'On the contrary, if I hold an opinion that changes the meaning of certain words in my brain, it does not mean that I am any less competent in the use of the English language.'

Oh but of course it does. Your competence in using the language directly affects your ability to communicate. If you are unable to subscribe to common understandings concerning the meanings of words, then your ability to make yourself understood to others / to understand others is compromised.

As a case in point, I suspect that, when you say 'brain', you are actually referring to what most English speaking people would classify 'rectum'.

Hey all you fellows,

Debates always focus on differences and are useful in learning and understanding another pov.

In a desire for victory of one over the other, this dialog is fast becoming an uncivil and downright nasty argument and tough for ladies like me to take.

Your fighting over ideas for personal victory has displace an otherwise interesting and reasonable discussion. You owe KFC an apology and it isn't too much to ask that you quit this bickering.

I made an alternate site for the purpose. I've apologized. People like dissing me, and they don't like taking it elsewhere. I give an option.

Erathoniel -

We comment here because we like it here. If we didn't like it here, we wouldn't be here to begin with.

Yes, but I have a place to attack me, if you want to.

'Yes, but I have a place to attack me, if you want to.'

If I cared enough to want to attack you I would go there. Instead, I take issue with your argument in respect of this thread, so I respond here. This seems to me to be entirely appropriate.

Viz.

'I was never supporting the AFA action. I was merely stating that it was legal and fair.'

Given that this is a thread about the AFA action, and that you have already admitted to a personal aversion to compromise, surely it's time to nail your colours to the mast, erathoniel. Are you for or against the action?

I'm for it, all the way, but I was never arguing about its correctness, merely its legality.

Apparently rectum-for-brain doesn't sound like an attack to you? It does to me.

'Apparently rectum-for-brain doesn't sound like an attack to you? It does to me.'

I was making a point which you obviously missed, erathoniel.

When you were taken to task for defining 'debate' incorrectly, you merely claimed a different and equally valid meaning of your own devising.

If you take a word for which there is a concensus of understanding in respect of its meaning, and assign to it an alternative and arbitrary definition of your personal choosing, then you compromise your ability both to understand and to be understood. Viz. 'brain' and 'rectum'. See how it makes communication so much more problematic? QED.

Which lots of people do every day for other stuff.

This makes no difference. Different backgrounds can cause some differences, but that is a step too far. If you wish to continue this, you may do so at my site. Otherwise, I'll cite the TOS and tell you specifically which parts you are violating.

'Which lots of people do every day for other stuff.'

Poppycock.

'If you wish to continue this, you may do so at my site. Otherwise, I'll cite the TOS and tell you specifically which parts you are violating.'

* Yawn *

As I'm addressing the inconsistencies of your argument in respect of the subject matter of this thread, I'll do it here, thanks. For all I care, you can cite the phone book at me if you like. No, really - I'm quaking in my boots.

As a business owner looking to hire someone you'd have to make a decision though; a day care provider isn't going to knowingly hire someone who has a history of abuse against a child, or worse. Just as a business owner can say, "I'm sorry but we are refusing you service," a business owner must have the judgement to be able to say, "Hmm, well this person supports something I cannot religiously agree with or condone. Perhaps I should hire the other person." This is odd given the fact that (I believe) you were for the business owner (photographer?) refusing service in a discussion some time ago.

I'm honestly trying to understand KFC, but to me it seems odd that you say that certain things are wrong (if not very wrong),and that you cannot condone them - but you say this. Perhaps I've just not had enough coffee this morning (or this week).

If you stay on subject, I'm fine as long as you don't attack me.

So how does KFC's statement cause confusion?

Bit you're so deserving of attack! It's been a long time since I have seen anyone so deserving of attack. Trust me, if Furry Canary and I agree on something, it's pretty damn obvious.

You're an asshat through and through.

Not so much confusion I guess, more so seeing what seems like if in the case of her hiring someone that she knows donates money and/or supports (or practices) things or lifestyles that she does not condone, yet she still pays them - a sense of indirect condoning and/or support of those very things. I was raised to watch things, and if you didn't condone something or support it then you just didnt set yourself up so that you would be. E.g. A business owner being aware to the fact that if they hire Person A, then they are still (indirectly) condoning their activities and such.

Hmm, I'll have to talk to one of my instructors on this.

(P.S. I'm not trying to lambaste you KFC. I'm trying to understand how and why you see things this way.)

 

~Lucas

you're not understanding SP. I said, when you hire someone you CANNOT by law asked them about religious practices. So it never comes up in an interview. Only their past working history, present skills and abilities and salary negotiations are spoken about. You CAN"T ask them if they belong to a cult or not. Later after you employ them and find out, you CAN"T fire them either by law. That' religious descrimination.

That is totally different than patronizing a place where you don't condone their giving because in effect you too are giving to their cause by patronizing them. There are certain churches I wouldn't go to either because of their mishandling of money. So it' not just about McDonald's. We, as Christians, are called to be good stewards of our money.

I don't support Hooters either!