467
[SMBC] JPEG (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [M] to c/nonpolitical_comics@piefed.social
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

[SMBC] JPEG
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 8 months ago* (6 children)

that empiricism doesn't apply to language

The fact that you don't understand how badly you're misusing those terms instead of talking about prescriptivism and descriptivism is what shows how little you know.

It's not "empicisim" you dolt, which you'd know if you had any understanding of the subject.

Now you're trying to use the terms, but fail hard.

I never even argued there's even a single prescriptive rule, and I never would, because unlike you, this isn't the first time I'm hearing the terms and I thus don't make prescriptive arguments. You can look at my comment, it's not been edited.

Point out a single prescriptive rule I even remotely imply. Oh there isn't one?

How odd.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    It's not "empicisim" you dolt, which you'd know if you had any understanding of the subject.

    I know it's not, jackass. That's why I said it doesn't apply. I only brought up empiricism to address your comparison to flat earthers, which is a matter of empiricism.

    But since you're so intent on butchering what I say in order to shape it into whatever nonsense argument you find easier to counter, you're clearly not interested in having a serious debate and thus I no longer take you seriously.

    Goodbye.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (4 children)

    I know it's not, jackass. That's why I said it doesn't apply

    You've just no idea how ignorant you are? :D Yes, you specifically connected it to the concept. Negative or positive, doesn't matter. It shows how you conceptualise the idea.

    That's why it's so wrong.

    Empiricism would constitute both descriptive and prescriptive language, only prescriptive language less so. What you're trying to do is prescribe rules to language, and because you don't even understand what youre doing, you don't even have the words for it. Which is why you're now pathetically trying to pretend you knew those words before I pointed this out to you.

    It's a good comparison to flat earthers, because you're equally ignorant of your own ignorance. It's a veery different subject, but youre still quite as unable to understand what you understand as they are.

    Oh yeah "I no longer take you seriously, goodbye" as if that isn't the mating cry of every fucking moron proved utterly incorrect and who has to run away in shame.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Everything you're saying is projection.

    I didn't "connect" empiricism to language. You compared my argument to a flat earth argument. I debunked that claim by explaining that flat earth theory can be debunked empirically, and phonology cannot because it is not within the realm of empiricism. If that sounds like a connection to you, then it's entirely based on you connecting pronunciation to flat earth theory in the first place.

    And you're being childish for trying to twist that to make it look like I made the mistake that you did.

    I understand prescriptive and descriptive language just fine, and you're being arrogant by assuming that I don't. You simply can't admit that you're wrong, so you attack me as if I don't know what I'm talking about.

    What you're trying to do is prescribe rules to language

    That's not what I'm doing at all. That's what you're doing. I argued that the people who insist that "gif" with a hard g is the only correct way are wrong and arrogant. I said I pronounce it with a soft g, as in "jif." I never said everyone must pronounce it that way, therefore I did not make a prescriptive argument

    You, on the other hand, did make a prescriptive argument by saying that only the pronunciation with the hard g is the right way. So again, that's more projection.

    It's a good comparison to flat earthers, because you're equally ignorant of your own ignorance.

    Pot, kettle, black.

    I'm not "running away in shame," I'm simply capable of recognizing when someone isn't capable of engaging in good faith argumentation, and I have more self-respect than to waste my time on people like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    I have more self-respect than to waste my time on people like that.

    uhhhh
    no u don't :(

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Resurrecting a dead thread because you're such a miserable individual that you can't think of anything else to do but try to make others as miserable as you?

    You're pathetic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    What..? My comment wasn't that deep, but it sounds like you want it to be. You need to stop it with the unprompted toxicity/hostility.

    My comment was simply a nudge to the irony contained within your statement. Apparently you couldn't handle reflecting on that, so instead you decided to lash out about some made up nonsense. (projection about your misery?)

    If this is how you typically behave in life, I can understand why you'd be miserable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent