Philosophy Now Forum

Sure, a couple river boats in transit in the Persian Gulf is a provocation of war. Get real. I'm glad for the nuke deal but I hardly expect Iran to be fully faithful in its respect.

As for republicans, Ike was a Republican and he warned against the military industrial complex. Truman was a Democrat and he's the one who dropped two nukes on Japan. Lindon Johnson was a Democrat and he expanded the war in Vietnam getting us up to our necks in that quagmire.

There can be no arguing about Americas overacrive foreign policy and interventionist action (to say the least) and much of this has bit the US in the ass (Iran in 79, Iraq in 90, Iraq, Syria, and Libya today). But don't act like you're sitting in front of a crystal ball and know everything much less how Americans think and even less how I think and who, and what I support.

Eat a dick.

Gallipoli

Now there's a sad example of military training.

Talk about poor lads being led by sheep brains.

And to know what they were charging into. Maybe the officers there were drunk.

Rule of Law, Rule of Man? I'd say, rule of stupid men in that case.

*

Hobbes, your cursing is loose and runny, like your reasoning.

Firm it up, Bub. Sounds like a middle schooler.

If you're gonna trash a thread, at least act like you care about what you're doing.

Should do wonders for the magazine circulation.

Hobbesy wrote:moronically confused

Need I explain? Hint ... like a double negative. Unless, you intended a compliment.

Why am I not surprised. Where's my ruler. Rap your knuckles.

Very muddled use of language, the wonderful gift given to you by ... come on now. You can say it.

Starts with a "G" sound. Guh ... Guh ...

(Sometimes it works if you sing it.)

Walker wrote:

Hobbesy wrote:moronically confused

Need I explain? Hint ... like a double negative. Unless, you intended a compliment.

It's not a double negative
Moronically is an adjective and Confused in the noun that applies to you.
Moronic is the type of confusion you have.
You're not very bright are you?

Golden Rule No 1. Never let an opportunity for gratuitous pedantry pass by.

Moronic is an adjective and moronically is an adverb. The nuns were adamant on this point and showed willing to reinforce their certainties with a leather strap applied to the legs of small boys who dared to forget it. Those were the days.

The hearts (rhymes with starts) of brothers and sisters swell with warmth to see your true respect for grammar! To see such good people beginning to question the how and the why of each step, rather than blindly follow yesterday’s course, as was the old code of bravery for those poor lads of Gallipoli who not only charged, but likely would have even dropped their weapons and charged if so ordered. Seriously, you have much goodness to share, and rest assured there is still much respect for that world beyond thoughtbits, that bright Space that shines from within and lights the universe to inspire even the most jaded of students … cozy as it all may sound.

That marvelous Palin sounds like a crow when he sings!

Obvious Leo wrote:Golden Rule No 1. Never let an opportunity for gratuitous pedantry pass by.

Moronic is an adjective and moronically is an adverb. The nuns were adamant on this point and showed willing to reinforce their certainties with a leather strap applied to the legs of small boys who dared to forget it. Those were the days.

True.
Still not a double negative.

Walker wrote: to question the how and the why of each step,

To question the how and why of each step quickly becomes the default mind-set of anybody who reads and writes in the field of philosophy. However I'm sure you realise that I was just being annoyingly facetious in my strict application of this principle to the rules of grammar. There is also much to be said for expressing our thoughts in whatever form of language we choose because in my view most of the bitterest of arguments in philosophy are often reducible to people applying different meanings to the terms being used rather than in the way they structure their opinions about them.

The god hypothesis is my favourite example. We can bear witness to the most vehement of exchanges on this theory but I'm yet to see such a debate begin with a common agreement on exactly what the fuck the players are arguing about. The entire philosophical discourse revolves around the idea that the protagonists are actually discussing the same proposition.

BigWhit wrote:But no, as far as I was trained we were only to give what the convention states we must and absolutely no more. ...

I thought after Vietnam the training had changed and an admission that under torture we're all going to break? As such the best you can do is try to have two pretty true stories to tell or was that just the SAS?

Although now-a-days the inside line appears to be kill yourself in battle before you get caught, last man standing an' all that, as the 'fundies' are not interested in information anymore and you will be just tortured and beheaded as a terror example.

Obvious Leo wrote:Golden Rule No 1. Never let an opportunity for gratuitous pedantry pass by.

Moronic is an adjective and moronically is an adverb. The nuns were adamant on this point and showed willing to reinforce their certainties with a leather strap applied to the legs of small boys who dared to forget it. Those were the days.

Maybe you can explain.

the cat is confused (article, noun, verb, adverb) Correct so far?

Bob is confused. (Pronoun, verb, adverb)
"is" is a verb of "to be"
Confused is the adverb of "is"

Bob is moronically confused.

So what do you call a word that modifies an adverb, is it just another adverb?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: the cat is confused (article, noun, verb, adverb) Correct so far?

No. Confused is an adjective because it modifies the noun (cat) not the the verb (is). The adverbial form would be the cat behaves confusingly.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Bob is confused. (Pronoun, verb, adverb)

No. Noun, verb, adjective.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:"is" is a verb of "to be"

Yes. You got this bit right.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Confused is the adverb of "is"

No. As discussed above.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Bob is moronically confused.

Noun, verb, adverb, adjective. Both the noun and the verb are modified. ( the statement, by the way is perfectly true).

Hobbes' Choice wrote: So what do you call a word that modifies an adverb, is it just another adverb?

I don't know. The only words I could think of which could modify an adverb would be "less" or "more" or variants of them. These could be regarded as either adjective or adverb depending on context.

Here endeth the lesson.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: the cat is confused (article, noun, verb, adverb) Correct so far?

No. Confused is an adjective because it modifies the noun (cat) not the the verb (is). The adverbial form would be the cat behaves confusingly.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Bob is confused. (Pronoun, verb, adverb)

No. Noun, verb, adjective.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:"is" is a verb of "to be"

Yes. You got this bit right.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Confused is the adverb of "is"

No. As discussed above.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Bob is moronically confused.

Noun, verb, adverb, adjective. Both the noun and the verb are modified. ( the statement, by the way is perfectly true).

Hobbes' Choice wrote: So what do you call a word that modifies an adverb, is it just another adverb?

I don't know. The only words I could think of which could modify an adverb would be "less" or "more" or variants of them. These could be regarded as either adjective or adverb depending on context.

Here endeth the lesson.

Ta.
This is why I did not do well at ancient Greek. Not having the formal education when young (I barely knew the difference between verb and noun at 16), I did my education as a Mature student and got through it all without having a formal understanding of grammar; BA. MA, PGCE, and PhD (which I might have been more easily able to complete had I the ancient Greek under my belt).
Nonethess I think you can still perform without knowing the difference between a Nominative and Genitive.

Arising_uk wrote:

BigWhit wrote:But no, as far as I was trained we were only to give what the convention states we must and absolutely no more. ...

I thought after Vietnam the training had changed and an admission that under torture we're all going to break? As such the best you can do is try to have two pretty true stories to tell or was that just the SAS?

Although now-a-days the inside line appears to be kill yourself in battle before you get caught, last man standing an' all that, as the 'fundies' are not interested in information anymore and you will be just tortured and beheaded as a terror example.

People will speak under torture to end the pain, but that doesn't mean you have to say anything that is true. It only needs to be plausible. The CIA has known that they weren't getting shit out of any of the detainees at Gitmo for this reason but the Bush administration kept up the program in spite of their reports.

There is leniency for those POWs who are tortured but military personnel are encouraged to withold any truths as long as possible. Besides, if I were being tortured I would rather die than give up any info that could get anyone on my side killed...