Do You Find Many Writers To Be "Pretentious"?

[Futile ergo redacted.]

 

What the hell is this discussion about? lol

Just wanting to know if you guys think writers have their pens up their asses.

 

Quit pretending you know me. You don't.

 

I think the answer to that is a resounding yes from the looks of it.

 

No, it just means the source of definitions is bad. You could just "Politics: The governance of people", and all issues are resolved.

 

Well, I'm sure the good people at Merriam-Webster will want to know you think that.
You better let them know, go give them the benefit of your expertise on how to write a dictionary.
Let me know how they react.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

It's called hijacking a thread. If it's not against this forum's rules, it definitely should be.

 

To be fair, I hijacked the Is Space All That thread with dad jokes.

 

And what, when it comes to defining the meanings of words, do you propose to use instead of a dictionary?
Your preference seems to be "what ever halisme says at the moment," but that can't be right.

 

[Futile ergo redacted.]

 

I gave you three examples, the first of which you misconstrued so I chose to explain that one further. I didn't choose it because it involved race as a hot button issue, but because you referred to it and I wanted to clarify. It was "political" at the time, is no longer as virtually no one could conceive of denying a US born person of their voting rights.

But I also gave you the example of immortality, because that is not considered "political" at this point in history, though it will likely be of critical importance in the next century or two. Discussions of real world immortality as literary criticism would currently be considered fantasy and not judged to be "academic".

So no, this isn't about anti-PC baloney. I'm plenty liberal and am not railing against anything but a system that appears to concern itself with a certain kind of output that isn't really about honoring the material but producing a certain kind of approved social commentary.

 

Actually, I live under a goat, and I fear bridges.

 

A dictionary with non-circular definitions, or that both people can agree on and use as the working basis for the discussion. You didn't comment on my definition of politics, can we act in good faith and agree that it is a reasonable one?

 

In 2008 over 5 million Americans citizens were denied the vote due to felony disenfranchisement.

 

No. I've found that arguments with people who create their own definitions of the words they are using is usually a waste of time. Such people too often define themselves as always being right.

 

As were the citizens that some of those people killed.

 

Because everybody that's in jail is a murderer.

 

This is true. But I think there is a distinction to be made between the actions of government and a private individual. Rights protect against the power of government. That an individual may commit a crime is in a different category of action from a determination of government and enforcement of government policy.

 

Okay, then there's still when I used definition 5b from Merriam Webster that supported my argument that you ignored.

 

Wow, it's like you don't know what "some of" means.
Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

Some arguments refute themselves.

 

You mean like you do when anyone uses non-literal speech?

 

Oh, nice of you to tell us that.
And here I thought you were trolling me. Again.

 

Then explain why. Unless you're just using this as a catchall to ignore the fact your wrong.