My point is, it’s very easy to dismiss something you have no knowledge or experience of.

I didn’t say I have no knowledge or experience, I said I have no expertise in it. I’ve read some of Thoreau, Of Mice And Men, Lord of Flies, etc other “classics”. I’m not an expert in movies but I can say what I don’t like, and trends I don’t like.

But I don’t think it’s a good thing if reading comprehension and general language skills decrease in general, do you?

I would prefer if English evolved to be as simple as possible, as has been the trend. (English used to have grammatical gender you know.) I would also appreciate more spelling reform(like Webster pushed for), and it is working. You see more people saying “u”, “luv”, and “kno” everyday.

Do you think people think more clearly, are able to argue their case better or identify disinformation more accurately if they don’t know as many words or how to use them?

We can test this, because some languages have more complex grammar rules and more words than others. But you should note, language is not a prerequisite for complex thought. And, different languages when spoke tend to convey information at roughly the same rate. Which indicates that the ability to conceptualize things(including complex things) is relatively independent from the language you “think in”. At a pretty basic level, if you speak a language that tends to use a base-10 system, than doing math in base-10 is more familiar, but that may just be because base-10 numbers are themselves a component of language.

Languages evolve based on whats needed, if someone is an adult and doesn’t know a word, it is probably not particularly valuable to them- and has nothing to do with their ability for complex thought. Just like languages with fewer words(or many words made up of simpler components, like Chinese) don’t limit someones ability for complex thought, it just means they’d express it a different way. For example, “hamburger” vs “beef patty sandwich”- not knowing the word hamburger says nothing about your ability to understand and think about the concept.

They aren’t removed because they’re too hard, they’re removed because they’re inconvenient. They are removed when there is a more succinct and/or better understood alternative, for example “evolution” doesn’t have a good alternative to replace it. Memorizing relatively obscure words isn’t intellectual, and as simple building blocks as possible can often better communicate more complex ideas. There’s a reason C is better liked than C++

If you are communicating visions, emotions, feelings and other mental images then flowery is exactly what you need.

I don’t agree, you can be explicit and simple while still communicating complex ideas- but it is a difficult skill. And an emotion is a generally a pretty complex idea.

I do agree that creative writing can be fun (honestly more for the reader than the writer, most of what I write on here was probably more fun for me to write than for anyone to read), but it is still just entertainment and not some sacred art form. I’ll cope next time I hear someone describe some as “X gold”. No, lithium isn’t white gold, it’s just an in-demand resource. Just say it’s valuable if you want to. Analogizing something to gold isn’t creative, it’s an overdone trope.

You don’t have to. But I do wonder if you do value uniformed opinions you agree with it.

Your choice to care or not, I generally value the input of others- but it’s your life

one might think that you were denouncing thousands of years of linguistic artistry without any real knowledge or insight into the subject.

Whoever would think that is correct. I don’t value “art” as anything higher than other forms of entertainment, and there are trends in some entertainment I don’t like. Of course some people is free to like them

Wait till someone tells you about translations and language evolution

Many people don’t appreciate Picasso

Many people don’t appreciate Picasso

language evolving doesn’t make people dumber

I’m according to standardized testing, good at reading. I still prefer direct communication to floweriness

I actually really like this, flowery language is used to “I’m 14 and this is deep”-ify simple concepts. Language is for communication, I wish it was used that way more.

Yeah I agree there’s no time for primaries, I was just responding to that isolated statement- not saying its never useful.

Certain outsiders aside, Democrats are really good about getting their shit together behind closed doors.

I don’t believe that many voters like closed door conspiring

I don’t feel I could change the foods I like on a whim, that doesn’t mean there’s a biological component(for some dislikes there is though) to it. My boyfriend is gay and he admits he has no clue if he was born with it or not.

Within the scope of the law, things that are perceived to be choices within one’s control are more likely to be regulated. It’s harder to justify regulating those components of ourselves that we inherit.

I know this isn’t what you’re doing, but I feel some people use this as a justification to push something they know is unproven.

I appreciate the point you’re making, but I’m not entirely sure that on average slight differences indicates much of a biological component. Ie. trans or gay people having slight biochemical differences on average says nothing about any individual trans or gay person. Furthermore, there is very miniscule average difference between cis-AFAB and cis-AMAB brains so much so that I bet it would be impossible to find a sex difference between them for many.

There might be a biological component to sexuality or gender identity, there might not be- it doesn’t really matter. It should be enough to say, I don’t like how I look, I want surgery to correct that.

Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, two fires had destroyed much in the way of official documents Tacitus had to work with and it is unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion

Why? If it was a popular myth, why assume he wouldn’t try to confirm/deny it

According to Bart Ehrman, Josephus’ passage about Jesus was altered by a Christian scribe, including the reference to Jesus as the Messiah

So? I’m not presenting evidence for him being a Messiah. I am saying there is some independent evidence of him existing.

B. The second line in Tacitus that mentions Christ and his death was never noticed until after the mid-fourth century. So this second line is fake.

I agree that is bizarre, but not proof of it being fake. Though should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is why Bart Ehrman specifically dismisses Tacitus and Josephus. As do most other biblical scholars.

Who is Bart Ehrman and why relay his beliefs rather than speak for yourself?

and then what?

Theism is not inherently right wing. I am agnostic, and consider myself fairly right wing

why would they?