@xxovercastxx

I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

Apparently, if the other Universes had different physics, it would be impossible to detect them anyway. So to me it's a fairly useless supposition. So, just one Universe and nothing but the material.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

Time and space had a beginning at the big bang, so really it would always be impossible to measure it. The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material. It's creation ex nihilo..IE, creation from nothing. Which funnily enough happens to uniquely support the judeo-christian belief.

How does something from from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing..So therefore, if time and space had a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space which created it. These have always been identified as Gods attributes, of existing outside of time and space in an eternal continuim with no beginning or end. Isn't a transcendent creator necessitated here?

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted? Without an independent existence from the body, IE the soul, this seems to be the conclusion you're left with.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness. In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

Well, you could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false. And if the Universe was simulated, the question is meaningless..but point taken..the better question is..Was the Universe deliberately Created by supreme being?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Was the Universe deliberately created?
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
Don't know = Agnostic
Your answer to this question will determine what your belief is. Note: This is a philosophical question, not a religious one.

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

@rottenseed
I think that's somewhat debatable. Etymology doesn't tell the whole story of the inception of a word or phrase. I at least can find some sources that suggest the opposite is true: http://ebookbrowse.com/caliban-and-the-witch-pdf-d19978416

"Several authors have also uncovered the fact that there was a definite queer element to many of the sects concerned. Almost one thousand years ago, these people were expressing a unity of struggle which survives in broken form even today, no matter how much assimilated queers, career women and left-wing defenders of heterosexuality may insist otherwise."

This author adds the following notation for the source as well: "10 While not a scholarly work, Arthur Evans’ Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture: A Radical View of Western Civilization and Some of the People It Has Tried to Destroy (Fag Rag Books, 1978) is the earliest sympathetic formulation of this argument that I know of; more recent and more scholarly works include John Boswell’s Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality : gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century (University of Chicago Press, c1980) and Jeffrey Richards’ Sex, dissidence, and damnation : minority groups in the Middle Ages (Routledge 1991)."

----------

Solid evidence? Hardly. But it does seem, based on what I'm seeing in the research, that the connection is at least a possibility.

>> ^NaMeCaF:

I also never understood why Gridiron is called "football". They carry and throw the ball with their hands!


It's called football because it's played on foot, not on horseback. Damn aristocracy, always belittling our peasant games. We should call it freedomball. And see what the queen mother thinks of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Etymology

Thats too bad that they don't agree. The Cree in northern Manitoba confirm that they call us Eskimo based on "eaters of raw-meat", but hey, what do they know?

Qallunaq (also pronounced kabloonak) comes from kabluk (eyebrows), and naak (stomach). The story goes that Scottish whalers who came over in the 1700's had big bushy eyebrows and big stomachs - and the name stuck.

You can call me a snow-chink if you want. I won't feed that troll.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Throbbin:
it's actually a Cree word that the French adopted
Very few linguists, apparently, agree with that etymology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#Origin_of_the_name_Eskimo
What's 'Qallunaq' translate to?
How about we call you guys 'snow-chinks'?

>> ^Throbbin:

it's actually a Cree word that the French adopted

Very few linguists, apparently, agree with that etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#Origin_of_the_name_Eskimo

What's 'Qallunaq' translate to?

How about we call you guys 'snow-chinks'?

>> ^NordlichReiter:

aitch (ch)
n.
The letter h.
[French hache.]
-http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aitch

Your point being? "hache" in French is not aspired or expired or whatever. All "h" are silent in French and exist solely for decoration or etymology. As such, some words beginning with an "h" that used to be aspired in old French or in the native language will not allow liaison but that's it. Since in English both aspired and non aspired "h" exists, the distinction is more important.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Very cool, but having a garden does not make one a farmer.


Well, according to the English language, yes it does

Main Entry: farm·er
Pronunciation: \ˈfär-mər\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a person who pays a fixed sum for some privilege or source of income
2 : a person who cultivates land or crops or raises animals (as livestock or fish)


And what is a "Farm" you may ask?

Main Entry: 1farm
Pronunciation: \ˈfärm\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English ferme, from Anglo-French, from fermer to fix, rent, from Latin firmare to make firm, from firmus firm
Date: 14th century
4 : a tract of land devoted to agricultural purposes
5 a : a plot of land devoted to the raising of animals and especially domestic livestock b : a tract of water reserved for the artificial cultivation of some aquatic life form (a fish farm)


But you're probably wanting to use the lesser-term "Gardener" for what these people are doing, which is historically inaccurate. See, everywhere else on the planet other than good ole USA, a "garden" is a yard. And the actual term "Gardener" really means:

Gardener
Function: noun
Date: circa 1763
: a person who is engaged in the development and decorative planting of gardens and grounds


Yep, decorative planting of gardens and grounds. Not the cultivation of food and livestock/fish.

*anatomy
*etymology

>> ^bluecliff:

the only problem with evolution (and I have no problem with IT)is that you substitute it, as this video implies, with a theory for the origin of life.
And the only problem I see is that people use the term evolution to mean a proces of change which has a direction - i.e. more and more complex forms of life.
Etymology and historical meaning
The word stems from the Latin term evolutio meaning "unfolding" and prior to the late 1800s was confined to referring to goal-directed, pre-programmed processes such as embryological development. A pre-programmed task, as in a military maneuver, using this definition, may be termed an "evolution." By the 20th century, the dominant concept associated with the word "evolution" was biological evolution, which had originally been known as "transmutation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28term%29#_note-devolving

So humans could theoretically "evolve" into "lower forms" of life.




