IjeBos:

All fair and well but at some point we have to have a generalized understanding of words to communicate.

We can not have a generalized understanding of words, I don't think, since we aren't all walking around with the same dictionary, which makes that "some point" when words one uses are understood in the context in which they are used.

I, for instance, am very well known for using words in a non-conventional way. I'd say things like "handmaid's tailing" to illustrate a point, and you'd understand where I'm going because you understand the reference, but as you well know, some wouldn't have a clue what I'm saying and go humptydumpty on me, claiming I said what I never said. Now, if only they'd ask for a definition or clarification instead of assuming what one meant, but that would involve admitting they don't know what I meant, and the gods have forbidden the admittion of ignorance, it seems.

Words, at least complex words, and moreso, complex conversations, are hardly generalized, is my point, so one must put in some effort to understand what one hears instead of assuming they're talking dictionary. This, afterall, is the American Politics thread, where lying dump is the only honest person for some, and maths is racist, and is the reason I don't let the thread's idiot occupy my time too much.

IjeBos:
And I posit that if your arguments rests on "words mean what one says they mean", it's probably not a winning argument. but ey.

And here's a classic example of you assuming what I meant instead of understanding what I said. And to be honest, its why you and I argue so much.

I never said "words mean what one says they mean", or at least that's not what I meant. But if I give you my definition of a word, you should at least consider my use of the word as I've defined it if I have. That in no way means words must mean what I say they mean, since it is very possible I'm ignorant and just talking from my ass or intentionally using words in my convoluted way.

An example is if I define hot as 0 °C. You could bother arguing that is not hot, but I'm very certain you'd not bother making tea with my "hot" water despite all my protesting, and might just watch me make a fool of myself serving tea with my 0°C 'hot water'. It in no way means hot water must be 0°C for smarter more knowledgeable you now, does it, since words don't mean what I say they mean, but whenever I say hot, I'm certain you'd know I ignorantly mean cold.

Xavier5 defined his liberal values as "truth, reasoning, progressiveness, open mindedness, liberty, human rights and value, equality, democracy etc", and the only argument is if one wants to claim he's none of those things, which one would need evidence for, and which I don't think we have apart from his support for slimy Vivek I suppose, slimy being my own subjective opinion.

Words are hardly objective, is my point here, so one must consider the subject's subjective use of words too if one wants to understand what others are saying, least if one cares.

IjeBos:
But what I do see quite frequently nowadays are people saying stuff like "I'm a Democrat but" than take a 180 degree opposite stance.
My antenna goes up when I hear that.

And good for you and your antenna. But why should I or anyone care about your antenna, especially if, after all is said and done, I go and vote blue, or even vote red?

Consider the flip side. A certain Ms Cheney is a Republican, but I hear she's campaigning for Kamala. Would you argue she's gone Blue therefore, and is no more a Republican?

IjeBos:
Why can't one just argue their positions and views, without labeling themselves?

Because we live in a labelling world, I'm afraid, where labelling is simpler.

If left to me, I'd label myself buda, but you must have heard me labelled all sorts here. Thankfully, labels don't stick because I don't care what idiots think or say, probably because my antenna is made in China. And by China, I mean fake, with apologies for the ignorant stereotype.

And on that point, I've just discovered Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom. The first line is "I never said Barack Obama is a socialist", but that seems to be what was heard. The question was then asked, "do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican or an Independent?" And the answer was, "I consider myself a New York Jets fan, Steven". I think I'm going to enjoy this series.

Obrigardo. Ijebos. Budaatum.

I'm making an assertion. Obama is the one who selected Tim Walz as Kamala Harris running mate.

budaatum:

We can not have a generalized understanding of words, I don't think, since we aren't all walking around with the same dictionary, which makes that "some point" when words one uses are understood in the context in which they are used.

I, for instance, am very well known for using words in a non-conventional way. I'd say things like "handmaid's tailing" to illustrate a point, and you'd understand where I'm going because you understand the reference, but as you well know, some wouldn't have a clue what I'm saying and go humptydumpty on me, claiming I said what I never said. Now, if only they'd ask for a definition or clarification instead of assuming what one meant, but that would involve admitting they don't know what I meant, and the gods have forbidden the admittion of ignorance, it seems.

