Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moot: Having no practical impact or relevance.
Example: "That point may make for a good discussion, but it is moot."
Are you sure? I've never heard that definition, in fact, quite the opposite. Perhaps the word has been used so wrongly that it now has multiple rather contradicting/opposite definitions.
moot (adj 1): subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision. moot (adj 2): having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision.
moot (verb): to raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
moot (noun, historical 1): an assembly held for debate, especially in Anglo-Saxon and medieval times.
moot (noun, historical 2): a regular gathering of people having a common interest.
moot (noun, law/academics): a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical case as an academic exercise.
I suppose the wording does make both adjective forms coincide better, but not by much. Still, I will reupdate my usage of the word back to how I used to use it long ago, then. Thanks granpa!
Are you sure? I've never heard that definition, in fact, quite the opposite. Perhaps the word has been used so wrongly that it now has multiple rather contradicting/opposite definitions.
moot (adj 1): subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision. moot (adj 2): having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision.
moot (verb): to raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
moot (noun, historical 1): an assembly held for debate, especially in Anglo-Saxon and medieval times.
moot (noun, historical 2): a regular gathering of people having a common interest.
moot (noun, law/academics): a mock trial set up to examine a hypothetical case as an academic exercise.
I suppose the wording does make both adjective forms coincide better, but not by much. Still, I will reupdate my usage of the word back to how I used to use it long ago, then. Thanks granpa!
If someone has to take a time-out to explain the so-called "official" meaning of a word which contradicts the common meaning, and which is only found in an old grammar book sitting on a shelf, compiled by someone who probably couldn't have cared less about the meaning himself, then I see that as a red flag. The common usage of a word is what gives the word it's meaning. There is a reason we aren't speaking in Shakespearean English anymore. Language naturally evolves.
I think it’s funny that you used Mr5151 and then insulted me left and right!why are people so rude on this forum?
It is duly noted that you are again running away from your own hypocrisy, and desperately trying to distract from said running away by whining that I'm rude.
You start the thread by claiming that atheists who post here are wasting their time.
In that post you passive-aggressively imply that atheists don't really believe what they claim to believe. Your initial way of trying to distract from your hypocrisy was to claim that I live in my parents' basement.
So, do tell, why are you so rude on this forum?
PS - Whining about rudeness while spouting nothing but rudeness is merely more hypocrisy.
PPS - The difference between you and I is that while I have indeed been rude - but only in response to your asininery - I have not substituted rudeness for cogent points and reasoned discussion. I have made my points. Your rudeness is nothing more than an impotent attempt to hide the fact that you have no answers.
It is duly noted that you are again running away from your own hypocrisy, and desperately trying to distract from said running away by whining that I'm rude.
You start the thread by claiming that atheists who post here are wasting their time.
In that post you passive-aggressively imply that atheists don't really believe what they claim to believe. Your initial way of trying to distract from your hypocrisy was to claim that I live in my parents' basement.
So, do tell, why are you so rude on this forum?
PS - Whining about rudeness while spouting nothing but rudeness is merely more hypocrisy.
PPS - The difference between you and I is that while I have indeed been rude - but only in response to your asininery - I have not substituted rudeness for cogent points and reasoned discussion. I have made my points. Your rudeness is nothing more than an impotent attempt to hide the fact that you have no answers.
I'm fascinated by your notion that vapidity is less embarrassing than just quietly slinking away. But you're hardly the first person with nothing whatsoever to offer to conclude that saying something - anything, no matter how bereft of substance - is somehow preferable to not revealing that you have nothing.
I wonder how long it will be before you regurgitate this troll thread yet again, flinging insults and then pouting when you're treated as you've treated others?
I'm fascinated by your notion that vapidity is less embarrassing than just quietly slinking away. But you're hardly the first person with nothing whatsoever to offer to conclude that saying something - anything, no matter how bereft of substance - is somehow preferable to not revealing that you have nothing.
I wonder how long it will be before you regurgitate this troll thread yet again, flinging insults and then pouting when you're treated as you've treated others?
Not long enough, surely...
Have you ever seen the phrase “don’t feed the trolls”? And yet here we are at post 217. I think I’ve done a darn good job of stimulating a discussion. Sorry you are disappointed. And thank you for the insult! I would be surprised if you did not do so
Have you ever seen the phrase “don’t feed the trolls”? And yet here we are at post 217. I think I’ve done a darn good job of stimulating a discussion. Sorry you are disappointed. And thank you for the insult! I would be surprised if you did not do so
Why post on a forum of which is devoted to a subject of which holds no relevance to one.
Since you expressed above that the thread has gone off topic allow me to jump back to post #1 and speak to the topic directly. And without any of the insults real or imagined you have observed from other sources.
The advice I always give my children is that if they are asked a "Why" question they should first try to ask the "If" version of it.
So if someone says "Why do red cars get crashed more than white ones" they should first explore "IF red cars do in fact get crashed more than white ones". If the answer is no - then the "why" question is negated and need not be answered.
So in general - always explore a why with an if first. It is a good life rule.
Therefore the first step is to ask "IF the time is being devoted to a subject which holds no relevance". And the answer here is also a "no". While I am not in _any_ way religious myself - it would be a massive error to say religion holds no relevance to me.
Firstly it permeates almost every part of the world and society in which I live.
Secondly it is our first (and worst) attempts at science (to explain our universe and our reason for being in it) and philosophy (to explain our purpose and meaning in this universe and how we should or could conduct ourselves)
Third it is the substrate from which our modern culture emerged from politics and law to art and literature. To truly understand Milton or Shakespeare to historical law one needs to understand religion.
Fourthly however since most people _are_ religious - debating and understanding and interacting with religion and the religious is important. You might not knit as you said - but not interacting with knitting is not going to leave you handicapped and ignorant of most of the world around you.
Fifth there is the old adage of "Know your enemy". The real world I am forced - through no volition of my own - to fight with religion and the religious. I therefore use forums such as this one to hone and sharpen those skills so when I enter a real arena of actual import - I am prepared.
So like the "why red cars" question above your actual question is negated due to being formulated on an entirely false premise.
All that said however here is a funnier answer for you but no less true. When asked why atheists are atheists when atheism is like not collecting stamps the Atheist Ireland Chairman replied:
The answer as to why the non-religious people engage so heavily with religion is neatly contained in that video and with a touch of comedy to boot. Have at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
Who rings your doorbell? Your statement is ridiculous. Nobody gets their doorbell rung on Sunday. We are in church!
Speak for yourself. There are religions in my area who keep their sabbath on a Saturday. So ringing doorbells on Sunday is quite common.
Though only the braver ones get as far as my door as I own a rather large and rather visible imported full bred actual Wolf. It keeps most of the riff raff away. And all the cats too. Have not had to listen to cats mating on my land in about 7 years.
I have often wondered who is in church exactly and when. When you multiply the number of seats in my country in churches by the number of masses done per day and multiply that by 7 days - the total while large comes nowhere even _close_ to the number of people who actually claim to be Catholic.
There is simply not even close to as many seats as people who claim to be putting their bums on them. One wonders who they are lying to therefore. Us? The Census? Themselves? Or their god? Or all of the above?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Because they used to be more religious
And yet again when you presume to answer for others rather than yourself you simply get it entirely wrong. Why you therefore insist on making most of your posts about putting words in other peoples mouths is therefore unclear.
I for one however - being one of the more vocal of the atheists on here - was never in any way religious. So the "used to be more religious" could literally not be more wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Immaturity.
Speak for yourself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
why are people so rude on this forum?
