Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Flat Earth cirruculum..Follow

#152 Feb 10 2014 at 5:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Before going into the more philosophical portions of the debate:

Smasharoo wrote:
I don't know anything about that person in particular. Most people who identify themselves as creationists don't ascribe to the Young Earth Theory and certainly don't believe that anyone who doesn't isn't really a Christian.

Incorrect, in fact. Most people who *self identify* as 'creationists' DO subscribe (because we're using the English language by choosing words that are appropriate to context not just ones that may sound somewhat similar) to Young Earth creationism.


Seriously? It's not my fault that I apparently posses a greater vocabulary than you, but the word ascribe means:

as·cribe

verb (used with object), as·cribed, as·crib·ing.
1. to credit or assign, as to a cause or source; attribute; impute: The alphabet is usually ascribed to the Phoenicians.
2. to attribute or think of as belonging, as a quality or characteristic: They ascribed courage to me for something I did out of sheer panic.

the word subscribe on the other hand:

sub·scribe

verb (used with object), sub·scribed, sub·scrib·ing.
1. to pledge, as by signing an agreement, to give or pay (a sum of money) as a contribution, gift, or investment: He subscribed $6,000 for the new church.
2. to give or pay in fulfillment of such a pledge.
3. to append one's signature or mark to (a document), as in approval or attestation of its contents.
4. to attest by or as by signing.
5. to append, as one's signature, at the bottom of a document or the like; sign.


Funny that you corrected me by insisting that I should use an incorrect word that's commonly misused as the correct one that I used. But hey. You just keep on truckin'!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 Feb 10 2014 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
He's right, and you're a moron.
#154 Feb 10 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Funny that you corrected me by insisting that I should use an incorrect word that's commonly misused as the correct one that I used. But hey. You just keep on truckin'!


Link.

Quote:
Usually, when "ascribe" is mistakenly substituted for "subscribe" it is in a sentences like these, where "subscribe" means to give assent to something:


WRONG: He ascribes to the theory that the president is above the law.

CORRECT: He subscribes to the theory that the president is above the law.


WRONG: Most people refuse to ascribe to such conspiracy theories.

CORRECT: Most people refuse to subscribe to such conspiracy theories.


WRONG: Far too many people ascribe to the lie that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

CORRECT: Far too many people subscribe to the lie that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the September 11 terrorist attacks.



The reason that "subscribe" means to agree with or to give assent to in these sentences is that one of the word's meanings is to sign underneath ("sub-scribe")--as, for example when one signs one's name to a petition to indicate agreement with the text of the petition.

If you are not sure about whether to use "ascribe" or "subscribe" in a given sentence, try substituting the word "credit" or "attribute" for "ascribe." If the sentence doesn't make sense with either of those words, then "ascribe" is not the word you want.
#155 Feb 10 2014 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
I was hoping we could spin this out over another ten posts before telling him why he was wrong, so that he'd never accept it.
#156 Feb 10 2014 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Page breaks are hard. Smiley: frown

Edited, Feb 10th 2014 3:32pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#157 Feb 10 2014 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Debalic wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Why so angry Smash. Does it make you mad that I can believe the science of the working body of our existence...and believe that there is a possibility that something made this great design for us to discover.

Or does it make you jealous?

The two beliefs aren't mutually exclusive...but hey believe what you want...you are just wrong.

One of those beliefs is entirely unnecessary and extraneous. It serves no purpose except to placate and control the grumbling masses.
The science one right?

Because if you give us money we can totally extend your lifespan. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#158 Feb 11 2014 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Funny

Sad, really. Your crippled learning ability must really affect your life in terrible ways. All that energy wasted insisting you are correct when you could actually LEARN something using half as much. Oh well, wanting something to be true is more important than data, eh?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#159 Feb 11 2014 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I was hoping we could spin this out over another ten posts before telling him why he was wrong, so that he'd never accept it.

Why on Earth would think he's going to accept it? He's mentally ill, he is incapable of taking responsibility for even the most trivial error.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#160 Feb 11 2014 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
There is a bit of funny in that he's also the guy insisting on everyone speaking English.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#161 Feb 11 2014 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Smasharoo wrote:
I was hoping we could spin this out over another ten posts before telling him why he was wrong, so that he'd never accept it.

Why on Earth would think he's going to accept it? He's mentally ill, he is incapable of taking responsibility for even the most trivial error.


I've seen him accept he's wrong on relatively simple & trivial issues when confronted immediately with evidence. Far from a sure thing, you know, but there's always that small risk if you don't give him enough time to exercise his disability.
#162 Feb 11 2014 at 1:12 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I've seen him accept he's wrong on relatively simple & trivial issues when confronted immediately with evidence.

Nah. Not after insisting he was right once, that's the point where the disability kicks in. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> oh haha. Sure, that happens occasionally. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> insist it was they who made the mistake....cue the calliope music because we're on the merry go round of insanity now boys. There's no turning back from that ****.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#163 Feb 11 2014 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Yeah, you're right. I was too late to be the cause of one of his denial jaunts.

Still, there's always next time. That's the thing with gbaji, there's always a next time.
#164 Feb 11 2014 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I've seen him accept he's wrong on relatively simple & trivial issues when confronted immediately with evidence.

Nah. Not after insisting he was right once, that's the point where the disability kicks in. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> oh haha. Sure, that happens occasionally. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> insist it was they who made the mistake....cue the calliope music because we're on the merry go round of insanity now boys. There's no turning back from that sh*t.