Words, at least complex words, and moreso, complex conversations, are hardly generalized, is my point, so one must put in some effort to understand what one hears instead of assuming they're talking dictionary. This, afterall, is the American Politics thread, where lying dump is the only honest person for some, and maths is racist, and is the reason I don't let the thread's idiot occupy my time too much.


And here's a classic example of you assuming what I meant instead of understanding what I said. And to be honest, its why you and I argue so much.

I never said "words mean what one says they mean", or at least that's not what I meant. But if I give you my definition of a word, you should at least consider my use of the word as I've defined it if I have. That in no way means words must mean what I say they mean, since it is very possible I'm ignorant and just talking from my ass or intentionally using words in my convoluted way.

An example is if I define hot as 0 °C. You could bother arguing that is not hot, but I'm very certain you'd not bother making tea with my "hot" water despite all my protesting, and might just watch me make a fool of myself serving tea with my 0°C 'hot water'. It in no way means hot water must be 0°C for smarter more knowledgeable you now, does it, since words don't mean what I say they mean, but whenever I say hot, I'm certain you'd know I ignorantly mean cold.

Xavier5 defined his liberal values as "truth, reasoning, progressiveness, open mindedness, liberty, human rights and value, equality, democracy etc", and the only argument is if one wants to claim he's none of those things, which one would need evidence for, and which I don't think we have apart from his support for slimy Vivek I suppose, slimy being my own subjective opinion.

Words are hardly objective, is my point here, so one must consider the subject's subjective use of words too if one wants to understand what others are saying, least if one cares.


And good for you and your antenna. But why should I or anyone care about your antenna, especially if, after all is said and done, I go and vote blue, or even vote red?

Consider the flip side. A certain Ms Cheney is a Republican, but I hear she's campaigning for Kamala. Would you argue she's gone Blue therefore, and is no more a Republican?


Because we live in a labelling world, I'm afraid, where labelling is simpler.

If left to me, I'd label myself buda, but you must have heard me labelled all sorts here. Thankfully, labels don't stick because I don't care what idiots think or say, probably because my antenna is made in China. And by China, I mean fake, with apologies for the ignorant stereotype.

And on that point, I've just discovered Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom. The first line is "I never said Barack Obama is a socialist", but that seems to be what was heard. The question was then asked, "do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican or an Independent?" And the answer was, "I consider myself a New York Jets fan, Steven". I think I'm going to enjoy this series.

In the beginning there there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
You long post e reminds me of that verse.

budaatum:

We can not have a generalized understanding of words, I don't think, since we aren't all walking around with the same dictionary, which makes that "some point" when words one uses are understood in the context in which they are used.

I, for instance, am very well known for using words in a non-conventional way. I'd say things like "handmaid's tailing" to illustrate a point, and you'd understand where I'm going because you understand the reference, but as you well know, some wouldn't have a clue what I'm saying and go humptydumpty on me, claiming I said what I never said. Now, if only they'd ask for a definition or clarification instead of assuming what one meant, but that would involve admitting they don't know what I meant, and the gods have forbidden the admittion of ignorance, it seems.

Words, at least complex words, and moreso, complex conversations, are hardly generalized, is my point, so one must put in some effort to understand what one hears instead of assuming they're talking dictionary. This, afterall, is the American Politics thread, where lying dump is the only honest person for some, and maths is racist, and is the reason I don't let the thread's idiot occupy my time too much.


And here's a classic example of you assuming what I meant instead of understanding what I said. And to be honest, its why you and I argue so much.

I never said "words mean what one says they mean", or at least that's not what I meant. But if I give you my definition of a word, you should at least consider my use of the word as I've defined it if I have. That in no way means words must mean what I say they mean, since it is very possible I'm ignorant and just talking from my ass or intentionally using words in my convoluted way.

An example is if I define hot as 0 °C. You could bother arguing that is not hot, but I'm very certain you'd not bother making tea with my "hot" water despite all my protesting, and might just watch me make a fool of myself serving tea with my 0°C 'hot water'. It in no way means hot water must be 0°C for smarter more knowledgeable you now, does it, since words don't mean what I say they mean, but whenever I say hot, I'm certain you'd know I ignorantly mean cold.

