# Words you think shouldn't exist



## violadude

This is kind of a weird topic, but hear me out. I'm not talking about being a language police or anything, because I know that kind of attitude annoys some people. I'm just asking, in your personal opinion, what are words that you think would be better off not existing at all? This can be serious or funny, it doesn't matter. I can only think of one example at the moment so I'm interested to hear others.

I think the word "****" (please excuse me on this one mods) would be better not existing because it doesn't make sense. That word is used disparagingly towards women that have "too much sex, with too many guys", but really, only the individual woman can decide what that is for herself. Someone calling her that name is assuming they can decide for her who she should be romantic with and that's just wrong! It shouldn't be the business of anyone else as long as she is being healthy about it (and not sleeping with someone you are involved with too  ).

It's weird because I can understand why a guy would feel threatened by the promiscuity of a woman but women also call each other this name quite frequently too and get pretty vicious about it. I don't really understand what their angle on this is, but maybe that's because I'm not a girl!


Also...YOLO. That word shouldn't exist either because it's stupid. If you only live ONCE you should be more careful about preserving that ONE life, not the opposite!


----------



## mstar

Yes, your YOLO comment is so true!

The word "*like*" should exist as nothing but a linking verb. The end.

The word "*sentimental*" should have been replaced forever with "saccharine."

The word "*moist*" is just disgusting. Yuck. 

The word "*hitherto*" has no real purpose these days.

The acronym "*lol*" is just overused.

Now to the Complaints Thread? I seem to be in the mood....


----------



## Manxfeeder

Actually, it's two words, but I wish there would be a ban on "you know." When did that horrid phrase start, and how did it infest so many people?


----------



## Aramis

Manxfeeder said:


> Actually, it's two words, but I wish there would be a ban on "you know." When did that horrid phrase start, and how did it infest so many people?


It wouldn't make any difference, some people just need this kind of phrase to repeat and end sentences with, you know. They might just as well say "right", right? Or, you see, they can put something else, would you belive it? I think that's how it is, totally.


----------



## EricABQ

mstar said:


> The word "*moist*" is just disgusting. Yuck.


People would have to come up with a new way to describe a well made cake.


----------



## mstar

Manxfeeder said:


> Actually, it's two words, but I wish there would be a ban on "you know." When did that horrid phrase start, and how did it infest so many people?


I only use it when I actually mean it.

The words "actual" and "true" I use in their literal senses. True is actual is literally is what is real.


----------



## Guest

"Twerk" or "twerking"--who ever invented it should be rendered tongueless.


----------



## Sid James

Some words need to exist, but maybe we need to ban (or more gently discourage) certain people from using them. Politicans and corporate leaders take heed. Probably sportsmen too and dare I say musos?

Innovative
Exciting
Engaging

They like to use these words most when they have got bad news to tell you. So they lose their original meanings and become part of gloss and spin doctoring.

Speaking of which I sooo dislike jargon, but these are more than one word, more like phrases:

Community-oriented
Outcomes driven
People person

I can go on about this all day. Ironic how people at the top, and in the media, are much more educated today than they where 100 years ago - but language skills overall have declined. That's interesting, isn't it?


----------



## mstar

Kontrapunctus said:


> "Twerk" or "twerking"--who ever invented it should be rendered tongueless.


And let's not talk about what the words mean.


----------



## mstar

Sid James said:


> Some words need to exist, but maybe we need to ban (or more gently discourage) certain people from using them. Politicans and corporate leaders take heed. Probably sportsmen too and dare I say musos?
> 
> Innovative
> Exciting
> Engaging
> 
> They like to use these words most when they have got bad news to tell you. So they lose their original meanings and become part of gloss and spin doctoring.
> 
> Speaking of which I sooo dislike jargon, but these are more than one word, more like phrases:
> 
> Community-oriented
> Outcomes driven
> People person
> 
> I can go on about this all day. Ironic how people at the top, and in the media, are much more educated today than they where 100 years ago - but language skills overall have declined. That's interesting, isn't it?


All agreed with, except for innovative. I love that word! It is, in and of itself, *innovative!*


----------



## SiegendesLicht

violadude said:


> I think the word "****" (please excuse me on this one mods) would be better not existing because it doesn't make sense. That word is used disparagingly towards women that have "too much sex, with too many guys", but really, only the individual woman can decide what that is for herself. Someone calling her that name is assuming they can decide for her who she should be romantic with and that's just wrong! It shouldn't be the business of anyone else as long as she is being healthy about it (and not sleeping with someone you are involved with too  )


I apologize in advance for possible thread derailment, but since you have brought it up yourself... are things like love and faithfulness not valued anymore nowadays, as compared to the "freedom to decide"?


----------



## mamascarlatti

_iconic_. Everything is described as iconic in the New Zealand press. What does it even mean.

And I agree about _moist_. Hate that word.eeeww


----------



## Garlic

"Entrepreneur", "entrepreneurial", "entrepreneurship" - horrible words used by politicians and business students.

"Chemicals" and "radiation" drive me crazy when used as scare words, the assumption that these are automatically Bad Things. Also non-scientists should be banned from using the word "quantum".


----------



## violadude

SiegendesLicht said:


> I apologize in advance for possible thread derailment, but since you have brought it up yourself... are things like love and faithfulness not valued anymore nowadays, as compared to the "freedom to decide"?


Well, I would say faithfulness is valuable to those who have decided to be faithful to each other. If you both have an understanding that faithfulness doesn't necessarily factor in to whatever kind of relationship you guys have, then it's not an issue.

Also, "love" I suppose it depends on what you mean by that word.


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> Well, I would say faithfulness is valuable to those who have decided to be faithful to each other. If you both have an understanding that faithfulness doesn't necessarily factor in to whatever kind of relationship you guys have, then it's not an issue.
> 
> Also, "love" I suppose it depends on what you mean by that word.


Well, I don't think that people should have intercourse outside of marriage.

And love is unfathomable. We can't explain it! It's not scientific, it's really something spiritual, something that has to do with the soul, and not with intercourse at all.


----------



## violadude

mstar said:


> Well, I don't think that people should have intercourse outside of marriage.


What defines marriage for you, Mstar?


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> What defines marriage for you, Mstar?


I'm a Christian (Catholic). Marriage is a sacred sacrament, by definition, that happens within the Church. Excluding the Church and sacrament part, I know that various religions also accept this as a definition. It is sacred, and should be kept. If you are to love one person with such devotion that you want to spend the rest of your life with them, and love them forever, then why can't one save something like intercourse and virginity _just for them?_


----------



## Tristan

Oh come on, guys, let's not turn this into another controversial thread.

