Edward Kennedy dead.Follow

Well I can see why you're confused about the "damning" situation. I think you misunderstood me. When I say that his not telling anyone until the next morning was "most damning", I don't mean anything religious at all. Look at my sig to see how religious I am lol. I also didn't mean it as "just killing her would be better".

I mean that not telling anyone until the next day after the body was found is the worst thing overall that he did that night if we take out the possibility of avoiding the accident. If everything else had happened, but he called someone immediately, then it changes everything. If you take out the fact that he left and went to sleep, then he was just a guy who was maybe drunk who crashed his car into some water and was unable to personally save the woman he was with so he called the fire dept/police. That's why I say it's most damning. That is what his detractors point out; not that he crashed the car and killed her, so much as he just left her to die. I guess it's also part anger at his lack of a real punishment for that due to the fact that he was a Kennedy, but I personally don't get caught up in that so much.

I agree with you that it's crass to say things like "he should burn in hell" or even "he was an @sshole" right after his death, but regardless of how recent his death was, you should always tell the truth. Not at the funeral or memorial service or anything, but in general conversation or on the radio? Yes.

Mentioning the facts of what happened at Chappaquddick is not crass; it's just the truth; it's a huge stain on his character, and he's a public figure, so of course people are gonna mention it.

I'm not against talking nice and truthfully about the good things he did, but something like that is hard to avoid. I mean when Nixon died, was Watergate ever mentioned right after his death? Of course.

Edited, Sep 4th 2009 5:21pm by DaimenKain

Yeah. I'm actually the one who killed that lady.

Christ you say some stupid **** sometimes.

"Expound."

No. Deal.

Or consideration for the family and friends, and hell - add constituents and admirers in there, too.

But, yeah, consideration is so last century. We've moved past such irrelevancies.

All beliefs are opinions. That doesn't excuse you from defending them, or giving reasons for having them, or finding value in reducing their arbitrary nature. If you don't want to, then that's fine, but it doesn't go very far in making people want to join you in your beliefs.



I am doing the same thing when I state that killing people is bad. I'm also doing the same thing when I state that basically any non-mathematical or non-logical truth. All of these can be reasoned and defended.



Yeah, guilt.

Edited, Sep 4th 2009 7:06pm by Pensive

You really think it's deliberate when I ask you to explain something?

I don't argue for the hell of it you know. I argue either to convince, learn, or better understand.

It's rarely just one of the three. Maybe you just like to think of dialogue as serving only one purpose.



Edited, Sep 4th 2009 7:48pm by Pensive

I have at least two things in mind you could mean by that, and both are ridiculous.

1. Either/or statements do not apply to lists of more than two things, but that's just being picky about grammar.
2. If you use "or" in a list, you mean one thing, never multiple.

So if you didn't want me to take it to mean one thing only, you should have written something completely different.

You can argue about that all day if you'd like, but then we're right back to "You're being deliberately obtuse."

Edited, Sep 4th 2009 8:41pm by CBD

You're such a child sometimes.

Example fail! For it to be a similar statement, you would have to say "Did you either go to the store, ride the train, or eat today?" at which point you'd be implying (see that beautiful little either there? it changes everything!) that only one of the three was possible.

Your logic class is all fine and dandy, but we're talking English grammar. Thanks. If you wanna have a discussion using the formal rules of logic, please do so with someone who is actually well-versed in them. I frankly don't give a sh*t to learn all the fine details just for you. My schedule is busy enough without adding "learn formal logic rules for Pensive because he can't have a discussion without using it as a crutch!"



So now we all need to care just oh so much about your posts as to ask each time: "Oh dearest Pensive, do tell if thee are attempting to convince, learn, or better understand!"?

Ok. Thanks for sharing. I think I may save more time just ignoring your drivel.



Hilarious given what started this discussion.



And you weren't even able to grasp why I was calling you a child.

Edited, Sep 5th 2009 12:24am by CBD

No, you really can't and still haven't.



Look, you jump up and down demanding that you're right all you want, but that won't make it so. Your refusal to acknowledge reality has gone past rivaling gbaji and has entered this surreal state of outlandish stupidity. Fuck, I think even varus would have changed the topic by now to avoid making (more of) a fool of himself.

Let me make this clear for you: You are wrong.

Get it now? No? I didn't think so. Keep on living in your own little universe though. I guess guilt can be the same thing as consideration there too.

Edited, Sep 5th 2009 3:58pm by CBD

You have no idea what grammar is, do you? I'm truly sorry that no one told you about inclusive ors, and sorrier that you want to ***** about it to me for no reason, but they do exist, and I'm not making up these rules.



I don't see how you could possibly construe that I am attempting to do so by asking you a question, pointed specifically to present some other way of thinking about thinking that insulting a dead guy is "sick." The difference here between you and say, Samira (sorry Samira, but you're handy) is that she would provide content and explanation along with whatever scathing remarks she might choose, or maybe even omit the scathe entirely; failing that, she would probably just consider the topic as fruitless and ignore it.

You haven't done the former, for what I'm guessing is either spite or ignorance, and you haven't taken an opportunity to do the latter either. Seriously: prove that you are better than me by fulfilling either of those conditions and be happy, for you can unequivocally present yourself as intelligent, and me as foolish. It is an easily done prospect and you have nothing to lose in the world. Else, keep ranting like a loon while I wait to hear a serious response.

I have italicized inclusive disjunctions within this post, for your convenience.

***



gbaji's penchant for changing the subject is one of the only truly annoying things I find in his posts, and the same goes for varus. If I, under threat of my life, could avoid only one aspect of that style, then it would be changing the subject in the face of contradictory evidence. Thank you for validating my feelings.

Edited, Sep 5th 2009 4:23pm by Pensive

You'd have to say something wroth replying to first. You made a claim: that I was using a word incorrectly. Demonstrate where this meaning is false.



You have failed to prove what a standard meaning is for disjunctions. That's not on me to prove or disprove; it's your baby, and you can support it or not. You haven't yet done so. Doing so would require several people, from both prescriptive and descriptive schools of grammatical understanding, to intuitively support your position, else you can't claim that it's anything but a projection of your particular linguistic development.



There is no difference at all between this idea and the other. They convey the same grammar and same structure. Inserting the word "either" need not act as an exclusive indicator. Did you bother to read your own link? It can act as an indication of parity.