Breriyaki

@TheyCallMeSmeef @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie No, there just has to be a shared understanding.

@dylanbreloom @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie For language to be understood there has to be an objective understanding of the words being spoken.

Objective scientific facts that leftists take issue with: - men cannot become women, and vice versa. Their feelings do not factor into this. - human beings only ever reproduce other human beings, we cannot reproduce any other species. By medical and scientific definition, these humans we reproduce are our children. They are alive in utero. Induced abortion intentionally kills these children. Personhood doesn’t factor into this.

@TheyCallMeSmeef @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie Using words that you actually intend the other person to understand.

@dylanbreloom @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie And what is good faith in your opinion?

@TheyCallMeSmeef @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie People having a shared understanding does not make something objective lmao.

@dylanbreloom @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie So language isn't subjective, thank you for destroying your original argument.

@TheyCallMeSmeef @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie I don't care if you name something. You haven't addressed it. Naming something doesn't disqualify it lmfao.

@dylanbreloom @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie I have not only read it, but identified the type of argumentation that your using (ontology). You dont know how to argue beyond your surface level understanding, so it must be everyone elses fault that you dont know how to argue your point.

@SoaringUke @BumpstockBarbie I'm not insisting that trans women are females

@dylanbreloom @BumpstockBarbie Well, that's the reason that trans ideology is being wholly rejected. Ya'll insist on things that are objectively not true.

@TheyCallMeSmeef @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie No objectivity is required for this to work. what you guys are all demonstrating when you just say random things is that you can choose to not engage in language in a good faith way and suddenly it becomes incomprehensible. Wow! You've proved an irrelevant point!

@TheyCallMeSmeef @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie We've all been socially conditioned to understand language a certain way. Typically we have enough shared understanding to be able to communicate with one another, though in order for this to work, you have to actually want to be understood and use language in a good faith way.

@RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @TheyCallMeSmeef @BumpstockBarbie Here, I'll make a syllogism. P1: something, the existence of which is dependent upon subjects, is subjective. P2: the existence of language is dependent upon subjects. C: Language is subjective. Do you agree or disagree, and if you disagree, specifically why?

@RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @TheyCallMeSmeef @BumpstockBarbie No, this is completely wrong. The physical thing of "water" is going to exist regardless of if we define it or not. That's what makes it objective. The terms "water" and "H20" only exist because humans created them.

@TheyCallMeSmeef @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie I don't find it to be worth my time or effort

@dylanbreloom @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie What do you mean babbling? Are you saying you cant subjectively interpret what I was saying?!?!?!?!?

@RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @TheyCallMeSmeef @BumpstockBarbie In essence, without humans H2O would exist. Though, without humans, it would not be called "H2O". Because language is a thing that humans do.

@RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @TheyCallMeSmeef @BumpstockBarbie Do you understand the delineation between a thing existing and us humans using language to describe its existence These are two different things.

@TheyCallMeSmeef @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie And yet, despite your babbling, they still remain two different things.

@dylanbreloom @RemnantPodFan @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie Ubba heeble gayble wundawoosh babaita.

@SoaringUke @BumpstockBarbie Not the way I use it

@dylanbreloom @BumpstockBarbie Sorry, trans is more than just an adjective, it's an essential part of the whole word.

@SoaringUke @BumpstockBarbie "It's right there in the language. White women are white women. You have to identify who you're talking about by using the word white." Your logic

@dylanbreloom @BumpstockBarbie It’s right there in the language: trans women are trans women. You have to identify who you’re talking about by using the word trans. They’re not men, and they’re not women, they’re something else entirely.

@TheyCallMeSmeef @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie Like yeah lmfao the language IS irrelevant to the fact that it exists which is why I'm not saying it's a existence is subjective I'm saying THE LANGUAGE is subjective.

@dylanbreloom @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie The language is irrelevant to the fact it exists. The language is used to describe an observational fact. Much like how language is used to describe the difference between hydrogen and oxygen and how they form water.

@TheyCallMeSmeef @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie Literally nobody disagreed with this fact, and I've specified several times that I'm not contesting that things do or don't exist in physical reality lmfaooo

@TheyCallMeSmeef @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie Fast forward, you already said you aren't saying that language exists without subjects. The term "H2O" is a manifestation of language. Here we are. Yes, you can use language to refer to objective things. No, that does not make language itself objective.

@TheyCallMeSmeef @Nora_TheGreat1 @BumpstockBarbie Again. Are you positing that the term "H2O" would exist without subjects? For clarity: I'm not asking would water exist in physical reality. I'm talking about the term. The letters. The word. Language.