Peterkin

I have transgressed many commandments of which I was aware and some of which I was unaware, but I have never before been threatened with resurrection. At last, my life has Meaning!

It's a failing Alzheimer's will no doubt correct.

The question is based on an unfounded assumption. The answer, therefore, is another question: Does life have "a meaning" in the general sense? Even more broadly, in what sense and what context can such a large and complex phenomenon as all of life have any meaning at all, let alone one single identifiable Meaning? The question could be answered meaningfully if it specified something humans can actually think about in their own terms, such as: How does an individual human being find purpose for his life? Have you, personally, found one? Through introspection or subscription? Again, based on several poorly founded assumptions. What's "God"? Shrink it down to: Do you subscribe to any supernatural belief system? Is it inhabited by a god or gods? What is their function in your life? What do you think their function is in the universe? That question is just plain self-annihilating. It assumes an undefined concept herein named 'Reality', which may be construed as another name for Nature. Physics might, in that instance, be the exploration of the realities of Nature. But the word 'nature' also signifies the complex of traits which together comprise the character which defines an entity. Philosophers may set themselves the task of exploring the characteristics of all that can be known, including Nature, but they can only go about the same way Physicists do: one smaller question at a time. Now you know one more. Were you planning to conduct a seminar?

Probably best. Then, you can choose to have nothing underneath* if it's hot or several layers of clothing if its cold, and adjust accordingly. (*advisable: underwear with a pocket for ID and contact number in case of rioting and arrest)

'The past' is a whole different concept from 'the individual'. Individual entities, sentient and living or mineral and inert, exist in time. The past exists nowhere except in language, imagination, memory - in abstract creations of the mind. The past, speed, love, philosophy, grammar, civil rights, evil, the taste of potatoes - none of these concepts exist in the way that a physical entity exists. The past can be neither alive nor dead (nothing that has not been alive can be dead); it is the nebulous product of memory. Yes, we do. Identity is not the same as memory, which is not the same as individuality. These are aspects of self, while we are selves, but we may not claim them or own them or rely upon them to last as long as our bodies do.

It might be simpler to compare yourself to a tree. It was a seed, then a seedling, then a sapling, then a tree, for some period of time - maybe as long as 4000 years, maybe as short as 20. As far as we know, it has no memory of any of that time. But birds lived in its branches, ate its fruit, spread its seeds. People and other animals have rested in its shade. It has taken nutrients from the soil and shed leaves on it. It may harbour all manner of insect life which would have n habitat otherwise. What is present in the world, alive or not, is in the world, exactly as itself; it affects the world around it exactly as itself and not some other entity, whether it's aware or not, whether it retains knowledge of the experience or not. And if it's alive, it goes on being alive while it's asleep, unconscious or suffering from Alzheimer's, right up until the moment that it dies. The continuity of the individual doesn't depend the individual's knowledge, only its presence.

Yes, that is a bit tricky. Squash is a familiar word in everyday use, while quash is almost exclusively used as a legal term, and the two have a similar application as verbs. (Squash also has very dissimilar secondary meanings, as nouns: for a healthy food source, a soft drink in England and a sport... It is one of those OP words.)

That is certainly the case. It's tough, not being able afford healthy food, like cabbage and carrots! But it doesn't make you more nearly correct on any known scientific basis. For example, I very much doubt licking the cathode of 9V batteries will compensate for the lack of nutrients in cabbage and carrots. Sad, but there it is.

In Johnson's UK, those are 'scandals'; in Trump's USA they wold have been 'an average month' - just so you substitute a virgin diet coke in that glass. The real difference is that the British Parliament can still act; can change rules that don't work; can oust bad leaders. What's the realistic alternative government that can take over quickly?

I place my faith in climate change. Of course I agree, resistance is futile. Anyway, we'll all be dead soon. But in the meantime, it does no active harm to hold, or even express, opinions.

But local or even sloppy pronunciation causes far less actual harm than deliberate obfuscation and misuse of words. It doesn't help. She pays no attention whatever to what I am saying, let alone asking. Also, I'd have to understand her answers, and if I couldn't make out the response to "Why are you calling?" I will probably fare no better with a weather report. If it's a cold sales call, no loss. If it's the secretary of a specialist I've been waiting to hear from, that's a problem. Actually, that happened to a close friend of mine. He misunderstood the young woman on the phone and turned down his chance to be scheduled for a much needed cataract operation. Now he has to wait a year, gradually going blind.

PS I'm not mad keen on 'nucular', ether, but I've learned to live it, as I have with shopping at the groshie store and having my teeth repaired by a Dennis.

Political platform outline? Consumer information? Elementary school Geography class? (If they still have Geography in elementary schools..) Shareholders' meeting? Strategy conference? Church decorating committee meeting? Health advice? Exchange of vehicle-care information? Arranging a date at some designated place at some designated time? Avoiding the annual family melee at the Thanksgiving table? I believe communication matters in all areas of interpersonal relations. Other places, too, like Canada. An hour ago, I had to hang up on yet another caller whose speech I could not understand. I only knew it was English from the first word of each gabbled sentence.

I wouldn't take that entirely for granted.