That is happening as we speak.

I had never used nor seen the expression, only heard it. I'm glad I know the etymology..."brass tax" just seems like a tax on brass...not very descriptive.

another one I just found out about is "up and adam" is really "up and at 'em" WHO WOULDA THOUGHT?!

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Now you made me go look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_tacks

I don't think I've actually ever used the "getting down to brass tacks" line in print before I did just then, but I'd always assumed it meant physical brass pins, not some arcane tax.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
@NetRunner
I always thought it was the "brass tax"...hmmm

Hey man, not for nothing but, let's let the hotforwords Ruskie work on the etymology for us....(got an in with her as of now), since all the pole-polishers and nub-punchers on this site seem to want to spread their own personal form of cheer on the subject, not to mention the public masturbation sans therapy.....Dagmarrrr, don't let the site's users tell you what you already know, drop a nut and define the rules yerselfish......

Ohhh and by the by, to whomever it may be that has one opinion or the other as to whether some breasts or some penis' have any allure for one monkey or the other and wish to offer THEIR definition of what porn is or is not...again, go fuck yourselves, make a viddy, and push that shit on your own street corner..

and stop all the cursin' while yer at it...Why not let Jesus give you some pointers regarding your potty mouths, eh?

Matthew 15:11: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

^ To be honest, I'm going off of what I saw on hotforwords for the cop thing. I don't know if she's authoritative, but she did address the notion that cop was short for copper badges, but said that's not really the origin.

If you want a semantic battle, I'll waste a few brain cells on it. Let's start with the etymology of the word semantic itself:

1894, from Fr. sémantique, applied by Michel Bréal (1883) to the psychology of language, from Gk. semantikos "significant," from semainein "to show, signify, indicate by a sign," from sema "sign" (Doric sama).

In short, semantics refer to the method or process of how people communicate ideas. Normally discussions of semantics are about accurately conveying an idea or concept with words. For example, how do people know the difference between their, they're and there in spoken language? Why doesn't that kind of overloading create a lot communication issues?

A big part of the answer is context. With they're, their, and there, all you need to really know is the grammatical part of speech. Other concepts need a semantic context.

For example, let's talk about a red light. A red traffic light means stop, but a red light in other context might mean that your stereo is in standby mode, your phone is charging, or you're getting close to the whorehouse.

It can also be used metaphorically, as in "She told him she didn't want to see him anymore, but he just loves to run red lights."

I find that you can be selectively obtuse about these different ways of discerning meaning from words.

When I say "I am a liberal", I usually mean this, and not necessarily this.

However, I don't really think being a liberal necessarily is in conflict with being a liberal. I too have a strong devotion to individual liberty, I just think there are more fundamental human rights than you do. But I also think there are limits to rights, and that there's no root violation of "individual liberty" if you have taxpayer subsidized, compulsory social insurance, any more than if you have a taxpayer subsizied, compulsory fire department.

But I don't need to express all of that if what I'm really saying is "I don't think liberals like to be told to think." There's no real doubt about who I'm talking about when I say "liberals". My semantics are clear.

If one wanted to respond to such an assertion, they would take on its semantic content. In other words, they'd say "broad generalizations like that are bad", or "bullshit, liberals are all zombies that do what George Soros tells them to", or even address the implication, such as "conservatives don't like to be told what to think, either!", or "I believe what I believe, and if Rush Limbaugh agrees with me, then I suppose he's on my side."

Incidentally, here's a good etymology of the word liberal. Personally, I'm using the original root definition, "befitting free men, noble, generous," when I describe the people who believe in this. When I'm referring to anti-tax zealots, I'm usually dancing around this, but I can also come up with more scathing barbs as the situation merits.

@NetRunner: Actually, I'm not clear on the etymology of cops, but I believe they were named that for their copper badges. I don't know. Anyhow, your example is hugely flawed, because the term cop is still used as its base meaning. Most words are used appropriately based on their root meaning, that's why you can read almost any Romantic language and glean most of the words because they share a common base thread.

Intellectual laziness isn't having a desire to apply correct usage of language based on the original lingual meaning. No, I believe intellectual laziness is learning memorization techniques handed down by your party to gain agenda.

If you like arguing semantics, then argue them. Don't give in to those awful memorization techniques that have made us all stupider and more susceptible to revisionism under the Prussian education system.

@blankfist, I think most people who use "liberal" and "conservative" in a political context in conversational speech expect people to generally understand what they mean. However, you can't seem to restrain yourself from always wanting to get into some sort of strange etymological battle about what you think "liberal" should imply.

It's funny that you're acting like I want the sidebars. You essentially demand them of anyone who says "liberal" and doesn't use your preferred, archaic definition (which, incidentally, no one does). I don't want you to annotate your comments, I'm just saying you shouldn't try to force other people to do so, and that your efforts to impose that on people doesn't score you or your ideology any kind of political points.

As to your schadenfreude about Air America dying, it's hard to imagine this is some principled stand against political radio -- I doubt you'd have made a peep if some 2nd string conservative radio talker got the plug pulled, or even if Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly got canned.

IMO, Air America was doomed to failure because it didn't even try to be a left wing version of right wing radio; it was mostly populated with reasonable people making reasonable (and often obvious) commentary on the politics of the moment. It was, to me, utterly boring, and I'm almost certainly the target audience for them.