4 ms·

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's based in logic and reason rather than fashion. It means it's based in your best reasoning given your known lack of data about

by ABCLAW 9y ago

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's based in logic and reason rather than fashion. It means it's based in your best reasoning given your known lack of data about the issue. You've now been given explicit data in the form of responses in this thread about why one avenue is preferable to the other. Now, with that data on your doorstep, you get to decide to act upon it, or intentionally ignore it. Best of luck! (Just to be clear - my only nitpick here was with the Logic vs. Fashion dichotomy, but you've edited your post and added a number of conflating assertions re: Liberal fashion.)

Will_Parker 9y ago
I can't resist one more reply. Sorry, chap.
defined 9y ago
The times and the fashion evolve (or devolve, as it may be), and sometimes perfectly innocent things are blown away by the winds of change. "O tempora o mores" was said by Cicero over 2,000 years ago, which - together with plenty of other evidence - suggests that this is part of human nature. "Mate", according to you, has become an unfashionable word, but it was quite acceptable in my youth (the 70's). For example, there was a radio quiz program when I was growing up in South Africa called "Check Your Mate!" And when I was so clueless in my early twenties to think it would be nice to have a get-together to which I invited my then-girlfriend and some ex-girlfriends, without mentioning this to any of them (because it didn't even cross my mind), at the gathering my then-current girlfriend - without warning - bit me hard on the shoulder and hissed at me, "Don't mix your mates!" I've also never heard anyone complain about the word "soul-mate". All I'm saying is that we each speak from our own world view, and suggest that maybe it's fallacious to think that it's always the prevailing world view.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  Sure, but that's a fashion vs. fashion comparison. I'm not arguing that the modes we operate under are informed by the mores of the time - I'm arguing that pretending they don't exist isn't 'logic'. It is willful ignorance.
  - Will_Parker 9y ago
    I actually find this discussion really interesting. The piece of data I was missing was that I didn't understand that people associate "mate" mainly with animal behaviour these days. It didn't have that connotation for me at all, it was a perfectly natural way my mother would have spoken about a lifelong spouse with children. In quoting me on "logic and reason" you missed the additional "and clear communication" in my sentence. I thought "mate" was clearer than "wife" or "girlfriend" because it's more specific to what I was trying to say, something more like soulmate to raise children with. And I now acknowledge that it wasn't a clear way for me to communicate, given the discussion above. (Still, however, my brain isn't wired in a way for me to be able to analyze all this in real time, or pick it up intuitively like normal people do.)

by ABCLAW 9y ago

Will_Parker 9y ago

I can't resist one more reply. Sorry, chap.

defined 9y ago

The times and the fashion evolve (or devolve, as it may be), and sometimes perfectly innocent things are blown away by the winds of change. "O tempora o mores" was said by Cicero over 2,000 years ago, which - together with plenty of other evidence - suggests that this is part of human nature. "Mate", according to you, has become an unfashionable word, but it was quite acceptable in my youth (the 70's). For example, there was a radio quiz program when I was growing up in South Africa called "Check Your Mate!" And when I was so clueless in my early twenties to think it would be nice to have a get-together to which I invited my then-girlfriend and some ex-girlfriends, without mentioning this to any of them (because it didn't even cross my mind), at the gathering my then-current girlfriend - without warning - bit me hard on the shoulder and hissed at me, "Don't mix your mates!" I've also never heard anyone complain about the word "soul-mate". All I'm saying is that we each speak from our own world view, and suggest that maybe it's fallacious to think that it's always the prevailing world view.

ABCLAW 9y ago
Sure, but that's a fashion vs. fashion comparison. I'm not arguing that the modes we operate under are informed by the mores of the time - I'm arguing that pretending they don't exist isn't 'logic'. It is willful ignorance.
- Will_Parker 9y ago
  I actually find this discussion really interesting. The piece of data I was missing was that I didn't understand that people associate "mate" mainly with animal behaviour these days. It didn't have that connotation for me at all, it was a perfectly natural way my mother would have spoken about a lifelong spouse with children. In quoting me on "logic and reason" you missed the additional "and clear communication" in my sentence. I thought "mate" was clearer than "wife" or "girlfriend" because it's more specific to what I was trying to say, something more like soulmate to raise children with. And I now acknowledge that it wasn't a clear way for me to communicate, given the discussion above. (Still, however, my brain isn't wired in a way for me to be able to analyze all this in real time, or pick it up intuitively like normal people do.)