Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Iran moves to legalize marriage for girls under 10 years old


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
222 replies to this topic

#181 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,096 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:46 AM

That's not my definition for 'martyr', it's Merriam-Webster's.

He may have sacrificed himself...but it doesn't make him a 'martyr', regardless of your definition of martyrdom.

http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/martyr
Check out definition 2. That definitely applies to Bruno.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#182 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:47 AM

There doesn't have to be an exclusionary word for the statement as a whole to imply exclusion. If the statement doesn't exclude other possibilities, it's very strangely worded, as Weinberg unnecessarily cluttered his point of "religion can make good people do bad things".


In order for you to assert that the statement is exclusionary you have to be able to point to the exclusionary word.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#183 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:48 AM

http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/martyr
Check out definition 2. That definitely applies to Bruno.


Again, check back to my post. I explicitly stated the primary definition of the word in the context of my usage of it. Even then, 'science' is not a principle or an ideal, so it doesn't fit the secondary definition either.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 19 August 2012 - 01:49 AM.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#184 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,096 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 19 August 2012 - 02:06 AM

In order for you to assert that the statement is exclusionary you have to be able to point to the exclusionary word.

In this instance, it's a pair of words: "it takes".

Again, check back to my post. I explicitly stated the primary definition of the word in the context of my usage of it. Even then, 'science' is not a principle or an ideal, so it doesn't fit the secondary definition either.

If you want to restrict the definition to the one purely concerning religion, then saying that we don't hear of non-religious martyrdom is meaningless. It's like saying "why don't we hear of non-Muslim Islamic terrorists?".

Science in itself may not be a principle or ideal, but defence of it and opposition to the Catholic Church certainly are ideals.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#185 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 19 August 2012 - 02:12 AM

In this instance, it's a pair of words: "it takes".


Nope, that's not exlusionary. Had he said "It 'only' takes" then yeah.

If you want to restrict the definition to the one purely concerning religion, then saying that we don't hear of non-religious martyrdom is meaningless. It's like saying "why don't we hear of non-Muslim Islamic terrorists?".

Science in itself may not be a principle or ideal, but defence of it and opposition to the Catholic Church certainly are ideals.


I didn't restrict its definition...i'm going by a trusted source of defining words in the English language.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#186 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,096 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 19 August 2012 - 02:16 AM

Nope, that's not exlusionary. Had he said "It 'only' takes" then yeah.

So when someone says "it takes one to know one", why is it seen as an insult? If it's not exclusionary, it shouldn't imply anything insulting at all.

I didn't restrict its definition...i'm going by a trusted source of defining words in the English language.

Dictionaries have multiple definitions for a reason. Even if that was the only definition, the statement is meaningless, as I pointed out in my last post.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#187 thema

thema

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 19 August 2012 - 02:58 AM

Wow, institutionalized pedophilia. What is it with the hyper devout (of any religion) and having sex with children?

#188 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:10 AM

So when someone says "it takes one to know one", why is it seen as an insult? If it's not exclusionary, it shouldn't imply anything insulting at all.


Because 'one' is the exclusionary word in that phrase.

Show me where Weinberg used that word.

Dictionaries have multiple definitions for a reason. Even if that was the only definition, the statement is meaningless, as I pointed out in my last post.


And they have primary ones for a reason as well, regardless what you pointed out in your last post.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#189 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,983 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:15 AM

Oh, so you're ok asking loaded questions but prefer to not answer them? How do you know what's Google and what's scholastic knowledge? Are you claiming mind-reading as one of your many 'carny' attributes?

The smartest thing you said in your response was "nor do i know". That would seem to be a theme, as opposed to "I thought clearly", something which is evidently beyond your capability.

Again, i'll try to use simple words in trying to retrieve a cogent answer from you....why is applying the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1406 years ago, morally different from forcing your penis into a 9 year old today? Again, is there something about a 9 year old then that makes them developmentally more capable of receiving a male penis at that age?

If you could answer the question, that'd be great.