I'm going to point out how much I hate the words "proactive" and "paradigm" and its sister phrase "paradigm shift". Like a lot of other business buzzwords, they don't convey a whole lot of meaning. And I'm not going to be as harsh as those who say they are words "dumb people use to sound smart", but I at least understand that complaint.

I also agree about the "s---" word; I don't like any disparaging words against women (or anyone, but the words against women seem more common).


----------



## deggial

Sid James said:


> Speaking of which I sooo dislike jargon, but these are more than one word, more like phrases:
> 
> Community-oriented
> Outcomes driven
> People person


I would do away with corporate speak, too. A blight on any language.


----------



## mstar

I don't like the word "obelisks."

Instead, I like *mastabas*. 










Hehe, mastabas....


----------



## Ingélou

There are words I just don't like because of the sound of them or the associations they conjure up. 
I wouldn't want these words banned on account of my weird quailings, of course.

Examples: I hate it when people say 'easy-peasy'; I hate 'blubbing' or 'bubbling' for 'crying'; I hate it when people say 'scone' to rhyme with 'bone', not 'scone' to rhyme with 'con'. Long-o scone is 'posh' or 'southern'.

_The famous rhyme says it all_:

'I asked the girl in dulcet tone
To fetch me in a buttered scone;
The silly girl has been and gone
And fetched me in a buttered scone!'


----------



## violadude

mstar said:


> I'm a Christian (Catholic). Marriage is a sacred sacrament, by definition, that happens within the Church. Excluding the Church and sacrament part, I know that various religions also accept this as a definition. It is sacred, and should be kept. If you are to love one person with such devotion that you want to spend the rest of your life with them, and love them forever, then why can't one save something like intercourse and virginity _just for them?_


Well, we are addressing different issues now. If you are a Christian and you feel that marriage is a sacred God-ordained sacrament that you need to go through before becoming intimate with a partner, that's great. But what would you say about a non-religious person? If they enter marriage at all, it is likely to be a state-ordained marriage rather than a church/God-ordained one. So do you think they should place their ability to become intimate with their partner in the hands of the government?

Then there is the part about saving intercourse for someone that you truly love and want to spend the rest of your life with. Again, I definitely don't see a problem with saving yourself if that is what you feel you should do. However, I feel like there is this strange stigma among some people that anything having to do with the sexual part of a romantic relationship doesn't matter. In fact, for most people, sexual chemistry IS an important part of a relationship, maybe not the most important, but definitely important and it's a good thing to know about before you commit to a lifelong relationship with someone.

And then that brings me to my third point, the idea of lifelong relationships. I know many people have ideal positions about lifelong relationships and if they can make that work out for themselves I think that is absolutely wonderful. But the truth is, we are creatures that change tremendously over time and since we can't tell the future, there is no real way of knowing whether the person who is wonderful for you one day will be the same person that is wonderful for you 20-30-40 years from now. There are certain social obligations that might keep people together (kids, financial dependence, things like that) but in terms of love and happiness, I think it's really impossible to tell.

But in any case, I think relationships are a such a personal thing. It's not like murder or polluting where the actions affect so many others. So I feel like no matter what you personally feel about your own relationships, there's really no reason to put any "thou shalt nots" on issues surrounding relationships in general (that is, other than things that one partner doesn't agree to e.g. domestic abuse or something like that), you catch my drift? The only one I really think might be applicable is everyone should try and be healthy regarding the sex part of their relationship, so as not to spread disease.


----------



## violadude

Tristan said:


> Oh come on, guys, let's not turn this into another controversial thread.


Aww shucks, thanks for caring about my thread! But mstar, SiegendesLicht and myself are all speaking in a respectful manner towards each other. I think it would be pretty silly if the mods shut us down for what we have said so far.


----------



## Taggart

SiegendesLicht said:


> I apologize in advance for possible thread derailment, but since you have brought it up yourself... are things like love and faithfulness not valued anymore nowadays, as compared to the "freedom to decide"?


The two are not necessarily compatible see, for example, Tennyson's poem Lancelot and Elaine:

The shackles of an old love straitened him,
His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.

Yet the great knight in his mid-sickness made
Full many a holy vow and pure resolve.
These, as but born of sickness, could not live

However, to understand this, as much of the Arthurian cycle, is to understand the concepts of faithfulness and honour that are sometimes alien to a modern sensibility.


----------



## Ingélou

Tristan said:


> Oh come on, guys, let's not turn this into another controversial thread.
> 
> I'm going to point out how much I hate the words "proactive" and "paradigm" and its sister phrase "paradigm shift". Like a lot of other business buzzwords, they don't convey a whole lot of meaning. And I'm not going to be as harsh as those who say they are words "dumb people use to sound smart", but I at least understand that complaint.
> 
> I also agree about the "s---" word; I don't like any disparaging words against women (or anyone, but the words against women seem more common).


I so agree; now that the main controversialists have stated their views, honestly and lucidly, maybe we can get back to the topic?

I hate the words 'podgy' and 'porky'; they're just ugly words.


----------



## Ukko

There are a bunch of contractions involving the verb 'to be' that should be replaced with one: 'ain't'. Then the apostrophe can be dumped into the dustbin of history, and the world would be a simpler place.


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> Well, we are addressing different issues now. If you are a Christian and you feel that marriage is a sacred God-ordained sacrament that you need to go through before becoming intimate with a partner, that's great. But what would you say about a non-religious person? If they enter marriage at all, it is likely to be a state-ordained marriage rather than a church/God-ordained one. So do you think they should place their ability to become intimate with their partner in the hands of the government?
> 
> Then there is the part about saving intercourse for someone that you truly love and want to spend the rest of your life with. Again, I definitely don't see a problem with saving yourself if that is what you feel you should do. However, I feel like there is this strange stigma among some people that anything having to do with the sexual part of a romantic relationship doesn't matter. In fact, for most people, sexual chemistry IS an important part of a relationship, maybe not the most important, but definitely important and it's a good thing to know about before you commit to a lifelong relationship with someone.
> 
> And then that brings me to my third point, the idea of lifelong relationships. I know many people have ideal positions about lifelong relationships and if they can make that work out for themselves I think that is absolutely wonderful. But the truth is, we are creatures that change tremendously over time and since we can't tell the future, there is no real way of knowing whether the person who is wonderful for you one day will be the same person that is wonderful for you 20-30-40 years from now. There are certain social obligations that might keep people together (kids, financial dependence, things like that) but in terms of love and happiness, I think it's really impossible to tell.
> 
> But in any case, I think relationships are a such a personal thing. It's not like murder or polluting where the actions affect so many others. So I feel like no matter what you personally feel about your own relationships, there's really no reason to put any "thou shalt nots" on issues surrounding relationships in general (that is, other than things that one partner doesn't agree too e.g. domestic abuse or something like that), you catch my drift? The only one I really think might be applicable is everyone should try and be healthy regarding the sex part of their relationship, so as not to spread disease.


