No, I meant having to use shims because the table has nothing built-in that allows you to level it.
CMC fnord!
As Humpty Dumpty taught us:
Bricker, did you miss my response in post #828? I think you misread my post about “thug”.
No. And for clarity, here it is:
But it seems to me that your objection is simply that I changed the definition you were advancing.
On the other hand, you’re ok with trying to change the definition I was advancing.
So I guess my question would be: at what point do we say, “Yes, sure enough, ‘thug’ has acquired a secondary (and invidious) meaning?”
I am not particularly comfortable leaving it in the hands of either Charles Barkley or you. But at the same time, it would seem mad to declare that as of 2015, the English language has stopped changing.
So – when?
When the people routinely targeted with the word tell you that it’s being used this way towards them, and therefore those that use it too often are likely to be misunderstood unless they are mindful of when they use it. Why is that not an appropriate time?
How about the word ‘gay’? It used to be about being happy and cheerful, now it has an entirely different meaning. People can continue to use it in the original way, of course, such as saying “I had a really gay time yesterday!”, but they shouldn’t be surprised if people raise their eyebrows at the statement and wonder what exactly you mean. What time was the appropriate time for this switch to have happened?
I think trying to ascertain the appropriate time for language changes is a mistake. Society and culture changes, and with this language changes as well. Its a natural process. You can acknowledge it and try to keep up with the times, or you can freeze your vocabulary in time and never change your usage. Insisting that others are trying to change the meaning of words is false as well. The meaning is changing whether anyone wants it to or not, its just that some people are acknowledging this change and others are digging in their heels for some odd reason.
The bolded part below is the part I think you missed:
The Kerry quote was not relevant, because I was talking about (and criticizing) usage of the word “thug” to describe people who aren’t violent or criminal (like Davis and Sherman). Kerry was describing a violent person.
About the language – I don’t know if we can be sure by any means that it has acquired a racial connotation on a large-scale, but I think it’s reasonable to be worried that it might be on its way, and point this out and criticize when it’s used inappropriately.
Of course I knew what a computer is, a computer is a woman at a desk with an adding machine. Don’t tell me its changed since then, she’ll be really crushed to learn we have to let her go. Although I have been thinking of upgrading since I get some serious lag when I use her to play Call of Duty.
eman s’roboT fo nigiro eht wonk od I sey dna
Trying to get a bit back on topic, if Stephan is still checking out this thread I would honestly be very interested what his response to my post #793 was
Ok, I actually missed that post.
If you can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that it’s the second scenario - murder - rather than the first - justified self defence - then yes, he should be acquitted. It’s important to note that I wouldn’t find Davis innocent, he would be innocent, and remain that way unless and until found guilty.
The point is, in my opinion, in any altercation where you are fear of imminent death or serious injury, and that fear is reasonable, you have the right to shoot first. You don’t have to wait until you’re actually attacked, or actually injured or dying, before defending yourself.
Are you saying that people should be convicted even if there is reasonable doubt about their guilt, in order to prevent “wild west quickdraws”? If so I disagree, I don’t care what the consequences are, don’t do it. I don’t happen to believe that would, in fact, be the result, but I don’t think it’s relevant either.
That sounds like the best strict gun-control argument I have every heard of!
Heh. Reasonable fear. And whose word do we take for that?
The white guy, of course. Who else knows what’s best for everybody?
Yes, I understand that’s what you were doing.
But I’m asking you why you are confident that “thug” means “violent” or “criminal?”
That “thug” has become a euphemism for “black” is at least debatable, but I honestly can’t fathom where you’re going with this question. Are you aware of a definition of “thug” that does not involve violence or criminality?
That’s the only definition I was aware of for “thug” – a violent, usually criminally violent person.
From here:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/thug?searchDictCode=all
Do you have a new alternate definition that you are working with or something?
Also, did you see my last post (#865) about the appropriate time for a word to have its meaning evolve? Any thoughts on that? You asked the question and I provided an answer. Would you consider it a satisfactory one then?
You don’t take anyone’s word for it. You think for yourself, and decide if a reasonable person, in that situation, would have been in such fear.
And if you’re judging someone guilty of murder, you only do so if it’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would not have been in such fear.
So a jury can find a man guilty, even if he testifies he was in fear of his life? I think that is all we were wondering. It sounded to me like you believed any claim of self-defense could not be challenged.
Strict gun-control means training to hit your target with the first shot.
:D:D:D
HA! That’s really funny! Did you come up with it?
That’s only fair, especially since this exchange is taking place in the Pit.
I wouldn’t take any advice from you, either since you seem to be under the impression that a Pit thread is a substitute for an IQ test??? :smack: