francoHFW
Diamond Member
- Sep 5, 2011
- 79,271
- 9,399
Well I also am a linguist and I speak French and Spanish and I'm telling you the meanings change over time and socialism is one of the best examples. France has had a Socialist Party since 1900 and a Communist Party since the twenties or something, and they know what they are doing with this stuff. There is a section in Wikipedia explaining the history of the definition and it is just what I have been telling you. Because it is well established fact.That's not an argument, that's a statement and an adhom. In order to refute my argument, you need to make an argument that definitions do change, however, I already explained how that makes the meanings arbitrary and therefor meaningless, so you'd have to refute that as well. If you can't debate, you have no reason to be here.You are a great typing but you are absolutely idiotic. Of course definitions change idiot.As I said before, it's always the same, otherwise it's arbitrary and therefor has no meaning, and by extension language would have no meaning, which keeps it consistent. Your 'argument' is that because one or two of the screenshots I took had that tacked on, and you picked it out of the group, you therefor agree with it. Different websites choosing to keep it or remove it doesn't change the definition of the word, otherwise, again, it's arbitrary.Maybe you should catch up to reality in the world these days. Socialism is defined as a government that owns or regulates business and industry. That used to be own but now means regulated.You conceded that I'm correct, then proceeded to repeat the same rehashed dishonest garbage to someone else. So, you're not just ignorant, you're a dishonest, lowdown, lying snake. Nobody should bother having discourse with you, since you're intentionally repeating things that you know to be false.
You ignore what you don't want to acknowledge, make no arguments to support your points, and simply repeat yourself to others when you've lost. You don't care about honesty, you don't care about discussion, and you don't care about facts. Definitions don't change according to your feelings or they would be arbitrary, and apparently neither does your disgusting dishonesty and disposition as a propaganda-spreading parrot of the ruling class. Go back to polishing your master's jack-boots, you filthy animal.
Yes, ask anyone whose narrative it suits, and they'll tell me that definitions change according to who you ask, how consistent.
You see, everything has to be consistent and non-contradictory, otherwise it's meaningless to argue about any of it. For example, anyone could conclude right now that everything you say is meaningless because in your last post, you just went from "It's now just fair capitalism" to "Yeah, now it's REGULATED" because you couldn't find anything to fit your erroneous claim. Similarly, ethics can't change from location to location based on the will of some ruler because that would make ethics arbitrary, and ethics would become meaningless, and that would allow someone to justify the holocaust.
Politicians tend to use words incorrectly because parrots like you will repeat it. For example, Dark Angel earlier mentioned that Liberal used to be those who opposed the State while Conservative was the statists. Then, in the 1930s, it was used to describe those who were Socialists, and therefor wanted the government to own the means of production. The misuse and conflation of words is just another method for people to make discourse into a confusing and meaningless mess.
All of that said, no, the definition did not change simply because a guy in Finland, and yes he is just a guy, misused the word, and one or two websites said "Or regulated". regardless of which you used, your usage was incorrect, because as I explained, definitions do not change, otherwise they are entirely meaningless.
You don't have to say I was right, the fact that you agreed with me and ignored the vast majority of my arguments while making no counterpoints whatsoever, and using no citations, shows that I'm right.
Given your exhibited comprehension level, I highly doubt you have a Masters in anything, however whether you do or not doesn't matter, because claiming some level of education is just an appeal to authority fallacy. Even if, hypothetically, you had the credentials that you claim, simply having those credentials isn't an argument and doesn't automatically make you right.