Yet, violadude, what do you think is love, then? Love is unchanging, and unless you mean to say non-religious people do not love....

Love is not biology, that is what I mean to say. What does it mean, violadude, to have a sexual relationship? It is not the _same_ as love - the former is biological. The purpose of the body is to thrive and reproduce. But why? What is the point of reproduction? Perhaps you can argue that the point has to do with interdependence. Though, what is the purpose of life, then? If that is the sole case, what _is_ life? If our purpose is only to sustain the rest of the world, then how did life come to exist? It was not chance. The chance that life came to be, and that there is a perfectly located Earth protected by such a strategically located moon, is so small that there is such a little chance, mathematically, that chance caused life (I forget the number, it was very small! One over the 60th power of the power of 120, or something of the sort!). 
Okay, there was a chance? Say that chance happened, and we exist by chance. Well, what happened before that? Take the concept of infinity. Keep going back infinitely. Before that first atom, what was there? How did that first atom come to be? If there is no divine, then NOTHING makes sense, because what came before? And before that, and before that, etc.? 
Therefore, we have a purpose. The body's purpose is to serve, then to reproduce so as to continue life. Key word - life. Well, what is it allowing to be continued here on Earth? It is the soul, and the world around us sustains our body, which in turns sustains it, but why? So we can live - because we are souls. 
What is purpose? What is life? What are morals? Why is there kindness? Why are there miracles? Why do people have faith and hope? And why is there love?! 
Without the divine, we simply cannot answer any of these in absolute truth. 
Absolute truth! This is your absolute truth, Violadude, which you thought could not be found! Here it is - truth in love. Absolute, complete, whole truth, given to humankind by the divine as a sacred gift of marriage in one way, not to mention friendship, kindness, religion, and so many more ways of love. Charity! What is charity but brotherly love? It comes from the word for it, caritas. The other word for love? Agape. This is marital love. And if such a gift, involved not with the body but with the soul, is to join two people in the flesh, and that has to do with sexuality, is the purpose of life and marriage really just pleasure? No, no, it is so much more.... 
It is Love.


----------



## violadude

mstar said:


> Yet, violadude, what do you think is love, then? Love is unchanging, and unless you mean to say non-religious people do not love....
> 
> Love is not biology, that is what I mean to say. What does it mean, violadude, to have a sexual relationship? It is not the _same_ as love - the former is biological. The purpose of the body is to thrive and reproduce. But why? What is the point of reproduction? Perhaps you can argue that the point has to do with interdependence. Though, what is the purpose of life, then? If that is the sole case, what _is_ life? If our purpose is only to sustain the rest of the world, then how did life come to exist? It was not chance. The chance that life came to be, and that there is a perfectly located Earth protected by such a strategically located moon, is so small that there is such a little chance, mathematically, that chance caused life (I forget the number, it was very small! One over the 60th power of the power of 120, or something of the sort!).
> Okay, there was a chance? Say that chance happened, and we exist by chance. Well, what happened before that? Take the concept of infinity. Keep going back infinitely. Before that first atom, what was there? How did that first atom come to be? If there is no divine, then NOTHING makes sense, because what came before? And before that, and before that, etc.?
> Therefore, we have a purpose. The body's purpose is to serve, then to reproduce so as to continue life. Key word - life. Well, what is it allowing to be continued here on Earth? It is the soul, and the world around us sustains our body, which in turns sustains it, but why? So we can live - because we are souls.
> What is purpose? What is life? What are morals? Why is there kindness? Why are there miracles? Why do people have faith and hope? And why is there love?!
> Without the divine, we simply cannot answer any of these in absolute truth.
> Absolute truth! This is your absolute truth, Violadude, which you thought could not be found! Here it is - truth in love. Absolute, complete, whole truth, given to humankind by the divine as a sacred gift of marriage in one way, not to mention friendship, kindness, religion, and so many more ways of love. Charity! What is charity but brotherly love? It comes from the word for it, caritas. The other word for love? Agape. This is marital love. And if such a gift, involved not with the body but with the soul, is to join two people in the flesh, and that has to do with sexuality, is the purpose of life and marriage really just pleasure? No, no, it is so much more....
> It is Love.


Well, you said a mouthful there!  I don't know too much about the science of how the universe began or if such things such as spirits exist. So I cannot deny or confirm anything you said with any sense certainty.

Actually, I do disagree with one thing. As far as I know, I think all strong emotions that we feel can in fact be explained biologically so far. But that's no reason to disbelieve in a soul either.

Also, I am skeptical about your understanding of chance. The fact that our moon is perfectly located isn't necessarily in contradiction with the idea that it was chance that put it there. If you drop a pile of cards on the floor, there is probably about a 1/1,000,000 chance that they landed in the exact position that they did, but that IS the position that they landed in nevertheless.


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> Well, you said a mouthful there!  I don't know too much about the science of how the universe began or if such things such as spirits exist. So I cannot deny or confirm anything you said with any sense certainty.
> 
> Actually, I do disagree with one thing. As far as I know, I think all strong emotions that we feel can in fact be explained biologically so far. But that's no reason to disbelieve in a soul either.


Ah, but then let *you* defend your point. When has biology explained _love?_ 
Defend!


----------



## violadude

mstar said:


> Ah, but then let *you* defend your point. When has biology explained _love?_
> Defend!


Well, we are social animals, we have evolved from social animals and our genetic makeup is such that humans, in general, are drawn towards other humans. If it were not so, we would not have survived as a species since we don't have nearly as many individual defenses as most other animals. Our main advantage in the battle for survival among various species was our disposition toward a tribe/pack-like mentality and our ability to make tools and weapons. Our urge to be with other humans that disposes us towards living in groups is driven partly by DNA and partly by chemical impulses in the brain that spread throughout the body.

That is my understanding, at least, of the biological mechanisms of what we generally call love.


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> Well, we are social animals, we have evolved from social animals and our genetic makeup is such that humans, in general, are drawn towards other humans. If it were not so, we would not have survived as a species since we don't have nearly as many individual defenses as most other animals. Our main advantage in the battle for survival among various species was our disposition toward a tribe/pack-like mentality and our ability to make tools and weapons. Our urge to be with other humans that disposes us towards living in groups is driven partly by DNA and partly by chemical impulses in the brain that spread throughout the body.
> 
> That is my understanding, at least, of the biological mechanisms of what we generally call love.


