Anti-SSM argument goes from stupid to... what the heck is this?

[wonky]

@Melchior

It’s not such a great distinction that I claim, because it’s not all that hard. Most of them are not that good. There is a great deal of mediocrity in academe. You act as though I were claiming some special distinction. Hardly. When everyone else is a “2” it’s easy to be a “4”.

Sure, if you’re talking golf.

[Melchior]

@jsgoddess

Sure, if you’re talking golf.

I was trying to say it wasn’t all that hard because the papers I was criticising were very weak.

[wonky]

@Melchior

I was trying to say it wasn’t all that hard because the papers I was criticising were very weak.

Oh, they accept letters to the editor?

[running_coach]

@Melchior

It’s not such a great distinction that I claim, because it’s not all that hard. Most of them are not that good. There is a great deal of mediocrity in academe. You act as though I were claiming some special distinction. Hardly. When everyone else is a “2” it’s easy to be a “4”.

Then why did you bring it up?

By the way, you’re arguing against a bunch of "7"s and "8"s. At least.

[Frylock]

What is an example of an original insight you have in the field of Semiotics?

No need to dumb it down for us.

[zoid]

@Frylock

What is an example of an original insight you have in the field of Semiotics?

No need to dumb it down for us.

I truly admire your optimism.

[simster]

@running_coach

That’s quite recent considering he had us going back to medieval times.

Well, if it all started 40,000 years ago - “medieval” is recent.

[Skywatcher]

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Mar"riage (?), n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.]

4. Any intimate or close union.

[wonky]

@Skywatcher

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Mar"riage (?), n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry, v. t.]

4. Any intimate or close union.

In this thread, we come together to celebrate the marriage of anti-SSM arguments and ridiculousness.

There will be cake.

[Marley23]

@zoid

So you’re twice as smart as all the PhD’s in the world?
Thank you for the clarification.

Melchior: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
zoid: Yes.
Melchior: Morons.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Melchior

An interesting challenge, but unfortunately false. I have published in *Semiotica *and demolished the inept arguments of philosophy PhDs.

Okay, then. So, in your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage?

[Baker]

Melchoir reminds me of a former poster who was obsessed with a certain country singer. Melchoir, like that banned poster, is unable to let go of a subject, having a mental defect that compels them to keep on posting. They want the abuse and negative attention, because that is “proving” themself to the object of their affection. In the former it was a singer, with Melchoir it’s their own ego.

Melchoir won’t go away until we stop feeding the [del]tr…[/del]. So, as soon as I hit the submit key on this post I pledge I’m going to stop feeding Melchoir.

It’s kind of like what folks say about the Westboro Baptist Church. They are only out for the attention, and I think Melchoir is channeling their inner Fred Phelps.

[TroutMan]

@The_Hamster_King

Okay, then. So, in your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage?

Clearly by usage, as long as the person using the word is Melchior.

[TroutMan]

@Baker

Melchoir won’t go away until we stop feeding the [del]tr…[/del]. So, as soon as I hit the submit key on this post I pledge I’m going to stop feeding Melchoir.

Or at least, if we must respond, use only his own argument techniques. A few more pages of nothing but “no it isn’t,” “yes it is,” and the thread will run its course.

[Ruken]

@Melchior

I was trying to say it wasn’t all that hard because the papers I was criticising were very weak.

There are a lot of shit papers out there. No argument from me here.

[Trinopus]

@zoid

So you’re twice as smart as all the PhD’s in the world?
Thank you for the clarification.

Now, now, be fair. He said “most of them,” not “all.” The guy’s sins are great enough as they really are without us needing to exaggerate them.

[kaylasdad99]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Well, to quote Melchior from another currently-ongoing thread, “2000 years ago we had gladiator contests and infant abandonment.”

And, of course, 2000 years ago, someone would’ve been arguing that we can’t change either of those – or anything else – since being in favor of changing one thing means being in favor of changing everything; would’ve been wrong then, would be wrong now.

@Melchior

I don’t oppose such things. I think they were fine then and should be fine now. I simply wanted to make the point that some people are very selective about citing precedent: they cite it as support only when it is convenient and consonant with their point of view. Otherwise, they say ‘well this is the 21st century’. You cannot have it both ways!

Just a doggone minute – are you saying you’re actually in FAVOR of public death matches for the amusement of the populace, and also of leaving newborns to perish in the elements?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

And which, if it keeps on like that long enough, will acquire the force of custom?

No no no, see, marriage is a term whose definition can never change. Even though it’s what it is due to custom. This guy’s having his cake and eating it too. And he’s also consuming it. And devouring it. And utilizing it in such a manner that it is destroyed. And destroying it. And…

…Okay, I’m out of synonyms.

@Melchior

An interesting challenge, but unfortunately false. I have published in *Semiotica *and demolished the inept arguments of philosophy PhDs.

BAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHAHa

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh WOW. That was a funny joke.

Wait…

…You’re serious?

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

@Melchior

Yes, it is the entirety of my objection. You could create something new (or perhaps just use adoption or Power of Attorney or a business partnership contract) that would take care of many of the wants. But it is not and cannot be ‘marriage’.

So you’re being a horrifying pedant over a word.
…That’s just bizarre, man.

@Melchior

I would say they are merely reporting the recent propaganda.

Yes, just like Popular Mechanics/NIST, and NASA/CRU/SkepticalScience. You’re funny. Please, keep talking.

@Melchior

I would be very reluctant to do that. I don’t trust you.

“I’ve got a dragon in my backyard!”
“Show us evidence?”
“No! I don’t trust you!”

You’re more fun than a creationist. Never change, Melchior. And never stop posting either - if you were the spokesperson for the anti-SSM crowd, we’d have SSM in every state by the end of the decade.

[Smapti]

@TroutMan

That will seem easy compared to the step after that, when you’re forced to marry a dog who is also your sister. Think of the genetic engineering that will be required. If you think GMO crops are a big controversy, just wait.

What did you just say about my sister?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@iiandyiiii

I’ll just note that Webster’s Third New International Dictionary was published in 1961.

Melchior – do you have any definitions from a dictionary published in, say, the last few years?

No, he did this in the business jargon thread. Posters were discussing business terminology, which he declared invalid, and supported his assertion by quoting old dictionaries. Apparently he’s the arbiter of when language got set in stone.