No they don’t: 1 + 2 = 3 or 3 = 2 + 1
The meaning is the same even if you reverse their spatial ordering.
There is this thing called straw man.
My critical reading skills are fine; it’s wading through your impenetrable prose that is difficult. If this statement isn’t relativistic, then nothing is:
If you don’t want to be misunderstood, try writing more clearly.
There are lots of things you can say about black use of the word ‘nigger’ that don’t involve conceding that whites can use the word non-racistly. You could say that meaning is context-dependent (which it is, and which is not the same as relativism), and the word lacks its racist connotation in most contexts where blacks use it. You could say that black use of the word *is * racist, and they should stop (as many people have said, particulary in criticisms of rap music). Or you could say that blacks are trying to remove the racist connotations of the word by appropriating usage of it (sort of like gays did for the word ‘queer’). So no, I don’t have to concede that your example proves use of the word by whites isn’t racist.
Here you go. The laws are always absolute, but have inherent conditionals worked into them. You know, like how killing can always be evil, excepting in the case when done by the purest accident, or whatever. In this case, the conditions that apply include the both the person using the word and the person they’re using it on, and also the situation, environment, and era that the event occurs in.
See? Lost of conditionals, but everything’s still substantial and not relative.
(Now, those of use who recognize the meaning of the word ‘context’ can carry on as we were.)
Ooh, neat! I’m totally convinced of whatever it is you’re trying to prove here!
Now do it with division.
There is also this thing called overgeneralization. Example:
All black people think this for all white people who don’t please them? Of the tens of millions of black people in this nation not a single one of them determines whether somebody is racist by the facts of the event but all just leap to the same conclusion due to some genetic quirk that also controls their melanin levels?
There’s also such a thing as invalid syllogisms by the way, and I would add that “going to college” is not the same thing as getting an education.
Is English your first language?
No, why?
Huh?
I (along with many others here) am trying to point out that CONTEXT MATTERS IN LANGUAGE.
If I laugh at a hog rolling around in the mud at a farm and say, “Who’s a fat pig?” the context indicates I’m being cutesy and funny. If I laugh at a chubby teenage girl and say, “Who’s a fat pig?” the context indicates that I’m being a rude a-hole.
Similarly, me as a white man saying, “Hey, what’s up, nigger?” to a black man on the street has an entirely different context than another black man saying, “Hey, what’s up, nigger?” to the same man.
You may not like that this is the case, but that does not make it untrue.
The English language is a mere socio-cultural theory, and exists only as long as people believe it exists. I choose not to believe in it, and thus, my message is devoid of any understandable content. Since reality is described purely on my terms - that is, if one person decides something does not exist, it is so, despite the fact that “social” necessarily implies more than one being - none of you can understand my post, either.
Indeed, since this applies to the language as a whole, and not just this particular instance, my selection to view it as untrue means that it does not exist at all; this thread, thus, cannot be understood, and the OP makes equally no sense. That you might disagree, and believe that the language is so, makes no difference; I have spoken (you must assume).
To continue to post in this thread in English is, by your own argument, pointless. I suggest we move to French, in the hope that some random poster doesn’t choose to disbelieve in it, thus effecting his or her choice on us all. Psychically, I can only assume.
Apples don’t exist, because selppa is meaningless.
Now you’re talking about a sequence of numbers, not an individual number as seperate concept. Since your original argument was to reversing the letters in an individual word, I think the more apt analogy is to reversing the digits in a single number. Which, as with words, completely destroys the original meaning of the number.
Plus, as has been pointed out, the commutative property only applies to a small section of arithmetic. Try making the same argument with subtraction, and see how far it gets you.
All of that aside, I still don’t understand what writing “nigger” backwards is supposed to prove.
What if they’re fed through the Timecube?
But why focus on the meaning of words only? Is the only form racism can take namecalling?
What on Earth can be shown to be “consistently true” that would satisfy you then? How can something be proven to be a “universal constant” in any meaningful way? Everyone has slightly different definitions of what’s a fruit and what’s a vegetable, does that mean you deny that these terms have meaning and therefore have no value? Can you will fruit out of existence then?
Yes, but 4+1=5 and 3+2=5, so different is the same.
Or something like that.
Agreed. There is such a thing as context, like someone else said.
I see two ways to look at this. Either:
- Reality is created by consensus, at least in part, so everything only exists as long as people believe it exists. In that case, there is nothing unique about racism being a theory, and its theoretical status that doesn’t cast doubt on its existence.
or 2) If people believe in something and treat it as if it’s real, it’s real. The fact that it’s a theory doesn’t matter.
So you think if something is relative, it can’t be true? That’s gonna cause problems for the physicists!
That’s just solipsism. You can say there is no such thing as racism, but that affects nobody’s life or experiences except your own.
Completely false, and that’s pretty much the picture of a persecution complex. What you’re actually saying here is “the accusation of racism is the weapon of the minority.” That has nothing to do with the existence of actual racism.
I’ll say this much: you’re clearly more afraid of being called a racist than being called a nigger. That doesn’t prove your theory, though.
That’s your opinion. What’s the proof?
While not the primary reason, we hoped when we started charging that it would reduce the number of trolls and nutcases posting here. The effort has been less than wholly successful.
Now, the OP is pretty incoherent–as are your responses to challenge–and you are using language in ways that run counter to genuine communication.
There is no way that this is going to turn into a Great Debate (or even a little quibble) and I see no reason to wait until it turns into a Horrible Fracas, so I am closing the thread.
[ /Moderating ]