incorygible
Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,12:08) | | Well, in regard to evolving evolution, you're getting there. Good job....keep thinking, obviously no one else who is posting is, although Ian's moving in that direction. |
Oh, I'll "keep thinking", hon. My latest speculations are now running as to why evolution might have ingrained me with the idea that unprovoked patronization violates my evolved sense of fair play in honest dialogue.
| Quote |
As far as the Sal deal. You give me a term to use in regard to how Skatje and PZ views the issue. Replace the word "condone". I have explained, in detail, exactly what I mean in regard to that word both here and at PZ's place. I DID use the word innocently and it is the best option, IMHO. She does not "advocate" the act, she does not "condemn" the act....she "condones" it. I can't think of a better one word definition, so give me one. |
I already gave you a whole paragraph. In the interest of brevity, perhaps the contained phrase "refuses to condemn as intrinsically immoral" might be of service? Beyond that, why be lazy? You want people to know exactly what you mean -- no more, no less -- right?
| Quote | As far as this:
| Quote |
(a) "Noted atheist PZ Myers has stated that he reluctantly forgives and overlooks sexual activities between humans and animals, provided that neither is harmed in the process. While Myers would never consider engaging in the acts himself as a matter of his own personal conduct, he refuses to condemn the act as intrinsically immoral."
or
(b) "PZ's a pig-fucker!" (Or some pseudo-polite rectum-esque variant, after Sal's style.)
Be honest, FtK. |
You're above paragraph is fine, except you'd have to take out the word reluctantly. Skatje did not appear "reluctant" about condoning the act of people having relationships with their pets. She merely didn't find it compelling *herself*. She made arguments *for* it. |
My dictionary includes "esp. reluctantly" as a note regarding proper diction for 'condone'. You say Skatje does not appear "reluctant". And yet, you also note that she doesn't find it to be an especially compelling behaviour to engage in herself, nor, I would argue, to advocate (given the obvious disclaimers she has placed in her communications from the get-go). Easy question: do you think that she might be reluctant, not only to engage in bestiality, but to advocate it? If your answer is yes, then "reluctantly" is a fair inclusion, not to mention only apt when paraphrasing the proper meaning of 'condone'. If your answer is no, and you actually contend that she is "advocating" bestiality sans reluctance, well . . . where were we on that quote-mining thing? For some strange reason I'm getting a bit dizzy here.
| Quote |
Sal didn't say "PZ's a pig-fucker"! He made a joke, in bad taste, that I have condemned no less that at least 5 or 6 times now. Please accept my condemnation and move on. I don't know how else I can phrase it. |
After all this, you must see that despite paying lip service to condemnation, you have been condoning Sal's ridiculous behaviour all along. You know what? You might want to go look up that word 'condone' in the dictionary, because it has a very specific, subtle meaning and I don't know how else I can phrase it.
'Round and 'round and 'round we go . . . where she stops, nobody knows.
|
