Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 12-17-2011, 07:25 PM   #42
Writing speed: snail
Numinous's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Second Part:

Yes I clarified (...) prove people wrong.
Roll the clip.

The english language is a constantly evolving organism, more so than any other language on the planet, because it is constantly changing it is impossible to master.
Last reform of the English Language: SR1, in 1969.

Reforms of the Portuguese Language since then: 1971 (in Brazil), 1990 and 2010 (CPLP).

Unless you think only the English language has slang and 1337 speak, which again, would be wrong.

This is merely a clarification:
A reform would be changing the laws of grammar. The definition of a word changing is what I was referring to (lack of comprehension again: why would I possibly be talking about grammar when I use the word interpretation?) which happens all the time. Go ahead and find an example of English 300 years ago and compare it to English now. Then do the same with Portugese and try and tell me it has changed more again.
Since the only comparable measure to the evolution of languages is their reforms, I simply made you realize that there are other languages with much more reforms lately. Also English is not the only language where many definitions change over time.
Then I proceeded to show you how much Portuguese changed and how English changed, in the only quantifiable (since he put the stakes with quantifiable terms, like “300 years ago”) way possible: grammar.

Didn't I just say I was referring to definitions, not grammar?
Ie find the same words and compare their meanings, not find the same passage and compare the spelling.
So, yet again, more useless info that doesn't apply to what I was saying.
Here, you COMPLETELY IGNORE what I said in the first part of my post and whine how I’m not providing the prove you want (never remembering that you were the one making the positive claim).

Then I clarified (not backpedaling like you like to misinterpret “clarification”) what I said in my first post:


You’re the one full of shit, since you’re pulling factoids out of your ass frequently.

I told you (...) to do so.
Argumentation 101: The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. I only can do research on the matter if some kind of evidence is presented. As you could assert, as soon as you linked me some form of evidence I did my research upon it and expressed what I found from my research. See, that’s how things work. Now don’t come with pussy comments on how morally superior you supposedly are to me.

I would say (...) in my opinion.
Appealing to motive, are we? Don’t worry, I’ve got worst in this forum, you’re so PC about it that it doesn’t even bother me.

being reasonable would (...) words to mean
Humm, isn’t that the definition of “equitable”? Because “reasonable” does not entail that at all. You can be reasonable without being equitable and vice-versa.

The point is (...) tear them apart.
But I’m not twisting your words, I’m just not stupid enough to fall for your silly excuses.

No, I want (...) twisting my words)
When I commit mistakes, I admit them. Ask anyone in this forum, Miburo even asked me once about it when someone made the exact same accusation. And that someone is KYF, who thinks reality isn’t real and stated much more asinine things along the way. If I were you, I wouldn’t want to be associated with that kind of people.

As for the attitude, do you know José Mourinho? It’s not a simple coincidence we share the same nationality.

Also,this video describes exactly how wrong you are about me not being open-minded.
I refuse to (...) assuredly not openminded.
The irony, it is so delicious it gives diabetes.

The only thing (...) own words are.
Or what the English language and logic dictate. But, of course, using logic for you is “lying” or “trolling”.

Yet you argue (...) IS THAT OPEN-MINDED??
Watch the damn video, you clearly are using a misconception of open-mindedness.

A library has (...) by the mundane.
Picking up the library example, there’s at least an amount of relevance to the section for it to be put there. I’m pretty sure the Twilight Saga isn’t put in the Mythology section, even if it has some mythology within it, it’s just not relevant enough.

The same case happens here. Nobody is actually expecting you to present a completely valid and irrefutable theory under the “conspiracy theory” section, but at least some substantial evidence would make it worthwhile. You just used smoked & mirrors to support your theory and you actually act offended when someone calls on your BS.

I have no (...) you at all.
Such bigotry, for shame. I, in the other hand, would have no problem admitting I am wrong to even a compulsive liar or any person with an irregular thought, as long as they bring up valid points that disprove me I am willing to admit my mistakes. Everyone is entitled to refute me, just don’t expect me to consider all refutations valid.

In reality they are all just possibilities
Scientology can be excused by a thin thread of hair with that, but Creationism can’t. Evolution is fact, to deny it is to be an idiot.

But you (...) proof of this.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?!

I have eliminated (...) the other possibilities.
By Cthulhu, just because science is ever-changing (like it should be and that’s why I’m learning to be a scientist, to further the knowledge and see where things will leads us) it does not mean every theory/possibility is to be considered in the same light. There are theories and possibilities that cannot be valid since the facts/laws disproving them are simply too irrefutable for the contrary to be possible.

For example, perpetual motion machines (in a closed system) are impossible because the laws of thermodynamics clearly prove it so. The same thing can be said about Geocentrism, Alchemy and Creationism, along with other theories and possibilities. Science cannot be bothered with things that are clearly wrong.

That said, it’s not like science discards any theory that isn’t mainstream. As long as there’s some question that still hasn’t a fact/law to answer it, theories that answer it can be regarded. Except ones that involve metaphysics, but that’s another issue altogether.

But all this rambling leads to this point: logic is the foundation of science, and many proprieties of science reside in logic. If something is clearly illogical/fallacious points, it cannot be regarded as valid as actually valid points.

tl;dr: filter the possibilities if you are truly open-minded.

Hence why I (...)argument from ignorance.
Proof of ignorance is when you only note there’s ignorance in the subject being talked. You pointed out the ignorance to support your claim, and that is argument of ignorance.

I can and (...) of being neutral
Being neutral implies you do not take any side of the issue, not that you deem both sides equally valid. You can’t take a side, even if not strongly about it, and backpedal your way by saying “I R NEUTRAL!” like you’re trying to do.

Also, to deem both sides equally valid is a sign of either indifference (which doesn’t make sense in your case, since you want to discuss the stuff) or of being a pussy.

It only talks (...) my first post.
Yes, I read and wow, you’re stupid. This still doesn’t equate as evidence of what you claimed and Federal Territories does not mean what you think it means. Federal Territory is any territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America : the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Overseas Territories (and these 3 things were the only things mentioned in the site you linked), US embassies, military bases of the US in other countries and Guantanamo Bay’s Prison. Oh and some atolls that are wildlife refuges.

Last time I checked, military bases and Guantanamo do not respond to the US Congress at all, but rather to the Defense and Judicial Branches. And those military bases, along with embassies, need to consider some directives of the legislation of the countries they’re in to avoid international conflicts.

And even considering the Overseas Territories, American Samoa has a constitution of its own that has been put to practice since 1967, so no need for US Congress there. And even in the other territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc) have their own civil government, so their executive branch, along with the mainland US’ one, has a say on what the US Congress proclaims. So the only way the US Congress has exclusive control over Overseas Territories is by being every congress the other countries the US has a military base/embassy on, being America Samoa’s congress, being US government, being the US Supreme Court and being the Overseas Territories’ civil governments. Which obviously it isn’t.

In reality I (...) coming back off).
Well, good for you, you actually did something instead of pussying. But that “again” and “coming back off” aren’t promising much.
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3

Last edited by Numinous; 12-18-2011 at 06:27 AM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-19-2011), kael03 (12-17-2011), Mal (12-18-2011), Miburo (12-18-2011)