And you're right, you have no idea what my education level, nor does it matter, since it bears no real relevance to the defence of your own position in this discussion.

Oh, well, actually you did by agreeing with me about the years in question


1406 years ago would have made Aisha, the girl and 6 year old in question.....well, 6 years old.

I realize math isn't your strong suit, but i assumed basic arithmetic wasn't beyond your superior intellect.


I'd like to thank you for toning down the big words in your post, sentences like "Were their cognitive development more advanced that the cognitive capabilities of today's adolescent?" are challenging indeed!


My appreciation ends there, though! Are you trying to goad me into defending rape, or something? I can't quite tell.

And speaking of challenging...

"(a)why is applying the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1406 years ago, morally different from ( b )forcing your penis into a 9 year old today? Again, ( c) is there something about a 9 year old then that makes them developmentally more capable of receiving a male penis at that age?"

It's kind of ironic that you'd offer up a "simplified" version of your complex thoughts by typing up such a convoluted question. To attempt an answer... you're asking for a difference, right? Well, technically, point (a) is simply the application of morality, whereas point ( b ) is a physical act and considered rape. You're asking me to compare the application of morality with the act of forcing sex? As for question ( c ), you can keep asking it, I'm not dumb enough to even attempt to answer.

Your other (original) question, even for me to seriously consider, implies that I have an understanding of "the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1400 years ago" -- which I don't. So is your follow-up question then "why should an act be examined under a different moral lens, depending on the year in which the act was committed?" If so, then I'd just dismiss the conversation entirely by saying that applying morality to history is pointless, period. Unless, of course, you're religious or philosophically warped enough to believe in absolutism, suggesting that morality transcends time (I'm now repeating myself), in which case you could easily engage in this discussion. I'm not, so I won't.

As a side: Thank you for specifying the gender from which the penis comes, by the way. When people don't specify "male penis" I tend to wonder which gender's penis they're referring to.

Regardless of what your dumb question may have been aiming for, my entire point was that I can't apply moral judgment to an act committed 1400 years ago, because my moral judgments are based on what I understand as being good and bad in a modern sense.

Nowhere did I say a 6, 9, 10, or even 14 year old has the developmental ability to cast judgment on sexual partnership. However, what I did say was that even having the morality conversation is problematic due to fallacious pitfalls, as the conversation inherently requires (or at least encourages) a form of presentism. Especially in my case, because I don't have the slightest clue about what societal norms (philosophical or sociological) were,1400 years ago, and I couldn't care less to even google them and pretend to know. Therefore objectivity is entirely impossible. Other posters in this thread were very, very, very obviously incapable of using any objectivity as well (as displayed by the comments of puberty, ice cream, etc.). The post to which I was responding to originally was also guilty of presentism.

And no, I didn't say anything about a 6 year old child making rational decisions, I said "yup" to the approximation of year you supplied. That "yup" doesn't have anything to do with logic or reasoning, just an agreement on a date. What I did say was that in England, just a few hundred years ago, children regularly had educations that would have been nothing like the education a similarly aged child would experience today (i.e. studying Classics before the age of 13), and that the legal marrying age was probably around 12 or 13, which--I know for a fact--was regularly disregarded for cultural reasons which are beyond my place to cast judgment on, without falling into fallacy zone.

Edited by GLASSJAW, 19 August 2012 - 03:32 AM.

marge.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#190 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:20 AM

Bunch of Bugs.

#191 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:41 AM

If sources should be checked and confirmed for hockey related news they should also be checked and confirmed for this type of nonsense too.

This whole thread seems to be sourced by a propaganda news article.

#192 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,230 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:50 PM

If sources should be checked and confirmed for hockey related news they should also be checked and confirmed for this type of nonsense too.

This whole thread seems to be sourced by a propaganda news article.

Good luck cleaning that mess up. When I'm not reading environmentalist propaganda, I'm reading Alex Jones conspiracies.

#193 Remy

Remy

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,179 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08

Posted 19 August 2012 - 02:01 PM

Wow, institutionalized pedophilia. What is it with the hyper devout (of any religion) and having sex with children?


