The next logical question is *why* weren't we created as perfect beings, or with the intent of perfect evolution?
Maybe we aren't the final product of the plan.
The question I always think of in ID is, "Who designed the designer?"
Honestly, you meet the most appalling sort of people....
Giles ,'Chosen'
Natter 42, the Universe, and Everything
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, flaming otters, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Gudanov - Feb 08, 2006 8:10:07 am PST #5710 of 10002
Coding and Sleeping
tommyrot - Feb 08, 2006 8:11:58 am PST #5711 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
IT DOESN'T BEG THE QUESTION
Well, that's become fairly standard usage of the phrase. But yeah, technically not correct. I can't think of another simple way to convey, "which leads us to the logical question" or somesuch.
While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.
Huh.
Steph L. - Feb 08, 2006 8:12:18 am PST #5712 of 10002
I look more rad than Lutheranism
That and "moot."
What's the popular usage of "moot"? I've heard far too many people substitute "mute" for "moot," which earns them a hearty bitchslap (even if it's just in my mind), but, when I *do* hear "moot" used, it's always used correctly.
t edit I mean, even *Rick Springfield* knew the right way to use it....
Aims - Feb 08, 2006 8:14:58 am PST #5713 of 10002
Shit's all sorts of different now.
::looks at stopwatch::
Evolution to grammar in less than a minute. I'm impressed.
Dana - Feb 08, 2006 8:15:05 am PST #5714 of 10002
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
"It's a moo point. It's like a cow's point. It doesn't matter."
bon bon - Feb 08, 2006 8:15:18 am PST #5715 of 10002
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted
That's not right. BTQ is replaceable with assumes the question or assumes the argument.
tommyrot - Feb 08, 2006 8:17:12 am PST #5716 of 10002
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
If we were created by a loving, omnipotent God, why does He allow us to keep having the proscriptivist/descriptivist debate?
Rick - Feb 08, 2006 8:18:12 am PST #5717 of 10002
That's not right. BTQ is replaceable with assumes the question or assumes the argument.
Agreed. Things that are hard to understand should be replaced with things that are easy to understand if the easy things do the job just as well. It's like, uh, the evolution of language.
Steph L. - Feb 08, 2006 8:18:55 am PST #5718 of 10002
I look more rad than Lutheranism
If we were created by a loving, omnipotent God, why does He allow us to keep having the proscriptivist/descriptivist debate?
Because even God needs to watch something funny once in a while.
Toddson - Feb 08, 2006 8:19:30 am PST #5719 of 10002
Friends don't let friends read "Atlas Shrugged"
Perhaps we need to establish a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Grammar ... or possibly Language as a whole.