Xavier5 defined his liberal values as "truth, reasoning, progressiveness, open mindedness, liberty, human rights and value, equality, democracy etc", and the only argument is if one wants to claim he's none of those things, which one would need evidence for, and which I don't think we have apart from his support for slimy Vivek I suppose, slimy being my own subjective opinion.

Words are hardly objective, is my point here, so one must consider the subject's subjective use of words too if one wants to understand what others are saying, least if one cares.


And good for you and your antenna. But why should I or anyone care about your antenna, especially if, after all is said and done, I go and vote blue, or even vote red?

Consider the flip side. A certain Ms Cheney is a Republican, but I hear she's campaigning for Kamala. Would you argue she's gone Blue therefore, and is no more a Republican?


Because we live in a labelling world, I'm afraid, where labelling is simpler.

If left to me, I'd label myself buda, but you must have heard me labelled all sorts here. Thankfully, labels don't stick because I don't care what idiots think or say, probably because my antenna is made in China. And by China, I mean fake, with apologies for the ignorant stereotype.

And on that point, I've just discovered Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom. The first line is "I never said Barack Obama is a socialist", but that seems to be what was heard. The question was then asked, "do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican or an Independent?" And the answer was, "I consider myself a New York Jets fan, Steven". I think I'm going to enjoy this series.

IjeBos has this authoritarian tendency; he feels everything is black and white.

When did Obama become a liberal? Was he a conservative running as a Democrat? Because Obama has not always supported gay marriage. There are many examples of this because we know nothing is absolute.

basilico:


In the beginning there there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
You long post e reminds me of that verse.

As it rightly should. Though I'm actually saying the exact opposite. That in the beginning there were sub-humans, sub to denote their inability to speak. And then they evolved and formed words and language in order to communicate.

The difference in view is you see from a creationist perspective while I see evolution.

basilico:
Obrigardo. Ijebos. Budaatum.

I'm making an assertion. Obama is the one who selected Tim Walz as Kamala Harris running mate.

Don't say you are making an assertion when the truth is, you are conspiracising.

Former President Barack Obama has expressed his support for Vice President Kamala Harris' decision to select Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate.
https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-reacts-after-tim-walz-named-vp-1935365

Xavier5:


He can't explain how, base on liberal values, Xavier is not a liberal, but rather choose to believe such simply because it makes him feel good

Also, he's not interested in the topic of abortion, and which liberal value made Xavier pro-life, but rather, is more interested in branding Xavier "not a liberal". This is funny as hell 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Well, if that makes you be at peace, then good. You have my blessings 😊😊😊😊😊


To my fellow liberals that might be curious on why I chose such stand on the issue of abortion. I'm open to discussion. Liberal to liberal, let's engage, as we appeal to our liberal values on the issue 😎

And one more thing to all who care to know, I personally think pro-life and pro-choice are not conservative and liberal ideologies, I feel we are just the one making them so for political reasons. In my interactions with people, I've come across pro-choice conservatives and pro-life liberals, the latter I happen to be a part of... proudly 😎

But as I earlier said, if any liberal here wants to engage me on the topic, I'm open to that discussion, after all, reasoning is a liberal value 🙃🙃🙃




#Xavier

Let's discuss. Create a new thread and mention me.

basilico:


You also forgot this. Texas Stock Exchange set to be launched.

The Texas Stock Exchange is taking shape. The TXSE, which aims to be a fully electronic national securities exchange to rival the New York Stock Exchange, revealed its executive leadership team and their notable credentials on Monday, September 30.

Good job Joe Biden?

2025 when they hope Dump will be in power? We'll see.

budaatum:

We can not have a generalized understanding of words, I don't think, since we aren't all walking around with the same dictionary, which makes that "some point" when words one uses are understood in the context in which they are used.
I, for instance, am very well known for using words in a non-conventional way. I'd say things like "handmaid's tailing" to illustrate a point, and you'd understand where I'm going because you understand the reference, but as you well know, some wouldn't have a clue what I'm saying and go humptydumpty on me, claiming I said what I never said. Now, if only they'd ask for a definition or clarification instead of assuming what one meant, but that would involve admitting they don't know what I meant, and the gods have forbidden the admittion of ignorance, it seems.

