Does thinking for yourself automatically dub you as a conspiracist?

[یاسمینه]

depends of what you mean by a synonym. If the definition of synonyms is that they ar words interchangeable in all stuations, then this definition is false. Because every so called synonym can have very similar denotations and different connotations.

[khushal]

Faye,I am not going to go between you and RTR, but linguists still discuss if, from semantic point of view, synonyms exist.

But RTR was using it the same way as Faye is now about the word force and obligation.
I told him its different, but he insisted its not.
but I do agree with you.

[یاسمینه]

Probably I didn't see the post. Don't worry, I would say the same to him.

[faye]

depends of what you mean by a synonym. If the definition of synonyms is that they ar words interchangeable in all stuations, then this definition is false. Because every so called synonym can have very similar denotations and different connotations.

i copied from some thesaurus, online. i am really not that fussed.
debating with a fruitcake is not all that serious a matter, to me.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

playing pedantic now

Ok your English skills are poorer than even Khushal's that's horrible

read again with the correct emphasis

"I never claimed it is the ONLY valid one, I claimed it's AN authentic source"


Thus I'm free of any obligation to prove something that I never claimed.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

But RTR was using it the same way as Faye is now about the word force and obligation.
I told him its different, but he insisted its not.
but I do agree with you.

Right but Yasmeenah is saying in certain contexts the words can mean such, thus that corresponds with my claim about force and obligation IN THAT context.

to quote Yasmeenah

If the definition of synonyms is that they ar words interchangeable in all stuations

Which implies that in SOME situations they can mean the same thing.

your'e getting really desperate here.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

i copied from some thesaurus, online. i am really not that fussed.
debating with a fruitcake is not all that serious a matter, to me.

Haha then why are you so obsessive about it?

[faye]

because it's amusing watching how frantically desperate you get, to keep proving you are right. didn't you realise that is what we are laughing about?

what a burden it must be to have to cart such a demanding ego around. you poor little fellow.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

So you're obsessive because you want to see someone frantic who you say you don't take them seriously but you're willing to invest significant time on what they say which is what you'd do when you take something seriously

LOL Faye logic

[khushal]

Right but Yasmeenah is saying in certain contexts the words can mean such, thus that corresponds with my claim about force and obligation IN THAT context.

to quote Yasmeenah



Which implies that in SOME situations they can mean the same thing.

your'e getting really desperate here.

Ghul siab,
Than thats your opinion and you never proved that Lutz was using it like that. You were trying to rewrite his analysis to fit your own narrative. If wanted to use force, he would have, you have no right to use it for him. Its you who is desperate.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I actually did prove it; re-examine the posts regarding the topic; in response to your contention I cite another quote from Lutz That highlights that he is referring to the same situation using terms like coercion and force. Thus he definitely means "force" in this context.


Feel free to go back and look for yourself.

[faye]

So you're obsessive because you want to see someone frantic who you say you don't take them seriously but you're willing to invest significant time on what they say which is what you'd do when you take something seriously

LOL Faye logic

you, personally? no i have never taken you seriously. why should i? you are just a bit of fun, as a sparring partner.

your being allowed off a short leash, by admin, to dribble your mental diarrhea on the forum, i do take seriously. you, as a represenative of pashtuns make pashtuns look like emotionally underdeveloped, creepy perverts, which is what YOU claim all other pashtuns are. see the hypocrisy of yourself, poppit.

BTW..this is a telepathic transmission from an alien spacecraft. we are heading to a different realm.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Faye you as a self admitted hippie; a member of a culture of promiscuity , moral corruption and decay, accusing others of being "emotionally undeveloped perverts" is like privileged White Imperialist background you come from calling others uncivilized barbarians. it's absurd to the Nth degree. Your persistent flipflop between first defending Western Imperialism and then trying to villify those who want to abandon harmful backwards customs in their own culture "colonized" demonstrates precisely what emotionally underdeveloped would be; You're merely transferring your hatred of yourself onto others and I'm sorry I won't be a vehicle for your self loathing. You take me seriously because your ego is hurt, your sense of this self deluded image that you have reached some age old wisdom from your experiences have been shattered and thuse you seek hungrily for some type of overcompensation for your failed sense of self. That's why you obsess about me, not for a sparring partner, but an escape from your own self disgust.

I pity you and how manic and confused of a soul you are, You'd think someone would sort themselves out by age 60, but I guess it's your upbringing that's to blame

[khushal]

I actually did prove it; re-examine the posts regarding the topic; in response to your contention I cite another quote from Lutz That highlights that he is referring to the same situation using terms like coercion and force. Thus he definitely means "force" in this context.


Feel free to go back and look for yourself.

I read the whole thing, he never used the word force or coercion with what we are discussing. you making things up now because you have been proved wrong.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Go look in the thread, I even DIRECTLY QUOTED the part where he does so if anyone is making things up because they're exposed it's you. You're also lying about reading the whole document too. Because if you had you'd have known I quoted two parts, one was the original , second was the corroboration that he does in fact mean force.