That is how you love your friends? 
If you didn't feel sexual about your girlfriend then you wouldn't date her? 
And you are talking about the different organ systems of the human body. Those are _all_ affected by DNA. DNAs give the instructions for how we are built. It doesn't really pertain. 
I've already explained sexuality, address my points on that specifically and try to invalidate them if you would like, though what I said addresses what you said just now. 

So how about that?


----------



## violadude

mstar said:


> That is how you love your friends?
> If you didn't feel sexual about your girlfriend then you wouldn't date her?
> And you are talking about the different organ systems of the human body. Those are _all_ affected by DNA. DNAs give the instructions for how we are built. It doesn't really pertain.
> I've already explained sexuality, address my points on that specifically and try to invalidate them if you would like, though what I said addresses what you said just now.
> 
> So how about that?


Well, I'm not just talking about sexual feelings when I talk about chemical impulses driving strong feelings of love. If I'm not mistaken, all strong feelings are driven by chemical impulses and combined with our genetic instinct to want to survive rather than perish.


----------



## Sid James

Tristan said:


> ...
> I'm going to point out how much I hate the words "proactive" and "paradigm" and its sister phrase "paradigm shift. Like a lot of other business buzzwords, they don't convey a whole lot of meaning. And I'm not going to be as harsh as those who say they are words "dumb people use to sound smart", but I at least understand that complaint...


No I wouldn't say that either, label those people as dumb. Its probably worse actually. Its people trying to cover things with these cliches. So they use these words instead of telling it straight. Its a distortion of language.



deggial said:


> I would do away with corporate speak, too. A blight on any language.


Its not only that, or politicians, but also academe (not to speak of the legal fraternity!). You've got people using language that even their peers, if we are honest, often struggle to understand. But you look at things like grammar and it was thrown out of the curriculum something like 40 years ago. In the 1970's you had that idea that kids didn't need all that old school stuff. Its boring and conservative. So we have the unenviable situation now, even though they have reintroduced grammar now you have a couple of generations who grew up without the solid building blocks like that. You can't run before you can walk, can you?

So the language suffers. The powers that be realise now that they threw out the baby with the bathwater. But we still get this cycle of jargon and spin, and its basically a pain but a fact of life now. Oh well...


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> Well, I'm not just talking about sexual feelings when I talk about chemical impulses driving strong feelings of love. If I'm not mistaken, all strong feelings are driven by chemical impulses and combined with our genetic instinct to want to survive rather than perish.


Mhm, genetic instinct. Even so, loving your friends and family after you are biologically independent still has not been addressed by you, violadude. That is what I'm getting at - there is no explanation in terms of biology. Unless you would like to argue that....


----------



## quack

Paradigm shift is an important idea in the philosophy of ideas and worth reading up on if you have the time.

The fact the concept was co-opted as part of business jargon is perhaps unfortunate but the problem with proscribing certain words or phrases simply because of over or ill-use, is that they can be used many different ways.

Someone had to take the 'F the (language) Police' role so it may as well be me. And now back to our regular scheduled logocide programming.


----------



## violadude

mstar said:


> Mhm, genetic instinct. Even so, loving your friends and family after you are biologically independent still has not been addressed by you, violadude. That is what I'm getting at - there is no explanation in terms of biology. Unless you would like to argue that....


What do you mean biologically independent?

Here, what I meant to say was that we, as all animals that have survived up to this point, have certain traits that we have evolved that allow us to survive. One of those things for humans is our behavioral tendency to live in packs of sorts. The biological mechanism that urges us toward this behavior are various chemical impulses in the brain that the rest of the body reacts to. This is an explanation for what people usually call love, among friends or among family or among lovers or whatever.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I'm afraid this thread has gone entirely off topic. I would like to recommend mstar and violadude to continue this conversation in private message or in a group, but not here.

Anyhow, I'd like to make a contribution to the OT's original question.

"Should" should not exist.
"Ought" ought not exist.
:tiphat:

No, seriously. Those buzz words are so filled with shame that it drives the world to insanity. They are words driven by shame, and not by the sense of right and wrong. _Shame destroys._ Unless they can be redeemed in a real way, these words are so utterly abused and used _for _abuse that I hate them with all my heart, and treat them like swear words. I avoid them like the plague in most conversational speech nowadays, and I cringe in my shoes when I hear other people use it in any context, even supposedly good ones, and that's where it's the worst. "You should practice more." Heck no! No one "should" practice more, it must be a _voluntary _activity from the heart! "You ought to be more respectful." Heck no AGAIN! How is that going to motivate anyone? Just say "Be respectful" and ask for inspiration of the heart so that it is done with sincerity. "You should like this." Unless you are implying "I think you would like this from as far as I know you", NEVER say that someone "should" have feelings for something that doesn't come naturally to them. Imperatives are stronger in their inspiration, but Should/Ought have origins in shame. I'm all for _free-will_ and voluntary action. The only time I would use it is to actually stop shame in the process, "You shouldn't be forcing that person to do or think that way." etc. But imagine a world where no one uses those words, it would be an amazing place!


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> What do you mean biologically independent?
> 
> Here, what I meant to say was that we, as all animals that have survived up to this point, have certain traits that we have evolved that allow us to survive. One of those things for humans is our behavioral tendency to live in packs of sorts. The biological mechanism that urges us toward this behavior are various chemical impulses in the brain that the rest of the body reacts to. This is an explanation for what people usually call love, among friends or among family or among lovers or whatever.


Independent as in both sexually mature and independent of a mother. 
There is no biological purpose for humans to live in "packs." We do not hunt together, we do not need constant protection, we do not sleep in large groups for warmth. If I went to live alone with a spouse in the middle of the rainforest, could I survive? Yes. Would I? Yes. Will I go? Of course not, nobody wants to be alone with just one other person, for the most part. This has no biological explanation. It has to do with the recurring theme: love.

Take a pack of wolves. Now take away the need for protection, food, warmth from others' homeostasis. For each male give a female. Do you think they will all stay together as one pack? No, they will become rivals.

All these things have been taken away from most humans through "sophistication" and technology. Yet, we stay together.

How, then, can you explain this if we are to say it is biological?


----------



## Guest

I'd like to add the words Tea Party to the list.


----------



## violadude

mstar said:


> Independent as in both sexually mature and independent of a mother.
> There is no biological purpose for humans to live in "packs." We do not hunt together, we do not need constant protection, we do not sleep in large groups for warmth. If I went to live alone with a spouse in the middle of the rainforest, could I survive? Yes. Would I? Yes. Will I go? Of course not, nobody wants to be alone with just one other person, for the most part. This has no biological explanation. It has to do with the recurring theme: love.
> 
> How, then, can you explain this if we are to say it is biological?