Words have to have a generalized meaning or we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would instead have to define each word so the other person can understand it, before we even begin to have a conversation.
By arguing you are using some words in an unconventional way, means that those words have a conventional meaning.

budaatum:

And here's a classic example of you assuming what I meant instead of understanding what I said. And to be honest, its why you and I argue so much.
I never said "words mean what one says they mean", or at least that's not what I meant. But if I give you my definition of a word, you should at least consider my use of the word as I've defined it if I have. That in no way means words must mean what I say they mean, since it is very possible I'm ignorant and just talking from my ass or intentionally using words in my convoluted way.

I got that assumption from your example of humptydumtyism. If you didn't want someone to assume that you might have not used the example.

But, this discussion has broadened significantly. You've expanded your argument to something theoretical, that I would of had when I was 18, sitting in my dorm lounge at 1am in the morning.

This was a discussion about someone claiming themselves repeatedly to be liberal while saying they thought Mr. "'Where Woke goes to die', book burner", was a good Governor. There is context to the discussion which you seem to want to leave out. You can't be liberal and hold Desantis or Vivek up as paragons of good governing. Their beliefs are antithetical to liberals. If he wants to claim he's liberal, that's his choice. In my view and view of people who are liberal, he wouldn't be. So what is his desire to shoehorn himself into that label?

Gov. Ron DeSantis described Harris, a former California attorney general and U.S. senator, as “too vacuous, too liberal and too unaccomplished for the voters,” while calling the effort to replace Biden with Harris as “just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”
https://www.wmnf.org/florida-democrats-quickly-back-kamala-harris-after-joe-biden-drops-out/

As to Liz Cheney, she made a choice which candidate to choose. Her choice could be based on her view of Patriotism which could be her primary Conservative or Republican tenet. I don't see anything inconsistent with that.

And again, it was Xavier labeling himself. No one asked him his ideology, he offered it.

This is what happens to 'hot is 0°C' people, and I can't say its not deserved.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-truth-social-riddled-with-scammers-ripping-off-users-report

https://gizmodo.com/truth-social-users-are-losing-ridiculous-sums-of-money-to-scams-2000506604

No money for US citizens suffering from a disaster.

Do you know that Obama once spent 200million a day on a trip to India?

FEMA does not have enough money to provide disaster assistance for Helene.

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/current/hurricane-helene/rumor-response

bemeruca:


So if they voted against it how does their vote make them not do their duty?

They voted against the interest of their constituents. That's dumb maga cult move.

basilico:
Obrigardo. Ijebos. Budaatum.

I'm making an assertion. Obama is the one who selected Tim Walz as Kamala Harris running mate.

Assertion, lol
Your brain has been bombarded with unhinged conspiracy theories for decades that even your conspiracy theory is now an assertion.

IjeBos:


"The aid that I voted against and I said we don't need isn't getting to my constituents fast enough and there isn't enough of it. Blame the Dems who fought me tooth and nail just to get this little bit passed, because I wanted 0" - Maga Republicans who Bemeruca would vote for if he actually lived in the US.

The xenophobic black man hater is just shameless at this stage. They are so unbalanced at this stage that they have literally become trolls.

LordReed:


Let's discuss. Create a new thread and mention me.

I don't usually do threads because I'm not that active on Nairaland, but if you're interested, we can do it here 😎


#Xavier

Xavier5:


I don't usually do threads because I'm not that active on Nairaland, but if you're interested, we can do it here 😎


#Xavier

OK. Go ahead, tell me your reasons for holding your position on abortion.

Obrigardo:


Assertion, lol
Your brain has been bombarded with unhinged conspiracy theories for decades that even your conspiracy theory is now an assertion.

Obama is known for choosing older white men to support younger black candidates.

WhizdomXX:

Obama is known for choosing older white men to support younger black candidates.

Is "Obama is known" your reason for not crediting Kamala with a brain of her own?

LordReed:


OK. Go ahead, tell me your reasons for holding your position on abortion.