You know, now that I stop and think about it, the entire religious system is predicated on controlling children. Typically, this is expressed through the indoctrination of youth to make them believe, perpetuating the system with another generation. But, you're absolutely right about the sexual aspect of it as well. Perhaps that is why, rape in general, is so strongly connected to control and power over another. And when you examine it even closer, aren't many religions about God's power over His subjects? Add in elements of fear and ignorance, necessary components to some degree, for any level of faith, and you have a real nightmare on your hands.

I will stipulate, however, that the above doesn't really represent the religious-through-community crowd that use religion more as a social construct than a metaphysical construct. By that I mean, your socially religious, much like a social drinker.

#194 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 19 August 2012 - 02:08 PM

I'd like to thank you for toning down the big words in your post, sentences like "Were their cognitive development more advanced that the cognitive capabilities of today's adolescent?" are challenging indeed!


My appreciation ends there, though! Are you trying to goad me into defending rape, or something? I can't quite tell.

And speaking of challenging...

"(a)why is applying the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1406 years ago, morally different from ( b )forcing your penis into a 9 year old today? Again, ( c) is there something about a 9 year old then that makes them developmentally more capable of receiving a male penis at that age?"

It's kind of ironic that you'd offer up a "simplified" version of your complex thoughts by typing up such a convoluted question. To attempt an answer... you're asking for a difference, right? Well, technically, point (a) is simply the application of morality, whereas point ( b ) is a physical act and considered rape. You're asking me to compare the application of morality with the act of forcing sex? As for question ( c ), you can keep asking it, I'm not dumb enough to even attempt to answer.

Your other (original) question, even for me to seriously consider, implies that I have an understanding of "the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1400 years ago" -- which I don't. So is your follow-up question then "why should an act be examined under a different moral lens, depending on the year in which the act was committed?" If so, then I'd just dismiss the conversation entirely by saying that applying morality to history is pointless, period. Unless, of course, you're religious or philosophically warped enough to believe in absolutism, suggesting that morality transcends time (I'm now repeating myself), in which case you could easily engage in this discussion. I'm not, so I won't.

As a side: Thank you for specifying the gender from which the penis comes, by the way. When people don't specify "male penis" I tend to wonder which gender's penis they're referring to.

Regardless of what your dumb question may have been aiming for, my entire point was that I can't apply moral judgment to an act committed 1400 years ago, because my moral judgments are based on what I understand as being good and bad in a modern sense.

Nowhere did I say a 6, 9, 10, or even 14 year old has the developmental ability to cast judgment on sexual partnership. However, what I did say was that even having the morality conversation is problematic due to fallacious pitfalls, as the conversation inherently requires (or at least encourages) a form of presentism. Especially in my case, because I don't have the slightest clue about what societal norms (philosophical or sociological) were,1400 years ago, and I couldn't care less to even google them and pretend to know. Therefore objectivity is entirely impossible. Other posters in this thread were very, very, very obviously incapable of using any objectivity as well (as displayed by the comments of puberty, ice cream, etc.). The post to which I was responding to originally was also guilty of presentism.

And no, I didn't say anything about a 6 year old child making rational decisions, I said "yup" to the approximation of year you supplied. That "yup" doesn't have anything to do with logic or reasoning, just an agreement on a date. What I did say was that in England, just a few hundred years ago, children regularly had educations that would have been nothing like the education a similarly aged child would experience today (i.e. studying Classics before the age of 13), and that the legal marrying age was probably around 12 or 13, which--I know for a fact--was regularly disregarded for cultural reasons which are beyond my place to cast judgment on, without falling into fallacy zone.



So you don't have an answer, gotcha.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#195 mmmcookies1975

mmmcookies1975

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 12

Posted 19 August 2012 - 02:17 PM

and the Iranian priests are condemning chicken now too!!! not even a joke.

#196 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 19 August 2012 - 02:21 PM

and the Iranian priests are condemning chicken now too!!! not even a joke.


They may have meant to say that they were condemning choking one's chicken. #lostintranslation.

