Someone is attempting to argue from the dictionary by picking the definitions that can be twisted to suit his agenda. Various people have pointed out that taking words with meanings in a particular context and using entries that apply to different contexts produces invalid results.
I finally lost my willingness to argue straight-up with someone that mendacious and asked if he liked Communist apples, environmentally-friendly apples, or cowardly apples.
Meanwhile, other places I read are once again places I consider posting my thoughts and then decide I'm fucking unsafe having that conversation there and shut up in. Ah, internets, I love you so.
I finally lost my willingness to argue straight-up with someone that mendacious and asked if he liked Communist apples, environmentally-friendly apples, or cowardly apples.
Meanwhile, other places I read are once again places I consider posting my thoughts and then decide I'm fucking unsafe having that conversation there and shut up in. Ah, internets, I love you so.
From:
no subject
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:From:
no subject
For what it's worth, I think that dictionary arguments are almost always fail, because they're almost always a way to ignore both connotation and context. And connotations and context, in the real world, are important.
From:
no subject
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:From:
no subject
From:
no subject
That should make the choice easier ;-)
From:
no subject
I think I shall have to file that trick away for future use (if you don't mind, of course.)
(no subject)
From: