Cheeze_Pavilion said:
No dude, really--you're making an ass of yourself here: follow that link or look up some source for this.
That example was taken directly from an online source
Right--the difference between a derogatory comment and one that is not is wordplay. That's what comments are: words. This is why it makes no sense to say that the question of whether a comment is derogatory is just semantics: semantics is *all about* the meaning of words, and what makes one comment derogatory and another fine is the meaning of the words of the comment.
You're using the term derogatory as a pejorative. THAT is my main beef with it. You're ignoring the context completely.
Then you make no sense: there's no legal obligation to be philanthropic (in fact, it borders on being a contradiction in terms, like talking about married bachelors). You've forgotten what you were talking about in that case, and that's why you misunderstand me.
No, the problem is that you took legal comments and tried to make them into moral comments. Once you made it a moral issue, I told you how I felt about it morally, which is what I feel it takes to be a "good" parent.
The existence of Sweden is not a subjective interpretation of mine--it really exists. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but this is the best I can do with those two sentences.
It has nothing to do with Sweden and everything to do with you taking things completely out of context. As I said, it began as a legal issue and you assigned morality to it. You subjectively began applying people's comments to a completely new topic that they had no bearing on whatsoever. Once again, expert word twisting sir. I'm beginning to wonder how much you listen to O'Reilly.
Um, you don't understand how the USA works. The USA is a federal republic. While certain laws exist at the Federal level and apply to the entire country, state law applies only in that state. Parent-child law is an example of an area where most of the law is state law. So any dictionary is only going to be giving you a general outline--you'll find the law varies from state to state.
Which is exactly why the legal definition I used included the word "generally".
Well then her parents were negligent and should have had her clarify what she meant by 'killing'. If anything, the common understanding of that word is not Mario jumping on a goomba, it's something much more like what you described.
And ahh, either I'm not remembering the game correctly, or you must of played a different version of Assassin's Creed than me if you saw someone's spleen being punctured: the only game I've seen that kind of x-ray view is in Blitz: The League
Also, what do you mean paid for? Altair is a member of the Assassin Brotherhood and is doing this as part of his duties. Don't go all Fox News Mass Effect Sex Game on us and just start making shit up about games.
So her parents are wrong because they
let themselves be deceived? The common understanding means little to nothing honestly, especially if we're talking about gamers who'se last game played was Super Mario Bros. or non-gamers for that matter. You and I may have our own idea of the term in correlation to modern games, but they may not. Just as common sense is vastly in decline, so is common understanding. To make such an assumption is asinine.
Let me ask you this, do you know where the human lungs are? Do you know where the human stomach is? Do you know where the spinal column is in a human? Do you have to have x-ray vision to know that jabbing a blade into someone's abdomen would hit numerous gastrointestinal organs, including but not limited to most likely the stomach, large intestine, small intestine, kidneys, etc...? You're more intelligent then this, stop with the crap.
Ok yup, that last one was my misunderstanding of the plot (concerning the paid for). It was to collect an artifact for his master at first, and then for political reasons. I stand corrected. It's been quite a while since I played that game, had to refresh my memory of the plot. I thought that the beginning sequence with the artifact was a paid job that led into a third political party paying to have the leaders of the first two (the templars and saracens) assassinated.
No, all other people are doing is saying that everything is subjective as a response when I disagree with them. Big difference. I think you're all objectively wrong.
I think it's more along the lines that you seem to think that your opinions are right and everyone else is wrong, which is exactly why you have them. Many of us never stated that the parents were right in their reaction to her. I know that jboking and I both stated that we found the way the parents were acting deplorable, but understood the reasoning behind it. The only thing you and I have really disagreed with at this point is who was at fault, and that's because we disagree that she mislead her parents.
I've actually posted on a couple occasions now that I believe that they are both in the wrong. I can see it from her point of view, as I was once there, and from the parents' point of view, as I'm there now. She has a point in much of it, but I understand why her parents feel that they have been wronged. I most certainly believe that they are over reacting and I would never react that way to my own children. Where did I state that I thought they were good parents? They are emotionally and physically abusing her. (if what she says is to be assumed true 100%) That is not right in any semblance of the word, but neither do I begrudge them for being disappointed, upset or flat out angry with her, no matter if it were for religious reasons or not. If my boys mislead or lied to me, I would discipline them as well.