Actually, yes, I believe it's meant to. In an attempt not to 'talk down', some public figures condescend to the masses by adopting a vernacular which is not natural to them. What irritates me is when people on forums like this one type in the 'regional dialect' or some invented peasant language. It's a big effort, just to fake ignorance and annoy the reader. BTW - there is significant difference between dialect or local vernacular (the slang of a borough, or minority) and ignorance of correct usage. There is a historical or political reason for local dialects - one significant aspect of which may be that it's not understood by outsiders - which puts them on a par with any other language as a vehicle for accurate communication. There is also a difference between evolution and deterioration. Evolution is a slow process of adapting to changing conditions; old words serving new purposes, but still conveying information. Deterioration can be a result of poor education or deliberate tampering. In the case of American English, both. Some ambiguity is introduced by the advertising industry for the express purpose of misleading the audience; a large part of the deterioration is due to mass entertainment: the script writers' attempt to sound authentic, and also to reach the broadest possible audience. And some of it, the most insidious and effective part of it is done through political propaganda. And this three-pronged attack on language is not only deliberate but very fast - faster than the society can keep up, or assimilate it and make sense of it; so fast that in some regions one generation can barely communicate with the next. And that discontinuity destroys cultures. It's quite possibly unconscious. When we hear a word or phrase often enough, we sometimes pick it up without realizing it. The way 'try and' replaced 'try to' almost universally, some time ago. 'He and I' rather than 'him and me' as objects of preposition is equally ubiquitous. It remains incorrect, with no redeeming information content: people just catch it from one another without reflection. How do you define 'social setting' and from what other kinds of setting is it differentiated? To clarify the question: When is it not a fool's errand to be a pedant? I imagine we are fated to walk abroad with Kick Me signs perpetually on our backs.

In this, I completely agree. Knowing the meaning of words, being able to understand what they are being told, might save a great many ignorant people from mistakes they make due to misunderstanding, misconstruction and deliberately misleading information. Poor language skills in the general population make the populist sloganeer's and propagandist's work easy. Before that sinister application, it made the advertising hack's work easy. Firm grasp of language is half the way to critical thinking; applied logic is the other half.

I'd choose 'right', but 'energy' is close. For multitudes of disparate and sometimes antithetical meaning.

That's only two meanings: donkey, in fact, was slang (through a complicated process of illogic) for the animal called an ass, of Latin derivation. The silly person is a metaphorical donkey. Ars is Old English for buttocks and the association comes about through similarity of sound.; the anus is 20th century addition, because ass wasn't crude enough. An 'attractive young woman" is a euphemism for tits&ass, which refers directly to the only female body parts in which the speaker is interested. Pass is French from Latin, meaning 'walk by' or 'go by'; all other uses I know are derived from that meaning: passage, passport, pass-through, passive, give a pass to, pass the ball, pass over, pass the time.

Yes. There is usually a quite reasonable explanation, if the interlocutor is really interested, involving the etymology and gradually changing usage of the word(s). There is already a distinction: different pronunciation. The wind (short i) is a noun meaning air movement also accounts for the fart euphemism; to wind (long i) a clockwork mechanism is a verb which would make it unlikely for the two words, in printed form, to be mistaken one for the other. The third meaning, in the expression 'to wind up', meaning to end or finish, is derived from the clockwork winding down, at which point it must be wound up again. Wind, oth, has no tenses or alternative applications, though it has metaphorical ones, always presenting as itself: the movement of air. For most, if not all situations of this kind, where words look the same, they do not sound same, and vice versa; in both cases, context usually does clarify which one is intended. If not, there is usually an alternate word or expression (very often, a more precise one) for at least one of them. I know of one airline accident that was caused by just such a misunderstanding. The copilot, whose native tongue was not English, did not perceive the subtle difference between take-off speed and take off speed. The pilot never considered an alternate meaning to his instruction. It is indeed important to establish a specialized, distinct vocabulary for critical communications.

When the amateur experimenter is likely to do himself or others an injury. I, for one, very strongly discourage people in their garages electrocuting frogs, rats, dogs and each other in order to establish the "correct" dosage. I strongly discourage taser therapy, taser-dens or taser-shooting (as distinct from mere tag) playgrounds. Levity aside, do you not see the potential for some very bad outcomes? A good deal of professional experimentation has already been and will continue to be conducted by qualified researchers in pain relief, muscle stimulation, tissue regeneration, seizure control and depression therapy. And some of that has not gone to plan! But afaik, no credible findings have shown that the normal healthy body doesn't generate sufficient electricity for its needs. Feeding in extra does not seem to me indicated. (Come to that, you might question the indication for a lot of those vitamins and food supplements.)

Thank you for trying, anyway. Only this feeble defense for my lack of comprehension. is not precisely what I said, nor is it synonymous with an overwhelming need to be the biggest and most important face in every picture. He needed the presidency primarily because it is the biggest mirror in the world; he couldn't bear to have it taken away from him, and for the same reason. I don't believe that's peripheral; I believe vanity is the central motivation for everything Trump does.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/25/abortion-war-against-women-in-america And, of course, the long nightmare is just beginning. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/abortion-state-lines/ There will be lots of domestic violence over this, and many deaths. The war's been seething underground for some time, but Trump brought it out into the open by declaring : "You can grab them by pussy " and then getting elected president.

How is it different? There is no Venn diagram. Trump is primarily, overwhelmingly, a narcissist. The whole reason he wanted the presidency - it sure wasn't from party conviction - was simply and almost entirely, for the purpose of being the central, biggest, most important face in every picture. That's why he had to lie about the turnout at his inauguration and kept rallying after he won the election: he needs a booster shot of adulation at least once a month.

Not really. For Trump, central, biggest and most important is The President of the Great-Again America. He was about to be pushed off the great big presidential podium with all the world's cameras pointed at it. That's the single thing he wanted not to happen - at any price, by any means, ever. And he still hasn't given it up.

His principle aim, forever and always, is to be the in the middle of the picture, bigger and more important than everybody else.