Edited by Sharpshooter, 19 August 2012 - 02:22 PM.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#197 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:06 PM

Man...you're really stretching here.

WWi was a pi$$ing match between royal relatives and two super-powers of the day itching for a fight so they could divide Europe and the world. The Duke's assassination was just an excuse.


Im not distorting anything.


Hitler's actions, beliefs and atrocities had nothing to do with religion. Did he use religion to control segments of the German population, sure, but he would have done what he was going to do regardless. His actions and the Nazi party's beliefs weren't based on any religious beliefs but on racial superiority and a desire for power and expansion of the German empire.



It doesnt matter in the slightest what religion Hitler did or did not practise, what does matter is that it was used as a means to an end.

Japan was about loyalty and honour to the emperor along with an expansionist philosophy. Not exactly a religion.


Lets go over what I said one more time:

The emperor-based ideology of Japan during World War II was a relatively new creation, dating from the efforts of Meiji oligarchs to unite the nation in response to the Western challenge. Before the Meiji Restoration, the emperor wielded no political power and was viewed simply as a symbol of the Japanese culture. He was the head of the Shintô religion, Japan's native religion, which holds, among other beliefs, that the emperor is descended from gods who created Japan and is therefore semidivine. Westerners of that time knew him only as a shadowy figure somewhat like a pope.

The Meiji oligarchs brought the emperor and Shintô to national prominence, replacing Buddhism as the national religion, for political and ideological reasons--since Buddhism had originated in India and come to Japan via China. The people were not allowed to look at the emperor, or even to speak his name; patriotism had been raised to the unassailable level of sacredness.

It is sometimes difficult to comprehend the extreme sacrifices the Japanese made in the name of the emperor. This can perhaps best be viewed, however, as extreme patriotism--Japanese were taught to give their lives, if necessary, for their emperor. But this was not entirely different from the Americans who gave their lives in the same war for their country and the "American" way. The kamikaze pilots, who were named for the "divine wind" (kami kaze) that destroyed the Mongol fleet in the thirteenth century and saved Japan from invasion, might be compared to the young Iranian soldiers fighting in suicide squadrons in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, or even to fanatical Shiites responsible for the truck bombing of the U.S. Lebanese embassy in 1983.

Edited by Red Light Racicot, 19 August 2012 - 03:06 PM.


#198 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 19 August 2012 - 04:59 PM

Meanwhile.....in Pakistan.

Pakistani Christian Girl With Special Needs Arrested For Allegedly Burning Islamic Text

A Christian girl with Down's syndrome has been arrested and charged with blasphemy in Pakistan for allegedly burning pages containing Islamic text, the BBC and Agence France-Presse report.

According to the Express Tribune, an English language newspaper in Pakistan, the11-year-old was beaten last week after locals in her village near Islamabad saw her burning pages inscribed with Islamic text.

Dawn, another English-language Pakistani paper, notes that other reports indicatethat she "was burning used papers collected from the garbage for cooking."

If found guilty, the young girl could face the death penalty, according to AFP.

Her family and other Christians in the area reportedly fled out of fear following the incident, according to the Express Tribune and Dawn, but not before people in the village brought the girl and her mother to local authorities.

AFP reports that the Women's Action Forum, a women's rights organization in Pakistan, has called on authorities to release the young girl.

"WAF is outraged at the total inhumanity of the men who lodged the First Information Report (FIR) in the police," Tahira Abdullah, a spokeswoman for WAF said.

This is one of the latest high-profile incidents to draw attention to Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws, which state that people who are convicted of insulting the Quran or Islam's prophet can face the death penalty.

In 2010, a Christian mother of five was sentenced to death for blasphemy.

And last month, a man accused of desecrating the Quran was dragged from a police station in Pakistan and beaten to death before his body was set on fire.

Salman Taseer, a Pakistani governor, was assassinated by a bodyguard in 2011because of his reported opposition to the laws.


