "awful" actually meant "awe-inspiring" or "worthy of respect or fear." Now, it typically means something unpleasant or terrible.
Egregious: Originally meant "distinguished" or "eminent," but now it means something remarkably bad or outstandingly bad in a negative sense.
Nice: Historically, "nice" meant "foolish" or "simple." Over time, it transitioned to denote something pleasant or agreeable.
Silly: It used to mean "blessed" or "happy," but it now refers to something that is frivolous or lacking in seriousness.
Girl: Centuries ago, "girl" referred to a young person of either sex. Nowadays, it predominantly refers to a female child.
Husband: Historically, it could mean a "master of the house," but today it refers specifically to a married man.
Meat: In older English, "meat" referred to any type of food. Today, it generally refers to animal flesh used as food.
Excellent, and let none of us ever forget that the dictionary may never be used to prove anything. Reality is not supposed to conform itself to any dictionary, dictionaries are supposed to conform themselves to reality. If there is a mismatch, it is not the dictionary that is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Dec 14, 2023 13:43:19 GMT
A woman is an adult human who identifies as female
Lol, your own definition indicates that the only thing that qualifies a transwoman as a "woman" or "female" is the transwoman's belief. Welcome to faith, brother. It's funny that he didn't answer to you...
That's because he knows he's full of BS and basically believes in another type of religion.
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Dec 14, 2023 13:51:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by winterssuicide on Dec 14, 2023 14:49:40 GMT
If you were as old as I am you might remember when "gender" referred to grammar only, not actual physical characteristics.
Nice: Historically, "nice" meant "foolish" or "simple." Over time, it transitioned to denote something pleasant or agreeable.
Silly: It used to mean "blessed" or "happy," but it now refers to something that is frivolous or lacking in seriousness.
Whoa, one of my first college papers just walked in the door. I used the character Forrest Gump as the recurring theme to explain how perception can ignite the evolution of definition on my etymological journey through "nice" and "silly."
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 14, 2023 16:08:45 GMT
Silly: It used to mean "blessed"
Does that mean there are some centuries old religious texts referring to the "Silly Virgin Mary"?
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Dec 14, 2023 17:05:58 GMT
Great counter argument. You remind me of this fellow
You're literally wrong. You made up a definition of a word to suit your ideals. And you fucking know it too.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 14, 2023 18:38:27 GMT
I do remember. Words change over time.
language is constantly evolving, and meanings of words can shift significantly over time. Here are a few examples:
Awful: In the past, "awful" actually meant "awe-inspiring" or "worthy of respect or fear." Now, it typically means something unpleasant or terrible.
Egregious: Originally meant "distinguished" or "eminent," but now it means something remarkably bad or outstandingly bad in a negative sense.
Nice: Historically, "nice" meant "foolish" or "simple." Over time, it transitioned to denote something pleasant or agreeable.
Silly: It used to mean "blessed" or "happy," but it now refers to something that is frivolous or lacking in seriousness.
Girl: Centuries ago, "girl" referred to a young person of either sex. Nowadays, it predominantly refers to a female child.
Husband: Historically, it could mean a "master of the house," but today it refers specifically to a married man.
Meat: In older English, "meat" referred to any type of food. Today, it generally refers to animal flesh used as food.
Excellent, and let none of us ever forget that the dictionary may never be used to prove anything. Reality is not supposed to conform itself to any dictionary, dictionaries are supposed to conform themselves to reality. If there is a mismatch, it is not the dictionary that is correct.
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on Dec 15, 2023 0:08:05 GMT
Great counter argument. You remind me of this fellow
You're literally wrong. You made up a definition of a word to suit your ideals. And you fucking know it too. what do you think I 'made up'?
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jun 20, 2024 21:47:28 GMT
Everyone knows the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Jun 20, 2024 23:05:44 GMT
Are religious people really less smart, on average, than atheists?
Various studies have found that, on average, belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests.
It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence,” note Richard Daws and Adam Hampshire at Imperial College London, in a new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, which seeks to explore why.
It’s a question with some urgency – the proportion of people with a religious belief is growing: by 2050, if current trends continue, people who say they are not religious will make up only 13 per cent of the global population. Based on the low-IQ-religiosity link, it could be argued that humanity is on course to become collectively less smart. One suggestion is that perhaps religious people tend to rely more on intuition. So, rather than having impaired general intelligence, they might be comparatively poor only on tasks in which intuition and logic come into conflict – and this might explain the lower overall IQ test results. To investigate, Daws and Hampshire surveyed more than 63,000 people online, and had them complete a 30-minute set of 12 cognitive tasks that measured planning, reasoning, attention and working memory. The participants also indicated whether they were religious, agnostic or atheist. As predicted, the atheists performed better overall than the religious participants, even after controlling for demographic factors like age and education. Agnostics tended to place between atheists and believers on all tasks. In fact, strength of religious conviction correlated with poorer cognitive performance. However, while the religious respondents performed worse overall on tasks that required reasoning, there were only very small differences in working memory. Also, some of the reasoning tasks, such as an extra-hard version of the Stroop Task known as “colour-word remapping”, had been designed to create maximum conflict between an intuitive response and a logical one, and the biggest group differences emerged on these tasks, consistent with the idea that religious people rely more on their intuition. In contrast, for a complex reasoning task – “deductive reasoning” – for which there were no obviously intuitive answers, there was much less of a group difference. Daws and Hampshire concluded: “These findings provide evidence in support of the hypothesis that the religiosity effect relates to conflict [between reasoning and intuition] as opposed to reasoning ability or intelligence more generally.” If, as this work suggests, religious belief predisposes people to rely more heavily on intuition in decision-making – and the stronger their belief, the more pronounced the impact – how much of a difference does this make to actual achievement in the real world? At the moment, there’s no data on this. But in theory, perhaps cognitive training could allow religious people to maintain their beliefs without over-relying on intuition when it conflicts with logic in day to day decision-making. If lumberjacks gave the intelligence tests, lumberjacks would score highest on them.
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Jun 20, 2024 23:36:21 GMT
Do the atheists who are sufficiently dogmatic, inflexible, and fanatical to turn their atheism into a religion, count as atheists or religious people?
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Jun 20, 2024 23:39:36 GMT
You have to be more educated than a Republican to be a Democrat, meaning that you can't be a High School drop out and still be a Liberal.
That said, overly religious people tend to be Republicans, because smart people know enough to believe in themselves and don't require a "Hero" to worship and aspire to.
Also the difference is that Right Wingers are motivated by greed to take by force what doesn't belong to them, but need a leader to get them past their cowardice.
Liberals are motivated to protect their way of life and what they already have.
Which is why Right Wing dictators like Putin and Trump will always lose because those motivated by greed do not fight as hard as those trying to protect their lives.
|
|