Quote:
Originally posted by Shawnski+May 21 2005, 12:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski @ May 21 2005, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 20 2005, 06:04 PM
I am debating it. You're just not answering my points.
|
"Nihil ad rem" means you "have no point".
The two words I chose are completely clear... "
power slut". The second has a clear meaning when combined with the first. Did you think I was referring to Linda Lovelace?
Quote:
|
The intent is what is important and anyone who has an ounce of tact and intelligence knows what calling a woman a whore and a slut means.
|
Come on Addition, my intent has been made very, very clear.
But seems like you are really arguing that words
should not change meaning. The original meanings of "whore" and "slut" are very, very, clear, and very derogatory to women.
So if you are not in support of keeping the meaning of words as they have historically been implemented, then you should be in support that "marriage" remains the "union of a man and women", instead of being altered to include gays now.... right? [/b][/quote]
No, there were points there. I suppose they are just over your head. C'est la vie.
It has nothing to do with believing or not believing that "words should not change meanings". It has to do with being sensitive to the historical meaning of a derogatory word applied to a previously oppressed group of people.
Like in my example with the word gay. Even though the word has a duel defintion, we KNOW what it implies in this day of age. Using "whore" or "slut", and then claiming to be using the more rare and less accpeted defintion is not fooling anyone.