Stuff the icj and anyone who stands by it (1 Viewer)

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

yes please, I am sure you will be able to convey the same message

Submit to Rome.

 

[nsw..wollongong]

Submit to Rome.

enough

 

[Aeonium]

Should I not use jargon to appropriately convey ideas that pertain to the topic of discussion?

all it does is diminish & obstruct whatever argument you have. you seem like some pretentious guy who's just yapping rather than someone who's actively trying to argue their point. there is a reason there are varying modes of english, be it slang, formal, conversational, etc. to be honest, maybe you need to consider the mode of english everyone else is using, and adapt to that, rather than obstructing your argument by using niche vocabulary to sound smarter

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

all it does is diminish & obstruct whatever argument you have. you seem like some pretentious guy who's just yapping rather than someone who's actively trying to argue their point. there is a reason there are varying modes of english, be it slang, formal, conversational, etc. to be honest, maybe you need to consider the mode of english everyone else is using, and adapt to that, rather than obstructing your argument by using niche vocabulary to sound smarter

Can you define jargon?

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

enough

Enough of what? assalamu alaikum rahmatullahi barakatuh

 

[Aeonium]

Can you define jargon?

surely if you use such verbose and niche vocabulary you can define it yourself ? you are already on the internet; you can easily search for it yourself

 

[nsw..wollongong]

Enough of what? assalamu alaikum rahmatullahi barakatuh

im not even muslim what is going on

 

[johnnnCENAAAA]

and men ask why women hate them and feel unsafe
men are pigs i said what i said

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

surely if you use such verbose and niche vocabulary you can define it yourself ? you are already on the internet; you can easily search for it yourself

Usually when someone asks a question they require the answer from you instead of a rhetorical question back.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

im not even muslim what is going on

Then Submit to Rome please.

 

[nsw..wollongong]

ur gonna see Christians criticising others just as much. and hindus. and sikhs. and others. ppl like this exist everywhere

 

[nsw..wollongong]

Then Submit to Rome please.

im a Christian wtf? i don't like how ur forcing this, it makes Christianity look bad just stop

 

[johnnnCENAAAA]

Then Submit to Rome please.

omgg some christians really love to shove the cross up your ass

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

im a Christian wtf? i don't like how ur forcing this, it makes Christianity look bad just stop

No one is forcing. I'm quite literally providing retorts to people's claim. In addition, I have an obligation, even though I have not been doing on this forum, to make my creed visible to all people. (Mark 16:15)

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

omgg some christians really love to shove the cross up your ass

Did you really get 99.95?

 

[HazzRat]

@Atheist/agnostic slayer to prove a point I pulled out a random passage from Sapiens, one of my favourite non-fiction books, into the readability checker. This guy is an Oxford phD and has won numerous awards, and yet he's able to write in coherent English. This is the passage I used and got an A for readibility:

How did Homo sapiens manage to cross this critical threshold, eventually founding cities comprising tens of thousands of inhabitants and empires ruling hundreds of millions? The secret was probably the appearance of fiction. Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths. Any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist only in peoples collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights – and the money paid out in fees. Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.

Yet somehow you're unable to write a decent argument without writing in incoherent Scottish? Like no mate, you're using big words cause you can't write, not cause you're smart.

 

[Aeonium]

Usually when someone asks a question they require the answer from you instead of a rhetorical question back.

usually when someone demonstrates their extensive vocabulary, i assume they are proficient in english!

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

jargon is words used by a certain group of people that is difficult for everyone to understand

An example of (legal) jargon could be quid pro quo, which the average joe may not understand

No. It's a quantity of words, including their linguistic morphology, that pertain to a specific idea or subject. These words are subjected to the idea. If I want to coherently express the position of something which has an exclusive subject that I want to use appropriate terminology, relevant to the topic. I don't study the anatomy of a persons body and taxonimize things and converse based upon the shapes of each organ.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

@Atheist/agnostic slayer to prove a point I pulled out a random passage from Sapiens, one of my favourite non-fiction books, into the readability checker. This guy is an Oxford phD and has won numerous awards, and yet he's able to write in coherent English. This is the passage I used and got an A for readibility:

How did Homo sapiens manage to cross this critical threshold, eventually founding cities comprising tens of thousands of inhabitants and empires ruling hundreds of millions? The secret was probably the appearance of fiction. Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths. Any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist only in peoples collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights – and the money paid out in fees. Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings.

Yet somehow you're unable to write a decent argument without writing in incoherent Scottish? Like no mate, you're using big words cause you can't write, not cause you're smart.

This is just a fallacious method of arguing, for instance the personal experience of one individual is not generalised hastily for all others. This is an erroneous anecdotal fallacy. I could simply negate this by referring to a conversation of Aristotle's or St Thomas Aquinas',where their vocabulary is extraordinary.

 

[Aeonium]

This is just a fallacious method of arguing, for instance the personal experience of one individual is not generalised hastily for all others. This is an erroneous anecdotal fallacy. I could simply negate this by referring to a conversation of Aristotle's or St Thomas Aquinas',where their vocabulary is extraordinary.

i could simply negate this by stating how language changes over time and both the scholars you have cited have died over 800 years ago