Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

[Bai Lan]

LOL @ stringfield doubling down on "flock of dogs".

What a petulant child.

 

[Bai Lan]

So pack means groups of dogs? Or does it mean "group of cigarettes." Or does it mean "group of bubblegum." Or "group of hotdogs." Or on and on and and on...

No, it does not mean "group of dogs." It means group. That it, that's all it means.

Thank you for helping to prove my point. Marriage is defined by the contractual obligations and rights of the marriage. It is not defined by who may participate.

But we do have words that include more specificity. Group of dogs is ok. Flock of dogs is moronic, because flock is not used for dogs.

Marriage was defined as union between a man and a woman. It's more specific.

You're the one trying to create newspeak with your idiot word mangling.

LOL @ flock of dogs.

Stringfield = retard.

 

[Timshel]

Would the president' speech writer correct "flock of dogs" if he saw it in something the president was going to say? Fuck yes he would. Stop being moronic.

Accept your defeat like a man.

I have already addressed why he would change that. But, would he change it if the President used flock to refer to a group of people or a group of sheep? No, because those are common usages of flock.

Flock means group. We, certainly, commonly use it to refer to some specific types of groups, but that does not change the fact that is simply means group.

Now wipe the dirt off your face and try again.

 

[Bai Lan]

I have already addressed why he would change that. But, would he change it if the President used flock to refer to a group of people or a group of sheep? No, because those are common usages of flock.

Flock means group. We, certainly, commonly use it to refer to some specific types of groups, but that does not change the fact that is simply means group.

Now wipe the dirt off your face and try again.

With animals, flock is only used for specific animals. Dogs isn't one of them.

you try again, douchebag.

 

[Timshel]

But we do have words that include more specificity. Group of dogs is ok. Flock of dogs is moronic, because flock is not used for dogs.

Marriage was defined as union between a man and a woman. It's more specific.

You're the one trying to create newspeak with your idiot word mangling.

LOL @ flock of dogs.

Stringfield = retard.

No, dumbfuck, newspeak was used to remove color words because idiots like you get confused in thinking that connotations are definitions. Plus, they wanted to control the language as a means of controlling the people, as you do.

Homosexual marriage or heterosexual marriage. Interracial marriage or intraracial marriage. Marriage means the same thing in all.

Again, thank you proving my point. You will continue to object but only your "flock of dogs" (fellow knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing skinheads) are going to agree with you. Anyone who understands language and the importance of context, will not.

 

[Bai Lan]

No, dumbfuck, newspeak was used to remove color words because idiots like you get confused in thinking that connotations are definitions. Plus, they wanted to control the language as a means of controlling the people, as you do.

LOL. you're the one denying what words mean.

Homosexual marriage or heterosexual marriage. Interracial marriage or intraracial marriage. Marriage means the same thing in all.

According to your new definition, sure. you're still losing specificity in the word, by design.

Again, thank you proving my point. You will continue to object but only your "flock of dogs" (fellow knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing skinheads) are going to agree with you. Anyone who understands language and the importance of context, will not.

Everyone knows saying "flock of dogs" is moronic and would be met with laughter and derision.

 

[Timshel]

With animals, flock is only used for specific animals. Dogs isn't one of them.

you try again, douchebag.

Oh, so it does not actually mean "group of birds" or "group of sheep" or "group of people," but just means group?

Why do you insist on continuing to argue against something you already acknowledged? Are you schitzo? The momma part of your brain says one thing, the Norman part contradicts it and you are unable to do the abstrastions necessary to synthesize it. You are approaching 1/3.

Please, spit my wad out of you mouth, rinse and repeat. "Wad" here means... well you know I am not talking about a ball of paper from the context.

 

[Bai Lan]

Oh, so it does not actually mean "group of birds" or "group of sheep" or "group of people," but just means group?

It means group, with certain qualifications. Dogs for instance, are not referred to as being in "flocks". Im just proving the principle that words can and do often contain this level of specificity.

Why do you insist on continuing to argue against something you already acknowledged? Are you schitzo? The momma part of your brain says one thing, the Norman part contradicts it and you are unable to do the abstrastions necessary to synthesize it. You are approaching 1/3.

Please, spit my wad out of you mouth, rinse and repeat. "Wad" here means... well you know I am not talking about a ball of paper from the context.

What am i supposed to be synthesizing? Im just explaining to you how words work sometimes.

 

[Bai Lan]

Fuck the jacuzzi. Fuck me first, cunt.

i'll burn this house down!

 

[Timshel]

LOL. you're the one denying what words mean.

Nope. Flock means group and you have already acknolwedged that.

According to your new definition, sure. you're still losing specificity in the word, by design.

So, then you are saying we redefined marriage when we recognized interracial marriage?

Everyone knows saying "flock of dogs" is moronic and would be met with laughter and derision.

Where have I said anything to contradict that? Yes, the connotations that we have assigned to flock would make it awkward to use it in such a way. It would less problematic to use pack. But if you just say "pack" without any other qualifiers, context or maybe a hand gesture (e.g., you point at your target for the word) it is not clear if you mean "pack of dogs", "pack of cigarettes" or the "pack of condoms" that you use while sucking my dick.

