I did explain why, and you didn't read it.

Laws are a set of rules and guidelines that one follows, and may or may not have enforcers. Grammar and language have rules and guidelines that we are taught in school and have been carefully devised by linguists. Yes, they are laws, and stop saying they're not.

I got what you said, and once again you are dancing around the fact that I called you out on trying to use "WELL WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS" as an argument against me when I brought in the true definition of what Twilight actually means. That's not an argument. You try to say that we don't need to refer to fruits as their scientific names, which is inaccurate, because comparing the scientific latin-derived name for a species or type of object is completely different from differentiating between simple times of the day. How is that different? Are you really going to make me spell it out for you?

1. Twilight is a simple term, and is no more special than "dawn". We all know what dawn means. Encouraging the use of the word twilight interchangeably with the word "sunset" is no different from trying to say that morning and afternoon are the "same thing and can be used interchangeably". Twilight exists as a word to describe that time before night when it isn't quite dark yet, but the sun is gone. It's a beautiful word. It is the only word that exists to describe that. If you asked anyone to show you a picture of a sunset, I guarantee you will be getting pictures of the sun setting on the horizon, not of the sun being gone.
2. We don't use drupes to refer to various fruits because the majority of the time we call fruits by their name, not what category they fit into. Twilight isn't a category. It's a specific time of day. People don't say "yellow berries" they say bananas. You imply that saying fruit or banana instead of what they fit into categorically is the same as using sunset or Twilight interchangeably, but that isn't the case because you are comparing categories to times of days. You are arguing that someone use apple and banana interchangeably.

It's not a complex scientific word. It's a scientific use of a word the way most people actually understand the word. If you ask people what Twilight is they will not show you a picture of a sunset, and vice versa. When din was trying to sit there and debate whether Twilight and Sunset meant the same thing, I clarified that they didn't. Your response was to say that words don't matter and can mean whatever you want. The fact is that words do matter, and Twilight having a very well defined meaning that most people are aware of cannot be countered by your refusal to use words the way they were meant to be used.

Nobody, not once, has argued that people shouldn't be allowed to use whatever word they want. The argument is that I said what the words meant and you completely derailed that for whatever reason (possibly you don't like being challenged?). These words do follow the laws of the english language, and had a clear definition, and I helped make people more aware of that by correcting a misconception in the name of education.

When I finally gave an irrefutable definition of the word you completely changed your way of debating. Other people were telling you they weren't the same, you kept saying it was, and then I proved they weren't. You living outside of reality and refusing to acknowledge a fact staring you in the face is your problem. Yet when faces with that, instead of conceding, you claimed that I was "limiting myself". Yes, that is an ad hominem attack. The debate had nothing to do with you or me, it was about words, and you brought personal preference into it as an argument. I was educating other people and giving myself the freedom to describe all different times of day rather than limiting myself to elementary level interpretations of words. Rather than just morning, evening and afternoon I can use more words, giving myself more freedom. That's not limiting myself. That's having a broader pool to fish from so I can be better understood. Limiting yourself is refusing to acknowledge that words can mean different things.

We were arguing the definition of Twilight, and I proved what it was. You just keep going on about your opinion on words rather than facts about words. If you want people to not have a word to describe the time after the sun is set, and wish to rain on anyone's parade by saying it's basically the same thing as sunset when they are trying to use it differently, be my guest. But I will still come in and remind you that words do have meaning.

I never insisted such a thing, and don't put words into my mouse, because I already called bull♥♥♥♥ on your comparison to things like berries. Grammar is, yes, literally a set of laws and regulations applying to language. And when you decided that people don't need different words to refer to the subtle differences in times of day, you decided to break that law and then insist you weren't breaking those laws because the laws don't exist in your head. It's a childish argument that would get anyone laughed out of a philosophy course. Knock it off. No one cares that you want to claim everything is relative because the fact is that language actually isn't always relative and it's important to differentiate between words. You cannot use "I don't believe in grammar laws" as an argument against "actually twilight means this". That's not a solid argument. That's a cop-out.

While that's a nice try, trying to say that "bananas are berries" is completely different from using Twilight and Sunset as separate terms and not synonyms. Combining two words that are different to make them mean the same thing does not give the world a "richer vocabulary". It dumbs vocabulary down and simplifies it to unintelligent levels.

The law is the law whether or not it is enforced. For example, it's illegal to walk your pig in the rain on a Sunday in a town in NJ. Is this enforced? No. But it's still illegal. Grammar laws do exist, and they are very clearly defined. Breaking those laws and claiming you didn't break any laws because no police are after you is just preposterous.

Biology is based on giving things a proper name so we can identify one object in nature from the next. Meterology is the same with identifying type of weather. Both have an important structure in place and shape the language we use today so we can better understand the world around us. If somebody wants to give the scientifically incorrect definition for something and I inform them that that is not the scientifically correct definition for the sake of clarity (which is, after all, the reason we have words in the first place) I am the one making the more educated suggestion. Things ought to be used in a way where others can understand it, because this prevents misunderstandings and incorrect data from happening. If people wish to be understood, they ought to use the scientifically dictated terminology for things.

We began this debate regarding what the word meant and you have continued to go around in circles saying words can mean whatever you want. It's a very poor argument due to being one of many logical fallacies. Yes, there are laws of grammar that are clearly represented, just as there are laws made by the government. Pretending that you can redefine them as you please is nice, but it doesn't change the fact that by completely disregarding the written law, you are in fact breaking the rules. Words have been redefined, as have laws, but you cannot just claim the laws don't apply to you and thus claim you're not doing anything illegal.

Scientists and education. Beyond that, there was confusion as to the difference between sunset and Twilight, and I helped people realize it. If that bothers you, that's your problem.

I'm not missing the point, I'm saying your entire point is bull♥♥♥♥ and irrelevant. Saying "I don't care about your concepts of reality!" doesn't change the fact that words mean something and the correct meaning of them is what I described earlier.

Say what you want, but an ignorant person who thinks cheetahs and jaguars are the same animal is just ignorant. Refusing to acknowledge the differences between the two does not have anything to do with language and everything to do with being rebellious and not caring about effective communication.

I can't take your argument seriously because you switched from arguing definitions to trying to say "language is relative" as an argument about scientific terms regarding weather. Just because other people mix and match and use the wrong term for something doesn't make that term less incorrect. It is incorrect, no matter how you try to spin it, no matter how arbitrary you claim language is, because without these terms our entire basis for scientific research falls to garbage. And this is not a vague period--it is a period during which light is scattered throughout the atmosphere without any sort of direct sunlight. For many animals this period matters and is distinct. For me, it's distinct.

Scientists dictate proper language in this regard. I'm sure if you walked up to any sort of scientist and tried to claim language was relative they'd laugh you out of the room. You provided me with two thesauruses which are not always accurate. The issue with using a thesaurus is that a thesaurus covers words in the same area. However, there are distinct differences between many words that are listed on thesauruses as synonyms and you cannot just use them interchangeably (this is often what makes writers who are trying to sound smart by using a thesaurus look like idiots). According to a thesaurus, "placate" and "disarm" are synonyms. That DOESN'T mean they mean the exact same thing and can be used interchangeably. They cannot be used interchangeably. A thesaurus is not a valuable tool here.

You not caring that these words have distinct definitions both scientifically and in the merriam webster dictionary and wishing to use them interchangeably is fine, but it does not in fact make you any less wrong (incorrect). You are still using them in a way that they were not intended to be used.

Yeah, the only reason I know about Saussure and such is because I had to take an intro to humanities class.

Normally I don't have much of an interest in linguistics myself.

Ferdinand de Saussure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

Happened by accident. Just glancing at your profile page and saw what you were discussin. But I tend to stalk lots of people randomly.

If you like that sort of stuff. I guess I just assumed you would since you were debating it with someone.

You should look it up ^^ I think you would like it, since it's basically what you guys are arguing about.

I assume he has never heard of Saussure and anti-foundationalists.

Or he just subscribes solely to Plato and foundationalist theory.

(Yeah, I was stalkin your convo.)And yet we can still understand what someone means by "u". So does it matter whether or not it is officially the "correct" word?

Not to mention, language is not a static thing. It changes over time. So one word might mean something at one time and then mean something completely different later.

So correctness of words is always relative to the context and the time. Therefore, words are always arbitrary and therefore, so is their correctness.

That's not an argument against using specific words for specific things. If things are to be understood, you must use the correct words for things. Nothing is stopping anyone from using incorrect words, but that still does not make them any more correct than a person who types "u" instead of "you".

So again, nice try derailing, but you're still wrong.

While it's a nice try at derailing, my statement still stands. Twilight and Sunset are two different times in the day, clearly, according to their scientific descriptions. Just because to the average person they are the same does not mean the average person is right or that language is relative. By that logic, one could call ovaries "penises" and it wouldn't be wrong because language can never be "correct or incorrect".

Twilight, along with dawn, sunrise, sunset, and other terms are clearly defined in order to describe where the light is coming from in the sky relative to the positioning of the sun. You cannot argue against this by calling language "arbitrary symbols".

Just because the average, uninformed person considers two times of day to be the same doesn't mean they're right.

You did use an ad hominem. You brought up my use of definitions of words as a factor in an argument rather than discussing the raw data, implying that using the correct definition of words was somehow wrong.

well, squiddy sure fit all of those catogories

I doubt Ill ever get into the manga, but goddamn..that show was bizarre but entirely watchable. I dont watch a lot of anime, especially not weird ♥♥♥♥ like that, but goddamn! i loved it, haha

SHRIMP SUIT

what did you ink about the ending?