[Locked] Somene we know Made it to FARK
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
The nail or screw itself would be the social networking sites and blogs and forums.I kept that vague for a reason. The purpose of putting a nail or screw into something to hold it to another is akin to communicating over the internet. There was no deeper meaning to that part.
Except you're talking about the actual action. You're not talking about the nail or screw, or the purpose. Just the action.
Tegumi wrote...
But ignoring all that, let me try to boil down your argument to a single point:
Two things that have very similar purposes are very hard to distinguish. Is this it?
Two things that have very similar purpose with broad/vague definitions are hard to distinguish.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Kalistean wrote...
Except you're talking about the actual action. You're not talking about the nail or screw, or the purpose. Just the action.Oh, but I was talking about purpose.
Tegumi wrote...
Your assertion is likened to saying that since a hammer and a screwdriver both help apply a thin metal object (nail or screw) into another material to assist in holding it together with something else, they are the same thing.See? Purpose.
Kalistean wrote...
Tegumi wrote...
But ignoring all that, let me try to boil down your argument to a single point:Two things that have very similar purposes are very hard to distinguish. Is this it?
Two things that have very similar purpose with broad/vague definitions are hard to distinguish.
So is that a yes?
0
Kalistean wrote...
Two things that have very similar purpose with broad/vague definitions are hard to distinguish.Definitions of forum:
public meeting or assembly for open discussion
Definitions of blog:
read, write, or edit a shared on-line journal
web log: a shared on-line journal where people can post diary entries about their personal experiences and hobbies; "postings on a blog are usually in chronological order"
WHY ARE THERE TWO DIFFERENT WORDS AND DEFINITIONS FOR WHAT I CAN ONLY ASSUME ARE THE SAME EXACT THING? I AM SO CONFUSED!
0
Rape is just rough sex, which is really just sex. Just because the girl is yelling doesn't mean it is bad, it just means it feels really good, so continue.
Masturbation is also sex, because you ejaculate at the end in both. So all you Christians and Muslims are going to hell for premarital sex.
Niggers and Jews are the same, they both take money that doesn't belong to them and they have a screwed up facial features.
Masturbation is also sex, because you ejaculate at the end in both. So all you Christians and Muslims are going to hell for premarital sex.
Niggers and Jews are the same, they both take money that doesn't belong to them and they have a screwed up facial features.
0
Rbz wrote...
MoneyDRuffy wrote...
Niggers and Jews have screwed up facial features.Nigga, that's racist.
Yeah but racism and compliments are the same thing as they both are made up of words so it's ok.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Except you're talking about the actual action. You're not talking about the nail or screw, or the purpose. Just the action.Oh, but I was talking about purpose.
Tegumi wrote...
Your assertion is likened to saying that since a hammer and a screwdriver both help apply a thin metal object (nail or screw) into another material to assist in holding it together with something else, they are the same thing.See? Purpose.
Ah, for some reason I did a mind fuck on the nail screw bit. I think it's my migraine.
Anyways, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that you can use a flathead screwdriver to screw in both a flathead screw and phillips head screw.
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Tegumi wrote...
But ignoring all that, let me try to boil down your argument to a single point:Two things that have very similar purposes are very hard to distinguish. Is this it?
Two things that have very similar purpose with broad/vague definitions are hard to distinguish.
So is that a yes?
I have stated what I meant.
0
MoneyDRuffy wrote...
Niggers and Jews are the same, they both take money that doesn't belong to them and they have a screwed up facial features.*ringing bell*
Mods? MODS?!? MOOOOOOODS?????
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Kalistean wrote...
I have stated what I meant.Well, this is where your logic errs. Even if something is similar to another by 90% in usage and/or purpose, if it is referred to by a different noun that is not a synonym, it has non-negligible differences. As such, it would be incorrect to refer to one as the other, or vice-versa.
0
lets just all call him retarded over and over and over maybe eventually he'll get it
kalistean youre retarded
kalistean youre retarded
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
I have stated what I meant.Well, this is where your logic errs. Even if something is similar to another by 90% in usage and/or purpose, if it is referred to by a different noun that is not a synonym, it has non-negligible differences. As such, it would be incorrect to refer to one as the other, or vice-versa.
Except something is vague/broad means that if something is similar in 90% of usage, then even if it differs by a small portion it will still fall into the category in at least a partial amount, often as a type of it.
If you want to see an example of this. Let's deal with men. What types of men are there?
Rugged? Well there are a lot of adjectives you could use to describe rugged. And as long as a guy fits a good deal of them, he will be considered a rugged guy.
You could have an outdoorsy type of guy. And again, lot of adjectives, and if he falls into a certain amount of them he will be considered outdoorsy.
Now say if rugged and outdoorsy have a lot of adjectives crossover? Well if a guy fits a good portion of them, he will be considered rugged and outdoorsy, though possibly with one way leading to the other.