What you're forgetting is the fact that our environment changes faster than our bodies respond to the change. We may not "hunt in packs" anymore (though we still survive by living together in a society so I don't necessarily see why this is relevant) but we still have the same biological functions that helped us survive in the wild even though we now live in a more technological civilization.

And also, sorry Hilu! I've been wondering about the off topicess of our discussion, but I've been too lazy to do anything about it


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> What you're forgetting is the fact that our environment changes faster than our bodies respond to the change. We may not "hunt in packs" anymore (though we still survive by living together in a society so I don't necessarily see why this is relevant) but we still have the same biological functions that helped us survive in the wild even though we now live in a more technological civilization.
> 
> And also, sorry Hilu! I've been wondering about the off topicess of our discussion, but I've been too lazy to do anything about it


There are genetic markers from the Holocaust starvings in Austria. It doesn't take that much at all to alter DNA. Therefore, my point is still valid. So if you would like to answer the previous question....

Sorry, Huilu. Saying that love is bio is not justifiable, as I am hoping we can see....


----------



## violadude

mstar said:


> There are genetic markers from the Holocaust starvings in Austria. It doesn't take that much at all to alter DNA. Therefore, my point is still valid. So if you would like to answer the previous question....
> 
> Sorry, Huilu. Saying that love is bio is not justifiable, as I am hoping we can see....


That doesn't change what I'm saying. The example you just gave is a very small change to a very small percentage of the population. There are probably just as many people who are born without the ability to feel anything toward any human being at all as there are people who are born with holocaust markings. That doesn't say much about human behavior in general though. For a trait so essential to our survival as human socialization and bonding to shift away from what it was when we were still in the wild would take much more time than that.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

If you guys keep going, all 20 something of your posts are going to be removed. Just a warning.


----------



## violadude

Huilunsoittaja said:


> If you guys keep going, all 20 something of your posts are going to be removed. Just a warning.


Why? We aren't saying anything bad or inappropriate and we aren't insulting each other.


----------



## mstar

Huilunsoittaja said:


> If you guys keep going, all 20 something of your posts are going to be removed. Just a warning.


I agree with violadude, we are being very civil about this. There is no offense directed, and violadude and I happen to be pretty good acquaintances over TC.


----------



## mstar

violadude said:


> That doesn't change what I'm saying. The example you just gave is a very small change to a very small percentage of the population. There are probably just as many people who are born without the ability to feel anything toward any human being at all as there are people who are born with holocaust markings. That doesn't say much about human behavior in general though. For a trait so essential to our survival as human socialization and bonding to shift away from what it was when we were still in the wild would take much more time than that.


So you are saying once humans get used to their independence which they've had for _thousands_ of years, then they will be able to separate more and more from each other? That is irrational, due to the fact that the brain is much more capable than that.

For example, take people who play with lucid dreaming. I've taken control of my vivid dreams myself. Then, I got trapped in lucid dreaming, not once, but twice. This was over the course of one or two months. That was how quickly I accustomed to my dreaming styles. This may not seem like a big deal to you, but it could change one's entire life. That is how quickly the brain accustoms.

Therefore there is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting this hypothesis that the brain takes thousands of years to accustom to such a small change as living habits. So again, my previous question.


----------



## Gilberto

homophobe and variations of

As far as I know this is a new "word". We all know what people mean when they say it but, technically what does it mean? Fear of yourself or everyone or anyone? No, today's world has their own lexicon.

I have never heard or seen it used as a neutral term;always in a disparging manner.


----------



## Sid James

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ...
> "Should" should not exist.
> "Ought" ought not exist.
> :tiphat:
> 
> No, seriously. Those buzz words are so filled with shame that it drives the world to insanity. They are words driven by shame, and not by the sense of right and wrong. ...I'm all for _free-will_ and voluntary action. ...


I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Often the word "should" is part of someone telling you what to do, and it doesn't leave much room to manouvre, its a take it or leave it scenario. I try to replace it with phrases that imply the person has some sort of choice, eg. "may I suggest" such and such. Most of the times nowadays though I only give advice if its asked for in the first place. I don't like to run other people's lives for them, in any case that sort of thing is patronising between grown adults to say the least. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, unfortunately many grown ups make their "shoulds" into another person's "shoulds" - and it just ends in animosity most of the times.


----------



## mstar

Okay, okay, we've stopped. At least on here. 

Oh, does anyone know Mendelssohn's Songs without Words Op. 38 No. 2? It's wonderful! If anyone calls it the hated word *"sublime,"* I might just never enjoy it as much again!


----------



## Gilberto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> "Should" should not exist.
> "Ought" ought not exist.
> :tiphat:


I can agree with this.

And I cringe at someone saying " I can't" when they mean "I will not". More than likely, you can but _will _not.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Why? We aren't saying anything bad or inappropriate and we aren't insulting each other.


No, but you two have completely derailed the topic, and I'd be pissed if I were the OP.


----------



## Gilberto

Kontrapunctus said:


> No, but you two have completely derailed the topic, and I'd be pissed if I were the OP.


I'm not 100% positive but I think they took it elsewhere and he is the OP. If I am wrong, a thousand pardons.


----------



## Turangalîla

If this interesting off-topic discussion is to be carried elsewhere, let me know! I would love to join, but of course not here :lol:

And I would like very much for the word _homophobe_ to not exist, please and thank you, as whenever it is used it completely ignores the original meaning of "phobia".


----------



## Piwikiwi

mstar said:


> Yes, your YOLO comment is so true!
> 
> The word "*like*" should exist as nothing but a linking verb. The end.
> 
> The word "*sentimental*" should have been replaced forever with "saccharine."
> 
> The word "*moist*" is just disgusting. Yuck.
> 
> The word "*hitherto*" has no real purpose these days.
> 
> The acronym "*lol*" is just overused.
> 
> Now to the Complaints Thread? I seem to be in the mood....


In dutch lol is not an acronym, it literally means fun.


----------



## Tristan

I can't believe no one has said "swag" yet. I think we're all sick of _that_ one...


----------



## Piwikiwi

mstar said:


> Independent as in both sexually mature and independent of a mother.
> There is no biological purpose for humans to live in "packs." We do not hunt together, we do not need constant protection, we do not sleep in large groups for warmth. If I went to live alone with a spouse in the middle of the rainforest, could I survive? Yes. Would I? Yes. Will I go? Of course not, nobody wants to be alone with just one other person, for the most part. This has no biological explanation. It has to do with the recurring theme: love.
> 
> Take a pack of wolves. Now take away the need for protection, food, warmth from others' homeostasis. For each male give a female. Do you think they will all stay together as one pack? No, they will become rivals.
> 
> All these things have been taken away from most humans through "sophistication" and technology. Yet, we stay together.
> 
> How, then, can you explain this if we are to say it is biological?