:picard:

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#199 Remy

Remy

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,179 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:29 PM

quote removed - absolutely inappropriate


Are you trying to be funny? If you had nothing of substance to add to this thread, maybe you would have been wiser to say nothing rather than forcing it by making an offensive comment.

Edited by debluvscanucks, 19 August 2012 - 05:46 PM.


#200 MrsCanuck

MrsCanuck

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,629 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 09

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:34 PM

That's heart wrenching. What a horrible life to live.
Posted Image

#201 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:38 PM

Are you trying to be funny? If you had nothing of substance to add to this thread, maybe you would have been wiser to say nothing rather than forcing it by making an offensive comment.


The swine factor is ultra-high with that guy, Remy. :sadno: :angry:

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 19 August 2012 - 05:38 PM.

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#202 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:45 PM

Quote removed - offensive & inappropriate


You're just posting garbage in every thread now, aren't you?

First the fallacious Einstein vs. Atheist professor story and now this?

Edited by debluvscanucks, 19 August 2012 - 06:16 PM.

RIP LB RR PD


#203 Humble Rodent

Humble Rodent

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,792 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 06

Posted 20 August 2012 - 03:54 PM

Good thing you used the word fallacious we wouldn't have been able to tell how smart you are without it

Posted Image


#204 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:09 PM

Good thing you used the word fallacious we wouldn't have been able to tell how smart you are without it


People posting here shouldn't have to dumb down their regular way of speaking/writing in order for the lowest common denominator or 'children' to understand them. I hope there weren't too many big words in that previous sentence that may result in a dictionary being required.....

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 20 August 2012 - 04:13 PM.

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#205 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,096 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:53 PM

Good thing you used the word fallacious we wouldn't have been able to tell how smart you are without it

It's not exactly an obscure/overly complex word...
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#206 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,880 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:56 PM

It's not exactly an obscure/overly complex word...


I had to look it up .. I thought he was referring to oral sex .. B)

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#207 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,096 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:16 PM

I had to look it up .. I thought he was referring to oral sex .. B)

I wonder if fellatious is a word referring to oral sex. Probably :P
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#208 Ovech Trick

Ovech Trick

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:20 PM

Muslim here, this is sickening, i wonder why some many Muslim leave their native countries to live in places like USA, UK, and Canada. I wonder if it has anything to do with things like this? Hmmm...

Also, feel free to quote me all you want, this will be my first and last post in this thread, thank you.
Posted Image

Capitalist Hockey League - Minnesota Wild GM

#209 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,983 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:14 PM

Good thing you used the word fallacious we wouldn't have been able to tell how smart you are without it


The worst thing about many of the posters in this thread--other than their disagreeable nature and bland opinions--is their belief that, as Hemingway would say: a ten dollar idea requires ten dollar words

It's unfortunate that some good ideas get tripped up by the buzzwords these people exchange with each other, daily. These exchanges always seem to be in the same 'masturbatory' language that you can find on any forum on the internet, but (ironically) not in a class room, or book or journal worth reading.

Anyway, the one that drives me crazy is "inane." That word that is so inherently condescending and dismissive, yet it's the go-to word of choice for many of these people in their "serious" discussions!

That said, I don't disagree with Bertuzzi Babe in the least: this is how these people actually function! Can you imagine... ?

marge.jpg
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#210 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:22 PM

The worst thing about many of the posters in this thread--other than their disagreeable nature and bland opinions--is their belief that, as Hemingway would say: a ten dollar idea requires ten dollar words

It's unfortunate that some good ideas get tripped up by the buzzwords these people exchange with each other, daily. These exchanges always seem to be in the same 'masturbatory' language that you can find on any forum on the internet, but (ironically) not in a class room, or book or journal worth reading.

Anyway, the one that drives me crazy is "inane." That word that is so inherently condescending and dismissive, yet it's the go-to word of choice for many of these people in their "serious" discussions!

That said, I don't disagree with Bertuzzi Babe in the least: this is how these people actually function! Can you imagine... ?


So you 'agree' then.

Perhaps you could have used that one dollar word there instead of yapping inanely.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.