It's a function of him deciding on something, and then sticking with it hell or high water. If you catch him before he has made a decision he is somewhat open to proof, but after that brief window closes there is no point. This is why nuanced explanations are more or less useless and any sort of grey area is alien. Think of him like a superhero; elevator pitch man.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#165 Feb 12 2014 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
I wonder if gbaji is a happy person?
#166 Feb 12 2014 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I wonder if gbaji is a happy person?

I imagine he has some fun trolling this forum.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#167 Feb 12 2014 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Elinda wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I wonder if gbaji is a happy person?

I imagine he has some fun trolling this forum.
He probably votes Green Party too, it's all a farce. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#168 Feb 12 2014 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sometimes I'd like to think that the usual goofs are just trolling.

Then I look at the current make-up of Congress and some of the nut bats serving terms. Then it seems more likely that half of the "liberal" posters here are just trolling Gbaji and ThiefX.

Also, I'm adding this line to get around the Duplicate Post filter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Feb 12 2014 at 7:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I've seen him accept he's wrong on relatively simple & trivial issues when confronted immediately with evidence.

Nah. Not after insisting he was right once, that's the point where the disability kicks in. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> oh haha. Sure, that happens occasionally. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> insist it was they who made the mistake....cue the calliope music because we're on the merry go round of insanity now boys. There's no turning back from that sh*t.


Huh? No. I was wrong in this case, but not necessarily for the reason you think. Even though I wrote the sentence one way, I was thinking of it in the opposite (more correct) way. What makes the difference between ascribe and subscribe in many cases (and definitely in this one) is the direction of the relationship. You can "ascribe" the Young Earth Theory to Creationists, but Creationists "subscribe" to the Young Earth Theory. The reason I was so sure I was right was because even though I wrote it wrong, the relationship between Creationists and the Young Earth Theory does match the meaning of ascribe more than subscribe. Young Earth Theory only exists as a claim of Creationists. Creationists don't really "subscribe" to the Theory because they made it. It's a subset of their own beliefs, not the other way around.

My mistake was how I wrote it, not the word I used. However, given that I did write it that way, you were correct to point out that the correct word to use in that sentence was subscribe and not ascribe. Um... Whatever. You're free to claim victory if that's what floats your boat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Feb 12 2014 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Transitive verbs, how do they work?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#171 Feb 12 2014 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Transitive verbs, how do they work?


Aren't they they ones dressed as nouns?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Feb 12 2014 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Transitive verbs, how do they work?


Aren't they they ones dressed as nouns?


Full habit and everything, or the skimpy, sexy type?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#173 Feb 12 2014 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Transitive verbs, how do they work?


Aren't they they ones dressed as nouns?


Ok, that one was pretty good.
#174 Feb 12 2014 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Huh? No. I was wrong in this case, but not necessarily for the reason you think. Even though I wrote the sentence one way, I was thinking of it in the opposite (more correct) way. What makes the difference between ascribe and subscribe in many cases (and definitely in this one) is the direction of the relationship. You can "ascribe" the Young Earth Theory to Creationists, but Creationists "subscribe" to the Young Earth Theory. The reason I was so sure I was right was because even though I wrote it wrong, the relationship between Creationists and the Young Earth Theory does match the meaning of ascribe more than subscribe. Young Earth Theory only exists as a claim of Creationists. Creationists don't really "subscribe" to the Theory because they made it. It's a subset of their own beliefs, not the other way around.

My mistake was how I wrote it, not the word I used. However, given that I did write it that way, you were correct to point out that the correct word to use in that sentence was subscribe and not ascribe. Um... Whatever. You're free to claim victory if that's what floats your boat.


Nah, you didn't know the difference. Hence my having to explain it to you and you still insisting you were using it correctly. While it's tempting (trust me) to believe you have no idea what you type and actually are thinking something entirely different, that clearly isn't the case here. It's universally acknowledged that you're a terribly poor writer, less frequently mentioned is your nightmarishly bad choice of word usage. Many of your posts read like Mike Tyson quoting Shakespeare. Words appear, but no one really seems sure why, you least of all.

Also, I went to Harvard and you didn't, so obviously I knew I was right.

Edited, Feb 12th 2014 11:05pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#175 Feb 13 2014 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uh. Sure Smash. Whatever floats your boat.

Grammar issues aside, my point still stands though. I think that folks love to stretch or shrink the size of "creationists" to suit whatever aspect of the argument they're making at the moment. When attempting to paint all people of faith as anti-science, creationists includes all people who believe in any aspect of the Bible, including the vast majority who don't believe at all in a literal 6 24 hour creation, or counting all the folks since Adam and concluding the Earth is only a few thousand years old. But when someone counters that by pointing out that these people don't hold any beliefs that contradict science and evolution, suddenly "creationists" shrinks to only include those who do.

My point is that it's not contradictory for people to both believe in science and have faith in the divine. And cherry picking the few exceptions doesn't disprove that point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#176 Feb 13 2014 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
My point is that it's not contradictory for people to both believe in science and have faith in the divine. And cherry picking the few exceptions doesn't disprove that point.

OF course it is. I explained it earlier when I was pointing out your inability to communicate effectively in the English language. You'll be able to tell it's my post when you find it's readable and makes a salient point briefly. You may have to scroll about a bit to find it, obviously.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 361 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (361)