It's going to be a lengthy, sophisticated discussion. So brace yourself 😎. To answer your question, I have to start from the very beginning.

Liberalism as an ideology is fundamentally based on the value of human value, which is the belief that all human life has value irrespective of their race, gender, intelligence, viability, or stage of development, and as such should be respected, cared for, loved and protected.

This value is what other liberal values such as liberty, human rights, equality etc are built on. The value of human value is the very foundation of liberalism, without which other liberal values are useless, due to the absence of a rational root or effective foundation.

How do we know about this fundamental value? Simple, there's a universal intrinsic knowing in humans of the value of human life simply because it's a human.

Now, why such knowing? What is it based on? Secularly, we can't give provide an answer, but if we involve religion, we get to know the concept in which such intrinsic knowing is based on, which is, human life is valuable because it's the image of God.

But keeping religion aside, the universal intrinsic knowing is the testament of the value of a human life, even though, secularly we may not be able to to explain what it is based on, but nevertheless, we know and perceive it. Yes, sometimes, we deny or suppress such knowing, but reality is reality, whether we choose to deny it or not.

One of the principle of universality is; a universal intrinsic belief or knowing is a testament of the natural establishment of that concept, that is, the concept is beyond humans, wasn't created by humans, but was created for humans. It existed independent of humans, created by a system, irrespective of who or what is it is, that is beyond and above humans, but for humans. Examples of such universal concepts are;

* Universal or objective morality
* Universal desire for love
* Universal knowing of the value of human life
* Universal desire for knowledge and purpose
* Universal intrinsic God desire and awareness
* Universal desire for survival and personal evolution

And a few others.

So here is what it all boils down to, if a human life has value irrespective of race, gender, intelligence, viability, or stage of development, but because it is a human life, and if a fetus is a human life, then abortion is a crime against a human life, in other words, murder... except of course in the CRITICAL CASES.

So the question is, is a fetus a human life? What makes an entity or organism a human? Does a fetus meets this requirement for a human life? And what are the critical cases I mentioned? I want you to ask these questions... for the purpose of continuity. I want this to be a discussion, so I won't be saying everything at a blow, but rather based on your questions.

Let's get this clear, abortion is a complex system that involves;

* Human life
* Menance of unwanted pregnancy
* Bodily liberty
* Health
* Financial issues
* Emotional and mental issues

I'm very well ready to talk about them one after the other... if you ask the questions.



#Xavier

LordReed:


OK. Go ahead, tell me your reasons for holding your position on abortion.

My Lord I hope you form a thread with Xavier5's response so it can properly be considered. Preferably in the religious section where it rightly belongs!

His "universal objectivity" is making me cringe.

budaatum:


My Lord I hope you form a thread with Xavier5's response so it can properly be considered. Preferably in the religious section where it rightly belongs!

His "universal objectivity" is making me cringe.

The topic of objectivity is a discussion for another day, but when we get to that, I just hope you have good reasons for your ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVITY whose opposing view makes you "cringe" 😏.

And for the record, I'm not pro absolute objectivity, because in life we have both objective and subjective morality and truth. But when the time comes for such discuss, we will have it.

Secondly, religion indeed... despite Xavier staying secular. Religion was briefly brought in to give further details, but the explanation reverted back to secular, and stays that way.


#Xavier

Xavier5:


The topic of objectivity is a discussion for another day, but when we get to that, I just hope you have good reasons for your ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVITY whose opposing view makes you "cringe" 😏.

And for the record, I'm not pro absolute objectivity, because in life we have both objective and subjective morality and truth. But when the time comes for such discuss, we will have it.

Secondly, religion indeed... despite Xavier staying secular. Religion was briefly brought in to give further details, but the explanation reverted back to secular, and stays that way.


#Xavier

Do note that you are asking me for "reasons for your ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVITY", which I never said I have except for this one particular instance.

A religious person can not stay secular, or at least you certainly haven't! By your own admission, and as is clearly obvious in your post, you reverted after diverting, and if this is what you did with your liberalism, I can see why Ijebos went off on one with you, and I'm very tempted too.

An objective person would know the subjectivity of this thread makes it impossible to objectively discuss either here.