You would die if you would live alone in the rainforest. We have survived the neanderthals because our species prefers larger scale societies.

This going to sound odd but I took xtc once (stupid teenager) and I felt an overwhelming love for my friends who were with me, it was nothing sexual but extremely intens. For me it exemplifies that my feelings work by chemicals.


----------



## KenOC

mstar said:


> Well, I don't think that people should have intercourse outside of marriage.


I don't think people should have intercourse at all. I mean really...intercourse? I can think of a lot more fun things than that, you know? :lol:


----------



## violadude

Kontrapunctus said:


> No, but you two have completely derailed the topic, and I'd be pissed if I were the OP.


I AM the OP!!


----------



## Aramis

Tristan said:


> I can't believe no one has said "swag" yet. I think we're all sick of _that_ one...


----------



## jani

mstar said:


> Yes, your YOLO comment is so true!
> 
> The word "*like*" should exist as nothing but a linking verb. The end.
> 
> The word "*sentimental*" should have been replaced forever with "saccharine."
> 
> The word "*moist*" is just disgusting. Yuck.
> 
> The word "*hitherto*" has no real purpose these days.
> 
> The acronym "*lol*" is just overused.
> 
> Now to the Complaints Thread? I seem to be in the mood....


lol... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> I AM the OP!!


Oh yeah, huh... So, are you pissed at yourself yet?

I don't like the term "plating" (I assume one drops the 'e') when applied to arranging food on a plate--it just sounds pretentious to me. In reality, the result is usually a pile of food in the center of the plate, which I also detest.


----------



## Ukko

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> If this interesting off-topic discussion is to be carried elsewhere, let me know! I would love to join, but of course not here :lol:
> 
> And I would like very much for the word _homophobe_ to not exist, please and thank you, as whenever it is used it completely ignores the original meaning of "phobia".


When I see the word (never heard it used) I interpret it as 'fear of homosexuality'. That probably exists.


----------



## Ukko

Kontrapunctus said:


> Oh yeah, huh... So, are you pissed at yourself yet?
> 
> I don't like the term "plating" (I assume one drops the 'e') when applied to arranging food on a plate--it just sounds pretentious to me. In reality, the result is usually a pile of food in the center of the plate, which I also detest.


Hadn't seen that usage. It is an example of borrowing a noun-to-verb conversion. "Chrome plating" uses the verb, from whence comes 'chrome plated', then the 'ed gets dropped, so 'chrome plate' which establishes a new usage for 'plate', now a noun available for back-conversion. Whee.

BTW that progression may not have actually happened.


----------



## mstar

Piwikiwi said:


> In dutch lol is not an acronym, it literally means fun.


Really? In America it's *L*augh *O*ut *L*oud!

Sheesh, I'd go with the Dutch version.... Or just use this: :lol:


----------



## Ukko

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> If this interesting off-topic discussion is to be carried elsewhere, let me know! I would love to join, but of course not here :lol:
> 
> And I would like very much for the word _homophobe_ to not exist, please and thank you, as whenever it is used it completely ignores the original meaning of "phobia".


When I see the word (never heard it used) I interpret it as 'fear of homosexuality'. That probably exists.

[duplicate. blasted software anyway!]


----------



## mstar

Duplicates never happen to me, Mr. Hill!


----------



## mstar

Duplicates never happen to me, Mr. Hill! Oh, no they don't!


----------



## Turangalîla

Hilltroll72 said:


> When I see the word (never heard it used) I interpret it as 'fear of homosexuality'. That probably exists.


I'm sure, somewhere, that exists, but the context in which it is commonly used is to a person that does not support gay marriage, which in no way means that he or she is _afraid_ of gay people.


----------



## mstar

I hate the word "normal." What is the true definition of it, anyway? Wait, I'll save that for another thread, no debates on this one anymore....


----------



## mstar

Piwikiwi said:


> You would die if you would live alone in the rainforest. We have survived the neanderthals because our species prefers larger scale societies.
> 
> This going to sound odd but I took xtc once (stupid teenager) and I felt an overwhelming love for my friends who were with me, it was nothing sexual but extremely intens. For me it exemplifies that my feelings work by chemicals.


Are you saying love has to be extremely intense? Because that is not true in the least....

Or species preferences change depending on adaption and external environment. I've already explained it in a pm to violadude, you want me to send it to you too? Basically the rate at which humans adapt is not something many people are able to comprehend. In short, based on our needs and instinct, if I lived in the rainforest with a spouse, then I would be able to survive and reproduce. Since that si not the sole purpose of live, though I would survive and be healthy as well, I wouldn't be _happy._ and _that_ has to do with love, which is therefore not biological. Pm if you want, the mods are getting mad.

Even if the op isn't.


----------



## EricABQ

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I'm sure, somewhere, that exists, but the context in which it is commonly used is to a person that does not support gay marriage, which in no way means that he or she is _afraid_ of gay people.


You're right. We do need a new word to identify people who view gays as a lesser class of people who are unworthy of full participation in society.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Blancrocher

EricABQ said:


> Any suggestions?


My suggestion would be to remember that--for good or ill--there is limited scope for discussing political questions on a music forum.

Unfortunately, the idea of discussing political questions on a _political forum_ is unbearable! :lol:


----------



## Tristan

The word "homophobia" was coined by a psychologist who originally used the word to explain anti-gay prejudice. It was always used that way. The suffix "-phobia" has come to mean "dislike", due to the fact that hatred and fear are often linked. Nonetheless, words change and suffixes change. "Islamophobia", "Japanophobia", etc. Most of those terms don't mean "irrational fear of" they mean "dislike or prejudice toward". And while we're at it, why not dissect the prefix? "Homo" means "same" so "homophobia" literally means "fear of same". We can't always determine a word's meaning by dissecting its parts.

And proof that "-phobic" doesn't always mean "fear": "hydrophobic", a chemistry term referring to a substance that has no affinity for water. I daresay that substance doesn't have an irrational fear of water.


----------



## Blancrocher

Tristan said:


> The word "homophobia" was coined by a psychologist who originally used the word to explain anti-gay prejudice. It was always used that way. The suffix "-phobia" has come to mean "dislike", due to the fact that hatred and fear are often linked. Nonetheless, words change and suffixes change. "Islamophobia", "Japanophobia", etc. Most of those terms don't mean "irrational fear of" they mean "dislike or prejudice toward". And while we're at it, why not dissect the prefix? "Homo" means "same" so "homophobia" literally means "fear of same". We can't always determine a word's meaning by dissecting its parts.


