Summations Only

If you are done, then do not reply.It really is that simple.However so far the only support you have presented are that the First Amendment protects you (which was never in question) and that "You made it YOUR business" (which does not answer the question "why is it any of your business").

I've been a conservative since the early '60s. I haven't changed the nature of what I believe.But it's not my fault if a bunch of statists and theocrats show up and call themselves conservatives. They've no clue, yet they are trying to dominate the political scene.In any case they have no business trying to force anyone to follow their religious beliefs through the power of the government. Same goes for the Muslims, who have never accepted a separation of church and state.

That's fine. You are entitled to use "conservative" to mean exactly what you want it to mean. But don't be surprised if you have communication problems, with people regularly misunderstanding you.

Words change meaning gradually from time to time. Just like biological evolution. Unfortunately for you, the word conservative no longer means what you want it to mean. It now means exactly what socons say it means. Deal with it.If you want to separate yourself from these other conservatives, then label yourself something else.

What kind of thinking is that?
So now the contemporary and the vernacular defines things? Sorry dude but it does not. I don’t care how many people think it is; This is NOT a buffalo: Just as these are NOT conservatives You can make up all the slander you want against us and use all the contemporary sources you wish to justify your falsehoods, but they are still false. TRANSLATION: this is my excuse to be an ass and talk shit to you. Its because I don’t understand what a conservative really is, CNN and MSNBC tell me otherwise, and I love their kool-aid.

That's a misleading way of putting it.Meaning is sensitive to context. In a technical discussion, one uses technical meanings. In ordinary conversation, one uses the meanings that fit common usage.When in a technical discussion, your first image is a bison, not a buffalo. However, in ordinary conversation in USA, it can be called a buffalo.In a technical discussion of political ideology, more specialized usage for "conservative" might be appropriate. In an internet forum thread titled "Southern baptists are scary", it is appropriate to go by the usage of conservative in ordinary talk.

but this thread is not even about southern baptists. I realize the OP is ignorant, and doesn't know the difference between southern baptists and freewill baptists.It is hilarious that its okay for you to use conservative in a thread about southern baptists (but in reality the thread is not about southern baptists). I guess you are as ignorant as the OP. nope. that is your bullshit cop-out. for getting to call all conservatives ________, and _________. even when you know there are conservatives here (AE and Coyote) who do not fit that description.but really I would not except much more from a FIB.

If you care to go back to Message 9, which apparently started this ridiculous subthread, you will see that I mentioned only 'southern conservative "christianity".' It should have been clear that was a reference to religious conservatism, which is not at all the same thing as political conservatism. One can be a religious consertive and a political liberal, and one can be a religious liberal and a political conservative.It was Coyote, who chose to divert this toward a discussion of political conservatism, thereby demonstrating

1. that he is incapable of reading, and
2. that he is an arrogant twit who wants to assert that everybody is wrong except him.

Hi AE, Yeah it is.I mean, you could call it a North American Bison if you liked. That would probably be more accurate, but buffalo is fine too. See;

quote:

---

buffalo (bf-l)
n. pl. buffalo or buffaloes or buffalos
1.
a. Any of several oxlike Old World mammals of the family Bovidae, such as the water buffalo and African buffalo.
b. The North American bison, Bison bison.

---

If you want to be precise, call it Bison bison. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter what you call it. Common names don't really mean shit in biology. They're too variable and too open to confusion, just as in this case.The whole "buffalo" thing is just a bit of language snobbery. If enough people want to call it a buffalo, it's a buffalo. Ultimately, usage makes the language, not the other way around.Sorry. This is just one of my linguistic pet-peeves.As you were.Mutate and Survive

nope.Buffalo live in Africa and Asia.Bison live in North America.
maybe imagery would help you out. be careful they are similar to each other.BISON African Buffalo Asian Buffalo funny that you can get peeved about something you are wrong about.

Dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive...Words are defined by how they are used. Michael Jackson made the word "bad" mean "good"... only a tool would go: "Nope, technically he's prosciribing negetive qualities to himself as opposed to describing himself positively"If enough people call a bison a buffalo, then that is now what the word "buffalo" means, even if its technically incorrect.

No, she's right and you're wrong. Common names don't mean shit except what people commonly call something. There's no such thing as a "technical common name".People commonly call the North American bison a "buffalo." It's so common, in fact, that it's in every English dictionary. Hence it's absolutely correct to refer to the North American bison as a "buffalo", because common names don't mean shit.If you mean to say that the North American bison is not a member of genus Bubalus, that's true, but that's not what Granny Magda is arguing. So I take an Asian water buffalo and raise it in Nebraska. Do I have to call it a bison?

It's not "technically" anything. There's no "technical" definitions for species common names. They reflect only usage. When scientists want to talk technically about living things, we use the binomial Linnaean names.This, technically, is Bubalus bubalis. If you and your friends start to call it the "floppy-dicked shit-shoveler", guess what, that's a valid common name for it now. Common names don't mean shit.

Granny Magda is a man! Well, technically, you're right I guess. I've seen it on nature show where the biologist picks up a spider and says: "this is the Somethingus whateveris", takes a quick look at it and notices the big red spot on its back and goes: "I would call it the Red-backed Spider, or something like that, I think that's what the natives refer to it as".I'm all: yeah they just make that shit up.

Maybe, but never underestimate the uncreativity of common names in their original language. Here's the reef triggerfish Rhinecanthus rectangulus, so named because its a triggerfish commonly found by reefs:In Hawaiian this fish is called the Humuhumunukunukuapua'a, which is Hawaiian for "pig-snouted triggerfish."Frankly I prefer names like this to something like "Thomson's Gazelle". Really, Thomson? It's your gazelle? Fuck you.