But, even with connotations "flock" still does not mean "group of people", "group of birds" or "group of sheep." It means group. Just as "pack" does.

You are incapable of doing the abstraction necessary to understand the ACTUAL meaning of the word and are assigning a cultural definition that is not at all part of the meaning of the word. It's the same with marriage. Thanks again.

 

[Damocles]

Fuck the jacuzzi. Fuck me first, cunt.

i'll burn this house down!

And a whole pack of OCD descended and carefully landed in the remote fields of AssHat's brain, with a twitch and a bit of freak he latched onto "flock" and couldn't stop himself from turning thrice, and shouting, then washing his hands until they bled while clucking "flock, flock, flock".

We're sorry for you AssHat, and suggest you should visit the nearest shrink. I think there is medication for this.

 

[Bai Lan]

And a flock of OCD descended and carefully landed in the remote fields of AssHat's brain, with a twitch and a bit of freak he latched onto "flock" and couldn't stop himself from turning thrice, and shouting, then washing his hands until they bled while clucking "flock, flock, flock".

We're sorry for you AssHat, and suggest you should visit the nearest shrink. I think there is medication for this.

I'm fine. I was just explaining to Stringy how sometimes words have specific meanings. Im sure you would agree to that.

if you want to go around saying flock of dogs, I can't stop you from looking like an imbecile.

 

[Timshel]

It means group, with certain qualifications. Dogs for instance, are not referred to as being in "flocks". Im just proving the principle that words can and do often contain this level of specificity.

There you go, trying to pick the gravel out of your teeth and pretend you did not fall.

Dogs are not referred to as flocks due to arbitrary usage and our many color words. It does not change the definition of flock to assign it to a group of dogs, any more than the meaning is changed by assigning to a group of birds, people or sheep. It still means group. Just as marriage still means the same thing whether we apply it to an interracial, intraracial, homosexual or heterosexual couple.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

What am i supposed to be synthesizing? Im just explaining to you how words work sometimes.

You are not. I undesrtand connotation, color words and the importance of context just fine.

 

[DamnYankee]

Oh I see... You get to define what is a legitimate church. ....

Sorry, but The Church existed long before any government now in existence. And again, it has never legitimized queer marriage, but has always legitimized interracial marriage.

Your attempts to equate the two issues is an abject, epic failure. Dick.

 

[DamnYankee]

AssHat, why do you have an ax to grind over a flock of dogs?

 

[Bai Lan]

There you go, trying to pick the gravel out of your teeth and pretend you did not fall.

Dogs are not referred to as flocks due to arbitrary usage and our many color words. It does not chage of flock to assign it to a group of dogs, any more than the meaning is changed by assigning to a group of birds, people or sheep. It still means group. Just as marriage still means the same thing whether we apply it to an interracial, intraracial, homosexual or heterosexual couple.

Again, thank you for proving my point.



You are not. I undesrtand connotation, color words and the importance of context just fine.

Flock is not changed by using it to describe dogs, of course, it's just using it wrong. When referring to animals, flock is not appropriate for a group of dogs. For sheep, yes, for dogs, no. We use pack in that case. And yes pack has other meanings too, but it the context of referrring to groups of animals, it not appropriate for birds. For birds, we use flock.

You do not have the right, authority, or ability to change what words mean. Language is a concensus reality.

"Flock of dogs" is a moronic utterance. But by all means, go ahead and use it that way. I invite you to express your stupidity in every possible venue.

 

[Damocles]

AssHat, why do you have an ax to grind over a flock of dogs?

Because there is a pack of OCD that has moved into his brain, setting up permanent residence. I saw their address change papers at the post office right next to the flock of psychotics in line to go "postal"...

 

[Timshel]

Sorry, but The Church existed long before any government now in existence. And again, it has never legitimized queer marriage, but has always legitimized interracial marriage.

Your attempts to equate the two issues is an abject, epic failure. Dick.

Please esplain, what is THE Church that gets to define marriage and our laws in violation of the free exercise of religion? Do you mean the Catholic Church? Or is it all the churches that you don't refer to as new-age?

Regardless, you could not make it anymore clear that you are attempting to write YOUR view of religion into the law.

 

[Bai Lan]

Please esplain, what is THE Church that gets to define marriage and our laws in violation of the free exercise of religion? Do you mean the Catholic Church? Or is it all the churches that you don't refer to as new-age?

Regardless, you could not make it anymore clear that you are attempting to write YOUR view of religion into the law.

Having words derived from a strictly religious context maintain their meaning is not writing religion into law, you fucking dunce cap.

 

[DamnYankee]

Please esplain, what is THE Church that gets to define marriage and our laws in violation of the free exercise of religion? Do you mean the Catholic Church? Or is it all the churches that you don't refer to as new-age?

Regardless, you could not make it anymore clear that you are attempting to write YOUR view of religion into the law.

The Church is the Catholic Church. Prior to that look to Judaic tradition. The definition also includes churches that adhere to its basic tenets. It does not include new-age crap that steep themselves in the sin of homosexuality.

The only thing I'm attempting here is to teach you that queer marriage and interracial marriage are poor analogies for your argument, which is why it fails. Dick.