Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Left-wing Speech Control

Page 9 of 11 [ 174 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Feb 2011, 8:46 pm

Vigilans wrote:
I think a direct translation would be 'Runners of the Forest'
Courir in French does mean to run; coureur is a descriptive, as in 'runner'
Considering how close French and Spanish are you are correct. I have been exposed to French for most of my life and I am pretty much fluent, and I can sort of pick up on other Latin-based languages that have cognates with French


Could you tell me what the occupational last name of Fournier translates into? I've heard it's equivalent is "baker". (On my father's side I'm French, but I've never had a necessity to learn French and the phonetic system was fairly off-putting when I've considered what languages I'd like to learn.)



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

04 Feb 2011, 9:06 pm

I did a search and it is related to the Latin word 'furnarius' which means 'man of the oven'


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

04 Feb 2011, 9:53 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

It's interesting that you were the one to latch onto the naming of sports teams aside in the article and now you are using it to establish your own level of intelligence while deriding others for having thoughts in opposition to your own.


Mr. Prager's thesis (or, is it premature for us to address each other as "comrade?")

Comrade Prager's thesis is that Leftist Language Control Advocates are responsible for language shifts, and that language shifts are bad, because they will lead to the Leftists taking over the world, the destruction of good moral Christian values, and the Second Coming of Christ. Did I capture Comrade Prager's gist correctly?

Anyway, if Comrade Prager's thesis is correct, then the dropping of the second-person-familiar-singular pronoun and verb forms was due to the efforts of 15th Century Totalitarian Leftist Language Control Advocates. Masters addressing their servants with the familiar "thou" and "thee" was much too "degrading." The dropping of the second-person-familiar-singular would have been the biggest step towards Totalitarianism, and getting schools to drop American Indian names is, at this point, mere icing on the cake. We've already pretty much achieved our Totalitarian objective.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Feb 2011, 10:20 pm

Vigilans wrote:
I did a search and it is related to the Latin word 'furnarius' which means 'man of the oven'


Cool.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Feb 2011, 10:22 pm

pandabear wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

It's interesting that you were the one to latch onto the naming of sports teams aside in the article and now you are using it to establish your own level of intelligence while deriding others for having thoughts in opposition to your own.


Mr. Prager's thesis (or, is it premature for us to address each other as "comrade?")

Comrade Prager's thesis is that Leftist Language Control Advocates are responsible for language shifts, and that language shifts are bad, because they will lead to the Leftists taking over the world, the destruction of good moral Christian values, and the Second Coming of Christ. Did I capture Comrade Prager's gist correctly?

Anyway, if Comrade Prager's thesis is correct, then the dropping of the second-person-familiar-singular pronoun and verb forms was due to the efforts of 15th Century Totalitarian Leftist Language Control Advocates. Masters addressing their servants with the familiar "thou" and "thee" was much too "degrading." The dropping of the second-person-familiar-singular would have been the biggest step towards Totalitarianism, and getting schools to drop American Indian names is, at this point, mere icing on the cake. We've already pretty much achieved our Totalitarian objective.


Oh yay! A demonstration of equivocation! So, the formalization of language is equivalent to the banning of certain words which have become pejorative in the minds of PC liberals?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

04 Feb 2011, 10:34 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh yay! A demonstration of equivocation! So, the formalization of language is equivalent to the banning of certain words which have become pejorative in the minds of PC liberals?


Which to me, Comrade, doesn't make any sense. We've recently seen certain aspects of language formalized in modern text lingo (expressions such as OMG, TTFN, LOL, LMAO, and various others), which wouldn't be the equivalent of banning words that have become pejorative.

I suspect that even non-PC liberals avoid terms like "n****r", "nip" and "Chinese", which have become pejorative.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Feb 2011, 10:58 pm

pandabear wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh yay! A demonstration of equivocation! So, the formalization of language is equivalent to the banning of certain words which have become pejorative in the minds of PC liberals?


Which to me, Comrade, doesn't make any sense. We've recently seen certain aspects of language formalized in modern text lingo (expressions such as OMG, TTFN, LOL, LMAO, and various others), which wouldn't be the equivalent of banning words that have become pejorative.