Baby tomato, ketchup!

budaatum:


Do note that you are asking me for "reasons for yourABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVITY", which I never said I have except for this one particular instance.

An objective person would know the subjectivity of this thread makes it impossible to objectively discuss either here. Baby tomato, ketchup.

A religious person can not stay secular, or at least you certainly haven't! By your own admission and as is clearly obvious in your post, you reverted after diverting, and if this is what you did with your liberalism, I can see why Ijebos went off on one with you, and I'm very tempted too.

Is this an objective claim or a subjective one? 🤔

Secondly, so your problem with all I said is because I briefly brought in religion to give further details within that context, even though I made sure I stayed secular before and after that 🤨... wow!!! Never knew such minute religious input would trigger an Atheist 😏



#Xavier

Xavier5:


Is this an objective claim or a subjective one? 🤔

#Xavier

The fact it's a claim made by a subject makes it a subjective claim based on the objective evidence before me that you subjectively provided.

How objective subject you see my claim is entirely up to subjective you.

budaatum:


The fact it's a claim made by a subject makes it a subjective claim based on the objective evidence before me that you subjectively provided.

How objective subject you see my claim is entirely up to subjective you.

What is objective evidence if everything is subjective? 😏

And isn't the statement that "everything is subjective" subjective also? So what's the truth in that?


#Xavier

Xavier5:

Secondly, so your problem with all I said is because I briefly brought in religion

No, your religion is not my problem. And in fact, nothing about your post is a problem for me.

Your use of words like subjective and objective was of bigger interest than your religion, along with a lot else. But now you've gone and added assumptions to your subjectivity, i actually have no more interest unless in a thread of its own.

budaatum:


No, your religion is not my problem. And in fact, nothing about your post is a problem for me.

Your use of words like subjective and objective was of bigger interest than your religion, along with a lot else. But now you've gone and added assumptions to your subjectivity, i actually have no more interest unless in a thread of its own.

You've not answered any of my questions, I see you're trying to avoid them. Always typical of relativist. Contradict themselves, and avoid the questions.

Now, if everything is subjective, why is my statement an interest to you... except you believe that;

* I am objectively wrong... hence your cringe 😏🙄
* That the statement, "every thing is subjective" is objectively true... hence your cringe 😏

Bro, you're just contradicting yourself. You can not believe everything is subjective, and then believe I am objectively wrong.

But, let me ask another question, I hope you will answer it. What is it about what I said you think is "objectively" wrong? 🤨


#Xavier

Xavier5:


What is objective evidence if everything is subjective? 😏

Everything is not subjective! The post you are currently reading which contains my subjective thought is very objectively in front of your subjective face!

Xavier5:
And isn't the statement that "everything is subjective" subjective also? So what's the truth in that?

I see you've put "everything is subjective" in quotation marks. Is that to imply I said somewhere that "everything is subjective"?

Show where if so, as I can't find it. And please note that if I never said so, its the second and a half time you've claimed I said what I never said.

Xavier5:


You've not answered any of my questions, I see you're trying to avoid them. Always typical of relativist. Contradict themselves, and avoid the questions.

Now, if everything is subjective, .......

I see that you not only label yourself, you also like labeling others.

You question is strawmanning! Show me where I claimed "everything is subjective" before you "if" me!

budaatum:
Everything is not subjective! The post you are currently reading which contains my subjective thought is very objectively in front of your subjective face!


I see you've put "everything is subjective" in quotation marks. Is that to imply I said somewhere that "everything is subjective"?

Show where if so, as I can't find it. And please note that if I never said so, its the second and a half time you've claimed I said what I never said.

So everything is no longer subjective, but there are things that are objective? Good. Now we are getting some where.

So, now back to my question, what is it I said that you think is objectively false?


#Xavier

budaatum:


I see that you not only label yourself, you also like labeling others.

You question is strawmanning! Show me where I claimed "everything is subjective" before you "if" me!

Somethings are subjective, but you cringed at my "objectivity" statements. Is that not you subscribing to the idea that everything is subjective?

But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry.

Now back to my question, what is it about what I said that you think is objectively wrong?


#Xavier