The Oxford English Dictionary was a revelation to me when I first encountered it. Many of those etymological histories had very strange twists and turns.

I like this discussion of "the etymological fallacy":

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/08/word-origins-and-meaning


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I don't like the word "Islamophobia" either, because of that connotation of being afraid. If you have been declared war on, then letting the other side know you are afraid, is the last thing you should do.


----------



## Guest

I think (and I'm pretty sure John Cage would have agreed too, but already, there, you see, I have soured any sweet water you were expecting...) that (we arrive at some sort of defining clause; good lord, I'm beginning to sound like SomeGuy) that (I repeat, redundantly) there should never be a ban on any word(s) whatsoever. Words are vehicles (some pretty smooth, others perhaps rather crude and clumsy) and somewhat ephemeral. Leave well alone! What's with all this interventionist 'thought police' stuff?


----------



## Blancrocher

TalkingHead said:


> I think (and I'm pretty sure John Cage would have agreed too, but already, there, you see, I have soured any sweet water you were expecting...) that (we arrive at some sort of defining clause; good lord, I'm beginning to sound like SomeGuy) that (I repeat, redundantly) there should never be a ban on any word(s) whatsoever. Words are vehicles (some pretty smooth, others perhaps rather crude and clumsy) and somewhat ephemeral. Leave well alone! What's with all this interventionist 'thought police' stuff?


Can we at least agree on a moratorium on "Twitterverse"?


----------



## Guest

Blancrocher said:


> Can we at least agree on a moratorium on "Twitterverse"?


I'm sure I would agree with you, _mon cher_ Whitrerock, if I knew what the hell you were referring to!
I have a terrible foreboding you are about to enlighten me ...


----------



## Guest

May I say that my recent prose reflects the fact [that] I have been _dipping in_ to Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings' and the more _opaque_ 'Simarillion'. If I start calling anyone here 'thee' or 'thou' or 'ye' or referring to 'one's doom' you will, I hope, understand. Noble _Blancrocher_, what sayest ye about this Twitterverse? Are they the false words of Sauron or his master Morgoth?


----------



## Blancrocher

TalkingHead said:


> I'm sure I would agree with you, _mon cher_ Whitrerock, if I knew what the hell you were referring to!


Ah, the blessed innocence. I'm actually moved. Don't ever change, TalkingHead, no matter what you see when you venture into the depraved world we live in.

*ps* Unfortunately, the LOTR leads me to believe this is impossible.


----------



## Guest

Blancrocher said:


> Ah, the blessed innocence. I'm actually moved. Don't ever change, TalkingHead, no matter what you see when you venture into the depraved world we live in.
> 
> *ps* *Unfortunately, the LOTR leads me to believe this is impossible*.


Alas, the sundering of the worlds sets us apart, yet still do we reach out to each other, noble Whiterock. Let us turn now to things more simple, the quenching of thirsts with fine wine or frothing mead, the filling of stomachs with tasty game and, of course, the singing of hearty tunes, be that of diatonic, neo-diatonic or even serial character, for the world is yet young, and many adventures ahead await us.


----------



## Celloman

"Black" and "white" as pertaining to race/ethnicity. I have yet to see a so-called "white" person. There are plenty of tan or peach-colored people where I live, but no white people. By that same token, I've never seen a black person. There are plenty of brown-colored people where I live, but no black people. I didn't know black people existed, either. If you've ever seen a white or a black person, please let me know. I've always wanted to see one of them.

"Chocolate" and "cream" sounds a whole lot nicer. Why don't we use those words instead?


----------



## Aramis

Celloman said:


> If you've ever seen a white or a black person, please let me know. I've always wanted to see one of them.


----------



## mstar

^^^^ I'm still not over Brahms, I'm really not....


----------



## Ukko

Aramis said:


>


Grayscale photos? insufficient information.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hadn't seen that usage. It is an example of borrowing a noun-to-verb conversion. "Chrome plating" uses the verb, from whence comes 'chrome plated', then the 'ed gets dropped, so 'chrome plate' which establishes a new usage for 'plate', now a noun available for back-conversion. Whee.
> 
> BTW that progression may not have actually happened.


I think Martha Stewart originated the usage.


----------



## Turangalîla

EricABQ said:


> You're right. We do need a new word to identify people who view guys as a lesser class of people who are unworthy of full participation in society.
> 
> Any suggestions?


You have turned my statement about a word I dislike into a debate over gay rights. I would be truly interested in carrying on this discussion with you, but not here.


----------



## EricABQ

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> You have turned my statement about a word I dislike into a debate over gay rights. I would be truly interested in carrying on this discussion with you, but not here.


I can't imagine that being anything other than a complete waste of time, so I'll pass.


----------



## moody

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I'm sure, somewhere, that exists, but the context in which it is commonly used is to a person that does not support gay marriage, which in no way means that he or she is _afraid_ of gay people.


Afraid of the concept probably.


----------



## moody

Ingenue said:


> There are words I just don't like because of the sound of them or the associations they conjure up.
> I wouldn't want these words banned on account of my weird quailings, of course.
> 
> Examples: I hate it when people say 'easy-peasy'; I hate 'blubbing' or 'bubbling' for 'crying'; I hate it when people say 'scone' to rhyme with 'bone', not 'scone' to rhyme with 'con'. Long-o scone is 'posh' or 'southern'.
> 
> _The famous rhyme says it all_:
> 
> 'I asked the girl in dulcet tone
> To fetch me in a buttered scone;
> The silly girl has been and gone
> And fetched me in a buttered scone!'


Where does that leave us with the Stone of Scone then ?


----------



## Turangalîla

EricABQ said:


> I can't imagine that being anything other than a complete waste of time, so I'll pass.


I understand-I'm sure we have completely different worldviews, which would need to be reconciled before we even began to discuss gay rights...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't like the word "Islamophobia" either, because of that connotation of being afraid. If you have been declared war on, then letting the other side know you are afraid, is the last thing you should do.


The suffix -phobia has become just as acceptable to describe forms of prejudiced/irrational bigotry, or an extreme and often prejudiced dislike of something just as it still means "a fear of something." Islamophobia and homophobia are two accepted uses of the suffix to describe a prejudiced dislike/bigotry and it has shown to be extremely useful with this meaning.

One "word" that I see far too often is "barbeque." Either learn how to spell, or use a synonym!

One word that I feel is overused and become cliché is "juxtapose" and its various forms.