I suspect that even non-PC liberals avoid terms like "n****r", "nip" and "Chinese", which have become pejorative.


Individual aversion to crass speech is fine, making laws and punishing people for saying taboo words is not. Freedom of speech is more important than the potential that some people might get offended.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

05 Feb 2011, 2:25 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
pandabear wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh yay! A demonstration of equivocation! So, the formalization of language is equivalent to the banning of certain words which have become pejorative in the minds of PC liberals?


Which to me, Comrade, doesn't make any sense. We've recently seen certain aspects of language formalized in modern text lingo (expressions such as OMG, TTFN, LOL, LMAO, and various others), which wouldn't be the equivalent of banning words that have become pejorative.

I suspect that even non-PC liberals avoid terms like "n****r", "nip" and "Chinese", which have become pejorative.


Individual aversion to crass speech is fine, making laws and punishing people for saying taboo words is not. Freedom of speech is more important than the potential that some people might get offended.

Who is making laws to ban words? I'm seriously confused. :huh:



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

05 Feb 2011, 9:02 am

In that case, Comrade Prager is indeed a poo-poo head.

It is really, really important for me to be able to call Comrade Prager a poo-poo head.

While we're at it, let's throw out our grammar books.

By Comrade Prager's standard, Noah Webster was the most totalitarian leftist language control advocate that has ever damned our nation.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

06 Feb 2011, 12:14 pm

On top of that, Comrade Noah Webster was an *gasp* abolitionist, which automatically means that that he was a totalitarian liberal leftist atheist.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Feb 2011, 10:48 pm

pandabear wrote:
On top of that, Comrade Noah Webster was an *gasp* abolitionist, which automatically means that that he was a totalitarian liberal leftist atheist.


Oh good grief. Here we go, now are you actually dumb enough to be willing to assert that all conservatives are in favor of the ownership and treatment of human beings as property? I'm certainly not and I know of nobody who is. Having a stance that at a time would be considered one way or another is not to say that they would be on the same magnitude and direction of some random political compass today. Claiming that somebody who was against slavery centuries ago would be in favor of abortion or euthanasia or men lusting after each other is just plain wrong. One must go by the issues they held and not by how "comparatively liberal" they would have been in order for you to claim them as an ad vericundium justification.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Feb 2011, 12:58 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
pandabear wrote:
On top of that, Comrade Noah Webster was an *gasp* abolitionist, which automatically means that that he was a totalitarian liberal leftist atheist.


Oh good grief. Here we go, now are you actually dumb enough to be willing to assert that all conservatives are in favor of the ownership and treatment of human beings as property? I'm certainly not and I know of nobody who is. Having a stance that at a time would be considered one way or another is not to say that they would be on the same magnitude and direction of some random political compass today. Claiming that somebody who was against slavery centuries ago would be in favor of abortion or euthanasia or men lusting after each other is just plain wrong. One must go by the issues they held and not by how "comparatively liberal" they would have been in order for you to claim them as an ad vericundium justification.


I would add that Slavery violates everything Conservatives stand for, which is individual liberty. Slavery to most Conservatives would be an abomination and before some leftist nut brings up pregnancy and abortion, there is the life of the child to consider and abortion could be argued as treating that child as property.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Feb 2011, 6:07 pm

Conservatives were in favour of slavery during the first half of the 19th century. Otherwise, what would the Civil War have been about? If the Southerners were so "Conservative", then why didn't they just free their slaves on their own? Or, were they just too darned "Liberal" to do that?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Feb 2011, 7:02 pm

pandabear wrote:
Conservatives were in favour of slavery during the first half of the 19th century. Otherwise, what would the Civil War have been about? If the Southerners were so "Conservative", then why didn't they just free their slaves on their own? Or, were they just too darned "Liberal" to do that?


You like equivocation a lot.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Feb 2011, 7:35 pm

Doesn't everybody?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

09 Feb 2011, 7:41 pm

pandabear wrote:
Doesn't everybody?


That's like saying, "doesn't everybody like to kill people in horrible manners whilst they smile sadistically?" It might be fun for you while you're laughing at your own jokes though.