Science Ethics and Racism in Drug Enforcement Thread

hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
So clearly you don't know what a social construct is.

social construct
noun
a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice

Social constructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world. It assumes that understanding, significance, and meaning are developed not separately within the individual, but in coordination with other human beings. The elements most important to the theory are (1) the assumption that human beings rationalize their experience by creating a model of the social world and how it functions and (2) that language is the most essential system through which humans construct reality.[1]
Click to expand...
did you link an atheist tribe to show that you can have religion without a social construct
Click to expand...
No, you're literally a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen at this point.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
hodj_sl said:
So clearly you don't know what a social construct is.

social construct
noun
a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice

Social constructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





No, you're literally a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen at this point.
Click to expand...
Im sure imliterallythat.

I leave work at 6, so 10 more minutes!!
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I feel like you guys read that sentence, and stopped at "You're literally a pyromaniac" and then hit reply.

Because that's....literally...the only context where the word...literally...couldn't be used in that sentence in that way.

lendarios_sl said:
I leave work at 6, so 10 more minutes!!
Click to expand...
I just got back from one of my last classes of the semester and I'm going to begin drinking in about that same time frame.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
hodj_sl said:
I feel like you guys read that sentence, and stopped at "You're literally a pyromaniac" and then hit reply.

Because that's....literally...the only context where the word...literally...couldn't be used in that sentence in that way.



I just got back from one of my last classes of the semester and I'm going to begin drinking in about that same time frame.
Click to expand...
Its not my fault youliterallyuse words the wrong way.

Or do you mean that the word means the opposite of its meaning, So is its use unethical ??
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Except I didn't use the word literally incorrectly there.

You're blazing through multiple strawmen, which makes you literally a pyromaniac in a field full of strawmen.

If I'd said you're "literally a pyromaniac" and ended the statement there, without the rest of the sentence, then this completely retarded complaint might be warranted.

Furthermore

lit?er?al?ly
'lid?r?le,'litr?le/
adverb

in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
"the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
synonyms: exactly, precisely, actually, really, truly; More
informal
used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
"I have received literally thousands of letters"
Click to expand...
Either way I still used the word correctly.

literally - Google ?j?M
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,589
11,907
Hodj is technically correct. They changed the definition of literally because so many people were using it incorrectly. Even the fucking Oxford English Dictionary caved in to the stupidity.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Well its an etymological fallacy to claim a word must, by necessity, retain solely its historical meaning

Etymological fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception,[1] and is sometimes used as a basis for linguistic prescription. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology.[2] This does not, however, show that etymology is irrelevant in any way, nor does it attempt to prove such.

A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies,[3] or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology. Notable examples include the terms antisemitism and philosemitism, which were coined to refer to Jews specifically, rather than to Semites in general.
Click to expand...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I literally miss your Mark O'Mara avatar from the Zimmerman trial days.
 
Fury

Fury

Silver Knight of the Realm
499
25
Abefroman_sl said:
Hodj is technically correct. They changed the definition of literally because so many people were using it incorrectly. Even the fucking Oxford English Dictionary caved in to the stupidity.
Click to expand...
That is pretty funny in a sad way. Although didn't someone in this very thead say something like, "if everyone in world except says a fallasy except one person, then everyone in the world except that one person is wrong." Just because almost everyone says it's alright now doesn't make it so.
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,589
11,907
hodj_sl said:
I literally miss your Mark O'Mara avatar from the Zimmerman trial days.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly curious if you believe ebonics is a language now? Since that is what SJW's love to do, change the meaning of words to fit their argument.

You were correct in your usage but you sure as fuck shouldn't agree with that change. We already had a word for that situation.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Depends on how you mean. From the linguistic perspective I think it is probably considered a language, but I'm not sure I'd encourage people to use it.

Like Spanglish is also considered a language, I think, but I wouldn't encourage people to use it either. Especially not in professional settings.

That's a personal, subjective opinion, though. I don't have any classes in linguistics, since it has been more and more split off from the traditional four field anthropological training into its own field I think. I mean they used to require you to take some linguistics classes to be an anthro major, but that's much less common now, so I simply don't have a background to make a judgement call on that from an academic perspective.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Fury_sl said:
That is pretty funny in a sad way. Although didn't someone in this very thead say something like, "if everyone in world except says a fallasy except one person, then everyone in the world except that one person is wrong." Just because almost everyone says it's alright now doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
But the idea that words retain essentialist meanings by necessity and cannot change is already a fallacy of reasoning.

ITS AN ENIGMA WRAPPED IN A CONUNDRUM

LITERALLY
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,589
11,907
hodj_sl said:
But the idea that words retain essentialist meanings by necessity and cannot change is already a fallacy of reasoning.

ITS AN ENIGMA WRAPPED IN A CONUNDRUM

LITERALLY
Click to expand...
The problem I have with it is you just made the language worse. There was no need for it. Should we just remove figuratively from the dictionary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.