I just looked this up and I was actually right all along. Well, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. They define a carnivore as any animal that eats meat, and an omnivore as an animal that eats everything (they specifically say, i.e. not a vegetarian). I'm not going to repeat all of what I said in my previous post but it was right and I shouldn't have been thrown off course so easily.
I looked up "pro" while I was there. It says reasoning in support of a hypothesis. Pro-abortion therefore means that if someone thinks they should have an abortion, someone who is pro-abortion would support their decision. If you apply this to "pro-life", it becomes a horribly mangled definition. But I think that's what your post was about.
You looked up a scientific term in a dictionary? I don't even know where to begin with that. Especially considering your obviously perfect source is published by a press whose works have contained such interesting claims as the chief language of Karnataka being Bengali or that siphoning works by atmospheric pressure. Obviously when they publish something that goes against what literally every other source on the subject says about something very basic, it must mean they're the only ones who have it right. Now, if you were a reasonable person, you would have instead picked up a book, any book, dedicated or with a section dedicated to the subject and gotten a more accurate definition. But apparently, you're not, and have no interest in picking up a book that seriously covers animal feeding behavior, perhaps because from the library emanates an aura of knowledge that intimidates you. You know, I used to think you were pretty cool dappled, but now it's obvious you're just as bad as wigsplitz and similarly draining to the reasoning ability of those who read your posts. I'm not going to bother anymore. It's like trying to explain things to a 4-year-old, who repeats the same silly things over and over and thinks if he does it enough, he'll eventually be right. I get enough of that bullshit from the people in this country, I don't need to look for it elsewhere.
Is it normal to hate the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life"?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I just looked this up and I was actually right all along. Well, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. They define a carnivore as any animal that eats meat, and an omnivore as an animal that eats everything (they specifically say, i.e. not a vegetarian). I'm not going to repeat all of what I said in my previous post but it was right and I shouldn't have been thrown off course so easily.
I looked up "pro" while I was there. It says reasoning in support of a hypothesis. Pro-abortion therefore means that if someone thinks they should have an abortion, someone who is pro-abortion would support their decision. If you apply this to "pro-life", it becomes a horribly mangled definition. But I think that's what your post was about.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You looked up a scientific term in a dictionary? I don't even know where to begin with that. Especially considering your obviously perfect source is published by a press whose works have contained such interesting claims as the chief language of Karnataka being Bengali or that siphoning works by atmospheric pressure. Obviously when they publish something that goes against what literally every other source on the subject says about something very basic, it must mean they're the only ones who have it right. Now, if you were a reasonable person, you would have instead picked up a book, any book, dedicated or with a section dedicated to the subject and gotten a more accurate definition. But apparently, you're not, and have no interest in picking up a book that seriously covers animal feeding behavior, perhaps because from the library emanates an aura of knowledge that intimidates you. You know, I used to think you were pretty cool dappled, but now it's obvious you're just as bad as wigsplitz and similarly draining to the reasoning ability of those who read your posts. I'm not going to bother anymore. It's like trying to explain things to a 4-year-old, who repeats the same silly things over and over and thinks if he does it enough, he'll eventually be right. I get enough of that bullshit from the people in this country, I don't need to look for it elsewhere.