----------



## EricABQ

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> I understand-I'm sure we have completely different worldviews, which would need to be reconciled before we even began to discuss gay rights...


Well, we certainly have different views on this issue (assuming your position is what I think it is) but I'm not sure that means we have entirely different world views.


----------



## Ukko

EricABQ said:


> Well, we certainly have different views on this issue (assuming your position is what I think it is) but I'm not sure that means we have entirely different world views.


Given the amount of knowledge necessary to support a solidly based opinion, I am tempted to say that any stance on the subject depends on which set of lies you believe. This because the Opposing Positions have slipped off their foundations.


----------



## mstar

Hilltroll72 said:


> Given the amount of knowledge necessary to support a solidly based opinion, I am tempted to say that any stance on the subject depends on which set of lies you believe. This because the *Opposing Positions* have slipped off their foundations.


Oh! So _that's_ what OP stands for!! 

I think "OP" shouldn't exist unless it stands for organophosphates.


----------



## Piwikiwi

mstar said:


> Are you saying love has to be extremely intense? Because that is not true in the least....
> 
> Or species preferences change depending on adaption and external environment. I've already explained it in a pm to violadude, you want me to send it to you too? Basically the rate at which humans adapt is not something many people are able to comprehend. In short, based on our needs and instinct, if I lived in the rainforest with a spouse, then I would be able to survive and reproduce. Since that si not the sole purpose of live, though I would survive and be healthy as well, I wouldn't be _happy._ and _that_ has to do with love, which is therefore not biological. Pm if you want, the mods are getting mad.
> 
> Even if the op isn't.


You misinterpreted my points. I just used the xtc example to clarify that feelings are caused by chemicals, that doesn't make them any less real. Second point if you and your so would live in the jungle you would die. I don't underestimate the adaptability of humans but I think you greatly underestimate the difficulty of living in such an environment.



SiegendesLicht said:


> I don't like the word "Islamophobia" either, because of that connotation of being afraid. If you have been declared war on, then letting the other side know you are afraid, is the last thing you should do.


There is no such thing as Islam declaring war on anyone because Islam is extremely fragmented. There is no central organisation like the catholic or the Greek/Russian orthodox church


----------



## Turangalîla

EricABQ said:


> Well, we certainly have different views on this issue (assuming your position is what I think it is) but I'm not sure that means we have entirely different world views.


Based on your previous posting and activity in religious forums I made that conclusion. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Turangalîla

Hilltroll72 said:


> Given the amount of knowledge necessary to support a solidly based opinion, I am tempted to say that any stance on the subject depends on which set of lies you believe. This because the Opposing Positions have slipped off their foundations.


If you are talking about the Protestant church, I would agree with you that most of it has slipped off its foundation-but probably in a different way than you were thinking.


----------



## maestro267

"Bouncebackability". What a stupid word! We already have a word for that definition. It's resilience! Let's use that more often!


----------



## mstar

Piwikiwi said:


> You misinterpreted my points. I just used the xtc example to clarify that feelings are caused by chemicals, that doesn't make them any less real. Second point if you and your so would live in the jungle you would die. I don't underestimate the adaptability of humans but I think you greatly underestimate the difficulty of living in such an environment.
> 
> There is no such thing as Islam declaring war on anyone because Islam is extremely fragmented. There is no central organisation like the catholic or the Greek/Russian orthodox church


There are African tribes living in those tropical climates.
They have found, in South America, only a few people living together in those climates. 
There is scientific evidence that you would be able to survive. 
There are countless patterns existent. 
The lionfish, for example, is foreign to the Eastern coast of the USA, I believe. It currently thrives and endangers many other types of fish there. 
That is only one very simple example. 
The brain easily adapts, and is able to adapt, to the changes around it. Humans do not hunt in packs, etc., if you have followed up with the argument, then you would see that I have already explained that. So let's not go in cycles, another common pattern in nature. 
That is my point, and what may be seen yours proven invalid.  
Unless you claim I'm not catching on, though I seem to have answered all of this in either the previous conversation, or pm's to Violadude. The conversation was basically deemed over.

If you want, though, you can pm me so the mods don't get mad.


----------



## Piwikiwi

mstar said:


> There are African tribes living in those tropical climates.
> They have found, in South America, only a few people living together in those climates.
> There is scientific evidence that you would be able to survive.
> There are countless patterns existent.
> The lionfish, for example, is foreign to the Eastern coast of the USA, I believe. It currently thrives and endangers many other types of fish there.
> That is only one very simple example.
> The brain easily adapts, and is able to adapt, to the changes around it. Humans do not hunt in packs, etc., if you have followed up with the argument, then you would see that I have already explained that. So let's not go in cycles, another common pattern in nature.
> That is my point, and what may be seen yours proven invalid.
> Unless you claim I'm not catching on, though I seem to have answered all of this in either the previous conversation, or pm's to Violadude. The conversation was basically deemed over.
> 
> If you want, though, you can pm me so the mods don't get mad.


Okay I thought you meant that you would survive if you would move to the jungle right now. Humans xo hunt in packs. I will be easily convinced if you would come with compelling sources to prove me otherwise but humans are not solitary.


----------



## mstar

Piwikiwi said:


> Okay I thought you meant that you would survive if you would move to the jungle right now. Humans xo hunt in packs. I will be easily convinced if you would come with compelling sources to prove me otherwise *but humans are not solitary.*


YES! Thank you, that is my point. 

We are not solitary. But why? Because we need to be with friends and family? No, life doesn't revolve solely around reproduction and survival. There is love, and love is unrelated to these things. Basically, life is not sexuality, and love is not _always_ related to sexuality. The point of life is not biological!


----------



## Tristan

Apparently some people are calling a very large smartphone a "phablet". That word makes me want to pull my hair out.

Tech terms can get really lame sometimes. And the whole concept of a "phablet" is dumb in the first place; there comes a point where a phone is too big to be convenient.


----------



## Wandering

A response for the original post from violadude. I definitely agree with you. Ironically, the word harlot would have sailed right by the moderators, as eloquent as it is. I think the word has always been one giant 'carrot and stick' for Mankind. 

My liberal horn toots must be regularly washed out by episodes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.


----------



## deggial

Tristan said:


> And the whole concept of a "phablet" is dumb in the first place; there comes a point where a phone is too big to be convenient.


to be fair, most people hardly use smart phones as phones. They're mostly mini game consoles and facebook umbilical cords.


----------



## Tristan

lol I probably use my phone more as a computer than a phone, but it stays with me all the time, in my pocket and I can type on it with one hand. It would be difficult to do that on a "phablet".


----------