You can tell if something has a broad definition, because they use determinants like typical and generally and other such words to describe it.
You will also notice that if you DO try to get it set, you'll eliminate a good deal of things that fall under it that you would indeed consider to be under that category. Which would mean that you'll end up with dozens of categories trying to fit everything together.
So instead, they keep the broad definition, for blogs, and then go into super specific ones for the types of it.
however, in this case, because they keep the broad definitions, a lot of crossover can occur between other similar things, threads in forums, and social networks, because they too are serving a similar purpose with equally broad definitions.
0
Kalistean wrote...
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
I have stated what I meant.Well, this is where your logic errs. Even if something is similar to another by 90% in usage and/or purpose, if it is referred to by a different noun that is not a synonym, it has non-negligible differences. As such, it would be incorrect to refer to one as the other, or vice-versa.
Except something is vague/broad means that if something is similar in 90% of usage, then even if it differs by a small portion it will still fall into the category in at least a partial amount, often as a type of it.
If you want to see an example of this. Let's deal with men. What types of men are there?
Rugged? Well there are a lot of adjectives you could use to describe rugged. And as long as a guy fits a good deal of them, he will be considered a rugged guy.
You could have an outdoorsy type of guy. And again, lot of adjectives, and if he falls into a certain amount of them he will be considered outdoorsy.
Now say if rugged and outdoorsy have a lot of adjectives crossover? Well if a guy fits a good portion of them, he will be considered rugged and outdoorsy, though possibly with one way leading to the other.
You can tell if something has a broad definition, because they use determinants like typical and generally and other such words to describe it.
You will also notice that if you DO try to get it set, you'll eliminate a good deal of things that fall under it that you would indeed consider to be under that category. Which would mean that you'll end up with dozens of categories trying to fit everything together.
So instead, they keep the broad definition, for blogs, and then go into super specific ones for the types of it.
however, in this case, because they keep the broad definitions, a lot of crossover can occur between other similar things, threads in forums, and social networks, because they too are serving a similar purpose with equally broad definitions.
Please stop pretending to be intelligent. You lost this argument before it even began. Genetics suck, brah.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
penelopesays wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
I have stated what I meant.Well, this is where your logic errs. Even if something is similar to another by 90% in usage and/or purpose, if it is referred to by a different noun that is not a synonym, it has non-negligible differences. As such, it would be incorrect to refer to one as the other, or vice-versa.
Except something is vague/broad means that if something is similar in 90% of usage, then even if it differs by a small portion it will still fall into the category in at least a partial amount, often as a type of it.
If you want to see an example of this. Let's deal with men. What types of men are there?
Rugged? Well there are a lot of adjectives you could use to describe rugged. And as long as a guy fits a good deal of them, he will be considered a rugged guy.
You could have an outdoorsy type of guy. And again, lot of adjectives, and if he falls into a certain amount of them he will be considered outdoorsy.
Now say if rugged and outdoorsy have a lot of adjectives crossover? Well if a guy fits a good portion of them, he will be considered rugged and outdoorsy, though possibly with one way leading to the other.
You can tell if something has a broad definition, because they use determinants like typical and generally and other such words to describe it.
You will also notice that if you DO try to get it set, you'll eliminate a good deal of things that fall under it that you would indeed consider to be under that category. Which would mean that you'll end up with dozens of categories trying to fit everything together.
So instead, they keep the broad definition, for blogs, and then go into super specific ones for the types of it.
however, in this case, because they keep the broad definitions, a lot of crossover can occur between other similar things, threads in forums, and social networks, because they too are serving a similar purpose with equally broad definitions.
Please stop pretending to be intelligent. You lost this argument before it even began. Genetics suck, brah.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tegumi wrote...
I am saying it is incorrect for you to refer to forum threads as blogs.I'm saying their definitions are so vague and broad that you can't go "They're completely not" because there is too much crossover between them and trying to force them separate would mean isolating several things that would have originally fallen into the definition and that even you would have considered a part of it.
0
Kalistean wrote...
Tegumi wrote...
I am saying it is incorrect for you to refer to forum threads as blogs.I'm saying their definitions are so vague and broad that you can't go "They're completely not" because there is too much crossover between them and trying to force them separate would mean isolating several things that would have originally fallen into the definition and that even you would have considered a part of it.
I'm saying that you're dumb.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Kalistean wrote...
I'm saying their definitions are so vague and broad that you can't go "They're completely not" because there is too much crossover between them and trying to force them separate would mean isolating several things that would have originally fallen into the definition and that even you would have considered a part of it.That does not belie my point.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
I'm saying their definitions are so vague and broad that you can't go "They're completely not" because there is too much crossover between them and trying to force them separate would mean isolating several things that would have originally fallen into the definition and that even you would have considered a part of it.That does not belie my point.
Actually, it does. For it to be incorrect, it would have to be unable to fit in any way.